Godwin's Law!  I win!

I asked mods about this earlier.  Only successful hard op hits are supposed to show in family news, so there shouldn't be an issue with plant false info.

Okay, I should clarify: That "learning curve" issue was specifically to the question of hardcore galaxies.  Yes, there's a steep learning curve in IC.  However, the learning curve of Milky Way is still much better than Orion (If you screw up in Orion, you're done after a week, and you have to wait a month before you can play again).  The question begged there is pretty simple: If you want a big galaxy, you have to sacrifice a good amount of rules variants in order to have a single galaxy.  IC currently has 3 rules variants (hardcore, standard, and light), each represented by one galaxy.  If there are people who only play in one galaxy, it's not out of coincidence: it's because those people like that rules variant better than alternative rules variants.

So which two galaxies get screwed?  Do people playing hardcore galaxies suddenly have to play an incredibly slower round?  Or do new PW players have to play for a week, then get knocked out and wait a month for the galaxy to end, before rejoining?  Or do people in the standard galaxy now no longer get drafting, the primary motivator for buying VIPs?

This is an incredibly more difficult question than simply "I like bigger galaxies."  If you collapse the 3 galaxies together, 2 galaxies of people who only play in those galaxies will get ostracized because the play style they're used to no longer exists.  What then?  What happens when maybe 100 players suddenly realize that the type of IC they enjoyed... is gone, and they're forced to either pick a less than preferred play style or not play?

Using what a race normally has as the determination of what it will have isn't a good measuring system because the incentives to change tactics were obviously not around prior to the Sentinel change, so there's no reason a player would need to adjust their strategy to be a Sentinel if a Sentinel didn't exist.

That being said... going to the races...

Quantum gets 70% research, which is amazing for trying to throw in a third science field.  Additionally, they have 20% speed (I actually didn't notice this), something which may not seem significant, but which gives the Quantam a leg up over Revalons in the same way that 20% makes a difference between the Wardancers of old and custom attackers.  Do you really think it's that big a strategic change for a resourcer to build fleet when it already has the ability to pump pretty good science into construction?  Remember, the Quantam isn't trying to wage a war against a jumped attacker.  The Quantam would just be trying to farm low-NW bankers.

As for the Partax... okay, so Partax and Revalons have the same science (I actually thought the Revalon science was lower for some reason... silly me) and speed.  So yes, I'll agree this is definitely a closer fight in determining whether a Partax would be an unbalanced Sentinel.

Now, as I mentioned above, if we assume that both races will be using currently existing strategies, and simply being a Sentinel in addition to their normal strategies, the Revalon is almost always going to be a pop banker, meaning it's going to have insane planet amounts... and consequently, insane morale penalties on each hit.  The Partax, by comparison, is much more likely to be simply a resourcer, and thus could be much smaller and be able to conduct much more attacks.  That's a big difference, because the Sentinel isn't meant to be something you rely on perpetually. You use it a couple times when not using it could ruin your round.

And the fact that that Zarf loser wasn't around made it all the more great! 

So are you saying that, before the recession, people were starving themselves so they could buy iphones, or are you saying that they're now becoming more obese than ever because anything left from what would be iphone money now goes into more food?

A Revalon player is generally going to be a banker (otherwise, they have some 'splaining to do).  That means a Revalon, unlike a camaar, will tend to have much higher planet counts.  The result?  Unless I'm mistaken... morale loss will be through the roof!

So... perhaps the way the Sentinel tag "fixed" the issue is to force significant morale penalties in this way?

> Jaguar wrote:

> Suggested this same thing in Think Tank ages ago. Besides the anti-dishonor reason retorica mentions theres other benefits of this as well. Can't remember all of em now but one was that it would facilitate grudges through rounds, which is good for the game. People will have/make enemies who they want to hunt next round due to whatever reasons and that keeps people interested + playing the game longer

Let's say I decide for some arbitrary reason that I hate your guts.  Why isn't really important.  After all, we're humans.  Humans can be biased, arbitrary, or just plain stupid.  What matters is that I have established a negative opinion of you.  As a result, I dedicate every round I play to the purpose of screwing you to a wall until you're gone.  You draft in a fam?  I draft in a fam 8 ticks away, even if it's a bad family.  You send out your first expos?  Sweet, let's troll you with a day 3 expowar!  You actually built sufficient defenses on your planets?  Oh well, I'll just lob some nukes at you, I guess.  Really, though, I'm just trying to put pressure on you, because we both know that as long as you know, or think, that I'm going to push a day 3 war with you... you'll be forced to dedicate resources into defenses, grinding your actual growth to a halt at the point where growth is most important in the game.  I may not win the round, no doubt.  But you won't either.  You'll spend the next 6-10 weeks trying to get back up, but probably a bit behind the curve.  Having to invest in lasers on day 3 and not being able to run a proper planet-passing growth strategy because some idiot like me is trolling you can do that to ya.

Assuming for a moment that I'm actually a halfway decent attacker... how does this encourage you to keep playing?  You only have a reason to play as long as the game continues to be fun.  Once it no longer qualifies as "fun," why do you need it?

> Key wrote:

> Zarf.  Were you buying more food at Quizno's, Subway, Mcdonalds before the economy crashed, compared to actually looking for deals and paying less at a grocery store.

Ok, McDonalds Dollar value meals.  Let's say you purchased a dollar item for breakfast, a dollar item for lunch, and a dollar item for dinner.  $3.00 bucks.  Do that for 30 days.  $90.00 a month for food.  Now you have two kids...$90x3=  you do the math.

Compare that to going to the grocery store and buying bulk in order to feed you and those two kids will probably be less than $270 within those 30 days.

This STILL doesn't change the fact that the primary determinant of food purchasing... is biological.

Yes, the average person was more often going out to eat before the recession, most likely.  And yes, there's much more buying in bulk today.  However, the #1 measuring system for determining how much you are going to buy does not change, because either way, my food purchasing is defined by my eating habits.

Really, your comparison written there is terribly off.
1: So when I'm in the happy world, living off the benefits of the housing bubble... I'm eating off the dollar menu?

2: If the primary motivator for me changing my buying habits is economic, why would I then convert to a supply chain which was more expensive?  This is an incredibly simple question.  If the story is as simple as you say it is, there should be some series of economic justifications as to why a person worried about money would then choose to spend MORE money on food.  Even if they did this in one or two months, it's more likely the person running that household will say "Wait... this is stupid" and go back to buying dollar sandwiches.

Key:

Are you saying that people are eating more food because they can't afford non-food things? 

IC will be sold to Bain Capital, where it will be sold at a scrap metal auction, one 1 or 0 at a time.