Players of fast server, and TB

OP 20/02/2011 · 01:00 AM #1

Fast has always been a great server in terms of UW opposition. The opposition is active and resourceful, and it sets the precedent that a fast UW is an achievement to be earned.

However, it seems that nobody wanted to fight AM`s fast UW this time around. I`d like to hear from the players of fast why they didn`t try as hard to take down AM`s UW, whereas Gilead`s UW a while back was dealt with effectively...and every single non-chain UW saw huge amounts of opposition.

My theories:
-lack of BTC? [perhaps they were all used up to fight Gilead.]

-lack of motivation/incentive? [why bother fighting the UW? I`ll just make my money back after and mind my own business.] or [Even if I beat AM, someone will just build up to UW again, it`s pointless.]

-lack of overall interest in the game? [GC is dead, EoE alliance on fast are tyrants etc...]

-feelings of futility? [any people think that in order for anyone to build so much PR in ships, cheating must have been involved?]

-other reasons?

I have a few ideas to make UWs more interesting, but I`d like to hear from the GC community first.

D DrunkenMasters

28/02/2011 · 10:14 PM #63

Islander, that is entirely not true. You have lost clusters plenty of times. You have even lost clusters while trying to build up with tainted c3s on border. I remember that pretty well. Or maybe you don`t want to keep 13k tainted c3s and 18-20k c2s? If that`s the case, no problem man, I will keep those for you haha.

N nedflanders

25/02/2011 · 11:05 AM #62

I think islander should spam up to 140 mil PR on fast with his BTC to prove us all wrong :O

Oh wait, he CAN do it. He just doesn`t WANT to. roflmaobbq.

I Islander

25/02/2011 · 04:17 AM #61

You`ve never taken clusters from me? As I recall I wasn`t playing fast with planets during the power outage, and that`s the only time I`ve ever lost clusters I wanted to keep.

D DrunkenMasters

24/02/2011 · 04:02 PM #60

And BW`s clusters are not my main source of income - it is really the loyalty from the ones I took from you(mostly) and other taxers on fast(food @1-2 has its positives for guards who are patient enough).

D DrunkenMasters

24/02/2011 · 04:00 PM #59

Islander, BW was never my ally on fast. He might have been Eden, but I always fought him. Also, he was never in my fed there. So your argument is pointless.

O Omegian

24/02/2011 · 01:31 PM #58

Mine was mainly fodder heavy as well.

M MajorDineroOP

24/02/2011 · 05:42 AM #57

AM`s fleet was fodder heavy, hence inflating his turn count.

For comparative purposes, my last two UWs on fast used 10k and 7k turn fleets (not fodder heavy). Gil`s failed UW was 18k turns (also very fodder heavy)

fodder is easy to kill, turn for turn. so I thought I`d point that out.

M MajorDineroOP

24/02/2011 · 05:30 AM #56

Here`s some math:

AM`s UW fleet on fast took just under 20k turns to complete. Assuming that 20 people activity opposed him, with my suggestion of proloning UW time to 1 week...that`s 50k turns of opposition. To me, that seems like a very fair fight.

M MajorDineroOP

24/02/2011 · 05:25 AM #55

My suggestion would give 2500 (potentially more turns could be given to balance things, this is just a starting # I suggested) turns for everyone on the server, instead of 660 turns to fight the UW.

This would make UWing harder, but more fair.

Imagine the chaos people could accomplish by logging in twice a day, spamming 150 turns worth of ships and slowly, but surely...chipping away at the UW fleet, instead of just BTCing in one massive go and taking out the whole thing. If anything...it would make UW defences obsolete in a way, because there would be less advantage to build a defense fleet so high.

This change would not only make UWs more fair and balanced, it would probably affect the type of UW fleets people start building. Could see more balanced stacks, for example...because UW holders wouldn`t have to be afraid of huge BTC`ed spams.

Also, chain UWs won`t be possible, if this was implemented.

This suggestion is pretty radical, but it makes a lot of sense to me. As a person who`s done many UWs and opposed them as well, there are always things that strike me as being unfair.

That`s why I think that BW should make an NPC UW on a TB server, and keep it there for a week or two, to see if my suggestions would make UWing more fair and exciting.

O Omegian

24/02/2011 · 04:12 AM #54

Well, putting my 2 cents in, people will either get together or not on UWs these days and use their stash of BTC`s. When I did my UW, it was well known months in advance, people still had caches of btcs, people just didnt want to fight it clearly for other reasons. Same went for AM`s and for others. So nothing new, you are just restating the obvious reasons and reinforcing the reason that "IF" we did what you said would just boost UW defence instead of offenses of taking it down. Your theories are somewhat construed MD but then they are your opinions, but as some said, why change it. We have this game and the dig times as a challenge not a commodity that is suppose to be easy for all. Though I prefer a challenge not having btcs myself, but meh this is my 2 cents in the matter of the void.

S Sibiriangun

23/02/2011 · 05:10 PM #53

heh Islander I can guarantee you that you wont get accepted into 2900 so dont worry about Pete not hitting you :P

I Islander

23/02/2011 · 12:49 PM #52

Pete - Last I checked you can`t attack fedmates =/ I don`t play the join a fed to build over them then resign game =/
Also uh, That was BadWolf who DM got his clusters from, instead of reminding him his VM was ending as BW asked DM decided to just hit him instead. I`ve not contributed anything more than borders to my recollection.

@ ned - There are no strategical flaws, because there is no strategy. I said If I wanted to build up I could BTC over everyone on the server atm. That is a fact, not an opinion or strategy or anything. Doesn`t take that many turns to spam to 140m. I didn`t say I would do anything effective or be up there for awhile, but I could do it :P

But hey, I never took Reading Comprehension 101 either :P

N nedflanders

23/02/2011 · 11:05 AM #51

If I wanted prove islander wrong the forums when I`m bored, I`d pick out the obvious strategical flaws in his arguments, and/or engage him in combat and take all his ships and planets. Pretty simple in reality.

Now one thing I can`t seem to get him to do, is to use his BTC when someone is about to blow up their empire. :(

P PistolPete

23/02/2011 · 10:44 AM #50

Try to join one of the feds. We will still shoot you down if you build up :P

And if you really like to spend some BTCs, then i think you should make little battle with DM. Oh.. and just to remind you - almost all his clusters you`ve given something to.

B BurgerKing Admin

Admin 23/02/2011 · 10:27 AM #49

If I wanted to build up further than I do when I`m bored, I`d BTC over everyone in my way, and/or join one of the Eden feds. Pretty simple in theory.

Now one server where I can`t seem to build up on is Ultra. :(

P PistolPete

23/02/2011 · 06:32 AM #48

That you are shot down everytime you want to build up in the ranks.

B BurgerKing Admin

Admin 23/02/2011 · 05:57 AM #47

Learned what the hard way?

P PistolPete

22/02/2011 · 05:24 AM #46

Islander learned it the hard way at fast. Just like the rest did :P

B BurgerKing Admin

Admin 22/02/2011 · 05:01 AM #45

@ Sibi - That wasn`t a bragging or ego thing. Any Viral with a couple of BTC`s and a small bit of cash could have brought him down a large chunk. When you add in a lot of cash and 700 days worth of artis? =/ Theres no ego involved with such a situation, just cold hard facts.

You also seem to think I care who rules fast :P I`m not opposed to the Edens or to the opposing alliance, who ever that is. I just play there cause I like all the servers.

F FOUNDERS

22/02/2011 · 02:26 AM #44

MD if i didnt get all the btc i did to build enough lyth to hit Gils uw and take out all thoose sb i think he might have succeded, that hit posted in the forum gave all the others the incentive to go out and take him down which they did.

Reply