|
|
5 Apr 2009, 00:55
|
#101
|
Ubi concordia, ibi victor
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
I often are, but at least I don't mind being corrected
For sake of discussion, and yet again I might be way off here, but from what I can remember Asc was originally formed much due to eXi and 1up with a goal of being 'awesome' without the standard hierarchy as most alliances, and also to not always play for a victory always, but being different, "exploiting/trying" different tactics and different sides to the game, to challenge themselves and the game so to speak, pointing out flaws and weaknesses within the game? Asc played their own game, always with some surprise up their sleeve, unpredictability and a unprecedented ability to adapt and evolve throughout the round.
Last few rounds it seems to me they are more involved in politics and playing hardcore to Win at any cost, only difference now is basically the hierarchy they use (tho more alliances are changing in that direction), and in itself that is a positive and efficient way to run an alliance, but it'll become the standard, leaving Asc to be "like everyone else"... Due to their success Ascendancy attract good players and most importantly their system encourages activity and individual involvement, which I believe is the main reason for last 3 rounds wins.
Doesn't this make them less 'different' and more like mainstream alliances, and wasn't being different (original) and innovative part of what Ascendancy was really about?
History lesson more than welcome!
Sorry this turned into a wall of text, hard to stop ranting some times...
__________________
"I'm not saying I don't trust you, and I'm not saying I do. But I don't."
* We do not exist *
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 01:25
|
#102
|
Finn.. who's drunk.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 285
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
grats, but tbh the other alliances where appallingly bad in politics if they even did some.. not to mention their military tactics.
Anyways best roiding alliance of the round, and full fleet defs deserve the win if you get people to do that, it's good for the moral and they do it to others in the round as they know they can expect same from others who they have deffed. + Damn good that the round was that long so you where able to bounce back, in "normal" round might have been "bit" more harder as they'r just too short.
__________________
r2 Thieves
r3: top100(p0rks0da rox) r4: top400(excadrix, pcmaster+me=gal 99th) r5: top150(before giving up, nocex didn't rock) r6:evu and drunk dwarf (top50)
r7: wasted c27 gal, sucky luck in clus. r8: In real Finnish infantry.. 270days r9: boring round as hell
r9.5: Top60(small playerbase=easy)
Few won R's in PIA, r26 top15 First/Last Pax round.
[OLMIT] / [TreKronor]
10 lines max for signature I heard.. so
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 01:39
|
#103
|
m33p
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 4th floor
Posts: 138
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villeh
Stuff about the start of asc
|
Jester wrote something on the forums in round 16 about asc that sums it up pretty good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
We don't need excuses for our performance. We play however we feel like playing, and get whatever rank we deserve. There's no 'serious' or 'non-serious' about it.
|
When bwtmc rob jester or desse (i cant remember who actually invited me) asked if i wanted to join, that could have been the topic in the priv channel.
__________________
Trying is the first step to failiure.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 01:42
|
#104
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordNieminen
Damn good that the round was that long so you where able to bounce back, in "normal" round might have been "bit" more harder as they'r just too short.
|
Correct, we would have lost had this been a normal 7 week round. Thankfully it wasn't.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 02:15
|
#105
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
I know r28 we definately played for the win. More than just winning, we played for complete domination and we achieved it. r29 we just ended up in a position where we saw we could win and decided to go for it, I know it wasn't really the intention from pt1. This round I think it was just as much about beating Omen at first as winning. Then again we saw we could win and decided to go for it. The hattrick thing probably made an impact too. Although I do believe the whole fortress gal thing was pretty new, no one had taken it to that kind of extreme atleast.
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 15:36
|
#106
|
Mastermind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 430
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
the hardest working ally has won this round - my congratulations
__________________
Community Leader
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 17:27
|
#107
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Villeh
Last few rounds it seems to me they are more involved in politics
|
It's kind of strange how this has gone. Previously we never got involved politically, we wouldn't even talk to other alliances. Eventually to be honest the way people exploited this ended up pissing me off too much to just leave it like that. When we got hit by 7 alliances in r26 most of whom barely had a clue what they were hitting us for it led to us stepping things up and becoming more involved. And so it's developed over the past while.
Anyways seeing as this thread is about Ascendancy and in the spirit of talking about things reasonably and not being a secretive uninteresting dick if anyone has any questions on Ascendancy or the round in general I'd be more than happy to try and answer them.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 17:43
|
#108
|
idle
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 968
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Anyways seeing as this thread is about Ascendancy and in the spirit of talking about things reasonably and not being a secretive uninteresting dick if anyone has any questions on Ascendancy or the round in general I'd be more than happy to try and answer them.
|
will Asc dominate r31 and win again ?
__________________
m0rph3us formerly known as Bugz
"It´s not about how hard u hit, its about how hard u can get hit and still keep moving forward! How much u can take and still move forward!"
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 17:55
|
#109
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
if anyone has any questions on Ascendancy or the round in general I'd be more than happy to try and answer them.
|
How would you of handled the elviz/eksero end of round fiasco? and most importantly, whats your opinion on how to stop it from happening again?
As it stands now, Farming and Donations are completly legal.. As the fiasco highlighted that you cannot be closed for Farming or Donations unless theres direct proof that the person asked for the donations (or the farm planet to init roids and move fleet). Which means, if nothing changes.. People can have farm planets next round from tick 72, So just curious how you think we can stop this?
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:10
|
#110
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by M0RPH3US
will Asc dominate r31 and win again ?
|
Of course. (I have no idea.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
How would you of handled the elviz/eksero end of round fiasco? and most importantly, whats your opinion on how to stop it from happening again?
As it stands now, Farming and Donations are completly legal.. As the fiasco highlighted that you cannot be closed for Farming or Donations unless theres direct proof that the person asked for the donations (or the farm planet to init roids and move fleet). Which means, if nothing changes.. People can have farm planets next round from tick 72, So just curious how you think we can stop this?
|
I wouldn't bother, I'd just legalise it all. As I stated in the other thread I would have removed all the salvage gained in this case. If they keep this current set of rules the multihunters need to use some common sense instead of trying to work out what their poorly written rules actually mean in particular scenarios. It was obviously, to me, wrong that the winning planet was being decided by something as bizzare as an alliance deciding to suicide all their fleets on him. If the intention of the rule was to prevent "unnatural" distortions of the rankings then that certainly counted as one.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:11
|
#111
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
As it stands now, Farming and Donations are completly legal.. As the fiasco highlighted that you cannot be closed for Farming or Donations unless theres direct proof that the person asked for the donations (or the farm planet to init roids and move fleet). Which means, if nothing changes.. People can have farm planets next round from tick 72, So just curious how you think we can stop this?
|
I intend to get my friends to crash on me atleast one to two times a day all round if the rules arent changed or salvage changed. You can't use this as evidence to close me though as its only a statement of intent, im not actually asking anyone to! I'd like a challenge though, so if someone else could do the same I'd appreciate it, thanks!
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:18
|
#112
|
Friends and Foes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Estonia
Posts: 461
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
hirr will not play round 31, so no need to worry about lemming run and salvage!
PS! Bad losers find always excuses for their failure and accuse winners.
__________________
ASCENDANCY
Last edited by OlaTa; 5 Apr 2009 at 18:32.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:19
|
#113
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
I will gladly donate my fleet on a daily basis to VenoX next round!
(who am i kidding, i'll just donate to elviz & not get closed for it, sorry venox, but you're just not loved enough by mh's )
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:26
|
#114
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
I intend to get my friends to crash on me atleast one to two times a day all round if the rules arent changed or salvage changed. You can't use this as evidence to close me though as its only a statement of intent, im not actually asking anyone to! I'd like a challenge though, so if someone else could do the same I'd appreciate it, thanks!
|
Why crash? the rules are the same for farming, so just get your own personal set of farms and 3 fleet on them everyday. For you to be closed, the MultiHunters have to find proof you asked them to move there fleet and initiate roids for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I wouldn't bother, I'd just legalise it all. As I stated in the other thread I would have removed all the salvage gained in this case. If they keep this current set of rules the multihunters need to use some common sense instead of trying to work out what their poorly written rules actually mean in particular scenarios. It was obviously, to me, wrong that the winning planet was being decided by something as bizzare as an alliance deciding to suicide all their fleets on him. If the intention of the rule was to prevent "unnatural" distortions of the rankings then that certainly counted as one.
|
Common Sense doesnt work, as it directly makes the MultiHunters biased (weither intended or not). For instance, Im 100% sure that the Multihunters didnt require direct proof of donations or farming to close someone (as its impossible).. While in this case, they did.
I'm with you on the fact that they've got to legalise it, as they cant enforce it. Then try and figure out how to implement in-game mechanics to lower the effects.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:27
|
#115
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Why crash? the rules are the same for farming, so just get your own personal set of farms and 3 fleet on them everyday. For you to be closed, the MultiHunters have to find proof you asked them to move there fleet and initiate roids for you.
|
in that case, why was Stuhlman closed and eventually deleted this round? Cos he's not Ascendancy? (sorry but its the only difference that is obvious to me at this moment!)
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:33
|
#116
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
in that case, why was Stuhlman closed and eventually deleted this round? Cos he's not Ascendancy? (sorry but its the only difference that is obvious to me at this moment!)
|
Thats what i pointed out earlier in #planeration. These 'sets of rules' the Multihunters used to sort out the end-of-round fiasco didnt exist mid-round.
Plus then the fact, that the Multihunters didnt even try to clean the mess up. I think we can all agree that at least the donation on elviz via Foxman was a clear donation and against the rules.. but the Multihunters didnt even close Foxman for it nor did they remove the salvage (Note: im not arguing about any other donation, just that one.. as that one had way more proof for it than any other donation ever).
They then didnt try to judge each salvation by a case by case basis but then went with the elviz propoganda and went with 'If we delete some of elvizs salvage why not ekseros' instead of 'we will delete the ones where we know they are donations.. i.e. cheating'.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:35
|
#117
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
If there was actually any bias in play with the multihunters don't you think we would have gone for the far more subtle option of getting eksero's salvage removed?
Quote:
Common Sense doesnt work, as it directly makes the MultiHunters biased
|
So does have a poorly written set of rules that you have to reinterpret constantly.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
Last edited by JonnyBGood; 5 Apr 2009 at 18:42.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:39
|
#118
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
in that case, why was Stuhlman closed and eventually deleted this round?
|
i thought it was for blatent roid and xp farming as his score gains were obscene but you know that already since you were ingal with him
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:40
|
#119
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
i thought it was for blatent roid and xp farming as his score gains were obscene but you know that already since you were ingal with him
|
blatent roid and xp gains, arnt proof he asked for the defending planet to move and allow the land
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
If there was actually any bias in play with the multihunters don't you think we would have gone for the far more subtle option of getting eksero's salvage removed?
So does have a poorly written set of rules that you have reinterpret constantly.
|
I'm not trying to say that Asc is in control of the Multihunters but the that the rules allow them to be more lenient on some players (using excuses like we need impossible proof) and then for other players they dont require that proof. This allows for them to be sway'd in what action to take based on there opinions of the person they are talking to and there opinions/feeling of the person they are investigating.
For instance, say that this fiasco didnt involve elviz or eksero but involved Kellogg (a random n00b).. They'd of been closed instantly.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:42
|
#120
|
h3ll's angels
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 273
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
If there was actually any bias in play with the multihunters don't you think we would have gone for the far more subtle option of getting eksero's salvage removed?
|
You believe there isn't actually any bias in play with the multihunters?
__________________
[18:04] * h3ll has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:44
|
#121
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by zebra
You believe there isn't actually any bias in play with the multihunters?
|
Not really no. Certainly not in favour of elviz who has been closed multiple times by the current set of multihunters heh. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity innit.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:49
|
#122
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
I'm not trying to say that Asc is in control of the Multihunters but the that the rules allow them to be more lenient on some players (using excuses like we need impossible proof) and then for other players they dont require that proof. This allows for them to be sway'd in what action to take based on there opinions of the person they are talking to and there opinions/feeling of the person they are investigating.
|
I don't really know why things happened like they did. Unfortunately trying to get a public explanation from the multihunters is like trying to get blood from a stone so I doubt we will find out for sure.
Quote:
For instance, say that this fiasco didnt involve elviz or eksero but involved Kellogg (a random n00b).. They'd of been closed instantly.
|
Yeah because he probably wouldn't have been competing for the #1 spot. If he was, he wouldn't get closed instantly. After all the only reason anyone really cares is because this changed the #1 rank.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:54
|
#123
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Not really no. Certainly not in favour of elviz who has been closed multiple times by the current set of multihunters heh. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity innit.
|
If we look at what happend, it wasnt really stupidity.. It was more that they was swayed by the elviz group (which campaigned for 'if you close elviz youve got to close eksero) instead of following procedure and closing the cheating accounts while keeping open the accounts they suspect but cant prove.
i.e. At the very least, Foxman should of been closed and his salvage deleted (i presume elviz still would of won).. As it was proved (to the standard that was required prior to the incident) that he donated. I'm not trying to argue that elviz should of been closed (although i think he should of but thats for another thread/time) but that the Multihunters didnt even close anyone during this incident and went with the 'we cant close one without closing all the donations' instead of 'we close the ones we can prove, leave the ones we cant'.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 18:55
|
#124
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Yeah because he probably wouldn't have been competing for the #1 spot. If he was, he wouldn't get closed instantly. After all the only reason anyone really cares is because this changed the #1 rank.
|
Isnt that the definition of biased? that they treated him differently? than what they would anyone else?
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 19:08
|
#125
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
If we look at what happend, it wasnt really stupidity.. It was more that they was swayed by the elviz group (which campaigned for 'if you close elviz youve got to close eksero) instead of following procedure and closing the cheating accounts while keeping open the accounts they suspect but cant prove.
i.e. At the very least, Foxman should of been closed and his salvage deleted (i presume elviz still would of won).. As it was proved (to the standard that was required prior to the incident) that he donated. I'm not trying to argue that elviz should of been closed (although i think he should of but thats for another thread/time) but that the Multihunters didnt even close anyone during this incident and went with the 'we cant close one without closing all the donations' instead of 'we close the ones we can prove, leave the ones we cant'.
|
Yeah, that one seems a bit retarded although I'll admit I didn't pay any attention to it really. I wouldn't have said they did it because they liked elviz or something though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Isnt that the definition of biased? that they treated him differently? than what they would anyone else?
|
True to an extent but given that the deciding issue is rank based it's not really relevant.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 19:46
|
#126
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Hey guys, maybe we should frame this debate around these five points:
- what activity we think is legitimate
- what activity we think isn't legitimate
- how much discretion we should leave to the MH
- what aspects of the rule are bad
- what wording any new rule should take, based on the above
As the current avenue of arguments is making me bang my head on my keyboard.
As for the accusations of bias amongst my MH colleagues, if you're going to do that at least have the decency to put up an argument or show us some evidence. Otherwise they're just random accusations with no bearing on reality.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 19:49
|
#127
|
Save energy: Be apathetic
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 228
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaster
A well played round, a well deserved round win.
You were by FAR the best alliance this round and have had a rough round from the start and up till now, and always managed to get out on top.
I take my hat off, and hope that next round someone can manage to stop a 4th in a row. I tried but certainly failed miserably
I ll make a longer post at some other stage where I ll share some fun logs from ally chans, and explain why things ended as they did! For now I ll just give you all the credit u guys deserve. You won the game in all aspects. Your def this round has been nothing short of impressive.
Well done JBG
|
I second that. Congrats, Jonny and co. =)
__________________
Ascendancy - Land'n'Crash Inc.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 20:03
|
#128
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
[*]what activity we think is legitimate[*]what activity we think isn't legitimate
Sum that up in this case by simply saying 'change the salvage formula to not account for attacking ship losses' so that people cannot donate.
[*]how much discretion we should leave to the MH
Zero, Its proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MH is incompetent, influenced by the community not by the rules, and lack common sense.
They have been closing people for donations/farming in previous rounds without the required evidence, even when doing this then didnt try to address any of the problems to make sure they didnt have to do it again.
There is zero way to prove that the defending planet asked the attacking planet for the donation, so in effect no-one should ever of been closed for donating.
Fiery is Head MH, yet the community has very little confidence in her.
[*]what aspects of the rule are bad
Any rule that is in place, that cannot be proved (therefore is useless).
[*]what wording any new rule should take, based on the above
There is no wording, you cannot prove farming or donations to the standard the Multihunters have required in this case (so therefore any future case). The game mechanics need to change, not the rules.. I.E. Salvage from now on cannot take into account attacking ships, as thats the only way to stop salvage donations.
Quote:
As for the accusations of bias amongst my MH colleagues, if you're going to do that at least have the decency to put up an argument or show us some evidence. Otherwise they're just random accusations with no bearing on reality.
|
They closed people for farming before, without evidence that the attacking planet 'asked' the defending planet to donate. In fact, im told Elviz was closed in a previous round for this (dont know if thats true).
They closed Stuhlman for farming this round, yes it looks obvious to everyone.. Yet by the Multihunters standards they said they needed to close a planet.. they didnt have the evidence required (i.e. they couldnt prove stuhlman asked the defending planet to move his fleet).
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:00
|
#129
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
removing attackers salvage would actually be a good one and maybe even change the salvage rule in such a way that you the salvage you get is directly related to the ammount of damage you do to an attacking fleet. In other words, if you get FC'd properly with a full emp and kill, I think you shouldn't get as much salvage as when you have someone crashing on you, where he loses f.e. 5 mill and youl lose 700k killing him, you should almost get 700k salvage back. If on the other hand you lose 700k while he only loses 100k, you get very little back, value-result should determine the winner of combat and hence the salvage. This way clear wins in terms of defence go to even clearer 'wins', but never to 'profits' but only to value-neutral, while clear losses are real losses and people get killed by it. (which makes things far more fun!) Include some XP whoring here to balance things up if you like to but I do not think this is needed.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:06
|
#130
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Theamion
removing attackers salvage would actually be a good one and maybe even change the salvage rule in such a way that you the salvage you get is directly related to the ammount of damage you do to an attacking fleet. In other words, if you get FC'd properly with a full emp and kill, I think you shouldn't get as much salvage as when you have someone crashing on you, where he loses f.e. 5 mill and youl lose 700k killing him, you should almost get 700k salvage back. If on the other hand you lose 700k while he only loses 100k, you get very little back, value-result should determine the winner of combat and hence the salvage. This way clear wins in terms of defence go to even clearer 'wins', but never to 'profits' but only to value-neutral, while clear losses are real losses and people get killed by it. (which makes things far more fun!) Include some XP whoring here to balance things up if you like to but I do not think this is needed.
|
Salvage isnt implemented in the game to help the actives, its main object is to help new players/inactives rebuild after they've been hit while they're offline, as an additional bonus it gives an incentive to defenders (and gives them an advantage).
Somewhere along the line, it got changed from this, to 'its purely an incentive for defenders' which resulted in attacking fleets getting added into the formula.
FC's would fall into the same rule as inactives/new players and i dont see a way around this.. So you cant stop FC's from getting the salvage.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:09
|
#131
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Removing attacking salvage is going to make fighting a war so unprofitable as to actually make it completely retarded to go to war.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:11
|
#132
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Removing attacking salvage is going to make fighting a war so unprofitable as to actually make it completely retarded to go to war.
|
How often does Asc crash? So how often does any other alliance profit from salvage when going to war with Asc?
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:11
|
#133
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
if people are stupid enough to crash then the defenders deserve the salvage
and remember folks there is no known cure for stupidity so no point taking salvage away let the stupid people get what they deserve
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:18
|
#134
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
How often does Asc crash? So how often does any other alliance profit from salvage when going to war with Asc?
|
Often enough for it to bother me but less than other alliances. Less often than we benefit from other alliances crashing on us obviously. Seriously though, your argument is "x is good at planetarion, so let's change y so x isn't that good anymore"? Maybe we restrict the amount of times people can login per day as well!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:18
|
#135
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
if people are stupid enough to crash then the defenders deserve the salvage
and remember folks there is no known cure for stupidity so no point taking salvage away let the stupid people get what they deserve
|
Another prime example of the actives/elites trying to get the game to suit them with no regards for the newer player or inactives.
IF we allow attacker salvage, now whats the formula? How can we make it so newbies have a high % of salvage return for when they get bashed and that alliances have a low % of salvage return so they dont get too much profit from crashers like this round?
and if we allow attackers fleets to be in the salvage formula, how do we solve the current Donations problem? You're offering no solutions, only elitist and narrowminded views.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:20
|
#136
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Often enough for it to bother me but less than other alliances. Less often than we benefit from other alliances crashing on us obviously. Seriously though, your argument is "x is good at planetarion, so let's change y so x isn't that good anymore"? Maybe we restrict the amount of times people can login per day as well!
|
No my main argument is that salvage shouldnt account for attacking fleets, as then it automatically solves the donation problem we're facing plus it allows the game to keep a high % salvage to help the newer player when they get bashed while they're offline.
That question was just to show you're heavily biased towards attacker fleets contributing to salvage as currently, you're the only real alliance which profits from it through war.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:29
|
#137
|
Retard0r
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Congrats asc. And thank you for kicking me from tag midround JBG, especialy since i actually crashed 700k value 3 ticks before the round ended
__________________
-Chimpie
* We do not exist *
* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:37
|
#138
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
No my main argument is that salvage shouldnt account for attacking fleets, as then it automatically solves the donation problem we're facing plus it allows the game to keep a high % salvage to help the newer player when they get bashed while they're offline.
|
You don't solve a loophole in your legal system by throwing away parts of it. The original intention of salvage was not to make it easier on newbies, it was to make it more rewarding to take part in battles. Regardless of even if it was just to help newbies it's now the case that it plays a significant role in the development of any war. Fair enough a lot of people think it's too high (I don't but meh) so we're halving it for next round. But removing attacking salvage would be horrible. It promotes fencesitting and being involved in as few actual battles as possible. It makes good defence, probably the last part of pa requiring any real degree of skill or intelligence, less rewarding which will in turn lead to the dominance of attacking again. And defence is what makes alliances alliances. It's what encourages the bonds which make people feel like the other member is their brother, not just some dude who's always around for TP to pick a target before them.
Quote:
That question was just to show you're heavily biased towards attacker fleets contributing to salvage as currently, you're the only real alliance which profits from it through war.
|
Yeah but not because we profit from it. We also profit from huge gals but I'm in favour of those being decreased in size. We also profit from the high rates of salvage but plenty of people in ascendancy are pro those going down. I'm in favour of attacking fleets contributing to salvage because in my opinion it rewards good planetarion.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 21:41
|
#139
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
How often does Asc crash? So how often does any other alliance profit from salvage when going to war with Asc?
|
We should never ever punish what is fundamentally good play. Just because we're the only ones who seem to have been rigidly disciplined about it this round, doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 22:54
|
#140
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Another prime example of the actives/elites trying to get the game to suit them
|
how is someones stupidity to crash classed as the elite trying to get the game suited to them
seriously arguing for the sake of it and disagreeing with anything someone from asc says just makes you look bitter
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 23:44
|
#141
|
Nobody
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London
Posts: 178
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Fair enough a lot of people think it's too high (I don't but meh) so we're halving it for next round.
|
Is this official? Can't find anywhere that says this is the case :x
|
|
|
5 Apr 2009, 23:57
|
#142
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Mz said it. I assumed he was involved in game development and knew this from there.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 00:39
|
#143
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
No my main argument is that salvage shouldnt account for attacking fleets, as then it automatically solves the donation problem we're facing plus it allows the game to keep a high % salvage to help the newer player when they get bashed while they're offline.
That question was just to show you're heavily biased towards attacker fleets contributing to salvage as currently, you're the only real alliance which profits from it through war.
|
The sad thing here is that you're suggesting Asc are in favour of attacking salvage because there's something intrinsic to the game that rewards them more than other alliances. This, unfortunately for you, is bollocks. Nobody forces anybody to crash. If Omen/CT/ND had enforced the same rigid "no-crash" policy as Asc have this round, Asc wouldn't have won, because those alliances would at the end point have had twice the fleet value with which to fight them. It's not a matter of game mechanics making it easier for any particular alliance, it's a matter of stupid people making it easier for their competitors.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 01:02
|
#144
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Light is being incredibly retarded in this thread.
The reason elviz wasn't closed/his donations weren't removed was because eksero also got donations. The intentions of the attackers were different but the outcomes were the same (salvage donations), and they distort the planet rankings. Both should have been removed. Although, I'm not very happy about the obvious donations on elviz being allowed to stand, I know it wouldn't have changed anything but I'd have reversed the salvage purely out of principle, the donations suck.
As for attacking ship salvage - salvage currently makes defending worthwhile. Toning it down a bit, as is being done, is appropriate. Removing salvage from attacking ships, however, makes defending pretty sucky
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 04:37
|
#145
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
The reason elviz wasn't closed/his donations weren't removed was because eksero also got donations. The intentions of the attackers were different but the outcomes were the same (salvage donations), and they distort the planet rankings. Both should have been removed. Although, I'm not very happy about the obvious donations on elviz being allowed to stand, I know it wouldn't have changed anything but I'd have reversed the salvage purely out of principle, the donations suck.
|
I forgot that rule, If two people cheat within 2days of each other, you cannot close one account without closing the other? What the hell does Elviz's case have to do with Eksero's? They are two seperate cases, you're arguing that they couldnt close elviz without closing eksero? but why? The obvious donations on elviz were proved to the same standard which was required prior to the incident, so he should of been closed.. Its just they listened to arguments like your's and said 'you cant punish elviz for cheating, even though he got caught.. cuz you cant prove or close eksero'.
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 04:39
|
#146
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
We should never ever punish what is fundamentally good play. Just because we're the only ones who seem to have been rigidly disciplined about it this round, doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage.
|
No, but you cant use 'attacking salvage' as the reason for war, when all alliances declaring war on Asc dont get salvage. Its not that its an unfair advantage its that no-one declares war for the salvage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
You don't solve a loophole in your legal system by throwing away parts of it. The original intention of salvage was not to make it easier on newbies, it was to make it more rewarding to take part in battles. Regardless of even if it was just to help newbies it's now the case that it plays a significant role in the development of any war. Fair enough a lot of people think it's too high (I don't but meh) so we're halving it for next round. But removing attacking salvage would be horrible. It promotes fencesitting and being involved in as few actual battles as possible. It makes good defence, probably the last part of pa requiring any real degree of skill or intelligence, less rewarding which will in turn lead to the dominance of attacking again. And defence is what makes alliances alliances. It's what encourages the bonds which make people feel like the other member is their brother, not just some dude who's always around for TP to pick a target before them.
|
But again, your logic doesnt work.. As alliances arnt built on the principle 'we defend for salvage, if theres no chance of salvage.. we wont defend'. I never once heard from Omen DCs 'Its Asc, so no chance of crashing.. so we wont defend'.
You dont need to profit from salvage for it to be useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
The sad thing here is that you're suggesting Asc are in favour of attacking salvage because there's something intrinsic to the game that rewards them more than other alliances. This, unfortunately for you, is bollocks. Nobody forces anybody to crash. If Omen/CT/ND had enforced the same rigid "no-crash" policy as Asc have this round, Asc wouldn't have won, because those alliances would at the end point have had twice the fleet value with which to fight them. It's not a matter of game mechanics making it easier for any particular alliance, it's a matter of stupid people making it easier for their competitors.
|
Actually, Asc would of won without attacking. I dont understand your post, you're trying to imply that alliances had a 'crash at will' policy?
and so what if its 'stupid people' making it easier for there competitors? does that mean we cant change the game mechanics to better suit the needs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gzambo
how is someones stupidity to crash classed as the elite trying to get the game suited to them
seriously arguing for the sake of it and disagreeing with anything someone from asc says just makes you look bitter
|
No, i was discussing with JBG. Its not my fault that 99% of the forum posters are Asc, so slowly they all joined in on JBG's side.. leading to no more discussion but instead a group of people trying to make me look bad for disagree'ing. There's no discussion on this board anymore, due to as soon as someone disagree's with an Asc member (mainly JBG as he posts alot) there's a squad of Asc who will bombard the thread, making no real effort to add to the discussion.. Just with the intention to make whoever disagree'd look bad.
I love how you try and me it seem that im bitter? that im suggesting things to fix the situation, have constantly said i like Asc and that they deserved to win (if Omen couldnt win), yes i didnt really like elviz winning though but in this discussion ive tried hard not to get into that discussion but instead discussing next round or the rules for the multihunters. How can you regard someone as 'bitters', as they suggested a way to fix the solution and then spent the next few hours debating it? Simply disagree'ing with someone is not an act of bitterness nor is it a sign of no respect, its just.. they disagree with there views.
Edit: JBG, it seems like you're trying to imply that Asc defending is built around selfishness and would fall apart if the defenders wasnt offered the ability to profit?
Instead of simply changing the salvage mechanics, to better suit the needs of newer players.. Its been decided it seems that we'll just lower the salvage %, essentially screwing over the newer/inactive player for the actives. When infact lowing the salvage % doesnt change anything with regards to salvage donations, i could still donate my fleet to someone and they would still profit from it..
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
Last edited by Light; 6 Apr 2009 at 05:05.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 05:05
|
#147
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
Actually, Asc would of won without attacking. I dont understand your post, you're trying to imply that alliances had a 'crash at will' policy?
|
If nobody crashed on Asc, they would've had to do more attacking to actually build and maintain a lead. They didn't create the situation, they just benefited from it. I'm not implying that other alliances had a crash at will policy, but no alliance worked as hard as Asc to ensure it simply didn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
and so what if its 'stupid people' making it easier for there competitors? does that mean we cant change the game mechanics to better suit the needs?
|
Are you serious? Go play Hangman, you'll find it less mentally strenuous. If you're actually not smart enough to play the game the way it's designed to be played, that's not the game's fault, and it's certainly not the fault of those who are. Why should the game be dumbed down to accommodate stupidity? It's just a goddamn maths exercise - it operates on extremely simple formulae and principles that are clearly explained in the manual. There have been 32 rounds of Planetarion, and those fundamental principles have not changed once - so if you haven't by now figured out that crashing is stupid and you have a recall button that costs you nothing but a few hours travel time home, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 05:12
|
#148
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
If nobody crashed on Asc, they would've had to do more attacking to actually build and maintain a lead. They didn't create the situation, they just benefited from it. I'm not implying that other alliances had a crash at will policy, but no alliance worked as hard as Asc to ensure it simply didn't happen.
|
a no crash policy, doesnt mean no-one crashes. Omen/CT/ND certainly had a no-crash policy, Omen kicked people for crashing? what does it solve, nothing.. people still crash.
[/quote]
Are you serious? Go play Hangman, you'll find it less mentally strenuous. If you're actually not smart enough to play the game the way it's designed to be played, that's not the game's fault, and it's certainly not the fault of those who are. Why should the game be dumbed down to accommodate stupidity? It's just a goddamn maths exercise - it operates on extremely simple formulae and principles that are clearly explained in the manual. There have been 32 rounds of Planetarion, and those fundamental principles have not changed once - so if you haven't by now figured out that crashing is stupid and you have a recall button that costs you nothing but a few hours travel time home, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.[/quote]
The current design is that Donations and Farming is now allowed. Thats what this discussion is about, it seems you've missed that.. So you're not arguing about changing features when you havent even bothered to read 'why'.
Features change all the time, most of the PA Team and zPeti (im guessing) know that PA has to change to accomodate newer players. You're the one who is living in the past with the "the game is centered about me, dont change that". Features and Formula's need to be changed to allow the newer player to survive easier and have a more enjoyable round.
So please, come up with a solution to make Farming/Donations enforceable by rules or stopped by in-game mechanics?
__________________
First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 05:20
|
#149
|
Sain†s
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 331
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
I don't think anything's centred around me, and I've not had a single good crash on me all round. I do believe that salvage needs reducing, because at current levels it makes defending a little too easy, but as JBG said earlier, it's defending that makes an alliance worthwhile, so it doesn't need reducing too much. I'm also not aware of farming being legal at any point, but there seem to be a great number of people on here who feel it's fine for otherwise illegal levels of salvage to be taken by a single player simply because it was crashed by the 'lol we always crash' alliance. Given that it had a massive effect on the race for #1, but was allowed to stand, it's only fair and consistent that salvage donations on the other top players should stand too. Realistically, the MHs should have stripped the 3m value eksero received from hirr's crash, and indeed had they done so, elviz would have still won, but without needing any of the salvage he received in turn. I'm sure the likes of Jungle and yourself would be up in arms about a lemming run being stripped from the records, but hey, who am I to question the feeble minds of PA players?
I don't agree with any massive salvage suicides actually being allowed, but I'll be damned if I'll agree to condone inconsistency just so the Asc-bashers will stop giving me negative reputation.
__________________
☠ | ROCK | BowS | Sain†s
|
|
|
6 Apr 2009, 05:27
|
#150
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Congratulations Ascendancy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Light
But again, your logic doesnt work.. As alliances arnt built on the principle 'we defend for salvage, if theres no chance of salvage.. we wont defend'. I never once heard from Omen DCs 'Its Asc, so no chance of crashing.. so we wont defend'.
|
This doesn't address my point at all. Taking actions to reduce the effectiveness of good defence is going to lead to more attacking in successful alliances. More attacking and less defending in successful alliances is going to lead to the diminishment of the inter-personal bonds which constitute an alliance. Take it from someone who won a round by xp whoring, it's a lot more interesting as a game this way.
Quote:
Edit: JBG, it seems like you're trying to imply that Asc defending is built around selfishness
|
Unquestionably. It's just that collectively speaking the best way for us all to achieve decent planet ranks is to ensure the success of the alliance first.
Quote:
The current design is that Donations and Farming is now allowed.
|
This isn't true. Even from the most callous of perspectives they could just reintroduce the rules you're saying they've ignored and use them for next round.
Quote:
You're the one who is living in the past with the "the game is centered about me, dont change that". Features and Formula's need to be changed to allow the newer player to survive easier and have a more enjoyable round.
|
It's a twenty four hour game that doesn't shut down (except when the servers die for the eighth time that round). This game doesn't need barely active newbies. It needs ways to make barely active players become more active. Features that let some dude rebuild 30% of his fleet as opposed to 15% aren't helpful. Features that means he becomes active enough not to lose that fleet are.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:12.
| |