DeletedUser13736
While I do agree with the arc sentiment, I don't feel that issues with plunderers, def. army AI, GB capping, and camping is a form of twisting and manipulating the rules. Clever idea btw.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser10720
I don't necessarily think that entire list is twisting or bending the rules. I meant to point out that there are many aspects to thus game that have had many people complain or claim that one of these mechanics was exploiting something. And the majority of the things on the list are accepted as standard ways of play.
DeletedUser13736
ahhh I get it now.
DeletedUser26965
When Atlantis first came it was brought up [Feedback] Oceanic Future - Part 1 Not sure if anyone really goes to the trouble of doing it though to much of a degree anyway. Guess they're all too busy leveling Arcs or something.
DeletedUser31882
Huh. This seems really pertinent to the Plunder Thread screed arguments I've been doing. *Mentally files away* I'm kinda sad I just now found the thread! (Thanks SJS for the bump leading to my discovery!)
I'd participate, in theory. In practice, I think it would be too much logistical deadlines for me to stick with. Sounds like safe profit if you can wrangle a trustworthy plunder party together! Potential abuse is if a bad actor plunderer (Those don't exist, right?) gets involved and sabotages the operation somehow. I suppose that would be short lived though. Don't pony up your Palace for a plunder? Out of the party you go!
As to the Ethical question: If the argument is this is unethical, then pillaging is unethical, regardless of motivation. I agree that this counts as a collusion behavior, but the only harm I see would be to other potential plunderers 'missing out' on their chance to 'regular, obligation free' plunder the people in the party. I agree with that this isn't different than the GB swap clubs, as those are collusion to secure contribution race rewards. The only difference is logistics and what people consider 'fair'. Like fair trades, that is up to the rule of man to enforce.
As it stands, I don't see this as a similar crime to insider trading (GB swaps would fall under that logic, if we considered it unethical). I see the only potential harmed parties to be other plunderers that have still have the ability to plunder the plunder party members. I see no foul, and thus no twisting of morals or ethics. It does show the participating person being willing to collude in a high logistics operation for profit, so vigilance dictates caution with dealings with said persons. I always advocate vigilance, so I guess this and my last statement are superfluous.
I'd participate, in theory. In practice, I think it would be too much logistical deadlines for me to stick with. Sounds like safe profit if you can wrangle a trustworthy plunder party together! Potential abuse is if a bad actor plunderer (Those don't exist, right?) gets involved and sabotages the operation somehow. I suppose that would be short lived though. Don't pony up your Palace for a plunder? Out of the party you go!
As to the Ethical question: If the argument is this is unethical, then pillaging is unethical, regardless of motivation. I agree that this counts as a collusion behavior, but the only harm I see would be to other potential plunderers 'missing out' on their chance to 'regular, obligation free' plunder the people in the party. I agree with that this isn't different than the GB swap clubs, as those are collusion to secure contribution race rewards. The only difference is logistics and what people consider 'fair'. Like fair trades, that is up to the rule of man to enforce.
As it stands, I don't see this as a similar crime to insider trading (GB swaps would fall under that logic, if we considered it unethical). I see the only potential harmed parties to be other plunderers that have still have the ability to plunder the plunder party members. I see no foul, and thus no twisting of morals or ethics. It does show the participating person being willing to collude in a high logistics operation for profit, so vigilance dictates caution with dealings with said persons. I always advocate vigilance, so I guess this and my last statement are superfluous.
DeletedUser26965
YW, I was gone for some time off the forums and have been enjoying looking back on what I missed, I just sort the Forge Hall by Start Date, the little Avatar Icon really helps too seeing what you've posted on.
https://forum.us.forgeofempires.com/index.php?forums/forge-hall.26/&order=post_date
Great response btw too.
DeletedUser10720
That seems to be the issue I've run into in my attempts at setting one of the plunder party up.
I have tried usually to set them up on the first chance i get after a hood shift. Needless to say, a new hoodie asking you to share defense and collect info is seen with a proper amount of suspicion.
There are a lot of chances that opens up, with any of the party members deciding to not share their part, the damage is already done if they're aware of cycle times and boost % rates. So that could create many issues. Combined with the relatively short period of time you have to get to know the hood in comparison to guildies or friends FP trades are usually setup with, and it does become risky.
Though I suppose that if one were so inclined they could attempt to seek hoodies that belonged to allied guilds or share a mutually known friend to somewhat remedy this.
DeletedUser33508
Intriguing idea! I'm also fascinated that some feel that there are "ethics" in game play. Seems odd to conflate moral behavior IRL, with the boundary exploration of a system (ie: a plunder party), existing in it's entirety as a coded computer simulation. The only thing that's actually happening in any game action (including plunder parties) is that some ones and zeros get re-ordered. How is there any moral component to that?
DeletedUser10720
I use morals and ethics in a lot of the setup and what I do in my city. I view myself as the leader of my population. How I build my city and what my resources are dedicated to, is scaled on how I believe resource distribution would be fair.
Coin and supply are taxes put on the citizens and businesses. The government can spend as needed. ( building a military, new roads and parks, urban development and job creation)
Goods are the communal output of the citizens and should be spent making their lives better. ( GBs, tech advancement, peaceful negotiations when possible.)
I have implemented this directly into how my city has been built, as I view it, my citizens 'want' to collectively spend their resources constructing GBs and advancing tech, so I as the governing body have allowed maximum usage of resources to that goal. (Completing tech and constructing all GBs)
In the HMA I did not construct the church as a cultural building, because the government shouldn't spend tax money on a specific religious building. But the community chose to build the Notre dame and cathedral of aachen with their collective goods.
I generally attack at random, avoiding repeat plunders because ethically I believe that you shouldn't just take the easy target and rob them blind. I generally only attack when necessary and only plunder if something is immidiately available. Rarely do I return to plunder, and really unless it's part of a quest I won't go out of my way to attack the hood.
I try to regularly send aid to foreign countries and represent my citizens as friendly so we will receive aid in return. Work trade deals and allies to share larger scale rewards with.
This plunder party idea is born out of that actually. Minimizing loss to the plundered while earning a larger reward through a military 'war games' style team. In my mind, somewhat more moral than outright plundering those that happen to be distracted today or not as powerful.
All in all. I think many people do play with some kind of moral mindset. Even if it's not one they so actively think about.
DeletedUser11463
Yeah the other option woulda been so much better. Sold uranium to the enemy for personal profit. Created a foundation to get pay-for-play (notice how the donators all disappeared after she lost). Yep, that option was so much better
DeletedUser31882
Yeah the other option woulda been so much better. Sold uranium to the enemy for personal profit. Created a foundation to get pay-for-play (notice how the donators all disappeared after she lost). Yep, that option was so much better
Ah,
Graviton
Well-Known Member
Tribalism FTW!
DeletedUser26965
Since we're stepping into political philosophy, everyone is tribal, that's just natural and no "new man" program will change that. The fun part of examining people's positions on tribalism is how they often think themselves above it somehow while simultaneously practicing it, the cognitive dissonance in such people must be the cause of migraines in them I'm sure, I pity them.
Graviton
Well-Known Member
Sure, people are naturally social creatures and naturally gravitate toward like-minded individuals. Which is different than political tribalism, which is defined pretty much exactly how Titris described it: my team is awesome and even when they do wrong it's okay; your team sucks and is evil and eats babies.
DeletedUser26965
Well, that's a rather simplistic explanation of it that goes to how it can go "wrong" so to speak, tribalism is complex as you touched on, sure you could branch off in ways and begin to categorize and try to clarify what is or isn't this or that type but at the end of the day it's just people doing things.
oh, but wanted to mention as well, it's nothing but a recipe for disaster to promote anti-tribalism while your opponent practices it, nothing will get your people wiped out faster.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent327
Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with the idea. Similar to players in the hood agreeing to defending with artillery and attacking with anything that flies, just to score points.
I would not participate because of the Blue Galaxy. I have a better chance collecting my own terracefarms for instance.
I would not participate because of the Blue Galaxy. I have a better chance collecting my own terracefarms for instance.
DeletedUser31882
Eh, I wouldn't count pointing out tribalism as necessarily an anti-tribalism promotion. More like a "Hey, Check your Tribalism, Bro!" rather than a "Stop rooting for you home-team you darn dirty
Also, I wanted to jab at you with this:
~a rather simplistic explanation
~but at the end of the day it's just people doing things
CHOOSE ONE! wait... er... huh.
Huh, I wonder if the Devs considered that implication when designing the Blue Galaxy. *shrugs*
DeletedUser26965
lol, I mean when delving into the details of it all. We like to categorize and tuck things away nicely into their cubby holes, slap a label on them etc., often so we feel we are in control of things via order over chaos but that's merely an illusion e.g. the Simulacra and Simulation. Yes, at the end of the day all we are doing is things, moral philosophy is all that really matters as it pertains to those things.
DeletedUser10720
That's an excellent video and is a great example of what I'm trying to do here. The "if it explicitly isn't against the rules, I might as well see how long I can get away with it." Mindset. Though for reasons mentioned in this thread, the trick is getting people to agree to attempt it. But wether or not it works it's fun to try and come up with new ideas like this.
DeletedUser31882
I thought the video was excellent as well, but now I must argue for the sentiment I believe @Stephen Longshanks was gunning for earlier. Mainly towards the "if it explicitly isn't against the rules".
I believe that is where the 'ethic/moral twisting' can occur, if we look at rules on a meta-level. The video did a good job of walking us through how, at first, Roger seemed like a malicious actor, but then they reveal he wasn't just doing it for 'cheap' wins/points. It was more for refining the rules and we could argue that Hockey was improved by having more specific rules (depends on your viewpoint and experiences with lawyers, I suppose). I assume that's where the disconnect occurs between different claims of moral standards. If the player is purely motivated by selfish benefit, a plunder party could be seen as malicious collusion and the people who participate it as morally bankrupt. Yet mechanically, it's not much different from FP swap threads, which I have not seen a 'malicious collusion' argument for. The difference? The twisting of the 'spirit' of a rule versus the specific rule.
If plunder is meant to be a competition between city defense/offense, with the victor having a secondary competition to determine if they steal something as a reward, then I see why a plunder party is violating the spirit of the competition and thus a twisted ethical/moral standard. FP swap threads don't suffer from that potential violation since they chiefly fear someone cheating others by NOT donating FP due to potentially lax enforcement/oversight on FP swaps. Even though FP swaps are mechanically similar to the plunder party idea: An agreement between individuals to use a system to collaborate and help maximize their individual benefits. I also think of traffic signals for cars and cross-walks for pedestrians. The spirit of the law is meant to protect everyone on and near the road, thus increasing everyone's ability to pursue liberty, joy, happiness, etc. Is it necessary to ticket every jay-walker, especially if they cross the road in a deserted area? Specific mechanical law would dictate it is so, but that seems contrary to the spirit of the law. The issue with spirit/intent is it's abstract inexactness, which can lead to conflicting interpretations and muddling intent.
The "if it explicitly isn't against the rules, I might as well see how long I can get away with it" mindset is probably a common mantra for any criminal element, which understandably upsets anyone who wants a good, clean, fair game/society. I'm sure most of us can think of how a 'rules lawyer' has used(possibly twisted) the rules of a game to their benefit and how annoyed we have been with 'that guy'. Thus resulting in more specific rules(Roger...!) or house rules to adjust to the new 'fair' benchmark. I guess my end point is: Someone will always find a way to game the system, we just have to remain vigilant to see if the new 'fair' is 'more fair' to one group over another.
Anywho, I think it'd be a long time before I have the infrastructure to profit from a plunder party, so I'll stick to 'running really fast in certain contribution races' and FP swaps, for now.