ok, lets take an RTS for example.
we'll use starcraft.
top down real time strategy game.
online you can have a max of 8 players in a game.
lets say its a 2v2v2.
however, unknown to you, it's secretly a 4v2.
unless the 2 are korean, they will always lose (kor pwn in craft)
lets say its a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 ffa.
however, 2 or 3 people team up and just crush everyone else.
how is this (as harley said) fair or fun?
if you allow this type of things, then it will *always* fall down to who has the most friends (again, as harley said)
this is a *game*
ie: meant to be played for enjoyment.
if i join a game solo and the corp max is 5 and i am playing against a full corp, that's fine, if i wanted to, i could fill my corp.
however, if i have a full corp, and i am playing against TWO full corps, that is no longer fun, because where will it end?
lets say next game, i pull in Xide, K3, CK, and Oz.
our corp will obviously win.
so you guys choose to make an alliance to take us out.
however, two corps can't do it, so you pull a third corp in.
you still can't so you pull in a fourth and fifth corp...
so eventually, the sheer amount of people on your team will far outweigh my team's skill.
how is this fun? how does it prove anything?
it's just lame.
and once again, as harley said:

"Better players don't need to mega corp, only no talent losers need to mega corp."

heh.
nuff said

How about an RTS that's actually about strategy instead of who can click fastest?

Rise of Nations has multiplayer modes with full diplomacy. Part of the point of the game is making shaky friendships so you only have to fight on one front at a time. There's always the chance of betrayal, but you hope they're busy enough with THEIR front not to turn on you until you're done.

It can be perfectly fun if everyone is aware that alliances are possible and allowed. Granted, if all but one pair of people play the game as if alliances are the spawn of Satan, that pair is going to own everyone because they weren't so closed-minded. But when EVERYONE goes in with alliances in mind, they tend to balance themselves.

Rarely are people going to gang up on the weakest player. What would be the point? THAT definitely isn't fun, as there's no challenge in it. What naturally occurs throughout the games I've listed (and TW is a lot more like a TBS than an RTS--games last days rather than minutes; unlims are more like RTS, I suppose) is alliances shift and tend to balance themselves. If one player starts to get too strong, people will turn on that player so he doesn't extend his lead too far; weaker players will sort of become "vassals" of the mid-tier, perhaps receiving some resources since their smaller, more efficient empires can spend those resources better (but not enough to become a threat to that mid-tier player later if they succeed in taking the leader down!). And if the strongest player doesn't manage to extend his lead and starts to move down the ladder, he'll earn new allies to fight the newest leader, and so on.

And actually, yes, Rexx. If an alliance is strong enough to hold at the end of the game, both could declare an allied victory. To borrow the analogy from the other similar thread on this topic, the US didn't turn on the UK after Germany fell just because we were out of targets. Allied victories usually require alliances set in stone pre-game to balance properly, however, since otherwise people will just ally themselves with the strongest player to "share" the victory, having the opposite effect of a diplomatic free-for-all, strengthening rather than weakening the top player.

Edit: Game diplomacy also requires the players have more self-control than the examples of "bad megacorping" exhibit. You can't allow RL friendships and vendettas to get in the way of your in-game diplomatic decisions. Running off to get your RL posse to always back you up all game and then "let you win" in the end is just lame and defeats the entire purpose. These decisions have to be made game by game based on situational strategy. Really, what's the point of the game if you already know who's likely to win going in? I prefer games to come very close to balanced rather than applying horse race odds to everything. "20:1 says Slim's team wins because all the vets are on his corp." Boring. I couldn't have fun being on the winning side of that. No challenge. Not that that'd stop those vets from smack-talking about their "big win" for the next few months despite the fact they did it with broken keyboards and no scripts because their competition sucked and couldn't ally to give them a real run for their money.

Okay let me chime in, we can talk about the RTS's all day and get nowhere fast as it applies to TW, I play EVE online and it has features of a few games. But the bottom line is this, the sharing of info and teaming up to get a better player or group of players taken down from sheer numbers is lame and shows poor skills and player attitudes, I think if you are going to win a game it should be on your own merits and your skills, not a multi combined effort to get one player or group of players, and this is meant in general as to apply to all forms of games that have live player interaction and is played to win. In TW this form of play is MegaCorping, which is a bad practice to do, I myself am not on the par of player as Slim,K3,Gypsy,Jh, or the rest of the elites, but I would rather lose or win fair, regardless of my skills. This to me is the sign of a good player and some great players too, I have had a chance to play against the best players in BOTE a few times, and had my backside busted by them and take it with stride and thank them for the learning experience, but I would never stoop to MegaCorp to beat them, because I want to do it own my own.

This is my .02 and the way I feel about MegaCorping.

Oh and Harley Slim is slowly gaining ground on posts![:D]

Jeez the flood control got me again!!!

Slim how do you do it and not get caught by it?

quote:Originally posted by Vulcan

I would rather lose or win fair, regardless of my skills. This to me is the sign of a good player

Well said Vulcan!

I see that this thread is going down a SGO kind of road. People are arguing against the mechanics of the game because its not "realistic" enough. But its a GAME. It's not realistic, it's not meant to be and hopefully never will be.

The rules are abitrary and unrealistic! That's right, they are if you actually think about it. But thats what makes it fun to play. How many people who play a game that consisted of waiting in line? But thats something realistic that happens to all of us. That doesn't mean it makes for a good game.

For whatever reason, however long ago, it was decided that corp limits would be instituted. Is that an arbitrary rule that is completely divorced from reality? Yes. But thats a good thing! Every game has rules, no matter how "realistic" its is, and the better players will always be those who learn those rules intimately and know how to work with them. Corp limits should in fact be looked upon as a form of asset management, an expansion of turn management really. You have to manage creds, ships, planets, turns, and number of corpies (or total number of turns per corp).

And as has been stated here several times already, wheres the fun in 2 on 1? I could go beat up old ladies all day long and never lose a fight, but wheres the fun in that? If you can't beat a team, you need to improve your skills until such time as you can, not recruit an army to do the work for you. Relying too much on a horde of allies will only make you a weaker player in the end.

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy

How about an RTS that's actually about strategy instead of who can click fastest?

Rise of Nations has multiplayer modes with full diplomacy. Part of the point of the game is making shaky friendships so you only have to fight on one front at a time. There's always the chance of betrayal, but you hope they're busy enough with THEIR front not to turn on you until you're done.

It can be perfectly fun if everyone is aware that alliances are possible and allowed. Granted, if all but one pair of people play the game as if alliances are the spawn of Satan, that pair is going to own everyone because they weren't so closed-minded. But when EVERYONE goes in with alliances in mind, they tend to balance themselves.

Rarely are people going to gang up on the weakest player. What would be the point? THAT definitely isn't fun, as there's no challenge in it. What naturally occurs throughout the games I've listed (and TW is a lot more like a TBS than an RTS--games last days rather than minutes; unlims are more like RTS, I suppose) is alliances shift and tend to balance themselves. If one player starts to get too strong, people will turn on that player so he doesn't extend his lead too far; weaker players will sort of become "vassals" of the mid-tier, perhaps receiving some resources since their smaller, more efficient empires can spend those resources better (but not enough to become a threat to that mid-tier player later if they succeed in taking the leader down!). And if the strongest player doesn't manage to extend his lead and starts to move down the ladder, he'll earn new allies to fight the newest leader, and so on.

And actually, yes, Rexx. If an alliance is strong enough to hold at the end of the game, both could declare an allied victory. To borrow the analogy from the other similar thread on this topic, the US didn't turn on the UK after Germany fell just because we were out of targets. Allied victories usually require alliances set in stone pre-game to balance properly, however, since otherwise people will just ally themselves with the strongest player to "share" the victory, having the opposite effect of a diplomatic free-for-all, strengthening rather than weakening the top player.

Edit: Game diplomacy also requires the players have more self-control than the examples of "bad megacorping" exhibit. You can't allow RL friendships and vendettas to get in the way of your in-game diplomatic decisions. Running off to get your RL posse to always back you up all game and then "let you win" in the end is just lame and defeats the entire purpose. These decisions have to be made game by game based on situational strategy. Really, what's the point of the game if you already know who's likely to win going in? I prefer games to come very close to balanced rather than applying horse race odds to everything. "20:1 says Slim's team wins because all the vets are on his corp." Boring. I couldn't have fun being on the winning side of that. No challenge. Not that that'd stop those vets from smack-talking about their "big win" for the next few months despite the fact they did it with broken keyboards and no scripts because their competition sucked and couldn't ally to give them a real run for their money.


Xen you can argue till your blue in the face about building alliances in TW and how there used in other games to justify them in TW but if you really look at the game mechanics you will see it was not something that was intended to be done in the game of Tradewars as I said the in game alliance is call a corp. the game mechanics are designed around that alliance circumventing that to make your team larger is also circumventing the designed game mechanics. Unless the sysop announces that Mega corping is allowed in the game before the game starts in the rules area it’s just not fair.

If all you peeps want to dog pile on other corps in games all the time you can say goodbye to me ever wanting to play again. I have no desirer to play a two or three teams one on game.

Think of it more like a sporting event do you think you will ever see the Dodgers form an alliance with the Reds to take down the Yankee’s so both or them can win the world series?

"And as has been stated here several times already, wheres the fun in 2 on 1? I could go beat up old ladies all day long and never lose a fight, but wheres the fun in that? If you can't beat a team, you need to improve your skills until such time as you can, not recruit an army to do the work for you. Relying too much on a horde of allies will only make you a weaker player in the end"

If this is the case then every time I play as a solo then anyone running more then one person on their corp should disband it. Cheating is using flaws in the game to win - thats bug use. Tradewars never included rules about making deals or alliances (if there was then all forms of communication between players would have been left out) - some tourneys did and thats where all this garbage comes from.
And as for some of these people that are posting it makes me wonder if they have ever even played the game.

--{ Cowboy }--

quote:Originally posted by The Original Cowboy

"And as has been stated here several times already, wheres the fun in 2 on 1? I could go beat up old ladies all day long and never lose a fight, but wheres the fun in that? If you can't beat a team, you need to improve your skills until such time as you can, not recruit an army to do the work for you. Relying too much on a horde of allies will only make you a weaker player in the end"

If this is the case then every time I play as a solo then anyone running more then one person on their corp should disband it. Cheating is using flaws in the game to win - thats bug use. Tradewars never included rules about making deals or alliances (if there was then all forms of communication between players would have been left out) - some tourneys did and thats where all this garbage comes from.
And as for some of these people that are posting it makes me wonder if they have ever even played the game.

--{ Cowboy }--



The argument is in general aboutl the corps on gang up on other corps to get the one corp out, not centered on individual players, but I know there are some single players that are good enough to take on an average corp and win. Me not included, I have played against some of the best this game has to offer and learn each time they wipe the floor with me, and in general most corps don't gang up on the individual player, but when time to win the game, then sometimes the corp has to face the choice to take out the individual or leav them be especially if that corp pretty much owns the game.

I am by far no elite and have played against a few, and to them I say thanks for a valuable learning experience, I had been out of TW for some many years till late 2003 and early 2004, since my return to the game I see the tactics and game play has changed drastically, and have had to adjust my methods of game play. But these days I don't get to play very much, as due to work, school, and running my server. I have a job in itself just keeping on top of my games and making sure things are running right for the players that play my server. But I will not change it if I could, and soon I am coming back to full play and want to learn a few tricks from the best out there in the TW universe. when I first played I used no helpers and had recently started up using them to compete to a decent level from todays standards of play, today the helpers help make the mundane things tollerable. But that is a different story, the point I am trying to make is this: If you can't adapt and learn to be better you will always be at a disadvantage, and will be prone to the temptation of MegaCorping. But if you choose to learn from the past mistakes and better your game play, then you stand a chance to being one of the top players and get there honestly.

quote:Originally posted by Psion

quote:Originally posted by Vulcan

I would rather lose or win fair, regardless of my skills. This to me is the sign of a good player

Well said Vulcan!

I see that this thread is going down a SGO kind of road. People are arguing against the mechanics of the game because its not "realistic" enough. But its a GAME. It's not realistic, it's not meant to be and hopefully never will be.

The rules are abitrary and unrealistic! That's right, they are if you actually think about it. But thats what makes it fun to play. How many people who play a game that consisted of waiting in line? But thats something realistic that happens to all of us. That doesn't mean it makes for a good game.

For whatever reason, however long ago, it was decided that corp limits would be instituted. Is that an arbitrary rule that is completely divorced from reality? Yes. But thats a good thing! Every game has rules, no matter how "realistic" its is, and the better players will always be those who learn those rules intimately and know how to work with them. Corp limits should in fact be looked upon as a form of asset management, an expansion of turn management really. You have to manage creds, ships, planets, turns, and number of corpies (or total number of turns per corp).

And as has been stated here several times already, wheres the fun in 2 on 1? I could go beat up old ladies all day long and never lose a fight, but wheres the fun in that? If you can't beat a team, you need to improve your skills until such time as you can, not recruit an army to do the work for you. Relying too much on a horde of allies will only make you a weaker player in the end.


Psion you are one of the players I respect a lot and agree with your stance on the rules and try to follow them as best as I can no matter how fair they are or not. They are the rules that govern the game, some are written and some are implied as per the game settings, like someone posted earlier, if the game was meant for MegaCorping, then the planets would be set to be co-owned by a corp and its allies. But it is not, and this is what I am trying to get across some of these players, the game from what I get from how the game is set up doesn't allow for MegaCorping, and this is all I am putting into this.

And You are right on one other thing Psion, this thread is heading down the SGO road.

Okay, has anyone here ever played a wargame? Just curious. The opinion of alliances is very different among the wargaming crowd, and it's not considered "n00bish" or "dishonest" to form alliances, or a sign of a "good player" to never ally. In fact, never forming alliances is a fast way to lose in some wargames, and *not* utilizing that avenue is the n00bish thing to do. [:P]

Obviously TW is different, but I'll take a stance against anyone ever calling TW a wargame in that case. The focus appears to be more on winning and less on having fun regardless of the outcome in this game. (e.g. To the majority of folks here, a cakewalk win is more enjoyable than a long, grueling even match that ends in a loss or stalemate.) This is probably also why almost every tournament (Corp Wars v2 was the first in a while NOT to) ends in petty bickering and disputes.

Edit: I'm also not sure where the SGO stuff is coming from. I'm arguing my points based on OTHER GAMES, not on real life. I borrowed a WW2 analogy from another thread for exactly one of my dozens of points. I know how much realism is good and where the line should be drawn between fun realism and unfun realism. I take quite a bit of offense at being compared to SGO, given the threads I've seen of his.

Edit2: Also, the arguments that the game mechanics are anti-alliance are invalid. The fact there are no game mechanics *supporting* alliances does not mean they shouldn't be allowed, simply that they weren't a priority to program. If there were specific game mechanics prohibiting alliances (e.g. locks prohibiting the transfer of fighters via a lvl 0-1 planet, a lock prohibiting the transfer of credits through the bank to a non-corp-member, etc.) then I would agree with you, but an absense of proof in either direction is not proof.

Xen the SGO reference wasn't direct to you on my part, it is directed to the fact we all are really arguing over something so trivial.

And I have played a lot of wargames in my past, Axis and Allies, Risk, Diplomacy and a host of others, D&D included ( even though it is a fantasy game, it has a wargame feel to it too) and all have rules for game play and the majority of the war games out there do include allying yourself or army with other armies, and it is a given on most wargames from how the game is set up and in most rules, most wargames are based on actual historic events and yes in the past countries would ally themselves with other countries to win a war, we aren't disputing the other games, we are looking at how TW is setup as compared to them, can an ally corp land on your corp planet and use its resources without being blasted by the planets Q Cannon? No! This is what I mean that the games makeup and base settings are against MegaCorping. As for the other war games out there, they are their own set of rules, you wouldn't be trying to impose TW's rules to players of those games would you? NO! So by the same respect we shouldn't be trying to impose the other game's rules to TW, this game has its set rules and set boundaries. And we can't change that, until JP makes it possible, maybe in the next version, but I don't see it happening soon.

"
And I have played a lot of wargames in my past, Axis and Allies, Risk, Diplomacy and a host of others, D&D included ( even though it is a fantasy game, it has a wargame feel to it too) and all have rules for game play and the majority of the war games out there do include allying yourself or army with other armies, and it is a given on most wargames from how the game is set up and in most rules, most wargames are based on actual historic events and yes in the pastcountries would ally themselves with other countries to win a war, we aren't disputing the other games, we are looking at how TW is setup as compared to them, can an ally corp land on your corp planet and use its resources without being blasted by the planets Q Cannon? No! This is what I mean that the games makeup and base settings are against MegaCorping. As for the other war games out there, they are their own set of rules, you wouldn't be trying to impose TW's rules to players of those games would you? NO! So by the same respect we shouldn't be trying to impose the other game's rules to TW, this game has its set rules and set boundaries. And we can't change that, until JP makes it possible, maybe in the next version, but I don't see it happening soon"

Vulcan do you even play this game?
Your statment about landing on another corp planets is off the mark
cannons can be turned off and with no figs its easy to land. The was a time a while back in this game that reds and blues couldn't even be on the same team - the game wouldn't allow it so megacorping came about - it was argued - then it was accepted - then the game was changed to allow it. And yes I have played war games - game types and active duty types.
--{ Cowboy }--

the remark is a rhetoric remark and I do play the game, now hear is one for you and listen well, would you leave your planet and resources defenseless to other corps no matter what allinace you have? I wouldn't and that is what the statement I said was based upon. Because I wouldn't ever leave a planet I had all my resources and cash on go undefended ever. And in the old wargames your allies had access to your resources and financial backing, among other things, now you can make a planet for your corp and the other corp to trade assets and resources, but in leaving it defenseless for the trading, you also leave it defenseless to the corp you are working against, and could get the same resources you had planned to give to your ally corp, this is what I mean as a rheotoric, look at the over all picture, and see what may happen then you can see my statement.

Just to let you know I played TW from the early BBS days where there was only one connection at a time, to the MBBS's to now. So yes I have played this game and have been a really good player, and a sysop as well. My last game was the last Bote and my corp got wiped out, we all were old schoolers who had been out of the game for a while and we got an invite to the Bote and lost, but we didn't whine about it we learned the newer tactics and started playing on the new game terms of today.

I had a similar arguement with Master Blaster a long while back in another thread. And it got him nowhere either.

ok.
newbs.
listen up.
if you want to have a corp bigger than someone elses so you can zerg them to death, have the sysop set up the game to have unlimited people in a corp.
then you can just see who has the most friends.

the twars community looks down upon megacorping because it unbalances the game.
i don't know if you noticed, but when you kill everyone in twars, or get a 100% grid... a little box doesn't pop up saying "you win! congrats!"
this game is different than other games.
there is no set rules.
the only rules are those made by us, the community.
one rule is; no megacorping.
why?
because it sucks the fun out of the game and removes any point in playing the game.

we play for fun, and by the game mechanics.
if the max corp is 4 person, we grab 3 friends and we play.
it's just like using bugs to win.
why is it just like that?
because only no talent *****es need to do it to win.
i repeat.
only no talent little ***** Butt fags need to do it to win.
(use bugs or mega corp)
i can't wait till i get into a game with some of you newbs and it takes 20 of you to take down my corp, then you come here and brag about how you are so good.
laff.
of course, if you let me choose my corp... i bet we could take any other 20 people playing today.
newbs.
i'm gonna go play starcraft now and use my never die hack so i always win, because that is satisfying.
newbs.
(if you can't tell, i'm aggrevated)

Even in agrivation Slim you said it well, and that really should spell it out to others, I tried to be polite about it but that is getting nowhere. Thanks Slim!