quote:Originally posted by Slim Shady

the twars community looks down upon megacorping because it unbalances the game.
the only rules are those made by us, the community.
one rule is; no megacorping.



hehe OK slim - last I heard nobody gave you all the proxy votes to speak for the whole tw community so thats all bull.

Any time you want me one on one I'm ready - unless you just can't function without a corp behind you.

--{ Cowboy }--

Slim you have my vote [:D][^]

quote:Originally posted by Xentropy
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.


Whether you think it should or not, this is what happens. After all, if people were level headed and always chose the best strategy, they wouldn't be needing to mega corp, they would be the ones winning

quote:
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.


Once again, this is what ends up happening. If everyone knows that there is going to be mega corping going into a game, the team that is considered the best will have the easiest time finding people who want to play with them. This has been empirically demonstrated by the 3rd and final WTC.

Diplomacy type games might work with a small group of friends, but in trade wars, it is always taken to the extreme if it goes on long enough.

OK, one on one death match between Cowboy and Slim Shady -- who will host this? I wanna watch.

quote:Originally posted by The Original Cowboy

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.


You make the choice to play solo in games that aren't designed to be solo games. There is a corp limit for a reason, and people are entirely justified in reaching that limit.

If mega corping is ok, why is there a sysop definable corp limit in the game?

Cowboy, quit being a jackass!

Ok in TW all players and/or corps. are competing for the position of first place. Now unless that is the designated purpose of the game as dictated by the SysOp/GameOp (to megga-corp. or multi-corp.), two or more seperate corps. cannot claim the first place position in the same game. If they do that is referred to as a draw or stalemate, meaning all remaining players/corps. concede to the win.

For the issue of forming an alliance vs. megga-corping/multi-corping; the difference here is that an alliance if formed to complete a common goal that each of the "temporarly" adjoined corps. recieve a benefit or gain from, but after that goal has been achieved they are no longer working together, per say. Now for the formation of a megga-corp./multi-corp. these are formed and upheld as a single cognizant corp. throughout the duration of that particular game, having also similar goals of a formed alliance.

Now for me when I refer to things that make the game more realisic, thus they bring additional benefits to the game, I am not saying that I think it would be cool to have to standby at at the SD for 10-minutes circling around FedSpace until I am cleared to dock. I am saying that I think it is cool to have unknowns in that game that add to changing the outcome of the game and effecting it each time I am to play.

Personally, I think it would be cool to find out that corp 1 and 4 had secretly conspired to find my corps. base and launch an invasion on me in the middle of the nite. I think this type of player cooperation and teamwork makes a strong statement about this game. At least even though my corp. may more then likely loose that particular battle we will have one hell of an awsome war story to brag about for a long time to come! Now the possibility for my corp. to make a comeback in the game, to me that makes this game worth playing again. [;)]

Vulcan and Slim, you both made outstanding points!

The Jackass is the one making the statements without getting all the facts. There was to be only one winner - not a draw. After the obnoxious players were eliminated we were fully prepared to fight it out with each other.

--{ Cowboy }--

quote:Originally posted by Harley Nuss (teamEIS)

quote:Originally posted by The Original Cowboy

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.


You make the choice to play solo in games that aren't designed to be solo games. There is a corp limit for a reason, and people are entirely justified in reaching that limit.


You missed the point entirely - I have no problem playing against larger corps - I do it all the time. His statement implied that whenever a larger group picked on a smaller group that it was unfair.
Nothing was said in his post about corp limits

--{ Cowboy }--

quote:You missed the point entirely - I have no problem playing against larger corps - I do it all the time. His statement implied that whenever a larger group picked on a smaller group that it was unfair.
Nothing was said in his post about corp limits

--{ Cowboy }--
no, you missed the point.
we are having a discussion about mega corping here, not playing solo in regular games.
your statement is comepletely off base and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

quote:hehe OK slim - last I heard nobody gave you all the proxy votes to speak for the whole tw community so thats all bull.

Any time you want me one on one I'm ready - unless you just can't function without a corp behind you.

--{ Cowboy }--

last time i checked i could make generalized statements about a community which i am in.
if someone comes to me and asks me "do people in the military think that war is bad"
i would say "no"
because most people don't.
have i asked the millions of soldiers in the military? no.
how can i make such an assumption?
i take 1 tablespoon: being part of the community
add a sprinkle of: talking to many people who play the game
add 3 cups: experience
and finally stir it up with: stirring stick of common sense

and voila! i am able to make generalized statements about a community and.. wow, be correct 99.99999999% of the time.

go ahead, do a survey.
in our community, only no talent losers will say that megacorping is ok or should be a regular happenstance in every game.
the other people (those who actually have their heads out of their asses and know just a bit about the game and even have a smidgen of honor in them) will all agree with me.
sooooo
suck my balls.

wow, playing lil mr cowboy in a 1v1.
heh.
honestly, i'd probably lose.
you play solo all the time (i imagine because a lack of friends)
i never play solo.
of course, lets look at jhereg.
we all know he is an "elite" and one of the game's best players.
he self admitingly sucks at solo play.
does that mean you are better than him?
doubt it.
so if you beat me 1v1 does that make you better than me?
doubt it.
however you throw a death limit in that 1v1 and it'll be no contest.
i'm good, i'm not overly patient.
heh

mega corping is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!
so is Alien farming!
Some players just cant play by the rules!!!

quote:Originally posted by The Original Cowboy

You missed the point entirely - I have no problem playing against larger corps - I do it all the time. His statement implied that whenever a larger group picked on a smaller group that it was unfair.
Nothing was said in his post about corp limits

--{ Cowboy }--



You missed the point. Without limits, the game isn't fun. If there is no limit to the amount of people who can work together, the game completely blows. No matter how good you are, there reaches a point where sheer numbers can overwhelm you. Megacorping is an attempt to do this, win by superior numbers, not superior skills or strategy.

This game hasn't been fun for a few years now anyways. There is no more strategy it is only a matter of who has the best scripts , the fastest connection and can be on the most. 85 percent of the people that post in this forum haven't played more than 2 to 4 years and don't remember the real megacorps when if you wanted reds to cash you needed to split the corp reds on one side, blue to build planets on the other. That was the real mega corp i was talking about back in the old days.
We actually hunted down our sectors to build in didn't use ztm. When ztm started a lot of sysops wouldn't allow more than one member of a team to do it because it crippled the server ( see the 1998 bote rules i think it was posted in), also this was the first time megarob was not considered to be a bug
It actually was see who could build and protect their planets the longest most of the time they were able to get to L3 to L4 before you got found. Not like today where it is usually a matter of hours.
Sorry for the long post

I don't agree with that last part at all Animal. In the last two games I played in, our big 25 member, 3 team corp game, we were able to make several l4's without being found. In the last game I played, BYOC, we were able to keep 3 bases on found the entire 6 days it took for it to go l4. You can still hide bases and protect them very well, and you don't even need the fastest connections or best scripts.

Were they faster build cits?