Verified:

iccyh Game profile

Member
465

Oct 24th 2014, 9:14:33

Furious:
I think there's something to be said here about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I mean, you were at first opposed to the whole idea of the pact, but now you want to be protected by it. You criticize how the signatories play, but you want them to help protect your tag.

Part of the reason I run my mouth on AT so much these days is because I lead nothing and represent only myself; nothing I say is likely to have any consequence because I am not of any consequence. However, that isn't usually a luxury that is available to people who represent a tag, and your disdain for the way larger tags play the game isn't really helping you much in this instance.

Hawkeye:
This game thrives off of wars and bitterness and bad feelings. Those aren't the problems themselves, they're part of the charm of the game and can provide a lot of good, positive motivation. The problem is that the game has become less about becoming the best alliance and proving that you're the best alliance but about grinding the other side into dust because it is more likely you can make an opponent quit than you can grow and improve your own alliance.

Nothing changes without the ability for alliances to be ambitious, which may honestly not really be here at the moment.