WAR!

[Ruddertail]

But then you have the most net in a game of one, and that's no more of a victory then smashing an anthill if you're an elephant. Victory = (Highest Net + large player base.)

[Zephyrus]

But then you have the most net in a game of one, and that's no more of a victory then smashing an anthill if you're an elephant. Victory = (Highest Net + large player base.)

So? If said person believes it, then in his/her eyes, it is victory.

[Ruddertail]

I suppose... Though, if they consider that a victory, I pity them in real life.

[Zephyrus]

I suppose... Though, if they consider that a victory, I pity them in real life.

I wouldn't. Said person, however stubborn, would be extremely motivated to excel.

[Ruddertail]

But if they consider victory over the weak as good as victory of the strong, then they'll just go after the weak. And they'll be a bully, and a jerk, and be generally disliked. They won't be motivated to excell, they'll be motivated to take others down, rather then building themselves up.

[The Beatles]

Exactly. They'll start beating their wives too, in another 25 years.

[Zephyrus]

A victory is a victory, whether you get it from bettering yourself or worsening others. In a utopia, sure, we want to go by the former route. But in a war game, both are perfectly valid.

And it's not going the weak if you're killing those who are considered strong.

Beatles, I take it that's sarcasm?

[Ruddertail]

Yes, but we're not talking about worsening others, we've talking about eliminating others, thus making it so they have to do nothing the achive what they want. And in real life, someone who tries to do that, he'll end up being disliked, because in real life, to eliminate compition, you have to be either a liar, a gossiper and a spy (so you have something to gossip about) or a murderer. But in a war game, yes, doing damage to others can work. However, killing normally just results in you being killed back. So you never really further youself, just run up your kill count and make people hate you...

[Zephyrus]

You're assuming that this person cares about your opinion of him/her.
To each his/her own, and you've no authority now to enforce otherwise.

[The Beatles]

Of course, I was trying to show Ruddertail where generalizations can go.

[Ruddertail]

The may not care about my opinion at this point. But if you try to carry that kind of philosophy over into real life, you're asking for trouble. That's the point I'm trying to make. That philosophy, beating everybody else up to get ahead, might work on FAF, but it's not going to work in real life. That's the point I was trying to make.

And I doubt it will work very well on FAF. It gets you a lot of kills, I guess, so if that's important to you, that's fine. If dominece is what you're after, the only way you'll achive that is by driving everybody else away.

[yellow]

an eye for an eye leaves the world blind and stumbling. -gaundi-

anyway i see it 2 ways. if u attack everyone evenly they all might retalate or u can just attack one or 2 people heavly and hope to hold out on just a few of them. there strengh should be realitive to urs though... i try not to take anyone under 10k unless they need to fry!!!! yah...

[The Beatles]

Yeah but a world full of blindness isn't really an issue when you use your next batch of turns. You can regenerate everything.

[Ruddertail]

Gondi assumed that someone would be dumb enough to take the the first eye in each case.

[yellow]

its a figure of speech...... ugh hey anyway kill them with posion and its hard to trace back to urself