Do you mean this? You’re right, that is rather personal, and that’s not exactly how I intended it. So let me be absolutely clear again: in terms of having a winning strategy the NA teams, Neutron, whoever was leading with him together and doing diplo etc, NA absolutely deserves to win.
My point in all this however is that the reason this worked so well is because of the tick limit, and the tick limit is what I take offence with. If there had been no tick limit your teams would probably have played differently and you would have used a different strategy, and you might still have come out on top. Neutron might have built his teams differently, etc etc. What I’m saying is that I would far have preferred an era like that, REGARDLESS of who won it in the end, as long as it came down to having an actual winner that collected all relics rather than an era that ends in a camp wall because of limited ticks.
It just feels so incredibly unsatisfying. I would far prefer a Champions Era to end with unequivocal champions and while the NA teams would rightly be called the winners if they win this, it’s not the unequivocal win that I would wish for.
Although I can understand what you mean, it was known from before it started there would be a tick limit, so I just don’t understand the point of people complaining so much. When people decided to play CE3 everyone knew what they were getting into
“If the rules of the era were completely different than they were very clearly laid out things would have been different!”
Well, no fucking shit Sherlock. That is the dumbest fucking argument, why are people still trying to make it? No shit if things were different the conclusion would be different. You’re grasping at straws to try to argue anything when you are getting into ‘What-If’.
You don’t look intelligent for trying to predict what would have happened, you look sad and pathetic for trying to create fantasy versions of reality.
We’re agreed on that. It was known from before, and I think the ATOM/NA teams realised it better than anyone else.
Do you disagree that without a tick limit, camping and running down the clock to win would not have been a valid strategy? Would you not have preferred an era where running down the clock was not an option and thus different strategies would need to be used? Like on the previous CEs, that is.
I’m not trying to create a fantasy version of reality here, I believe we’re all well aware that the odds of this era getting extended are slim to none. If nothing else, I’m asking whether this is what people wanted/hoped this Champions Era would be like, so that if ever an event similar to this is hosted, be that on BD1 or BD2, we have a clear example of what happens when you set these ground rules for the event.
I’ll once again, because it seems like this argument keeps coming back, underline that 100% NA/ATOM teams played this era the smartest taking into account the tick limit, and that in that sense they deserve to win this era the most. Simply said, if you win the era, then you’ve clearly played it the best with the tools given to you.
You can interpret my words whatever way you want to, but I’m not asking people to come up with a storyline of who would have won this CE had it been unlimited ticks. I’m sure every team thinks it would be them anyway, and it can be argued in a lot of directions.
We’ve had 3 CEs, 2 with no tick limit and 1 with a tick limit. Now, this era is coming to a close and certain things are happening that are a direct result of the tick limit, so it seems like as good a time as ever to figure out whether with the knowledge of now, people like the idea of a tick limit era.
It’s very fresh in everyone’s minds now, everyone knows how they feel about what’s going on now, so now seems as good a time as ever to figure out whether with hindsight people liked the mechanics of CE1/2 or CE3 better.
You’re right, you aren’t asking us to create a storyline because you have gone ahead and tried to create the storyline for everyone.
You’re a goddam hypocrite in every way, Milan. I don’t respect the flowery language and walls of text because every single sentence contradicts something else you are trying to say. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Every single sentence you write is complaining about the rules, which are the same for everyone. As much as we all dislike it at times, diplomacy is part of BD. Moaning and gnashing of teeth about “what-if” is living in a fantasy land.
Maybe in hindsight we should be questioning other things, like if you actually were legitimate all those years? Maybe in hindsight we should question whether tick-limits should have existed, since as others pointed out previous CE’s ended from burnout and not strategical errors?
‘What if’ can go a lot of ways, which is why it’s a pointless line of thought to go down.
Tbh the tick limit should have been 2500 , my point being that we play all the years for 2500 tick limit and then CE comes and they start asking votes for tick limits. Like hey its the WC final of xyz sport and hence its a final lets make it for 24 hours instead of 90 minutes match cause why not especially on a game where people have to make through with lack of sleep to prove they are better it will be fun watching them suffer irl cause of the game too. (Maybe my reason sounds dumb but i totally wanted it to be 2500)
My argument is as simple as this. I would have personally liked no tick limit, for reasons stated a dozen times. If you disagree, I would love to hear why. Call it moaning, that’s fine, I see it as stating why I think a tick limit was a bad idea. As I have done before the era, and as I have always said. If I’d won this era I’d still have thought it was a bad idea.
Fair, we can question that as well. I don’t think CE1 ended due to burnout, that one was relatively short (1600 ticks?), CE2 was definitely an era that dragged on a good while.
Have you been on CE1/2/3 Sakrie? If so, which one have you preferred, both in terms of how it was played and the outcome of it? That’s really the question, pretty much. They had different rules, thus different outcomes, which one did you think was more fun?
Yeah, that’d have been a fair reasoning as well. The no tick limit is what I personally found attractive in the first place because that was, to me, what distinguished it from a normal E1 era with high competition. To me it then would have felt like it was just a normal era with the label “Champions Era” put on it.
At least you finally admit you’re just here to cry and complain you didn’t get your way. That it wasn’t your fault because the system was rigged against you. What a victim-complex.
The only reason I hate the tick limit/most relic win is that in the end there will be multiple teams launching at relics to prevent a certain team from wining and only to screw up someone’s hard work this era and all the money they spent will go for nothing.
I thought it was clear from the start that this was my preference, in my first post I literally quoted myself from a topic called “No tick limit” and asking for a vote on it before the era.
Nah, losing is entirely my own fault, both through how I’ve played this era and because of things that happened in the past eras. Failing to anticipate just how many people would be down to fight me is on me.
I think Sakrie made a good observation earlier. What is the point of stirring this up again? It happened just before tick 3k with HINI coalition (mainly, not solely) making polls and an entire topic to discuss the issue. If you want to gather opinions, go read. There’s a fair amount arguing for both sides, and some even for an extension (lmao how desperate eh?)
People are attacking you probably because they are tired of having this conversation before the era, around the start of it, and nearing the end of it (and your now evident low credibility). You started a conversation no one wants to have again, don’t expect this salt-filled trash can to react kindly.
Only differences we have are his grey area activities. Which I see others do similar things all over yet not get banned. That’s the new, if I haven’t been banned then clearly it’s allowed culture of pushing for every advantage they know is wrong but will abuse until they get in trouble. Destroying multiplayer gaming in general, but I guess there are a ton of great single player games still. Most MP are micro-transaction simulators anyway.
Tick limit? Hide and mass the highest power, hope to avoid war and accumulate relics through bribery and threats to backstab. Check.
That doesn’t make a good game, and knowing what it was I wouldn’t have planted. Which is why when I read there was a tick limit I didn’t join until full lock-down. I knew it would be a stupid shitshow of boosting power and camp walls and said it was a bad idea prior to the round even starting. My first comment was, “why is everyone just letting the NA teams sit and build all round”, when I planted.
I’ve always wanted to get to build for most of the round then spoil someone else or win with limited effort. I applaud their ability to be overlooked non-threatening to the rest of the server.
What a stupid argument. Every single ‘normal’ BD era has a tick limit. You knew the rules before you planted and still planted, you don’t get to say “but I didn’t know!” now. Tick-limits and stalling are part of BD; eras have been won and lost purely on score countless times.
Having to kill the teams turtling IS PART OF BD. I remember people openly laughing at how easy it would be to take out NA as late as tick 1.5k; that’s on the BD-community for their play, not the game mechanics itself.
You are complaining about the wrong things. Blame the community for being stubborn and prideful, not the rules.
