| www.ClassicTW.com https://mail.black-squirrel.com/ |
|
| MegaCorp https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12655 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Kavanagh [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A Megacorp is an attempt to double (triple, whatever) the number of players that the Game settings permit on a Corp. Complete co-operation, shared ss, assets swapped to and fro. Call it "A". Lets consider the other end of the spectrum, "Z". Pay a toll to an enemy corp fig (asset transfer). Lots of stuff in between A and Z. |
|
| Author: | Speed Demon [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 6:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yea and sharing figs between corps is considered mega corping Kav you know that as well as I do. Popping the port in the sector above the planet and letting the other corp. use there own figs to finish the job is not mega corping at that point the other corp. has a choice as to what to do with the resources they caped. |
|
| Author: | ExVex [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Let me ask this. If Say Corp A and Corp B gang up on Corp C, but do not share info or assets, is this considered megacorping? This is what i was refering to in the other post Speed. |
|
| Author: | Vulcan [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ex I think that would actually be an alliance and not sure it is truely a megacorp, but I could be wrong, whats the verdict Speed? |
|
| Author: | ExVex [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Im curious bcuz ive done this many times and i dont want to be doing something that could possibly be considered "cheating" or even "frowned upon". |
|
| Author: | Kavanagh [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by ExVex Im curious bcuz ive done this many times and i dont want to be doing something that could possibly be considered "cheating" or even "frowned upon". well said. My point is, who gives a rat's Butt be it considered "cheating" or be it "frowned upon". Am curious as to what the current players consider Megacorp to be. <edited typo> |
|
| Author: | Animal [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Two corps teaming up to take out a stronger corp has been a common part of tradewars since i started playing over 10 years ago. It was an alliance then and still is now. This whole mega corp garbage started a few years ago by a bunch of newbs who whined and complained so much it ran off most of the better players who just plain got tired of hearing it. |
|
| Author: | Traitor [ Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by Kavanagh A Megacorp is an attempt to double (triple, whatever) the number of players that the Game settings permit on a Corp. Complete co-operation, shared ss, assets swapped to and fro. Call it "A". Lets consider the other end of the spectrum, "Z". Pay a toll to an enemy corp fig (asset transfer). Lots of stuff in between A and Z. ok, I'll bite I think there are 2 kinds of megga-corping. The good kind, and the bad kind. The definition of the good kind is on my site in the glossary. The bad kind follows. Megga-corping, bad: Two or more corps that are working together towards a common goal, usually the elimination of a third corp, where the total number of players in the two corps exceeds the total number of players allowed on any individual corp. (if the max number of players on a corp is 6, and 2 corps of 4 are working together, that is bad megga-corping.) I believe that there are three levels of bad megga-corping, and some are worse than others. Truces or non-aggression pacts: Truces are borderline megga-corping. It's megga-corping if the truce isn't game wide. But there are truces and then there are truces. Leaving corp A alone because you want to focus on corp B instead, isn't a truce because there is no expectation that you WON'T attack A if they present a good target. There are many situations where you want to concentrate on a specific corp, and you don't want to use resources on a different corp yet. But saying I won't attack you if you don't attack me is a truce. And that is megga-corping in my book, but it's probably the least offensive form of megga-corping. I feel that truces show weakness, so I won't necessarily get too bent out of shape if all the enemies do is ignore each other. Info Sharing: Blowing ports isn't megga-corping, since EVERYONE in the game can see it. I'm opposed to info sharing in general, unless it's done in a very public way, i.e. posted in the logs. The part I specifically hate about info sharing is that it's done behind peoples backs. If it's in the logs, then at least you know it's coming. Private info sharing is low, but again, it doesn't bug me too much, because there is always a risk when you share info that it's really a trap. Again, it shows weakness. The more mouthy a player or corp is, the more likely I will condone info sharing against that person or corp. heh. Anyway, I consider info sharing to be worse than a non-aggression type truce. Asset Sharing: Sharing assets is megga-corping. Loaning people cash or figs is megga-corping. It's the worst of the worst in my opinion. |
|
| Author: | Harley Nuss [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by Animal Two corps teaming up to take out a stronger corp has been a common part of tradewars since i started playing over 10 years ago. It was an alliance then and still is now. This whole mega corp garbage started a few years ago by a bunch of newbs who whined and complained so much it ran off most of the better players who just plain got tired of hearing it. That statement makes no logical sense. If it's two corps teaming up to take out a stronger one, why would the newbies complain about it and the better players leave because of the complaining? Better players don't need to mega corp, only no talent losers need to mega corp. |
|
| Author: | Xentropy [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
In any other wargame that has ever existed, alliances are part of the game. In TradeWars, alliances are termed "megacorping" and frowned upon in a big way. My question is: Why? Alliances are "unfair" to those not in the alliance in every game, but they're expected and a normal part of gameplay in all of those other games. Diplomacy. Ever heard of it? |
|
| Author: | Speed Demon [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
quote:Originally posted by Traitor Asset Sharing: Sharing assets is megga-corping. Loaning people cash or figs is megga-corping. It's the worst of the worst in my opinion. That’s the definition of a mega corp. to me. quote:Originally posted by Xentropy In any other wargame that has ever existed, alliances are part of the game. In TradeWars, alliances are termed "megacorping" and frowned upon in a big way. My question is: Why? Alliances are "unfair" to those not in the alliance in every game, but they're expected and a normal part of gameplay in all of those other games. Diplomacy. Ever heard of it? the problem is The game was designed to only allow X number of people to team together in what is called a corp. it is the designed alliance in this war game in order to share resources between two corps. it takes some work to set up and was not designed in to the game a planet is owned by one corp. and only one corp. can use it at time until the other corp. captures it there’s no setting I know of that say let members of corp. X also use this planet and the figs on it. Also, why would I want to even bother playing if team a and b is always going to team against me and there always going to out cash me, out build me, and out grid me there’s no strategies involved all you have to do is make as many friends as you can fill 2 or 3 corps. up and your set every game. |
|
| Author: | Harley Nuss [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I personally can't think of any game besides trade wars where people think a 2 on 1 is fair or fun. Please enlighten me. |
|
| Author: | Harley Nuss [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Additionally (have to make multiple posts to keep up with slim  ), what is the challenge or the fun in deciding the outcome of a game based solely on who has the most friends? If I can find 15 people to come into a game and help me win and you can only find 5, you're going to lose every time unless all of my friends really suck.
|
|
| Author: | Xentropy [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 4:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Okay, you actually sort of indirectly made a good point. TradeWars allows new entires at any time, so you could just go recruit some friends to form a new corp long after the game officially began to basically act in the same way dupes do. This, I agree, is bad. However, allying with existing teams/players in a closed game is more of a grey area. As for non-Tradewars games where alliances are normal and expected, look at any wargame or turn-based strategy ever known to man. Civilization, Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Europa Universalis, etc. etc. etc. In these, shifting alliances are a part of the game. However, those games do have an important distinction: The total number of players that will ever be in the game are present at the beginning, so you can't suddenly "form an alliance" with a new power that doesn't even exist on the map until your sudden alliance was formed. So in open games, I can see the issue. In a closed game, however, I think an alliance should be a possible course of action to keep a far-and-away leader from extending their lead even further. Diplomacy is a system of checks and balances of sorts. Powers will take advantage of resources available to them, and sometimes the enemy of your enemy will be your friend. At least, while it also suits their purpose. |
|
| Author: | RexxCrow [ Sun Aug 14, 2005 5:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think megga-corping is lame, afterall what are they going to do at the end? Declair themselves both the winners? That is just plain ignorant. I think exchanging assests is pointless, unless it being done as a form of repayment for something or do to an error in judgement on the part of a corp. or player, (i.e. testing a script, learning a new technique, violating a truce as a rule of the game, etc.) Also I think if a corp. wants to pay for anothers services there is nothing wrong with that, that to me makes the game more realistic, but also be advised that corp. can break the deal with you just as you can with them, also just as in real life, i.e. I paid Corp. 12 10-million credits to clear the MSL's for me and those jerks turned around and CAP'ed my ship and then had the nerve to SD me yesterday, boy just wait until I get my LV6 up and running! Additionally forming an alliance with another corp. can result in this same type of circumstance, as well a corp., i.e. they can pit two or more other corps. against each other, etc. It is about strategy, if a corp. is able to manipulate their way to the win, then more power to them... afterall why does the focus have to about who has the most "cash" in the game. I think intelligence sharing is ok, with the only exception being if it is from a mole inide you're corp working to expose you're corp., (that is just the lowest of the lowest of the low!) Sharing information also makes the game more realistic and besides maybe a weaker less experienced corp. needs assistance in taking out a stronger more efficient corp. This would go along with forming an alliance, with is ok to do; although it will eventually have to come to an end. In comparison to this there are also rivalries that can also exist between two or more corps., with each swear to oath that the other shall perish before the next extern. Also there are ways in TW to exchange assests with another player or corp., i.e. giving cash through the bank, warping them into a hidden Level 1 planet for figs, or warping them into a level 2 planet w/o figs, for cash, letting them CAP a ship, etc. There is probably a lot more then those, but that is all I can think of. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|