Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA
If Ascendancy are hit from t72 by multiple alliances, they cant do anything about it.
|
In such a scenario as the one you suggest, alliance X will change its strategy, simply because hitting Ascendancy isn't as profitable as hitting newbies is, not when there are 7 other alliances in the block, which can keep down Ascendancy just as well as 8 can. Then the same thing will happen to the block of the remaining 7 alliances, leaving only 6. It'll happen again and again until the block is no longer big enough to keep Ascendancy down. Ascendancy would grow at an alarming rate (as we've seen before), at which point the whole sorry cycle starts again: the "everyone hit Ascendancy" strategy isn't a Nash equilibrium.
Even though you
are right that a successful execution of this strategy would certainly prevent Ascendancy from winning r31, human nature simply doesn't work that way, selfish little shits that we are. It'll never happen. That isn't to say that it's impossible to stop Ascendancy from winning through some other strategy (though it won't be easy), but this plan of yours is never going to work. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it were the least effective strategy you could possibly have come up with (Jester, comment?), short of deleting all of your planets.
I really can't explain this any better than I just have, if this kind of thing interests you I advise you to read into it a bit more, it's quite a fascinating topic. Wikipedia is, as always, a good place to start.
[edit]Having read a bit more of the thread, it looks like I'm pretty much repeating what Achi, JBG, cocteau and others have been saying, though I've tried to explain it in a different way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
I don't think it's cowardice, it's pretty much because Ascendancy is just a good place to play. If you've got a track record of whining you're likely to get a big fat no vote on you. We don't want players who come to us for 'safety' as they're likely to be the first to welsh out in a fight.
|
Personally, I think it'd be good for Ascendancy if we lose the round, precisely because of what you just said there. I don't think we're as good at weeding out the shitty players as you think we are, I have no doubt that we've gained quite a few of them in recent times.