Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Game^
The main difference however JBG is that 1up's extra idle members had an indirect on game mechanics, due to the fact it influenced a factor outside of them, i.e. politics, no-one targeted them because they were small. It never actually influenced anyone in the game, they didn’t attack anyone, or defend anyone, they just altered people's perception of 1up that round.
However these covert op planets have a direct effect, in the same way defence planets do. They are there to interact with specific planets, in one form or another.
So in all honesty its not a like for like comparison at all.
|
I see you didn't bother reading some of what I wrote in my extended reply. All actions have an effect on everyone. Firstly the game is one of relative scores. This can be most clearly seen by the fact that having if your alliance had a score of 380 million in round A it would be ridiculous for you to claim victory in round B where the top scoring alliance only had a score of 360 million. This is relative score, as opposed to objective score such as we would see in something like civilisation, where getting a 145% civilisation score means you did objectively better than someone who got a 130% score.
As such we have a scenario where separating out benefit/harm becomes silly. If alliance A attacks alliance B and alliance B attacks alliance A, alliance C benefits because they are not being targetted. There have been a number of posts recently on this topic on AD, by sid, lokken and myself, among others, at various points. You are quite right, all those planets did was alter people's perception of 1up through the game mechanics. However they did so through having more members "working" for their alliance than the alliance member limit would allow.
Obviously they are not perfectly comparable issues. That said, in the area with which we are concerned they are equitable. Two different violations of the same rule, one punished, one not.