if the wording was ambiguous enough that many people were confused - not just a few people on salt sites, ive seen people in discords and the dom watch thread itself being confused - the dom orgs should take this as clear proof that they should use a different term next time they have a push like this. tell dom watch to call it a soft conquest, internal conquest, IF-only battle, IF challenge, whatever. maybe come up an entirely new term for this style of push that fits with whatever unique approach they are taking that week. but water has now had 2 situations where the public definition of their push confused people, and they probably will keep confusing people if it doesn't change. people should not need to know months worth of dom schedules and stalk FRD to "correctly" interpret the publicly-made plans.
Droplet here, we fixed our terminology and are getting shit on for fixing it here.
"You're going too hard for a profit push, label it conquest." For the pumpkin push, where we had no outflight buy but I believe someone decided to buy mercs privately and we go hard.
"You're not going hard enough to call it conquest." Here, when we're operating the same way, except I don't think anyone is hiring mercs.
honestly labelling it 'joint/event conquest with no oof support' would have fixed a lot of it. unfortunately it's being boiled into one or two terms. with/vs is vague especially to people newer to dom, and obviously even people who have lots of experience with it. it's easy enough to just add some more words in there to clarify shit.
literally just spitballing here, but do you think "X conquesting together with Y" might have worked as a more intuitive phrasing/terminology?
I suspect that, after all this, DomWatch will be getting even more specific than that going forward, but I can't help but wonder if that single extra word might have made the meaning clearer while remaining concise (which I assume was the original goal of the phrasing).
DA In-flight battle, battle without oof (support), even just "no PB/raffle" might be clearer than vs and with.
In the grand scheme of things, vs and with didn't matter, it looks like it's mostly if there would or wouldn't be a PB/Raffle, and "" didn't imply there wouldn't be - ie. average payout PB, frozen at +250t PB, an oofr, whatever.
So I guess it would be easier to list flight: profit/conquest - with/without PB/raffle (dragon buy of any sort). *Shrug*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-05 04:52 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-05 05:34 pm (UTC)(link)"You're going too hard for a profit push, label it conquest." For the pumpkin push, where we had no outflight buy but I believe someone decided to buy mercs privately and we go hard.
"You're not going hard enough to call it conquest." Here, when we're operating the same way, except I don't think anyone is hiring mercs.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-06-05 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2023-06-06 06:11 am (UTC)(link)I suspect that, after all this, DomWatch will be getting even more specific than that going forward, but I can't help but wonder if that single extra word might have made the meaning clearer while remaining concise (which I assume was the original goal of the phrasing).
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2023-06-06 10:36 am (UTC)(link)In-flight battle, battle without oof (support), even just "no PB/raffle" might be clearer than vs and with.
In the grand scheme of things, vs and with didn't matter, it looks like it's mostly if there would or wouldn't be a PB/Raffle, and "" didn't imply there wouldn't be - ie. average payout PB, frozen at +250t PB, an oofr, whatever.
So I guess it would be easier to list flight: profit/conquest - with/without PB/raffle (dragon buy of any sort). *Shrug*
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2023-06-06 10:36 am (UTC)(link)"With" didn't imply there wouldn't be