I got from 3m RPG up to 30m in one day, just rushing the top. Nerf was soooooooo needed
Completely agreed. It encouraged suicidal attacks which personally I don't think should be profitable. Why on earth should you get rewarded for losing all your troops? And it is far too favourable to quick-firing routes like SAs and RPGs.
if your bounty was so high that suicide is worthwhile, you deserve suicide attacks. Besides, sending out was always an option, as was quick help. In my opinion.
Yes, you're right. Sending out was always an option, let's encourage contactability - it's obviously helping the development of the game. And yes, quick help is an option as well, adrenaline rushed RPGs and SAs at the end of the tick only appear at eta 1, there is a variety of helpful units you can send to defend, like jeeps, humvees, hippy vans - them firing late and doing no damage are essential to this tactic. I also agree with your other point - suicides, by defenition, need to make you grow several times above your previous score.
I am sorry I ever disagreed with you.
Contactability is killing bush? You're right. If an insane amount of troops are coming to sodomize a player, they should just let themselves get killed.
Against SAs, jeeps and humvees are insanely useful, as they provide armor, and SAs do HEALTH damage. Likewise with Attack dogs or VDs against RPGs.
Or, you know, send the **** out.
I got from 3m RPG up to 30m in one day, just rushing the top. Nerf was soooooooo needed
Completely agreed. It encouraged suicidal attacks which personally I don't think should be profitable. Why on earth should you get rewarded for losing all your troops? And it is far too favourable to quick-firing routes like SAs and RPGs.
if your bounty was so high that suicide is worthwhile, you deserve suicide attacks. Besides, sending out was always an option, as was quick help. In my opinion.
Yes, you're right. Sending out was always an option, let's encourage contactability - it's obviously helping the development of the game. And yes, quick help is an option as well, adrenaline rushed RPGs and SAs at the end of the tick only appear at eta 1, there is a variety of helpful units you can send to defend, like jeeps, humvees, hippy vans - them firing late and doing no damage are essential to this tactic. I also agree with your other point - suicides, by defenition, need to make you grow several times above your previous score.
I am sorry I ever disagreed with you.
Contactability is killing bush? You're right. If an insane amount of troops are coming to sodomize a player, they should just let themselves get killed.
Against SAs, jeeps and humvees are insanely useful, as they provide armor, and SAs do HEALTH damage. Likewise with Attack dogs or VDs against RPGs.
Or, you know, send the **** out.
I've always been of the impression that contactability is one of, if not the, worst requirements of the game. This is a game, why the **** should we be expected to have people calling/texting us to go online because we're being attacked/some other crap which bares no relevance to anything important in our lives is going on. I don't like being rude to people on here unless humour's involved - but your response here was really retarded.
While I agree that contact is the curse of bushtarion, it means that if you don't want bounty hunters at all hours, you shouldn't be dishonorable.
I've always been of the impression that contactability is one of, if not the, worst requirements of the game. This is a game, why the **** should we be expected to have people calling/texting us to go online because we're being attacked/some other crap which bares no relevance to anything important in our lives is going on.
The problem though Dax is that these people are just playing as the game allows (demands?) and it's not fair that an overpowered mechanic be used to "teach them a lesson". That's bollocks. Besides which the less inactive people aren't going to be teaching anyone **** since they are, by definition, less active. Many people don't think CRA is a fair way to punish the top, so why should we think another equally overpowered an absurd mechanic is a viable alternative?
The bounty nerf was very well deserved and necessary
Lol yeah I never used it or was hit by it but watched people make stupid profits. It was just silly. I like the idea, but the rewards were too high
The problem though Dax is that these people are just playing as the game allows (demands?) and it's not fair that an overpowered mechanic be used to "teach them a lesson". That's bollocks. Besides which the less inactive people aren't going to be teaching anyone **** since they are, by definition, less active. Many people don't think CRA is a fair way to punish the top, so why should we think another equally overpowered an absurd mechanic is a viable alternative?
The bounty nerf was very well deserved and necessary
It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.
It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.
or they could slow down and not grow so big. It's a choice they'll need to make; keep growing and have a CRA attacking them reasonably, or not grow so much ahead of everyone else.
It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.
or they could slow down and not grow so big. It's a choice they'll need to make; keep growing and have a CRA attacking them reasonably, or not grow so much ahead of everyone else.
Bollocks, again. You don't want them to slow down. Remember HELL round? You don't want a top ranked ally within range of everyone in the game. You really don't. Trust me. I don't know why I have to state this but it should be self evident that we shouldn't punish people for winning.
How does this punish people for winning? It just makes it harder to win, as you have to make a tough decision. The alliance won't be within range of everyone unless they're doing a bad job. Or, they could just grow and be dishonorable, and deal with a nerfed CRA
Walking_Death said:The attacks would not be scaled up until the alliance is designed to lose horribly.