Jamz wrote:I'd have to disagree on the sab'n on MS though. I'd see that as one more "bully" tactic that mostly helps the higher ranked players. I agree that it makes a "logical" sense, I just disagree from a "balance" sense and it would only strive to widen the gap bewteen those that have playes for 2 years vs 2 months.
The problem is I disagree strongly with the idea higher ranked players have just playing for years and years; it's just the opposite of my personal experience.
History: I started playing in late February, and worked my way up from the low 40,000's into the mid-5,000's in less than 3 weeks. It's been much slower since then, but I'm currently in the mid-1400's - low 1500's.
I feel you're basically asking 'let's fudge things more so low ranked players are better. How can we do that?' to which I have to reply 'I went from "zero" to "not to be f&%# with" in less than 5 months - how easy do you want it?'
I feel we're talking about 4 different issues here:
1) How to give low ranking players a better chance of developing
2) What if anything should be done about people stealing planets and handing them off to 3rd parties
3) What if anything should be done about people making themselves effectively immune to any form of attack by dumping everything but their mothership and pumping their covert into the sky.
4) The ethics of employing 2 and 3 as a 'solution' to 1
They may be entangled to you and possibly I, but they are seperate issues.
Jamz wrote:What sort of changes do you think would help lower ranked people more than higher ranked people? Or do you think the higher ranked people should have any and all rights to destroy lower ranked people?
And just to make myself clear as maybe I'm doing a bad job at it, my #1 complaint is Bullies. People with power willing and able to make others submit to their will and follow rules they decide to make up. And THAT is the reason I do what I do, NOT because I lost naq.
1 should be easily solved with an attack range like in other MMORPG's - you can only attack people reasonably close to you in power.
2 might be resolved by giving the any owner an idea of who exactly has current possesion for 5 days after its loss.
3 would be solved by my suggestion., and its efficacy is in the Administrator's intentions - did they
intend for there to be a class of people who can't be struck against by any means??? If not, then my suggestion is an excellent one regardless of how you or I choose to feel about it.
And 4 seems obvious, at least to me - the difference between stealing Naq and stealing planets so wide enough so that the latter as a response to the former is much like shooting someone as a response to their slapping you in the face - however wrong the orginal action, the response in question is far more egregious than the affront.
As for 'bullying', that's a fairly-self-serving assessment - is it 'bullying' that people with higher coverts prevail in that arena, or that if someone's higher attack power beats my defense power they win??? If it's logical and understandable, how does it manage to be 'bullying"???
The Sad Truth is I'm much closer to the definition of "middle-aged" than I care to admit and in my experience, bullies are everywhere and a fact of life - they don't just disappear after high school, they get jobs in middle management and needed professions like accounting and law and push people around with paychecks and promotions. As long as there's a system by which there's any way possible to exploit their power, anyplace where they can use their position to get their way, they will do so.
So to no small extent I feel you're asking 'how can we rid ourselves of the curse of gravity'? People will use whatever they have to get whatever they want from other people - it's why socialism is so popular. There will
always be "something more we can do" to make things more "fair", and
always someone who can claim "I'm
still getting reamed here! What you've done isn't enough!"
Now the overwhelming majority of your offerings seem to be about justifying your actions, but if you agree your response is a far greater assault than the original offense, you've already admitted seeing it that way isn't just reasonable but logical and fair, therefore seeing it as justified is equally
unreasonable and
unfair.
And if it's unreasonable to expect others to justify your actions, being surprised that people find your "tactics" offensive isn't reasonable either - you admit it's an unreasonable response, how can you expect people to see your side???
One last thing - have you considered that if not evreryone's as "fair" as I am, not everyone who figures out this strategy will be as "fair" as
you are???
Which is to say, your tactics would be nearly as useful for the average 'farmer' as they are for you - many if not most "farms" have little to no defense, and would be an easy target for a lone mothership.
Even if that's limited, the number of planets that can't withstand the kinds of assault you can muster isn't limited to people who attacked or threatened you.
Your "tactics" allow for tons of people to be ripped off unfairly without provocation or reasonable resort, and without something like my suggestion , it'll just grow larger.
So may I ask - if I slam your
alliance members for scads of Naq in response to one of your planet thefts, am
I justified???
