Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gio2k
No offense, but i think most of you have been playing "Catch me if you can" with the MH and the PA team for a couple of rounds already.
EDIT: I meant to say 'some', not 'most'.  |
If we're gearing a game to stop Ascendancy (which with shorter rounds and disrupting any method that doesn't involve straight value play it has been) rather than to actually play a game that works, then the game has lost focus. If the player base is frustrated by Ascendancy, they need to think up new ways of playing to combat it. From a development point of view, the game does not need changing simply because some people are playing the game well or in a different way to which most people would expect. It does however need changing to give it more depth and more ways to win. This is not by the way saying Ascendancy are 'good' in any way - I'm simply saying how they have played.
As much as people would label it as 'lame', last round several alliances decided that the only solution was for everyone to launch at Ascendancy and for Greenhills to accept mass donations. This is acceptable in terms of playing the game, because like us, they were playing within the game rules and got it organised. Obviously, in terms of alliance warfare it was a touch hypocritical, because a large number of these alliances could have displayed the same determination and proactivity earlier and got a victory for themselves.
The only thing the MH have reason to dislike Asc members for is abusive behaviour, but to be honest this has NOTHING to do with how the game is played.
A point that many Asc players make (along with others) about the support planet rule (which by the way we have followed and tried to observe regardless of our opposition to it) is that it is very uncertain, so it comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that a MH with the hump decides to interpret it in a way that goes against an ascendancy player. The problem is that the rule is so bad, that from the perspective of the rules he can't be wrong.
Remy's logic is flawed, but so is that of the rule. It's more than flawed - it's batshit insane. The OOGOOA concept has also been shown to be completely crazy, simply because it railroads over what in my opinion is one of the key rules which is "no donations". The fact that there has been a total disrespect for alliance limits in the past 2 rounds contributes even further to back up my argument that the rule is totally useless.
But there's an additional point to be made here. Whether you really can't stand a particular group or person is neither here nor there when you are in a position of administration. There are people on AD who I would very much love to ban but until there is a good reason to do it, I just won't. Because bias leads to inconsistency which leads to chaos.
This isn't just about game concepts and rules; it's about responsible use of power.
Signed.