Search results

Fair point. That's a little easier to spot and less destructive. In my personal experience I found the disagree system really didn't add any value, just a tool for 1 or 2 people to abuse the hell out of. Sorry that you're getting upset. Also as Valoran said about this a long time ago. It...

With data its either reliable or it isn't. if half the disagrees are useless information then all of them are.

What's the point of having a system if it does nothing and convey's no useful information other than how salty someone is?

people got super political with it and just disagree spammed people they don't like.

You're way too hung up on the outposts. We basically had that with a few tweaks. Hopefully they do it better this time. This thread isn't even really about that, its about siege windows which i'm against, because I feel its super zerg friendly. Only a fool would say the siege system in MO 1...

The unfortunate truth is we had that system, sieging was basically impossible. Sieges we're resolved by the NPC guards and 2 people with fire arrows half the time. The game was arguably better when defending was too difficult. If people ask SV to make it hard to siege I fear they'll find...

I don’t know why it’s hard to understand that declaring your sieges takes so much sand out of the box.

you talk too much go to forums.

So did they announce that they will attack at this date, this time, and this location or did the army wait to get spotted first? Ambushes never happened? I understand that sieges often involved starving out the castle, that doesn't really relate to what i'm saying about declaring a siege...

Lions and predators stalking illustrates the real world necessity to be stealthy when making a kill. Rat's going to walmart to become dogs doesn't occur.

I mean is a lion pussy because he stalks first?

The logic still stands. You want a super strong Chinese guild then go ahead and make them invincible 22 out of 24 hours a day

Chinese farmers had trouble in MO because of the lack of safety. It is my belief that they would benefit from offline protection more than be hindered by it.

Sounds like a haven song

Why are you trying to explain something I already understood many posts ago? I'm trying to understand YOUR POST where you changed my words from deserve to everyone. and I am asking you if you disagree or agree or I suppose are neutral to the question I deserve to be treated respectfully by my...

I'm just trying to understand if you disagree or agree with the statement I guess it sounds like you said you disagree? Everyone isn't part of the question at the moment. but I do understand what you are saying with everyone.

So if you're presented with that question everyone isn't an option. I deserve to be treated equally. How do you respond? simply agree or disagree are the responses. You'll notice there are no free format answers to the questionnaire where you get to answer its actually everyone.

So you would disagree with the statements. I deserve to be treated respectfully by my employer. I deserve to be treated equally regardless of race creed orientation whatever. I deserve a fair shot at life Etc?

That's exactly why its bullshit. You should feel you deserve a lot in life.

I've had similar ideas myself but there's always gonna be some way to game the system.