[wakey]

Originally Posted by Phil^

You have misunderstood what i am saying.
value makes an alliance and a player stronger then others, not better.
rankings should be based on actual strength - Hence value.

So the winner of the round should be the most cowardly alliance thats avoided conflict, hit easy targets ect ect

You've contradicted yourself here. You start off saying that value can mean they are the ones which can change the game, then you say that it certainly doesnt mean that they are the ones most capable of changing the game.
Which is it?

No I haven't contradicted myself. The word CAN does not mean DOES. While the alliance with the most value can be the ones that are most able to change the round value alone doesnt give them this ability. Having a good value is just one of many factors in which alliance is most capable of changing the round

ad hominem. Purile insults are childish wakey, you're better then this
I know that, Incase you havent noticed i happen to want XP completely removed from the game and this is what i have been arguing for.
Changing the alliance rankings to value makes sense as the strongest alliance wins in such a system. It is also the first step along the road to completely removing xp from the game.
incidently i would disagree that an xp system is more honourable then a value system. What honour is there in attacking an opponent who cannot attack you back because of a physical restriction ingame ( bash limit ) ?

Your making up 'fantasy' situations that aren't in place now just to further your anti xp campaign, as such I think im justified questioning your intelligence when you cant look in front of you at the system we have and talk about that system. If you have a problem with XP as part of score then discuss it but dont start ranting based on your fantsay situation where its just XP.

And yes XP has some flaws like the ability to attack people who cant attack back and ive spoken out agaisnt that myself in the past but encouraging attacks on planets 'better' than you holds alot more honour than than encouraging attacks on the smallest people possible

AND why should the alliance with most value be the winners, so they have managed to avoid conflicts, napped themselves up well and hit targets that gave them no losses does that mean they played a good game. I think not