Recent posts by Dalewyn on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Flee states to save self

2 years, 3 pages, and a necropost later and nobody has still recommended Madagascar? What sorcery is this?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Internet Crisis

For those of you scoffing that this is business as usual and/or that the bill won’t pass, you’re in for a surprise.

Sure, credibility of the committee and the hearing is non-existant since the bill’s sponsor is also the committee’s chairman, but it does say something about the chance of the bill passing when the opposition isn’t even given an opportunity to make their case.

Look out world, the USA first shat on the world economy and now it’s going to shit on the internet as we know it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / FBI attacks Anon in Response to Wikileaks Support

Because I can get a new HDD for my computer in a matter of hours (if it’s a desktop), whereas getting a new computer requires days if not weeks and considerable expense. It would be difficult to work without access to files, but it could be done, as you can use free online versions of almost every kind of business software available.

I’d just like to say that one could easily get a cheap, ready-to-use computer in “a matter of hours” just as quickly as a new HDD. If the priority is on having a computer (any computer) to use rather than having anything specific, none of the problems you suggest really apply, with the possible exception of price (perhaps even the cheapest of computers is too expensive in your area?).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Will meat be banned in our lifetime?

Inefficiency in the production per pound of meat is definitely one consideration, especially with vast tracts of arable land being turned over to biofuel production. We may well find we have turned too much land over to non-food crops as our population continues to expand.

This issue does not have any basis to call for a ban on meat. If the situation arises, which it possibly might, then it is better approached by a reform in repartitioning of available farmland.

This issue also ignores the fact that some pieces of land simply cannot support the types of crops we eat but can support plants that animals other than humans can consume. The relationship in the efficiency of growing crops and farming animals isn’t as simple as one being more efficient over the other; depending on the type of land that relationship can be equalized or even turned over.

It’ll be repurposed eventually, but I can see a possibility of beef becoming a restricted-consumption food for a time, due to the land requirement to grow a pound of beef, versus cereal crops.

Back in the old days, meat was food only available to the adequately wealthy for various reasons. I wouldn’t be surprised if meat went back to such times because of too much demand and too little production nor would I see it as a problem from a purely supply-to-demand perspective.

A second possibility of course is a disease vector. A sizable scare of mad-cow disease and associated CJD, could plausibly lead to a year or longer’s ban on the consumption of beef by the CDC.

Meat (or in your example, beef) isn’t the only type of food potentially afflicted by diseases or other disorders that may prove harmful to the consumers. It is simply the most publicized due to the whole mad cow scare. If we went off banning “X” type of food because of a fear for contracting diseases or some kind of disorder, we would quickly be left with little to eat or drink.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Will meat be banned in our lifetime?

The entire “Meat is bad for your health!” campaign is fear-mongering at its finest. Eating meat, be that red meat or white meat, is perfectly fine when taken in moderation (read: having a relatively balanced diet). All you need is a level head and to think for yourself.

Incidentally, what exactly would necessitate banning of meat, anyway? Escalating price per pound of meat? Scarcity of meat? Inefficiency in the production of meat? Personal beliefs? Fear-mongering about the “bad health effects” of meat? None of these are reason enough to call for an outright ban. For the record, I can see “animal farming cruelty” as a potential issue assuming it exists, but that can be better dealt with via reforms.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Engineering Disabilities

You did not say it but you did it as soon as you tacitly took yourself as the paradigm of what normal is. You’re just incurring in the naturalistic fallacy, just because we have ears and some of us can hear all the individuals must hear.

If you mean I took myself as the “standard” because that is otherwise what the environment expects as of this writing, then yes you are correct. I will correct you however that I do not presume because people have ears they must be able to hear. I am perfectly fine with people being deaf (either from inherited genes or injuries), but being deaf will without doubt prove disadvantageous in life, both from a moral and scientific standpoint.

It’s the same kind of argument that people use to attack homosexual relationships.

I have nothing against homosexual people; they aren’t bothering me and I ain’t bothering them. What’s the problem?

Deaf people have a determinated kind of experiences that people who can’t hear don’t, and vice versa. You’re supposing that you can objectively decide which experiences are better than others.

I am not stating that being able to hear is better, I am stating that having the chance to utilize the ability to hear is better. If a person does not like hearing sound they can puncture their ear drums and that’d be the end of it. What right do we have to decide that for another person who is not yet able to make that choice, though?

Should I even bother responding you if you haven’t one the effort to follow the discussion because from your perspective “5~6 pages worth of various arguments brought forth followed by a relative “NO U” (read: “Emotional Appeal”) is hardly an environment I want to debate in”?

I find the atmosphere very inhospitable and unenjoyable compared to other SD topics I’ve read and/or participated in, if that’s what you’re asking. I do, however, concede that a debate is a debate, whatever the form.

Frankly, this has been responded a thousand times but, hey, since you don’t like the responses that Saint and Lax have given you don’t read them and you feel like you’re not “disproved”.

I have not read anything to suggest nor confirm that people born deaf will not miss the ability to hear.

What you (and others) have suggested is identical to saying that people born into slavery will never miss freedom because they were never free to begin with. Does this mean that slavery is acceptable? I presume we can all strongly state no, but I’m starting to doubt this.

Let’s take another case, specifically in United States history: A woman’s right to vote. Back before women gained the right to vote, they never had it. Going on the idea of “never had it, never miss it”, women will thus have never caused such a big ruckus as they did regarding their ability to vote because they would never have missed it. The truth is though, they did: They missed the ability to vote. I expect that the subsequent result does not need mentioning.

Thus, my conclusion is as follows: The idea and assumption that a person will not feel like they are missing out simply because they never had something is arrogant, fundamentally flawed, and impossible to debate constructively with. Whether the person had the ability to hear or not since birth, and whether it is vital to him or not, is completely irrelevant.

Your argument “has got to be one of the most arrogant, insensitive, downright insulting assumptions I have ever heard.”

I don’t give half a damn if I’m called arrogant, insensitive, or downright insulting. If that was supposed to be a personal attack it isn’t working.

I suppose it means Darwin, now I ask him about the advantage issue, he responds me in terms of natural selection, quoting wikipedia :

“Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not affect survival (such as differences in eye color in humans), but some differences may improve the chances of survival of a particular individual.”

WTF!? Guess what, deaf people live and survive!? They live in society, can stablish communities and have a comunication code. I guess that we’re falling again into a naturalistic fallacy. It sounds to me like you’re actually trying to defend this [Social Darwinism].

Hey, guess what: The ability to hear greatly improves a person’s ability to survive and interact appropriately with the environment and situation. Do I really need to repeat the fundamental functions the sense of sound provides to humans and other organisms? Do I really need to repeat why intentionally disabling a person in this manner has no apparent, potential benefit?

While I will admit that I find the idea of Social Darwinism extremely appealing when applied in a non-discriminatory manner, what I am defending here isn’t so much Social Darwinism as it is a person’s right to not be intentionally disabled outside of his choice and without due and just cause.

---

For those who have hearing. For those who don’t, it isn’t vital. I’m not sure how often I have to repeat this until everyone understands it…

Refer to one of my responses above to see why I find the idea flawed and unacceptable. I won’t go out on a limb and assume all the others disagreeing with you are working on that same line, though I presume it’s something similar.

Good example. So, are two engined planes all ‘disabled’ because they aren’t as ‘capable’ as their four engined peers? According to you, the answer is a tentative yes. That would also make motorcycles disabled cars, and apartments disabled houses.

For the purposes of this response, I presume the 2-engine aircraft to be a Boeing 737 and the 4-engine aircraft as a Boeing 747 as there never was a 2-engine Boeing 747 designed and produced to my knowledge. Your response is fundamentally flawed in that you are comparing apples to oranges. Both the 747 and the 737 are aircrafts; they are, however, designed differently from the ground up and it is intended and expected that they be different. The comparison works if you compare a 747 with 4 working engines and a 747 with 2 working and 2 dead engines, but as you compared an apple and an orange I cannot produce a productive response.

And before you do, don’t bother comparing the Boeing 747 with a Boeing 707, Airbus A380, C-17 Hercules, B-17 Flying Fortress, or any other 4-engine aircraft that isn’t a 747 of the same or similar class. You will be comparing apples to oranges again and we won’t be any better off than we are now.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Engineering Disabilities

for you. Actually, since you’ve lived all yout life with this sense you can’t imagine living without it. You’re commiting the same mistake I was doing in my previous posts, you’re taking yourself as an standard.

Who said I was taking myself as the standard? I merely stated what the environment we live in assumes is the standard. A great number of organisms, humans included, utilize sound as a means to survive and flourish within the environment they live in because the environment demands it. We aren’t the ones who dictate what the “standard” is, it’s the environment. If we did not crucially need the sense of sound to survive and flourish, we wouldn’t have ears, or ears and its subsequent functions would be a rarity, or they would be severely underdeveloped.

You can only consider being deaf as a disability if you’ve heard all your life and suddenly you lose this sense, because in this situation you would be losing the sense, you’d know that you lack a sense that you had before. If you never had such sense then you’re missing nothing.

Let’s assume I am deaf from birth. Are you saying that if I come across a person, and later on many more people, with the ability to hear sound and see them utilizing that ability (ie: listening to music, checking traffic before crossing the street, responding to distant auditory cues, etc.) that I wouldn’t feel like I’m missing out? I’m sorry, but that has got to be one of the most arrogant, insensitive, downright insulting assumptions I have ever heard about people with disabilities, regardless of whether they lost or never had one or more of their senses.

Oh, but wait. This is nothing but another emotional appeal. My bad, good sirs.

The fact that you don’t see the reason (neither do I) is not an argument against giving the possibility of introducing this “variations” (not the best word but I am reticent to use the word disability in these cases). Also, as SaintAjora has said a thousand times “Why does there need to be an advantage?”

I can say the same in regards to an argument in favor of introducing such “variations”. I don’t see a reason why I’d want to give my kid a disability, but how would that culminate in intentional disabling to be acceptable?

As for why there needs to be an advantage, ask Charles Darwin.

Who’s Dalewyn?

You just quoted and responded to him.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Engineering Disabilities

No, they aren’t. The reason you think so is because your opinion is that there is a regular lifestyle that people should be part of. Guess what? People don’t need to live your little ideal to be perfectly happy and healthy.

The sense of sound, no matter how much one wants to downplay it as irrelevant and unnecessary, serves a vital role in allowing a person to understand what is going on around him. The sense of sound is by far the quickest out of all the senses in reaction time and boasts the largest effective coverage range with a complete 360-degree coverage not afforded by any other sense save perhaps smell and touch. The sense of sound also takes a primary role in finalizing what we see from our visual input; sound has a very large inpact on what we “see”.

Of course, the sense of sound can indeed be partially covered for by the other senses if it is lacking, but to lack auditory input is a severe liability when compared to a normal person who can receive auditory input.

I like to think of this whole issue as a Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet with 1 of its 4 engines dead. I assume we all know that all Boeing 747s have 4 engines normally by specification and design. However, a 747 does not necessarily require all 4 of its engines to stay flying; if 1 of the 4 engines fail the remaining 3 can just work overtime to compensate.

The lack of a 4th engine does not in any way severely impair the 747’s function to fly, but then I ask this: Should Boeing build its 747s with 4 engines, but 1 of the engines not working? The answer is no. That particular 747 has a difference and a disability in the form of a non-working 4th engine (or in the context of this topic, deafness) and, while certainly able to fly like any other 747, won’t be able to keep pace without forming its own techniques to compensate and/or support from the air and ground crews (and even then it may not keep pace). The reduction in reliability (another engine dies, 2 engines remain, or “deaf + blind later on = now what?”) is simply the icing on the cake.

An even more concise and relatable comparison is a modern computer without a mouse: The computer can function properly without a mouse, as it was initially designed with only a keyboard in mind and later “evolved” to have a mouse for added input capability, but the lack of a mouse would severely hamper what it can do today. Certainly the lack of a mouse can be worked around, but why would anyone build or buy a modern computer without a mouse? And even if someone did, what is the benefit? And, assuming we aren’t replacing parts, what happens if the keyboard dies?

Long story short: I do not see why or how anyone would choose to deliberately make their child deaf. What right do we have to intentionally bar a person, your children or otherwise, from a sense they would otherwise be born with? What are the potential benefits (if any)?

Semi-unrelated babbling:
For the record I won’t be keeping tabs on this topic. 5~6 pages worth of various arguments brought forth followed by a relative “NO U” (read: “Emotional Appeal”) is hardly an environment I want to debate in, as much as this topic interests me. I care not whether I come across as arrogant for saying this, but I expected better when I saw a 7-page topic at the top of Serious Discussions.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shutting down OneManga a good move?

I honestly don’t see the problem with this. All this is doing is bringing the status quo back to what it was half a decade or so ago.

Back in the day, I remember how if we wanted to read scanlated manga we’d go to the actual scanlators themselves and download the scanlated manga on to our hard drives. There was even a program (CDisplay, for those that know/remember) designed specifically to view a sequential collection of images such as manga.

Scanlations were available, but much like fansubbed anime, it asked the consumer to come to them rather than the content going to the consumer and the locations of the scanlators were spread thinly all over the internet, barring perhaps IRC (which is itself naturally discouraging an Average Joe from approaching). Scanlated manga was never as big as it was today back then in terms of distribution, though the popularity of manga has always been great.

What is happening right now, then, is the systematic take down of sites that actively collect and exhibit scanlated manga on a massive scale. It’s not the scanlations themselves that the publishers find an eyesore (at least not as much as an eyesore), but rather the ridiculously large scale distribution of the scanlations in a central location such as OneManga and Mangafox. Sites like OneManga have achieved a level that will in fact severely hamper marketing of official manga merchandise. It’s the level of ease with which to read scanlations that sites like OneManga provide that the publishers wish to kill off before the publishers dare to invest money into a market. The demand is clearly there, but with sites like OneManga around, will their investments turn around and result in a profit? The answer to such a question is inconclusive and such an answer is not sound enough for business.

Shutting down scanlators and raw providers (initial scanners of manga) is as much an impossible feat as making pigs fly over the moon, but shutting down sites that actively collect and exhibit scanlations for free are in fact very possible and will in fact make the chances of turning a profit from any investments more likely through the increase in difficulty of obtaining illegal free alternatives.

The idea is nothing new, is unsurprising, and sites like OneManga were in for it sooner or later. They dared to go where no other form of piracy dared: Free, convenient, centralized, infamous, grand-scale distribution of illegal material where anyone without prior knowledge could find. Potential profit on the whole enterprise from ads (and memberships?) is simply the icing on the cake. One would do well to consider why anime fansubbers always insisted their releases never be streamed on YouTube and the like, anime and manga might be different but this is the result they foresaw.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Instructions

Unless you properly format that Great Wall of Text no one is going to read it no matter how helpful it may be.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Any reason for a 2 minutes timer?

If the 2-3 minutes timer (thanks for clarifying BCLEGENDS) runs out, you lose no questions asked.

Actually, whether you win or lose depends on whether you out-killed your enemy (that is, killed more units than your enemy). Not sure how it works when one side is defending a location, though.

Topic: Kongregate / Will/Should Runescape Get Badges?

Originally posted by doublecross:

I believe. What I know for sure is that the Konduit platform allows Java Script games such as Sacred Seasons, Dream World and theoretically Runescape to get badges.

Java !== Javascript.

Correct me if I’m talking about something completely off-topic.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Glory of Legion

Originally posted by thecheaterdude:

The GoL expansion will be awesome in my opinion because of equipment maintaining. Making some god-like equipment. Aw yeah.

Too bad the battle system where we use aforementioned equipment is bugged and will never be properly addressed.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

I apologize I dropped out of the discussion rather abruptly yesterday, Kirkiss. This was taking up more time than I had planned on and I had other stuff to do. Anyway, time to barge my way into this mess again:

@Dalewyn – I know it doesn’t concern itself with that part, but it should.

One second, let me simplify the argument for the arena:
For:

1)T10’s are hard to fight against in the beginner and other low-level arena’s.

2)They can use those T10’s on other hero’s in higher level arena’s.

3)They can easily produce (With some time and minor resources) low-tier units for low level arena.

4)They could just as easily wait for there hero to level up to get to the “T10 point.”

1. Not if both sides utilize T10s. This is really a moot point since this would apply in any arena where one side has T10s while the other does not.

2. Indeed, nothing to refute here.

3. Aside from a few exceptions (T2 scout, T3/4 load carriers, and T8s), producing lower tier units is actually a waste of time and resources. Arena is only a small part of what we have our armies do and in actual combat we want to have stronger units available for a higher chance of victory.

4. What exactly is the "T10 point" when in the context of hero level? A hero that is able to carry T10s is, in effect, at that "T10 point".

-----------------

T10s should predominately focus on fighting other T10s. Obviously it’s allowable, but should it be done is the question.

Why?

The scenario showed people of a higher rank trolling global chat abusing people of a lower rank. If anyone of the lower rank tried to defend themselves they had war declared upon them by several much higher ranked players. In what reality is this acceptable behavior?

More than likely, the "lower ranked" players were whining. Given that I witnessed your egoistic attitude first hand in Narc global yesterday I wouldn't be surprised if the higher ranks were annoyed by your (and others') incessant whining moreso than the actual debate of the arena. If anything, at least I was annoyed.

“all is fair in love and war” is just rhetorical hogwash which means “I am not accountable for my actions”.

We actually are accountable for our actions, the "fair" refers to being able to use what is available to you without restriction. If I have obtained T10s it is my right to use them as I see fit within game regulations.

You’re implying that having the T10s isn’t a reward enough, Truth. For arguments sake, let’s say people deserved a “reward” beyond all the rewards they got while leveling and the ability to have the T10s.. Why would that reward be to abuse new players in beginner arena matches and harass the player base who are without T10? The point of having T10s is not to bully players who do not have them, Truth. It’s common sense that it’s meant for fighting other players with them, or close to it in order to build more competitive matches/battles. Not to bully and lord it over weaker players who have no chance to defend themselves let alone win…

That reward you spoke of in very negative form is the ability to more effectively fight the enemy with the T10s you have obtained. Exactly what part of this is unfair? It is none of our concern if the opposition does not have T10s, they simply need to do the same thing as those that have T10s already have done.

This isn’t a debate on any level, these are self evident truths I and Kirkiss have spoken. The only motive people would have to attempt to dissuade or blur the truth would be to justify their abuse of an unintended scenario that has arisen.

What you speak of isn't so much the truth as it is opinion. A badly supported opinion, one that borders on biased dogma.

Note: Referring only to Wingading's so-called "truth" with the above statement. Kirkiss's argument is actually debatable (and that's a compliment!)

For you genius’ that say “but you can log in the beginner arena with T10s and it doesnt say not to”. Do they have signs along the highway saying “do not play in the road”? No? Well,you better run along and play tag on it then….

The two ideas are so dissimilar I know not how to approach your badly formed argument.

Obviously we have a system to seperate the higher ranked players from the lower ranked players, the point was to increase the seperation it isn’t enough.

As far as the arena is concerned, the separation you speak of has never existed.

Why do you need to assume that level specific items and units were designed to be used in and on those levels? It should be common sense that they didn’t create a level ten unit to attack a level one unit, that would be stupid.

It should be common sense that powerful units exist to obtain victory over the weaker units.

Now you get to the point (finally) and show your true cowardice. You think there is no point in challenging yourself to fight equal opponents because of the higher probability of defeat. Thank you for admitting it, my point has been proven and I stand on it.

Sadly, nobody cares about your point if you keep holding that attitude of yours. Your attitude wasn't well-received in Narc and it won't be on the forums as well.

Implementing a tier restriction based upon arena level is not really an option. Either implement the tier restriction or do away with arena until T10. Other wise it’s pointless having “beginner” if it isn’t.

Again, why? "Beginner" refers to a low level hero and does not in any way refer to a player's fame or amount of time played.

PS> “Self” evident truth. Think about it very slowly…. Key word “Self” evident… Self…self…s.e.l.f. Wtf would a concensus matter in relation to a “SELF” evident truth? Stupid people annoy me…

I never knew something was true when only one person argues for it with biased dogma and everyone else refutes it with well-made arguments. Thank you for (not) enlightening me.

Wing, i want your name fame and unlocked tier,

When I saw him yesterday, he was using the same name in Narc and had fame of around 46k.

EDIT: Cleaned up my post, thing came out more hard to read than I imagined.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

I did not put words in your mouth, that there is the “Two wrongs make a right bit” and you are coming off as a warmonger, I can edit my post if you prefer, few have seen it yet, and I will change this to go along with it.

For sake of comprehension, let’s not edit posts once newer ones arrive. The last thing we need is a disjointed discussion from the PoV of a third person.

Yes you did recruit those rightfully: But why can’t you use those in a fight equivalently matched forces?

Given that both heroes are level 20 ~ 30 (going by Beginner Arena regulations), both heroes will have a maximum allocatable limit to their unit count; we’ll even make this simpler and say both are level 30. Assuming both max out, the forces participating are more or less equal in amount from the view of the arena and the heroes. There is a decisive difference in quality if one side has T10s, no doubt, but the arena does not concern itself with that part.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

@Dalewyn – Yes, of course two “wrongs” make a right. Welcome to the reason WWII got started, and thats fact.

Your attempt at placing words in my mouth suggesting I’m some deranged warmonger is amusing, but I’ll tell you that it probably won’t help your case.

You can get just as much, if not more, from your level of arena win or lose.

Not everyone fights in the arena for the exp points, some do it for the win count. Admittedly this partially comes to the realization that there’s less T10s there to worry about in the lower arenas. It’s still not infringing on anyone’s right to have a fair fight, however.

@Dalewyn – Again, it is quality in that arena again, unless the difference is ridiculously high. First strike advantage typically wins there, quality

The difference in T10 count between the combatants actually does make a sizable difference moreso than T6s and T8s would do.

@Dalewyn – Because you can field your best against someone else’s, more suited to yours, best.

The best that a level 30 hero has to offer against the best the opposing level 30 hero has to offer. Indeed, the fight is quite fair as far as arena regulations are concerned.

@Dalewyn – I’m not saying anyone is is whining or complaining, like most of the opposition is. But here is my argument in short form: I can’t win against T10’s, they can fight in a higher lvl arena with a different hero, and get more points for it. They can produce lower units easily for a hero that really needs this, or they can wait.

And why, may I ask again, am I barred from making use of the T10 units which I recruited with my own resources using my own castles? Not being allowed to make use of my best soldiers, which I rightfully obtained, is the true injustice here.

The more this forum grows the more attention it will get!

A humble correction, the correct term you’re looking for is “topic”, otherwise also known as a “thread”. A “forum” in this context refers to an area where “topics” up for discussion are listed.

EDIT: Missed a paragraph I needed to respond to.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

@Dalewyn – You may not have complained, but you would have been irritated.

Was I irritated? Yes. Did I want to win? Yes. Am I going to complain like the next person? No, I’ll become better and take my revenge in the exact same manner my opposition killed me, except with the tables turned, thank you.

The higher level arenas need no Tier cap, of course that’ll have T10’s. And I don’t care about outnumbering me, it’s just when I have a sizeable army for the arena level and an enemy comes in with some T10’s that are virtually impossible to damage with my current units, it bothers me. It’s not quantity, it’s quality.

Once you get to the upper arena levels, quanity does in fact mirror the difference in quality between a T6 and T10. When I come across heroes that have more T10s than me, most of the time I end up getting sent home without making that much of a sizable dent on the opposition much like the case of a battle between T6 and T10. The universal solution to both? Get better. Get your own T10s and win. Nothing here is unfair.

Your “original” Hero once in the first arena will NEVER have T10 units. And by “original” I mean the one you use most in the first stages of the game.

I do not see how this is relevant, especially since I told you I’ve had my share of receiving T10 curbstomps.

And I like PvP, just the developer has to find a proper balance in the gameplay; after trial and error this will eventually happen, they had a trial, I am presenting an error. Stop trying to delay the progress of this game and being part of the problem, my solutions are reasonable, without any harm to anyone, I can’t comprehend why you are so offended by this. I’m not going to get into a personal battle here, that is immature and childish, as well as completely irrelevant to the point of this forum.

I agree that a personal battle is unsuited here; if we really want to throw punches, let’s throw punches in-game in the arena or in a war.

Moving on, the gameplay is in fact balanced as far as the arena is concerned (unit-to-unit balance is a different topic). I am not so much offended as I am dumbfounded about what is so unfair about being able to field the best of your army to fight on your behalf.

Now, does anyone have anything useful, contributory or have a LOGICAL argument (Meaning not, “Your just being whiny! Stop complaining!” Actually provide evidence for/against me, please? Or alternative solutions, or better yet; more problems.) against my current standpoints, such as Jalith did.

You aren’t exactly making a great case for yourself, here.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

@Dalewyn – First off this is a game, not real war. It is meant to be enjoyable, if people don’t find it enjoyable than they won’t play, then SnailGame won’t make money, I don’t have to convince you, and also that phrase is just a justification of military leaders to justify killing to there soldiers, and passed on from soldiers so they can justify it to themselves and won’t realize what atrocities they actually committed. But returning to the topic at hand, you are clearly a higher ranking person in the game, you have a very one sided view, and I am trying to be fair to all. I expected this, this always happens when someone tries to help everyone, and the one group of people who are benefiting in the current system don’t want it to change, even though they won’t suffer a great amount in the new system; it’ll just become a mild challenge for you. Now please go away.

This may come off as a surprise to you, but I have had plenty of my share of being killed by T10s in the Beginner Arena (and other low to mid-level arenas) when I still only had T6 and T8 units. I didn’t complain though, both sides were simply bringing what they had into the battle that ensured the highest chance of success for each side. This is fairness. Hell, to this day I still sometimes get creamed in 71-80 (and soon 81-100) simply because the opposition outnumbers me in T10 count; I am still not complaining, however.

I will even go as far as say that changing the arena to a tier-locked form will affect me not in the slightest, since I usually partake in arena combat in 71-80 where T10s abound. The sheer ridiculousness of the suggestion is not lost on me, however.

Thus, if people find this unenjoyable, I humbly suggest them looking into playing a game not related to PVP (player vs. player) gameplay. The essence of games like HoG is competition and conflict, and everything is fair in war given what is being done does not break game regulations.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

Originally posted by Kirkiss:

@Dalewyn – As I have said, and will say again, I do realize that attacking people is a part of the game, I have done it myself. But lets make it more fair. And no, not everyone did go through this period. Some started on the first day and they attacked people of roughly equivalent fame because thats all there was, or less than their fame. And then the “newer” people get in with guilds, and the supreme ones, because they have connections, and then no one will dare attack them.

@Dalewyn – And again as I’ve also said before said before, I know no one is forcing me to play, but I want to play, and I want to have a chance, I know you only gain, but you can gain more if it’s fair, especially since you can only play every 3 hours without a card. And the arena is beneficial, why would I not play it?

So what you’re saying is, in effect, that I cannot use my T10s in battles like they were meant to be simply because the opposition doesn’t have them? Did I hear this right? As blunt as this will come off, anything and everything is fair in war. If you cannot understand this point then there is no point in myself discussing this with you further.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

All is fair in love and war, the incessant whining here is nothing more than players being sore losers after they were killed by players with heroes and/or units far superior to their own. Note that said players also went through the time you’re in right now and that they worked for their heroes and/or units. Long story short, the arena is perfectly balanced and fair. Players can bring to the battle what they have and can bring within battle/arena regulations and they are expected to make the best of it.

In the case of the arena, the only restriction is that two heroes fighting each other be no more than 10 levels apart (roughly speaking), what units they bring is of little concern. In normal battle, the only restriction is that the combatants be within +/- 5x their fame, beyond that the level of the hero and composition of the army is none of the game’s concern.

So again, either stop being sore losers or get out. No one needs to fight in the arena, no one needs to fight back against a farmer of impossible odds. Any excuse thrown out to the contrary is nothing more than incessant whining coming from sore losers.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Game Problems

Farming

This is a war game and all is fair in love and war (assuming you abide by game regulations).

The Arena

The arena is divided up by hero level, not by player fame. Stop trying to say it’s the latter (and how it’s so unfair, am I right?) when it is quite clearly the former. End of discussion.

Treasure

If you can’t take a level 7 item, you probably are too early/under-leveled for that item. Granted, the items have level requirements, but how it is presented in HoG isn’t really that strange; in the end it’s what you need to do, rather than what it tells you to do, that decides the day.

GMs

Pretty much the only part of the OP I whole-heartedly agree with. However, it needs to be said that customer service is non-existent as a whole; something far more fundamental needs to be looked at here.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / February 25th Server Maintenance

http://www.kongregate.com/forums/29-heroes-of-gaia/topics/76486-battle-not-loading-bug
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/29-heroes-of-gaia/topics/63088-glitches-bugs?page=36#posts-1761937
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/29-heroes-of-gaia/topics/63088-glitches-bugs?page=33#posts-1730585
http://www.kongregate.com/forums/29-heroes-of-gaia/topics/63088-glitches-bugs?page=33#posts-1724108

But I'm sure that this, a bug hindering core gameplay, is of petty importance compared to opening a new server and hosting lots of events, right?

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Refuge Rejection.

You lose 10% of the unit count when converting at the refugee camp.

Topic: Heroes of Gaia / Arena units allowences

Originally posted by Bloogonis:

a T limit doesnt make sense for the arena, a max unit limit does however. beginner arena would then be based on player skill more than, how much allocation you can stuff into a low level hero. 190k-300k sounds reasonable. you can still feild quite a few dragons but you wont see those 100+ ghost dragon 400+ LK armys all the time.

You forget a hero’s level already limits maximum unit allocation.