How fast should it be possible to descend someone?

[Tekki]

This is with the absolute maximum damage being done each descension hit.

If you desire include a short justification for your feeling/vote.

[Angelis~]

24? really? Then no one would be descendable seriously. Because all it takes is logging in once to fill your reserves. At least post your reasons. sheesh.

I voted 12 by the way for reasons posted in the other thread.

[Robe]

I voted 12 hours as the bare minimum.

If you have built decent personal defences it should take longer.

[Cole]

For active people, I would say 12.5H (5 hits x2.5H).
For "inactive" people, well, I support what Juliette said in the other topic regarding inactive people ratios.

[Juliette]

6-10 hours.. preferably 10, since I usually sleep about 8 hours and don't log in right after waking up.. also, 10 hours covers the period most people work/commute, taking care of that little issue as well.

Personal case of preference: 10 hours sleep/washing/waking, logging in to fix LF, 10 hours work/commuting, logging in to fix LF, 2/3 hours dinner, logging in, farming and doing 'my thing', (or 2/3 hours of party/friends) and then to bed again.

I can imagine 10 hours working for people with jobs. 12 maybe, but then we'd already be in the range of Angelis' statement.
Ascended is easy enough as it is, does not need to be made any easier for semi-inactives.


As for people who choose to be inactive on ascended.. well, either Vacate, or accept repeated descensions as a 'reward' for your lack of care about an integral part of the game. (Kinda like saying you want to drive a car, but don't want to steer.)

[Iƒrit]

if your RL is blocking your ability to deny someone the chance to deascend, then maybe you should work on your account more.

What about those who work to deascend someone? 10+ hours in a day is a retarded amount of time to devote to a game. I realize its a simple log in every 2.5 hours, but you still have to stay awake and/or log in while your at work and/or set an alarm so you can still get some sleep of some form.

[EbilCC]

12 hours and above is to long you will see few decenstions that way and the point of ascended is gone

[Juliette]

You are using the same argument twice in opposite directions, Ifrit. Choose one which has to go.

if your RL is blocking your ability to deny someone the chance to deascend, then maybe you should work on your account more.

"When you suck, you suck." Agreed so far. Ironically if your RL is 'blocking' your ability to deny descensions you are unlikely to have enough RL time to work on your account. So in addition to "When you suck, you suck" can we say "When you suck, you'll never not suck unless you get lucky"?

(1)What about those who work to deascend someone? (2)10+ hours in a day is a retarded amount of time to devote to a game. (3)I realize its a simple log in every 2.5 hours, (4)but you still have to stay awake and/or log in while your at work and/or set an alarm (5)so you can still get some sleep of some form.

Ad 1; Are we restricting this argument to 'single players' descending 'single players' or do we allow for 'alliances/cooperative units (i.e. team of 2 or more people)' to descend 'single players and/or alliances/cooperative units'? Regardless of the answer; the decision to attempt descension is an active choice. Set your priorities; if you are going to do this alone, you will have a window of opportunity limited by the time and effort you are willing to commit to tackling the problem. Calling in support from a second, third or fourth person striking on the clock in rotation is legitimated by the sheer quantity of both time and effort required. "Don't try this alone."
Ad 2. The resource of time is the only fixed value in the game. Within the confines of the game (Ascended) time is absolute and unchangeable (in Main it is due to the conversion of time into ATs, a purchaseable resource); you cannot have more time than your competitor in the same amount of RL time invested. If an attempt at descension is too 'expensive' where the resource 'time' is concerned; it becomes a logical option to either multiply the amount of RL time available (calling in support; each having their own -theoretically identical- supply of the time resource). Or you could complain that it is too costly. Personally I think the former is more effective to actually descend someone.
Ad 3. Exactly. The activity is one which can easily be transferred to alternates/backup.
Ad 4. This is untrue true given the option of alternates/backup. If no alternates or backup is allowed an attempt at descension becomes substantially more complex and costly (time resource).
Ad 5. Sleep is for the weak. j/k


tl;dr:
If you cannot defend against descension: invest time and effort.
An attempt at descension is a choice; calculate costs in both time and effort.
If you cannot descend someone: call in supporting players, reducing required time and effort.

Resource management 201.

[Iƒrit]

You are using the same argument twice in opposite directions, Ifrit. Choose one which has to go.

if your RL is blocking your ability to deny someone the chance to deascend, then maybe you should work on your account more.

"When you suck, you suck." Agreed so far. Ironically if your RL is 'blocking' your ability to deny descensions you are unlikely to have enough RL time to work on your account. So in addition to "When you suck, you suck" can we say "When you suck, you'll never not suck unless you get lucky"?

(1)What about those who work to deascend someone? (2)10+ hours in a day is a retarded amount of time to devote to a game. (3)I realize its a simple log in every 2.5 hours, (4)but you still have to stay awake and/or log in while your at work and/or set an alarm (5)so you can still get some sleep of some form.

Ad 1; Are we restricting this argument to 'single players' descending 'single players' or do we allow for 'alliances/cooperative units (i.e. team of 2 or more people)' to descend 'single players and/or alliances/cooperative units'? Regardless of the answer; the decision to attempt descension is an active choice. Set your priorities; if you are going to do this alone, you will have a window of opportunity limited by the time and effort you are willing to commit to tackling the problem. Calling in support from a second, third or fourth person striking on the clock in rotation is legitimated by the sheer quantity of both time and effort required. "Don't try this alone."
Ad 2. The resource of time is the only fixed value in the game. Within the confines of the game (Ascended) time is absolute and unchangeable (in Main it is due to the conversion of time into ATs, a purchaseable resource); you cannot have more time than your competitor in the same amount of RL time invested. If an attempt at descension is too 'expensive' where the resource 'time' is concerned; it becomes a logical option to either multiply the amount of RL time available (calling in support; each having their own -theoretically identical- supply of the time resource). Or you could complain that it is too costly. Personally I think the former is more effective to actually descend someone.
Ad 3. Exactly. The activity is one which can easily be transferred to alternates/backup.
Ad 4. This is untrue true given the option of alternates/backup. If no alternates or backup is allowed an attempt at descension becomes substantially more complex and costly (time resource).
Ad 5. Sleep is for the weak. j/k


tl;dr:
If you cannot defend against descension: invest time and effort.
An attempt at descension is a choice; calculate costs in both time and effort.
If you cannot descend someone: call in supporting players, reducing required time and effort.

Resource management 201.

why is it people are okay with giving defender a 10+ hour window to protect themselves cause of RL, but at the same coin say to bad so sad to the attack, HYPOCRITES!

[Juliette]

tl;dr:
If you cannot defend against descension: invest time and effort.
An attempt at descension is a choice; calculate costs in both time and effort.
If you cannot descend someone: call in supporting players, reducing required time and effort.

Resource management 201.

why is it people are okay with giving defender a 10+ hour window to protect themselves cause of RL, but at the same coin say to bad so sad to the attack, HYPOCRITES!

Because we CHOOSE to attack. I.e. it is an ACTIVITY. We don't CHOOSE to defend. I.e. it is PASSIVE.
In Main, where time and effort are far less valuable, you can indeed have 'online 1vs1'. That is not an option with Ascended. You could make a suggestion to change the economics of Ascended to facilitate that; though unleashing Main's rampant inflation on Ascended would be a crime in my eyes.


There is no hypocrisy in requiring different costs for different types of processes.
This is why I alerted you to your mistaken use of argument in my first sentence. You are cutting a cake and a brick with the same knife.

[Iƒrit]

tl;dr:
If you cannot defend against descension: invest time and effort.
An attempt at descension is a choice; calculate costs in both time and effort.
If you cannot descend someone: call in supporting players, reducing required time and effort.

Resource management 201.

why is it people are okay with giving defender a 10+ hour window to protect themselves cause of RL, but at the same coin say to bad so sad to the attack, HYPOCRITES!

Because we CHOOSE to attack. I.e. it is an ACTIVITY. We don't CHOOSE to defend. I.e. it is PASSIVE.
In Main, where time and effort are far less valuable, you can indeed have 'online 1vs1'. That is not an option with Ascended. You could make a suggestion to change the economics of Ascended to facilitate that; though unleashing Main's rampant inflation on Ascended would be a crime in my eyes.


There is no hypocrisy in requiring different costs for different types of processes.
This is why I alerted you to your mistaken use of argument in my first sentence. You are cutting a cake and a brick with the same knife.

defending deascension requires activity as well, how about you defend yourself with the same effort it takes for one to attempt descension and not hide behind a cap

[Juliette]

Because we CHOOSE to attack. I.e. it is an ACTIVITY. We don't CHOOSE to defend. I.e. it is PASSIVE.
In Main, where time and effort are far less valuable, you can indeed have 'online 1vs1'. That is not an option with Ascended. You could make a suggestion to change the economics of Ascended to facilitate that; though unleashing Main's rampant inflation on Ascended would be a crime in my eyes.


There is no hypocrisy in requiring different costs for different types of processes.
This is why I alerted you to your mistaken use of argument in my first sentence. You are cutting a cake and a brick with the same knife.

defending deascension requires activity as well, how about you defend yourself with the same effort it takes for one to attempt descension and not hide behind a cap

If the defending party allocates 0 resources to the defence; they will be descended. That is the very reason Jason has changed the values on ToCs.

On another note; it would be foolish to require descension-prevention to have the same costs as descension-attack, as there is a pool of hundreds if not thousands of people out there aiming to descend you. Relying on existing game mechanics to facilitate your defence is therefore not 'hiding behind a cap'.


Imagine we would remove the cap and timers, or decrease them to mimick Main. That is after all what we are trying to get at. Ascended is boring, Main is not, so make ascended more like Main and we will have fun. Or will we?
Imagine we would remove the caps and timers. Thousands of players turn on thousands of players. Inactives are descended in a single hit. Actives take two, maybe three hits before they too are descended thanks to the 'unlimited' (i.e. there is no LF higher than) the ToC of .. say Angelis. Ultimately, everyone ends up descended except Angelis. Once the descension period ends, all will have regained their turns, and voilá, the same situation evolves as did the first time. All are descended, except the top dog.
It becomes a tournament of who can stay awake longest, live without their friends longest, or the bum without a job or school who can stay around all night. Pull a Chinese-Guy-who-died-playing-non-stop, and we'll make Admin J rage quit.



tl;dr: Ascended != Main. Do not make one into the other. Subtle changes prevail.

[Iƒrit]

[spoiler2=]

Because we CHOOSE to attack. I.e. it is an ACTIVITY. We don't CHOOSE to defend. I.e. it is PASSIVE.
In Main, where time and effort are far less valuable, you can indeed have 'online 1vs1'. That is not an option with Ascended. You could make a suggestion to change the economics of Ascended to facilitate that; though unleashing Main's rampant inflation on Ascended would be a crime in my eyes.


There is no hypocrisy in requiring different costs for different types of processes.
This is why I alerted you to your mistaken use of argument in my first sentence. You are cutting a cake and a brick with the same knife.

defending deascension requires activity as well, how about you defend yourself with the same effort it takes for one to attempt descension and not hide behind a cap

If the defending party allocates 0 resources to the defence; they will be descended. That is the very reason Jason has changed the values on ToCs.

On another note; it would be foolish to require descension-prevention to have the same costs as descension-attack, as there is a pool of hundreds if not thousands of people out there aiming to descend you. Relying on existing game mechanics to facilitate your defence is therefore not 'hiding behind a cap'.


Imagine we would remove the cap and timers, or decrease them to mimick Main. That is after all what we are trying to get at. Ascended is boring, Main is not, so make ascended more like Main and we will have fun. Or will we?
Imagine we would remove the caps and timers. Thousands of players turn on thousands of players. Inactives are descended in a single hit. Actives take two, maybe three hits before they too are descended thanks to the 'unlimited' (i.e. there is no LF higher than) the ToC of .. say Angelis. Ultimately, everyone ends up descended except Angelis. Once the descension period ends, all will have regained their turns, and voilá, the same situation evolves as did the first time. All are descended, except the top dog.
It becomes a tournament of who can stay awake longest, live without their friends longest, or the bum without a job or school who can stay around all night. Pull a Chinese-Guy-who-died-playing-non-stop, and we'll make Admin J rage quit.

tl;dr: Ascended != Main. Do not make one into the other. Subtle changes prevail.

[/spoiler2]
the only people who can be be one shot decended are people who have not developed their account, or have done very little to protect themselves from ascended attack cause they can simply hide behind a capped attack.

[Juliette]

the only people who can be be one shot decended are people who have not developed their account, or have done very little to protect themselves from ascended attack cause they can simply hide behind a capped attack.

"If you don't play the game, you get descended." I can agree with that. The original question of this thread is far more broad though and does not restrict itself to people who do not really play ascended.
Inactives should be one-shot-killed as far as I care. But I think we have a difference of opinion on just how active an 'inactive' is.

Good point though.

[ƒëmmë ƒatalë]

well I'm glad that hasn't been in play.. last two accounts I've had have previously belonged to non Ascension players.. one was a Daimon when I got it and was as new, the last one not much better.. I had a lot of trouble getting the first one of the ground because of its small size and being decended practically as soon as I came of the ascended ppt.. *waves to Join Me*