Oct 31st 2011, 17:36:21
Rockman: I think you nailed it.
While there are a few players who are more just puritans, ie:Ivan. That have an ideal of what they would want the game to be.
The rest arguing it are doing it more so to keep the status-quo going on what they want to achieve from the server. If someone has the ability to be online 90% of the day and can then bottom feed efficiently, they want it to stay that way. Since then they can win and others don't have a chance to complete.
The argument against landtrading has actually nothing to do with it 'making the server less competitive' or 'cheating' or any of the things people keep stating.
It more or less has to do with Person A wants his group to win and realizes that Person's B, C, and D would all have the same chance if something were opened.
Locket: as for the FA in the last week, I'm totally fine with that too. If lets say LCN had Castejon come back in the last reset and decide they want to aid him to #1. Great on them.
The cost would be is they'd lose a bunch of top 100's and other ranks trying to push that one player up. It's their call, and maybe what they wanted. But it could all backfire if someone else aided another on top, and then they would have just lost all their ranks to make a #2 country.
In addition to that, LaF has been one of my favourite alliances to play in over the last decade and a bit, and the sets I haven't played there I was fairly close to a number of members there or leadership. I'd say that LaF countries have finished 1st more and had more Top 10's than any other alliance in the game over that time.
now over that time I can't think of a single reset where Aid, tech allies to a non techer, or landgifting weren't used in some way or another. Many of even the first place wins were co-operative wins of a few individuals helping one.
Examples could probably be pulled out for every single alliance in the game and off the top of my head I can think of them for SoF, LCN, LaF, MD, SOL, Omega, Monsters, and many others of co-op play to push someone a higher rank.
The only difference between what has been done in the past and land trading would be that it's easier to point a finger at landtrade countries as it shows in the country news rather than them trying to hide it.
I'm indifferent to landtrading. I couldn't really care less if it existed or didn't. I just more or less find it funny that a majority of the "anti-landtrade" people if you boil it down they aren't actually thinking anything about this good of the game rhetoric, or making things more competitive as they say.
It's because they see a chance to win fading away and more individuals able to compete for those desired ranks.