The game

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Alci on most of your posts you post like you are the man in charge, the one having the last word when i doubt that's actually true. Keep in mind majority of your suggestions/bashing of other players suggestions are your PERSONAL OPINIONS, nothing else. Sometimes the one having last word will agree with you and sometimes not.

"The experienced" players think l/f was fundamentally flawed and bash the newbies who post to bring it back ? I kinda doubt that, there are numerous older players that made plenty posts saying how they enjoyed it and how fun it would be to have it back. Majority of those who are 100% against l/f and any other ranks stats like effectiveness BH etc are the diehard pure valuation players who want the entire server to compete with them in the game THEY WANT. What, somebody wants to compete in kills in effectiveness in BH or anything else than valuation play inside an alliance ? NONSENSE, let's bash them all, this game will develop how we want, all rest it's fundamentally flawed.
Reminds me of Sordes who came on mirc to post the same fundamental flawed **** in mirc as soon as he read one of my suggestions and the next round surprise, Azzer had a different view and implemented it.

Azzer already posted once the fairness calculator is operational he can do stuff with it which might include l/f and bounty if i'm not mistaking, so instead just sharing negativism because the game might go into a direction which YOU don't like you can come up with better alternatives to make valuation players and those who want other aims happy.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
Alci on most of your posts you post like you are the man in charge, the one having the last word when i doubt that's actually true. Keep in mind majority of your suggestions/bashing of other players suggestions are your PERSONAL OPINIONS, nothing else. Sometimes the one having last word will agree with you and sometimes not.

Erm, Alci is the man in charge. You've just been too inactive to notice. :p
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
so instead just sharing negativism because the game might go into a direction which YOU don't like you can come up with better alternatives to make valuation players and those who want other aims happy.
So what do we have here. DS who prefers solo play before ally play says, "Hey ho, bring back L/F so I can mess with 20 players on my own."

You flame Alci for trying to change the game in direction which he "likes" while you are doing the *exact* same thing for years now. Not just that but XP, L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change.

This is a team based game and that is the only way it can survive. If you really like the game, then please understand this. There should be no way in which one solo can compete with 20 active players.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Alci on most of your posts you post like you are the man in charge, the one having the last word when i doubt that's actually true. Keep in mind majority of your suggestions/bashing of other players suggestions are your PERSONAL OPINIONS, nothing else. Sometimes the one having last word will agree with you and sometimes not.

I state my opinions; just as you state yours. My opinions are derived from chatting with my 'experienced' friends who have played this game for a few rounds now. I make no intentional pretence at speaking for everyone; just those whom i consider experienced and who have similar views to my own. If you don't wish to be lumped in with them, then don't consider yourself part of the players i was referring to and make your own objections. That is what you are entitled to do.

Moving onto your more serious objections I get the feeling you may, or may not, have read my posts thoroughly or understood my reasoning behind them. Perhaps I am being unclear, or perhaps you simply skim through posts and interpret them as you see fit.

"The experienced" players think l/f was fundamentally flawed and bash the newbies who post to bring it back ? I kinda doubt that, there are numerous older players that made plenty posts saying how they enjoyed it and how fun it would be to have it back.

L/F was fundamentally flawed as was experience and (in my personal opinion) the original Bounty Hunting plan (BHing was tied in at the most basic level with L/F as i recall). You should be capable of understanding that there is a significant difference between something that is fun and something that is flawed. To get into the nitty gritty of my personal opinions, which you seem so fond of harassing, I had a great time with L/F, experience, and Bounty Hunting (with titles and free for all claimable bounties) however i must say that i truly believe they didn't encourage the right kind of gameplay and experience was very flawed. It led to wildly overpowered early firing units. Surely you of all people would understand that. I have heard thousands of stories about you and exped TLs ;)

Nota bene: Ahead is not a newbie.

Summary: L/F, BHing, Experience were great fun and i quite enjoyed them; i think many others would agree but heaven forbid i actually speak for them but, and here's the crucial bit, they were flawed and that's why they were removed, so we could try to move onto a more functional system. What that system is, i don't know specifics nor would i hazard an uneducated guess as to what could be accomplished but the FC that Azzer is working on has a lot of promise for the return of some of those original game mechanics without the flaws that made them abuseable.

Majority of those who are 100% against l/f and any other ranks stats like effectiveness BH etc are the diehard pure valuation players who want the entire server to compete with them in the game THEY WANT. What, somebody wants to compete in kills in effectiveness in BH or anything else than valuation play inside an alliance? NONSENSE, let's bash them all, this game will develop how we want, all rest it's fundamentally flawed.

That is a rather unexpectedly generalized statement without a shred of evidence. We call those things opinions, which is a word you are very fond of bandying about. Please leave your sensationalist, baseless, and argumentative statements at home where they belong. Don't project your own insecurities and thoughtless remarks into my posts because they don't belong there.

While I am certain there are some players who object to those mechanics you mentioned because they only want to play for valuation i'm sure i could find 2-3 players who object to them because they're broken mechanics. I like having Bounty Hunting as a stat, i also like having Eff as a stat (****ed up tho it is ;)).

Reminds me of Sordes who came on mirc to post the same fundamental flawed **** in mirc as soon as he read one of my suggestions and the next round surprise, Azzer had a different view and implemented it.

Azzer already posted once the fairness calculator is operational he can do stuff with it which might include l/f and bounty if i'm not mistaking, so instead just sharing negativism because the game might go into a direction which YOU don't like you can come up with better alternatives to make valuation players and those who want other aims happy.

If you bothered to read some of my other posts in reference to the FC you would find that I support it entirely, and would gladly see the return of L/F in a fair, and not flawed manner. Please, please, please, i implore you to stop interpreting my posts incorrectly, it'll save us both time since i won't have to correct you, and you won't have to write long posts that are completely incorrect in their assumptions, statements, assertions and conclusions.

I feel it a duty to point out mistakes, flaws or badly conceived ideas for the betterment of the game. I will freely admit i'm not a very good game mechanic inventor, but i am a fairly competent critic (all in my own opinion of course ;)) If you had bothered to read my post, you might have noticed i'm not just complaining about the ideas Ahead posted because they affect me personally; i was using my personal experience (what other kind is there?!) to demonstrate why i thought it might be a detrimental change for allies who aren't extremely well organized and have well distributed organizers.

Where, oh where, in my post did i ever mention that i only support valuation players, or that I am always going for purely valuation or any of that inane subject?

Finally, and most importantly, don't compare me to Sordes, we're not even remotely the same.

Ooh and one last point.... i am the man in charge, thank you for recognizing me as such. Your support is greatly appreciated and you will be receiving a tax receipt in the mail in 2 to 5 weeks.

EDIT: All i'm really asking for is that you genuinely read my posts. Sure you might object to the manner in which i present them, but then you have the right to post your opinion contrary to mine as you did. I'm posting an opinion shared by a large number of people, you are posting an opinion that (i assume) you share with some players as well.
 
Last edited:

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
@f0xx

I am on the side of the players who support l/f. I support having more goals other than valuation since majority of the players will have an outside top 100 ranking and i don't know how important it is to be rank 200 over rank 300, it MIGHT be fun for them to have more goals to choose from. I don't say stuff like it's retarded to play for valuation or it's fundamentally flawed to follow just ranks and troops advantage. I understand there are players who like different things from the game and each will advocate his side obviously. I just dislike when some post their opinions and claim that's the right way the game to develop, all rest are retarded.

L/F had some good and bad aspects, on one side it stoped the 20 repeat attacks on the same target in the first days of the round which some of the pure valuation players in this thread are doing it regulary, on the other side it prevented some action which according to l/f definition was unfair.

And no, i don't need l/f to mess with 20 players on my own, and no, i don't bash Alci for expressing his opinion but for expressing it like it's the ultimate truth and his word is law, and no solo's don't compete with alliances unless you're talking about rank 20 allies vs high ranked solo's.

L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change. << I want something to back up this else it's again just YOUR opinion against those who enjoyed multiple rankings & aims.


This is a team based game and that is the only way it can survive. << I'm not sure if i posted to make it a no team game ? Some like to play in team some not, Some like the current structure and facilities an alliance has to offer and some not. Again it's just a matter of preferences. It's an alliance game for you and that's fine with me, but that's just your way of seeing things.
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change. << I want something to back up this else it's again just YOUR opinion against those who enjoyed multiple rankings & aims.

It takes a really ignorant person to ask for something to back this up. Just remember of the amount of players we had before those things were implement and now after those things are already removed.

The playerbase has shrunk 3 to 4 times after the implemention of those mentioned above. It took some time for Azzer to realise this so they were then removed altogether. Now it seems to be steadily growing back again.

"I'm not sure if i posted to make it a no team game?" - No you haven't. What you are doing tough, is asking Azzer to make the game favour solo play more than ally play i.e. to make solos easier to play.
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
Or maybe he's asking Azzer to even it up.

Evening up the playfield can get quite out of hand when experienced players (I won't mention names) play as solos. We've seen it before. Hell even a n00b like ANK went quite ahead this round, what even makes you think that solos need boosting?
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Alci :

"And it's just absurd and annoying for those of us who have been around for awhile to know why L/F and other game mechanics were removed. Because they were fundamentally flawed. It is the continuous advocation of a 'return' to what is perceived as bushtarion glory days that pisses off the 'experienced' group of players i think, more than the fact that they simply think they are 1337. ofc that does factor into it; but mostly in terms of I've seen where this game has come from; and I understand why it has gone the way it has. You are a newer/ignorant player and you don't understand why. "


When you put yourself on the side of the "experienced players" and say this side knows better and this side is against l/f and the other side consists of newer/ignorant players who don't understand why you're so l33t it's hardly the same thing as you said after you corrected yourself in the other post where you said " your experienced friends".
You have supporters for your side i know, but don't make it sound like you're speaking for the whole playerbase that has a clue about the game while all others that don't share your views are noobs.


You keep saying l/f was fundamentally flawed from which i understand the very basics of the idea where flawed. So since you are in mood to make long posts with your opinions maybe you can explain in a post what was so FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED about attacking over 70% 1:1 or comparing the sizes of attackers and defenders etc ? I know it wasn't perfect and i know there was room to make it better but maybe you can explain what's broken at the very fundation of this concept of having more balanced fights ?
 

Iamsmart

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,668
WHAT! I thought you were a part of the ANK fan club f0xx, how dare you refer to him as an inferior!
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change. << I want something to back up this else it's again just YOUR opinion against those who enjoyed multiple rankings & aims.

It takes a really ignorant person to ask for something to back this up. Just remember of the amount of players we had before those things were implement and now after those things are already removed.



And what exactly makes you think the playerbase decreased 3-4 times and the reason for this is having multiple rankings ? I could blame wow, travian, planetarion like games going out of fashion in favour of more graphical web based games, etc as we have solid evidence of players leaving to those games and didn't look back. Also Azzer said majority of those extra id's where totally inactive accounts. Try to refresh my memory if in the past we had more than the usual 3-4 alliances going ftw, i don't remmeber so. Provide some evidence 75% of the playerbase left because they where unhappy of having effectiveness and BH as rankings, BW is the one pulling statistics out of his ass and claim they're facts, based on hundreads years of experience, try to be more original :p



And where exactly did i ask to make solo play BETTER than alliance play ? I just want a solid balance. You want solo's exctinct. At the moment killing solo's is piss easy so i want that fixed, what's the problem with that ?
You should know better how easy strikers with good defensive setups at 0 ar mod can be killed, don't see the reason you argue with me on this :D
 
Last edited:

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
L/F, bounty and the different ranking system which we had some time ago has caused more damage to this game than any other change. << I want something to back up this else it's again just YOUR opinion against those who enjoyed multiple rankings & aims.

It takes a really ignorant person to ask for something to back this up. Just remember of the amount of players we had before those things were implement and now after those things are already removed.


And what exactly makes you think the playerbase decreased 3-4 times and the reason for this is having multiple rankings ? I could blame wow, travian etc as we have solid evidence of players leaving to those games and didn't look back. Provide some evidence 75% of the playerbase left because they where unhappy of having effectiveness and BH as rankings, BW is the one pulling statistics out of his ass and claim they're facts, based on hundreads years of experience, try to be more original :p

Heh, we can play this game forever, but if you look from a neutral point of veiw, what will you see? Some major changes which a lot of the PB was against the implemention of (I can prove that if the old were around). After those being implement, a slow and steady decrease of the PB, when it has come to a point where the admin himself removes them?

I am talking about the different ranking system and LF/XP/BH as a whole.

Now after those are being removed, can you not see some steady growth in the PB again?

And yes, we are both well aware that neither me, nor you, nor even the admin himself can state a reason and prove it 100% for the past decrease of the PB. Sometimes though, you don't need hard evidence, just common sense.


And where exactly did i ask to make solo play BETTER than alliance play ? I just want a solid balance. You want solo's exctinct.

Hell, how can you even say things like that :p
I don't want solos to extinct, where else I am going to steal easy land from? ;)

What I don't want is, being pranked at 4 am in the morning becuase of some rushing solo who is impossible to kill due to either constantly high AR, active naps or smart use/abuse of sleep mode.

You say it is piss easy to kill solos now DS, but can you please honestly say whether someone has killed you this round? (Just for everyone who don't know, DS is a solo RPG with less than 1k land in top 100 who doesn't have a single humvee). Not only that, but there are some solos who are pretty high even now that we are speaking. Solo is fine if you ask me.

And now, since you seem to be fan of proves and hard evidence, can you give me one to back up your statement that it is "piss easy to kill a solo?". I am talking about a smart solo, not just some random n00b with no activity.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
On first part you are generalising about many major changes and that's not the same as our disscution about just l/f. However i do agree there have been a few major changes that imho didn't got the entire support and attention needed and where only "half implemented". l/f might be part of it, it had imo great potential and it was a huge step in the right direction it just never got the extra attention and improvement required but just the easy way out - removal. War mode, war wins etc some other major changes that never got finalised so i agree that can be anoying and it might make players feel they play an unfinished game and some could choose to leave, but i disagree with your opinion that multiple aims makes players leave :)


You talking about my id as an argument why solo's are fine or balanced it's not the best pick really :p We both know solo mode has nothing to do with my troop setup or my valuation ranking. Look at Wouter even .. he doesn't even want ar protection but he's still highish ranked. So picking a hand of highly active players who happen to be solo but would be as succesful as in a 1 man alliance won't support your arguments in any way.
You should talk about the average solo player with average skills, average activity, average acres, balanced troop setup etc who is taking benefits from solo play and ar mod. I'll give you a good example - korpi. Ask him how many times he got trashed this round, he has pretty much average in all those ^ and solo mode is actually visible in his playstyle, ar mod comes to his rescue. I know i need to get a ticket to be the next one to kick his ass, damn vultures keep going in front :mad:
 
Last edited:

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
You talking about my id as an argument why solo's are fine or balanced it's not the best pick really :p We both know solo mode has nothing to do with my troop setup or my valuation ranking. Look at Wouter even .. he doesn't even want ar protection but he's still highish ranked. So picking a hand of highly active players who happen to be solo but would be as succesful as in a 1 man alliance won't support your arguments in any way.
You should talk about the average solo player with average skills, average activity, average acres, balanced troop setup etc who is taking benefits from solo play and ar mod. I'll give you a good example - korpi. Ask him how many times he got trashed this round, he has pretty much average in all those ^ and solo mode is actually visible in his playstyle, ar mod comes to his rescue.

That is EXACTLY what I am talking about DS. If we boost solos as a whole, then smart and active players like you, wouter, martin, polo (hell we know the crew) will become utterly invincible. You know this, I know this. The difference between me and you though, is that I don't want invincible solos messing up with alliances, while on the other hand you seem to fine with that? Why?

[edit] Now when I come to think about it, I can see something clear. Make the AR of the less active drop slower. Although this again is highly abusable.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
You actually want to say :


You don't want INDIVIDUALS to mess with alliances. Them beeing solo mode or not has nothing to do with it. As i said in the post above i could make my own 1 man alliance and attack alliances .. what would be different ? Or i join Enmity and never defend them or ask them to defend me. You are only against uncharacteristic playstyle of some players who "have nothing to loose". Them beeing solo or not it's not exactly your problem the way i see it, it just hurts you deep inside you can't hurt them like you can hurt an allied player on resonable amount of acres or just force him to defend and die defending other members. The solo's who rush alliances usually don't care about sitting on their acres and would give a free grab here and there, it's anoying for you they don't play the usual alliance game where you are the wolf and the other alliance is the sheep that gives a fight to keep the acres but this time you actually get free grabs and they anoy you with retaliations .. so nothing like the usual sheep :p
That's your main problem the way i see it, individual players that you can't hurt and not solo play and it's (dis)advantages.
 
Last edited:

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Why the F you want to draw me in to this DS?
Yes I speak of hundreds of years of experience in business, warfare which has been tested on the field and then passed on to next generations in memoirs, writings etc. You just when you wanted to go over board never even stopped to ask what I mean and now you get here to throw your BS drawing my name to convo I didnt even wanted to post to.

I can tell you that you have been here praising your way of game and your solo favoring for ages!! In which time this game managed to split small amount of players to play for multiple different goals and reduced player size even more. If not in field at least in minds of those who still play. It was hellish fight to get things fixed and this game back to what it strong points were/are and I can already say that of you ask from people these last rounds have been most pleasant in alliance fighting for a very long time (not counting one stupid TBA to this).

You can honestly go and showe your BH and L/F where sun doesnt shine, cause they do more harm than good. You can take your solos with you and put it to same place as there clearly is some room left. This game has only been strong and survived because of its strong community and loyal players. It has survived because of intence alliance fighting. If there would be 10k of players we could talk of solos and L/F and bount... but theres not even near that. And yet you want to split these even smaller number of people to play for multiple different goals... That is not just stupid that is directly aimed to harm Azzers income.



Now to this 5min ticks thing just for fun of it... Lets say 5min ticks have ability to give "more" for the low amount of time people are online. You ever compared that if player is online 2 hours a day and that equals 12 normal ticks and 24 ticks in 5m ticks... same time that top guy is online 12 hours = 72ticks or 144 ticks... no matter how much you change ticks to faster direction and how "fast" people build back up their losses, fact also is that rest of the game runs away at same speed so reducing ticks doesnt help.

What if we instead make ticks hour long? Suddenly 2hours = 2 ticks and 12 hours = 12 ticks. Difference is same but this time that very low activity guy could maybe spend his 2 hours on 10 ticks(10 hours and 10 mins each tick which on current game wouldnt get you much done) and not only on 2 hours more or less straight play that normal gaming needs. Wouldnt this reduce the activity difference from 12hour guys and 2hour guys 10 hours to only 2 hours?? does this mean we all should go to sheer for an hour ticks? Yeah thought so too.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Alci :

"And it's just absurd and annoying for those of us who have been around for awhile to know why L/F and other game mechanics were removed. Because they were fundamentally flawed. It is the continuous advocation of a 'return' to what is perceived as bushtarion glory days that pisses off the 'experienced' group of players i think, more than the fact that they simply think they are 1337. ofc that does factor into it; but mostly in terms of I've seen where this game has come from; and I understand why it has gone the way it has. You are a newer/ignorant player and you don't understand why. "


When you put yourself on the side of the "experienced players" and say this side knows better and this side is against l/f and the other side consists of newer/ignorant players who don't understand why you're so l33t it's hardly the same thing as you said after you corrected yourself in the other post where you said " your experienced friends".
You have supporters for your side i know, but don't make it sound like you're speaking for the whole playerbase that has a clue about the game while all others that don't share your views are noobs.


You keep saying l/f was fundamentally flawed from which i understand the very basics of the idea where flawed. So since you are in mood to make long posts with your opinions maybe you can explain in a post what was so FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED about attacking over 70% 1:1 or comparing the sizes of attackers and defenders etc ? I know it wasn't perfect and i know there was room to make it better but maybe you can explain what's broken at the very fundation of this concept of having more balanced fights ?

I didn't expect to get into a semantics argument so i was a little careless in my use of words; a mistake i will be sure not to make twice when arguing with this wily, scrupulous and overly attentive Romanian ;)

I put myself on the side of the experienced players and was speaking for those of whom my point is true. Many experienced players post short, rude, and abrasive posts when they see a post repeated a hundred billion times, without useful additions and are simply bemoaning the disappearance of broken mechanics which they enjoyed.

I apologize deeply to anyone whom i may have offended when i stated what appeared to be a fairly obvious viewpoint and which was intended to explain why 'experienced' players generally respond with hostility towards imbecilic posts.

I never meant to say those new players wouldn't understand why we were 1337 (there you go again reading random interpretations into my posts). I simply meant that they (appear) not to understand why those mechanics were removed, i.e. because they were not working as intended (otherwise known as broken).

I did not intend to say that the L/F idea was fundamentally flawed, there is nothing wrong with attacking over 70% or being penalized for attacking under it. However, as i remember it, the L/F system itself was flawed. I'll be buggered if i can remember all the details but i remember the forums being full of complaints of abuse of the system and certain players finding advantages that they worked mercilessly to the disadvantage of other players. (Some balance eh?) I was a fairly inexperienced n00bie at the time and so did not (and still don't) understand all the details of the game. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me on exactly how it wasn't flawed, and exactly why it was good for the game and then go on to explain why it was removed, and for what reasons.

I would like you to take the time to read through some of my posts where i reference the new Fairness Calculator that Azzer is tweaking/working on and you'll notice that I am all for the reintroduction of a functional L/F system. I like the idea of encouraging players to hit over certain score percentages otherwise they get penalized.

DS I could be completely 100% wrong, and if I am, please please please please feel free to correct me. I was always under the impression that mechanics that were removed were broken, or were taken out because the game was going in another direction. If that is not the case, please inform me otherwise; i don't like being left in the dark :(
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
I actually always liked the idea of having the game much more slow paced .. like the games you can check for a few minutes every couple hours and do your thing, logout and you can keep up with those who stay logged on all this time :)
It's not as hardcore game as currently is, but with the vast migration of players towards solo play in the recent rounds that even made Azzer cripple solo play i guess a large part of the playerbase can't keep up with the current speed and would enjoy more the casual and relaxed style.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
So Alci, L/f wasn't fundamentally flawed then, but you're just bypassing an information you remember reading in forums. I know the abuse you're talking about but i think the more appropriate term would be a bug that was exploited in rare ocasions rather than say the whole deal was fundamentally flawed. Azzer couldn't find a resonably quick solution and as i said imho he choosed the easy way out and just removed it.
The amount of repeat attacking and bashing since removal of l/f it's probably enough evidence to show why it was a mechanism that was doing more good than harm, i remember as i posted previously in the thread members of top allies seding even 20 mobs on me in just 3-4 days (after l/f was removed) that while i don't particulary find too anoying a newer player might find them extremlly unfair and frustrate him so much that just goes to find another game :)
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
meh most of the comments i've noticed have been general and in that not authoritative.

i feel that sometimes people here mistake or confuse a person 'talking confidently' about a point of view they feel strongly about with the person trying to have the last say.

initally for the most part alci was just posting to clarify things as he saw them. regardless, even if l/f came back it would be under the new fc and work differently and thereby not be bringing it back. it wouldn't be the same.

so lets stop mincing words and just discuss the ideas under the topic at hand.
 
Top