Goodgame Studios forum archives ::

[-288090] furture (US1) [None] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 6:07 p.m.

i find it funny that people feel the need to follow fair play rules, and then complain when those same rules cause problems. what would happen if all of a sudden, 50% of alliances decided to play the game as it were made to be played? yes people would try to fight back, but people would be forced to be actually fair about the game. they would actually have to defend their OPs, monuments, RVs, labs, everything, they could not threaten you. they could try to threaten you, but with half the server stealing labs and RVs and Aqua islands and such, a threat would be to weak, they would NEED to defend their property to keep it

wouldnt it be interesting to see what would happen if the game was actually played that way? how many rules do players make that actually make the game FAIR? the level 10 rule... the no hitting people for X amount of time again... but how many so called fair play rules just make the game harder?

how many threads have people seen saying there are not enough RVs or the RV system is unfair, when in reality, almost every RV on any given map, has very few to no defense in it? how easy it would be to just take any RV you wanted!

or how about threads complaining that they cant find anyone to attack, or do shady lady, because the alliance is part of a large family? and then those same people are part of some alliance family, even if its not a large one? alliance families are not supposed to exist, having 20,30, even past 70 subs! if you have a problem with a large alliance family having to much power, why continue the practice of alliance families?

what would happen if people stopped following these made up rules? wouldnt it be interesting to see what happens if the game is actually played correctly?

yes GGE is to blame for many things. bad updates, ruby issues, bugs, many many things, but when players make it worse on themselves, just so that a few can stay on the top easier?

[4166939] Malorie Knox (US1) [US1] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 6:31 p.m.

furture (US1) said:

i find it funny that people feel the need to follow fair play rules, and then complain when those same rules cause problems. what would happen if all of a sudden, 50% of alliances decided to play the game as it were made to be played? yes people would try to fight back, but people would be forced to be actually fair about the game. they would actually have to defend their OPs, monuments, RVs, labs, everything, they could not threaten you. they could try to threaten you, but with half the server stealing labs and RVs and Aqua islands and such, a threat would be to weak, they would NEED to defend their property to keep it

wouldnt it be interesting to see what would happen if the game was actually played that way? how many rules do players make that actually make the game FAIR? the level 10 rule... the no hitting people for X amount of time again... but how many so called fair play rules just make the game harder?

how many threads have people seen saying there are not enough RVs or the RV system is unfair, when in reality, almost every RV on any given map, has very few to no defense in it? how easy it would be to just take any RV you wanted!

or how about threads complaining that they cant find anyone to attack, or do shady lady, because the alliance is part of a large family? and then those same people are part of some alliance family, even if its not a large one? alliance families are not supposed to exist, having 20,30, even past 70 subs! if you have a problem with a large alliance family having to much power, why continue the practice of alliance families?

what would happen if people stopped following these made up rules? wouldnt it be interesting to see what happens if the game is actually played correctly?

yes GGE is to blame for many things. bad updates, ruby issues, bugs, many many things, but when players make it worse on themselves, just so that a few can stay on the top easier?

There is no "correct" way to play the game. Only the restrictions placed on players by the game, and the risks players are willing to take--or not--based on what they know of the behavior of other players.

It is a strategy game. Choosing not to play by the fair play rules in place in much of the server is one strategy. It results in a particular type of gaming experience. There are many groups who already play that way. No need to wonder what their situation is or what that experience is like. Just find them and ask them.

It is not necessary for everyone to have the same gaming experience, and if you are so amenable to the chaos of disregard for fair play rules, play that way. No one's stopping you.

But let me offer this: Isn't insisting everyone disregard fair play rules to make the game fair just one big fair play rule?

[4166959] furture (US1) [None] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 6:49 p.m.

Malorie Knox (US1) said:

There is no "correct" way to play the game. Only the restrictions placed on players by the game, and the risks players are willing to take--or not--based on what they know of the behavior of other players.

It is a strategy game. Choosing not to play by the fair play rules in place in much of the server is one strategy. It results in a particular type of gaming experience. There are many groups who already play that way. No need to wonder what their situation is or what that experience is like. Just find them and ask them.

It is not necessary for everyone to have the same gaming experience, and if you are so amenable to the chaos of disregard for fair play rules, play that way. No one's stopping you.

But let me offer this: Isn't insisting everyone disregard fair play rules to make the game fair just one big fair play rule?

i concede the point on "correct", but i meant that the way it was built, not the way a few people decided to try and hold their power easier

and i agree, not everyone has to have the same experience, but isnt everyone now having the same experience with the fairplay rules? and its pretty obvious what happens if only 1 guy doesn't follow the rules; everyone goes to war against him and he has accomplished nothing

and i was not insisting everyone drop fairplay rules, just noting that many people complain about the very things they help enforce, and saying it would be interesting to see what its like when the game is actually played that way. and im not sure anyone remembers what it was like before fairplay rules, because fairplay rules get made pretty fast. how long did it take for people to add monuments and labs and aqua islands to the "protected" zone? lemme just say, its was pretty fast.

if people make rules as soon as an update comes out to fit there needs, then no one really knows what the game would be like now if we chose to disregard them.; yes a few people do it, but not enough to make a difference. when 1% gets the idea and tries it alone, they just get beat by the 99% that follow them.

mostly i just think its an interesting psychological/sociological observation that people chose to help enforce these rules and then complain about the effects that the have, rather then try to actually play the game the way its made. its like playing monopoly, but saying that if you land on someone else's property, you must pay whatever they demand, and rather then collect 200$ past go, you are only allowed to do that if you own the most money at the time. yes its interesting to change up some rules, but changing all the rules and making it a completely different game have made most people unhappy with it

[4166960] furture (US1) [None] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 6:51 p.m.

also please note, i have never in any of these posts demanded people stop obeying fairplay rules, im simply putting out an observation and speculation. i am in no way demanding people follow or obey me. all i observed was that people like to say follow the fairplay rules or else, and then many of those same people complain about what fairplay rules accomplish, and asked what if people didnt

if someone else wishes to say their own opinion, they are more then welcome to say why the game is better this way, or why we should change it. like i said, i just threw that out there, and made no demands

[4166986] Malorie Knox (US1) [US1] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 7:21 p.m.

furture (US1) said:

i concede the point on "correct", but i meant that the way it was built, not the way a few people decided to try and hold their power easier

and i agree, not everyone has to have the same experience, but isnt everyone now having the same experience with the fairplay rules? and its pretty obvious what happens if only 1 guy doesn't follow the rules; everyone goes to war against him and he has accomplished nothing

and i was not insisting everyone drop fairplay rules, just noting that many people complain about the very things they help enforce, and saying it would be interesting to see what its like when the game is actually played that way. and im not sure anyone remembers what it was like before fairplay rules, because fairplay rules get made pretty fast. how long did it take for people to add monuments and labs and aqua islands to the "protected" zone? lemme just say, its was pretty fast.

if people make rules as soon as an update comes out to fit there needs, then no one really knows what the game would be like now if we chose to disregard them.; yes a few people do it, but not enough to make a difference. when 1% gets the idea and tries it alone, they just get beat by the 99% that follow them.

mostly i just think its an interesting psychological/sociological observation that people chose to help enforce these rules and then complain about the effects that the have, rather then try to actually play the game the way its made. its like playing monopoly, but saying that if you land on someone else's property, you must pay whatever they demand, and rather then collect 200$ past go, you are only allowed to do that if you own the most money at the time. yes its interesting to change up some rules, but changing all the rules and making it a completely different game have made most people unhappy with it

My level doesn't tell the full tale in terms of how long I have been playing. The game was very different when I started indeed.

I don't find the sociological phenomenon surprising at all. I find it perfectly unsurprising. In a power vacuum, someone will inevitably make the move to take control, or potentially even take control by relative accident, and when that group or individual does, they will use their position to set order up in such a way as to protect their interests. When those interests are challenged, in situations of instability (see two huge server wars in rapid succession), it is equally unsurprising that restrictions placed on those who would challenge that authority are increased, or to put it differently, they will expand their opportunities to enforce their authority.

Then those who would challenge them are left with the option to either play by those rules or accept the consequences of breaking them. Plenty of people do. The 1% are hardly all insignificant nobodies. There are a number of independent and super-aggressive alliances filled with lvl 70s who just don't give an eff anymore that still mostly play by old school rules (though I'm pretty sure few of them direct their anarchy at KoN).

I don't know what to tell you. In sociology there is a theory that once bureaucracy has taken hold, it is completely impossible to supplant, simply because any revolution, no matter how anarchic, intended to defeat it would have to eventually become a bigger bureaucracy than the existing bureaucracy to get an edge.

Absolutely visible in GGE. It's the equivalent of asking why the USA doesn't just go back to being a colony of England to get rid of all these aggravating problems associated with being a sovereign democratic republic (for argument's sake, let's say we actually are).

The answer is, basically, 1) we could never go back and 2) no one wants to anyway.

[4166990] Malorie Knox (US1) [US1] :: Oct. 20, 2015, 7:27 p.m.

I mean, I guess the short answer is that KoN and other large alliance families set their fair play rules, and a lot of people take them up because they can hold groups like KoN accountable to them (since they're their rules to begin with) and like protecting their own interests as well. That's a much shorter assessment.

[4170692] tomtomtomwest (GB1) [None] :: Oct. 22, 2015, 4:50 p.m.

I agree. "No, you're not aloud to attack someone within 10 clicks. We've declared war on your alliance,"
Drives me nuts.

[4171044] Cobalt_Fusion (US1) [None] :: Oct. 22, 2015, 9:58 p.m.

You don't HAVE to follow them. Most people just do out of respect for other players property and fair play. If you so choose to break these general rules that most people follow, then that is fine, just don't complain when they retaliate like we did when we turned your castle into hell for attacking multiple members of my alliance, multiple times.

[4171154] furture (US1) [None] :: Oct. 23, 2015, 2:02 a.m.

Cobalt_Fusion (US1) said:

You don't HAVE to follow them. Most people just do out of respect for other players property and fair play. If you so choose to break these general rules that most people follow, then that is fine, just don't complain when they retaliate like we did when we turned your castle into hell for attacking multiple members of my alliance, multiple times.

if you read what was already said, you would know i was saying that its ok for people to follow them, even if they dont have to. and as i also pointed out, its not exactly fair play to say things like "dont attack our OPs" or "dont attack our RVs or labs or monuments or towers etc etc". that is people being lazy and not wanting to defend, so they just threaten people in order to keep the fewest troops out occupying things such as RVs/labs as possible.

also, you never "turned my castle to hell". perhaps you would like a more honest view of what happened?

-your member attacked me
-i retaliated
-you sent 2 hits at me, and 2 sabos.
-we did a mini war, where i killed a few thousand of your troops, and all it cost me was a few hundred troops i earned as rewards through events, and a few hundred additional level 2 barracks troops, as well as sabod you guys and did other damages, while most of your time was spent farming my empty castle, and all of that was done with you having the knowledge that i was already getting ready to quit GGE for good.

so congratz on wasting you alliance time, troops, and coins on a guy who told you at the start that they were quitting. seems like great and inspiring leadership right there.

if anyone wants to know something else interesting about cobalt_fusion and his boys, at least 1 guy is running about a dozen multis. at the same time our war started, about 7 random low level people, anywhere from 500-1000+ miles away from me, all of whom i never had any interaction with before, and they were spread across 4 different alliances, all claiming to be independent from anyone else.... attacked me. anyone wanna guess at the actual odds of 4 different alliances, all supposedly unaffiliated, all picking the same guy, all the way across the map as a target, at the same time that i pick a fight with cobalts alliance?

but dont worry; cobalt told me personally that i must have done something to piss them off, and no way are they related to anyone in his group, no matter that they all attacked at the same time and that i never had seen any of them before.

anyone else not believing that story?