Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
It is not the task of the lower ranked alliances to provide you with a shot at #1. That's your responsibility. If you can't be arsed to come to mutually beneficial agreements with alliances ranked lower than you and instead choose to NAP your actual competition, then this is the result. That's on you, and no one else.
I respect Cloud's stance more than this desperate attempt to blame anyone but yourself.
This round, all race strategies were wide open to something. Using politics to close those holes is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If that ends up making the round boring, then that's as much the fault of the game mechanics as it is of the people making the agreements. If the game mechanics promote destructive behaviour (like round long NAPs), then that is what players will engage in.
You admit that past performance leads you to trust certain alliances more than others, but you can't understand that past performance may lead people to dislike certain alliances more than others?
|
mz makes a lot of sense here.
How can Ult blame the other alliances whey they NAPed their competition? That's the cardinal rule of PA (no pun intended) - you don't make round long agreements with someone who could beat you a t #1 (unless you have some devious plan)
To be fair, I don't see what Black Flag and p3nguins are doing wrong. BF aren't playing to win and have been blatantly honest about it all round. p3nguins are #1 and any major change in politics would make them potentially lose - so why should they? The only one out on the cusp here is Ultprime and they decided to let p3nguins win.
As for the wars etc, Inferno and Rainbows should look deeply at themselves to how they even allowed these positions to happen. While it's easy to point blame at the current top 3, it was YOUR political decisions that helped that. Both of you engaging in pointless wars, lack of clear political direction and generally let yourselves get outplayed on politics.