So, what is abuse?

D DeilocheOP

OP 23/02/2010 · 03:21 AM #1

There has been a lot of controversy caused lately by MK`s use of the UW function. Much of this has been saying that this is abuse of the UW function. This brings up the question of what "is" abuse. Several things that COULD be argued as abuse:

A-Buying out the food market by going far over the limit and simply burning food
B-Buying out any market and burning resources
C-Buying out a market when resetting just to burn your credits and similarly impact the market
D-Hoarding/buying up minerals to prevent opposition from having the minerals to fight a UW, or fight at all
E-Buying a huge number of resources not because you need them but because you can and have nothing else to do
F-Holding on to a UW well past it`s natural expiry time and not due to inactivity

NONE of this is currently labeled abuse. Of them all, I consider A to be by far the worst, and yet it is the most acceptable. I guess not everybody plays tax empires that have to VM for six months of a paid because their empire cannot play, not because there isn`t enough agriculture production but because empires artificially inflate the market price to screw taxers. Specifically virals. :P

So, here`s the question: What do the masses think is abuse?

Notes from my end:
-For F, I hope to ask Stephen whether or not this is meant to be a part of the game. If it`s not, then we need to make publicly visible rules stating that it isn`t, adding constraints and potential fallout.
-I am working on a proposal to stop A entirely, and to limit E (which only affects RT).
-D is completely legitimate and frankly there`s absolutely no way to stop it.
-B is a set containing A, so my plans for A include B.
-C cannot really be stopped, though it would be faced with the same restrictions as B.

B Bobbysindustrialpat

23/02/2010 · 07:36 PM #23

Hang on Islander, by the same logic a rich empire could sustain a guardian empire fighting at high pr by always reposting cgs at 2? That seems like a transfer to me. OK you`re paying for it, but what`s to stop you reselling at the market price? I think this needs clarifying.

Waging war by means of the marketplace is a reasonable tactic when it`s used to shrink people`s income and stop them holding the rankings at high pr. When it overruns and puts people in -ve income then it`s the same as a big historia bomb. Something needs doing to the market in general to keep the game going in the servers with a small player base. Supply and demand are only going to balance if there are new players building up or restarts. Hows that going to happen on normal when there are no minerals on the market? Why would a new player bother sticking around when the game is clearly dead? RT has appeared this way for a long time. D needs some attention, or a return of the black market.

As for burning resources - it would need some coding but what if they didn`t disappear, they just reappeared on the market and the cash disapeared? Of course that has it`s own problems. How do you differentiate between D and E? There`s got to be a balance that allows people to store their resources and convert their income, but there`s also got to ALWAYS be resources that allow people to play.

Historias should take you down to zero turns but not below. After that they can counteract TCs but naturally generated turns shouldn`t be affacted. Of course a player with a vendetta could just send a daily historia, so maybe there should be someone judging whether they have tactical use. Something like a warcrimes committee?!?

S ScarletTears

23/02/2010 · 07:23 PM #22

alot of things can be seen as abuse on this game, such as the continual hunting down of one player by several empires,

continual control of the ranks by one particular group of individuals who won`t allow anyone else in the ranks.

still yet though i don`t think there`s much of a reason to change or regulate these, they`re a part of the game to.

S ScarletTears

23/02/2010 · 07:22 PM #21

A. Buying out the food market is usually strategic when it`s performed and those who it effect most, such as taxers pick their income because it`s such a great income source for their empire but it`s also a fragile one and they should know that there`s a risk of being left dead in the water. yet there is always options such as killing off some of your pop to survive and/or reassigning land to another income source. i understand it`s alot harder to do on TB but it is still an available option.

B. Again it has it`s strategic purposes

C. it`s not a very sound reason but it is their income and i think anyone should be able to spend their credits how ever they like

D. the most annoying of all the listed i think. put a cap on mineral storage? still a part of the strategic nature of the game though

E. sadly i still think it`s peoples right to do what they want with their income.

F. not that big of a deal so long as it doesn`t get hold over for more than a week. a boom is a boom and you`re force to play around them any how. i understand wanting to get on with your empires life though and moving on and postponing a UW would impede this.

Q. Historia`s a sucky aspect of the game but then again any artifact could be labeled as such and could prove menacing depending on the quantity and the time frame of the usage. i do think that artifacts,time related artifacts more so, should be modified according to the server they are on.

if you negative a months worth of turns, personally, thats what you get for playing turn based, you signed up for it knew it was possible and then paid for a paid. it`s called a bad investment when things like that happened....Professionally man thats harsh wish there was something that could be done about that *goes on about his day and lets others bicker of these things*

P PistolPete

23/02/2010 · 07:19 PM #20

Ok.. We need an admin to comment on this.

Is it legal to buy food or minerals or any other resource at a high price, and dumb the price to sell to a friend or fedmate?

I Islander Admin

Admin 23/02/2010 · 07:02 PM #19

Not at all Pete. Say I`m a tax viral on RT. I cannot buy food over 16 or so, or I will not make money at all. Say food was going for 23 on the market. If a friend/fedmate were to buy food at 23 and sell it at 15, that is legal. And it allows you to keep playing

P PistolPete

23/02/2010 · 06:50 PM #18

buying food from friends that is significantly under the other food posted at a market, is the same as a money transfer. That is not legal Islander!

I Islander Admin

Admin 23/02/2010 · 06:42 PM #17

Deil - Yar, I have, But that`s a silly argument to get into at this point. If you restart taxer, you understand the risks involved that players can screw the market. If you are dumb enough to restart without friends who make food or who can post cheaper for you - Your problem. I like the player driven economy idea, and it shouldn`t be that heavily regulated.

Although I am in agreement on historias.

K Kraven

23/02/2010 · 01:17 PM #16

I think the second sffect is a really great compromise on historia.

D DeilocheOP

23/02/2010 · 01:10 PM #15

Sorry, I DID forget one other possible effect of historias. Allow them to be BTC preventors. So have a negative well that lasts either permanently or for x number of days that will eat any STCs/BTCs thrown at a target. That way historias retain their usefulness without being able to VM anybody. Unfortunately that might be really difficult to code, depending on the current implementation... but it`s the best suggestion that doesn`t kill historia`s usefulness. :P

D DeilocheOP

23/02/2010 · 01:08 PM #14

To Islander: No, you really haven`t. And yes, A should be stopped. Screwing with people`s profits is one thing. Making the game completely unplayable is something very, very different. Every race and income type has the capability to play, to a lesser extent, without minerals. A taxer CANNOT play without food.

PS: Same thing has happened to me on several occasions. I`m still in debt to a historia spam right now.

starseeker: "Best fixed with programming" is NOT a term you can apply to gc. Stephen doesn`t like tinkering with code. He will if it`s absolutely necessary, but I seriously doubt he will consider this absolutely necessary. So one must offer appropriate alternatives.

Rest: I agree on historias. I forgot to include that in the thread. I DO have an idea there. Here`s the plan: allow for historias to remove banked turns and up to 1 day`s worth of negative turns. Nothing more. Unfortunately, it does require coding and not just coding but server specific coding... if Stephen cannot do server specific coding, then I would suggest capping it at -50 turns or 0 turns. 0 turns would be more fair for a server wide implementation. Destroying time, especially time of paid accounts, is a serious issue. So that makes changing historias and the way the food market is handled my top priority.

K Kraven

23/02/2010 · 11:13 AM #13

I am not typically pro nerfing evil functions in the game, but I do agree that historia are a bit too powerful. I think they should be modified to -10 turns, and never ever sold!

D donster

23/02/2010 · 11:05 AM #12

Gotta agree on historias - I don`t care about any strategic value they may have. This is a game and we want people to play the game. Historias are completely counter to that, paid or not paid. Abolish them totally.

I ImaVirusOhNoz

23/02/2010 · 07:05 AM #11

i personally dislike historias to begin with i think it is a terrible arti not because iv had it used against me i did and it was graciously followed by BTCs to make up for it :) but some people arent so generous ... and a FORCED VM is not-smart especially if you paid ...

O Omegian

23/02/2010 · 06:43 AM #10

G. *Shooting 20 historias for 10 weeks straight* yes thats 200 historias total, and that person was paid.

G GradualIncline

23/02/2010 · 06:32 AM #9

I wonder where my regulating the food market way back would fall under? The food only burned because people kept posting under what I had already bought, I didn`t plan on it burning at the time of buying.

Unfortunately, while I don`t like any of those, they are a strategic part of the game. I do believe in hording minerals however, but just for the purpose of having minerals to sell to keep your credits up while building for an UW, and because losing out on credits because you hit the max is a pain. (Last time this wasn`t a problem because I just kept exploring, keeping my income at next to nothing)

I ImaVirusOhNoz

23/02/2010 · 06:27 AM #8

id say make a button but have it auto go off in a set time if button isnt pushed :) like say 12 hrs for just incase the person is sleeping and wants the gratification of pushing it :)

S starseeker

23/02/2010 · 06:18 AM #7

Economics is part of war. It would seem that all of these could be overcome by enough players on the server working to beat them out.

If F needs fixed, best to do it in the programming. Make the UW blow automatically at the expired time rather than building penalties for not blowing it.

K KnightofNi

23/02/2010 · 05:55 AM #6

I`d say its all abuse, but then again I`d say that TribalTea`s 70b pop on UC is abuse too XD

I think D is the worst of them all, putting a hard cap on market goods would solve most of these. I have absolutely no problems with A because I`m a food coll :D.

I Islander Admin

Admin 23/02/2010 · 05:46 AM #5

A should certainly never be stopped - Market tactics are a legitimate part of war in a player driven economy. You understand those risks when you choose to restart as a taxer - and if you don`t have friends who can post for you or help you out, your fault.
And don`t tell me I`ve never been forced to vm - I`ve played taxing empires for a longer length of time than you have :p

P PosterusScientia

23/02/2010 · 05:14 AM #4

What about throwing historia and taking away 3/4 of my paid on slow? How should that be labelled? Taking your lunch money? Even then I don`t whine thou, it is part of the game imo.

Reply