Originally Posted by
Rassputtin
I understand where your going Calvin and it is a very valid point. It occurs in most games in which the game mechanics do not prevent the "farming" in whatever form it would take in whichever game you speak of.
The top players will farm the smaller players as much as they can unless it is prevented. However the proper and non intimidating and cumbersome way to do this is internally through the mechanics and not by house rules. One example that we have taken is the not attacking or being attacked by states twice your net. And the people protesting against attacking truly tiny states. OTher games utilize a similiar method.
The problem is drastically enhanced when you incorporate teams, alliances or nations into the mix as maggio has stated. The most active and dominant players band up and farm on the new players and less active players thus making the game unenjoyable for those.
It is a slippery slope, but the house rules as I stated are only a portion of the problem imho. Simple things like standard attacking being the norm just don't make sense, and the house rules just lend to it, and the mechanics such as The attacking formulas and unit interactions are fundamentally flawed and further enable to dillema.
Imagine if the community decided that expansion was the norm. And that standard attacking was an act of war. It would put a whole new light on the terms "warring nation" and "netting nation". Warring nations would be warring/attacking for thier land to get big, netting nations would not be, and the simple act that is considered normal now would be cause for a netting nation to retaliate. And instead of attacking and stealing land being the norm and warring nations sole purpose being to obliterate and ruin the set of netting nations by killing them. The act of warring or stealing land through attacks would be a tactical move to try to run away with the set. So a warring nation would be aggressive to try to win, not aggressive simply to kill.
That would eliminate house rules, and new players would only need to follow common sense. Exist peacefully and grow and you should be fine, unless and aggressive nation starts forcibly stealing your land, or you decide to try your hand at forcibly stealing thiers, then decision need to be made.
Now if the core member base, and there are both sides of us, the wicked and the righteouss. Would embrace this, there would be a natural balance. For example there are enough traditional Mr P USA minded players and nations that would intervene if a LOR (no offense intended) type nation tried to go on a standard attack spree and farm people. It would actually be beneficial for netting nations to band together to eliminate an aggressive nation because it would allow them an opportunity to grow via standard attack and gaining land through war. It wouldn't be boring because you know there would be nations who tried to get ahead by attacking so it wouldn't be a game of expanders.
is that the perfect NW scenario... IDK. But there are many ways around the problem we are discussing, especially when the member base is small. But my above example is just one example of how one fundamental change could alter the dynamic, possibly in a positive way.
My other major issue is the generic unit interaction..... that just compounds the issue and is a major turn off, atleast for me. I've discussed this at length before and won't go into it here.
My above scenario also appeals to what a new player would expect drastically more than what currently takes place which would make sense to them.
Not intended to offend you calvin but to the general community. It reminds me of an episode of kitchen nightmares. These peoples restaurants are failing ready to go under, so they call ramsey to come and save the day. (not that I am NW's version of chef ramsey just in general) Then when ramsey gets there and tells them this is ****e and this is ****e they argue with him. Like no, the frozen never fresh food is deliciious we don't want to change that drastically, cant you change the color on the sign out front that will magically make people come into the restaurant and like the food......
The answer is no. Sometimes, the sign needs to be taken down, replaced with a better one, the tables chairs and decor the whole inside needs to be gutted and overhauled, the ingrediants need to be changed to fresher ones and the menu needs to be shorterend or altered.
As I said I'm not Nation Wars chef ramsey, but generally speaking its been my experience that whenever i suggest a change beyond changing the color of the light bulb in the sign, or just adding another gimmick to the menu it is trounced on with disdain and denounced.
Not yet the case here as calvin just pointed out a valid point, but my general experience in the past.
The fact that I logged in, played less than 350 turns and finished 77th last set should be evident in and of itself that something drastic needs to be done.
IDK, im done for now. But when you consider my posts, consider it from a point of view that is not beneficial to you dominating the game, or what you are accustomed to, do not defend or attack the post based on how it would change your ability to be a big fish in a tiny little pond.
Instead think of it objectively as Calvin has done, What would it mean to new players and the game.
Reply With Quote
.. I do read and think about your ideas. You would be shocked how much time i spend thinking about this game and working on new things to keep it fresh and alive. All I strive for is so that this game stays alive. Now to the point, just cause I don't implement things as you write them does not mean I don't listen or like the ideas. Generally what I do is let an idea start, wait for more feedback of the pros and cons and then add it all up and try to come up with something that works. With several of your ideas from the past, there wasn't much I could do with them. You were suggesting changing a few areas of the game's mechanics that I had no idea on how to do. So I put them on my list for the time that I was able to do them. Remember, I just started learning a lot of this not so long ago. As I learn more, I change more. Formula's are still my weakest area. I spend a lot of time working with them and asking questions to people who do know so i can figure it all out and then work on ways to make it happen in the game. So please remember that just cause you posted an idea and it isn't implemented yet, doesn't mean i didn't like it.. (of course there ideas that i don't like) 
