Limits on Massing

[kww913]

I know that I am likely to get attacked for proposing an end to massing, but I do believe it is an unfairly practiced tactic, one which ruins the enjoyment of this game for many while providing entertainment for bullies. A person's complete defensive measures can be wiped out in a matter of minutes, while they are not online, along with a huge number of their covert units, by bullies who play the game for no other reason than to destroy other people's hard work.

I propose that, just as there is a limit on sabotage, there be a limit on attacks against a single opponent. Put a limit of say 5 attacks per hour from one account to another and a total of, say 15 attacks per hour on a single account. That many attacks are obviously not intended to raid naq, but solely to punish. A further 1 or 2 attacks per turn could be allowed after the initial attacks until the attacks stop for at least 6 hours.

This allows players to retaliate heavily against someone, but does not allow the complete destruction of everything they have tried to build over weeks or months of gameplay.

Now before people start calling me a whiner, I have never been massed. As far as I know, only two members of my alliance have been massed. But I have talked with many players who have been massed, and it has caused them to stop playing the game. Some here will say this is a war game, and that they shouldn't whine, or that if they can't handle it they should quit. Perhaps you are right, I don't think you are, but I'll admit the possibility (a concession few on this board will likely return to me). But I fail to see what possible advantage massing brings to the game. It isn't war, for the person being massed is rarely online at the time to defend themselves and it usually involves multiple players (or entire alliances) ganging up on a single individual. What bravery such actions show! Massing is, in my opinion, bad for the game and should be ended by putting the same type of limits on attacks as are already on sabotage.

[Reaver]

That many attacks are obviously not intended to raid naq, but solely to punish.

Or, it could be because someone has a lot of UU out and they're being raided...

Massing is a necessary tool in this game. There are already far too few ways to really truly hurt an enemy. Massing is the only way to at least set someone back...And let's face it, most of the big players can get back on their feet very quickly even after being massed. If you take away massing, then there is no threat at all to a player's account and what fun is the game without some risk? If someone has been massed and quit because of it, then sorry but they should not have given up. No matter how bad the massing, unless you're continually being beaten down like Neb, you can get back up and come back.

[[SGC_ReplicÅtors]]

no...this will kill the game and no i am not going to mass u

[kww913]

As I have been told by several players who have massed people before, the complete destruction of someone's defenses can come in about 20 attacks (with 15 AT used each time). I realize that such an outcome assumes that the attacker's strength is greater than that of the person he is attacking. Nevertheless, my proposal allows for serious damage to be done to a player (15 attacks per hour with 15 attack turns) without allowing a player or group of players to kill every last one of his defenders and every last one of his spies. This proposal, if implemented, will no more kill this game than sabotage limits did.

If a player is online and able to defend when such attacks occurred, I would be less concerned about massing. But that is not how things happen. In addition, it isn't always the big players who are getting massed. Some mid-level players, if they attack the wrong person, have gotten massed. This will NOT kill the game. It will make it better for all involved except those few players who truly enjoy destroying other people's accounts.

[JIX]

your gonna kill my fun

this is http://www.stargateWARS.com

maybe forum should make another game http://www.tradestargate.com
where you and your friends go sign up trade all day and never be massed/sabbed/attacked/

[kww913]

Very witty of you to point out the "wars" in stargatewars.com. You've changed my whole opinion!

Ok, joking aside, don't try to simplify the issue by arguing that I am against being attacked or sabbed. I'm not. Obviously I don't like to be attacked or sabbed, but that is part of the game. My argument is that just as unlimited sabotage is not allowed, so unlimited attacking should not be allowed. The logic is the same.

No one wants to eliminate attacking or sabbing, and I would dare say that you have used the trade function of the game far more than I have. But massing is not warfare, not even in the real world of warfare. Particularly when multiple players gang up on a single individual in order to destroy him. You may enjoy utterly destroying another player, but it is not in the best interests of the game to allow it to continue, in my opinion.

[JIX]

but with sabbing your name is hidden (if you do it right) massing/attacking your name is never hidden

this idea is never gonna happen

[Lord Dougy]

if massing was limited i would quit out of protest and needless to say i think quite a few ppl would join me as there isnt a way to destroy ppl anymore apart from massing.... the limit of sabs still doesnt really help sabs at all already.

u dont want to be massed or sab be more skillful, or be feared, or try not to piss ppl off.

[kww913]

Lord Dougy, I myself have never been massed, and while the threat has been levelled against me once or twice, I have a high enough defense that no one who has tried has yet been able to do so. I think it possible that someone will eventually be successful in massing me, maybe even today or tomorrow, though I know of no one currently angry at me that would attempt it.

Part of my problem with massing is that some people do it with little or no provocation. I know of one poor soul, fairly new to the game, who was mass attacked and completely destroyed for a single attack taking less than 200 million naq. In retaliation, the person destroyed a defense of over 6 billion (including killing his super soldiers) as well as wiping out nearly 100k covert operatives.

You may say that he souldn't have attacked that person, but how was he to know? Alliances in this game mass anyone who attacks one of their members. Individuals have no strike force and no defense force for the express purpose of keeping their rank down, drawing in weak players to attack them and then wiping them out. This is not what admin had in mind when he created the game, in my opinion. Maybe it was and he is perfectly happy with massing as a legitimate strategy.

Finally, you say you will quit in protest if massing is eliminated and that others will join you. So be it, for that is the same response you give when those players quit whose work of weeks or months is blithely destroyed by players who enjoy destroying other player's accounts. These players feel there is little reason to continue to play a game where a select few decide on who gets to play and who gets to be destroyed. I have talked to some players who get repeatedly massed back into the Stone Age because they made one mistake, attacked the wrong person or the wrong alliance. This is an unacceptable form of gameplay enjoyed only by those who enjoy hurting other players.

[Goldman123]

I am not a long time player, I only found this game a couple months ago. So far I have been lucky enough to not anger anyone sufficiently that they have mass attacked me. That being said, since I joined, I have heard stories that have little to do with angering someone powerful enough to mass. Some people and some alliances mass people merely for fun. When this happens, it doesn't matter how strong, or how clever you are. If an entire alliance gangs up on someone, they are likely going to be able to destroy that person. Also, 1 person who just thinks it is fun to mass others can choose people at random and destroy them. That isn't a war game. It is just some people getting their kicks by ganging up and destroying someone weaker than they are.

[Kerrus Magrus]

I thonk the point he's trying to do is the loss of def weps. now howabout if def weps go down to 20% strength they get "taken offline for repairs" meaning they no longer add to def, and can'[t be damaged or sabbed while in this state.

[Jael]

But massing is not warfare, not even in the real world of warfare.

What would you call the allied invasion of Iraq??? I'd say it was an awefully big massing.

[Angelus Errare]

But massing is not warfare, not even in the real world of warfare.

What would you call the allied invasion of Iraq??? I'd say it was an awefully big massing.

hahaha, that was an unusually large massing...but that's in terms of real life resources. imagine if nations had the army size and resource amounts as those in the game, that would be a massing no other event in history would have ever seen...but it would be interesting to see that...

now on to the topic of this post. a question i pose to you is that: how would the servers distinguish between a massing and a raiding? for example, today, i raided a guy nearly fifteen times in less than 2 minutes. now, going by what you proposed, i would have had to wait 58 minutes to continue getting the guys uu. plus, it was raiding, and not a massing. so would it still be considered massing? so, with your proposals, anyone that attacks one person 15 times would have to stop, whether it is raiding or massing. i don't think someone who was raiding for uu would be happy.

now if you are still intent on getting a limit on attacking (in turn massing), then you should put a limit on turns used within a one hour space. such as 300 turns can only be used in 30 minutes. the limit on how much turns would be smarter because a player normally uses 1 attack turn per attack when massing, but when a player raids, they would use 15 turns. or else they can make it so that only 300 turns can be used when a person is just attacking for naq, while an unlimited amount of turns can be used while raiding.

^^
i am not recommending that to happen, but i just think it would be a better change to kww913's plan.

[kww913]

I thonk the point he's trying to do is the loss of def weps. now howabout if def weps go down to 20% strength they get "taken offline for repairs" meaning they no longer add to def, and can'[t be damaged or sabbed while in this state.

That would be acceptable to me. However, it addresses only one half of the issue. Continuous attacks also kill off covert units. This too should not be allowed to happen.

Regarding the number of attack turns used, 15 attack turns per attack destroys weapons. The use of 1 AT per attack comes only after the weapons have been destroyed and is used to continue the destruction of the enemy's defenders and covert units.

I considered the idea that raids for UU would often be stopped by this limit, but also believe that raiding 1 person 15 times in an hour is sufficient for stealing UU as well. No need to be greedy. Maybe I'm too nice, but I tend to limit my raids for UU to about 7 or 8 raids per account.

[Saber]

I really don't see how putting a limit would stop someone from gettting massed. I mean if you have an alliance on you their is little chance besides ppt to servive. Most allainces have people all around the world so the 15 attacks per hour would only pospone the destruction and possibly cost them more recources since they would train more defenders and repair their weapons only to be destroyed again. So I really don't see any advantage in doing a limit unless you put like a 1 attack limit which would completely ruin the game.