Constructive feedback

[Airwing]

@I_like_pie

A final note for clarity: the original complaint here about the “new” 25% rule is referring to something that’s been around since at least 2009:

Oh yes, i remember this good Pie, but this was also abused , placing small attackers in your core that couldnt be cleared remember? this was fixed.

this is the msg i got duing war:
Drones is under 25% of our networth. Galactic law forbids us from attacking.

You need to fire your tester and hire a new one.

this feature also made some sence when the attack bug wasnt part of the game… when u needed less fleet in attack to get around . sonthing you and your tester would know if u played…

@I_like_pie

Hopefully you can understand how ridiculous it is when vets say we are killing the game by moving away from “Classic IC”, and then complain about features from the same era.

Am i still ridiculous?

@I_like_pie

For as much shit as some of you vets give me for being “out of touch”,

you are clearly out of touch, play 1 round in MW for the win, not as boot strap charlie third useless support player and see for yourself.

sad part is that 90% of MW today is Boot strap charlies not involved enough to care or even to see these things… couse they log in 2-3 times a day from their phone and sends aid and builds alittle. they dont care if they win or loose.

Most of the core players who made this game competative and interesting are allready gone becouse of shitty features.

@I_like_pie

It’s not often I stroke my own ego, but to be quite honest if I were to play again I may very well spank the lot of you just yet. You forget that I’m a vet too with some rank behind me as well, and I don’t recall ever overjumping

OFC!!! you would WIN if u bothered to try, its never been easier… there is almost not a soul left who cares if he wins or looses,… but bring back players like Orbit, Pickle Hydro etc , and you wouldnt stand a snowballs chanse pie. and the funny thing alot of these guys would actually be back in a heart beat if u wanted them too.

This might be news for you, but IC WAS NEVER FAIR. THE NATURE isnt FAIR. NOTHING IS FAIR.

But you would rather;

@I_like_pie

I would rather see fewer players playing a fair game, than more players playing an unfair game.

So good luck on this hobby quest to make the perfect fair game. You are sutcha great guy pie and skilled programer, but if your not willing to do the small changes to keep and get back the core players , you are killing them game for us players who care more than logging in 2 times a day.

[Vash_the_Stampede]

While you are right about his jump you are still a noob pie along with the “testers”.

[I_like_pie]

Here’s an open invite to anybody who thinks our testers do such a poor job: come show us how it’s done.

More info coming soon.

@Airwing, on that note, you clearly have strong opinions, but there still seems to be some significant misunderstandings. Let’s turn this into something productive: there’s no need to wait on me to start solving the issues you want to see fixed.

If/when you’re ready to test some of battle stuff, I’ll take you up on your offer. Show us what we’re doing wrong.

@DustyAladdin thanks for your perspective. Fwiw, I do see the other side of this too and completely understand why you and others may prefer bringing back the IA rule.

What’s so bizarre to me though is the perception that “doing away with UA” will lead to any functional difference. There is no code change, feature to enable, or enforcement policy to enact: it’s 100% in the hands of the players regardless of the rule being there or not.

Consider what would happen if I said that UAs were illegal, and the rule is back in place, with all of us knowing that we can’t enforce it. What actually changes? I’ve been pretty clear that we don’t have the resources to enforce the rule, and reports on it will not be investigated due to the drain on staff resources, complications in interpreting violations, and unavoidable bias that happens when staff has to manually monitor players’ ingame communications.

The grass is surely greener: @Airwing himself got banned 2 years ago for IA and complained that it wasn’t fair. In his own words, he said “we should be alowed some vigilant justice”.

The IA rule is one of the largest scapegoats in the game’s entire history. Some of the same players who want it back are the same players who create the imbalance they say it promotes. Some of the same individuals say we need the rule, and when the rule is there say that they should be allowed an exception to it.

It makes one wonder if some players want this rule in place so they can have the freedom to break it while knowing that others won’t. AW himself is in here saying we should just accept cheaters if it means more players, while arguing against IC being a fair game, because life is unfair. At least he’s honest about it, I suppose.

This player response to the rule isn’t uncommon, and was also one of the reasons we decided to do away with the rule: it’s impossible to manage in a fair and consistent manner. If you think our current scenario is “the much harder route”, can you imagine the amount of overhead we incurred to create and maintain a system that is as free as bias as possible, with multiple staff members spending literally hours to try to fairly assess a single IA report?

Trust me, this is not the harder route. Not by a long shot.

Enforcing IA is not a scalable solution to anything, even if it was a fair rule, which it isn’t. It makes no sense for this to be a staff policy; it should be on the players to maintain these norms, and that’s what we have.

An official rule on the matter is irrelevant. With or without it, players can do what they want and are only held accountable by other players. Either way, the time and effort staff will spend enforcing it is exactly 0.

So if the rule was in place, and staff won’t enforce it, it would be 100% up to players to enforce the policy that they want, which is… exactly how it is now.

[Darrk]

Great post.

[Hala]

Long story short - Removing UA/IA is bullshit. It can’t be done. It’s up to the players to play a game they like, not up to Pie to tell you how to do it.

[The_Unknown]

UA is not the issue that prevents new players from staying… Will it get the aformentioned vet players back? Probably, but for how long?

@Airwing If you really want to do something against it, how about you let players sign a “code of honour” stating they will not go into a UA. And if they break it, they will get ostracised and the whole galaxy will jump on them? Like Pie said, it is up to the players to “enforce” this.

[MaceWindex]

It’s because ostracising is just making the rest of the galaxy an IA vs the people that just made an IA. That’s the tricky part. What could you use as a punishment (hence why no official rule on it other than a smacked arse in comms for being caught)?

[DustyAladdin]

I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t be player enforced, it’s just way easier to convince people that cheating is bad, UA is against the rules, therefore UA is something that shouldn’t be done. It’s way harder to convince players to not do UA when it is effectively encouraged currently.

We aren’t asking for anything more than an official statement that UA is now against the rules. It’s not about enforcement by Pie, it’s about making it many times easier for player enforcement by setting the baseline as don’t do UA and players will enforce it, rather than have as much UA as possible and good luck to anyone who wants to change that.

[I_like_pie]

That’s the core of the disagreement: I do not think it should be considered cheating. That doesn’t mean that I encourage it though.

NAP breaks are an easy parallel: I myself would never break a NAP and never have, but it would be a huge overreach to say that it is now considered cheating.

Our official stance is that we neither encourage nor discourage UAs. It being legal simply means that players have the freedom to decide (and think) for themselves, both individually and collectively.

[Hala]

@I_like_pie

Our official stance

Our? Majestic plural?

[Darrk]

Lol yes.
Vince is a dood.
Vince is the owner of the company IC.
Vince is also a player.

The royal “we” (as far as American business law is concerned) is perfectly applicable.

Also, “we” depersonalizes IC from Vince.
“Getting mad at Pie” is logically inaccurate when the game structure is changed.

Tho Vince (as owner) has the final say on everything, I.C. utilizes more input from it’s customers (or, the royal “us”) than any company I have ever heard of.

[Darrk]

Well… outside of the people who make wedding cakes.

[Luker8969]

@I_like_pie

It being legal simply means that players have the freedom to decide (and think) for themselves, both individually and collectively.

Eating your own shit is legal.

Doesn’t mean you should do it.

[Airwing]

@I_like_pie

NAP breaks are an easy parallel: I myself would never break a NAP and never have,

With ingame naps its not realy an issue or comparable, as breaking naps is not an issue or even possible if u sign ingame.

i think we are at the core of the problem here…

Its dosent matter how much we argue against the UA or how many players voice their opinion. . when the judge and jurry aka Pie says;

@I_like_pie

do not think it should be considered cheating.

@I_like_pie

Our official stance is that we neither encourage nor discourage UAs. It being legal simply means that players have the freedom to decide (and think) for themselves, both individually and collectively.

its a pointless discussion aslong as there is no interest from the Pie to work around it…

I also think this is why alot of the more active players dont play atm, since this somewhat drains the fun out of IC atm.

[I_like_pie]

@Airwing

With ingame naps its not realy an issue or comparable, as breaking naps is not an issue or even possible if u sign ingame.

In-game NAPs are a round setting, and they are not always present. Players still make unofficial NAPs as well.

If that example doesn’t suit you, here’s another: there is a common practice where families pressure players to play specific roles, which has been happening for years. I do not personally condone that, but it would be a huge overreach to say that it is illegal.

Yes, I am “judge and jury” when it comes to the rules, and I am saying that I don’t want to be judge and jury. That’s the entire point, players should be free to play how they want without staff breathing down their neck, acting as big brother, and manually reviewing their private correspondence.

That is what the IA rule was: players knowing that every single private message was liable to be read by staff, and moving their communications away from the game out of paranoia.

You are arguing for more consolidated authority, and for me to be judge and jury even more than I am now. I prefer that players retain their freedom.

@Airwing

there is no interest from the Pie to work around it…

You keep repeating this, and it is not true. For the millionth time: there is interest in working around it.

At this point you have consistently misrepresented my position so many times, I can only assume that you are knowingly lying to the community. Please stop speaking on my behalf.

Many of us want to find solutions to the underlying issues. If you find the conversation to be pointless, nobody is forcing you to participate.

[Airwing]

@I_like_pie

For the millionth time: there is interest in working around it.

I agree, i belive there is interest, but maybe not in this millenium?

@I_like_pie

there is a common practice where families pressure players to play specific roles, which has been happening for years.

@I_like_pie

players should be free to play how they want without staff breathing down their neck, acting as big brother, and manually reviewing their private correspondence.

So run an SS round ?

We have been asking for that soo many times allready.

[SCORP]

just hurry up and set new round up please

[I_like_pie]

@Airwing

maybe not in this millenium?

We’ve already covered this elsewhere, and the SS thing too. It’s been answered “soo many times allready”. I’m assuming you’re trolling at this point.

Even if you aren’t, you are clearly not having this conversation in good faith or bothering to put any effort into understanding our plans. This stopped being productive awhile ago.

@SCORP announcement coming soon.

Thank you for your insight everybody. After the dev server officially opens, I’ll post links to some threads here so we can continue to plan solutions to UA issues and other matters discussed in this thread.