|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
363
   |
Posted - 2014.01.31 23:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
Marston VC wrote:You see..... im kind of curious..... Hardly anyone ever attacked your alliance to begin with. Sure there were fights here and there. But 103 fights a day? I think not...... 50 of those districts owned by NS were as good as locked to begin with. AE's districts weren't under any major threat either. The only districts consistently under attack right now were ddbs. just seems odd to me...... PC was pretty much dead to begin with. The only difference now is that anyone who might of wanted to attack cant. Which.... well. There really wasn't a lot of people who wanted to attack anyway.
Just more work for directors, less reason to log on for members. |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
364
|
Posted - 2014.02.01 22:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
From a different thread(Context is "Why are we locking up districts")
Arirana wrote: We did it because of the tactical advantage it gave to the coalition that is forming against us. They could take a snag at our districts whenever they wanted, meanwhile all we can do is defend and spend an hour trying to snipe.
Stop talking about wanting to fix the game. You are locking up for the strategic advantage that it provides. Everything else is just meta.
Not directed at Arirana ofc. At least he gives straight talk. Everything else is metafactured to make it look like you aren't doing it for the reason that you are actually doing it for.
You are doing the exact same thing that TP did, for the exact same reasons, at least personal time invested and more profit. Let us be real here for a minute. The only thing different is that you are pretending like you are trying to "fix the game" by doing it. #meta |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
364
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 07:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
lDocHollidayl wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:From a different thread(Context is "Why are we locking up districts") Arirana wrote: We did it because of the tactical advantage it gave to the coalition that is forming against us. They could take a snag at our districts whenever they wanted, meanwhile all we can do is defend and spend an hour trying to snipe.
Stop talking about wanting to fix the game. You are locking up for the strategic advantage that it provides. Everything else is just meta. Not directed at Arirana ofc. At least he gives straight talk. Everything else is metafactured to make it look like you aren't doing it for the reason that you are actually doing it for. You are doing the exact same thing that TP did, for the exact same reasons, at less personal time invested and more profit. Let us be real here for a minute. The only thing different is that you are pretending like you are trying to "fix the game" by doing it. #meta Pardon good sir...how long were the districts open. The answer is very long. You may project all you would like. To believe you know another's motivation is strangely omnipotent. Might I ask you how this conversation could ever be productive when your baseline is you know my motivations? Please, at your leisure, continue to fuel CCP's "tank of change" to improve all of our overall game play. Might I also pose a query? Why do you not have a single district open? Just one. So players can use PC as it was intended?
Teamplayers holds no districts. There is a gracious window of attack associated with all related organizations. I am not saying that you are doing anything wrong by following the playerbase in locking up. What I AM saying is that the purpose of this thread was meta and that you hold no altruistic "save the game" motive in doing so. You are locking up because it benefits you; not because it benefits the game.
Many members of your corporation have complained about this in the past. What say they? Do they buy the line? Or do they not smell the **** they are stepping in... |
Fiddlestaxp
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
367
|
Posted - 2014.02.02 07:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
lDocHollidayl wrote:Fiddlestaxp wrote:From a different thread(Context is "Why are we locking up districts") Arirana wrote: We did it because of the tactical advantage it gave to the coalition that is forming against us. They could take a snag at our districts whenever they wanted, meanwhile all we can do is defend and spend an hour trying to snipe.
Stop talking about wanting to fix the game. You are locking up for the strategic advantage that it provides. Everything else is just meta. Not directed at Arirana ofc. At least he gives straight talk. Everything else is metafactured to make it look like you aren't doing it for the reason that you are actually doing it for. You are doing the exact same thing that TP did, for the exact same reasons, at less personal time invested and more profit. Let us be real here for a minute. The only thing different is that you are pretending like you are trying to "fix the game" by doing it. #meta Pardon good sir...how long were the districts open. The answer is very long. You may project all you would like. To believe you know another's motivation is strangely omnipotent. Might I ask you how this conversation could ever be productive when your baseline is you know my motivations? Please, at your leisure, continue to fuel CCP's "tank of change" to improve all of our overall game play. Might I also pose a query? Why do you not have a single district open? Just one. So players can use PC as it was intended?
TP's districts were all open for months and months before the mass attack came. We only received attacks from people who didn't know better until then. When they came, we were able to successfully defend them and gain ground in the process. I must admit though, they strained us. A good portion of our crew wanted to be playing FF14 and didn't want anything to do with this game at the time.
I can't see how what you are doing is in any way different. I congratulate you for having the sense and foresight to see what holding more districts than you can reasonably defend causes. When TP hit 15% control, we figured that the wave would come at any second. Nobody had locked districts on that scale before and we didn't really know what to do. Our original idea was to just take more as a buffer against the assault that we knew would come eventually. It took until we held over a third of all territory for it it come, but we were expecting it for at least a month and a half beforehand.
Between your corp, your shadowcorps (GODZAMONGMEN et. al) and your alliance, you must realize that you can not withstand a mass assault. Especially with two teams that can beat you at least 50% of the time... TP was concerned about a mass attack when 0 teams could beat us 50% of the time. Pretty sure AE's win rate at that point was 20% or lower against us. If we had known that we could just lock up and not have to farm the AFK money by playing out the defense, we would still probably hold 20%... Why can't you just admit that you saw the writing on the wall? Why do you have to deny what everyone already knows?
*In case of a mass assault: TP, NF and all associated entities are NEUTRAL in every regard. Sufficient payment could (and would) change that. |
|
|
| |
|