Quote:
Originally Posted by neroon
if u got decent roids and u want to keep em in order to build value then u get defence from alliance. now if the attacker crashes on def and u lose a tad deffing: then the attacker is dead, u got little resources for yer effort and u have weakened the enemy by killing 1 of the enemys members..
why shouldnt they defend ?
|
Relative advantage. You'll gain more attacking than you will by defending. So you don't defend. All you want at the end is a bigger score than everyone else.
Edit: I don't think it'll go that far and bear in mind it probably seems like I'm overstating the case somewhat, you always get reductioed out there in cases like this. In all likelihood you'll probably know 2/3 people max who'll get spectacularly dicked by salvage this round and I doubt it's the sort of thing which is likely to change the outcome of the game that much, if at all. It's the tendencies it encourages that I'm not happy about. I believe the best sort of teamwork in PA is built on defence but I'm perfectly willing to adjust. Take it from someone who once won a round without defending once though. It's a much more interesting game the other way!