swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 18 Feb 2011 05:22 PM |
*Except in rare situations in which one side was generous (or stupid, depending on how you look at it).
I find it rather annoying when people make threads based on concepts like how the other clan they were raiding banned them, or loopkilled them, or didn't give them weapons (this is especially bad when it's the last one on this list).
When you're raiding someone, you're entering enemy territory for the specific purpose of seizing control of a functioning base from them, usually there is no actual benefit to having control over this base (nothing is stored there, no information can be gained, etc). Bases are by their nature defensive structures. Emphasis on DEFENSIVE - their purpose of EXISTANCE is to give all possible advantages to the side in control of the building, and to deny all advantages of the side that isn't. Therefore, it makes sense for the base to be designed in a way that would make raids on it horrifically one-sided. Why do you expect the enemy to give you weapons, or intentionally build bases with fatal flaws that are horrifically easy to use to your advantage? This gets even stupider when the attacking side uses it as a justification to exploit. THERE IS A RULE AGAINST EXPLOITING, THERE IS NONE AGAINST MAKING ONE SIDED BASES.
Yes, it's unfair. That's what makes winning raids something of value. What's more impressive? Winning a balanced raid where the base has easily exploited flaws and in which you're given more than enough firepower to win, or winning a horrifically unbalanced raid where the base has no intentional flaws and so you had to get creative and find a way in the creator didn't think of?
In addition, sometimes making chat-commandless bases MAKES NO SENSE. Take a Star Trek based group for instance. In the show, the computer takes verbal commands repeatedly and usually those are security based commands (prevents intruders, like raiders, from taking the ship). So why would a Star Trek based group have to limit themselves to LESS TECH THAN WAS SHOWN IN THE SHOW? Yes, a computer can fire in a way that cannot be dodged. That's an inherent advantage to computers, and it makes no sense to just ignore it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Annually
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Dec 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5507 |
|
|
| 18 Feb 2011 05:26 PM |
It CAN be fair, but its up to the leaders to make it fair.
Fair warzones (Like Minor Threats) are alot better. Shows the true skill in your group.
Join Minor Threat!
<*))))>< Annually ><((((*> |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 18 Feb 2011 05:26 PM |
In addition, what qualifies as an admin-abuse vs. a valid command?
For instance, in groups based on old pirate ships, can there be a command like "Broadside" in which all computer controlled cannons fire straight off the ship? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 18 Feb 2011 05:27 PM |
@Annually
Poorly worded title on my part.
I meant to say "Any attempt to force all bases to be fair" is stupid. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 05:18 PM |
| Semi-Old bump, but this issue doesn't seem to want to go away. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 05:21 PM |
| If it's a one-sided base they will denie they lost, and it will be believeable due to the base's being unfair. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 05:22 PM |
Who will?
If you got forced out of the base, you lost. Congradulations, you do not have control over the base, that was the purpose of the battle, it was unfufilled, therefore you lost. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 05:53 PM |
| There was a rule of thumb about the commands. As long as it doesn't kill anyone or give someone an unfair advantage, it was okay. Like saying something harmless like "sparkles/me" or something necessary like "broadside" for turning a ship or something like that would be perfectly acceptable. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:01 PM |
@z5151
Then we add you to our defeated list since we defeated you, and probably have video proof.
@theblindbandit
How do you define an unfair advantage?
If you mean realistic advantage, throughout history the POINT of military advancement was to gain every possible advantage; realistic is not the same as fair.
I've yet to see a good, objective way to define unfair advantage. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:05 PM |
@z5151
When did I give you my autoturrets; when did I make them wait for the FF? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dekord
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9965 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:08 PM |
Admin commands that affect intruders shouldn't be tolerated, nor should full invincibility (if it is as hard as ff/me, that is).
Otherwise, I do feel there should be strict advantages for the defending side. Successful raids should be the exception, not the rule; there are warzones for simulations of, well, warzones. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:10 PM |
Roblox isn't always able to provide the fullest level of realism. So for now, we'll always have to deal with stipulations on raiding and solve them to the best of our abilities. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:13 PM |
@zack.
Precisely.
When you raid me, you agree to the following stipulation:
I win. End of raid.
I've seen much better raids after adopting this doctrine. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
steveojr
|
  |
| Joined: 01 May 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15397 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:17 PM |
Raiding can be fair.
Weapons: Sword,Regular Rocket Launcher
Clans defences: One Wall (Not to high).
No admin
100% fair. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Dekord
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9965 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:18 PM |
@Steve
That is a terrible, terrible base. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:19 PM |
"*Except in rare situations in which one side was generous (or stupid, depending on how you look at it)." -- Original post.
That side was being generous; stupid. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
steveojr
|
  |
| Joined: 01 May 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15397 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:20 PM |
@Dekord
Thats how some small clans were. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:20 PM |
Raiding shall never be fair.
However, though it shouldn't be completely fair, it should NOT be overpowered for the defenders. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
swmaniac
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 15773 |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 06:20 PM |
| Some small clans were generous; stupid. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
z5151
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Dec 2007 |
| Total Posts: 25684 |
|
| |
|
|
| 22 Feb 2011 08:24 PM |
| Raiding is ment to be more difficult, but there is no reason to bann someone, perhaps the owner of the group could make 1 base for recruiting and another for raids, the unfair advantage makes the battles more interesting, when Germany attacked Russia, Russia's home-turf practicly saved them, but when they attacked Back Germeny gained the advantage, it jsut makes Roblox more life-like, just with a little genourosity from the leader of the group it CAN be fair. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|