peoples fun vs peoples fun

Crimsonbunny · August 2018

I think we need to sit back and talk about this.SO in recent events x person was told not to invest so much because some one fun was hurt because they could not take some cities
Now on to the real question where does it start and end with this kind of idea that if x person is doing something i dont like or is hurting my idea of fun that x person can be reported and told more or less to stop or dont do x things so much that they may find fun.

So what the guide lines in this kind of format on where x person fun is hurt to the point of gms influencing parts of the game.
i Mean isnt it one of the main ideas of the game is to take as many ports as u can for your side.

I for one dont think gms should have this kind of influence in the game in less its something going agenst the tos.

Because there will be people out there now that will report on just about anything that they think hurts there gameplay and fun because they seen that a gm will step in.

Out side of the tos do we have any rights to stop some one from there idea of fun be cause some one else finds it to hurt there game play and fun.

things that fall under this
some one with god cannons that can one shot u
pirates
under pricing to sell better-faster /over pricing to out bid others
selling goods to marke
t-does that mean because say i did a spice run and all market are crashed and i cant sell for a good price that hurts my fun are gms willing to step in and tell every one else to stop that or do less of it because it hurts my game play and fun......

In truth this seems like a small prob but its not this can effect many parts of the game .i Do hope to see a gm chime in so we can have a better idea on why and what things can we do with out being told to stop or do less of and so on when it comes to x person fun and game play vs some one elses fun and game play.

CrzyPsycoChick · August 2018

Good question

Whitejacket · August 2018

The GM never ordered Naver to stop investing in those ports. He said that his investing was discouraging some players, and then the GM made a suggestion, but from what I read even the GM said there was technically nothing wrong with what Naver was doing.

The GM did the diplomatic thing by talking about it privately, although, from the excerpt, it seems that Naver started the conversation since the GM indicated he was busy, but now the conversation was splayed for all to see. I think we should let the GMs do their jobs and just enjoy the game. They probably have enough to deal with.

As long as it's not against the TOS, there shouldn't be an issue. Naturally, things can be improved, and there will always be players complaining about something,

Poopiepants1 · August 2018

Naver is gone so lets only say good things about him. Also it does not matter whom invests where or how much the person invested.

Crimsonbunny · August 2018

But the thing is the gm talking to him was because some one was hurt over not beable to take some ports that does not change.
Also that key word suggestion . Can be used to shut other out or up.

This isnt about naver so much as it is that a gm stepped in because some one felt there gameplay/fun was hurt because they could not take citys or it could turn other away because of not being able to take ports.

Yes there was nothing wrong with any one investing in any citys but the thing is thin why did a gm fill the need to pm and suggest any thing .

at the end of the day it still came down to this is all about some ones fun as hurt so a gm stepped in to talk about it.
That in its self can open the doors to others useing what was said to effect other parts of the game if gms are going to step in is what im saying .

purplepirate · August 2018

you know what the funny thing is? I joined OGP late (last 1 1/2 years), and by then ALL the ports where in the billions for investments from different people over the years. I still invested anyways and didn't think anything of it because i thought THAT WAS THE NORM! LOL

more proof of how 'spoiled' some people's attitude is when it comes to 'their fun' in the game lol

lefox271 · August 2018

Get some perspective people. This wasn't about a player having 'fun'. It was childish, spoilt behaviour. It was disrupting the game just to make a point. The GM had to step in.

CrzyPsycoChick · August 2018

Yeah but let's say he wasn't trying to make a point but he simply just wanted to be dominant over the other nations which is the object of the game and did the exact same thing he did before...Should the GM still step in?

Motives aside should the GM ever step in if you're "winning too much" legally?

lefox271 · August 2018

A hypothetical question.

If a player has stopped playing, but still wants to treat the game as his/her own personal train set, then the GM has to step in. The player is attempting to bully the publisher. It's got nothing to do with playing the game.

Spookles · August 2018

A GM should step in, but not by asking the player to stop doing whatever they are doing.

It's a clear issue:

Player A has too much money

Player A decides to spend his money on a game mechanic that anyone can use

Player B thinks this is unfair because he can't keep up with player A

So what is wrong? Player A has somehow got too much money in a short time.

Now a GM can step in and figure out how Player A got that much money and fix that 'bug' so it doesn't happen again and the game stays fair.

Oh wait, they can't because Player A used real life money to obtain the ingame money. Now all they can do is ask Player A to stop flooding the server with money.

There ya go, that's why P2W models suck.

lefox271 · August 2018

The GM didn't ask the player to stop. It looks like an attempt to reason with the player because of the way his behaviour was impacting the game.

I reiterate my point. I think this incident was nothing to do with playing the game.

A guy no longer cares about making a serious attempt to play UWO. So he selfishly attempts to screw it up. The GM does the only thing possible, which is to discuss it adult-adult. The guy takes offence, which is all that he wanted, because he was looking for a reason to leave anyway.

Nothing wrong with spending money if you are serious about playing. Just don't go bullying anyone.

theedgedemon · August 2018

i don't like to chop fallen trees but there's a mistake on this post title because, from the screens i saw, he admitted he wasn't getting any fun out of it, it was not his fun, it was more like intentionally trying to see if he could hurt the game, to prove someone like him with enough cash and bored enough of it could do it.

i say you should lose all standing in the invest tables after a month of inactivity, that would keep people investing take money out of the game and force people to actively play more and make more ducats to be able to participate in the invest wars while also giving newer players a chance to join in the fun, i imagine that could be done with separate invest counters for global and "current season".

purplepirate · August 2018

@theedgedemon i say you should lose all standing in the invest tables after a month of inactivity

That would probably work if the server had a large population. But with such a small pop, it would be to much to keep reinvesting in all the ports over and over, plus if the ports lost invest after a month then the development would drop and limit play even more.

theedgedemon · August 2018

@purplePirate i meant for allegiance and mayor points only, not dropping development, that's why i suggested separate global and "seasonal counters", it doesn't have to be a month but right now someone could effectively become a mayor for life in a port with enough boredom and that defeats the purpose of the election in the first place.

carlalex · August 2018

I thought money invested was reset at each election so you are forced to keep investing to be reelcted - Am I wrong ?

OwvinII · August 2018

Last time I checked, is that if the current honorary mayor is no.1 in that city's top 5 investment list when an "honorary mayor election" event occurs, then the next/succeeding honorary mayor would be chosen from among the no.2/3/4/5 on said investment list by set percentage chances (I forgot the exact percentage numbers), w/ no.2 more likely to be chosen than no.3 more likely than no.4 more likely than no.5, which is least likely.

Only if the current honorary mayor isn't no.1 in the top 5 investment list when said "honorary mayor election" situation occurs, would the succeeding/next honorary mayor be the no.1 current investor in that city.

In fact, it's impossible for anyone to become an honorary mayor in a particular city for two consecutive months if there are at least 2 different investors in the same city.

HuseyinGazi · August 2018

Owvin is correct.

You can't become Honorary Mayor cumulatively each month. Whenever you're top investor, during the election time, and you were mayor from the last election then it will one of the other four players from the investment ranking. The chances are as respective as follow: 2nd - 40 %, 3rd - 30 %, 4th - 20 % and 5th - 10 %.

This has been done on purpose to prevent someone controlling the same port or multiple ports all the time especially from those with insane amount of money like in this person case who spend extremely amount of irl cash. It is actually the last resort that KOEI made, to give other players also the chance to taste the mayor feature but it wouldn't satisfy the majority of it.

Yet again, lefox made a very accurate statement what this particular player was basically doing. Taking away the feature from players who can't spend as much money as he could under their circumstance and even took the position away from players that were affiliated with him. I know it is what happens when you make this game F2P instead P2P, but just don't use the advantage of it and say you hate it, because you simply end up being a hypocrite (it is why even the GM showed up). :x

At the end, it is best to get over with it and look forward. What happened can't be longer changed no matter what we're discussing, the person you're referring to should make the decision at the end.

Kind Regards,

CrzyPsycoChick · August 2018

I dunno this just makes me fearful because it just seems like another way players can screw over people they don't like...

Omg I can't sell anything because CPC is running an auction or CPC is raising prices with auctions and that's discouraging me then I get "the talk" from a GM :/

The player base can be very unreasonable vindictive and petty at times I hope this "complaining to GM" isn't used in the future as a weapon against players they are competing with or don't like. It's amazing how many complaints one can file from multiple Alts...

Seems like just a matter of time before you hear...Hello I'm the GM and I'm getting multiple complaints about you that you keep nanbanning multiple times and crashing the rates can you please stop you're discouraging others.

Poopiepants1 · August 2018

The problem here is that some people have made the decision that their fun is to disrupt the fun others are having. Why should anyone care what Naver or anyone else in UWO does as long as they are playing the game without harassing others?

peoples fun vs peoples fun

Comments