• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 256
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 26419 times and has 255 replies Next Thread
Timwiles

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 4, 2008
Posts: 635
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
So make it sinking and destroy all their resources.

I wasn't the one to click the button, but pretty sure it was all sinking, and it didn't drain all their resources.
 
Play the goddamned political game already.

They indeed won the political game. Obviously. They knew how to play it, if they didn't it would have been over much sooner.
 
Don't come crying to the forums and begging for your island trinket to be made untradeable because *you* were the one who won it first. Defending against all fame-qualified comers is part and parcel of owning an island, whether or not they're blockading you to own the island forever or to draw down your resources or just for the hell of it.


Right. Because Cleaver didn't say
 
attrition means wearing the other side down until they have lost the will to fight. The intent of the game is that it is a fun competition between the parties. More blockades that are fun, fair and challenging is fine and good. Repeated 'endless war' blockades and no-shows to grind down defenders is not acceptable.

or
 
Attrition is pretty much by definition griefing, as it relies on wearing down (primarily, esp. in the case of established Midnight flags who can field essentially bottomless resources) the enemy's will to fight. I've warned about using this kind of tactic, now is the time to send a clear message that it's not acceptable.

Replaying with the same comebacks while failing to grasp the meaning of what Cleaver outlined is incomprehensible to me.
----------------------------------------
Duende- Malachite, Hunter

Shortntarty tells ye, "my left boob has got a better shot than she does at getting famous
[Feb 9, 2010 11:54:36 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

There is definitely a failure of comprehension here, but it's not on my part, mate.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 9, 2010 11:59:44 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
rhandom

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 23, 2005
Posts: 1457
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

It sounds to me like all the blockades in question were fair and well fought.

No "no-show" or "trivial show" attacks. Every single one serious.

That's not griefing, that's a serious attempt to deal PvP damage against an intractible opponent.

Whether the intent was to take the island for their own flag or to weaken the target to make attacking them more viable for other flags really doesn't matter at that point.

Engaged, active, fun blockade boomy! That's certainly what it sounds like Cleaver is advocating in the above posts to me.

If the flag holding the island felt they needed a 1 or 2 week break it is a simple matter to throw one week (after winning the first 2 rounds, of course, for PsyOps) and come back after their vacation, when *they* have the initiative of being the attacker.
----------------------------------------
Hahvahd on Cerulean, Rhandy everywhere.

Once the pin is removed, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
[Feb 9, 2010 12:46:53 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
cmdrzoom

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Posts: 7327
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

All of this barnacle is moot anyway. Three Rings is the sole arbiter of 6.14, and if we're lucky, they might get around to rendering a judgment on this particular case sometime this year. Maybe.
----------------------------------------
Starhawk of Mad Mutineers, Azure
Catalina of Twilight's Sabre, Cobalt
[Feb 9, 2010 12:56:57 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
So make it sinking and destroy all their resources. Work your connections and make every flag pressure its people not to job for them. Have you and your allies and your friends hunt down every member of every flag that does job for them. Get your allies to circle the wagons and trade off weeks to defend for you. Retaliate and make their piratey lives hell (within the TOS, of course). Play the goddamned political game already.


We're not stupid. We did all that. We were consistently outjobbing them at lower pay by politicking ingame and on the forums. We tried holding jobbing to let them catch up so it would be semi-competitive. We sunk everything we saw floating. Both during the blockades and the week. The sink count was ridiculously lopsided in both the war and the "blockades". Ultimately, what stopped the whole thing was them not having the fame required to drop anymore because we did all that. But expecting that tactic to work all the time is not at all realistic, IMO. Nor is it realistic to blithely say that someone should walk away from an island because they got bored sinking the snot out of the same overmatched opponent week after week, with no end in sight.

So thanks for the advice we didn't need back then and surely don't need now. Believe it or not, we have functioning brains. So let's not assume the opposite anymore, mmmmmkkkkaaaaayyyy?

 
Don't come crying to the forums and begging for your island trinket to be made untradeable because *you* were the one who won it first. Defending against all fame-qualified comers is part and parcel of owning an island, whether or not they're blockading you to own the island forever or to draw down your resources or just for the hell of it.


Uh, yeah, about that. We're quite aware of our defense responsibilities, thanks so much. We successfully fulfilled them for over 100 straight weeks. Now we're doing precisely what all the closet psychologist say represents normalcy. We're walking away from our islands. We're not crying to keep them by any stretch of the imagination.

This all happened 14 months ago. It was brought up by someone that equated this to the shoppe blockade. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And you're on the latter side, not the former. That's my opinion and just because it differs from yours does not mean I'm crying. Anymore than it means you're crying for the existences of participation trophies for flags that win a contest of "who can watch paint dry the longest". It's perfectly normal to think that everyone loses that game, IMO. If you don't, that's your right. But don't try to BS me into believing that's not what you're doing by using insulting rhetoric that implies I don't know what I'm doing.

I am telling you that Cleaver's quotes described us. That's not a matter for debate. I was there and I was me. You were not either. So that means I know how I reacted and you don't. So what you're advocating is that OOO disavow Cleaver's statement as outdated. That's ok. It's perfectly fine to have that opinion. But you'd make a more convincing argument if you just accepted what you're doing instead of going into attack mode that only serves to demonstrate your ignorance. Go ahead, say it. "It's not a skill based game and the crappy flags ought to be rewarded it they just take enough beatings in a row".
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 1:00:18 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Timwiles

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 4, 2008
Posts: 635
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
There is definitely a failure of comprehension here, but it's not on my part, mate.

Please tell me how i'm not comprehending the situation? Hank just summed up everything I said, with the exception of greater details, and personal backing since he was there.
Your not understanding, and if you do, your not showing it by spitting the same BS that has been filled in all the other posts.
 
It sounds to me like all the blockades in question were fair and well fought.

Wrong, see other posts on how stupidly lopsided they were week after week.
 
That's not griefing, that's a serious attempt to deal PvP damage against an intractible opponent.

Your forgetting the fact that huge paywars to drain resources and the will to fight were used. If the goal was to do pvp damage, then wouldn't the sink counts be a little more even and pay would have been kept down? Yah, didn't think so.
----------------------------------------
Duende- Malachite, Hunter

Shortntarty tells ye, "my left boob has got a better shot than she does at getting famous
[Feb 9, 2010 1:08:39 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Edit to clarify response:

To Nickscorpio: Then I guess I have to read your request as, "We won, but we're tired of winning, so please just delete the political game so we can keep having our prize without having to play any more." So yeah, I'm going to continue to think it's a dumb and self-defeating request for someone who wants to play this game.

To Duende: You're like the guy who says the founding fathers weren't racist because they said right there in the Constitution that all men are created equal, while ignoring that they went on to say in the very same document 'but some of them only get three fifths of a vote'. Robertdonald was not exiled for repeatedly blockading. He was exiled for repeatedly not showing up to the play the game, after he called everyone else out onto the field to play. Fandango's entire being was essentially doing what you're saying is not allowed, and Cleaver called it 'appropirate'. I can understand how you misunderstand the meaning of what he said when reading back from the point of view of the current pirating context, but you have several players who were there at the time telling you what the circumstances were at the time and what the common understanding of his words was at the time, including at least one player who vociferously wanted Cleaver to decide the opposite rule would apply.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by sweetnessc at Feb 9, 2010 1:15:27 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 1:09:08 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
redwinej

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 8, 2007
Posts: 716
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 

I totally agree i was not at every armstrong kade either do to some work constraints and it did get to where my family was tired of seeing me stare at the computer and talk on vent. Her is my point. This would be very hard to regulate. As i said if Cairna was truly afraid of the ban stick or was told to stop for a week it would have been easy for him to tell random flag that has no alliance with him, hey i will give you 50k if you let me run a kade from your flag. Then how do you distinguish from that and just random flag b that sees that BTV is on the side lines do to OM intervention and says hey i want some fun here i think they are ripe for the pickings. Should they be forced to wait only because CC just went through marathon kade for two months straight.

Truth is i have seen flags do this(scenario 1) and helped. I started my blockade career xo'ing for some high profile nav'ers and from time to time i would be told use an unknown alt for this kade i dont want the other side to know we have a hand in this. Now given this wasn't because we wanted to blockade multiple times it was more politically related but it does show that it is easy to do. For all of you out there that think you would be able to find out the alts main, it can be done. I guarantee that i have alts in crews that if they knew it was me i would probably get booted from the crew and i know i am not the only one.

Lastly like i said what happened made the game less fun overall. I just dont see how this could be fixed without leaving it wide open for exploits or without effecting flags that are not involved with said harassment.


quoting what Isaid earlier as all this bickering is worthless with out a solution. If it is wrong then find a solution that does not result in one of the problems above. If you cant find a solution then the discussion is a waste of time as the current structure seems to be the best fit. Not always can there be a outcome that is ideal to everyone and most of the time there are only best fit scenerios. Currently it seems that the mechanics that we have, while falible, are the best fit.
----------------------------------------
Redtwo- On every dub ocean
Avatar by Primeval

Iron Monger- Holy Foil on Bowditch
[Feb 9, 2010 1:09:58 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Timwiles

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 4, 2008
Posts: 635
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Then I guess I have to read your request as, "We won, but we're not we're tired of winning, so please just delete the politcal game so we don't have to play any more." So yeah, I'm going to continue to think it's a dumb and self-defeating request for someone who wants to play this game.


First off, please stop referring to me as "we", seeing that I am not involved with CC in any way except the occasional vent chat when one of them hops over to Malachite.

You are still missing the point. No one is saying "Delete the political game! We won and don't need to fight any more!"
NO.
People are saying that what happened was very similar to what Cleaver said was a definite no go as far as what attrition meant and how it was not permitted. Here, Ill quote it again:
 
attrition means wearing the other side down until they have lost the will to fight. The intent of the game is that it is a fun competition between the parties. More blockades that are fun, fair and challenging is fine and good. Repeated 'endless war' blockades and no-shows to grind down defenders is not acceptable.

Please tell me how this DIDN'T happen and ill think a little more of you.
----------------------------------------
Duende- Malachite, Hunter

Shortntarty tells ye, "my left boob has got a better shot than she does at getting famous
[Feb 9, 2010 1:16:52 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Then I guess I have to read your request as, "We won, but we're not we're tired of winning, so please just delete the politcal game so we don't have to play any more." So yeah, I'm going to continue to think it's a dumb and self-defeating request for someone who wants to play this game.


Uh no. We're asking OOO to provide clarification about a statement made by the game's founder about undesired gameplay that perfectly fits a scenario where no action was taken.

Not everything is black and white. Being tired of neverending non-competitive blockades is not the same as being tired of blockades. It's a cheap debating tactic to use strawmen arguments, like your doing here. And a sure sign you don't have much to offer in the way of substantive points.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by NickScorpio at Feb 9, 2010 1:22:02 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 1:18:41 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
You are still missing the point. No one is saying "Delete the political game! We won and don't need to fight any more!"
NO.
People are saying that what happened was very similar to what Cleaver said was a definite no go as far as what attrition meant and how it was not permitted. Here, Ill quote it again:
 
attrition means wearing the other side down until they have lost the will to fight. The intent of the game is that it is a fun competition between the parties. More blockades that are fun, fair and challenging is fine and good. Repeated 'endless war' blockades and no-shows to grind down defenders is not acceptable.

Please tell me how this DIDN'T happen and ill think a little more of you.


It wasn't even close to what happened. RD repeatedly dropped chests, then pulled after a round or in the straw that broke the camel's back, no-showed, went pillaging, and put up a somewhat rude away message instead of playing with the people he made come out to play at 2 in the morning. Just as setting sail is consent to pvp (another Cleaver-ism), holding an island is standing prepared to defend against real, genuine blockades, whether or not they have a chance of actually winning the island.

There's a saying that hard cases make bad law, and RD is the embodiment of that.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 9, 2010 1:27:53 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Timwiles

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jun 4, 2008
Posts: 635
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I wasn't referring to the past, just taking Cleaver't text and applying it to what happened with CC. I never once said RD, nor was referring to him. I don't like to comment on things that I wasn't around for
----------------------------------------
Duende- Malachite, Hunter

Shortntarty tells ye, "my left boob has got a better shot than she does at getting famous
[Feb 9, 2010 2:26:51 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
Then I guess I have to read your request as, "We won, but we're not we're tired of winning, so please just delete the politcal game so we don't have to play any more." So yeah, I'm going to continue to think it's a dumb and self-defeating request for someone who wants to play this game.


Uh no. We're asking OOO to provide clarification about a statement made by the game's founder about undesired gameplay that perfectly fits a scenario where no action was taken.

Not everything is black and white. Being tired of neverending non-competitive blockades is not the same as being tired of blockades. It's a cheap debating tactic to use strawmen arguments, like your doing here. And a sure sign you don't have much to offer in the way of substantive points.


Oh 2005, here we go again.

It's not cheap, it's not a strawman, there are pages and pages of threads on this very topic and I short-handed in the apparently mistaken belief that it's all been said, and read, before, by the people in this thread. If I was wrong in that assumption, I would direct you to Parley 2005. If I wasn't wrong in that assumption, then I have nothing new to add to what's been said before.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 9, 2010 3:11:17 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
cmdrzoom

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Posts: 7327
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?

If so, can you explain to me why anyone would want to own a millstone island under such conditions, and how it fits in with the current marketing of YPP as a "casual" game?

EDIT for postscript: You'll note I've stepped back from RL analogies to matters of basic game design. Is this fun? Is this the kind of "endgame" we want? More importantly, is it what the Ringers want? I'd love to get some kind of official feedback...
----------------------------------------
Starhawk of Mad Mutineers, Azure
Catalina of Twilight's Sabre, Cobalt
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by cmdrzoom at Feb 9, 2010 3:22:33 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 3:18:08 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?


Absolutely.

Sports teams in leagues commit to play "every single week". They (including amateurs) universally do their absolute best to ensure that they will have sufficient players for their fixtures.

YPP has in interesting mechanism where the "supporters" (jobbers) get paid for their support, and the team with the bigger crowd of supporters has a better chance of winning.

And it isn't exactly as if the "king of the hill" island game doesn't allow for RE-taking "your" island the next weekend.

The GD is for blockades to happen if an attacker wants them to, and for flags that don't want to be attacked to not control an island at all, or else be very good at politicks. We all know that. Surely?
[Feb 9, 2010 3:39:05 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

If it's official feedback you're looking for, Cleaver acknowledged a long, long time ago that blockades didn't go quite as he'd intended. The Game Design forum is that-a-way. *points up*

People should want to own islands for as long as it's fun for them to do so. When it's no longer fun for them to do so, they should go find something else fun to do in the game. Don't like defending? Take islands and give them away, then you'll never have to blockade at a time that's inconvenient to you. That's the brilliance of the sandbox set-your-own-goal design.

Edit to add one bit to what Dylan said: I believe that it was the intended game design that one flag would not hold a single island ad infinitum, but rather that islands would change hands much more frequently than they have in practice.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by sweetnessc at Feb 9, 2010 3:46:00 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 3:39:08 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
IantheKorean

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 2864
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?

If so, can you explain to me why anyone would want to own a millstone island under such conditions, and how it fits in with the current marketing of YPP as a "casual" game?

EDIT for postscript: You'll note I've stepped back from RL analogies to matters of basic game design. Is this fun? Is this the kind of "endgame" we want? More importantly, is it what the Ringers want? I'd love to get some kind of official feedback...


I can't imagine why anyone would want to own an island; never have figured that one out really, unless it's for an uncolonized one and you're in it for the merchant game.

Blockading is not and never has been a casual game. Everything about it; resource gathering, political dealing, the sheer amount of time required all put it way into the hardcore arena. If you want casual blockading your efforts would be better spent in GD. Whining that you don't like the hardcore gaming aspect of the game in parley, that has always been that way since it's inception, is only going to get your laughed at.
[Feb 9, 2010 3:39:27 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Killrburrito



Joined: Oct 8, 2009
Posts: 299
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?

If so, can you explain to me why anyone would want to own a millstone island under such conditions, and how it fits in with the current marketing of YPP as a "casual" game?

EDIT for postscript: You'll note I've stepped back from RL analogies to matters of basic game design. Is this fun? Is this the kind of "endgame" we want? More importantly, is it what the Ringers want? I'd love to get some kind of official feedback...


I can't imagine why anyone would want to own an island; never have figured that one out really, unless it's for an uncolonized one and you're in it for the merchant game.

Blockading is not and never has been a casual game. Everything about it; resource gathering, political dealing, the sheer amount of time required all put it way into the hardcore arena. If you want casual blockading your efforts would be better spent in GD. Whining that you don't like the hardcore gaming aspect of the game in parley, that has always been that way since it's inception, is only going to get your laughed at.

you can cade uninhabited/uncolonized islands?
----------------------------------------
Partially retired and completely stupid.
[Feb 9, 2010 3:41:00 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
IantheKorean

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 2864
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
 
So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?

If so, can you explain to me why anyone would want to own a millstone island under such conditions, and how it fits in with the current marketing of YPP as a "casual" game?

EDIT for postscript: You'll note I've stepped back from RL analogies to matters of basic game design. Is this fun? Is this the kind of "endgame" we want? More importantly, is it what the Ringers want? I'd love to get some kind of official feedback...


I can't imagine why anyone would want to own an island; never have figured that one out really, unless it's for an uncolonized one and you're in it for the merchant game.

Blockading is not and never has been a casual game. Everything about it; resource gathering, political dealing, the sheer amount of time required all put it way into the hardcore arena. If you want casual blockading your efforts would be better spent in GD. Whining that you don't like the hardcore gaming aspect of the game in parley, that has always been that way since it's inception, is only going to get your laughed at.

you can cade uninhabited/uncolonized islands?


As in, an island that is being newly opened, yes. It still happens on green oceans, I believe?

Like so: http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=63292
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by IantheKorean at Feb 9, 2010 3:47:43 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 3:44:03 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
basso

Member's Avatar


Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 3156
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I think the flag in question wanted to defend their perfect record. I'm not up on Hunter politics though so I might be mistaken.
----------------------------------------
Montage of Sage
Mads wrote: 
OK, now I'm convinced. The problem here is that you cannot understand plain English.

[Feb 9, 2010 4:43:11 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
OdorOfFrodo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Posts: 4426
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
I think the flag in question wanted to defend their perfect record. I'm not up on Hunter politics though so I might be mistaken.

Well, that's a goal they set for themselves. And if they can't accomplish it, I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
----------------------------------------
Ecavatar by Ecastasy!
Talisker wrote: 
Obviously this calls for dressing up as Karl Marx.

[Feb 9, 2010 5:00:42 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Having fun is more important than any stats or perfect records.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 9, 2010 5:00:57 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

sweetie wrote: 

It's not cheap, it's not a strawman, there are pages and pages of threads on this very topic and I short-handed in the apparently mistaken belief that it's all been said, and read, before, by the people in this thread. If I was wrong in that assumption, I would direct you to Parley 2005. If I wasn't wrong in that assumption, then I have nothing new to add to what's been said before.


Uh, yes it was a strawman. Nowhere did we ask for the political game to get deleted so we didn't have to play it anymore, as you portrayed it. That sorts sounds like what we said but not really what we actually said. That's the definition of strawman. Google is your friend. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Now, the big point about the responsibilities of defense is a red herring. That means it is a point that appears close to being on topic but really isn't the topic. It's another cheap debating tactic that is used to divert attention away from the real issue. After all, as I pointed out, we met that responsibility for over 100 straight weeks. Never been a big fan of herring.

So, enjoy the dinner of red herrings with your buddy the Straw Man!

PS..I'm totally baffled by the reference to 2005 parley. Don't bother explaining. I really don't care.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 5:07:16 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
OdorOfFrodo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Posts: 4426
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

You might want to look up ad hominem while you're at it, there, Nicky boy. You're approaching that orbit at lightspeed.
----------------------------------------
Ecavatar by Ecastasy!
Talisker wrote: 
Obviously this calls for dressing up as Karl Marx.

[Feb 9, 2010 5:10:10 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
BobJanova

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 5008
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
So you would argue that having to defend an island every single week - not maybe, but certainly - against a force just large enough to be credible is the intended game design?

Yes. The whole point of holding an island is that you have a desirable object and you should expect to defend it every week. I'd be fairly sure that the current state of 'huge SMA sits on islands and scares everyone off blockading by making any blockade sinking and funding a ridiculous paywar' is what's not in the design. But if someone wants to make a credible blockade (i.e. one that you actually have to put the effort that you're complaining about into defending) every week then yes, that is definitely part of the game.

Like I said before, if that responsiblity is not fun to you, stop being part of the flag's blockade team, and if it's not fun to anyone in the flag, let someone else have your toy for a week or two. Repeatedly blockading you is no more griefing than PvPing a known merchant whenever you see him out. You can stop being blockaded at any time by ceding the island (so I guess that makes it less so, as ship sailing is a bigger part of the game than island governance).
----------------------------------------
Bobjanova on Viridian and Malachite
Shops and stalls with fair and profitable wages for all: Jubilee, Napi, Chelydra
Stripped/Barely Dressed (Malachite)
Phantasm/Reign of Chaos (Viridian)
[Feb 9, 2010 5:21:51 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Talisker

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 11261
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
PS..I'm totally baffled by the reference to 2005 parley. Don't bother explaining. I really don't care.


You're trying to seek opinions on a 5 year old ruling from OOO while ignoring the context of the precedent. A lot of this was addressed then, and, as stated, a lot of what contributed to that decision then isn't even possible now.

Further, as was stated in the Shoppe Blockade thing, saying, "I feel griefed!" is not necessarily proof of griefing. Similarly, saying, "I didn't want to blockade" isn't necessarily proof of attrition of will.
----------------------------------------
Leif
The Forums
Gunnermooch wrote: 
I can't respond because I do not understand what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

Av by Ecastasy
[Feb 9, 2010 5:30:44 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Amatoria

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 219
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 

PS..I'm totally baffled by the reference to 2005 parley. Don't bother explaining. I really don't care.


Oh ... so quoting a thread from 2004 at the opening post that suits your purposes is fine. But Sweeties arguments (if shortened) from the following discussions and developements in the game can be dismissed? [Edit: Sniped by Leif. Great minds and all... <3]

Also earlier:
 
...closet psychologists ...
and
 
...the inability to reply with substantive points ...


Name calling is of course superior.
The whole combo isn't giving your arguments the shine of more substance somehow.


All I see is Kindergarden:

"Want to play with Dylan?"
"No Dylan is stupid"
"How so? I thought you loved playing in the sandbox with him."
"I do, but he always tries to destroy my sand castles. Mine are much bigger and better and prettier than his too!"

"So what do you want to do instead?" (CC version: "But I don't wanna do anything else, I want to play SANDBOX!!! And I want him to play the way I say!")
"Can I play with Anne?"
"Sure, but she doesn't have a sandbox. You'll probably have to play dolls with her."
"Yeah, but dolls are ok for 1 or 2 days. And she's not such a meanie!".

Read that second paragraph carefully.... that's where you guys get pwnd by a 5 year old. And trust me, they say this stuff.

Just my interpretation of this thread - in less nice form than before.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Amatoria at Feb 9, 2010 5:51:20 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 5:47:54 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Dylan

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 10005
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
"Want to play with Dylan?"
"No Dylan is stupid"


Now I know why people don't play with me :(
[Feb 9, 2010 5:50:14 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
You might want to look up ad hominem while you're at it, there, Nicky boy. You're approaching that orbit at lightspeed.


I am? Are you sure you know what it means? I don't know too many people that call debunking points an ad hominem attack. It's not like I'm saying her opinion is invalid because her pirate has no nose, she's from Midnight or some other such nonsense.

You're certainly welcome to give Sweetie ad hominem support, tho, if you wish.

 

You're trying to seek opinions on a 5 year old ruling from OOO while ignoring the context of the precedent. A lot of this was addressed then, and, as stated, a lot of what contributed to that decision then isn't even possible now.


Or maybe I am just not understanding why she referenced it out of the blue like that. I viewed it kinda like saying my gloves don't fit because my shoes are on. One doesn't connect to the other, even if bother are perfectly true. She doesn't get to alter what we've said because there was a debate in 2005.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 6:15:56 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Also earlier:
 
...closet psychologists ...
and
 
...the inability to reply with substantive points ...


Name calling is of course superior.
The whole combo isn't giving your arguments the shine of more substance somehow.


That's ad hominem, Frodo.

Paraphrased "he's abrasive, so he's wrong".


BTW, yes I can be abrasive at times. No, I don't care. Most importantly, it doesn't make me wrong.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 6:30:06 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2016 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates