by Lalop » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:46 am
by Cotolon » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:01 am
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:45 am
Lalop wrote:Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking. There delegate has hundreds of more endorsements then even the next biggest feeder. I would say there is only 2 unstable GCR's at the moment Lazarus and Balder.
by Armaros » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:03 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Lalop wrote:Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking. There delegate has hundreds of more endorsements then even the next biggest feeder. I would say there is only 2 unstable GCR's at the moment Lazarus and Balder.
Balder?! How the hell is Balder unstable. I think it has the lowest endo cap.
by Tinhampton » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:06 am
Lalop wrote:...feeder supremacy works, because its impossible for userrites 'like myself' to take over a region with that much power and endorsements.
by The Church of Satan » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:50 am
by Fecaw » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:54 am
by Pergamon » Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:42 am
by Aenglaland » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:53 am
Lalop wrote:Regions like TNP are a bit to OP for my liking.
by Wabbitslayah » Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:44 pm
Pergamon wrote:lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.
by Lord Dominator » Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:24 pm
Pergamon wrote:lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.
by Augustus Rex » Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:11 pm
Pergamon wrote:lol I just got reminded why I subscribed to Francoism.
by Jar Wattinree » Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:58 pm
by Xoriet » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:03 pm
by Galiantus III » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Xoriet wrote:Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Lord Dominator » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:29 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Xoriet wrote:Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.
I'm beginning to think that the introduction of UCRs way back when was a bad idea. I think there is a good case to be made that GCR stability and power is largely a result of spreading people throughout so many other regions, and a far better game situation would be one with 50 feeder/sinker/catcher regions and zero UCRs... And I am saying this as someone who has both spent the majority of my time in UCRs, and has supported R/D as the best segment of NS gameplay.
by Consular » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:40 pm
Xoriet wrote:Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.
by The Tri State Area and Maine » Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:47 pm
Consular wrote:Xoriet wrote:Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.
I mean, from a certain perspective too much stability isn't good for the game as a whole.
by Galiantus III » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:03 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Galiantus III wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the introduction of UCRs way back when was a bad idea. I think there is a good case to be made that GCR stability and power is largely a result of spreading people throughout so many other regions, and a far better game situation would be one with 50 feeder/sinker/catcher regions and zero UCRs... And I am saying this as someone who has both spent the majority of my time in UCRs, and has supported R/D as the best segment of NS gameplay.
The problem there of course is that you then have the large number of people who use the UCRs to get away from everyone else who would now be shoved into a region with the everyone else in question.
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Jar Wattinree » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:17 pm
Galiantus III wrote:Lord Dominator wrote:The problem there of course is that you then have the large number of people who use the UCRs to get away from everyone else who would now be shoved into a region with the everyone else in question.
The introduction of UCRs is something that will never be done away with, which is why I have suggested that only founderless regions get WA delegates. It would allow for people to go isolate themselves, but also prevent anyone wanting power from using the "get away" mechanic to their advantage.
by Lord Dominator » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:27 pm
by Lalop » Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:39 pm
Consular wrote:Xoriet wrote:Yes, I apologize so very deeply that GCRs like stability, too. It must be such an agony. While I can at least see the logic of arguing that the Feeders are too big or have too much power in the WA, you're saying that they're too stable? My reflexive response is a little too spicy for Moderation's taste, so I'll settle with: Yours is a region I will not regret to see go founderless. You know, because a UCR with a founder is a little too stable for my tastes.
I mean, from a certain perspective too much stability isn't good for the game as a whole.
by Galiantus III » Sat Oct 20, 2018 7:13 pm
Lord Dominator wrote:Of course that'd only be anywhere near acceptable as a feature if the remaining delegates had a decent drop in voting ability given that you'd be knocking off every major non-GCR delegate other than TCB's
Frisbeeteria wrote:For some reason I have a mental image of a dolphin, trying to organize a new pod of his fellow dolphins to change the course of a nuclear sub. It's entertaining, I'll give ya that.
Ballotonia wrote:Testing is for sissies. The actual test is to see how many people complain when any change is made ;)
by Unibot III » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:48 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Sporaltryus
Advertisement