Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueArmy
And for ALMIGHTY VISION discussing it in their channel and saying its 'oh so bad'. Strange we havent heard a single complaint or it even being mentioned from you or your brethrens that the second big donation was to a vision planet, however he's barely in the top 50 with his 600 or so roids. So its only bad if the planet that receives the donation can get roids and stay in the top? If the planet that receives the donation just waste it and drop in ranks after a few days its A OK ?
|
Just because no one likes to waste energy on arguing with Light on IRC does not mean we all agree with her! (this goes for her too)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Knight_Theamion
To use some highly flawed analogy. Back when I played a lot of Red Alert 2 there were a few things I often did. One was using paratroopers to land at some weird spot where they would occasionally kill, but never be in the main line of approach to my base. I did this untill they were promoted enough to self heal and put them as main defence and added 'free' paratroopers to them. They were protected by the veterans and also upgraded rather fast. This in turn made me almost impossible to attack by land. After that it was just building up some anti air and building in some remote corner a massive army that would wipe away all my opponents at once. Is this also cheating because I 'abused' the promoting/upgrading system?
Another example would be fortressing myself in my base, having some oil refineries so I wouldn't be reliant on harvesters and then just only attack the enemies harvesters/miners and killing of his small start waves at me until he ran out of money. Then almost tickling him to death without incurring much losses.
I just wonder when you would say I am 'cheating' at Red Alert 2 when I use various tactics......
|
Funny you should mention Red Alert 2.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the game (hopefully only a few), Red Alert 2 is a strategy game where you can choose between several Allied and Soviet countries which all have certain specialties. Germans have armor-piercing tanks for example, while the Americans have paratroopers (which Theam used as example). The French, bastards that they are, have the Grand Cannon turret.
These Grand Cannons have the third biggest firing range in the game (second only to a sub-par unit and a naval unit), with high splash damage. Their purpose was mainly for defense, to be used in one's base. However, on certain smaller maps (or maps with capture-able buildings) these Grand Cannons could be used very efficiently on offense, since their splash damage combined with range could quickly devastate the enemy base.
In 75% of the games that players themselves host, picking France will result in being kicked. (which is similar to people whining in PA)
In 1 vs 1 "tournament games" arranged by the server you can still pick France, however you will never end up playing on certain maps (small maps and with Tech buildings nearby).
So Red Alert 2 definitely has dealt with 'unbalanced gameplay' as much as they could.
In my opinion, 10:4 did nothing against the rules nor do I think it was 'unfair' - I do think the donations should be somewhat adjusted though. Personally I'm more against the covert op planets that donate all their resources (covert ops should be 'gameplay side-dishes' or a kind of 'specialization', not an entirely separate part of PA) but that's another matter.
Just limit donations to <average galaxy score> x 100 total resources, so that one can never get above the galaxy's top scoring planet.