Smoothrich in EU again

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

you aren't serious... are you? Sun Tzu would face palm at your logic.

Pro tip, this is a game.

[Gmnotutoo]

I think your "tactic" to keep the owner out of his city is not only lame & poor sportsmanship but definitely exploiting a bugged feature of the game. How you can even justify this or argue against it is dumbfounding, regardless of the clan you're from.

This situation is no different from a clan attacking its own fief to lock it down. Both are exploiting poor mechanics of the mod. Rules are made to make sure deliberate exploiting of poor mechanics don't happen.  We wouldn't want exploiting-to-win to be a regular re-occurrence on either Strat or NA_1, would we? So why set a precedence for this kind of behavior?

This silly mod doesn't provide the fief owner the ability to transfer the ownership to someone else if he isn't around. It also doesn't allow him to sell stuff when he isn't there.

So basically, preventing the owner from returning to sell the gear or transfer the fief to someone else in a bugged context is pretty much abusing an unfortunate game mechanic.  Claiming that we have plate and mauls so we should be content is absolute bullcrap.  You're using the bug to your advantage, and are thus exploiting the bug. Plain and simple.  If that's what you need to win, fine. But calling it a "legit" tactic and bragging about it is disappointing coming from multiple community veterans...  You may not be directly or voluntarily "item-bombing" the city as you claim, but you are most certainly doing it indirectly by not allowing the items to be sold.

Why the need to set a precedence?  Where's the sportsmanship?


edit: lol at the folks -1'ing this post.  I guess its a bad thing to be against bug abuse and in favor of playing the game the way its meant to be played + good sportsmanship.  Guess I'm too old-fashioned... Keep at it you little forum warriors.

My sides hurt from laughing so hard. You wouldn't know what sportsmanship is even if I copy-pasted the definition from a dictionary. Let me know when you give Smooth that same lecture and then I'll take you seriously.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

My sides hurt from laughing so hard. You wouldn't know what sportsmanship is even if I copy-pasted the definition from a dictionary. Let me know when you give Smooth that same lecture and then I'll take you seriously.

inb4 you log in on your girlfriends account and 1+ your post.

[Smoothrich]

When did Sun Tzu write the art of internet horse war?

Hahahaha.  There is innovation and then just frustration and a need to win at the expense of many other people.  There's a difference between competitiveness and dickheadedness.  Exploits and "playing well."

Rules are vague, administration unable or unwilling to keep a handle on all the bugs and bullshit in Strat, but at the end of the day there will always be powergamers who think legitimate strategy is Winning At Any Cost and not giving a shit about battles and fun, and the rest who just want to fight big battles in primetime with all the good players and gear and do their best to win with skill.

I suppose it is the nature of an underdeveloped, "open world" game like Strategus that it will just be griefed and exploited to shit for advantages.  The only solution is simply not play.  But that would be too easy.

[Matey]

Hahahaha.  There is innovation and then just frustration and a need to win at the expense of many other people.  There's a difference between competitiveness and dickheadedness.  Exploits and "playing well."

Rules are vague, administration unable or unwilling to keep a handle on all the bugs and bullshit in Strat, but at the end of the day there will always be powergamers who think legitimate strategy is Winning At Any Cost and not giving a shit about battles and fun, and the rest who just want to fight big battles in primetime with all the good players and gear and do their best to win with skill.

I suppose it is the nature of an underdeveloped, "open world" game like Strategus that it will just be griefed and exploited to shit for advantages.  The only solution is simply not play.

funny... we were looking forward to another big prime time battle before you and zilla did your "thing"

[oprah_winfrey]

Oh nevermind, found it in the book. Last line.

If you outnumber them two to one, divide them.

If you outnumber them five to one, attack them.

If you are equal, then find an advantageous battle.

If you are fewer, defend against them.

If you are much weaker, abuse shitty game mechanics to beat them.

[Smoothrich]

is that how you justify the fief lockdown/transfer you and zilla did?

Currently there is an internal struggle between Hero Party loyalists and defectors on where to handle the direction of the Strategus faction.  But I think both sides of the argument would agree on this.

Stop Shitposting.

[Matey]

Oh nevermind, found it in the book. Last line.

hahaha. ever heard of the time limit? if not for that we could have just attacked with 10k vs 6k to start and been done with it.

[oprah_winfrey]

hahaha. ever heard of the time limit? if not for that we could have just attacked with 10k vs 6k to start and been done with it.

No, what is this timer you speak of?

[Blackzilla]

hahaha. ever heard of the time limit? if not for that we could have just attacked with 10k vs 6k to start and been done with it.

How fucking spergy are you to sit at a 10k vs 6k battle. That would take over 4 hours. I dont know about you, but I couldnt sit down and play in a strat battle for 4 hours.

[BaleOhay]

Currently there is an internal struggle between Hero Party loyalists and defectors on where to handle the direction of the Strategus faction.  But I think both sides of the argument would agree on this.

Stop Shitposting.

Smooth you can stop man Zilla already admitted the "rebellion" was your plan and it was a shitty thing to do. (so he gave us some of our gear back and promised a handful of other thigns we are waiting to see happen) . You are not fooling anyone man. Attacking in waves not against the rules... What you guys did is 100% against the rules.

I think your "tactic" to keep the owner out of his city is not only lame & poor sportsmanship but definitely exploiting a bugged feature of the game. How you can even justify this or argue against it is dumbfounding, regardless of the clan you're from.

This situation is no different from a clan attacking its own fief to lock it down. Both are exploiting poor mechanics of the mod. Rules are made to make sure deliberate exploiting of poor mechanics don't happen.  We wouldn't want exploiting-to-win to be a regular re-occurrence on either Strat or NA_1, would we? So why set a precedence for this kind of behavior?

This silly mod doesn't provide the fief owner the ability to transfer the ownership to someone else if he isn't around. It also doesn't allow him to sell stuff when he isn't there.

So basically, preventing the owner from returning to sell the gear or transfer the fief to someone else in a bugged context is pretty much abusing an unfortunate game mechanic.  Claiming that we have plate and mauls so we should be content is absolute bullcrap.  You're using the bug to your advantage, and are thus exploiting the bug. Plain and simple.  If that's what you need to win, fine. But calling it a "legit" tactic and bragging about it is disappointing coming from multiple community veterans...  You may not be directly or voluntarily "item-bombing" the city as you claim, but you are most certainly doing it indirectly by not allowing the items to be sold.

Why the need to set a precedence?  Where's the sportsmanship?


edit: lol at the folks -1'ing this post.  I guess its a bad thing to be against bug abuse and in favor of playing the game the way its meant to be played + good sportsmanship.  Guess I'm too old-fashioned... Keep at it you little forum warriors.

take a city by force and lets see how you guys do it. It is hard. Fcc has done it twice and would have done it a third time.

VE did it against remnant and nearly lost even tho remnant was naked with wooden sticks.

Already been stated its a sucky mechanic and needs to change but it is not against the rules to attack a city in waves with its owner gone. Save your boo wooing and your anger and put it against blatant cheating the smoothrich way

[Bronto]

How fucking spergy are you to sit at a 10k vs 6k battle. That would take over 4 hours. I dont know about you, but I couldnt sit down and play in a strat battle for 4 hours.

It's not that you couldn't, it's that the game would crash or become so unbearably laggy from all the weapons and bodies dropped that you'd want to head butt your monitor. you'd go from 45 ping to like 656 by the time it was done.

[BADPLAYER_old2]

It's not that you couldn't, it's that the game would crash or become so unbearably laggy from all the weapons and bodies dropped that you'd want to head butt your monitor. you'd go from 45 ping to like 656 by the time it was done.

From what I remember of old strategus battles, the lag was much much less of an issue than it is these days, mainly because of the new WSE or so I have heard (could be wrong)

Really long sieges were hilarious though, one siege I played in for an hour, went afk for like 5hours and when I came back I rejoined and still played in it for a little while longer before it ended.

[CrazyCracka420]

From what I remember of old strategus battles, the lag was much much less of an issue than it is these days, mainly because of the new WSE or so I have heard (could be wrong)

Really long sieges were hilarious though, one siege I played in for an hour, went afk for like 5hours and when I came back I rejoined and still played in it for a little while longer before it ended.

Since they switched the servers to run on Windows server 2008 we haven't had the issues with lag in sieges any more (at least it's a 100% improvement for me)

[Gash]

Already been stated its a sucky mechanic and needs to change but it is not against the rules to attack a city in waves with its owner gone. Save your boo wooing and your anger and put it against blatant cheating the smoothrich way

You're right, its not against the rules to attack a city while the owner is gone, just like a bunch of exploits and bug abuses weren't against the rules in NA_1 back in the day... until we had to make rules for them cause people don't want to play fair... Nothing you are currently doing is against any rule per say; but going out of your way to prevent the owner from returning to fix the problem and have the fair and appropriate battles we are supposed to have is pretty much abusing the bug, regardless how you want to justify it. 

You're right, perhaps other clans would be doing the same if it were them; and I would be as equally disappointed about it either way. Just don't start complaining on the forums when another clan exploits a bug against your faction, because you've set a precedence and folks won't need to justify themselves when they just need to point at this example.  Shame...


On that note; props to NH, Frisia and TkoV for being such great opponents to battle against. My catapult awaits!