Completely irrelevant, sorry (@the disbalance of having a construct give a sip bonus vs aetherpolitics)

Wonder how long it'll be until the raids start back up, without the Tree.

Not... really.

The reason we hammered at it so hard was specifically to deny them the sip bonus effect. Since theoretically they will keep the Crypt over it.

Our main thing going over there was to help Celest take it from Magnagora, but Celest attacked us instead...

(The response message was amusing though, "I made a really big mistake." Heh.)

Oh no, whatever shall we do without the L1 sip bonus? AIEEEEEEEEEEEE QQ QQ QQ QQ

And there is the other problem with this sort of stuff. You can lose the altar, in favor of making yourself harder to raid, I suppose, unless they decide to go through with the "no construct on nexus world", but now? You can wind up with a condition pretty easily where the winning org compounds the issue, keeps their so called must have construct, and never really has to make a choice.

Honestly, I'd prefer the old weakenings system to this, if aether politics is going to look as lopsided as regular politics.

Be at your normal level, instead of getting a bonus that you have no need for and nobody else has any comparison to with their new constructs.

You were given comparisons. Quit acting like they're nonexistent to get your agenda across.

Yes, we have been. And it's still out of line. You can throw up the charts of all of them again if you want, things haven't changed.

If by comparisons, you mean 'woe, I feel like sip bonus is worth more than x,' sure. The only thing I've seen is wishy-washy emotional crying.

The charts suddenly don't count huh.

I dunno, it seems like every time there's a conflict system where we there is a finite number of things for us to obtain, it takes a while and a lot of complaining before things are changed. Look at domoths and to a lesser degree, villages. I think we should just start the complaining early, this time.

I actually had fun for this flare, even when Celest showed up with 3 or 4 ships. We didn't really have to fight anyone though, unless you count three random Gaudis, so I guess I didn't get the full experience of it.

Why couldn't you guys just get a bunch of ships and team Glom's ship? In fact, Keep even managed to blow us up once. I'm gonna have to just chalk this up to the enemy not taking full advantage of the skills and items they have as opposed to anything OP or zerglike done by Glom!

It was pretty obvious that bombard was gonna be the game winner, and not (surprise) bubblixes, so once you controlled the air, you effectively won unless the enemy you just displaced have been at it a while.

Yeah, from Serenwilde's perspective, it was all our own fault. Not going to blame the system for us not getting a bubble. However, it'd be naive to think that this isn't just going to be like winning org momentum, villages and domoths.

The only way this would be like villages and domoths is that the better prepared team tends to win.

Then again, I never really understood the point of punishing an org for doing too well, but hey.

This is always a bit of an absurd statement. The complaints aren't about punishing a winning org, its about not compounding a mechanical advantage with a snowball effect.

It is a valid concern, from a practical standpoint. There's actually a disincentive to ever join a weaker org, one that keeps growing between domoths, aetherflares, villages, and general combat conditions. It was certainly a part of the factor for me bailing for a Trinity org. And if someone said to me that they wanted to start here, and ask where they should start, I'd push them at Glom- learn to fight behind the org sitting on the top of the pile for two years- and now, with the construct issue, have your org substantially more painful to raid than whoever you yourself are raiding, and don't sacrifice anything into the bargin.

As opposed to generally losing fights and being on the wrong side of the above?

If the balance of org power in Lusternia hadn't been nearly stagnant for RL years now, this would be somewhat moot. But we need to consider practical concerns like this.

I've justified my entire set of arguments, I've put together charts, and everyone else responding except you has been able to look at those charts and see that there is a significant gulf between them.

I've also gone further in explaining-- for example, level 1 sip bonus that impacts BASHING, PVP, and PVE is far superior to either +15 carrion capacity OR a 5% chance of +150 damage in PvP, no matter which one you want to compare it to. Posts like yours don't refute that, nor do they even try to, they just try to dismiss any complaint out of hand with no valid justification or reasoning.

You are intent on defending it with flimsy statements like this, not an argument in defense to be seen. Nothing but "Woe, you are trying to get my stuff balanced, why?? "

Essentially, you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of, while those others are actually putting together arguments.

Take it to another thread. The purpose of this thread is to ensure that there are no "must have" constructs. Worrying about who might have the most constructs is a red herring in analysing and ensuring that the constructs are at about the same level of power.

I just want to chime in that I think the current system for controlling aether bubbles and building constructs is fine.

It's fun, frantic, and fast paced. If you lose, you lose your construct, but that's fine since you didn't have them for a long, long time. It's not like the winning team is winning a large advantage over you, rather the winning team is winning a defense against you. In fact I kind of don't like having free distortion powers - I see those going up and I'm like "Well, defending won't be as common or as fun now." And if being able to distort/ripple/whatever ethereal is/ is really that important to you, put one of those constructs on your nexus world.

As soon as the level 1 sip bonus gets fixed and Gaudi/Halli has their altar/crypt/font construct buffed, I think the system will be perfect.

What you have done is post a chart that puts things next to each other, but failed to explain how one construct is better than the other. You just say, "Iron machine has a sip bonus which doesn't compare to carrion." Okay. Great. That's your conclusion, but where's the argument?

I'm not trying to refute you because there is a lack of anything to refute. Charts aren't arguments. Conclusions are merely more than opinions without the premises. From what I've seen in this thread, the only argument put forward is something along the lines of "This is x, this is y. X is better than y. See?"

Secondly, why would anyone think I'm defending the Iron machine? I'm attacking the "arguments" put forward in this thread, yes, but it doesn't follow that I'm defending the new construct. Personally, there really hasn't been much to defend against: Esano did a good job of responding to how the chart was incorrect or how it would be better represented, yet that adoption was never made.

I'll put it clearly: how is a +1 sip bonus better than the other things? And if it is indeed better, how and why is the disparity so great that a change is justified? There are going to be differences in usefulness, but so far, the only argument is that the +1 sip is the best. There has to be a best, sorry to say, and that's not reason enough for a forum campaign.