| Friday, August 29, 2008 - 09:43 pm |
Man dub I thought you were interjecting again for a reason that makes sense.
You think that what me or anyone else thinks doesn't matter if I haven't played as long as you or can't pommel you at will. That is sad. That is exactly the reason that the US is having a hard time convincing the world that we are sooooo nice. People are tired of our govt. and the communal dictatorship that you and a few friends seem to think is necessary to achieve someones respect or cooperation. I just hope you are disagreeing with me on a factual basis and not because of animosity that you have as a result of past relations we have had.
Who asked for fairness from secured mode? I didn't. When I payed for membership, it was offered, so i utilize it as a feature designed to protect players from presidents who are overaggressive because they can't handle something that is said in a forum that he/she doesn't own. Or for some other reason they decided to offer it. I have seen my share of polls, and I've seen my share of posts here, I actually took the time to read far into the past as most of them go. What I read is that there are alot of players before me(vet and newb) who have used these tactics and worse as a means to exact a revenge on other players, and that is why things like secured mode exist. If it weren't so necessary just tell all presidents who don't agree with it to drop it, and then they don't have to deal with it. I have seen poll after poll designed to make w3c think that the powerful players are sooo victimized by new players abusing features. And thats sooo baloney. By your own admission, those corps lost weren't anything to care for. Are you retracting that statement now?
I really hope that you aren't referring to this site as a gambling site(glorified or not its a great site) and I don't feel swindled out of my money at all. Maybe i took that the wrong way i'm not sure but thats what it seems to sound like you are implying.
As an effective business model? I heard that this game has quite a large following and is expected to grow, I think that qualifies enough to say that it must have an effective business model "in place". Consider the fact that you have been playing here for months, according to Dizzy, he's been for years, and that is further e3vidence of the successful model that already exists. Lets give an example of an effective example of an effective business model. No personal harm intended. On one side you have w3c aka SC, a great site with many paying members and growing. Thats a sign of success, from a business standpoint. On the other we have DUB, cool guy know it all making music. Not many records sold, no following, few fans if not only his friends, passes his time realizing he's not successful by playing simcountry. I think the picture is becoming very clear. How can you determine definitively what effective is when youe have not shown expertise in that arena. You can't, but it is your opinion. Not to bust you up, you just sounded like you have a masters degree in business or something. Maybe you do, I could be mistaken.
Kain, declared; "you assume . . ." Let's not even go there please. For the record he's free to do as he pleases with the abilities he has payed to use. I have no problems and i have taken measures to handle it in my own way if you agree with them or not isn't my concern. Just remember, YOU ASSUMED.
Communal cooperation and respect is welcomed and admired by me. You have defined my cooperation, or hopes of it, to arse kissing and gratifying the egos that reside in its walls. I'm sorry but if those are things i must do to be a part of the community, I respectfully decline no matter who thinks what. I will keep true to who i am, without respect or regards concerning who or how big they are in the game. The message is simple, if you are cool, so am I. There is no shaded area for me, I am either hot or cold, I will never become that kind of player, because its not who i am in real life or here. I enjoy the community, and respect it, but will not be abused by lunatic members of it.
Again, since you, The great stat driven veteran you are, and you bring up the 20T issue. Let me put it into perspective for you one more time.
The corps that were destroyed, while they can replaced, do represent a lost.
1. many of those corps were producing at or 150% or better.
2. the replaced one, while standing in for the others, automatically lost a third of the total production of the destroyed corp.
3. I'm not sure but I thought it cost 100B for each corp to be built, maybe thats for CEO's only.
I also hope that everyone<<<^^^^<<<< shuts up now as well.