30-Aug-2006 10:16:20 Quality: 0.

Jake that is exactly the point of this thread, why wasn't it?

They way I see it, is we either have too many rules to play by or not enough. Currently we have grey areas which remain undefined. Like for example we have "the unwritten rules" regarding grabs etc, now I can see they work and some people are entitled to agree or disagree with them, what I am hoping to achieve is some sort of "unwritten rules" regarding wars/suicides/etc. Now we can discuss to the cows come home. But what I would like to find out is, do we need some sort of standard set, or do we have too many rules and too many whingers already?

I for one could handle waking up to a dead country if that was the way the game was played, normal everyday occurences, however in the current situation, anything even close to a special attack is seen as an act of war. I know JC has some very interesting points of view on this. for example why not weaken your PO target up with seal ops and the like. I guess what we all need to figure out is what should some rules be, how can we determine it. Things like that.

On the opposite end of the scale we can have a very different system where it really is open warfare everywhere, for any reason, anytime. Both ends of the scale interest me. We can all change our gameplay style, that is no problem, however what is better for TEQ? do we need group and teas to be peaceful and then have a team war server or something where groups of people can take each other out for no reason?

Would something like this ease tensions in group and team server if people generally understand that you simply do not suicide in team and group servers. And use the 4th server for absolute carnage? I don't know what the answer is.

Do we make it utter taboo to suicide in team/group server and hopefully have team/group wars that really do have a reason? There is a lot to consider....

Bunny is back but is a little different after experimenting with acid.

(\_/)
(o.o) This is HYPER Bunny. Copy HYPER Bunny to your signature
(><) to help her in her world domination quest...

TNA wants YOU!!!
http://www.ezhq.net/TNA/

MSN or Email:- oxide6@gmail.com
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

6-Feb-2007 14:05:23 Quality: 0.

[ -- Message edited on: 6-Feb-2007 14:09:26 by Ray (#21667) -- ]

13-Aug-2007 10:04:58 Quality: 0.

I have never seen a war game with such complex, regulated "unwritten rules" and soft-gloved competition. I am stunned by the advanced level of inter-team politics. It is an impressive testament to the interactive level the game.

It is my experience that any advanced, free environment like this will always have people who push the limits of acceptability. If players have the power to ruin the game for someone (or everyone), then such actions should be prevented by the game rules (and software, if possible.) TEQ's "neutral" period is a perfect example of this. Attacking a 20-turn-old country is unacceptable for the game, so it is prohibited by the rules (and software.)

That said, I think some software changes could be made to reduce the reliance on "unwritten rules" and perhaps improve the game. Here are some ideas to play with:

1) Attack restrictions can be enforced based on Networth (NW) and Territories (T) of attacker (a) and defender (d). The example below can prevent large armies from raping small armies unless the small army protects a landfat country.

EX: Can NOT attack if z < x*(NWa/NWd) - (Td/Ta)^y

Of course, countries could abuse this by dropping land to be protected. Perhaps land dropping rate could be limited, determined by construction ability.

2) A "retaliation multiplier" could be included in the equation. This multiplier would scale to reflect the history between the two countries and allow healthy battle. For example, the Z value in the above equation could increase relative to the number of times the attacker had to defend that country.

3) The concept in (2) can be used in the opposite sense to prevent a constant beatdown of the same country. (Z decreases the more you attack someone.)

4) Alternatively, a "retaliation allowance" can be given on a per-use basis that allows a player to retaliate regardless of any other restriction.

5) On TS/GS, software could allow and enforce peace between teams. Perhaps either team could cancel the peace, but would require a few days notice.

These are just some ideas. We should all remember that this is a competitive war game that will always have players who are relatively war-like or peaceful. Complaining about legal actions of other players accomplishes nothing positive.

EDIT: clarity.

[ -- Message edited on: 13-Aug-2007 10:08:31 by 15pH (#30572) -- ]

21-Oct-2009 04:02:47 Quality: 0.

There used to be an individual (or "fight") server in which you could take out this aggression and anger. However, due to the demands of the playerbase this server has been changed to a netgaining server.

So, to answer the question, TEQ currently has no such place for you to take out this anger. Sacrificing your country in the future will only bring down the collective wrath of those who would wag fingers at the frustrated player instead of the system he tries to navigate.

---Neo