i guess your letting your horse drink some water
Too much money?
-
DragonLancer
- Quiet One
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:24 am
Why do you keep making posts about me hunting your traders? Every alliances would have traders out there along with their own hunters. Might actually see some skilled players at trading/hunting/ect emmerge who never had a chance to shine before. Dont like the idea of a lvl playing field for all I guess?
Save the whales, harpoon a fat chic
anx what makes you think people will return to racials if they have the ability to leave them and start playing the planet turf war aspect of the game?
Gameplay has evolved and guess what, we do have people working different routes in our alliance, some protected, some not. I understand you are tired of endless mines, limits the fun in hunting. Guess what, I grew tired of being podded by high exp cloakers, so what did I do, I changed my gameplay. We developed tactics to try and limit your/the hunters effectiveness on draining our AA of cash from pods. We do have different people performing different tasks in our alliance, just like in your model. Perhaps you simply don't know us as well as you think you do. Sometimes the people performing the tasks changes or people switch off in the middle of a game but as you well know, you can and do develop a comfort level for certain tasks or roles.
The whole idea about "forcing" or coercing people back to racials is unlikely unless u start placing planet gals next to racials or you even limit the amount of ports available in neutrals, I believe we tried that once and certain racial gals became VERY unfriendly to play in as the Big alliances, regardless of the big alliance that it is, will do whatever it takes to provide itself with maximum protection for it's planets or it's trading routes, that means minefields.
It seems we're left with questions then about what to do about mines, but addressing mines is only part of the problem, if we make mines more expensive, then I believe that it also means that we have to examine how those mines interact in gameplay as well, because then the cost of WB's should also rise as well IMHO. If we go down that road now we start getting into a further separation between the haves and have not's alliances IMO and widens the gap between people mastering the learning curve that this game has to offer. Perhaps we simply alter mines effectiveness or cost, but doesn't that threaten to wildly unbalance game play?
I understand you want more interaction and perhaps that's a good thing, but based on past history, any interaction with you is me in a 25K exp level mining ship and you in a 250K level cloaked DC. That kind of interaction led to a lot of pods for me, not exactly the kind of stimulating interaction I would be seeking generally. Perhaps it's my understanding of the type of "interaction" you are seeking. My understanding of what you are saying is apparently, you want more people flying around closer together so there would be more death or more opportunities for death or fights, more one versus one fighting. I have no idea how you could enforce that as the old maxim "there's strength in numbers" has proven itself to be very much a trueism in this game as well, and changing the money available in the game is unlikely to change that.
Gameplay has evolved and guess what, we do have people working different routes in our alliance, some protected, some not. I understand you are tired of endless mines, limits the fun in hunting. Guess what, I grew tired of being podded by high exp cloakers, so what did I do, I changed my gameplay. We developed tactics to try and limit your/the hunters effectiveness on draining our AA of cash from pods. We do have different people performing different tasks in our alliance, just like in your model. Perhaps you simply don't know us as well as you think you do. Sometimes the people performing the tasks changes or people switch off in the middle of a game but as you well know, you can and do develop a comfort level for certain tasks or roles.
The whole idea about "forcing" or coercing people back to racials is unlikely unless u start placing planet gals next to racials or you even limit the amount of ports available in neutrals, I believe we tried that once and certain racial gals became VERY unfriendly to play in as the Big alliances, regardless of the big alliance that it is, will do whatever it takes to provide itself with maximum protection for it's planets or it's trading routes, that means minefields.
It seems we're left with questions then about what to do about mines, but addressing mines is only part of the problem, if we make mines more expensive, then I believe that it also means that we have to examine how those mines interact in gameplay as well, because then the cost of WB's should also rise as well IMHO. If we go down that road now we start getting into a further separation between the haves and have not's alliances IMO and widens the gap between people mastering the learning curve that this game has to offer. Perhaps we simply alter mines effectiveness or cost, but doesn't that threaten to wildly unbalance game play?
I understand you want more interaction and perhaps that's a good thing, but based on past history, any interaction with you is me in a 25K exp level mining ship and you in a 250K level cloaked DC. That kind of interaction led to a lot of pods for me, not exactly the kind of stimulating interaction I would be seeking generally. Perhaps it's my understanding of the type of "interaction" you are seeking. My understanding of what you are saying is apparently, you want more people flying around closer together so there would be more death or more opportunities for death or fights, more one versus one fighting. I have no idea how you could enforce that as the old maxim "there's strength in numbers" has proven itself to be very much a trueism in this game as well, and changing the money available in the game is unlikely to change that.
-
Thennian
- Newbie Spam Artist
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:39 am
- Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
are you that blind? you want everyone to play on YOUR playing field...has nothing to with being even. Pretty even now if you ask me, only issue this game which i have said time and time again is that BD has a very good galaxy setup so that they can stock pile money without fear of having their port busted or their bonders getting hit every other day like the rest of us have to deal with...
as said before TIME AND TIME agian which you IGNORE is that top alliances go broke EVERY game.
as said before TIME AND TIME agian which you IGNORE is that top alliances go broke EVERY game.
wow, i'm so proud. i started one of the fastest growing threads in a while. woohoo!
anyway, i'm pretty much finished with this argument since anx has taken over. to be honest, i haven't read most of the posts, but i would like to say that this argument is really going to resonate with people who enjoy the endless cycle (AKA crusaders). anx- enjoys other aspects of the game more than the endless cycle, but that doesn't mean he's not qualified to make suggestions about alliance gameplay.
anyway, i'm pretty much finished with this argument since anx has taken over. to be honest, i haven't read most of the posts, but i would like to say that this argument is really going to resonate with people who enjoy the endless cycle (AKA crusaders). anx- enjoys other aspects of the game more than the endless cycle, but that doesn't mean he's not qualified to make suggestions about alliance gameplay.
No one forces anyone to join alliances that like the cycle either. If you dont like where your alliance ends up everygame, maybe its you that needs a change not the game.
Ingenius, Armory Armory v2, Lords of the PingsSuckas, AoC, Green Skulls, DoW, Shadow, MoM, Xenocide, NE, ST, HA, PI, FI, Armada, DC, LoP, AS, Lom, MH, RC
Anx your rationalisation appears plausible, but its not bullet proof and you should not discount what a Cru says in order to prop up your views. Its a sign of a weak argument.
I trade enough to be in the top 10 in HoF. But contrary to your assertion, have beeen able to do this without access to alliance designed super routes. Such routes do get made - and I hope to hit the jackpot and pick the right race one game.
I'm proof that traders can trade and still make decent profits. But the reality is that when an alliance reaches the stage in a game where money is no longer its priority, then the alliance priorities change and members turn to other activities. This is about team versus individual play, and you cannot optimise both in the one game, just find a suitable balance. So you want to change the balance more in favour of individual play? Good for you - as a hunter I expect that from you.
The other aspect you raise is that is that the current SMR set-up leads the game through cycles - like from birth to death. What you suggest implies that SMR should be redesigned to eliminate or at least reduce these cycles to create a more "steady-state" experience through out the game.
I think money may be a factor in this but is far from the whole issue. The issue is far more funadmental to the design of the game itself. And I am not sure that players in general would support such a fundamental change.
I trade enough to be in the top 10 in HoF. But contrary to your assertion, have beeen able to do this without access to alliance designed super routes. Such routes do get made - and I hope to hit the jackpot and pick the right race one game.
I'm proof that traders can trade and still make decent profits. But the reality is that when an alliance reaches the stage in a game where money is no longer its priority, then the alliance priorities change and members turn to other activities. This is about team versus individual play, and you cannot optimise both in the one game, just find a suitable balance. So you want to change the balance more in favour of individual play? Good for you - as a hunter I expect that from you.
The other aspect you raise is that is that the current SMR set-up leads the game through cycles - like from birth to death. What you suggest implies that SMR should be redesigned to eliminate or at least reduce these cycles to create a more "steady-state" experience through out the game.
I think money may be a factor in this but is far from the whole issue. The issue is far more funadmental to the design of the game itself. And I am not sure that players in general would support such a fundamental change.
OMG we don't play an endless cycle game YOU do.... we hunt you at the CA, hunt you in your own tunnel if you ever opped at a reasonable time would hunt you there and when you don't want to play we go find the Skulls or SF.......
i do not one bit feel like this game has been an endless cycle and i bet neither does anyone else from any other alliance... its the style of play you BD have decided to use this game that have caused you to feel you're in an endless cycle....
as for more people in racials sure it would be nice to see more people trading in them later on in the game but i know for a fact half our alliance would quit because that's not the kind of game we want to play.... fighting people and using fleet tactics is what we find fun... trading in racials is fun for some.. like hunting in racials is fun for some.... but for many its the wb to wb interaction that we crave..
i do not one bit feel like this game has been an endless cycle and i bet neither does anyone else from any other alliance... its the style of play you BD have decided to use this game that have caused you to feel you're in an endless cycle....
as for more people in racials sure it would be nice to see more people trading in them later on in the game but i know for a fact half our alliance would quit because that's not the kind of game we want to play.... fighting people and using fleet tactics is what we find fun... trading in racials is fun for some.. like hunting in racials is fun for some.... but for many its the wb to wb interaction that we crave..
-
Prince Valiant
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:14 am
- Location: Hawaii
ok skipped the last page. First this impertriable defense u guys talk about that we BD had isnt....before we took SF bonder we were being pushed back a few more OPs by the combined forces of Crus and SF and we were gonners no joke money was low we were gettin hit from the north and south. But then we took out SF changing the game. Second, we let SF rebuild everyone knows we could have walked in and put our foot down but we turned our back for a week and good job SF for takin advantage. WE didnt have much money before that. Now the game is back and fourth it almost worries me because the game speed is 1.5 and alliance are having a hard time clearing inside a galaxy. Does the game have too much money ehh i think all the alliances involved have done a damn good job this game no clear winner so far...isnt this what we wanted a battle not a slaughter? But their is something to Anx thoughts. What if we took ports out of planet galaxies forcing not so big routes obviously this is my decision since i make the games, but the problems it brings is mining allainces will spread the mines out farther out to protect their ports. And since everyone wants to keep the universe size small their is no space to moving leading to a broke game i wouldnt mind takin ports out of the planet gals if we made the neutrals larger to accomidate allainces moving outward.
I am the calm before the storm, The second before the crash.
Space Merchant Realms Administrative Team
Space Merchant Realms Administrative Team
Just make a map similier to last round with the one large neutral zone. Traffic along with there being less money will keep mines down. As far as the 8 Crus posts I barely even wanna ackwoledge them. There is basically nothing about the topic but rather a bunch of trash talking and flaming about alliance wars of this game and personal hits at me about hunting. (Even though I have been trading all game from lack of time) What you guys do make an alliance forum for everyone in your alliance to come post a flame to distract from the suggestion? Geeze LOL
Save the whales, harpoon a fat chic