N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-02-27 06:57 pm (UTC)(link)
https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/raf/3099609/1#post_50201596

ngl, but I read those and started thinking of what kind of battle this will be as once fodder reaches about 13-14-15 kt, OOF training stops - or everyone will start selling at the prices they want on AH, bypassing the "no mercs" rule (which is already very hard to enforce, like, during last few battles I personally 'employed' trainers to train specifically for me bypassing the official merc threads and how are you going to enforce that, kick out your own trainers who do that?). Literal months of prep... and then they don't go all out? Call me old-fashioned but that's dumb.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-02-27 09:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Tbh, some of the last few battles had floor stabilise at 13-15kt, and people still sent to raffles/PBs for 1-2kr profit, so that rule is just whatever to me. Fodder will probably just stay lower to accomodate.

Same with mercs, I don't care if bank is paying, or someone else who is rich. We'll see how it goes and how many private orders there are.

If they want to have a battle that is more focused on in-flight exlating with mostly raffle as main interest for oof instead of relying on people going in for pure profit, kinda meh for that part of oof playerbase, but it's not like someone will flip battling flights, anyway. -shrug-

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-02-28 03:03 am (UTC)(link)
I honestly consider it a mutual push where both sides are doing a raffle. Not really a battle. But if they prefer not going all out to save money, fair enough.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-02-28 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
It just gives vibes to me that they both don't have very large banks. Maybe they'll surprise me by going all out in every way not covered by these rules, but it just doesn't strike me as the kind of battle a flight would be inclined to unless their vaults were a little slim. So I'm managing my expectations accordingly.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-02-28 07:16 am (UTC)(link)
Literal months of prep... and then they don't go all out?

Not sure if you mean by the flights themselves or OOF fodder hoarders, but I think it was known pretty widely in advance that this wasn't going to be a wallet-bleeding deathmatch - I'm in Nature but not really involved with any of our dom programs, so I'm pretty sure I gleaned the relative casual-ness that this battle is going to be from discussion here. So hopefully no one hoarded at particular cost to themselves in anticipation of crazy payouts that won't be materializing.

Absent that...meh, as I said, not heavily involved, I like getting hyped about battles but don't participate beyond personal training/exalting, so it'll be kind of nice if the AH floor actually doesn't get too high (which I'm guessing it won't, payout hikes are just a feedback loop that way, mercs notwithstanding - though I do agree with you that some unofficial mercing will surely go on) so I can still break even without leveling too ridiculously far.

Only reason I'm mildly disappointed that this won't be a knock-down-drag-out kind of battle is because we've been waiting so very long for this particular matchup and it would've been fitting if it were ludicrously epic and memorable.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 12:13 am (UTC)(link)
Wehhhh I want money wehhh

The no mercs rule is related to using BANK MONEY to contract mercenaries— not "No one is allowed to do it". Any germs and saplings can, and some most likely will, use their own funds to get mercs from other flights.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 01:08 am (UTC)(link)
By all means, cry harder about how you think everyone else is just greedy. I'm sure it will become convincing if you can just wail a little louder.

Not the OP

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 01:20 am (UTC)(link)
I love how you automatically go to attack the critics rather than the argument. You'd go far in politics.

Re: Not the OP

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 07:10 am (UTC)(link)
OP I agree

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 07:13 am (UTC)(link)
OP
Considering banks are there to support the entire flight, forbidding spending it like this just "hides" the treasure and forces individual players to shoulder the burden that should have been spread among multiple players, both donating treasure and taking in dragons. I'm an old fashioned gal and believe dom is a team play, and this goes directly against.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 02:11 pm (UTC)(link)
^ this.

my interest in mercing is less about making money (im always asleep/at work when merc orders come in anyway lmao) and more about seeing each flight pull out all the stops and use a bigger variety of strategies. i just think it makes things more interesting that way, instead of limiting the strategies a team uses.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-01 04:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Seriously, agreed. I'm not criticizing because I want profit. I'm critical because it makes it out of sight out of mind. And any figures on this battle will be invalid to being the true cost of the battle without that.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-02 01:57 am (UTC)(link)
Except they aren't "forcing" anyone to do anything. If both flights aren't buying mercs with dom money, it makes the fight fair. If individual players choose to buy mercs, it's literally a choice. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it goes against team play. Dom teams are allowed to set the terms for battle. Nature and Plague decided that they'd like to spend their flight bank money on something besides mercs. It's not that big of a deal. It's not even that uncommon, they just decided to announce it instead of leaving people wondering.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-02 03:04 am (UTC)(link)
fyi, being this obtuse about the definition of the word "force" to try and make your argument isn't the least bit convincing, and just makes you sound disingenuous

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-02 06:34 am (UTC)(link)
Just because you don't agree with an argument doesn't mean that someone is obtuse or disingenuous. Is this how you interact with everyone who disagrees with you? Because defaulting to questioning someone's intelligence and integrity just makes you seem like a defensive asshole with no real ability to debate a subject.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-02 02:45 pm (UTC)(link)
psst, not OP, just someone who thought a thing bore pointing out. since you clearly don't want to hear it, have fun with your current conversational style! I'm sure you convince a lot of people this way lmao

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-02 05:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Never heard someone criticize someone's "conversational style" before. You are clearly someone who enjoys insulting people instead of engaging in actual constructive debate. You do you, sweetie. :)

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-04 04:45 am (UTC)(link)
My question is, like, what are the orgs of the losing flight supposed to do when they start losing? Buy expensive dragons off the AH with flight funds? Cross their fingers and hope their members start mercing? Train more? Training more is a good idea but not always enough!!

That all being said, I don't think the payout cap isn't as debilitating to OOF involvement as people are making it out to be. A potential 17.5kt return on what should be a 5kt investment (and what, you can hold like 400 dragons in your hibden?) is like, good? That's still very good and worth your time.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-04 04:46 am (UTC)(link)
SA I don't think the payout cap IS as debilitating. Got lost in the double neg there my b

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-05 02:24 am (UTC)(link)
It doesn't really seem like either flight has the reserves to do any of that, tbh. Also, I thought the next bonus coli exp event was going to be this week, but it seems it'll be next week, which means people can train higher than usual. If they can't sell for a good price, people might just exalt fodder themselves instead of going to the trouble of finding someone online and selling. I'm wondering how likely it is for Earth to beat them both just by profit pushing while the exp is good.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-05 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
ayrt

Not a chance - Earth is basically Beastclans Reloaded when they don't have an organized push ongoing. Any flight that's actually committed to winning can (and has) beat their default (or even fest/notn) exaltation levels without hosting a raffle/pb. I don't think Earth has ever profit-flipped a flight that's hosting a non-battle raffle or pb by accident and next week's payouts will most certainly be at least on par with those. (Seriously, even if they only hit like, 12kt for a level 5 those are still damn good payouts compared to most of the year even if they're piddly for a battle).

If Earth actually decided to push, a different story, but the chances of them intentionally trying to rain on the parade are also near zero.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-05 08:35 am (UTC)(link)
"Any flight that's actually committed to winning can (and has) beat their default (or even fest/notn) exaltation levels without hosting a raffle/pb."

I don't think that's been proven, and I'm skeptical that it's true (at least these days). Some flights have done solo conquests and succeeded (like Wind), but to use mine (Nature) as an example, it's either taking OOF dragons in some form or profit pushing, no in-between, and no matter how hard it feels like we're trying (I always train my ass off and pre-hoard through IF programs, and I see many others say the same), even if we're the only flight with any kind of a push going, we get beat by Earth. Maybe we could do better if we called it a solo conquest, but I feel like the flights that do that have IF raffles at the very least.

This isn't an anti-Earth rant or a dom ratio rant or a rant at all really. But I still don't think the quoted statement necessarily holds.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-05 09:52 am (UTC)(link)
I asked once why Plague called it "IF conquest" and got told that if they put a push under "profit", people trained to lv8-10, while the average drops to 6 when word "conquest" is included and there is more participation overall.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-05 10:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-05 11:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-05 18:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-05 04:24 pm (UTC)(link)
ayrt

Sorry! When I said raffle/pb I definitely meant OOF raffles specifically - and was thinking of an IF raffle being included in the "actually comitted to winning" part. So I'm talking about solo conquests or eventful profit pushes.

Let me actually look at the Dom Watch archives and see what flights have placed higher than Earth on a push without OOF raffle or PB...

2022: Water (x2), Arcane
2021: Lightning (x2), Fire (x2), Wind (x6), Arcane (x3), Light (x3), Water (x2), Plague (x4), Ice (x2)

So yeah, your experience is real but unique to Nature/Shadow.

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-05 18:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-06 08:45 (UTC) - Expand

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) 2022-03-09 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
nayrt

Lightning actually just did this, we had a profit push last week without any sort of raffle (we had a fundraising one but it wasn't related to exalting dragons) and we beat Earth. Just to provide some proof that it is possible!

Re: N v P "battle terms"

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-09 07:03 (UTC) - Expand