There is no ban on hitting up. But it's not a viable strategy for everybody to do, or even a largish percentage; what if 30% of people started hitting up? you'd pretty soon have everybody either even, or whatnot, then it wouldn't be hitting up anymore.

Plus one gets the feeling that many players have become increasingly tired of doing a fair bit of work every day to find smaller, viable targets than themselves, only to have a week or two of it erased in one hit by some player who has no possible chance of winning anyway.


Why don't you play in a clan in Alliance (or FFA even?) and place in the top 10 before going on about how topfeeding doesn't affect anybody.

Isn't it weird how gregg only ever defends things that help suiciders?


weird....

i never said top feeding does not affect anyone
i simply said that a person who plays a fast growth strat is not necessarily better than a patient predator

when i read pang's statement that all the best netters have left, that is of course a major concern

i just dont see why a country that has a lot of martial tech and needs to hit to thrive should be thwarted by new rules and regs that protect people who prefer res and bus tech

i agree with many of the others in this thread that LGing is a viable strat and i know you are making efforts to bring that to pass
i have commended you for your efforts with new I rules


i understand that allx players wish that no one were allowed to hit them
that goes without saying

but a world without predators is a diseased and decaying environ

Is it really such a surprise that the game developers would choose to protect the way the vast majority of players choose to play the game?

I think pang's estimation of %3 of players choosing to play the game the way you suggest is actually on the high end - it just seems like there's more because usually you "predators" are much more vocal on the boards and insistent on beating your nerdy little chests in front of the pack.

there is one other factor you have to take into account...

If you look at Alliance or FFA... about midset, average LAND really gives a good indication of which alliances are going to place well (granted sometimes the strat balance means that a clan with 22kA average isn't going to do better than a clan with 21kA.... but both will do better than a 16kA average clan).


My point is, more acres is usually, in almost every case, a good thing. More == BETTER :) And players play accordingly, so that they can get as much as they can. If we then begin to cater towards players who are smaller, ie who can't for some reason get to a full land base, does what does that really say?

I would prefer to see approximately equal sized players hitting and retalling each other. Having some commie or TTR farm the bejeesus out of everybody else to stay on top of the pile, or alternately having a few topfeeders who attempt to screw over as many top players as they can, is not really the point of the game. For 90% of players in those cases it becomes a game of "I wonder who will screw me over this set."

I've personally played the part of the higher TTR farming clans that couldn't retal a few times back in the day, and while it was fun, I'm painfully aware of how annoying it is to have that happen to you or your clan. I've also been on the receiving end of many a suicider/topfeeder whose sole goals were to fluff up the resets of certain players & clans. And been botted a few times when I was in monks, but that's a different story.



I don't think that hitting up is really impeded much in any way by this. I remember when Evo started doing Tyr Techer retallers, we were ANNIHILATING people that hit us with huge retals. Even still, it is almost always the case that the lower acreage player has way too easy a time on balance. You simply can't extract land on a retal from a smaller player, and likewise the smaller player can very easily get up their tech to do an attack, way more easily than a large player can.

</rant>