Because Figment like to take threads off on dishonest tangents - for him.

[Ghoest9]

Fact: Bases can be lost to opposing forces in a battle.

Fact: Currently this point is when the attacking forces have pinning you in the spawn room and you are forced to either redeploy or allow yourself to be farmed.


Opinion: I believe this is a good system. It allows the defenders in a lost battle to either be smart and regroup or be stupid/brave and walk into a hail of bullets over and over.




Ok. I have stated this many times. And I have stated it clearly. This has nothing to do with my dislike for zergs doing ghost caps. Accepting fact that at some point a battle potentially can be lost is not the same as saying people should be encouraged to not defend at all.

Now Figment - master of dishonesty that you are - please use this thread to lie about me.

[Saintlycow]

Because personal attacks are completely welcome on this site...

[Soothsayer]

Nobody ever pays me in gum. :(

[Ghoest9]

Well if its ok for him to attempt to subvert thread with post after post which by his own words are intended to address my "hypocrisy" rather than the subject of the thread.
Then it should be fair to just make a separate thread about my "hypocrisy."

[Saintlycow]

Well if its ok for him to attempt to subvert thread with post after post which by his own words are intended to address my "hypocrisy" rather than the subject of the thread.
Then it should be fair to just make a separate thread about my "hypocrisy."

I suggest all commenters with any hypocrisy, including myself, be redirected to the CNN comment boards. Won't be noticed in there. Hamma tries to run a nice fansite, and somedays we give him a hard time.

[Figment]

I never lied about you. I made an analysis and implied what you were saying. You can disagree with that assesment, but I never lied about you.


What actually happened is that you don't understand the line of argumentation, nor the implications of your own remarks and how all the systems interact.



And now you make a flame bait and insulting thread instead of asking for a clarification or debate. Interesting... methodology.


Again, I never stated lies about you. I simply analysed what you were saying and what those implied in terms of consequences, apparently well beyond your own analysis, realisation and insights.



Fact: You call on people to leave when they lose and get spawncamped, "because that situation is lost".

Fact: Zergs automatically wins, because zerg numbers aren't mitigated in defense and recapturing is impossible under the tug-o-war system and mass onpoint system that heavily favours the numerically advantaged group, which always is the group with initiative, ie. the attacking party. They can usualy instantly move to spawncamping, skip the entire CY control fight (they automatically get it), take control of all points and mass on point them all.

Consequence: The defending populace loses by spawncamp.

Consequence: As per the above statement of move when spawncamped, you unwittingly tell people to leave when faced with an offensive zerg.

Fact: They do leave and don't come back.

Are you with me so far?




Fact: Small groups can only fight other small groups due to numerical leverage of firepower and endurance favouring the bigger groups tremendously, especially zergs, which you can't even handle by having an appropriate counter as a zerg will have all unit types available.

Consequence: This means that even when they do recall to their warpgate to get vehicles, they would first have to form up a larger group to try and tackle that zerg. This takes time. Time you don't have in defense.

Fact: Most bases are quite some distance away. Such a large distance that even if you'd get back to the base you just moved out off, you're likely too late to stop a capture as you will first have to clear the enemy zerg before you can try a resecure attempt. Especially since after you left, any local pressure was removed from the zerg.

Consequence: Logistically, it's too far away to do anything about it and since there's no chance you might do something other than kill a few before you get killed, there's really no incentive to even try.

Fact: Even if there is time to get back, kill some and recapture the controle console - somehow - there's no way you could hold this control console against the zerg that is still present.

Consequence: Due to the above, it's considered pointless to even try; there is no incentive to go back and fight the zerg: that fight is lost. Blocking them further down the road will result in the exact same thing as before: you will lose due to lack of manpower.

Fact: Other territories are ripe for the plucking by being worth experience points by default, facing lesser opposition than the main enemy zerg, might cut off the zerg from resources, regains you some lost territory (even if it is different territory).

Fact: Zergs eventually disperse over greater numbers of territory till they face off with another zerg, largely due to the above. Letting them roam will only disperse and weaken the zerg while you get exp elsewhere.

Consequence: Small groups seek out other small groups or even smaller groups to fight and easy pickings.

Fact: Command is severely lacking. Network is missing, detailed information on enemy positions, direction and is poor, usualy obsolete and due to the hex system very hard to read. Even when it is possible to read, relocation is slow and incomplete. Worse, people on /command are randoms and often inexperienced. Command therefore is pretty darn useless and never up to speed, let alone proactive.

Consequence: Both zergs behave on intuition, typically based on "nearest base" and "pretty/securish borders" principles. Smaller groups play on intuition. They don't actively seek each other out and instead simply seek the paths of least resistance and avoidance of large groups of enemies.


Fact: If defense against larger numbers WAS possible, players wouldn't leave, wouldn't disperse over other empty territories as much, zergs would stay longer in particular locations, intel would get better, better predictions would be made, more time is gained to redirect and then relocate troops and get zerg on zerg fights when needed.




In short: You saying they shouldn't stay in a spawncamped situation leads to you effectively telling them they must avoid the zerg.

Fact: You complain that the zerg roams freely.

Fact: You only link this to experience gain, rather than look at how much fun and how practical it is to fight a zerg in the first place.

Fact: Defensive exp is hard to get from all sources: kills or otherwise.

Fact: Current defensive exp is virtualy 100% down to kills (only other source: some control console switching exp.).

Fact: You never realised this, because you're very shortsighted and beligerent in these things about what people "should" do, opposed to what people "naturally" do and you have absolutely no understanding of why something is (un)natural behaviour. Since you don't understand that, you complain people need to L2P, while in fact the game should be designed to work with natural flow patterns and balance instead of expecting players to behave unnaturally.

Fact: You complain the zerg roams freely.

Cause: Nobody is capable of defending against a zerg unless they too are a zerg. Hence they are not willing to defend against it. You however, are in denial of this cause.




So yes, I find it hypocritical that you complain that:

-No one is defending because its a total waste of time xp wise.

-So attackers are just moving in giant zergs from undefended base to base(which are even harder to defend against).

Yet at the same time say:

Spawn camping is not a a problem.
IT DOESNT NEED A SOLUTION.


The only problem is that we have players stupid enough to feed the campers when they should realize they have lost the battle.

How can you possibly complain about people not defending due to being camped after you tell them to get the hell out of there?

[Ghoest9]

Your get terrible xp defending relative to attacking. There is nothing hypocritical about noting this.

If random dude logs on and want to earn some certs he has a decision

-attack - I get certs if we win. I get certs if I kill people. I get points for support I get certs if no one is there.

-defend - I get certs if I kill people. I get points for support.

What ends up happening is more people attack than defend because its a higher probability of getting certs.
This leads to more lop sided fights - which leads to more lopsided fights - eventually the positive feed back leads to zergs which are too big to be defended rapidly going from ghost cap to ghost caps. And the zerg keep growing because every random player just looks for the hotspot that hasnt flipped yet and heads there knowing that hell probably find an overwhelming for on his side against a few noob defenders.

It has nothing to do with the your whining about getting farmed at the spawn rooms.

[ringring]

Goest9, this is out of order.

[Figment]

Your get terrible xp defending relative to attacking. There is nothing hypocritical about noting this.

I never said THAT was hypocritical, that's an observation.

What is hypocritical is a complaint that you help to keep in place.

If random dude logs on and want to earn some certs he has a decision

-attack - I get certs if we win. I get certs if I kill people. I get points for support I get certs if no one is there.

-defend - I get certs if I kill people. I get points for support.

Again, a fair enough critique I completely agree with.

What ends up happening is more people attack than defend because its a higher probability of getting certs.

This is a shortsighted comment. I could care less about certs, yet I don't defend - even though I want to - because I'm not given the opportunity to do so by the game.

That is something you want to keep that way.

You are actively out there preventing people from defending, yet can only think in experience points. That's you being narrowminded because you're only thinking in one type of incentive: experience points. Meanwhile, you think it's possible to net kills for defense, yet you admit that spawncamping happens very regularly. However, you wave that away as a (even potential) problem: you feel having more numbers is being outplayed. Trying to defend from the locally present spawnroom, being a dumb thing to do. You don't want it or the system redesigned either.

That's you being really narrowminded and shortsighted, because you're not looking at the whole picture yet again.

This leads to more lop sided fights - which leads to more lopsided fights - eventually the positive feed back leads to zergs which are too big to be defended rapidly going from ghost cap to ghost caps. And the zerg keep growing because every random player just looks for the hotspot that hasnt flipped yet and heads there knowing that hell probably find an overwhelming for on his side against a few noob defenders.

It has nothing to do with the your whining about getting farmed at the spawn rooms.

This I disagree with. Zerging by default winning leads to lop sided fights, until another zerg is met. You per definition feel the largest, not the most skilled, group should win.

You have repeatedly attested that you have no issue with a side that has the numerical advantage to also have the base design advantage because you do not believe in base defense. You believe in defense outside of the base. Yet you completely fail to see that all objective gameplay where all the certs are gained is INSIDE the base.


So you are either too shortsighted or too ignorant to see that even if you would create an Exp thing for defensive victories, still nobody would go and defend, because you make it impossible for them by having them spawncamped and unable to reach the objective.


THAT is what makes you hypocritical.


THAT is what your problem is. And for the record. Being called a hypocrit is not an insult.

What IS insulting and again hypocritical, is calling defenders noobs, while expecting them to try and defend against the zerg.



What the bloody hell do you want? Do you want steamrolling? Then we can't have defenders. Do you want incentives for defense? Then you'd first need defense, so you can't have steamrolling. Yet you want there to be steamrolling, because you think the bigger party is entitled to win.


You sir, don't know what you want. It's not me that's the problem. It's you.

[Hamma]

Settle your differences please. Thanks.