» List all forums
» » Forum: Piratical Parley and Politics
» » » Thread: Regarding sinking blockades
» » » » Post: Re: Regarding sinking blockades
Print at Oct 15, 2019 7:49:10 AM
|Posted by Elliptic at Oct 8, 2012 1:52:32 AM|
Re: Regarding sinking blockades
This is bad enough in itself, but your post does not address the effects of sinking. If the blockade is non-sinking, you cannot push someone off in the same way you can with sinking. This is because if it is non-sinking, you can only affect the attacker's chances of winning - not his costs. Playing on heavily outnumbered in a non-sinker is a real option in a way that doing so in a sinker isn't ... unless you try for a contest of cost.
Responding to a blockade being made sinking by focusing on costs is not comparable because the defender had total control of her costs and gave that up in pursuit of some advantage. If she had not made it sinking, attrition from sinks would be impossible. The defender is a victim of her own decision.
The first link in See Also on the page you linked to is to Guerilla Warfare. Attrition can be used by the weak against the strong. In Puzzle Pirates, the kind of underdog attrition you dislike has seen big disparities in cost. Even if it fails, though, I can't see how it can be called "griefing" when it's only possible because of the defender's own actions. We cannot expect attackers to focus on points after the defender introduces a dramatic new cost factor.
The sinking option is for one side only, so the attacker is only happy when he happens to agree with the defender. I doubt most people developing their skill would choose sinking, just as those beginning to learn swordfighting would not choose high wagers. The question is whether new, poor players who want to learn should have the stakes chosen for them by the old, rich players who already know the ropes.
"That is not how the question frames itself."
Wend, royal archophobe
Powered by mvnForum
mvnForum copyright © 2002-2006 by MyVietnam.net