StarGateWars Forums

Why is feeding a fair and legal tactic in my opinion?
If someone has taken rank1, and an alliance wants to mass him, they can pool their resources and take him down.
With the linked UP, it is cheaper to organize one person to buy a 999, then every1 else to follow. But whoever goes first has to spent loads more. So if all the other players donate a small portion of the extra cost, every1 gets their upgrade cheaper.

If I hate player A, and player B has a chance of challenging for rank1 at the end. I could mass player A to stop him from winning. But if he has no stats to mass (because he is waiting to the end to build) I can give the naq to player B instead.

These are all legitimate tactics. It is abuse we need to stop. And as I say, SeiJuRo is only one who has got away with abuse (because admin didn't have sufficient logs to prove guilt or not, but now he has)

But here are facts.

Feeding is not cheating. Those are the rules. It doesn't matter how YOU see it slug, they are RULES set by admin. They aren't going to change (we tried that) So get used to the rules, and stop living in a dreamland where you get to decide the rules.

As for Hippy being a multi, I used logic to argue the point. It's in another thread, and came to the conclusion his account was the more plausable one. As did a few others, seen as you are the only one still calling him a cheater. Get admin to check the logs, but even that probably won't shut you up.

Hopefully next wave will be different, where there is no feeding at all.. But I'm sure there will be something else for people to complain about.

Why is feeding a fair and legal tactic in my opinion?
If someone has taken rank1, and an alliance wants to mass him, they can pool their resources and take him down.
With the linked UP, it is cheaper to organize one person to buy a 999, then every1 else to follow. But whoever goes first has to spent loads more. So if all the other players donate a small portion of the extra cost, every1 gets their upgrade cheaper.

If I hate player A, and player B has a chance of challenging for rank1 at the end. I could mass player A to stop him from winning. But if he has no stats to mass (because he is waiting to the end to build) I can give the naq to player B instead.

These are all legitimate tactics. It is abuse we need to stop. And as I say, SeiJuRo is only one who has got away with abuse (because admin didn't have sufficient logs to prove guilt or not, but now he has)

So you're saying that this is what players like yourself and Hippy have been doing? Or are you abusing feeding?

Some evidence to support this would be very nice. I dont see Hippy massing rank1 or building UP, but I do see him stat-building.

But here are facts.

Feeding is not cheating. Those are the rules. It doesn't matter how YOU see it slug, they are RULES set by admin. They aren't going to change (we tried that) So get used to the rules, and stop living in a dreamland where you get to decide the rules.

As for Hippy being a multi, I used logic to argue the point. It's in another thread, and came to the conclusion his account was the more plausable one. As did a few others, seen as you are the only one still calling him a cheater. Get admin to check the logs, but even that probably won't shut you up.

Hopefully next wave will be different, where there is no feeding at all.. But I'm sure there will be something else for people to complain about.

You're right, I dont decide the rules, but I'm damn sure going to try and get them changed. Regardless of how much you enjoy feeding because you cant win without getting free naq, I am going to campaign for this to end. There are clearly very different kinds of feeding and its very nice how your example of feeding being a fair and legal tactic managed to steer wildly clear of the point, which is non-competitive accounts passing naq to competitive accounts.

Your first example, an alliance passing naq to somebody to mass rank1... are any of these inactive feeder accounts in your alliance??

Your second example, sharing the cost of the first UP upgrades. UP is of no benefit to a non-competitive account as it does not play for rank. It is however of benefit for a bigger bank size making it possible to feed more naq.

Your third example, If you are an inactive account, why do you care if player A or player B wins. Why should you get to tip the scales when you arent truly playing?

Im sorry that you dont like hearing it, and that you want me to shut up. Does the truth hurt?

Try answering the question again, but using the situation of non-competitive accounts feeding competitive accounts, rather than your alliance lies which are a thinly veiled excuse to justify what your alliance members are really doing, and your only excuse for.... *GASP*.... cheating.

for sleepy to remember in case he wasn't bothered to check hippy feeders
number one
Military Stats
Strike Action: 2,785,710
Defensive Action 16,656,192,000
Covert Skill: 26
Covert Operatives: 25000
Anti-Covert Skill: 0
Anti-Covert Operatives: 0
Attack Turns: 38700
Unit Production: 50453
number 2
Military Stats
Strike Action: 786,000
Defensive Action 1,379,763,000
Covert Skill: 23
Covert Operatives: 516510
Anti-Covert Skill: 0
Anti-Covert Operatives: 0
Attack Turns: 39289
Unit Production: 50453

Hmm, they dont LOOK like TCC members. What a surprise.

I guess that doesnt fit your example, eh Sleepy?

So... is it abuse?

The point was. That feeding should not be banned. Because it is a valid tactic.
Seen as it is legal, it is used as efficiently as possible (like everything else) so if Player A can't get enough naq to mass rank1. But his friend, who plays main, but has a Q account, is willing to help him. Why would he turn it down? Similarly, why would you turn down help to challenge for rank1?

As for the UP thing, we discussed it (TCC) and I'm fairly sure decided it would be a good plan, but didn't do it this wave. But I was planning on organising it next wave.


As for those accounts.

the similarities I see, are small attack, high ATs and same UP

Small attack, obvious reason.
Lots of turns, so they havnt been too actively feeding then? Just trading for turns.
Same UP, both only bought 999 upgrades?

They are similar, they both have stats that would be best on a feeder account. But there are also plentybof differences. If that's your evidence hippy is a multi.. It's thin.

Ps. What's the ID of account2? It's got a few spies I might eat

S1eepy wrote:
Ps. What's the ID of account2? It's got a few spies I might eat

please dont its a waste of turns

there are many players with 5 mil spies. just go find them

And before the point is missed again, if help is available, it is usualy taken. When that help makes you unstoppable, it has been abused

Hippy wasnt unstoppable so did he abuse it??

Feeding is NOT a valid tactic in this sense.

Once again, small loans between an alliance should be ok, but non-competitive accounts funnelling naq into a competitive account is nothing but cheating.

You are simply using one example to justify something completely different.

Once again:

Slugworth Assrot wrote:@ S1eepy and Kikaz

Explain to me, if you can, WHY feeding from a non-competitive account to a competitive account is a fair and legal tactic, and why you support every player of quantum being a feeder, how this is beneficial for the server, and how this tactic is in line with the spirit of good sportsmanship and a level and equal playing field.

You said yourself just now that you have tried to have feeding banned in the past, so you must see that it isnt right.

When you allow one player access to the resources of 2 or more accounts, you no longer have an even playing field. People can no longer use skill and strategy to beat their rivals, and have to resort to drawing on the resources of 3 accounts, or 4 accounts, and so on, and then Quantum is no longer a competition as it was intended to be, but rather a contest to see who has the most accounts in their back pocket. That is a game I do not want to play.

Seen as it is legal, it is used as efficiently as possible (like everything else) so if Player A can't get enough naq to mass rank1. But his friend, who plays main, but has a Q account, is willing to help him. Why would he turn it down? Similarly, why would you turn down help to challenge for rank1?

If player A cant get enough naq to mass rank1, then tough luck of course, are you intentionally being dumb? He should turn down help to challenge to rank1 because its cheating and if that player is unable to defeat rank1, then he's been beaten. Duh?

Lots of turns, so they havnt been too actively feeding then? Just trading for turns.

Yeah... only 40k~.... out of a possible.... 150k+~ ??? So somebody has potentially *only* benefitted from a possible 100k+ turns which they have no right to.

The evidence is that these are not competitive accounts. They are simply there to funnel resources to a competitive account. The sole purpose of a feeder.

Multi'ing by proxy.

Pimping D wrote:Hippy wasnt unstoppable so did he abuse it??

If you ask me, Hippy simply had enough sense not to feed to the extent that Fearless was feeding. Just feeding enough to keep him in the lead, and give him the freedom to boost his account with daily unit trades instead of AT's.

I'm not sure what his actions will be now that he has been exposed, but I am quite sure that had he been massed and none of this information had come out, he would have feed enough extra naq to put him straight back in the game, or comfortably win without seeming to be 'too far in the lead'.

S1eepy wrote:And before the point is missed again, if help is available, it is usualy taken. When that help makes you unstoppable, it has been abused

id's are in cheating area
to bad i missed admin meeting and to talk with admin

Slugworth Assrot wrote:

Pimping D wrote:Hippy wasnt unstoppable so did he abuse it??

If you ask me, Hippy simply had enough sense not to feed to the extent that Fearless was feeding. Just feeding enough to keep him in the lead, and give him the freedom to boost his account with daily unit trades instead of AT's.

I'm not sure what his actions will be now that he has been exposed, but I am quite sure that had he been massed and none of this information had come out, he would have feed enough extra naq to put him straight back in the game, or comfortably win without seeming to be 'too far in the lead'.

hippy was massed coz he was exsposed

S1eepy wrote:And before the point is missed again, if help is available, it is usualy taken. When that help makes you unstoppable, it has been abused

So according to that statement, it is basically impossible for feeding to be abused, since nothing can ever make you unstoppable.

I could feed 1quadrillion naq, but I wouldnt be unstoppable, since you could feed 1quadrillion naq too. After all, feeding is legal! Yay?

Do you get it yet?

Pimping D wrote:

Slugworth Assrot wrote:

Pimping D wrote:Hippy wasnt unstoppable so did he abuse it??

If you ask me, Hippy simply had enough sense not to feed to the extent that Fearless was feeding. Just feeding enough to keep him in the lead, and give him the freedom to boost his account with daily unit trades instead of AT's.

I'm not sure what his actions will be now that he has been exposed, but I am quite sure that had he been massed and none of this information had come out, he would have feed enough extra naq to put him straight back in the game, or comfortably win without seeming to be 'too far in the lead'.

hippy was massed coz he was exsposed

Um yeah, exactly?

I'm not sure what your point is. O.o

Slugworth Assrot wrote:

Pimping D wrote:

Slugworth Assrot wrote:

Pimping D wrote:Hippy wasnt unstoppable so did he abuse it??

If you ask me, Hippy simply had enough sense not to feed to the extent that Fearless was feeding. Just feeding enough to keep him in the lead, and give him the freedom to boost his account with daily unit trades instead of AT's.

I'm not sure what his actions will be now that he has been exposed, but I am quite sure that had he been massed and none of this information had come out, he would have feed enough extra naq to put him straight back in the game, or comfortably win without seeming to be 'too far in the lead'.

hippy was massed coz he was exsposed

Um yeah, exactly?

I'm not sure what your point is. O.o

me make a point haha, i personally think half of TCC feed and that they follow their leader but maybe they prove me wrong