If no one tries, then Celest ought to suffer more and more. Or do we want to reward non-action? Eventually things will get bad enough that people will roll up their sleeves and put things back in order, or they'll all move to an org in which people do.

Not too sure what or why people are arguing, but general summary which has nothing to with who defends or how much self-pity people feel:

1. Allow more people to pilot constructs. Maybe something like over CR3.
2. Whenever a construct is destroyed, make it so every other construct on the nexus world is fully healed. This would mean that a well-prepared force can destroy multiple constructs, but nothing like all four.

I like this guy

And you seem to be missing the point of the thread. Xenthos can correct me if I'm wrong because it's his thread, but I believe this thread is meant to discuss not "what should Celest have done differently at the last major weakening", but rather "do we think the weakening/construct system needs to be changed."

I think harping on what Celest could do or how Celest should feel from the past weakening is just clouding the real issue here. Would it have been nice if Celest had done/could have done more? Yes. Does what happened (or didn't happen) affect the question of whether it should be possible to destroy all 4 constructs for 30 RL days in one hour? No. If anything, losing all constructs helped bring light to the issue, because I think most if not all of us didn't think that was possible. Now that we know it is, is this something we think should remain as is or change, and if change, how?

It's not so much rewarding non-action as it is penalizing people in a recovery phase. Make it harder for a losing side to recover...what a good way to balance the power in a game. The winners can maintain their grip on power longer, while the losers can stay at the bottom longer.

If we fix this discrepancy then we all can have more fun and interaction in this game.

No self-pity; just looking at the larger issues resulting from a lopsided power balance in the game.

YOU'RE WRONG!

(Well, no, you're right. Hmph.)

What gets me is that all of this is stuff I said ages and ages ago. Like, all of the Construct discussions. And a lot of you completely disagreed. If only you had supported this earlier!

It is kind of unfortunate that it tends to take experiencing the issue for people to realize that there is an issue, instead of being able to take a step back. Yes, this is addressed to some of you who are all gung-ho about things being "great as is, learn 2 defend". The org(s) on top get numerous advantages (including removing the advantages of the org(s) on the bottom) which just makes it even easier to keep up the pressing.

And imagine what it would be like if it was Mag / Celest on top (I mean, just look at the stuff they pull now...)

Let me move to Glom. Xenthos has brains.

I agree with this. Except for the last line. It's impossible to control what Talkan, Narsrim, and Munsia do.

It may be difficult to control it, but history supports me on this. If they are in an org that is on top, they can very easily "persuade" others to join on in for the massive grief-fests. Sometimes they take advantage of it, sometimes not, but it is easier to pull it off all the time when they're on the Winning Side.

Yes, it's very easy for them to gather a zerg when they're on top. But that's not just a special power that Talkan/Narsrim wields. Every org in power can persuade its members to zerg on a beaten, battered opponent.

Quite true. But there is still a difference in frequency / duration, depending upon the mindset of the people pushing for things.

Of course, we do have Krellan...

Man, all you do is talk with your beliefs and no experience. There is indeed significant ways for non combatants, non security to help defend.

In any case, I disagree that all four constructs should be preventable from being destroyed. What if 3 orgs were to raid 1 org? Are you seriously suggesting it not be possible for all 3 to destroy 4 constructs if it were undefended?

Also, as I first stated allowing more people as operators, I obviously agree to that and it seems like a number of us do.

Please elaborate on exactly what a group of non-security non-combatants can do against a competent demisquad. You've said absolutely nothing that disproves my points.

They can actually launch some ships and bombard colossus.

They can't actually. We tried this when the Night Altar last went down... you can't bombard enemy colossi on your nexus world, there's a message about a field of protection. Same for beacons. Bug still classified.

Bombard is only available to the Combateer specialty and only at gifted. Likely non-combatants, non-security are not going to have that ability, especially as many younger ones use their credits to learn their primary skills instead of spending it on rarely used skills like aethercraft.

So if they can't bombard, then what?

I wonder how many other bugs are in limbo. I have at least one of my own like that.

Not to hold Fain to anything said a few years ago, but he did mention back in 2007 at http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?show...12784&st=20



Now, the view may have changed over the years, but for the reasons I already mentioned I still think that one hour of work should not be able to destroy all of an organization's constructs for 30 days and cost as much power, gold, etc. as it does.

Point is that there are options. I've stated my overall views pretty clearly.

At this point I've chalked it up to the help file differing from the implementation...with the issue relegated to the "Hmm, that was a good idea, maybe when we have some time" pile. Or perhaps they simply leave it there to mock me. One of those two.

It -was- a bit of a shock to discover this for the first time while we are being attacked. So yeah. Don't rely on being able to do this.