Originally
posted by
UpTheIrons:
If this type of strategy is successfully planned for, sans cooperation, I'm not necessarily afraid of that. Adjusting my own play so that I come out on top or deter from being top fed in the first place makes me stronger and weakens those who are unable to do so.
There's the rub. This strategy is designed so that it is impossible to come out on top. At least you'll get decent acres back retalling a top-feed... This action leaves two responses: roll over and risk them coming back for more, or suicide them to either recoup the land or outright kill them.
Additionally, deterrence assumes they are playing the game the same way you are playing the game. How do you deter someone who looks at your amazingly high turret count and sees it as a challenge? What if I just don't like you? In this particular instance, it obviously was not a strategy bent upon winning the server, but that didn't mean they couldn't get just as much satisfaction from whatever their objectives were, with possibilities ranging from affecting everyone else's game to just having fun making preposterous grabs because he could, and all points in between.
In many respects, I think there are some fascinating parallels between this issue and the restart rates that suiciders enjoy. Both issues center around strategies that can and do play an important role in the game but have detrimental effects on the health of the server when gameplay allows it to persist beyond a reasonable amount.
To wrap this up, I do not believe I am entitled to anything in this game. As I mentioned above, I even believe suiciding to be an important and useful measure under certain circumstances. I do believe, however, that it is in the best interests of the game to direct gameplay in certain directions to the benefit of the server. I understand and appreciate the rules as they currently exist, and I will, as everyone will, adapt my game accordingly. But that doesn't mean I think this is the best we can do.