I agree you can’t base it on level alone. I see some people well into the 300s with no obsidians down here.
Thanks for the lecture but I don’t need you to tell me what’s considered a problem and what’s not. I can think for myself and make my own determinations.
You were speaking to SnipeHunter as if he had some strange minority opinion.
The problem is that teams choose the targets they want to war. It is how the game was designed and is part of the strategy. When you choose a target that by all means you are supposed to win against, and then lose by a dirty tactic, you lose rating points and tokens when you shouldn’t have. Maybe you don’t think it’s a problem, but you don’t get to tell me and others what our opinions are, sorry.
Opinions dont make things true.
I might be of the opinion that everything in the world belongs to me, that doesn’t make it valid.
So although you are certainly entitled to your opinion, its by no means a valid standpoint just because it’s someone’s opinion. Level 5 evidence. He was merely pointing it out that the statement needs some more substantive arguments than because someone feels so
It seems to be a minority opinion, since this thread has been going for a month or more and I’ve seen less than 10 ppl thinking its an issue.
Also I’m not sure about the argument that when you declare a war you should be winning- yes you pick ones where you have things in your favour, but if wars were supposed to be a foregone conclusion they might as well not exist- you could merely click a button that said “+ x tokens”
@EidolonRM Firstly let me say that yes teams are fluid and players move around a lot! Most wars I declare are not a for sure win but a calculated risk. This is what makes it even worse when they pull the merc trick and totally make things unfair. Everyone out there (including you) will pick the team to war that looks beatable. Any good leader will evaluate the bases and opponent’s fire power before declaring. When you speak of PG fixing the situation everyone cries “poor PG” they purchased a flawed game and we shouldn’t ask too much of them. Well in that case setting up a counter to ensure a player only rejoins twice a month (callander or physical) is way too much for them to handle. We have been beaten several times honestly and I’ll congratulate the opponent after for a well faught war. But when the merc tactic is used it’s frustrating to all. I don’t know about your league but there are no teams here that are like clubbing seals. Every war is a challenge!
When did I say my opinion is ultimate truth?
Just because you say my opinion is invalid, doesn’t make it so. Is Jared’s opinion on this also “invalid”? In fact, the opinion I share is SO VALID that it spurred internal discussion and possible resolution.
Edit: …and by the way, two people can make valid arguments while only one turns out to be true so I don’t even know what you are on about with this crap about valid or invalid opinions. Are you just trolling?
Nowhere? Nor did I say you did?
I never said its invalid? The statement I made is that just because its your opinion, does not make it valid, and just because my opinion is the opposite, does not make your opinion invalid. The whole idea is opinions are just that - everyone has one. What Eidolon and myself was saying is for something to be right or wrong, there needs to be substantive arguments and facts - not opinions.
You are aware they previously said it was a perfectly valid “smart” tactic?
One - I think you misunderstand - the fact that something is discussed does not (a) mean they agree, nor (b) validate your opinion ; Yeah they may find its perfectly fine to use mercs as well?
If you can’t understand that the points put forward weren’t personal statements aimed at you, but someone trying to explain to you that saying “the earth is flat” or “the earth isn’t flat” does not make a valid argument - there are proofs and counterproofs, arguments and counterarguments until there are sufficient facts on the table to prove one side right or wrong or neither.
Simply saying “i don’t like mercenaries” does not make the argument valid, nor does saying “i like mercenaries” make the argument valid. You need a REASON or FACT to support the statement to add validity to the argument - else it is just another opinion.
Various points have been put forward why mercenaries are valid (anything in war is fair ; helps combat bullying; its easily counterable; its not prevalent; etc etc) , yet the only response so far for the invalid side has been “now we can’t win” - that in itself is A valid point, but its hardly an overwhelming substantive argument.
That is your opinion that the arguments against mercenaries aren’t substantive. Just because it’s your opinion and others share it, doesn’t make it true. Trolling is fun!
Good god people, shut up already. we get it… lets wait for PG to tell us they don’t give a crap. Then we can all move on.
But but but they are ruining your budding career
No worries, Nothing PG will do can stop me from becoming a Merc! muahahaha
I doubt it’s a majority. It’s not that prevelant of a problem unless it’s changed drastically in the recent months.
You guys fail to make a good argument with only saying that it’s wrong without saying why. Your opinions count as much as anyone else’s, no less, no more.
It sounds a lot like you want to club seals. Which I’m arguing is due to broken incentives and league structure. (Would love to know if you disagree)
I do think it’s okay for you to have the fish in a barrel have a counter move. It’s not a guaranteed win just because you pick a team that doesn’t have anyone who should be able to beat someone. You are just arguing the reverse side of the coin. Competition requires both sides have a fighting chance. It’s not about wining it’s about competing.
I’m not convinced it is a problem. It happened very infrequently to my team, and I see the benefit of using it for anti-grieving as well outweighing the occasional abuse.
It sounds to me like you guys feel entitment to winning wars and are losing. It doesn’t event sound like it happens that often. Seems like it’s more like a principal you feel should exist. I disagree if that’s the case.
I think it’s terrible to further perpetuate a situation where teams declare on teams that can’t possibly win. All battles should be competitive. It sounds like there are too many points granted for wining wars against easy wins. We should fix that.
I don’t think I’ve done that. Your argument thus far is just that it’s wrong because you say so. Your opinion counts exactly as much as mine does. (not very much).
If you can boil your argument down to an argument I may even support you. But if you can’t be bothered to explain I oppose your suggestion thus far.
Heavily calculated in your favor I bet. Probably as much in your favor as you can achieve in your league? If so I’d say broken league system and broken incentives.
You might find it doesn’t suit your purpose to include me in such statements. While it’s true I have declared such wars it’s also true I regularly declare wars I know we are likely to lose.
Personally I think the league structure not working (as far as putting competitive teams together) and the incentives are crap. If I declare a war and lose it, no matter if it’s to the top or bottom team my egg token payout is completely fubar. I know why they did this, but there should be incentives to declare trickier wars.
I actually think the merc issue is not the root cause (assuming you are saying mercs regularly impact Your War outcome) as a lot of teams have been getting creative due to broken mechanics. Of corse that’s all my opinion.
Not necessarily. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and wining is not the only thing of value. I pick Wars we will lose from time to time. I don’t like clubbing seals. Some of my favorite and most fun Wars have been ones that we lost.
I would agree that it’s important to put thought in.
I have personally NEVER said that. I do at times think we harp on the employees too much as they are very skilled and creative folks. I personally feel like this game is what it is and while I advocate continual improvement I know it will never be exactly as I think it should be. We should all know where the exit is and not be afraid to use it when we feel it’s time. We also should be aware that by continuing to play we accept that it is a flawed game that we knew was flawed.
The argument of it’s not as bad as the competition may be a crappy argument but it’s reality. (No they don’t compete with Xbox games, this is a freemium mobile tower defense game, I would love to see a competitor who is better than PG)
I have never said this. I think it probably wouldn’t be too difficult to prevent a player from joining and leaving a team more than x times in a period of time. I think this will have unintended consequences on alts if not carefully thought through.
I do think trying to impact who can defend or who can act as backup enters a territory I don’t want to allow. We have (I assume based on observations) a simple and cleanish set of code for joins and defends that would need to become muddy and complex.
Please understand I could wind up advocating a
solution If the problem is articulated well. (So could many others) - so far I suspect the thing you want to stop is actually not even the root cause of your real problem.
If there is true competition, I think all battles should be frustrating.
Frustrating aside, what is the impact? How many (percentage) of your wars are lost due to mercs? How many wars are won where mercs are used against you (If it puts routine undue stress on the team, then I could see
Making changes for quality of life reason).
Please communicate the severity so we understand. I have seen mercs used but it was less than 1% of wars and it didn’t even put any significant ongoing stress on my team.
Yeah I find that hard to believe. My experience thus far as that virtually everyone picks battles that they can assure victory. The reason is because of severe token loss mostly. But also even 5 team ranking points can easily change your global rank but an entire league.
If you are wining with a 70%+ win then I think you are clubbing seals more than you know. I don’t blame you however because they game doesn’t reward risk, it punishes it. And this is what I think the real problem is here. But I’m happy to be wrong.
Don’t make me repeat myself…
Thank you, that’s the point I was making.
All of this general talk about what is or isn’t right or wrong, arguments being valid or invalid based on bla bla bla is really pointless unless you are relating it to this conversation.
If a team is constantly winning with a high level player in a lower league, then they aren’t going to be in that lower league for long. They shouldn’t have to war against players that don’t even play in the same league while they are moving up. Allowing mercenaries can potentially hold that team to a league they don’t belong in for longer than they should be there. How does that help the teams they are supposedly picking on?
Hmm, and how you announce it to the team ? “Team, I declared a war I know we will lose, but don’t forget, your war attacks are mandatory !” I find it strange to force a losing war unless for “sandbagging purpose”. I remember you said you are against sandbagging, so can you explain why starting a losing war unless for sandbagging purpose ?
This is exactly why I keep asking for what exactly the problem is. You will notice I’ve said this more than once in this thread.
It needs to be more than potential for a fix to be needed. Is this prevalent?
The earth could potentially be vaporized by any number of known phenomenon, but it isn’t very likely in our lifetime so we don’t bother worrying about it.
There are a thousand holes you can poke in the existing game and they aren’t patched due to not being exploited significantly. Every fix unbalanced something else. Often a cure can be worse than the disease. This is why I’m asking for a problem description. If you tell me one out of 5 Wars has a merc in it for you, I think action needs to be taken. Now I don’t think that action needs to be game wide. But the first step is objectively breaking the problem down into facts.
You can evaluate the likeliness of something happening without it actually happening, then develop policy with those potential consequences or benefits in mind.
I can’t answer to the overall prevalence and impact of mercenaries. I never see them because our team practically never wars. Just because I don’t see them, doesn’t mean I should diminish the experience of those who do. I put myself in their shoes and agree it is a dirty tactic that shouldn’t be allowed. When our team is ready to move up, I would feel cheated if our progress was slowed by others using mercenaries.
That being said, I agree it would be good to see exactly how big of a problem this is, but we can’t really get that information through the limited number of players who visit the forums and this thread.
Most times I don’t tell them. Where I play we win or lose on defends. Even the beasts we can usually get it’s just a matter of defends.
Sometimes I do tell them not to overextend themself or use too many hammers. This is more about keeping the war machine well oiled without pushing it too hard.
It’s not forced at all. We sometimes win the hard wars that are odds against us.
For one, nobody ever tries to lose, and we often win them.
It’s not a losing war so much as a risky war.
Sandbagging is intentionally throwing a war. We don’t do that. Fighting a giant and losing is not sandbagging. Can it be used to manipulate rankings, yes, but it costs heavily on tokens and makes the team cranky.
Honestly picking on the few teams that don’t belong in the league is equally as bad.
Competition is good. Risk is good.
If you are saying it’s wrong I guess I just have to agree to disagree. I mostly use it to provide the team variety and challenge in a controlled manner. Yes I’ve used it to avoid being yo-yo’d Between leagues when we aren’t quite ready for the next one.
If you ask me a more better game would exist if everyone had to battle everyone in the league. It isn’t that picking the easy win isn’t a strategy it’s just terribly derivative and more about gaming the system and less about having tricky battles.
Agree with you there. Maybe we are coming at this the wrong way.