Agent327
Legend
I'll assume that you won't deny that you've complained about "cheaters" before. In this specific thread, you've referred to practices you clearly view as unfair advantages:
Your position here, and elsewhere, clearly express that you find effective use of GBs to be abuse, and that you believe that the proposed GBs will be abused in the same manner. You have a point, though. For the sake of precision, I should've written that you believe they "are abusing advantages", rather than "are cheaters". There's a difference, and I was imprecise.
So "most players" is the same as "the players"? If I say I get beaten by players that cheat you turn it in to all players that beat me cheat. All you do is turn my words around.
Complaints in the forum, that's your definition of "hard evidence"? If so, I'm not surprised that Inno "will not do anything" about your reports. If not so, I wonder why you keep refusing to give even the simplest description of the evidence.
It's my definition of hard evidence that can not be delivered and once again you are turning things around. It is impossible to report, so Inno has to do nothing about it.
Whether something is irrelevant or not, isn't decided by anyone. It either is, or it isn't.
In order to know that you must decide.
However, if something is irrelevant, I do have the power to point it out. I even gave the reasons for my conclusion.
Same poweer I have to stick to my argument.
You know, something that you could actually present arguments against, rather than just make snide comments.
Those snide comments have a mind of their own. They love to follow condescending comments.
Not that I mind snide comments, obviously. It's just that I believe they need to be backed up with some reasoning.
Then it must hurt you can not control that.
That would be true, if the new GBs weren't balanced properly, for instance in the ways I've mentioned. However, with proper balancing, not having the building will become a disadvantage, which makes the game harder.
Like it is now?
All GBs make the game easier, if you have them, just as it becomes harder if you don't have them.
Don't have a Colosseum. It makes the game a lot easier, not harder.
The challenge is in picking the advantages that your strategy requires, and accept the disadvantages that your strategy can tolerate. Not to mention, pick a strategy where such a balance is possible. Assuming that they will be balanced, these new buildings will add to that challenge.
Assuming that. How has that worked so far?
That algorithm is intended for those who feel uncomfortable with a thread, and, honestly, you seem much more annoyed and harassed by this thread than I am.
Actualyy I haven't had this much fun for a while.
For your next reply, would it be too much to ask for some reasoning behind your statements?
If I give you a reason you wil turn it around and explain it the way it suits you. Wouldn't it be to much to ask you stop doing so?
I feel like we're being stuck in endless repetition
Maybe your algorithm will work on that.