Unknown2009-12-10 04:51:00
QUOTE (Sidd @ Dec 9 2009, 11:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wait, did we do the same thing or not? This doesn't make sense, you can't sit here and tell us that we did something different, then say we did things the same, turns out that makes you fail.
Also, you seem to think people didn't realize they've been buffed, of course it was known and they wanted to see how they were buffed, it was an exploratory raid. Lets forget to mention that in order to kill DL's you need to attack, not stand there, so how is going in with gun's blazing not a good idea?
Considering the fact that all 3 other orgs have joined together to fight against Glom, and you have yet to even make any attempts on the Night Avatars, well, that just seems fail to me. It's kind of like Sheia, trying to flaunt the fact that we haven't killed a supernal since the changes as some kind of personal victory, it appears you are doing the same.
When you successfully destroy the Avatars (remember you have 3 orgs), then try to tell us what is fail and what is not, but really, you have no idea, so don't spout off . Way to try to latch on to something and just make yourself look stupid, good work, I applaud you.
Edit: spaces were requested, and a period
Also, you seem to think people didn't realize they've been buffed, of course it was known and they wanted to see how they were buffed, it was an exploratory raid. Lets forget to mention that in order to kill DL's you need to attack, not stand there, so how is going in with gun's blazing not a good idea?
Considering the fact that all 3 other orgs have joined together to fight against Glom, and you have yet to even make any attempts on the Night Avatars, well, that just seems fail to me. It's kind of like Sheia, trying to flaunt the fact that we haven't killed a supernal since the changes as some kind of personal victory, it appears you are doing the same.
When you successfully destroy the Avatars (remember you have 3 orgs), then try to tell us what is fail and what is not, but really, you have no idea, so don't spout off . Way to try to latch on to something and just make yourself look stupid, good work, I applaud you.
Edit: spaces were requested, and a period
So should they curb raiding? And if so, how?
Merik2009-12-10 04:55:00
QUOTE (Llandros @ Dec 9 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You failed because the fail raid was full of fail. Which i have to say was surprising because glom usually uses every trick in the book masterfully but not this time.
Yall knew the DL's were buffed so what did you do? The same old thing you do everytime = fail. You went in guns blazing straight for Baal so that you could kill 3 DLs with no defenders (which also got fixed so we can defend now). No attempt was made to fight them one on one.
Just to reapeat this, you took on more than you can chew in a hilarious fashion. Instead of playing it safe you went for broke and then cried foul.
fail
Yall knew the DL's were buffed so what did you do? The same old thing you do everytime = fail. You went in guns blazing straight for Baal so that you could kill 3 DLs with no defenders (which also got fixed so we can defend now). No attempt was made to fight them one on one.
Just to reapeat this, you took on more than you can chew in a hilarious fashion. Instead of playing it safe you went for broke and then cried foul.
fail
You should stick to only posting things Narsrim tells you to. They suck pretty hard when you post something you thought up all on your own.
Or, to use your new favorite word, you fail.
Eventru2009-12-10 04:55:05
Watch it guys. Keep it decent or keep it to yourself.
Shaddus2009-12-10 04:55:34
The big bold word of the day is: Lolwut.
Sidd2009-12-10 04:56:28
QUOTE (Llandros @ Dec 9 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The situation changed yet your tactics did not.
You could have taken them on one at a time but chose not to. You took on several at a time and now complain that they were buffed to the point where they can't be defeated. You haven't even tried playing it smart, but no, I'm the one who is stupid.
You could have taken them on one at a time but chose not to. You took on several at a time and now complain that they were buffed to the point where they can't be defeated. You haven't even tried playing it smart, but no, I'm the one who is stupid.
This is called defending, they all do it, turns out, Supernals, Avatars, and yes, even the Demonlords, so yes, you do look stupid.
Llandros2009-12-10 05:00:35
QUOTE (Sidd @ Dec 9 2009, 11:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is called defending, they all do it, turns out, Supernals, Avatars, and yes, even the Demonlords, so yes, you do look stupid.
Yikes, you should have fact checked that little gem, because you are wrong. Not all of them do it.
I'm not sure why I'm planning your raid for you but next time start with Nif and see how it turns out.
Shaddus2009-12-10 05:01:05
QUOTE (Llandros @ Dec 9 2009, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yikes, you should have fact checked that little gem, because you are wrong. Not all of them do it.
I'm not sure why I'm planning your raid for you but next time start with Nif and see how it turns out.
I'm not sure why I'm planning your raid for you but next time start with Nif and see how it turns out.
Uh.. doesn't Ashtorath defend Nifilhema?
Sidd2009-12-10 05:01:25
are you serious? I'm just going to stop, you just keep sinking your own ship
I mean if you want to get technical, yes we can take Gorgy by himself, but he's definitely a lot stronger, it's always been easier to take on baal/ash or ash/nif or nif/ash at once than gorgy, and unless we get someone unenemied, can't get to Luci until we kill the other 4, so it seems like the smart thing was to go for what has always been traditionally the weaker DL's
I mean if you want to get technical, yes we can take Gorgy by himself, but he's definitely a lot stronger, it's always been easier to take on baal/ash or ash/nif or nif/ash at once than gorgy, and unless we get someone unenemied, can't get to Luci until we kill the other 4, so it seems like the smart thing was to go for what has always been traditionally the weaker DL's
Eventru2009-12-10 05:01:28
Stop it, Llandros and Sidd.
Llandros2009-12-10 05:11:44
QUOTE (Sidd @ Dec 10 2009, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
are you serious? I'm just going to stop, you just keep sinking your own ship
I mean if you want to get technical, yes we can take Gorgy by himself, but he's definitely a lot stronger, it's always been easier to take on baal/ash or ash/nif or nif/ash at once than gorgy, and unless we get someone unenemied, can't get to Luci until we kill the other 4, so it seems like the smart thing was to go for what has always been traditionally the weaker DL's
I mean if you want to get technical, yes we can take Gorgy by himself, but he's definitely a lot stronger, it's always been easier to take on baal/ash or ash/nif or nif/ash at once than gorgy, and unless we get someone unenemied, can't get to Luci until we kill the other 4, so it seems like the smart thing was to go for what has always been traditionally the weaker DL's
wait for it ...... ok, it looks like I was mistaken and will now eat my failburger of shame
Unknown2009-12-10 12:51:17
Actually, yes, they all defend each other (it's only Gorgulu that doesn't, mainly because he's a lot harder to kill). Even the Avatars and the Supernals have this defend-another feature.
Moving on, then - I quite like the idea of having other features (such as quests) having a bigger role in organizational conflict. The only thing that should be changed (read:removed) is the drain-power-from-opposing-nexus penalties. We all know how those turn out.
The village quests are good ones - still has impact, although not directly harming the ever-lovely nexuses, and newcomers can do most of them (exceptions include Mountain Villages). Or, the Catacombs quest that releases orcs. I suppose you can add in releasing gorgogs, helping Gromagh, killing the Wyrdling, sea battles, etc. etc. There are a lot of them that have the potential to be nice outputs of conflict; it's only because outright raiding is the usual center of attention that the other features of Lusternia are forgotten.
Moving on, then - I quite like the idea of having other features (such as quests) having a bigger role in organizational conflict. The only thing that should be changed (read:removed) is the drain-power-from-opposing-nexus penalties. We all know how those turn out.
The village quests are good ones - still has impact, although not directly harming the ever-lovely nexuses, and newcomers can do most of them (exceptions include Mountain Villages). Or, the Catacombs quest that releases orcs. I suppose you can add in releasing gorgogs, helping Gromagh, killing the Wyrdling, sea battles, etc. etc. There are a lot of them that have the potential to be nice outputs of conflict; it's only because outright raiding is the usual center of attention that the other features of Lusternia are forgotten.
Siam2009-12-10 16:56:08
QUOTE (Estarra)
"On Communes paying power to protect elder trees"
This might be terribly late, but I'll post in anyhow: YES PLEASE, given how certain individuals relish in chopping down great numbers of elders to annoy the communes, paying for power to protect these elders would be worth it as it saves the commune the grief and the rather long and tiring process.
edit:
As regards to raiding the planes, the absence of members of security from other guilds also plays a factor in the defense. Why not allow part of the security of other guilds/org-leaders to put up these nexus powers at, say, double the cost? Or allow members of the commune above cr 2 to put them up? The cost would increase the lower the rank, example:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
CR 6 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 350% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 400% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 450% of original power cost
edit2:
For those members of security/protectors/GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
Regardless of CR --- 200% of original power cost
edit3:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of THEIR GUILD
CR 6 --- 150% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 200% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 350% of original power cost
edit4:
edit5: took out edit 4
Tervic2009-12-10 18:39:12
QUOTE (thisismydisplayname @ Dec 10 2009, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This might be terribly late, but I'll post in anyhow: YES PLEASE, given how certain individuals relish in chopping down great numbers of elders to annoy the communes, paying for power to protect these elders would be worth it as it saves the commune the grief and the rather long and tiring process.
edit:
As regards to raiding the planes, the absence of members of security from other guilds also plays a factor in the defense. Why not allow part of the security of other guilds/org-leaders to put up these nexus powers at, say, double the cost? Or allow members of the commune above cr 2 to put them up? The cost would increase the lower the rank, example:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
CR 6 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 350% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 400% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 450% of original power cost
edit2:
For those members of security/protectors/GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
Regardless of CR --- 200% of original power cost
edit3:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of THEIR GUILD
CR 6 --- 150% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 200% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 350% of original power cost
edit4:
edit5: took out edit 4
edit:
As regards to raiding the planes, the absence of members of security from other guilds also plays a factor in the defense. Why not allow part of the security of other guilds/org-leaders to put up these nexus powers at, say, double the cost? Or allow members of the commune above cr 2 to put them up? The cost would increase the lower the rank, example:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
CR 6 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 350% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 400% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 450% of original power cost
edit2:
For those members of security/protectors/GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of ANOTHER GUILD
Regardless of CR --- 200% of original power cost
edit3:
For those not members of security/protectors/not GA,GC,GM raising nexus defenses of THEIR GUILD
CR 6 --- 150% of original power cost
CR 5 --- 200% of original power cost
CR 4 --- 250% of original power cost
CR 3 --- 300% of original power cost
CR 2 --- 350% of original power cost
edit4:
edit5: took out edit 4
I kinda like this idea.
Unknown2009-12-10 18:50:16
Elder trees are fine. It's pretty rare that we lose any, and it's even rarer that we lose a significant number. We lose some power, but power is hardly a scarce commodity, and we gain some of that power back by gathering massive amounts of feathers/pixies. Kinda sucks that there's no equivalent way to attack the prime cities, though I guess the forests don't have anything like angels/demons to be killed
Lehki2009-12-10 23:47:41
QUOTE (thisismydisplayname @ Dec 10 2009, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This might be terribly late, but I'll post in anyhow: YES PLEASE, given how certain individuals relish in chopping down great numbers of elders to annoy the communes, paying for power to protect these elders would be worth it as it saves the commune the grief and the rather long and tiring process.
You want to spend power on something that's only purpose is to produce power so that during the brief times that they are vulnerable normally, they can't be destroyed?
Lendren2009-12-11 02:27:16
QUOTE (Urazial @ Dec 9 2009, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yet you never really complained when it was Glomdoring getting squished, if I recall properly. Or at least, I don't recall all the complaints from you and Lendren concerning the negative impact of raiding back when Serenwilde was on the top.
Boy, your memory really, really sucks. You should get a doctor to look into that for you. Until you do, I'd advise not talking about the past.
I don't know what Zarquan may or may not have complained about, but my complaints are a matter of public record and date back even to the time when Narsrim was doing to Glomdoring what you and Nienla try to do to Serenwilde now, back when Glomdoring was newborn. Sorry, sweetie, you've picked the wrong guy.
Urazial2009-12-11 02:32:35
QUOTE (Lendren @ Dec 10 2009, 09:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Boy, your memory really, really sucks. You should get a doctor to look into that for you. Until you do, I'd advise not talking about the past.
I don't know what Zarquan may or may not have complained about, but my complaints are a matter of public record and date back even to the time when Narsrim was doing to Glomdoring what you and Nienla try to do to Serenwilde now, back when Glomdoring was newborn. Sorry, sweetie, you've picked the wrong guy.
I don't know what Zarquan may or may not have complained about, but my complaints are a matter of public record and date back even to the time when Narsrim was doing to Glomdoring what you and Nienla try to do to Serenwilde now, back when Glomdoring was newborn. Sorry, sweetie, you've picked the wrong guy.
You're likely correct that my memory concerning a game from a few years ago likely isn't going to be sparkling clear, Mr. Passive Aggressive. And for that I do give my most humble apologies. Unfortunately, I see no doctor appointment in the future to help with my forum memory!
Lendren2009-12-11 02:33:37
I thought that was pretty aggressive aggressive, actually. Like, as in, "sorry, you're just plain wrong". Maybe you should just look up what passive aggressive is!
Merik2009-12-11 02:35:17
Meow.
Urazial2009-12-11 02:40:45
QUOTE (Lendren @ Dec 10 2009, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I thought that was pretty aggressive aggressive, actually. Like, as in, "sorry, you're just plain wrong". Maybe you should just look up what passive aggressive is!
Actually, I would consider it more of a catty aggressive, to be fair. I think given the tone of your posts in the past as well as statements that you would not be playing much due to all the evil, evil raiding nowadays you would likely not be able to handle "aggressive aggressive", except through this lovingly filtered venue.