[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Light

No, arbitrary seems to be your 'new word of the day'. PA has alot of arbitrary rules which ive already explained yet they are in the game, you cant keep using that as a reason not to do something as we've done it with almost every rule limit in the game; The line has to be drawn somewhere.

The dictionary called Light, they want their word back. PA does indeed have a lot of arbitrary rules. I am against all of them. I am pro-features, not limitations.

Yes, i'd still care about it but if its less of a damaging impact then i wouldnt care as much as its not as much of an advantage. As ive said, if you'd like to see this sort of play in the future, why not do it via goverments allowing it to be properly balanced (giving a one-off resource bonus but sacrificing something else for the short term gain).

I tried to define what i regard as unfair in as broad a sense as i could.

I'd be pro that as well. But you fail to understand. I'm pro as many different possible ways of getting from A to B as are possible to fit into the game.

Everyones arguments are based on nothing more than personal preference so far in this thread has been based on personal preference backed up by gameplay reasons why it shouldnt or should be in the game.

No, you haven't stated a single gameplay-related reason at any point in this thread. 'I don't like this' or 'it's unfair' aren't gameplay reasons. Do you actually know what gameplay means? I'll assume you don't, considering previous history. So I'll quote from wikipedia (don't worry, what I'm about to quote is all cited!)

A review of game design literature reveals numerous definitions among computer and video game developers. For instance:

* "A series of interesting choices." -Sid Meier [1]
* "The structures of player interaction with the game system and with other players in the game."[2]
* "One or more causally linked series of challenges in a simulated environment."[3]
* "A good game is one that you can win by doing the unexpected and making it work."[4]
* "The experience of gameplay is one of interacting with a game design in the performance of cognitive tasks, with a variety of emotions arising from or associated with different elements of motivation, task performance and completion."[5]

Now, I'm not going to point at any particular element BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WOMAN CAN YOU MEET ME HALFWAY HERE?

It depends what you mean by XP whoring, In its current incarnation or in its previous states?

Er, xp whoring is the same now as it was in round whatever the ****. The only thing different now is the xp formula, which means it's less effective in terms of long-term score accumulation.

Ive said before, i dont mind it in this round.. Its perfectly fine this round, i highly disagree with it but its within the rules. All ive been arguing for is that its changed for next round as this 'creativity' gives too much of an advantage with little drawbacks for the planet in question. I even stated before that if you like this new tactic have it balanced within a goverment rather than through group donations.

Actually in post #65 in this very thread you argued that this fell within the remit of the support planets rule, and continued that argument in subsequent posts.

I didnt realise this was a science debate, i thought it was a game design debate where by both sides for and against should give there reasons. In this instance the game design in question hasnt been debated and implemented, so its a debate weither we should keep this unintended consequence of the donation system or not.

You've rather failed to see the point. Absolutely none of your points have had anything to do with game design. If this thread was on the development forum (god forbid) by this stage I'd have asked pateam to either kick you for posting such irrelevant tripe over and over or kick me to save me from having to read someone pretending that talking about "fairness" and "exploits" has anything to do with improving a game.

As ive stated, you can keep this style of play where by you gain a early value lead but change it to goverments rather than donations. So realistically anyone can do it if they choose (rather than having to find 7 other people) and it can be balanced with other drawbacks directly related to the planet.

For example, A goverment which gives you a one-off bonus of X amount of resources at tick 1 (it has to tick, so you cant get the bonus then change goverment ) and the drawback is a much lower (if any) income bonus, so while you start with a nice value lead, you have to carry that through the round via staying ahead of everyone roid wise with your value/ships.

Yes, this is a different option and no, I have no objection to this being introduced. However no, it is not the same option. No, it does not make sense to say you're "keeping this style of play". This style of play was a choice made by a group of planets who were attempting to boost one of their number while sacrificing, to some extent, the rest. Your proposed alternative sacrifices one part of a single planet's round to benefit another aspect of that same planet's round. It's in no way the same thing.

I would expect my six year old cousin to understand this.

He eats worms.