Originally
posted by
DerrickICN:
LaF farming the crap out of untagged and killing them when they responded causing a poor pathway to entry into the game is ACTUALLY a part of the reason the bots were made. It's not conjecture based on my experience, bhole, it's a statement of fact. They decided that netters constantly hitting new players for land was bad, so they made an alternative in bots that could balance the market and allow netters to gain land without farming the crap outta newbs. That's actual history. That's not a criticism of LaF. I'm sure they'd happily admit that's why bots were introduced by their suggestion, to stop hitting new players for land. And we're saying we preferred when LaF did that to win to the bot farming alternative, despite LaF doing their due diligence to eliminate what they viewed as a thing they did that was negative to new players to, in effect, become the most powerful netting tag. All's fair when it comes to becoming powerful and winning, but they thought incorrectly that this meta would be better for newbs. I'm not complaining about anyone or pointing any fingers or crying. You see? It's just a normal conversation where I add some old history, and mix it with opinion.
The difference between that and what you do, bhole, is that you rely on 1 experience that you've had with 1 player 1 time in the 4 total sets you've ever played, and make sweeping generalizations about the community that often defy historical fact, insult players and are frankly lies. One can only argue that if you aren't lying on purpose, that you're just woefully ignorant. And your statements, much like the one I'm responding to, come off only as complaining about a person or complaining about a tag, rather than offering anything to conversations. I think you just want people to listen to you grovel and whine, and often make statements JUST to complain and offer literally nothing else. That's not a normal conversation. It's annoying.
If I respond to this will I be derailing the thread? Or arguing? Or am I allowed to respond?
I'll try....
I've offered suggestions. And I'll ignore some of your factually inaccurate statements (like how many sets I've played) and just stick to what might be constructive.
There are a few solutions to the problems I see. In fact, I made an entire thread that was solution oriented over on 1A, titled something like 'An analysis and opinion'.
I'll try again here though.
I really like the idea of SOTS being enforced here. If that can't happen, I like the idea of a 50/50 war, or the current teams splitting up. I like the idea of people from differing alliances having to team up and work together. I think that would go really far toward building bridges. Ignore me for a moment. I think the guys in LIGHT should split up, take on a few darkness guys, and the guys in Darkness should split up and take a few LIGHT guys. Try to even the teams and have a fun war. Insert other alliances as needed.
Other ideas I really like. A King of the Hill type of war. Where you have 3 or 4 or 5 teams of 5, who all battle each other. With only one team coming out on top.
I also like the idea of a draft war.
In addition to those ideas - I think that bots are somewhat harmful to the game. They allow kill runs to be extremely fast. And make it so that having alerts setup is basically a necessity, AND you have to get online within... what 45 seconds at most maybe?
I'd love to set a set where nobody uses bots or alerts. Kill runs have to be calculated on the fly, manually. That's probably unrealistic though, and I would imagine would be an unpopular opinion.
IF we have 5 on 5 type wars, that would slow down the war game as well, which might even be an even better solution. That would require enforcing SOTS, OR the player base just agreeing to it.
Those are just some ideas. Coalie, feel free to tell me to shut the fuk up again.