Ending Powerblocks :(
- Thread starter Azzer
- Start date
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
Simple, and hopefully effective.
Alright, let's stop trolling and flaming here. And redirect back to the real actual problem. If you feel like trolling and flaming TBA, here, I made a thread for you: http://bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2295
Otherwise let's keep this thread about future powerblocks. My suggestion is somehow make bounty better for attacking top ranking alliances in bashes. Because, apparenlty, you still get no bounty if you have 20 or so people on the same tick, even if you're attacking someone in the top 10. So perhaps make the base bounty higher for attacking someone in the top 20-50 or so?
And what constitutes a wing?
Otherwise let's keep this thread about future powerblocks. My suggestion is somehow make bounty better for attacking top ranking alliances in bashes. Because, apparenlty, you still get no bounty if you have 20 or so people on the same tick, even if you're attacking someone in the top 10. So perhaps make the base bounty higher for attacking someone in the top 20-50 or so?
And what constitutes a wing?
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
That "something" is pretty well explained with the rest of the sentence. Ie. "No wings allowed". Not exactly difficult to comprehend.
I think the important thing this thread is trying to achieve is to PREVENT powerblocks from occuring in the future, not looking for some form of punishment for those that do powerblock.
Therefore, no set procedure need be defined for those that do powerblock, it just needs to be made clear that it will not be tolerated, in fact the more ambigious the statement in the EULA, the better as this allows admin to step in when required.
Just my 2 cents!
Therefore, no set procedure need be defined for those that do powerblock, it just needs to be made clear that it will not be tolerated, in fact the more ambigious the statement in the EULA, the better as this allows admin to step in when required.
Just my 2 cents!
this is a sensitive matter, what to do to prevent such situations in the future...
in my opinion its also unfair when a alliance is on top and because 2 or 3 alliances of not so active players decide they wanna bring them down, they are able to, that can justify the making of a powerblock right there, because the so called ressistance ends up beeing what? a temporary powerblock? of not so big players, but still... makes it unfair when 40, 60 players can attack u, and u only got the staff of 20 to work with in defending. What is the powerblock? imo multiple guilds attacking together permanently, if its only temporary isnt it wrong too? not imba? should there even be cooperation between allies if the defending is limited?
maybe a solution could come from generally liberating the game more? maybe change the only ally def restrictions a bit? keeping it makes a game mechanics rule harder... well something like if a alliance is under attack by at least 6 players of a alliance, they cant be attacked by any other alliances.
Personally i think that when 20 players can have more than 20 attacking them, and cant count on anything else than themselves, is unfair.
anyway, the playerbase can help, doing some brainstorming about this, imo its not about TBA, its about powerblocks, that goes down to different alliances working together, when that shouldnt happen.
in my opinion its also unfair when a alliance is on top and because 2 or 3 alliances of not so active players decide they wanna bring them down, they are able to, that can justify the making of a powerblock right there, because the so called ressistance ends up beeing what? a temporary powerblock? of not so big players, but still... makes it unfair when 40, 60 players can attack u, and u only got the staff of 20 to work with in defending. What is the powerblock? imo multiple guilds attacking together permanently, if its only temporary isnt it wrong too? not imba? should there even be cooperation between allies if the defending is limited?
maybe a solution could come from generally liberating the game more? maybe change the only ally def restrictions a bit? keeping it makes a game mechanics rule harder... well something like if a alliance is under attack by at least 6 players of a alliance, they cant be attacked by any other alliances.
Personally i think that when 20 players can have more than 20 attacking them, and cant count on anything else than themselves, is unfair.
anyway, the playerbase can help, doing some brainstorming about this, imo its not about TBA, its about powerblocks, that goes down to different alliances working together, when that shouldnt happen.
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
A powerblock, by definition, is 2 or more alliances ON TOP working together to keep the rest down, and the win to themselves. Thus a resistance does not qualify as a powerblock in my eyes. Powerblocks are the top stopping the rest from growing. Your comparison of powerblocks and resistances and lower ranked alliances working together is invalid. Lower allies working together you could call an SNAP; and whilst i don't approve of those either (for a variety of reasons i shan't get into here) it's not the same as a powerblock; not quite. And resistances are temporary truces between multiple alliances with the explicit goal of killing whoever is rank 1, then going back to the normal competition. The problem with a powerblock (especially this round) is that this was a definite plan to work together all the way to the end; there was no amicable splitting up into individual allies and battling it out. Resistances are temporary, Powerblocks are permanent and therein lies the difference and the danger. One crushes and stagnates the game, while the other temporarily reopens the battlefield for whoever wishes to claim the top spot. Resistances even the playing field; Powerblocks do quite the opposite.
That's why we separate them with two different names, one is called a 'Resistance' and the other is called a 'Powerblock'. Especially in a resistance situation when *usually* those top 20 players you're talking about have a large score/unit advantage over the 40-60 attacking. Not necessarily true in early game resistances (but in that case they're usually teched further) but still relevant.
As to loosening defense restrictions, i don't think i can approve. I believe there used to be a time when anyone could defend anyone; but i can't see that being applied here. It would completely demolish any ability to attack, since then the players under attack would scream out to anyone within range to help, and that would either stagnate attacking; or force players to bash harder and harder to get more and more overwhelming force to counter the random defence.
That's why we separate them with two different names, one is called a 'Resistance' and the other is called a 'Powerblock'. Especially in a resistance situation when *usually* those top 20 players you're talking about have a large score/unit advantage over the 40-60 attacking. Not necessarily true in early game resistances (but in that case they're usually teched further) but still relevant.
As to loosening defense restrictions, i don't think i can approve. I believe there used to be a time when anyone could defend anyone; but i can't see that being applied here. It would completely demolish any ability to attack, since then the players under attack would scream out to anyone within range to help, and that would either stagnate attacking; or force players to bash harder and harder to get more and more overwhelming force to counter the random defence.
i still think that whats imba is multiple alliances beein able to gang up on one, see this round for example, if Chance/WH werent able to be attacked by the 3 alliances, we would have landed... what? very few times. player quality over quantity should prevail.
as i said this requires some brainstorming, and i think doing it as a game mechanics change would be the best.
as i said this requires some brainstorming, and i think doing it as a game mechanics change would be the best.
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
The issue is that you guys wouldn't drop the sNAP between yourselves even when you have already won. I don't think anyone in Chance or War? Huh? (unless they are idiots) can argue the reasons and benefits for us being hit by multiple alliances at a time.
The difference between a powerblock and anything else is that a 'powerblock' is more than one 'group/alliance' working together WHEN they have ALREADY won. You no longer need to work together to hold your ranks (granted if you fought some would lose out). The issue if you guys not wanting to fight is what is stagnating the game.
I will just say again for the point of getting it accross, for everyone, not just TBA. There's nothing wrong with temp-ceasefiring to take out a common enemy to get ahead;
IT'S WRONG AND CRAPPY WHEN SUCH SNAPS AND CEASEFIRES CONTINUE WHEN THEY ARE UNECESSARY!
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
Absolutely, perfectly, 100% true. Once you'd won, dropping the SNAP should've been the first thing to happen, and then a proper war could've gone on, and then a real winner would be declared, and the rest of the round could've continued on. Instead we were stuck in a limbo which generated this mass of frustration you see here.
harriergirl
Landscape Designer
I HATE TwigleySo yes we have the hatred of past groups
I personally don't discriminate, I hate everyone equally.
man if you are going to steal my best lines, at least give me credit.
and strangley enough you both <3 me ....
Moderated by Weeble
Spam. Should probably moderate the other posts as well since they're flames...
Last edited by a moderator:
harriergirl
Landscape Designer
mod delete fail!!!!!
we apparently aren't allowed to show love on the forums. but f0xx and garrett love me , and no amount of deleting my posts will change it..
OH and Powerblocks suck... make azzer rich.. go team
we apparently aren't allowed to show love on the forums. but f0xx and garrett love me , and no amount of deleting my posts will change it..
OH and Powerblocks suck... make azzer rich.. go team
I would like to extend my thanks to all of those players that have expressed surprise over their ignorance. I confess that I cannot fathom for even a moment how they were naive enough to not realise the impact powerblocking had on the game. In fact, I go so far as to call you liars and just hope that now you've got your ego fix for the year, you'll do the better thing.
Steve_God
Official Helper
Two Words:
Creators Hour!
Topic 1: How to prevent Powerblocks from forming/existing in the game.
(i) In-game mechanic options.
(ii) EULA modifications / admin intervention options.
Creators Hour!
Topic 1: How to prevent Powerblocks from forming/existing in the game.
(i) In-game mechanic options.
(ii) EULA modifications / admin intervention options.
i thought the point was to not just make a rule against it because it is so hard to enforce. you can't just say "oh, well he hasn't attacked this random guy all round so they must be PB'ing." and where do you draw the line of "enough" attacks on them?
Garrett
Landscape Designer
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,872
that's just it. how could you enforce any such rule period?
in game mechanics - everyone would be forced to hit someone else, and waves would be banned too? how to tell the difference in game from powerblock and a resistance?
this thread is silly. tis my point. politics and working together are part of the game. sometimes powerblocks happen. changing the mechanics would force behavior and probably drastically change how everyone plays.
any sort of effective in game mechanic would cause everyone to be solos. any rule to be enforced would make sure that you needed to attack everyone in range or you could be accused of working together.
this thread was started over sand in the vagina and it's how this thread will end. with more sand and misery. however, common sense will not be found in this thread. not in regards to a solution anyway.
in game mechanics - everyone would be forced to hit someone else, and waves would be banned too? how to tell the difference in game from powerblock and a resistance?
this thread is silly. tis my point. politics and working together are part of the game. sometimes powerblocks happen. changing the mechanics would force behavior and probably drastically change how everyone plays.
any sort of effective in game mechanic would cause everyone to be solos. any rule to be enforced would make sure that you needed to attack everyone in range or you could be accused of working together.
this thread was started over sand in the vagina and it's how this thread will end. with more sand and misery. however, common sense will not be found in this thread. not in regards to a solution anyway.