A little fraught with neophobia, DR? Thou Luddite! Where is thy sense of adventure?Duderanch wrote:Or we could just leave it how it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
![Not talking [-(](./images/smilies/eusa_snooty.gif)
This is basically just spitballing an idea, and your point is very valid.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
A little fraught with neophobia, DR? Thou Luddite! Where is thy sense of adventure?Duderanch wrote:Or we could just leave it how it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Duderanch wrote:Or we could just leave it how it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Sylus wrote:I look forward to watching this game break, should be a hilariously stupid ride.
Sol wrote:Field Marshall wrote:Really?Sol wrote:It's not going to destroy your life
I think this is sig worthy in fact.my first sigging. I sigged you too. <3
High Empty wrote:however people shouldn't have lvl 33 and 200mil spies and try to be in the top 10, it's unhealthy.
It would be funny, sure. Practical.. hmm.Field Marshall wrote:I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investmentSylus wrote:I look forward to watching this game break, should be a hilariously stupid ride.![]()
I think decsension should be more punishing then it is at the moment, I don't think levels are the answer. Maybe explosion of all their stats ingame would be funny...?
Juliette wrote:Mister Sylus, this would replace the descension penalty, making it LESS painful. Obviously removing 1 ascension level would have no effect at all if you have no Ascended bonuses to begin with (current descension penalty).
Essentially, instead of '0-bonus', you would go to '(AscLvl-(x times descended))-bonus'. (This is in the idea with my later suggestion attached.) Explain to me how that would be 'worse'? Unless you get descended 23 times in a row (if that is happening, try logging into Ascended, hit four people and build a little cache to use when under fire, might help with that), you get more bonus than you would if descended the way things are now.
Field Marshall wrote:I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment![]()
Juliette wrote:Maybe the time is not yet right for this descension tweak.
Sylus wrote:Field Marshall wrote:I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment![]()
Removed - Haz
Sylus wrote:First of all. Let's acknowledge the power disparity on Ascended. The bulk of power in that section of the game is from a select few.
Sol wrote:Field Marshall wrote:Really?Sol wrote:It's not going to destroy your life
I think this is sig worthy in fact.my first sigging. I sigged you too. <3
High Empty wrote:however people shouldn't have lvl 33 and 200mil spies and try to be in the top 10, it's unhealthy.
Field Marshall wrote:You started wrong, there is a power disparity but only because of the lack of activity by those at the bottom of the food chain. 2 weeks and a bit of farming would protect the vast majority of people on ascended. A month and a bit of effort would make you undescendable. This arguement isn't really justified. I didn't play ascended for about 2 years. Played for a month and managed to increase my account hugely because of it getting more expensive the further up the ladder you go. I've had the largest ToC at me, realistically, it wasn't possible. All done with minimal effort.
Field Marshall wrote:I do support the idea of losing ascended levels. As a larger player, I would be prepared to lose x% of my stats on a permenent basis for not logging in. Obviously this would hurt larger players more and the scale of effectiveness is more heavily aimed at balancing the battlefield in main.
Field Marshall wrote:I do feel that as a balance to the other side, perhaps we can consider auto descension. If at maximum efficency it will take 6 hits to descend someone. Locking into an attack for 18 hours should be considered. If the defender logs in, then they are saved.
Sylus wrote:Field Marshall wrote:You started wrong, there is a power disparity but only because of the lack of activity by those at the bottom of the food chain. 2 weeks and a bit of farming would protect the vast majority of people on ascended. A month and a bit of effort would make you undescendable. This arguement isn't really justified. I didn't play ascended for about 2 years. Played for a month and managed to increase my account hugely because of it getting more expensive the further up the ladder you go. I've had the largest ToC at me, realistically, it wasn't possible. All done with minimal effort.
A month, to take someone's personals from zero to undescendable? That's your argument. Then how does any active player get descended? Ever?
Hmm... I'm probably going to say that's false. I put effort into farming on ascended. For more than a month, and I know I'm still EASILY descended by current stats.
Sylus wrote:Field Marshall wrote:I do support the idea of losing ascended levels. As a larger player, I would be prepared to lose x% of my stats on a permenent basis for not logging in. Obviously this would hurt larger players more and the scale of effectiveness is more heavily aimed at balancing the battlefield in main.
This has ZERO to do with balancing main. Descension is about obtaining advantage against someone not descended. Furthermore the logic is fatally flawed. Larger accounts have proportionately as much to lose. Losing everything in a large account is the equivalent of losing everything in a small account. Your statement belies the fact that larger accounts are capable of inflicting more damage.
You tell me how permanent losses to an account stats isn't open to abuse by large players?
[/quote]Sylus wrote:Field Marshall wrote:I do feel that as a balance to the other side, perhaps we can consider auto descension. If at maximum efficency it will take 6 hits to descend someone. Locking into an attack for 18 hours should be considered. If the defender logs in, then they are saved.
... if you feel this is a good game mechanic why not apply it to main. Hell take user away completely, and we can watch gatewars like it's 2012's most boring budget indie film.
Sol wrote:Field Marshall wrote:Really?Sol wrote:It's not going to destroy your life
I think this is sig worthy in fact.my first sigging. I sigged you too. <3
High Empty wrote:however people shouldn't have lvl 33 and 200mil spies and try to be in the top 10, it's unhealthy.
Sylus wrote:and I know I'm still EASILY descended by current stats.
Hybrid36 wrote:Wearing the DESCENDED mark on your account is pretty humiliating as it is... haha.
I definitely learnt my lesson fast!
*COUGH* ~Xtr3m3_t14rgri4N *COUGH*
Not sure if it was in this thread or something else there was mention of keeping some things when being descended, i.e covert/anti levels.matty~ wrote:THIS CANT HAPPEN , !
people with like ToE with ascended half decent but still descandable with covert levl 38-40 would get knocked back !
that means he would have to re ascend to get them bonuses back or all his hard work on obtaining that ascended level would be in vain ..
Field Marshall wrote:Really?Sol wrote:It's not going to destroy your life
I think this is sig worthy in fact.
Reborn wrote:On 3/3/14, at 12:17 PM, Reborn wrote:
> it is b/s though prep time is meant to b prep your accounts for war
On 3/3/14, at 12:18 PM, Reborn wrote:
> not hi "stick a thumb up your ass for 4 hrs and w8"