by Improving Wordiness » Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:46 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Crazy girl » Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:43 pm
by Improving Wordiness » Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:57 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by New Spartzerina » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:40 pm
by Improving Wordiness » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:08 am
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Usual People In Life » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:28 am
by Improving Wordiness » Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:25 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:46 am
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Sedgistan » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:38 am
by Cerod » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:43 am
Improving Wordiness wrote:I have sent in a Help Request but I would appreciate some discussion on Nations Switching WA nations during update.
How clear cut is the rule and what crosses the line?
As it currently stands
Nation A and Nation B are both in the WA.
Nation A becomes Delegate to Region 1 after being endorsed by Nation B.
It is early update and both drop WA immediatly after. However Nation A has control of Region 1 until next update.
player in Nation A now moves to Nation C and joins WA.
Same thing again with Nation B moving to Nation D and applying WA.
They move in to region2 and Nation C endorsed by Nation D becomes Delegate of the region.
They both drop WA but retain control of Region 2 until the next update.
Same thing happens a 3rd or possibly a 4th time if they are can be bothered.
So 2 players can control multiple regions.
To me this is clear WA abuse but a mod might say different. It is a grey area I would love to have cleared up.
Hope this post is not too confusing.
Edited the subject as wanted to clarify what the thread is about.
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:37 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:43 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Pythria » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:02 pm
This sounds like less of abuse and more of defenders not taking advantage of a legal tactic.Improving Wordiness wrote:Defenders that I know of dont use this tactic as its borderline on the rules. I cant speak for all of them though.
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:13 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Pythria » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:19 pm
I'm not saying it's a bad thing.Improving Wordiness wrote:I dont see how removing Delegate powers from a non-WA nation is a bad thing.
Why? It doesn't have to update any more than usual, or keep track of anything extra (the region's going to update anyway, it's not going to make a difference to have a delegate change in that update). Although, I'm not an admin, so I'd appreciate it if [violet] could verify that.Of course if all defenders and all invaders start to use this tactic I imagine the servers would have a melt down.
I see where you're coming from there, but as both sides can legally use this, it seems like a non-issue.I know switching is legal and I am not asking for that to be changed. I do believe it to be a grey area that is impossible to police if nations choose to "vote" for a delegate multiple times by switching out.
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:32 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Pythria » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:37 pm
I agree, and I am neither. Again, I would like clarification from an admin on whether or not switching causes server load.Improving Wordiness wrote:We need more invaders/ defenders in this thread to contribute. A heck of a lot do not use this tactic at all.
by Topid » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:41 pm
by Blue Wolf II » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:46 pm
[violet] wrote:Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.
by Mahaj WA Seat » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:53 pm
[violet] wrote:Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.
Georgism wrote:Fuck off you cunt, I'm always nice.
NERVUN wrote:Yog zap!
Cool Egg Sandwich wrote:I am the Urinater..... I'll be back.
Jedi Utopians wrote:5) Now, saying that a nation couldn't be part of OPEC would be bold. AIPEC sounds like something you'd want to get checked out by a physician for.
by Dyr Nasad » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:57 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:[violet] wrote:Happy to fix, but I'd like to hear from a couple of gameplayers that this isn't going to eviscerate some essential invasion/defense strategy I'm not aware of.
i'm sure the raiders would be delighted if the powers were immediately relinquished. Because a region with no founder could immediately go to no delegate and a raider group steps in. Which is why defender groups would like to keep it as it.
by Improving Wordiness » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:03 pm
Klaus Devestatorie wrote:I'm a massive tool. ;)
by Evil Wolf » Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:08 pm
Mahaj WA Seat wrote:i'm sure the raiders would be delighted if the powers were immediately relinquished. Because a region with no founder could immediately go to no delegate and a raider group steps in. Which is why defender groups would like to keep it as it.
Kryozerkia wrote:In the good old days raiding was illegal
Crazy Girl wrote:Invading was never illegal
[violet] wrote:There is supposed to be an invasion game.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hulldom, Pallaith, The Terren Dominion
Advertisement