Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
Those arguing about naptarion I am not sure that the number of naps necessarily is what should be condemned. p3n currently has avoidance with ult, and alliances with bows, vgn, and norseless, as well as a NAP with HR and have for the last week to some extent been working with ND. Put it like that and it would seem clear that we have played naptarion nicely!
An alliance that has no agreements but does nothing but gal raid all round and has had no impact, or probably negative impact on the fight, or lack of it, at the top (presumably they would have rejected overtures to help change things) would seem to be more to be condemned. This would seem to me to potentially get worse if an ally spends all round fighting other small allies therefore taking them out of possibly influencing the top too. Conversely an alliance may be allied to a whole load of alliances, but if this is with the intention of blocking against top allies and keeping things interesting then despite them being the far more naped up ally they would seem to be playing the more interesting role.
The problem is, as has been pointed out several times in the stagnation thread, most alliances have little incentive to get involved in potentially high stakes battles at the top. Do alliances want interesting times? Not when those interesting times likely mean lots of incoming.
|
All alliances tries to make deals that put them in good position. And as long as war aint profitable, it becomes a round of naptarion. If CT, p3ng, ND, App and Ult all have been fulltags and going for win, it would have been a different game. Now top3 made deals with atleast one of the contenders to put themself in a good position.
What can we do to make it better? I for one think that wars need to profitable, or else there will be naptarion.