Bashing

[Alvestein]

dunno if thats the definition for bashing or not but griping about the fact most of the playerbase don't know how well to attack or they're too lazy to that they just end up hitting people 50% of them. there really isn't any need people D:

seems to be that in people's minds its the norm to hit that low but surely it'd be better if the norm was that people hit 70%+ (i myself only hit someone ifthey're on my world ranking page or if it's a special alliance attack ill go to around 68% or so)

 

[Iamsmart]

why should we?

 

[Alvestein]

because it shows you have skill?

 

[Twigley]

Lol @ skill and bushtarion.

 

[Alcibiades]

why should we?

Because ts more fun to have real BRs than to just wipe someone competely at 50% or lower?

 

[Iamsmart]

How is it skillfull to send an attack at 80% and take losses when you can send an attack at 40% take 0 losses and steal land?



Edit: It's more fun IN YOUR OPINION Alcibiades.

Edit 2: Nice post snipe

 

[Alcibiades]

Well I don't see how my opinion strays from the general herd here. It's boring to bash.

 

[Hobbezak]

Unapproved by DA - Awesome but also spam.

 

[Iamsmart]

It's boring to bash IN YOUR OPINION

 

[Alvestein]

Iamsmart, i never said anything about taking losses. the point is you're supposed to be skilled enough to take on someone 80% of you and NOT take loads of losses.
I mean if i can do it im sure you can, im hardly a decent player.

 

[Iamsmart]

Don't ever compare yourself to me again. You're a peon compared to me. Never will come close. Your comparison can not, will not, and shall not even be registered in to my mind.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Bashing is generally defined as hitting the same target/alliance time and time again.

Not sure what you'd call what you're saying.

I'd also dispute whether its a negative thing or not. I mean you say you attack at 70%+, presumably you only hit routes you can fairly easily win against. Everyone is looking for fairly profitable land, whether you do that by attacking at 40%, and admitting you want it to be very profitable, or you hit at 80% but hit a robo when you're RPG, doesn't make you any more "skillful", really.

"Skill" is thrown around a lot in this game. Attacking doesn't really involve that, its fairly easy to send an attack against someone and win land profitably. Likewise its easy to keep that land, if you're contactable enough. Whether you call the ability to deprive yourself of sleep "skill", I dunno

The only time there's a place for "skill" is mass attack/defence organisation, imo - Everything else is fairly straightforward, wtfimbaeasymode if you're with the right people.

 

[Alvestein]

@Iamsmart - prove it by taking someone who might actually put up a fight then?

@DA - yeah, that's why i was fairly sure my definition wasn't correct hence the frst line and i'd agree with you, but at the same time i'd say it takes more skill to take on someone nearer your size than someone half your size.

i.e. if you're an RPG like in your example, would you say it takes more skill to hit someone 100% of you or someone 50% of you? both of them robo.

 

[Iamsmart]

@Iamsmart - prove it by taking someone who might actually put up a fight then?

@DA - yeah, that's why i was fairly sure my definition wasn't correct hence the frst line and i'd agree with you, but at the same time i'd say it takes more skill to take on someone nearer your size than someone half your size.

i.e. if you're an RPG like in your example, would you say it takes more skill to hit someone 100% of you or someone 50% of you? both of them robo.

You contradict yourself. You said earlier that hitting someone without them firing back at 80% was skill. Now you say they have to fire back. Intelligence tells me getting a land grab with 0 losses requires more 'skill' than getting a land grab with 1tril losses. In my experience, intelligence='skills' in games.

 

[Alvestein]

they might put up a fight as in you'd actually have to do some thinking to be able to get past their defences without losing much troops? Yeah how crazy of me to think some people might actually like working to gain something in a game

 

[atsanjose]

bashing is bad mkay
you shouldnt bash

unless its hiuey, than its condoned

 

[Alvestein]

only because i attempted to hit one of your ally's. damned Elle and her endless mass of sorcs

 

[IceOfFire]

Bashing happens, like in AR Mod

We have limited targets and if we send 1 on 1 we get mass defence, so we have to send 4-5 on 1 tick to land!

And i'm sure most know this! This is the worst kind of bashing in the game but it cant be helped!

Lower down in the game it happens and its apart of the game, its a war at the end of the day and you want to come out on top. If you dont mind having a bounty (being rushed) and not having WK/Z then its ok!

I think the h/f is/has made a big difference! Although going by other reads not everyone agrees! But before the round was won, i tried to hit as nicely as possible and bounty was getting me slaughtered!


But anyway, bashing happens, get over it

 

[Alvestein]

well yeah, i will have to get over it. but this IS the gripe section and i felt like having a bit of a moan

I totally understand Bashing from the point of view of the top 3 alliances as its a TOTALLY different story for them. i meant mid to lower ranks, it doesn't make much sense to bash there. or i guess in a cynical point of view it does, but i'd like to think people would generally play nicer there as the pressure isn't supposed to be so great that you resort to having to destroy people so tiny (like at the top)

 

[Iamsmart]

Thinking...? To get past their troops...?

Thinking doesn't kill, having enough units does.