13-Aug-2007 10:04:58 Quality: 0.
| |
Hello all. I am a 1st month TEQ player but a veteren of similar games. I have been playing here long enough to understand the issues at hand; indeed, I have already been thrust into the TS politics for the "foolish" light attacking of land-fat countries. I hope my outsider input can help.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) -- ]
|