Cheating!!! Not right!! Watch your back!!

All discussion regarding the world of Theoris
Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:26 am

"Tinkerbell" wrote:You are definitely not just Mr Ears. Which is the main account that does buy scarabs in Sabah?


MOAR lulz!! :D

How does TM change the game to stop YOU?


Running crying into momma's chest? :rolleyes:

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:29 am

"Mr Ears" wrote:MOAR lulz!! :D


Naw, Amun Nefer already has an account in Theoris to match his account in Sabah.

Both inactive

You are a cheap imitation, but DO try hard to copy including the clay gifts & pictures. You are European.

Try again

Amrine
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 1:17 pm

enough

Postby Amrine » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:57 am

You two shut up and sit down over there. This forum was not created for people to take pot-shots at each other. It was created for ideas and dynamite discussions.

Myself and maybe a few more do not care about your feuds, nor do we wish to have to see them above and beyond the real purpose of this forum. It is a game for all. It should not drive off new folks. It should encourage veterans of the game to post.

I am gonna regret this because I know the animosity is deep here. I am mourning the community I used to enjoy way before CoTN or NO. Respect others. Stop this crap.

Ammy

Antikuity
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Arkansas, USA

Monuments

Postby Antikuity » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:09 am

@Amrine, I am one of those players as I totally agree.

Now,
I see that the answer is not to change much at all, except possibly add a flag that when one player has taken, uumm, a certain number of monuments in one week, month, etc. that they can't attack again until a certain period of time has gone by, and/or they have to keep that one for a certain period for time. That would stop the reason for the second account to take it back off their hands so they can go get a new one.

OR don't let any player take a monument until he/she is over a certain level. There is no way that a level 3 player can afford a monument unless all they are using it for is to make limestone. None of the ones that took the monuments that were being discussed here took the monuments to do anything with them, but steal goods, then turn the monument taken over to someone else.

When I began this game, I found out too late about the fighting. I saw it meant that I could gain a monument by fighting someone else. I, personally, didn't want to go that route, but knew that others would and was not disturbed by the ones that took what I call 'legally'. As Tink has said, the Honor System is lost here. Too many players just use the game for the monument attacking and gaining the goods.
The 'blurps' for the game only talk about building and becoming Pharaoh.
Nothing is said about fighting at all. That misled many players, including myself, who would not have joined if they had known about the fighting until they were already here. Even then, they thought that since their cities could not be attacked, that they would remain because the game is really a good game to play in your spare minutes.
Just my two cents worth.
Last edited by Antikuity on Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Caprontos
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Postby Caprontos » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:57 am

Nothing is said about fighting at all.


whats there to say?... Its not exactly that exciting.. the stuff is easier to talk of..

If how many battles you won/soldiers killed effected rank people might fight more and care more..But since those don't do anything beside make your profile look better? i guess... (or worse depending on how you look at it?).. no one really cares..

getting 60k limestone is more interesting...

New suggestion... maybe make it so you cant send stuff out of a monument for 24 hours after you have taken it? that way no one can just attack and take stuff then send it away and "here's your monument back!" and gives you a fair chance to win "your" stuff back.. and give purpose to have an army on hand.. in your town not just in monuments defending..

would need to make it so armies stay in the monument you just captured I think though..

this would also hinder the whole abuse thing a lot no?

Also remove the whole "capture the whole reinforcing army" thing .. its sorta stupid... what army gose out and say oh theyve taken the postion..oh well ! guess well switch sides.. even though they have no soldiers in the monument... and you have an army of 1500 :S... thy should just re-take it (if soldiers are kept in the monument upon taken it, which they should) then they just re-group then attack would make for sense..

I am aware thats prolly poorly written im tired.. and i cant be bothered to fix it..sorry :P
Last edited by Caprontos on Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

EndStigator
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:15 am

Update on SusansHot

Postby EndStigator » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:10 am

Well, she/he is on the 3 day 'away' status. Duh.


Vagrant SusansHot (Rank: 2120) (High: 2086) (Age: 3 years)
Birthdate: November 23rd 2009
Laborers: 60
Donations to the Gods: 0
Market Sales: 3
Market Purchases: 0
Battles (Offense): 3
Battles (Defense): 0
Soldiers Defeated: 398
Soldiers Captured: 9
Monuments Captured: 2
Cities and Monuments
gold Djedu (131N) (L1) emeralds Djedu (8N) (L1) Limestone Monument (L3) Limestone Monument (L4)

Also, notice the rank of a 7 day old player with only level 1 cities. Sure is interesting.
It's good that everyone is hunting for answers. Didn't expect that when I started with just a warning to everyone. Thanks, guys!

Antikuity
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Arkansas, USA

Good Suggestions

Postby Antikuity » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:23 am

"Caprontos" wrote:whats there to say?... (My point was not to talk about it a lot or promote it, but that the players that join are not expecting fighting of any kind, generally.)

New suggestion... maybe make it so you cant send stuff out of a monument for 24 hours after you have taken it? that way no one can just attack and take stuff then send it away and "here's your monument back!" and gives you a fair chance to win "your" stuff back.. and give purpose to have an army on hand.. in your town not just in monuments defending..

would need to make it so armies stay in the monument you just captured I think though..

this would also hinder the whole abuse thing a lot no?

Also remove the whole "capture the whole reinforcing army" thing .. its sorta stupid... what army gose out and say oh theyve taken the postion..oh well ! guess well switch sides.. even though they have no soldiers in the monument... and you have an army of 1500 :S... thy should just re-take it (if soldiers are kept in the monument upon taken it, which they should) then they just re-group then attack would make for sense..



I think you have some logical suggestions and agree with both of them. Anything is better than now, lol.

@EndStigator, thanks for bringing all this to our attention to begin with.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:19 am

"Amrine" wrote:You two shut up and sit down over there. This forum was not created for people to take pot-shots at each other.


Then why are you taking pot-shots at me?

It was created for ideas and dynamite discussions.


And I create tons of ideas & dynamite discussions. In this very thread even. Did you even bother to read the thread?

I just reviewed your posts & you have contributed absolutely nothing.

Why don't you "shut up & sit down over there"?

Or better, contribute something. Anything at all.

~ ~ ~

Caprontos, capturing enemy soldiers reinforcing a monument they just took from me is one of my only ways to get spoils from my attacker & a bit of payback, since he refuses to have monuments himself. My two Sabah monuments are currently being guarded entirely by Ears' 400+ chariots. His other 400 chariots I sent to bandits. Yes, I captured 800+ chariots from stalker/griefer Ears & burned him badly. :D

You paying attention, Amrine? Read the entire thread this time?

It seems to me like we have players jumping into PvP threads who don't even understand the process. There are counters to PvP griefers & ways of protecting ourselves. It also appears that some players, & they are mainly peaceful players, want PvP removed totally from the game (some posters have an agenda). My point of view is different. I like the PvP although I am not a griefer myself. I play a defensive PvP game, cuz this is how it was designed. My goal is to reduce my losses & this leads to occassionally letting the griefer take my monument. When this happens, if the griefer is not very careful, I have counter-measures.

I like negative in my games & the challenge to deal with griefers. I definitely do not want it removed. If it wasn't for this, I would have abandoned Nile a very loooong time ago.

One thing a griefer never gets from me is spoils. My griefers always take a huge loss from attacking me. I lose at most, a bit of stones that are built into the monument itself. Building the monument back is easy if I only lose one level.

A player cannot play an offensive PvP game in Nile w/o cheating, cuz it leads to being quickly capped.

I feel Jeff's pain. It is quite difficult to remove an exploit & not also cause other effects that can make the game worse.

There are basically three types of griefers in Nile. Those who grief for spoils, those who grief for rank & those who grief for harassment. I have been griefed for only harassment & probably worse than most of you can even imagine. It is the harassment that I object to, especially the cheating. PvP w/o Honor. Ears/sunburn is such a player as was CBC abana and team. Most of them have sacrificed their accounts to grief me, while I progress merrily along. Nile is not only a PvP game & this is why Ears/sunburn is a terrible Nile player, as was CBC abana. They played a Nile based on anger, not a holistic game based on progression up the ranks.

We have seen lots of threads where high rankers complain about getting PvPed. I find it very difficult to feel pity for them. This is what being at the top of the ranks is all about. It is to be expected. It is how the game was designed.

One of my complaints about the PvP part of the game is not the PvP itself, but the asymmetry of it all. Some top rankers never get PvPed, while others get more than their share. I attirbute most of this to team playing (legal or illegal). Selective targetting. What amuses me is cheaters calling other players cheaters & this thread is no exception. I have talked with bevus & get a very different story about the so-claimed innocents in this thread. ;)

Who is telling the entire truth is anyone's guess...

Just for fun, I dropped EndStigator into my Theoris allies function & got player not found. My question becomes who is this player, why is forum account so young & what motivation caused this thread? Why is this poster involved? What is poster's agenda here?
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:10 am, edited 26 times in total.

Caprontos
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Postby Caprontos » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:41 pm

Caprontos, capturing enemy soldiers reinforcing a monument they just took from me is one of my only ways to get spoils from my attacker & a bit of payback, since he refuses to have monuments himself.


But if you remove it along with making them have to wait to ship out, then you can win all your stuff back, except soldiers. So that point would be null. But if someone wants you to uncap them, then you wont be getting any soldiers most likely or stuff.. It'd also make monuments that are full of stuff fought over more.. if you attack a monument near max capacity or something even if they take it right back your gonna re-attack it to try to secure it for 24 hours- it'd add challenge to PVP... Aren't you the one who always wants some "challenge" back in the game?... right now PVP is just make a pile of soldiers sent it to a monument take it ship all the stuff out and leave it till someone uncaps you.. - the only challenge there is the person who lost there stuff will have to wait ot get it back and never truely had a fair chance to defend it. The initial defense is never enough, because I can see how many troops they have about so i just try to get double it...

Should also maybe remove that? and add in a "Scout" unit.. that's made with food and leather.. and you use the scout to check what the enemy has soldier wise and there's a chance they'd get captured/killed, then you have more chances to find out someones going to attack

I think both would balance PVP some... It'd mainly give defenders more opportunity to keep there stuff and defend thier monument..

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:13 pm

Well put, Caprontos.

Now if the attacker could also see how many goodies there are in a monument plot, it would often spare a good player the loss of a monument - and the loss of resources, because even if he takes back the monument, it will take a lot of limestone and time to restore the monument to it's original state. And all because a robber is after some loot. Steal a monument for a few hundred limestone and ditto bread - it doesn't make sense.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:19 pm

Tinkerbell wrote:Just for fun, I dropped EndStigator into my Theoris allies function & got player not found. My question becomes who is this player, why is forum account so young & what motivation caused this thread? Why is this poster involved? What is poster's agenda here?


Maybe he doesn't want to publish his in-game nick to avoid getting in trouble in the game, although it seems as if he already is in trouble there. Maybe he uses an in-game nick of an account where he went immortal already. Try to find tutmoses ii on either server now, you'll fail, for just that reason. But try tutmoses and you'll find me sure enough.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:28 pm

"Caprontos" wrote:But if you remove it along with making them have to wait to ship out, then you can win all your stuff back, except soldiers.


Well, that's kinda one of the points about PvPing in the first place, no? To attack for spoils? It sounds like you wanna totally remove PvP altogether. I cannot agree with this one.

So that point would be null. But if someone wants you to uncap them, then you wont be getting any soldiers most likely or stuff.. It'd also make monuments that are full of stuff fought over more.. if you attack a monument near max capacity or something even if they take it right back your gonna re-attack it to try to secure it for 24 hours- it'd add challenge to PVP...


In that case, the challenge is to not lose the monument in the first place. I don't store goods in my monuments. There is no reason to. When goods don't fit in my cities any longer, I go Immortal & restart, cuz at that time the game is VERY booring.

I don't see why you wanna protect high rankers with tons of stuff. I want them hammered HARD by the game. Not only in their monuments, but also in their cities. High rank must come at a cost. The late game is too easy.

Aren't you the one who always wants some "challenge" back in the game?...


Actually, I am the one who wants challenge added to the game period. Right now & as designed, there is none at all. The only challenge is the start game that has been destroyed by gifters & the loong climb to 4th city.

..besides the desperate Quest MONKEYS !!! chase...<g>...

right now PVP is just make a pile of soldiers sent it to a monument take it ship all the stuff out and leave it till someone uncaps you.. - the only challenge there is the person who lost there stuff will have to wait ot get it back and never truely had a fair chance to defend it.


As designed, there is no offensive PvP in the game at all due to the 2 plot cap. The only players who have the resources to PvP cannot. The result is only nuisance attacks from low rankers which results in the cheating/multiple accounts used by high rankers. Players who can PvP are not able to by the game as designed.

The initial defense is never enough, because I can see how many troops they have about so i just try to get double it... Should also maybe remove that? and add in a "Scout" unit.. that's made with food and leather.. and you use the scout to check what the enemy has soldier wise and there's a chance they'd get captured/killed, then you have more chances to find out someones going to attack


That might be interesting to try this! No one can know how much defense a player has at monuments until a single soldier is sent to spy. Hmmmm. By the way, we use this already. Not just to spy, either! :D

If not, I wanna be able to spy on Ears' cities. Fair is fair. My biggest problem with PvP in this game, as I posted, is players who only attack from cities for harassment, never keeping a monument themselves. Never wanting to actually progress in the game, that is not their purpose to exist, they are not really playing Nile at all. They use illegal uncapping accounts to lose monuments & the game, as designed, encourages this. :(

I would like to see the game changed so that if a player doesn't own a monument, the player cannot PvP at all. The only other possible solution w/o this is to allow the griefing of cities that I really do not want, cuz of looking out for peaceful players. This is why I have also suggested a Flag on player's profiles. Player can choose to play a peaceful game but cannot own quarry plots. If player chooses the warmongering option, then player's cities can be attacked.

I think both would balance PVP some... It'd mainly give defenders more opportunity to keep there stuff and defend thier monument..


TM would like the defenders to lose their stuff & especially the monument itself. (This is their claim anyway. The game itself is the best argument that TM's claim is bogus). You would have to ask TM why they designed the PvP this way. To me it looks like the design is to protect the high rankers & this is backwards. L5 monuments give a hugh bonus to both rank & production. They are supposed to be hard to keep.

The biggest problem with PvP is its asymmetry as I posted. Few are getting picked on & most of the rest by far, never see any PvP at all. This is proof positive that PvP is broken.

Remove the cap, TM. Release the hounds.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:05 pm, edited 11 times in total.

Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:13 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:Remove the cap, TM. Release the hounds.


Finally the right conclusion!

I hope that Jeff registers this suggestion!

Caprontos
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Postby Caprontos » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:30 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:Well, that's kinda one of the points about PvPing in the first place, no? To attack for spoils? It sounds like you wanna totally remove PvP altogether. I cannot agree with this one.


Yes, and its not removing PVP its making PVP more involving and requiring more of your time to actually do it. Making it more challenging to win big. and gives both parties a fair shot at the stuff in it.

Right now if i have no monuments I can make an army in little time, take two peoples monuments potentially get a good bit of stuff, and that's it for my PVP... that's hardly PVP... That's player vs sitting duck (to steal something someone said earlier to me :D ) now that I think about it... because what can the defender do to defend his monument? nothing... sure I can not store stuff in it, and sure I can put 2000 troops in it or something like that, but doesn't stop anyone who decides they want it from taking it.

Making the attacker have to actually hold the monument themselves would make it more PVP - not remove it as both players would have their chances to keep it - not just one player doing a hit in run and you have clean the mess up..

They wanted king of the hill style play, not raiding parties?... King of the hill requires you to hold the hill for a set amount of time to win. (At lest in some versions of the game)

In that case, the challenge is to not lose the monument in the first place. I don't store goods in my monuments. There is no reason to. When goods don't fit in my cities any longer, I go Immortal & restart, cuz at that time the game is VERY booring.


but the problem is lots of people do.. we can't use you as the "average player"... but your - if they all played like you why even have PVP? it has little reason to be in the game if there nothing to have to fight over.

It might be less boring with a good war? War eats up resources and is fun.

I don't see why you wanna protect high rankers with tons of stuff. I want them hammered HARD by the game. Not only in their monuments, but also in their cities. High rank must come at a cost. The late game is too easy.


You need remember while they are fighting over the monument they are destroying it still and wasting up troops. - that would make them have to lose the whole level 5 monument if the other player(s) attacking the person can keep destroying it - and if they chose to abandon it they lose the stuff. Also limestone production would be halted and theyd be forced to make more soldiers right away, meaning you are using more resources to try to protect there own.

It would make high ranking people who have to much in there monuments a target, and would attract more attacks - and could potentially hurt the high ranking people more then lower ranking people. (since low rank people don't have to much in monuments they wouldn't be targets most of the time)

It would add to the late games problems more so then benfits, not necessarily giving them to much protection (remember every soldier they have to produce/keep on hand eats up bread), I think but if you think it would maybe be a bit much, maybe also add in a certain percent of the stuff to be destroyed in the fighting- that way the person still loses just not all of it all at once. - or make it so you can remove a certain percent each hour you keep it?

Then a bunch of attacks on the high ranking person would cause them to lose there monument's bonus and cause them to have to build soldiers to keep the monuments with there stuff in it. and that should effect there rank. At lest slow them down..

Actually, I am the one who wants challenge added to the game period. Right now & as designed, there is none at all. The only challenge is the start game that has been destroyed by gifters & the loong climb to 4th city.

..besides the desperate Quest MONKEYS !!! chase...<g>...


You'll get a monkey eventually...

As designed, there is no offensive PvP in the game at all due to the 2 plot cap. The only players who have the resources to PvP cannot. The result is only nuisance attacks from low rankers which results in the cheating/multiple accounts used by high rankers. Players who can PvP are not able to by the game as designed.


But that would be removed, if there was reason to have to fight over the monument and hold it. Since I would have to hold your monument not only capture it - it removes the whole need for someone to uncap me, but if you add incentive to keep it/have people counter attack then it would work out to a drawn out fight for the monument.

You could even maybe even remove the cap limit, or increase it. Few people, if any could wage a muti-front war anyway- and it would be more of a war not just a hit and run battle.


That might be interesting to try this! No one can know how much defense a player has at monuments until a single soldier is sent to spy. Hmmmm. By the way, we use this already. Not just to spy, either! :D


yeah ... i send 1 solider a few times just to get rid of it... suicide mission...

But i was thinking make it so if you attack with one guy he wont see how many soldiers they have, only the scout could do that.

TM would like the defenders to lose their stuff & especially the monument itself. You would have to ask TM why they designed the PvP this way. To me it looks like the design is to protect the high rankers & this is backwards. L5 monuments give a hugh bonus to both rank & production. They are supposed to be hard to keep.


but there not hard to keep... the above idea, would destroy there level 5m monuments maybe down to 0 and hurt the high ranking person even if they win the fight.

Personally I'd be more interested in the PVP if it was more like the above.


and while I'm at it if they did add this - to make for even more drawn out wars - you could add the ability to construct forts of cedar in a nome (limit of 1) to act as a base of operations, the fort can be attacked and destroyed (it isn't captured) and the person who destroys it gets like 10% of he cedar it takes to make it.. and have them max at a level of 5? with defense bonus like the monument.. And allow a single barrack plot (spear men only? since its the middle strength troop) - in which case the bronze/leather in it would be capture-able? but make it so any troop in a fort is counted as "away" at all times - so it cost 2 bread per solder to maintain? to add a drawback to forts? They make it so you can attack someone far away at a price..


I am aware this should be in the suggestions forum.. but maybe we can work out the issues here then present a better suggestion there? if its not proven to be severely flawed..
Last edited by Caprontos on Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:43 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote:Finally the right conclusion!

I hope that Jeff registers this suggestion!


Yes, but we don't agree on the how, Ears. Keep the two plot max, but not end PvP with two monuments.

Example: Player with 2 quarry plots attacks another.

Monument & quarry loses a level
Previous owner loses ownership
Attacker gets all spoils
Monument loses all workers
Monument now populated with 110 original bandits that both servers began with

By the way, this is how it should work when a player deletes or goes Immortal also. A player should not be able to take a monument from another on their way out the door & delete another's monument to rubble L5 to L0 just by a single attack. A New Player should not be able to take a empty quarry plot with one soldier. This is a HUGE bug in the current game.

I would prefer that when a player deletes or goes Immortal, his/her monuments go back to original L1 quarry L0 monument 110 bandits, but the delete exploit PvP attack has to be taken into consideration & a lot more programming (possibly impossible to tell the difference) be put in to prevent this "on the way out the door" exploit. This one has been done to me FOUR times.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:14 pm, edited 8 times in total.

chucklesII
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:58 am

Postby chucklesII » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:11 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:I have talked with bevus & get a very different story about the so-claimed innocents in this thread. ;)

Who is telling the entire truth is anyone's guess...

If you're expecting ANY truth from the bevus, you must be an optimist. ;)

I am close to one of the aforementioned "innocents" in this thread and know for a fact that they are fairminded and innocent of some (if not all) of the accusations. Additionally, they were helpful to others to almost a fault.

Have you given them equal time?

----------------------
With regards to the first post in this thread, this forum and game are severely understaffed by TM.

Secondly, the "bevus" issue should have/could have been dealt with in the past. However, it seemed easier to delete my post instead of looking into my allegations made months ago. I merely asked for it to be closed!
----------------------

In a similar incident in another game, my roommate's account was deleted due to "pushing" although in spirit it was a "thank you" for help received earlier in the game.

Making gifting illegal opens other isssues in the game. How does one go about securing Cedar for their fist ship if none is available in their market?
That being said it should be fairly simple to see if spoils of warfare are being shipped to a new player for the express purpose of expoiting the rules. However, this cannot be done if one is understaffed.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but kudos to bevus for showing a knack for expoiting this game, if for nothing else. If rules were changed; if the ranking system is tweaked, doing this specifically for RANK wouldn't happen.
If bevus is stupid enough to broadcast his plans openly on the General Wall which supposedly is monitored, a warning should be issued if not a ban.
How many innocent players were roped into giving this person a ego and rank boost?

Just my two cents.

btw, don't bother plugging this ID into the game on either world - I go by a different name.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:27 pm

"chucklesII" wrote:Making gifting illegal opens other isssues in the game. How does one go about securing Cedar for their fist ship if none is available in their market?


1) Cedar is always available at ANY market. That is why TM added Nubian Traders.

2) The gifting issue is not a binary question. If you know me from ANY of my 4 Nile accounts that I have had (two Immortalities followed by restarts on each server), then you would know that I was the Origianl Gifter of 26 cedar for a New Player's first boat & that has definitely NOT changed.

NOT 100 cedar.

26 & only 26

You just made a bogus strawman argument.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mr Ears
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Anyville

Postby Mr Ears » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:37 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:Yes, but we don't agree on the how, Ears. Keep the two plot max, but not end PvP with two monuments.


Okay, let's talk maths once again.

The variable x is the total amount of garrison that you feel you need to protect your monuments with.

Now, what is variable x dependent on?

a) The more monuments you have, the larger x will be.
b) The more enemies you have, the larger x will be.

(1)=> You only have one monument and no enemies you can think of? => x(1) will be a very low number.

(2)=> You have two monuments and no enemies) => x(2) will be larger than x(1).

(3)=> You have one monument and one enemy in your neighborhood that you know of? => x(3) will be larger than x(1).

(4)=> You have two monuments and also enemies? => x(4) will be larger than in all previous cases.

So x is dependent on the variables a and b. => x=a*b.

Now, the more wealth one acquires, the more enemies one gets. That means, with more monuments will come more enemies who will want one of your monuments. That means, the larger a becomes, the larger will also become b.

We know, x consists of these two variables. Since these two variables are simultaneously increasing with a growing number of monuments, the total garrison needed (variable x) will not only increase constantly -
==> it will increase exponentially! Like this:

Image

That means, the guarding costs will not only sum up, but they will explode!

And that means, a system without a monument cap will definitely regulate itself. One player simply cannot have an infinite number of monuments, because the constant increase of bonus will be beaten by the exponential increase of guarding costs.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:22 pm

"Mr Ears" wrote:Okay, let's talk maths once again.


Your math is wrong, Ears.

Let's talk team playing, multiple accounts & pushing. Your game. The way you play. The way your buddy, CBC abana played.

She even suggested making Dynasties via gifting/pushing/making multiple accounts legal & this is exactly what would happen, especially with your suggestion of only one quarry plot per nome.

:rolleyes:

The difference between you & me is that you don't wanna make the game better, you just like CBC abana, want even MORE exploits added to the game.

My goals with my posts are always trying to make the difference between the New Player & the #1 Ranker smaller. You wanna do just the opposite. If the New Player never has a chance to catch up, that New Player will abandon the game. This ties in nicely with my suggestion that old players must die with their goods & restart.

TM is not that stupid, but nice try again.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.

chucklesII
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:58 am

</>straw man argument

Postby chucklesII » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:35 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:1) Cedar is always available at ANY market. That is why TM added Nubian Traders.

2) The gifting issue is not a binary question. If you know me from ANY of my 4 Nile accounts that I have had (two Immortalities followed by restarts on each server), then you would know that I was the Origianl Gifter of 26 cedar for a New Player's first boat & that has definitely NOT changed.

NOT 100 cedar.

26 & only 26

You just made a bogus strawman argument.

I didn't include Nubian traders for several reasons.
A new player usually cannot afford their high prices which border on extortion. I would rather upgrade my market before I buy from them. I suspect most newer players would feel the same way. Not everyone here was here at the very beginning when there were no or few players to trade with. Paying twice (sometimes thrice) the going rate is not good business.


Return to “World - Theoris”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest