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}
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