I thought this game was for fun, however destruction was tra

Login

Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS Litigations » I thought this game was for fun, however destruction was tra

I thought this game was for fun, however destruction was tra

Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next

Zack WenJian RJ: Zack CO: Zack Post Rating: 16 + / - Total Posts: 114 Karma: 503 Joined: Mar 31, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 take a chill pill man.. its a competitive game after all. In real life, u wouldn't had invest that much money in a company that you barely know right? at least you learnt here. you are still an awesome player and as the admin mentioned, your contribution have helped in the game development! =)
Ron Krovatom RJ: Ron Swanson CO: Alvie Post Rating: 37 + / - Total Posts: 6 Karma: 53 Joined: Mar 27, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 I'm not gonna comment on what happened because I did happen to make quite a few millions out of the whole kerfuffle. I am, however, going to direct a comment at Ratan. You've crafted a game complex enough that you've got emergent gameplay rising up and effecting the economic ecosystem within the game. Plus you've made a game good enough that people care so much that they're all getting really angry about it. Any game community will have drama. I just wanted to say congratulations on making something that people are that into. It's the game dev's dream. You keep on coding, brother.
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 14 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 As someone who just started 10 minutes ago, I don't think I want to play this game if this is what you all are about. I want an complex economics game, not some dark-souled bunch of backstabbing. If I wanted a PvP game, hell-bent on destruction, I would have gone to a war or fantasy site. This is not real life, it is an escape from real life. How sad. I hope the developer gets this under control quickly, or he won't have a product for very long. Sad thing is, as a player I'd think like how Brent thinks.
Garry Hurst RJ: jackosbournelookalike CO: jackosbournelookalike Post Rating: 5 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 21 Joined: Jan 23, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 whats the first thing you see when you goto www.ratjoy.com above the screenshot? anyone remember? i do it's why I joined when i found it. Genre: Browser-Based MMO Business Simulation Atmosphere: Friendly / Cooperative Status: Public Beta Since: Jan. 15, 2012 note the parts in bold and large letters. My entire point about the whole thing...
Ron Krovatom RJ: Ron Swanson CO: Alvie Post Rating: 3 + / - Total Posts: 6 Karma: 53 Joined: Mar 27, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) It's a free market economic simulator dude. That's not quite co-op. Edit: What I mean by this is that the game mechanics and Ratan's admirable refusal to instate rules that are effective retroactively, you really don't have a leg to stand on. That's the atmosphere he put up to attract players. And for the most part, it is co-op. A bunch of people cooperating to get richer than the number one player. The blurb where the dev describes the game is not a binding contract for all players. Also Edit: And don't think people are targeting you just to be mean. You're the richest player and therefore have a huge target painted on your back. If you were to quit playing right now, I promise that the group of people who are supposedly trying to ruin you would turn around and start destroying each other. I've already seen people within that group lose huge amounts of money to each other or in one case be thrown right under the bus. Another edit: Last time I checked you're still the richest player by a huge margin and have so much money that you can grow it back up without difficulty if you know what you're doing. So what's the problem? You are still winning. You don't get mad in a pvp videogame if somebody attacks you and you successfully fight them off. You have tools at your disposal. You have way more money to throw around than anybody else, and the actions of one person with a huge amount of money are way easier to execute than organizing a group. If you're so upset, fight back. It's flattering that it takes a whole cadre of criminals to go up against you. You're that strong. You should be flexing your might instead of complaining.
Rude Ruderson RJ: Sentient Pile of Coffee Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 2 Karma: 11 Joined: Apr 2, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 I always assumed that friendly/cooperative games mean you understand that it's a game and that actions taken by the players aren't personal but done as part of the game. The sheer animosity generated by this event is really bizarre. I'm new and all the drama with these collapsing companies hasn't even really cut into my profits. Anyone claiming this event has any bearing on newbies beyond the tone of the game and future ToS/EUA/rules is just trying to put up a smokescreen.
John Bouton RJ: John Bouton CO: LOL Post Rating: 4 + / - Total Posts: 20 Karma: 27 Joined: Apr 3, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 I'm having a hard time understanding why you would entrust the flagship corporation of your internet browser franchise to someone you didn't know very well. Handing the reins over to a stranger is not really compatible with being super upset when he completely screws it up. That aside, I'm surprised to see ANY of the top earners being in favor of retroactively enforcing changes considering how many of them made their bones by amassing absurd amounts of wealth from the old store system.
Garry Hurst RJ: jackosbournelookalike CO: jackosbournelookalike Post Rating: 3 + / - Total Posts: 151 Karma: 21 Joined: Jan 23, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 it's not like I was destoryed by fair play, I was destroyed by infiltration and PVP attitude, it's not a shooter it's a simulation game, for god's sake I just wanted to run a virtual company, and someone just wanted to infiltrate my company and disband it....thats just rediculous, however I say fairwell to EOS soon I will finish up what I want to do and then, you can all have good luck trying to catch my private company, even without running it, even without doing anything to it. I bet in 6 months no one will even be close......
georges nolan RJ: Silvertear Post Rating: 18 + / - Total Posts: 23 Karma: 25 Joined: Mar 31, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 Challenge accepted.
John Bouton RJ: John Bouton CO: LOL Post Rating: 4 + / - Total Posts: 20 Karma: 27 Joined: Apr 3, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) Bragging about how now one will ever have a company with more value than yours shows a 'PVP mentality' too. Clearly there is a competitive component to your enjoyment of the game so maybe you should ask yourself what you are really angry about?
Ron Krovatom RJ: Ron Swanson CO: Alvie Post Rating: 2 + / - Total Posts: 6 Karma: 53 Joined: Mar 27, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 Just make sure you log in once a month so your company stays around for us to measure ourselves against.
Newton Venture RJ: Rehab Submarine CO: Rehab Submarine Post Rating: 1 + / - Total Posts: 8 Karma: 46 Joined: Apr 1, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) I believe these videos best capture the events of yesterday. Jacko's Company before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QJvc_SxFQ What Goons Did to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v= iakR7sB0skw
Brent Goode RJ: BB Goode CO: BB Goode Post Rating: 41 + / - Total Posts: 506 Karma: 180 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 Sad thing is, as a player I'd think like how Brent thinks. Thought I would come back to see how this was developing. The above statement, coming from an Admin(developer?) is the most intelligent one I have seen so far. The rest seems like a lot of justifying on both sides. There are even statements in which players on the "culprit" list (I have no dog in this fight, so bear with me) are talking for the developers, as if they alone know what was in the mind of the original design team, despite what is posted on the Frontpage. I have been playing and designing these kinds of games since the days when they were literally just pencils, paper and dice. I can tell you that no game should be played that allows players to destroy the work of others without that being expressly stated from the outset. All economic games are competitive, pretty much by definition. However, players should mostly go down due to their own choices, not to collusion on the part of a malignant cabal. Again, I don't know what happened and can only deal with what I see on this page. But it makes me wonder if I am going to put in hours/moths/years into building something, just to have some juvenile wannabe come and manipulate the system to knock it down and make all of it worthwhile. At some point, I will be asked to pay to play the game at "a higher level." And you think I will fork over money for what this looks like? I am going to give this a try. It is going to be on a very short leash. I truly hope this is an apparition, or learning experience for all involved. There are a whole lot of games competing for my limited time out there. I would urge the developers to make sure the necessary Ai's and other safeguards are in place to protect me, and others, from wasting our time while some Lord of the Flies fantasy gets played out behind the scenes. Again, if this is the first thing newbies are faced with upon entering, you will be out of business before you know it.
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 53 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) I'll say, as a pretty recent arrival, that I think this is a case where the bulk of the player base is essentially unconcerned if not wholly unaware of this particular thing. It's obviously important to the folks directly involved, and to an extent it's unavoidably on Scott's radar since the folks involved are highly-engaged and vocal members of the player base, but aggressive stock market and huge-company-management hijinks aren't the core of the game. Most folks are, you know, trying to get a good bakery going, or trying to figure out how to verticalize a chicken-farming concern. They're figuring out the general systemic stuff behind retailing vs. wholesaling, they're playing around with the core economic models that run the biz game. That's the primary attraction to new players; a broken stock market and what is essentially bored wizards having a duel is just a sideshow. It's drama, and I don't mean that in a fundamentally dismissive sense -- folks get invested in a game, in a small game community, they care about what goes down even if it is in fact just a game. But drama isn't what most players signed up for, and drama isn't what lets Scott keep building out the actual core of the game that the bulk of folks are here for. It sucks that jacko is bummed about what went down. In an open sim that makes space for backstabbing, backstabbing is likely to happen. People have differing expectations about what "fair" play means -- everywhere from "don't be overly aggressive" to "don't be a petty griefer" to "don't exploit a bug in the code" -- and when those mismatching expectations collide it can ruin folks' day. It's never fun to run into that. But this is an open sim, and at a certain point risk aversion is the only cure for that stuff: if you don't want to deal with grief, don't get into grief-prone situations. Playing an unregulated market and granting root access to your stuff to other players is high-risk activity. And, again, it's not something a new player has to worry about. There's a whole game that has nothing to do with these shenanigans, and it's the game that most of us are playing.
Alex Weiss RJ: Pleasure Kevin Post Rating: -19 + / - Total Posts: 1 Karma: 19 Joined: Apr 5, 2012	Posted on Apr 5, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 5, 2012) Post hidden due to its low rating (click here to show post) Garry, I'm really offended by what you're doing because I actually felt bad for killing your corporation and here's something without any swearing: You won the lottery before money was invented. You took advantage of in-progress game mechanics to make billions of monopoly dollars. As a result, you decided to corner the only necessary B2B markets and then refuse to cooperate with any other players except to make occasional benevolent dictator-y proclamations in chat. Now that you've finally seen that maybe you aren't the strongest player in the game you shriek limply about how mean people shouldn't exist. You hired someone who just joined the game a day ago named "Pleasure Kevin" to helm your biggest company. Again, my name is Pleasure Kevin. All I had to do to get in with you was tell you that you were a cool guy in the most condescending way I know of. No one else conspired to kill your company, just me. I killed it because you're insufferably smug and generally incompetent. While the game is "cooperative," the "free market simulator" aspect of it immediately assumes that cooperation comes exclusively from mutual interest. When you're paying me a small amount in a video game to keep track of your money fountain, my motivation to not ruin you is greatly lessened. Anyway Garry, in the future you should probably learn to not promote people into powerful positions and maybe not invest in stocks just to have your video game stock portfolio look cooler. Wu Tang EDIT: Also yeah, the overbearing realization of this thing is that you losing your plane business doesn't really hurt the market. Like at all.

Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next

You need to register or login to post a reply.