Zangmonkey Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 As a recent recipient of a warning for "XP Farming" I am seeking clarification on what level (if any) of wargames are going to be permitted? Typically when people engage in war games their intention is *not* the same as it would be in a "real" war... War games tend not to involve nukes, for example. So a certain overlap inherently exists between wargames and "XP Farming" and I think the extend should be clarified. If we accept that no other "slot filling"- type violations are occurring. what, if any, war actions are permitted? May two participants exchange naval battles? May two participants exchange aircraft dogfights? May two participants exchange spy operations? If the answer to any or all of these is "no"; to what extend will "research" action be permitted? For example, Statistics collection on spy-op effectiveness involves repeated spy action (to record the range of result) which may occur without any formal war declaration. Likewise, aircraft or naval data to determine likelihood of loss and/or damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Spying only gives XP if it is with a war target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted August 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 Spying only gives XP if it is with a war target. And army only gives XP if your attack is successful.... So there are existing limits to the XP system already aimed at reducing XP for "low risk" action.... but that doesn't answer the question about the extent of war games and research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 I imagine wargames such as the NPO-Sparta one may be very well allowed as both alliances were trying to cause as much damage without the use of nukes. The XP gained if the system was in place would not have benefited those involved all that much as the losses were sizable compared to the bonuses that could have been received. However wargames where as little damage as possible is done and neither party has any intention of using their full arsenal minus the nukes raises serious concern over if the motivation is getting experience or abusing a newly implemented system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empress Kiley Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 I would like to know the answer to this as well. We were under the impression war games were still permitted so long as you were not involved in an actual war at the time and as long as you actually warred, causing real damage and such. We had arranged for war games to start between ourselves and a few allies at the end of next week but since going over a few different threads in this section, I think it wise we put it off until there is an "official" post about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 "Spying only gives XP if it is with a war target." Was that recently added? Because I got XP from spying random nations when it was first added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted August 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) I imagine wargames such as the NPO-Sparta one may be very well allowed as both alliances were trying to cause as much damage without the use of nukes. The XP gained if the system was in place would not have benefited those involved all that much as the losses were sizable compared to the bonuses that could have been received. However wargames where as little damage as possible is done and neither party has any intention of using their full arsenal minus the nukes raises serious concern over if the motivation is getting experience or abusing a newly implemented system. Plenty of wargames have occurred for years which did not pursue the goal of "as much damage without the use of nukes." What was your specific criteria for reporting, since you seemed readily willing and able to identify "XP Farming?" In fact, from what I can tell of this recent round of warns, some wars were removed in which the participants were launching attacks. The possibility that such wars may be violations is ambiguous and frightening.... even in larger or peripheral "real" wars or "duels" between nations it seems that we may inadvertently run afoul of some unwritten rule. So it seems to me like enforcement of this new policy is predicated on whether or not the two warring parties are engaging each other with the entirety of their might. This is terra nova, and I think we all need to understand the limits and implications of the change. Arbitrarily issuing violations because players are exploring a brand new game dynamic is an unsettling precedent. If the intention for "earning" XP was different then let's understand the intention and discuss a better method of its allocation.... So, really, the same question stands; because it's certainly reasonable for a war to take place in which aircraft and ground attacks aren't made (because wins are improbable, or too risky) and it's certainly reasonable for navy attacks to be slowed because of the expense of ships plus the daily limit on purchases and operations. So what's the metric here? Whether or not the participants are lobbing CM's? Because, even then, I don't really understand the goal.... If we were told that wargames are ok as long as you're launching CM's plenty of people would still do it for XP Farming.... Billionaires are quite likely to take the infra damage and convert their dongs into XP. Edited August 9, 2013 by Matthew PK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) Plenty of wargames have occurred for years which did not pursue the goal of "as much damage without the use of nukes." What was your specific criteria for reporting, since you seemed readily willing and able to identify "XP Farming?" In fact, from what I can tell of this recent round of warns, some wars were removed in which the participants were launching attacks. The possibility that such wars may be violations is ambiguous and frightening.... even in larger or peripheral "real" wars or "duels" between nations it seems that we may inadvertently run afoul of some unwritten rule. So it seems to me like enforcement of this new policy is predicated on whether or not the two warring parties are engaging each other with the entirety of their might. This is terra nova, and I think we all need to understand the limits and implications of the change. Arbitrarily issuing violations because players are exploring a brand new game dynamic is an unsettling precedent. If the intention for "earning" XP was different then let's understand the intention and discuss a better method of its allocation.... So, really, the same question stands; because it's certainly reasonable for a war to take place in which aircraft and ground attacks aren't made (because wins are improbable, or too risky) and it's certainly reasonable for navy attacks to be slowed because of the expense of ships plus the daily limit on purchases and operations. So what's the metric here? Whether or not the participants are lobbing CM's? Because, even then, I don't really understand the goal.... If we were told that wargames are ok as long as you're launching CM's plenty of people would still do it for XP Farming.... Billionaires are quite likely to take the infra damage and convert their dongs into XP. We've been told that a clear set of rules on what exactly constitutes XP farming will be forthcoming, at some point. As things stand, the guidelines seem to be "you should have known that it was not acceptable because...", so warns for all! Edited August 9, 2013 by Schad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samwise Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) I can't see why War Games would be illegal. If everything if fair game aside from nukes, there shouldn't be a problem. Nukes have long since been controversial (granted they're more acceptable now) and while I have no problem lobbing nukes over, I still don't like the fact that I'll be forced to in this new system. If I can win a war without nukes, I'd like to save my stockpile for a war I'd need them in considering you can only buy 2 a day. "Spying only gives XP if it is with a war target." Was that recently added? Because I got XP from spying random nations when it was first added. Yeah, that was recently added. Edited August 10, 2013 by Samwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Something isn't right about the status quo. This is very much turning into a catch-22 situation where you can only achieve something through aggressive alliance war, and your nation will take extensive damage, and more than likely your enemy will run destroy generals spy ops on you anyway. It's extremely rare to have 100+ GA wins, even throughout a long CN career, and even if you count the massive wars we've had. Admin seems have added a major wrench to the game by not allowing players to do exactly what the game was created for, which is to simulate a nation, so why are we being punished for LITERALLY simulating war. On a personal note, I felt compelled to lob CM's at all of my raids, not because I'm a jerk, but because it's the only chance I may have to get XP without having a war hastily deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted August 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 What is confusing to me about this policy is that this "new feature" has effectively disabled things we had previously been permitted to do. As such, this "addition" to the gameplay has restricted what constitutes legitimate play... We now have less game to play than before... I just don't get it. Perhaps if the implementation details of this new feature aren't well understood then it should be relegated to TE only until it can be added as an *extension* of gameplay rather than a contraction. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) Plenty of wargames have occurred for years which did not pursue the goal of "as much damage without the use of nukes." What was your specific criteria for reporting, since you seemed readily willing and able to identify "XP Farming?" Well if getting experience was the main goal and testing the war system then I'm sure that could be still valid now maybe, there would still have to be considerable damage as it would not be getting experience if there wasn't any damage been taking. To me XP farming is any organized war where there has been a sizable number of attacks and next to no damage has been done or the damage is limited. In fact, from what I can tell of this recent round of warns, some wars were removed in which the participants were launching attacks. The possibility that such wars may be violations is ambiguous and frightening.... even in larger or peripheral "real" wars or "duels" between nations it seems that we may inadvertently run afoul of some unwritten rule. It's not frightening for me as it is evident that while they were launching attacks they had no intention of doing anything remotely damaging. So, really, the same question stands; because it's certainly reasonable for a war to take place in which aircraft and ground attacks aren't made (because wins are improbable, or too risky) and it's certainly reasonable for navy attacks to be slowed because of the expense of ships plus the daily limit on purchases and operations. Those wars would stand out and it would be obvious as to why there isn't a large amounts of attacks. And that would only be feasible if that nation had no nukes, because if nukes were involved that would not be a good excuse. If a nation completely outgunned was on the end of the stick, I'm sure the system will take that into account. However that isn't the case here. So what's the metric here? Whether or not the participants are lobbing CM's? Because, even then, I don't really understand the goal.... If we were told that wargames are ok as long as you're launching CM's plenty of people would still do it for XP Farming.... Billionaires are quite likely to take the infra damage and convert their dongs into XP. I would not call it a wargame if the only thing you're doing is launching CM's, you may as well play the tournament edition if you want experience firing CM's. And wargames didn't spark this discussion so I have no idea why it is taking center stage, however XP farming did. Edited August 10, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) Something isn't right about the status quo. This is very much turning into a catch-22 situation where you can only achieve something through aggressive alliance war, and your nation will take extensive damage, and more than likely your enemy will run destroy generals spy ops on you anyway. It's extremely rare to have 100+ GA wins, even throughout a long CN career, and even if you count the massive wars we've had. Admin seems have added a major wrench to the game by not allowing players to do exactly what the game was created for, which is to simulate a nation, so why are we being punished for LITERALLY simulating war. On a personal note, I felt compelled to lob CM's at all of my raids, not because I'm a jerk, but because it's the only chance I may have to get XP without having a war hastily deleted. I don't think it is rare to have 100+ GA wins unless you're constantly getting outgunned. It's a tech raid, if it looks like a tech raid you will have no need to lobby CM's and you felt the need to more than that in some cases. I would differ on your analysis of yourself. Edited August 10, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 I don't think it is rare to have 100+ GA wins unless you're constantly getting outgunned. It's a tech raid, if it looks like a tech raid you will have no need to lobby CM's and you felt the need to more than that in some cases. I would differ on your analysis of yourself. 100+ GA wins when you're fighting usually guys with higher infra levels than you happens very frequently in the upper tier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) Typically when people engage in war games their intention is *not* the same as it would be in a "real" war... War games tend not to involve nukes, for example. Alliance war games before the generals update didn't consist of mainly non damaging attacks and never purposely used redundant spy operations, the aim of the game was mostly to see who could do the most damage without the use of nukes in a friendly competition. Even one on one war games which I call duels is normally done the same way. So why don't you understand the difference between proper war games of the past and todays war games XP farming of 20/30/40/50/60 attacks doing less than a couple of thousand nation strength damage or disproportionate damage. If the answer to any or all of these is "no"; to what extend will "research" action be permitted? For example, Statistics collection on spy-op effectiveness involves repeated spy action (to record the range of result) which may occur without any formal war declaration. Likewise, aircraft or naval data to determine likelihood of loss and/or damage. Non of them are new features and have all been around atleast 4 years and been plenty of major wars to collect thousands upon thousands of data. You have been around longer than me and should know "research" is a lame excuse. Edited August 10, 2013 by the rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zangmonkey Posted August 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Alliance war games before the generals update didn't consist of mainly non damaging attacks and never purposely used redundant spy operations, the aim of the game was mostly to see who could do the most damage without the use of nukes in a friendly competition. Even one on one war games which I call duels is normally done the same way. So why don't you understand the difference between proper war games of the past and todays war games XP farming of 20/30/40/50/60 attacks doing less than a couple of thousand nation strength damage or disproportionate damage. Non of them are new features and have all been around atleast 4 years and been plenty of major wars to collect thousands upon thousands of data. You have been around longer than me and should know "research" is a lame excuse. Research is needed to understand the impact on generals, the cost of gaining XP, and the ease and likelihood of their assassination. If the rules were clarified into "you must launch CM's, and you must do destructive spy ops" that would be fine by me... I would still do it because I have money to burn and XP to gain.... but potentially banning due to warns because people are doing [b]something they had previously been allowed to do[/b] is unnerving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) You should only be unnerved when someone actually gets punished for abusing the newly implemented system. Edited August 10, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 You should only be unnerved when someone actually gets punished for abusing the newly implemented system. As a recent recipient of a warning for "XP Farming" I am seeking clarification on what level (if any) of wargames are going to be permitted? Typically when people engage in war games their intention is *not* the same as it would be in a "real" war... War games tend not to involve nukes, for example. So a certain overlap inherently exists between wargames and "XP Farming" and I think the extend should be clarified. If we accept that no other "slot filling"- type violations are occurring. what, if any, war actions are permitted? May two participants exchange naval battles? May two participants exchange aircraft dogfights? May two participants exchange spy operations? If the answer to any or all of these is "no"; to what extend will "research" action be permitted? For example, Statistics collection on spy-op effectiveness involves repeated spy action (to record the range of result) which may occur without any formal war declaration. Likewise, aircraft or naval data to determine likelihood of loss and/or damage. It seems like that already is the case based upon the OP in this thread. Well, at least for some, others are redeclaring new XP only wars and seemingly not getting warned currently (or on their way to bans). It will be interesting to see this situation get clarified in both a clear and consistent manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Warnings are not a punishment, by punishment I mean actually being punished and not being told off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Warnings are not a punishment, by punishment I mean actually being punished and not being told off. So really you want us to wait for nation deletions before saying a word? If that is the case than what is up with all the tattling about XP farming? It is getting to the point where this has shifted from a nation simulator to a game of who is quickest to tell teacher about the bad kid at recess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) So really you want us to wait for nation deletions before saying a word? If that is the case than what is up with all the tattling about XP farming? It is getting to the point where this has shifted from a nation simulator to a game of who is quickest to tell teacher about the bad kid at recess. I'd prefer you wait until something meaningful happens in response to the abuse rather than starting melodrama about how you're unnerved over fear of something that is very unlikely to happen. This is still a nation simulator, just not one where abuse should go unreported. Edited August 10, 2013 by Commander shepard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Research is needed to understand the impact on generals, the cost of gaining XP, and the ease and likelihood of their assassination. If the rules were clarified into "you must launch CM's, and you must do destructive spy ops" that would be fine by me... I would still do it because I have money to burn and XP to gain.... but potentially banning due to warns because people are doing something they had previously been allowed to do is unnerving. Why don't people try traditional war games/duels then where destructive attacks were used and nations burnt with or without the use of nukes? After all its a war game and not XP farming which you want isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 You're implying that not a single one of those wars had full damage done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 You're implying that not a single one of those wars had full damage done. Did I say every war on the war screen? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejack Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 I'd prefer you wait until something meaningful happens in response to the abuse rather than starting melodrama about how you're unnerved over fear of something that is very unlikely to happen. This is still a nation simulator, just not one where abuse should go unreported. Warns have been issued. Warns are meaningful. I apologize if you do not believe so. What has not been issued is clarity. The whole economic boost system was issued without clarity nor instruction, it is being modified on the fly and the testers are being punished for testing. What you call 'abuse' may in reality be people trying to understand a new system without any guidelines. Reporting testers only chills testing and gets warns issued and at some point it will get nations deleted, all because there is no clarity. You claim abuse yet you really don't know, nor could you. None of which is relevant to the issue, which is a lack of understandable and clear guidelines - I only mentioned the reporting as it seemed so kindergarten to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.