Limits on Massing

[barakek]

it will never happen far too many players enjoy the adrenaline rush of massing enemys for this to work also dont look to real life look to the show gou,ould would not be above launching massive multiple attacks lol

[Kerrus Magrus]

but the gould tend to go away when you bury your gate.

also, during 'raids' you should neither do causalty damage nor covert damaghe as it is a raid, not an occupation.

[JIX]

there is away to stop players massing you.

join a good alliance,or make peace with him

get a better commader that can deal with him


limiting how many times you can raid someone is just stupid,it would destroy the game for alot of people

limiting attacks on people would destroy the game for those people that like to war after all it is a war game

[Artiglio]

WTH, this is the stupidest idea ever, if you put a limit on massing how am i supose to destroy people

[Wolf359]

I agree - and think yourselves lucky!!! There was a time when massing meant that your whole account (except covert) got destroyed! And believe me - it was a lot more difficult recovering from those massings than it is to recover from the current ones!

You need to look at the facts - you are only ever going to get massed if you:

a) Make an enemy/annoy a big alliance/player.

b) Leave too many UU out.

So the easy way to avoid it is:

a) Do not annoy/try to be clever with players/alliances that have been around long enough to think of massing you as no different to swatting a fly.

b) Join an alliance to help you.

c) Manage your account effectively - it is not just about the number of UU out, but also your covert level (the higher it is, the less people will be able to see your stats), your defence (the higher it is, the harder it becomes to attack/raid) and attack (a high attack will make someone think twiceabout attacking you).

The obvious retort to this is that 'there are always the top players who will always be able to see and attack you!' True - but then again, the top players will not be bothered about a few thousnad UU that lower ranked players leave out - it would not be cost effective for them to attack.

Bottom line - as a lot of these tend to be - manage your account and play the game. No more suggestions about limiting attacks or weapons going offline if they get 20% damage - that is almost like saying that an attacking army would not finish off the job of destroying a piece of machinery!

[kww913]

Wolf, I would normally agree with you, that if you don't annoy the big players/big alliances, you are going to be ok. But that simply isn't the case. There are known instances in which a big player or big alliance has randomly chosen to mass someone for the fun of it. There are also players out there who mass attack others merely for the fun of it. They keep their rank down by having no defense and minimal or no strike as well, but when someone attacks them, they retaliate by purchasing large amounts of offensive weaponry and massing the account of the person who attacked them.

In most cases in the real world, the defensive capabilities of a nation are not completely destroyed. This is because they are able to respond in real time and either surrender or make a deal with the enemy, or as in some cases such as Iraq in 91, the armed forces themselves surrender without the guidance of the Commander-in-chief.

But leaving out real-world analogies, it is only cost effective to mass someone in the game. It is impossible to seek out and destroy every defensive installment and weapon, along with soldiers and covert spies, in a short period of time. The game puts them all in one place, allows attackers to do damage to every single weapon on every single attack. I realize that such is probably a necessity for the game, but allowing the absolute destruction of an account is not (regardless of the ease of recovery now as opposed to earlier forms of massing, a purely irrelevant argument if I have ever heard one).

The fact is that accounts at SGW get wiped out every day not because a player makes another player mad, but because one player knowing he has the capability and getting some sort of deranged high out of it, chooses to destroy a random account for no reason.

[Reaver]

The fact is that accounts at SGW get wiped out every day not because a player makes another player mad, but because one player knowing he has the capability and getting some sort of deranged high out of it, chooses to destroy a random account for no reason.

I think you're overstating your case, to say the least. If it were really this bad, there would be virtually no one left by now. Instead, the game is growing.

[kww913]

Yes, I used a bit of hyperbole. It isn't everyday, but it does happen.

[Wolf359]

Like I said though - accounts do not get wiped out - certainly not by massing alone - you need to sab as well to get rid of the attack weapons - unlike in the old days!

The game evolves -and to keep up and survive you must evolve with it - yes, some players/alliances do decide to mass someone just for the fun of it - unlucky if it happens to you!

To survive you must evolve your gameplay to a method which will allow you to survive as an individual player - or, join an alliance.

Limiting massings would be stupid as, more often than not in my experience, the majority of massings are for legitimate reasons - threats, wars, pre-emptive strikes, retaliations, show of force to avoid a war/teach a lesson.

This suggestion could effectively kill off (even more) alliance wars - as the income of some players now is such that the limit on the massings means that they have the time and the resources to fully rebuild before the next wave.

I think the point can be made in this simple sentence: It is a war game - if you want to survive, you need to find a way to do it - not ask for a modification that allows you to do it.

[Lord Dougy]

can i just ask how do u expect ppl to fight if u cant mass?

next ur'll say that sabs are bad coz a bully hides his name as well...

then ur say u can only be attacked once per day....

then ur say u should only be able to use 15 turns per day....

then ur'll want to name ur children wolf359....

when will it end?????

[Saber]

Just thought I would point out that for any change of this kind you would need a lot of support IE over half the active players and as far as I can see the only person backing this is you so either get other people to back this up or I would just drop it.

[Radium]

I am not positive what I think about this.But I am wondering if the calls against it are like the story of the little boy who cried wolf.

Is it possible that if people knew that their account was not going to be destroyed in five minutes while they were offline there would actually be more wars and more fighting? Currently there is so much fear of retaliation and having your account destroyed that everyone runs around wanting to get along with everyone else. The motive behind that is fear of destruction.

So for those of you who want more fighting you should look at more then the limits. Destroying an account would still be possible, it just might take a bit more skill is all. That in itself presents a problem. Most players after playing a game for a while get comfortable with how it works and forcing them to change their tactics and think instead of just going through a mindless excercise they perfected months earlier upsets them.

I am not saying that this suggestion would improve the game. But I think that most of the people responding have not looked deeper into what might take place if it was adopted. Most game enhancements seem to avoid looking at the way it will change HOW people play the game. We have seen that with miners, raiding, the first market and the current market.

[Flavar]

well there should be no limit on massings but i think most people know Teal'Cs case and problem* it has to stopsomewhere if you ask me. Really or at leasst a way to strike back against people that constantly live on ppt and then mass somebody and either go back on ppt or sell everything.


*There has to be a solution to that and really i wont get involved there but it is no nice feeling that you know that you have absolutely no idea how to defend somebody you consider as friend. ( and i considered using 100s of billions, just that i still didnot came to a solution)

[[SGC_ReplicÅtors]]

i remember back in the day send 1 spy and it takes the entire spy power of ur entire realm with him....and NO LIMITs.......that was indeed the days

[Jean Gregoire Gabriel]

Like I said though - accounts do not get wiped out - certainly not by massing alone - you need to sab as well to get rid of the attack weapons - unlike in the old days!
[/b]

I believe the attack (and covert back then) force was always immune to defending attacks.

Regardlessly, do I think this suggestion could work? No, not at the moment; player backlash would be too great.

Do I think it's a good suggestion? Not in its current form.

Do I think the reasoning behind it is solid? Yes (give or take).

I believe 'massings' can provide a function hard to achieve (extreme sabotaging notwithstanding, which could then only do 10% damage each day) that is necessary for this game. However I do not think it the best means of bringing about that result. As it stands, the 'mass-er' has a significant advantage in bringing about the downfall of the 'mass-ee,' requiring only 1/5th of the defending forces defence power for their attack, and sufficient turns and time (which is normally available by the bucketload as most humans require approximately 6 hours sleep a day, minimum) for the defender to be incapable of repairing their defenses.

I think perhaps the best stimulus for massing to be curbed, is not that anyone can be targeted by certain players, but that anyone can be the (successful) aggressor in a mass attack (providing they have 1/5th of the targets defence, which is all too easy to achieve). Considering the options of multiple attackers on a limited (singular) defence, further unbalances the dynamic.

In summary, I would like to see a fairer result from massing (what is basically a crude mechanism, requiring little work), limiting the damage, but still allowing for the capability for someone to be significantly hurt within the game (perhaps utlizing other aspects of the game - whether sabotage limits being raised, with increased ability to harm the covert department etc.). Being able to damage others' accounts is a must in a war game, but the current method being so unbalanced does not agree with me.


J.G.G.
honestly