In skirm 62 a player who was just above rank 42 I think asked me to help him against a player who was defeating him. I answered that I would like to help him but that it would not be considered fair, So that was that and he was shortly defeated.
I'll say more after some of you post but I need to know from as many of you as possible how often you are able to make your moves in a campaign game. This is not intended to gain information about anyone and is strickly voluntary So please just give a rough estimate of how often you make your moves in a campaign game along with the game speed if possible.

For example I consider myself to be an intensive player and I can log into a 12 hour game as often as 6 times/turn to make adjustments but I only have time to play one game at the time and of course there are several days when I can only log into the game once or twice.

Thank you
for participating,
TaurusRex

Uhm, as you may have noticed, I have "bursts" of activity.
As long as im behind a computer, I can login upto 40 times in a 12 hour period. (no joke.)

However, I get distracted and am often left to have periods of relative non-access.. Between 12-18 hours at a time.

Although theoretically I COULD login every few hours at the least, I take this game as just that, a game, and only login when I remember.. Which is why i've been stuck between the 40something-50something ranking, and have always been unable to defend against the almost constant Gangbangs against me :-P
(Edit: Full Credit to Vagrant, one of the better and more respectable players to beat me in a long time!)

Anyways, back to the point..
I also sometimes login and only have enough time to assign A tech and see if I have any attack/defend messages that I was unaware of.. Not to move about, etc.

Anyways, that's just me... I'm sure different people have different circumstances, and as a player, it's your choice to make the judgement as to whether or not they are just betraying you, or merely being a lackluster logger innerer like me :-)

Hope this helps both sides of the future story ;-)

Lots of Love,
~Mal Kavian

Last Edited : Friday, 15 July 2005 - 10:18

Yeah i have the same problem that Mal has...
If i am behind my computer i can login as many times as i want to...
Still i see wol as a secondary hobby.. so when something like football or swimming or a girlfriend is coming in my way.. i don't have many time to play Wol.. and that case i can be inactive for let's say 36 hours... if i'm in a war then i probabaly have lost the battle already..

Okay I'm going to give this another chance. So far I see two types:
1) has plenty of time to play with fairly normal lost time
2) has plenty of time to play but losses much time due to other forms of entertainment

I put myself in with number one type.
I don't hear folks complaining, "get a life" anymore, but apparently they were folks who just weren't able to play as often for one reason or another, and I'll assume they had important reasons;
but I can't accept that a game should be disrupted because a player has other forms of entertainment that he likes to pursue, not that such players are complaining, but I think they would tend to be easy conquests.

Anyway I can think of four other types not mentioned and they would be:

1) working people who are able to enter the game about twice a day usually and do take the game serious
2) working people who have on the job access to the game and can enter the game 4 to 5 times daily usually and also take the game seriously
3) school kids who may be able to access the game only twice a day
4) college students who may have a computer available and can discipline themselves to make their moves 4 or 5 times a day without wasting too much time

So I see two types with a problem and they are pre-college type school age students and working people without on the job access. For these two types I would advocate we find some way to compensate them. For people who would rather pursue some other form of entertainment, that's certainly your right to do so.
For all others I think we are all fairly evenly matched except for time zones and possibly we can find some way to compensate for that and of course we can continue to acknowledge personal problem leaves of absence.

[cont.]

TR

Last Edited : Saturday, 16 July 2005 - 06:58

Are some of us familiar with the basic idea of how the new version will be played?
If I'm not mistaken we will start with our basic castle and resources like now and expand by capturing surrounding zones of territory which we must hold to gain the benefits of the resources from those territories.
We actually have the opportunity now to start playing a similar type of game by playing as I have already mentioned.

Is it honorable to seize a player's outter resources while he is off too war? It is if we say it is?
It's really as simple as that. Why should a restriction be placed on such a tactic? The only reason that comes to mind is that some players don't want to have to think about too many other things while they pursue their favorite form of strategy.

Well it is my contention that the game has changed and gaining a second castle with all the trimmings is too much of an advantage over a one castle player and having to secure your territory from would be poachers is just the change that will slow aggressors down enough to give easy targets a chance to gain some strength while at the same time creating a circumstance as I have already mentioned (that is that a second castle may be gained but a few resource facilities may have been lost).

Sorry but it's more balanced (i.e. our sense of fairness I think is more balanced). Gain the second castle realistically (i.e. by holding onto as much as you can of your existing territory) and I did not say that we can't continue to look down upon "gang attacks" and do something about it, I'm saying that the outter resources need to be free for all fair game at all times even when owned and not considered to be dishonorable to plunder unless there is an agreement between players.

We also need to discard this idea of giving turns to recouperate for any other reason except that players have been at war from early rounds for at least 5 turns with neither having made any gains IMO.

PS:
Does anyone else agree that this suggested change to our sense of honor would provide the necessary balance that is hindering this dynamically well balanced game?

TR

Last Edited : Friday, 15 July 2005 - 21:33