Discovery Gaming Community
POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Printable Version

+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Real Life Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? (/showthread.php?tid=130039)

POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Alestone - 05-30-2015

I was going back through some of the POB Attack Declarations and it seems that a lot of them use talking to yourself as a justification for an attack.

GIven that this is an RP server, doesn't that seem a little thin? I mean, if you're gonna sit in the back room and mutter to yourself about how awful someone is, fine, but using that as your justification to siege/destroy their POB just seems... weak.

Would it not make sense to require some justification that includes the owners of the base, or at least a shows a reasonable attempt?

RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Melancing? - Jack_Henderson - 05-30-2015

Would make sense.
It's a bit like in the FR5 requests where you have to give "proof that roleplay happened".
Talking to yourself would not suffice there either.

I think you have a point there, Chance.
It should be "interaction" roleplay.
Before you attack someone, talk to him. I like that thought.

RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Hana Ken - 05-30-2015

Can't help but think this has something to do with a recent post of mine, so here is proof of interaction between the two groups. Subsequent communication seemingly has been purposely avoided as far as I can tell.

[+]Spoiler
I agree with your statements, yet it opens an avenue for players to simply ignore communications in order to defend their base.

RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - |nfrared - 05-31-2015

Usually if admins see some thinly veiled metagaming POB attack, they will deal to it. Unfortunately the scale of maturity here is a broad one with extremes at both ends.

RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Alestone - 05-31-2015

Hana Ken, I will admit that your recent declaration inspired my post, but I did look at the time frames involved, which is why I included the reasonable attempt comment.

On the other hand, if you go back through that thread, you will find several posts where the "proof" is someone saying something to the effect of, You're blocking our sunlight and your base is ugly. We must DESTROY you!!!11!!!

RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Thyrzul - 05-31-2015

Should the attackers be really unable to siege a base as long as the forum roleplay is unilateral? Sure, there is a threat of destruction of my PoB in my mailbox, I think I'll just ingore it, best way of protection. Sounds OP to me.


RE: POB Attack Declarations: Too much Me-Lancing? - Sabru - 05-31-2015

(05-30-2015, 11:41 PM)Chance Wrote: I was going back through some of the POB Attack Declarations and it seems that a lot of them use talking to yourself as a justification for an attack.

GIven that this is an RP server, doesn't that seem a little thin? I mean, if you're gonna sit in the back room and mutter to yourself about how awful someone is, fine, but using that as your justification to siege/destroy their POB just seems... weak.

Would it not make sense to require some justification that includes the owners of the base, or at least a shows a reasonable attempt?

Reasonable attempt (like giving around a week+ for response) yeah sure. but i think thats as far as you could get it, because any thought of requiring both sides would be ill-advised for the reasons pointed out by other posters.