Re: THE rules WILL change!
Quote:
Originally posted by Typothetae
Well, Jynne...nice, thoughtful reply.
The rules will change! And with Notum Wars, the rules did change. Now, the apparent intent of the game designers is not being fulfilled by the current rules.
So maybe the intent was short-sighted. Maybe, the designers are wrong to place low-level potential land control above Org loyalty. Maybe they should leave things the way they are. I'm not sure. I do know that I will be loyal to my guild before changing my strategy. And, I think you agree with that. Org loyalty above all. You don't believe that being strong should be the main goal, so quit using that as an argument. You believe in community and your guild.
So, I repeat, Jynne, "why are you voicing the 'might beats right' mentality?" You just don't believe that, you are just trying to support your guild.
So, don't use ridiculous, destructive logic just to get your way. If you don't change your tune, Cz and FC will not listen to you. Never use the 'strongest of the fittest argument!' Ever! No one in entertainment will listen to you. You have to be much more subtle than that!
The rules will changes. And I bet you will change your tune if it benfits your org. I don't blame you.
Umm... might beats right because it's mighty.
If I attack a stronger organization's base I expect I'd lose. Why is that so hard to grasp? If a stronger organization attacks my base I expect I'll lose. But if a weaker organization attacks my base, I expect to win. That's the whole point of there being differentials in strength.
Otherwise we'd be playing a FPS, not an RPG - here, there are ways to improve your character's power. It takes an investment in time and effort to do so, and you are rewarded for your time and effort by being able to do more damage, cast better nanos, and so forth. You advance. Advancement should not have penalties, and the current proposal by FC is imposing penalties on orgs that have members who advance.
Even if a whole org advances at once, they'd be constantly trying to 'trade up' their base for a higher-level one, even if they didn't really want to, because if they don't trade-up they'll have a base they can't defend against weaker attackers anymore. But then they'll hit a brick wall, that we call uberguilds - guilds they can't beat, because they aren't strong and large enough. And their current base is too low-level for them to defend against weaker players; they can't take a stronger guild's base - so umm look at what happens to your guild of level 50 players as they level up to 150? They get screwed.
Unity of the Rose is far, far weaker than, say, Legion - to pick an Omni guild. But by your logic, we should have a better chance of beating them in battle, especially if we attack their base, because... because we are so much weaker? That is just a contradiction. It's ludicrous. If we attack their base first, they should be able to come out with the kid gloves off and kill us so dead our alts all die too! They earned it!
Your position is that the weak should have a 'fair chance.' To that I say, if you want perfect fairness in chances, go play CounterStrike. Or play an offline game. Fair doesn't exist in an RPG with power differentials between characters. We earn our high levels. We should benefit from them. Deal with it.