mfreak wrote:
TwilightMask,
Try making an alliance first, and communicate and coordinate 12 folks - its hard as it is. Once you have done that, you will see you have an era won for yourself. And once you do that, you will lock this thread
I am leading an alliance on F4 right now and I have lead an alliance, albeit a small one, on E4 before I joined G1FT. I understand the difficulties involved. A Lot of delegation would be involved I'm sure.
daerduo wrote:
...hasn't sub abuse been thoroughly experimented with and hasn't history proven that it wrecks eras? What new things will you be bringing to the table, and how will this sub empire be different from the others that have er...failed the BD community?
Doh... we weren't in those subs...
daerduo wrote:
there are maybe 4 competitive alliances that have a shot at first. Every self-respecting alliance should always strive for first place above all else. 8v1v1v1 is just completely unfair for those other alliances. Without sub empires in the way, each of the other alliances would have a fair shot at first, but with the sub empires they are massively overpowered. It is unfair to them because they are being denied a fair shot at winning, *yes I am saying that mass sub empires are overpowered*.
So what? Isn't the point of any Empire to totally overwhelm and dominate?
daerduo wrote:
Now back to your rebuttal of my original, nonspaced post. Sub empires do have a habit of building, building, building, and then winning without major wars because let's face it, who in their right mind wants to get in a war with 6 other alliances?
Easily fixed. We become a limited allying war machine and simply crush the rest of the world on principle. This MIGHT backfire and lead us to fighting ourselves... but that would just be part of the fun.
daerduo wrote:
Now. The winning thing is, imho, a terrible argument. Entertainment>winning
I was just saying it factors into everyone's motivations
daerduo wrote:
Sub empires kill entertainment, you haven't even tried denying this yet.
It may kill the entertainment for some personalities. Referencing the last part about winning, I think it robs the fun for those who want to win because they feel they don't have any chance so what's the point. For people like you I feel it must rob the fun because you like to ride the lightning... so to speak, and the Sub Empire is too much of a free win for you to take it for what it is. For me It would be vastly entertaining due to the fact that I derive most of my entertainment from the social interaction. Hence.... why I am on the forums ALL the time.
daerduo wrote:
I wasn't around when BD was founded, and neither were you, but I doubt sub empires were around then.
They were. Ask any olde veteran. With the limiting of the numbers of people in an alliance, comes the evolution of the Sub Empire mentality. It doesn't get started here in the forums. Obviously... It happens in game with new users over and over and over again.. The simple idea of adding a number after a name and joining together as one isn't a bad idea. The idea of creating an empire after that with success after success and more and more people offering to join up is likewise, a natural leap.
daerduo wrote:
Oh and I might as well write this in big, big letters for those of you a bit thick to the head.
SUBS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. SUB ABUSE IS.
Maybe I shouldn't have named the topic what I did then, but I was trying to be... humorous.
daerduo wrote:
"Furthermore, building community can be done far more efficiently through one or two sub alliances in major alliances.
I agree. But I'm doing that several times over in multiple other servers right now so altering the type of community would still appeal to me. A big group has different dynamics than a smaller more tight knit group.
daerduo wrote:
Note the respect towards alliances like SKY, note the respect towards alliances like SYN, FMJ, etc etc. They have won, but people do not hate them. Argument denied.
It's the exception, not the rule. How does the old saying go? Is it better to be loved than feared? Best go with both but if you have to choose, go with Fear. Some alliances manage both, but when you're going for the win you're going to break a few eggs along the way. Gotta be prepared to have people hate you... doesn't mean they will, just that they might.
daerduo wrote:
Using an unfair strategy like sub abusing does hurt other people's chances of winning.
I would agree. I don't care. I don't think any winning alliance goes into an era trying to make the game as fair as possible. They stack their side with every possible advantage they can muster.
daerduo wrote:
Now...I honestly don't see what the point of this thread even is. Why would we need to encourage sub abuse, it's been tried and tested numerous times already, and history has shown that it ruins eras.
So maybe I was mistaken in saying we should encourage Sub ABUSE. I want to encourage a new Sub Empire... because most of you haven't done it and I haven't done it, and regardless of whether or not you think it's a bad thing for BD it's still a part of BD, and I want to see what life is like on the other side of the fence.
