[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Light

The only arguments for this strategy is "i like it". From a game design point of view, that is absolutely meaningless (just bcus someone says i think or this is my point of view, does not mean they're simply saying "i dont like it").

This just isn't true.

1. It gives an unfair advantage to a planet via donations so that they become double the size of the #2 planet. If were going to allow that, then we need stats with huge holes in them to compensate.

You haven't, at any point, given an even vaguely objective definition of "unfair". So yes, your argument does boil down to "I don't like this".

2. Its unfair to those planets which didnt have donation whores who are now top as they are easy pickings for the donation whore.

This is an insane use of the word unfair. Purely in the context in which you use it you could replace "didn't have donation whores" with didn't get alliance def or anything else. Note that I'm not saying that they're exactly the same thing here, I'm just saying the actual argument is completely meaningless.

3. Its not an arbitrary line when choosing between weither donations or escorts are allowed. One requires you to find 4-7 random people who have no intention of playing the game to signup and then donate to you (then quit, nothing else, no more effort), while escorting requires you to play the round.

That is an arbitrary line. You drew your line between 1 action and <many actions>. However, in reality, it doesn't break down that simply. An entire alliance of support planets that defended/escorted someone only once before letting him then move on to another tag wouldn't break your line for example. I'm pretty sure that'd still be advantageous though.

4. some forms of co-operation should be encourage but signing up just to donate should be discouraged.

This isn't an argument. It's a statement.

5. If you want more strategy in PA then come up with idea's for it other than allowing some planets to start with double/triple the value of everyone else.

This isn't an argument either. It's an emotive appeal.

6. If you do want people being able to choose short term high value gain, then do it via goverments.. giving them a nice one-off payment of resources and balancing it with slow res, slow con or lower income bonus but donation whoring is not the way to achieve that.

This is almost an argument but you still don't provide any reasons for why you shouldn't be able to achieve high value through donation whoring.




Edit: Seriously light, it's not a coincidence that mz and my response's are almost exactly the same. At this point I'd advise just going out and looking up what most of the words you're using actually mean, and then try to apply them to pa and figure out how they fit in.