Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
If you think that the most important reason for war should always be to get profits, maybe we have completely different point of view on the matter.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Red calc is a red calc, but if the goal is to beat you opponent to something (planet ranks, alliance rank, gal ranks) what is important is that the other side is worse than yours.
|
You fundamentally miss the problem. It doesn't matter what you or I feel a just reward for going to war is. The only thing that matters is how players weigh the incentives provided by the game. If people don't feel they're getting anything out of going to war, why would they?
And they don't, because there's a really good reason why we only care about our own losses when deciding whether to land an attack: PA is not a 1 vs. 1 game. Even if you lose less than your opponent does, there's always an alliance out there losing nothing, some of which are
also in the running for #1. Any alliance that's willing to take losses to take down another alliance is essentially helping a third. It's a
bad strategy. If you want more war, you have to provide incentives for people to
want more war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
short rounds
|
By the way, "make profitable" does not necessarily mean "give people score for crashing". Longer rounds make wars more profitable by giving alliances longer to benefit from the spoils of war. Longer rounds have other downsides, of course: the longer a round goes on, the more people emoquit, get bored or just lose and are thus prevented from significantly influencing the round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
(I assume that you're pulling your standard trick of presenting your personal point of view as if it is the universal truth)
|
If I could make you copy everything I say, that would make things a lot easier.