Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Real Arfy
I think its more a case of Acsendancy wanting to play an easy round, i.e. not caring about their roids. Terran has always been the best race to do this with, no question there. I can't imagine that had the stats favoured value alot more, that they would form an unorganised alliance with little to no defence and solo'ing all day long. Same goes for reinvented - we wanted a round where we could relax. We decided this long before the round started.
We are all just playing the game we enjoy most and you can bet that most people would rather just quit than turn to XP/value/whatever because its dull for them.
How many of you believe that Rob/Jester/bwtmc saw the hole in the stats and then said "hey, lets make an alliance". Ascendancy was probably decided long before the stats came out.
|
I think you are about right with your post, just that i think that we still wouldnt care even in a round that is more about value. I expected that defence becomes a lot bigger problem on my attacks this round and that we have to start organised attacks with multiple waves as soon as possible to make up the disadvantage of our small fleets and just swarm galaxies until they are out of anti BS for example ... but it was really not needed. In a round that favours defence this is probably different.
Imo we have to be careful that we dont come from one extreme to the other and that we change things where we cant estimate the outcome.
Even as value-player the question you ask before you land an attack with losses :"how much score do you gain from XP?" - in a round with better stats for defence and a lot reduced defence especially in the higher ranks where it comes more and more likely that your targets get defence i can easily end it in a "oh there is 1 defence fleet - let's better recall before i ruin my value"- situation.
We dont want stagnation but we dont want to reward the initiative to land attacks by XP - we have a problem here i think
