We need new Moderators!
We are always on the lookout for talented people to join the team. That means you! If you think you could help us organise and inform the community while entertaining everyone then apply. We need people to help out on the forum, behind the scenes with announcements, on Discord and on our other Social Media channels.
If this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE
A Genuine Discussion & News Posting
Azelfian (ASIA1)
ASIA1 Posts: 277
I didn't know whether this was better suited for General Discussion, or Alliance News as it's a bit of both but I put it here since it'll get more views here. That's me being honest.
Let's talk about "retirement" server rules, and the essence of this game - A War Game.
I've been playing Empire a long time and the one thing I've been known quite well for is Server Hopping and building alliances, good ones or bad ones. Throughout my misadventures, I've frequently run into shittier and shitter versions of the same core rules, the "Fair Play" rules. I'd like to have a psychological and philosophical debate on the legitimacy of the rules and the morality of them. My goal is to either A): Convert people following the fair play rules to a new system of genuine and legitimate fair play,
: Get rid of "Fair Play" entirely as it's definition is flawed, or C): Give a fair and large scale warning to those who read this thread that said rules will not be followed by myself and those who agree with me.
Now to the meat and potatoes.
What the Fuck is Fair Play?
Fair play is defined as a set of guidelines that players are expected to follow as a sort of "known set of agreements" between a majority of the playerbase to keep the game fun and fair for the garbage players, the nonspenders, the inactives, and the casual players. All 4 of which make up a majority of the playerbase. I'd personally define casual players as people who do not genuinely compete in Events and war regularly and do not invest more than 1-3 hours maximum a day on empire. Serious players are the opposite.
From what I've seen, the fair play rules commonly consist of the following:
-No hitting Ops.
-No taking Rvs.
-No "Short Horning" / Hitting people within 30-60 meters of your main castle
-No Storm Islands hits
-No Berimond Invasion hits
-No hitting the same player multiple times in a row
-No hitting the same alliance multiple times per day
-No theft of ops or other property.
These rules are by far the most common across all servers with slight variation throughout. Let's argue them individually and explain why they're flawed and demand revision:
No Hitting Ops: This rule started off way back when Food Ops originally became the meta for storing attackers. This rule is arguably outdated as now: 1: Ops store waaaaaaay more troops than main castles do by a large margin. 2): Build items have made it so it's quite easy to produce over 10k per outpost at even low levels (My USA account, Elder Maxson, produced 10.6k in "The Prydwen"), and 3): Ops have become the primary storage for a majority of people's green armies. So why can we not hit them? If you're storing the same amount of D in your ops as your main, what is barring people from tapping your ops as they would your main castle? Why is it so difficult for you to defend them when they have the same tower and defense capabilities as your main, with the exception of having MORE space for troops? Seems silly right?
No Taking Rvs: One phrase. Private rvs. Every player should be working towards private rvs. RVs themselves now seem utterly useless to a majority of the playerbase, and just seem like places to HIDE attackers in outers and move troops when being hit. Besides that, I genuinely can't see a use for them. You can't even attack from them anymore. What's the point? Why do we protect these and care so much when their only purpose is achievements and questlines?
No Short Horning: Alright fair, but I think the rule should be revised to no hitting a target within 30-60 meters of the CASTLE YOU'RE HITTING FROM. Why can I not hit my next door neighbor from my op that's 100 meters from him? And he do the same for me? If the argument is supporting then revise the rule to disallow unfair short horns. Give attackers a chance to hit an offline target and defenders a chance to support the hit and just see who's the better tooler and cast/comm altogether. That's GENUINE fairness that I could stand behind any day.
No Storms Hits: Fair - Ish. I'd still argue that the purpose of the storm islands is to be an entirely PvP competition to compete for Storm Lord and that your joining of the event is OPTIONAL in the first place and serves no real purpose besides such. What else do people use storms for now? The Grear is shit, the PO item is pretty garbage, and the other rewards aren't too useful. So it's almost entirely an ALLIANCE V ALLIANCE competition. It's what the royal capitol event should have been about and the alliance tournament. PvP. An end goal. Long term. Huge reward. Make "Storms Wars" a thing. Declare on an alliance but stipulate that it is PURELY for Storm Island's competition. That way members of the alliance who are not interested in helping do not have to participate and be dragged into a Whale on Whale beach off.
No Berimond Hits: Fair, but only because Berimond is no longer about pvp. When it first came out, you'd get more gallantry wiping somebody than hitting the silly towers, and the towers were ACTUALLY FINISHABLE. Now it takes like 25k hits per tower for the later ones and we (the US server and Asia servers) have not FINISHED a beri in YEARS. Useless besides Claw King so it's purely NPC now.
No Double Tapping Players: This is fair in my honest opinion.
No Hitting The Same Alliance: Now this is a gray area. If I'm surrounded by your alliance's "hive setup" I should be able to hit multiple of you. But If I'm clearly going out of my way to hit many members of your alliance all of which are far from me then I may have malicious intent in mind. This is one definitely up in the air.
No Op Thefts: This I think is another gray area. The argument can be made that if you can't hold and defend them, why do you have them in the first place? But you could also say it's cruel to waste another person's time and money for something so critical. It's different to wipe 95k off of Timmerman. It's rude, but it's what troops are for. Outposts, on the other hand, serve a variety of purposes. I'm both for and against it. I would never personally do it to weaker players but in wartime, I'd argue they're up for grabs, especially in brutal wars like the Asia1 and USA1 server wars.
Retirement Shells: Dumb fucking idea entirely. If your players are quitting, they're open to being farmed. If they're going to ruins, when they log back in their fires are auto-cleared ANYWAY. So who gives a shit if they're hit daily for food. Sure, their ops should be protected regarding captures. I can agree and get off the soapbox for that one, but HITTING them should be ENTIRELY alright. If you DONT WANT TO BE HIT, don't SIT IN A RETIREMENT alliance. Move elsewhere. Don't move someone to a "retirement shell" temporarily if they're only gone for a short while or in the hospital. What kind of alliance moves out a member who's been with them for a long time, contributed, and been active because something happened to him out of his control? Rebelsunited, I'm looking ENTIRELY at you.
Finally, let's speak about Intent and explain my recent issues with RebelsUnited and BloodyConqueror. BloodyConq sent me quite a few messages for hitting 3 of their members in a row in one night. All 3 members had 0 loot, were burning, and had little to nothing in their castles. We're talking under 1.5k troops. All of my 3 hits were on their mains, and 60+ clicks out just to be safe. The messages I received read along the lines of "We're recovering from a war, you shouldn't have hit us." Proceeding with some of their members sending all caps to hate mail and one guy getting super out of line calling me a pig and saying I probably work a shit job. I feel there are 2 things wrong here: One: If you're recovering from a war, Either post on the forums updating the public on your war or post in your alliance description. Otherwise, how am I supposed to know? If I don't know, you cannot blame me for not being "morally responsible." The only time I check a person's main castle is to see if they have a watchtower or if their towers are maxed, which I didn't have to do for BloodyConq.
For rebels united, they were angered at me for doing 1 hit on "Wolfpaw3" in his main castle. He is 65 clicks from me, I hit his main from my main, and slammed into Defense and won. It was a fair hit, he wasn't burning beforehand, and his towers are fine. They said I had "made a threat by hitting wolf paw to the entire Rebels Family" since he was in the Hospital. As if I knew? How am I supposed to know and care about your circumstances if you refuse to make them obvious? Also, how and why could/would I possibly make a threat to the ENTIRE REBELS family over a FAIR hit from far out on a MAIN of someone in a Sub of a Sub. I looted WOOD by the way. Not food. Wood. If I was to threaten you, don't you think I'd go a little more intense than that? Maybe wish you stub your toes or something? I mean seriously. At this point, intent doesn't even exist on this server. It's just about action and reaction and I'm about ready to swipe the card and just start hitting. We gotta discuss these things.
TL:DR - Fair play is dumb and we need to get rid of it and be much more vocal about how silly these reasons for people making threats are. I am so tired of cry mail.
Let's talk about "retirement" server rules, and the essence of this game - A War Game.
I've been playing Empire a long time and the one thing I've been known quite well for is Server Hopping and building alliances, good ones or bad ones. Throughout my misadventures, I've frequently run into shittier and shitter versions of the same core rules, the "Fair Play" rules. I'd like to have a psychological and philosophical debate on the legitimacy of the rules and the morality of them. My goal is to either A): Convert people following the fair play rules to a new system of genuine and legitimate fair play,
: Get rid of "Fair Play" entirely as it's definition is flawed, or C): Give a fair and large scale warning to those who read this thread that said rules will not be followed by myself and those who agree with me. Now to the meat and potatoes.
What the Fuck is Fair Play?
Fair play is defined as a set of guidelines that players are expected to follow as a sort of "known set of agreements" between a majority of the playerbase to keep the game fun and fair for the garbage players, the nonspenders, the inactives, and the casual players. All 4 of which make up a majority of the playerbase. I'd personally define casual players as people who do not genuinely compete in Events and war regularly and do not invest more than 1-3 hours maximum a day on empire. Serious players are the opposite.
From what I've seen, the fair play rules commonly consist of the following:
-No hitting Ops.
-No taking Rvs.
-No "Short Horning" / Hitting people within 30-60 meters of your main castle
-No Storm Islands hits
-No Berimond Invasion hits
-No hitting the same player multiple times in a row
-No hitting the same alliance multiple times per day
-No theft of ops or other property.
These rules are by far the most common across all servers with slight variation throughout. Let's argue them individually and explain why they're flawed and demand revision:
No Hitting Ops: This rule started off way back when Food Ops originally became the meta for storing attackers. This rule is arguably outdated as now: 1: Ops store waaaaaaay more troops than main castles do by a large margin. 2): Build items have made it so it's quite easy to produce over 10k per outpost at even low levels (My USA account, Elder Maxson, produced 10.6k in "The Prydwen"), and 3): Ops have become the primary storage for a majority of people's green armies. So why can we not hit them? If you're storing the same amount of D in your ops as your main, what is barring people from tapping your ops as they would your main castle? Why is it so difficult for you to defend them when they have the same tower and defense capabilities as your main, with the exception of having MORE space for troops? Seems silly right?
No Taking Rvs: One phrase. Private rvs. Every player should be working towards private rvs. RVs themselves now seem utterly useless to a majority of the playerbase, and just seem like places to HIDE attackers in outers and move troops when being hit. Besides that, I genuinely can't see a use for them. You can't even attack from them anymore. What's the point? Why do we protect these and care so much when their only purpose is achievements and questlines?
No Short Horning: Alright fair, but I think the rule should be revised to no hitting a target within 30-60 meters of the CASTLE YOU'RE HITTING FROM. Why can I not hit my next door neighbor from my op that's 100 meters from him? And he do the same for me? If the argument is supporting then revise the rule to disallow unfair short horns. Give attackers a chance to hit an offline target and defenders a chance to support the hit and just see who's the better tooler and cast/comm altogether. That's GENUINE fairness that I could stand behind any day.
No Storms Hits: Fair - Ish. I'd still argue that the purpose of the storm islands is to be an entirely PvP competition to compete for Storm Lord and that your joining of the event is OPTIONAL in the first place and serves no real purpose besides such. What else do people use storms for now? The Grear is shit, the PO item is pretty garbage, and the other rewards aren't too useful. So it's almost entirely an ALLIANCE V ALLIANCE competition. It's what the royal capitol event should have been about and the alliance tournament. PvP. An end goal. Long term. Huge reward. Make "Storms Wars" a thing. Declare on an alliance but stipulate that it is PURELY for Storm Island's competition. That way members of the alliance who are not interested in helping do not have to participate and be dragged into a Whale on Whale beach off.
No Berimond Hits: Fair, but only because Berimond is no longer about pvp. When it first came out, you'd get more gallantry wiping somebody than hitting the silly towers, and the towers were ACTUALLY FINISHABLE. Now it takes like 25k hits per tower for the later ones and we (the US server and Asia servers) have not FINISHED a beri in YEARS. Useless besides Claw King so it's purely NPC now.
No Double Tapping Players: This is fair in my honest opinion.
No Hitting The Same Alliance: Now this is a gray area. If I'm surrounded by your alliance's "hive setup" I should be able to hit multiple of you. But If I'm clearly going out of my way to hit many members of your alliance all of which are far from me then I may have malicious intent in mind. This is one definitely up in the air.
No Op Thefts: This I think is another gray area. The argument can be made that if you can't hold and defend them, why do you have them in the first place? But you could also say it's cruel to waste another person's time and money for something so critical. It's different to wipe 95k off of Timmerman. It's rude, but it's what troops are for. Outposts, on the other hand, serve a variety of purposes. I'm both for and against it. I would never personally do it to weaker players but in wartime, I'd argue they're up for grabs, especially in brutal wars like the Asia1 and USA1 server wars.
Retirement Shells: Dumb fucking idea entirely. If your players are quitting, they're open to being farmed. If they're going to ruins, when they log back in their fires are auto-cleared ANYWAY. So who gives a shit if they're hit daily for food. Sure, their ops should be protected regarding captures. I can agree and get off the soapbox for that one, but HITTING them should be ENTIRELY alright. If you DONT WANT TO BE HIT, don't SIT IN A RETIREMENT alliance. Move elsewhere. Don't move someone to a "retirement shell" temporarily if they're only gone for a short while or in the hospital. What kind of alliance moves out a member who's been with them for a long time, contributed, and been active because something happened to him out of his control? Rebelsunited, I'm looking ENTIRELY at you.
Finally, let's speak about Intent and explain my recent issues with RebelsUnited and BloodyConqueror. BloodyConq sent me quite a few messages for hitting 3 of their members in a row in one night. All 3 members had 0 loot, were burning, and had little to nothing in their castles. We're talking under 1.5k troops. All of my 3 hits were on their mains, and 60+ clicks out just to be safe. The messages I received read along the lines of "We're recovering from a war, you shouldn't have hit us." Proceeding with some of their members sending all caps to hate mail and one guy getting super out of line calling me a pig and saying I probably work a shit job. I feel there are 2 things wrong here: One: If you're recovering from a war, Either post on the forums updating the public on your war or post in your alliance description. Otherwise, how am I supposed to know? If I don't know, you cannot blame me for not being "morally responsible." The only time I check a person's main castle is to see if they have a watchtower or if their towers are maxed, which I didn't have to do for BloodyConq.
For rebels united, they were angered at me for doing 1 hit on "Wolfpaw3" in his main castle. He is 65 clicks from me, I hit his main from my main, and slammed into Defense and won. It was a fair hit, he wasn't burning beforehand, and his towers are fine. They said I had "made a threat by hitting wolf paw to the entire Rebels Family" since he was in the Hospital. As if I knew? How am I supposed to know and care about your circumstances if you refuse to make them obvious? Also, how and why could/would I possibly make a threat to the ENTIRE REBELS family over a FAIR hit from far out on a MAIN of someone in a Sub of a Sub. I looted WOOD by the way. Not food. Wood. If I was to threaten you, don't you think I'd go a little more intense than that? Maybe wish you stub your toes or something? I mean seriously. At this point, intent doesn't even exist on this server. It's just about action and reaction and I'm about ready to swipe the card and just start hitting. We gotta discuss these things.
TL:DR - Fair play is dumb and we need to get rid of it and be much more vocal about how silly these reasons for people making threats are. I am so tired of cry mail.
Goliath @ Asia1 - Elder Maxson @ USA1
5
Comments
GENERATION 37: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment
(thanks @Link c0p (GB1) )
================
shut up @forestw (AU1)
================
Formerly samasensei3 and LegendarySama search them up
I will say, that even though I usually don't hit OPs, I receive quite a few on mine in INT3. Why? My main is better defended than the OPs . But, I am working on them too...…….
Sleep well.
I'll most likely kill you in the morning.
CHECK OUT MY CHANNEL!
! CLICK HERE !
