View Full Version : Alliances cheating or not.
The_Hawk
12-03-2002, 01:42
It is a well known fact that Alliances are not part of the story line and there are no features designed to aid a faction in helping another faction.Nor will any ever be any features installed to aid an FC's ability to help an enemy. (confirmed by Wingee)
Fact is the only feature that makes alliances possible is the Faction Commanders ability to communicate with other FCs . But any agreement to fire or not fire at each other is not part of the rules.Since the majority of players here agree that a "Training Camp" is cheating then it should follow that an identical type of agreement between two Faction Commanders that controls who to shoot and when, should also be considered a form of cheating. Not that it makes the Navy any more honorable because they had to stand up to 3 entire factions that "Allied" together just to defeat them , but it made the odds impossible as if there were cheaters and multis that no defense is possible against.
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying here because I am for alliances even the faction I was in was called The "Alliance" Navy
but by the same token I am for "Leveling" camps too. I see them both as just different forms of the same thing.
Where the MCA was cheated in G1 by an agreement of controled aggression between 2 other factions the Navy was cheated by an agreement of non aggression by 3 other factions
We all know how the vote will turn out but I want to see the arguements concerning this issue.
But The_Hawk, there IS a defense against a three-way alliance against you: it's called diplomacy! Mind you, it's a little harder to manage in the long run, but doable. After all, when push comes to shove, you're dealing with real people, and you develop a history with the people you interact with. This can be to your advantage or not. But it is very much a real element of the game. Not using it to its full advantage is like asking your faction to use only 4 moves instead of 5 when attacking!
You know what, I wish you'd rejoin the game (and I'm assuming you haven't already). You seem to be bothered by what happened with the three-way, and I don't really blame you. But since then, a LOT has happened, it's been noteworthy and interesting and enjoyable and frustrating, and a lot of my old adversaries are now my wingmen, most of the hatchets seem to have been buried, and we're all having a lot of fun. Even folks who've joined (grumble, grumble, I'll NEVER be happy in this faction... GRRRR.... (to paraphrase)) from former enemy camps are finding the experience rewarding. I think joining that would be good for you. (Just maybe don't do it under your old name.)
I mean, why end it on a sour note, you know? Life's too short...
Oh, and to get back on topic: training camps "feel" like cheating where alliances don't. I mean, you find one, and you think of all the work that you had to do to rank up your ship, and it seems it took "forever", and here's some munchkin who didn't have to go through all that to get the same result! It's just frustrating for those who do make an effort to play well, where taking advantage of the enemy is done through capitalizing on their mistakes, and not by maximising on originally unforseen and emergent feature of the game.
I think what it boils down to, is that alliances are kosher because as a community we agree with them, but with training camps we do not. The rules we play by aren't necessarily just the ones set by Wingee, or Infogrames, but also the ones we collectively agree to abide by.
-- inVurt
Whitewolf
12-03-2002, 04:25
I don't think so.See the help that Clay gives when you ask what an FC is.
This is what Clay says:
FCs can also message each other (without knowing who the opposing sides FC is) so they can arrange traitorous acts and the general breaking of treaties!
I guess that about settles it....I think.....
captcoyote
12-03-2002, 05:25
I have to agree with Invurt. Diplomacy and the ability to negotiate are real talents. If you have an FC that can be on-line a lot, and negotiate alliance and work the FC's the game is practically won. However such a human being would almost have to be inhuman, since the game demands too much.
Unfortunately there is also an inherent racism to this game. If a person cannot speak effectively in English he ends up hurting his faction. A person who can effectively use English and handle it in such a way to manipulate the thinking of other FC's practically has the game won from the beginning. The only thing that brings this game back down to a level playing field is the fact that, an FC who can be on line a lot of the time can sometimes make up for his own ineffective negotiating skills.
Whitewolf
12-03-2002, 07:36
Probably,but Silent Frog was a very good FC,despite his command of the english language.
Originally posted by The_Hawk
It is a well known fact that Alliances are not part of the story line
is it? you mentioned yourself the Navy "Alliance", what about Mwari Colonial "Alliance"? obviously the notion of "Alliances" exist in the gameworld. and if you're refering to the EoCo "story" - I really wish you'd check your "facts"...
EoCo History Page (http://gameserv.infogrames.fr:8080/eoc/history.php) - alliances are mentioned, treaties are mentioned...
and there are no features designed to aid a faction in helping another faction. Fact is the only feature that makes alliances possible is the Faction Commanders ability to communicate with other FCs.
and wouldn't you agree that the ability for FC's to communicate allows the Factions to help eachother? after all, thats exactly what happens. Clays words have already been mentioned, and this sort of behaviour is perfectly normal for groups of ppl - either in the real world or a fantasy one.
however - armies shooting at eachother (with live fire+ damaging "allies" ships/weaponry is not), neither is the idea that a pilot can gain "Combat Experience" aka Points from simply firing a trigger under "no real threat" conditions....
all soldiers admit that NO training prepares them fully for real combat - so why should we condone ppl getting level 10 ships for nothing?
But any agreement to fire or not fire at each other is not part of the rules.Since the majority of players here agree that a "Training Camp" is cheating then it should follow that an identical type of agreement between two Faction Commanders that controls who to shoot and when, should also be considered a form of cheating.
aha, and here we get to it, this isn't about alliances, this is about training camps... you try to link the 2 as similar and hope to convince ppl to legalise training camps with your logic, but as already pointed out your arguements are flawed, and your "facts" not corroborated.
Not that it makes the Navy any more honorable because they had to stand up to 3 entire factions that "Allied" together just to defeat them
boring...
but it made the odds impossible as if there were cheaters and multis that no defense is possible against.
ah, Faction nationalism, how it reeks.... win/lose - who cares? only the eejit imo, play on ffs !!
Don't misinterpret what I'm saying here because I am for alliances even the faction I was in was called The "Alliance" Navy but by the same token I am for "Leveling" camps too. I see them both as just different forms of the same thing.
Where the MCA was cheated in G1 by an agreement of controled aggression between 2 other factions the Navy was cheated by an agreement of non aggression by 3 other factions
We all know how the vote will turn out but I want to see the arguements concerning this issue.
just because you see them the same and cant differentiate, doesn't mean the rest of us cant see the vital differences, check the other thread as a refresher, but i'll add this - Training Camps are BORING - makes the game just a dam sim-ship-leveler - what a totally boring and rewardless way to play the game, thats when this game DOES become "just pressing buttons"....
Alliances, on the other hand - add MUCH of the Spice to the game, without them there would be NO intrigue and the game would be much lessened....
The Boss
12-03-2002, 11:12
We all know how the vote will turn out but I want to see the arguements concerning this issue.
As a newbie, to EOCO, I am not sure where you are coming from with this :confused:
To me there is an obvious difference between an "Alliance" and a so called "Training camp".
An "Alliance" is people working together, helping each other, to attain the goal.
A "Traning camp" in this instance is just a form of leveling up,which can be done quite easily in other way's.
As a player of TVS, I found the best form of training was to move around in a group, exchanging idea's and discussing situations. This of course is easier done on TVS, because of Taras bar (Chat room facility)
It's funny, no, that people remember that the Navy was attacked by three factions, but nobody remembers that it wasn't just them defending against it?
The Navy had the League and MAAS remnants helping them. Admittedly there weren't many of them left at the time, but they were there.
Now, alliances. Let's think back to the wars in real life. Without alliances, most of those wars would of turned out differently. But never in real life have you seen one man shoot his ally just to get combat experience.
Don't go saying to me, "It's just a game.", because I realise this. I use real life situations to emphasise my point.
Training camps are just a cheap way to get points, and level up. People spends days or sometimes even weeks getting up to level 10, and then get destroyed having to start all over again. Doesn't that create a massive imbalance in the game?
Shooting your allies is just like shooting a member of your own faction. You just don't do it, unless your entire faction is planning to do so on such & such a turn, or you've been told so by the FC.
My point being, if you haven't guessed, is alliances are good :tdown: , whereas training camps are bad. :tup:
The Boss
12-03-2002, 13:07
Hear! Hear!
well said.....:D :tdown:
Whitewolf
12-03-2002, 13:35
Training camps are cheating,I believe.
Can we please drop the whole issue of training camps, they are part of the game history but I haven't seen them since the game1. This sooooooo old news that it should put in archives to collect dust. We all know that people hate them so what's there more to discuss.
What comes to alliances, they belong to this game, regardless what rules or things say. The only way to remove them is to remove the FC's ability to discuss with other FC's and since that ain't going to happen the alliances will stay regardless of storylines or whatnot.
ah, but this isn't about Training Camps, it's about alliances !!!
is it about Training Camps really?? wow, what a roundabout way of trying to justify them...
[/sarcasm]
Whitewolf
12-03-2002, 16:19
Err......
The way I see it,alliances do sometimes lead to training camps.Perhaps one way to eliminate this problem is to have the FC access a screen that enables him to set who the faction is allied with,and as a result,the allied factions ships show up as friendlies instead.
The_Hawk
12-03-2002, 16:29
first of all I would like to say that my mentor and friend from the beta test of this game is as always full of real insight and experience , thank you inVert for your words of wisdom.
If there is a set of guide lines created by the gamers that play the games that transends the guide lines set by the creators of the game itself then that would put this thread in a completely different light. I am basing this vote on the ideas that the designers had for the game and alliances were not part of it.
"I believe" (to quote whitewolf in part)
and this is about alliances and not training camps but for some reason they seem to go hand in hand .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a well known fact that Alliances are not part of the story line
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kudos
is it? you mentioned yourself the Navy "Alliance", what about Mwari Colonial "Alliance"? obviously the notion of "Alliances" exist in the gameworld. and if you're refering to the EoCo "story" - I really wish you'd check your "facts"...
EoCo History Page - alliances are mentioned, treaties are mentioned...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an email conversation I had directly with Wingee in a request for a feature that he might consider that would aid an FC in controlling his own faction's pilots that appear bent on shooting allies his exact words were and I quote:
"There will never be any features like this added because alliances are not part of the story line"
and I even used the same arguement you are claiming that I didn't check the facts on. Wingee doesn't agree with you here
nor does he care for alliances.It's supposed to be six seperate factions fighting against each other for dominance according to him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kudos
all soldiers admit that NO training prepares them fully for real combat - so why should we condone ppl getting level 10 ships for nothing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something wrong with this statement but misprints aside I don't think the training camps will work past level 5 because the ships cause too much damage at that point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kudos
aha, and here we get to it, this isn't about alliances, this is about training camps... you try to link the 2 as similar and hope to convince ppl to legalise training camps with your logic, but as already pointed out your arguements are flawed, and your "facts" not corroborated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all you are wrong, this is about alliances and I am not trying to link the two they are linked. and it's not my arguement
and my "facts" are corroborated. Thank you.
If training camps were the issue I'd like to find out why everyone thinks they are illegal , granted they are not the best they may even be the worse way to achieve the desired goal but I don't see them as illegal .
But that is not the arguement flawed or otherwise it is about Alliances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
captcoyote
A person who can effectively use English and handle it in such a way to manipulate the thinking of other FC's practically has the game won from the beginning. The only thing that brings this game back down to a level playing field is the fact that, an FC who can be on line a lot of the time can sometimes make up for his own ineffective negotiating skills.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a guy that may think I disrespected him in the Navy but I tried my best to give him what he wanted because he is a smart man and disserves the respect ,but here he points out something I found out not to be true. There is nothing that can make up for ineffective negotiating skills .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The_Hawk
I am basing this vote on the ideas that the designers had for the game and alliances were not part of it.
It is a well known fact that Alliances are not part of the story line
According to an email conversation I had directly with Wingee in a request for a feature that he might consider that would aid an FC in controlling his own faction's pilots that appear bent on shooting allies his exact words were and I quote:
"There will never be any features like this added because alliances are not part of the story line"
and I even used the same arguement you are claiming that I didn't check the facts on. Wingee doesn't agree with you here
nor does he care for alliances.It's supposed to be six seperate factions fighting against each other for dominance according to him.
Wingee wasn't the only person to contribute to what is EoCo.
this is obvious from the EoCo History link posted earlier, Clays words on the comm screen, and common sense that Infogrames/PS personel (and probly Vision Studies also) must have given some input to the creation of the game.
Fact is Wingee isn't infallible m8, he can be wrong too (just check the bugs ;p), or like anyone, he can word a mail wrong or get mixed up.. and in this case - since we're talking about a game played by a large number of ppl - I FAR prefer to believe and accept to be game-facts statements made from the game interface that EVERY player can see+ understand than a personal mail to one person. Even from the coder of the game.
May I point out that Wingee's own pet-project TVS allows for alliances?
could I also suggest, since your mail to him was probly asking for the ability for the FC (somehow) to stop his Factions Pilots from shooting an allied ship - that his attitude and response is that "no, players of the game will not be curtailed from firing at who they like" (because that would require a very false addition to the gameworld),"causing trouble between Factions if that is the way they want to play, for whatever reason" etc... making a *solid* alliance between Factions and no chance for the misunderstandings or rogue pilots to cause the friction that leads to mistrust that leads to alliances breaking down.
as it is, and this is proven over the rounds, never has it NOT been "six seperate factions fighting against each other for dominance" - because POLITICS has ALWAYS been another frontline between the factions, even when allied.
plz check Clays words before bothering to contest this, wonder what they mean, how they got there, and the truth in them that has shown through every round.
soldiers admit that NO training prepares them fully for real combat - so why should we condone ppl getting level 10 ships for nothing?
There is something wrong with this statement but misprints aside
What? oh do point it out...
don't think the training camps will work past level 5 because the ships cause too much damage at that point.
*yawn*
me=bored again. does anyone else find this style of playing this 3 hour turn game really boring? me I love (in a masochistic way) the tension created while flying my ship in a battlezone, without that the game is nothing...
aha, and here we get to it, this isn't about alliances, this is about training camps... you try to link the 2 as similar and hope to convince ppl to legalise training camps with your logic, but as already pointed out your arguements are flawed, and your "facts" not corroborated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all you are wrong, this is about alliances and I am not trying to link the two they are linked. and it's not my arguement
and my "facts" are corroborated. Thank you.
If training camps were the issue I'd like to find out why everyone thinks they are illegal , granted they are not the best they may even be the worse way to achieve the desired goal but I don't see them as illegal .
But that is not the arguement flawed or otherwise it is about Alliances
no, the earlier "Facts" as available to EVERY player point out that saying "alliances aren't part of the storyline" IS wrong.
and training camps is the real reason behind this thread - thats obvious to anyone reading your first post, didn't you (and the Navy you led) get a bit of stick earlier this round for using Training Camps? and I remember them being suggested earliy on myself, I disagreed of course.
Now, put yourself IN the gameworld for a moment, as if its real...
2/3/4/5 Factions allying - joining together to reach a particular goal, say the death of another Faction - these factions are all using eachother for their own ends, they aren't working to win "together", they are still playing with their own goal to win, just like has happened each game, and it's exactly the kind of thing that could happen in RL - no need for fantasy here..
2/3/4/5 Factions allying - shooting at eachothers ships in a sector of space, but not destroying them, just battering them a bit, in RL ppl would die, limited resources would be used up repairing etc, it's just too much away from any realworld situation - it would never happen-, and I say again its BORING.
oh, and plz try and learn to use the boards QUOTE tags etc...
ask clay for help about faction commanders... hum
*CLAY: Fleet Commanders have the unenviable task of keeping their pilots updated with the knowledge of who is doing what, where.
The Fleet Commander or "FC" has the ability to do a location scan on any of the locations to see who is currently there, who is Capsule Jumping in and who is Capsule Jumping out. An FC CANNOT see ships enemy ships that are powered down. Your Fleet Commander must not be destroyed - if they do you will lose the ability scan all locations.
FCs can also message each other (without knowing who the opposing sides FC is) so they can arrange traitorous acts and the general breaking of treaties!
To make life for the FC more difficult their ability to power down is removed.
Fleet Commanders are voted in by the pilots in the Fleet. Once voting has started, voting lasts for 2 days (16 turns) before they are counted and a Fleet Commander is assigned.
A Fleet Commander can also resign or decline their position at any time and allow another player to be voted in.*
so er treaties are officially mentioned in the game help files under faction commander help... so i guess they are legal :rollani:
what a daft subject.. alliances not legal... half the fun of the game is ganging up on the weak guys with a massive join fleet from several factions :)
The_Hawk
13-03-2002, 19:56
Originally posted by kudos
Now, put yourself IN the gameworld for a moment, as if its real...
If that was possible it wouldn't be a gameworld anymore
it would be reality The game cannot be real
=========================================
kudos:
oh, and plz try and learn to use the boards QUOTE tags etc
=========================================
As anyone can see I have used the Quote tag but will I use them?
No I won't. The QUOTE tags are what you use to make people like me look foolish for saying the things I feel. Maybe the defination of story line means something else to Wingee than it does to whomever wrote the stuff Clay says. I pointed out the stuff Clay said to Zarrock the Navy FC in G2 when he thought the scan included powered down ships. If I recieved an email from the only "admin" of this game that said what it did about alliances REGARDLESS of what Clay or even GOD says why do you dis me for it ? There is a point where a persons opinions can be corrected tactfully and their views of certain subjects can be broadened by educating them. But everything that I was trying to learn from starting this post was summed up very nicely by the first reply. I have a great deal of respect for someone who puts his ideas and comments the way inVert did. He has no need to QUOTE anyone and no need to belittle anyone . But Tagert, in another posting, hit the nail on the head when he told me to have "fun" attempting to belittle his post and him. That is precicely why you do this QUOTE thing to people like me isn't it? because you find it fun. I find it as disrespectful as creating a ship with the name F**KYOU but to them it's fun or a hacker disrupting the entire game by blowing up a base or two to them it's fun. So I don't want to use QUOTE tags nor do I feel the need to belittle people or their posts. I found out all I needed to know here from a very respectful gamer who just said what needed to be said about the post and not about me. You could learn a few things from him , I think.
Originally posted by The_Hawk
If that was possible it wouldn't be a gameworld anymore
it would be reality The game cannot be real
=========================================
kudos:
oh, and plz try and learn to use the boards QUOTE tags etc
=========================================
As anyone can see I have used the Quote tag but will I use them?
No I won't. The QUOTE tags are what you use to make people like me look foolish for saying the things I feel. Maybe the defination of story line means something else to Wingee than it does to whomever wrote the stuff Clay says. I pointed out the stuff Clay said to Zarrock the Navy FC in G2 when he thought the scan included powered down ships. If I recieved an email from the only "admin" of this game that said what it did about alliances REGARDLESS of what Clay or even GOD says why do you dis me for it ? There is a point where a persons opinions can be corrected tactfully and their views of certain subjects can be broadened by educating them. But everything that I was trying to learn from starting this post was summed up very nicely by the first reply. I have a great deal of respect for someone who puts his ideas and comments the way inVert did. He has no need to QUOTE anyone and no need to belittle anyone . But Tagert, in another posting, hit the nail on the head when he told me to have "fun" attempting to belittle his post and him. That is precicely why you do this QUOTE thing to people like me isn't it? because you find it fun. I find it as disrespectful as creating a ship with the name F**KYOU but to them it's fun or a hacker disrupting the entire game by blowing up a base or two to them it's fun. So I don't want to use QUOTE tags nor do I feel the need to belittle people or their posts. I found out all I needed to know here from a very respectful gamer who just said what needed to be said about the post and not about me. You could learn a few things from him , I think.
*sigh*
with a rant like that no one needs to "belittle" you.....
If you've got a Problem with QUOTE tags, I suggest you take it up with the creators of the vB board...
obviously they are the nastiest ppl on the planet for putting such vicious things in the public domain.....
This is turning into one of those spousal arguments where each partner absolutely has to have the last word. Please stop and just let it go. This is about a game, one which is supposed to be fun. If you have a difference of opinion, argue it at the point of your cannon: ultima ratio regum. Out here it becomes personal, and it ultimately isn't worth it.
Well Lemming me-old-china teapot. Good to see your smiling face :grngrin:
I agree. Alliances are perfectly fine in my eyes. An alliance like real life is an agreement between parties to mutually benfit each other.
If two factions attack another without consulting they are still performing an alliance. Just an unbeknown one. The advntage with informing others is that the attacks become co-ordinated. Alliances generally only hold out for the destruction of a base and then fighters get bored and turn on each other. Sheesh
Shed
Starduster
14-03-2002, 15:35
I find it funny that The_Hawk has a problem with alliances. He certainly used them to attack MCA with the Maas. Not just in defense of his system.
In his original post, he also mentions that the Navy had to fight off 3 factions. Now we know he had the remnants of the Maas and League helping which effectively doubled the size of his fleet; but MCA did not have that advantage when double-teamed by the Navy/Maas alliance. Interesting that he would complain when hit with the same tactic that he used.
Starduster
ThePlayer
15-03-2002, 21:44
training camps are wrong if they put bad pilots in high-ranking positions. You only have to look at certain elements of the old 3Way CoW to discover what happens when you get pilots who think they are good pilots but really aren't.
If a great pilot, such as myself (ha!I wish!) were to die, then i see no problem with the allied FC sending in an R10 for some quick ranking.
ThePlayer
Still in the game
vBulletin® v3.6.9, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.