Many agro players fail toward mid to late game because they get lazy. They research things they shouldn't be, and thats a major reason they drop off in their ability to effectively conquer over a longer game.

when a factions affinity and traits is geared towards agressive expansion or conquest to gaint he most out of the faction it seems counterproductive to the player who decided to play said faction to not use it to its fullest potential, its also like letting a force build up on your boarder and not do anything about it even if you know they are going to attack you eventualy because of eticate, sometimes you need to be agressive early on especualy if your area of space is very poor planet wise while everyone else is sitting iwth good and comfortable worlds and you are not, essentualy putting you to death later on in the game when agression becomes " acceptable"



thats my two dust anyways.

owangolama wrote:
noob here. but looking from the outside in, it seems silly to "ban" this tactic. not to mention impossible, since we'd have to come up with some sort of definition, and people would have a lot of trouble agreeing where the cut-offs are. from the input above, it doesn't seem viable provided the other players are of similar skill level.



as a noob who has been steamrolled, it isn't much fun, but it is a valuable learning experience.



but in some ways, the idea of everybody KNOWING that there won't be any early aggression is weird, too. shouldn't we all build reasonable defenses for our empires just in case? but i wax philosophical...

You accepted ideas about aggressive race, is it?

If so, my respect.

noob here. but looking from the outside in, it seems silly to "ban" this tactic. not to mention impossible, since we'd have to come up with some sort of definition, and people would have a lot of trouble agreeing where the cut-offs are. from the input above, it doesn't seem viable provided the other players are of similar skill level.



as a noob who has been steamrolled, it isn't much fun, but it is a valuable learning experience.



but in some ways, the idea of everybody KNOWING that there won't be any early aggression is weird, too. shouldn't we all build reasonable defenses for our empires just in case? but i wax philosophical...

Against you far flung outposts? yes, against a system in your territory? no.



You will require proper siege weaponry to take my territory.

Is this my boy Desert Fox from Beyond Protocol?



I would say that aggressive empires should definitely be accepted. The real question is how viable are they.

I hate it when someone rushes early game. Its annoying. However, I wouldn't try to stop someone from doing it. It is a part of the game and is balanced and counter-able in its own ways. Even if it ticks me off. I tend to be a bit vindictive in-game, so I can assure you; an early rush had better kill me. Otherwise, I will spend the rest of the game making it my life's goal to ruin your system. Eye for an eye and all that.

Early aggression comes at an expense, if you do not succeed, you will be behind in expansion and tech. As someone else mentioned, is not hard to fend off early aggression (am not sure if you speak about specific map settings, or just in general, but yeah if you get a bad start, where you are forced to research something off of your normal start - like no system to colonize at start due to lack of tech, and those systems having some bad or very bad anomalies which will put a big strain on your happiness etc, then yeah an early aggression is too much to deal with).



Speaking of which are there any streams / records of MP games at higher level - I would love to see them

i feel that newer players should be given some slack, and most of the players i play with/against tend to be new, so it's difficult, i don't like stomping somone who has no idea how to properly put up a fight, but short of that i feel aggressive strategies are the same thing as cheesing/rushing in starcraft, it's annoying, it makes everyone mad, but it wins you the game if they don't properly prepare, thus it is a valid strategy.



wormholes are there for a reason, imagine if they weren't, then aggressive strategies WOULD be an issue, lol

War is part of the game, and there should be nothing wrong with early aggression strategies.

Garbaad wrote:
I think if we would live in a real world with real galactic empires, everyone would hate the more agressive empires too.



Yes, it is a strategy, it belongs to this game type and i really like to let them run into a well prepared open knife. Or to be washed away by a better prepared Agro Guy...



I do not have to play like this, Aggro can be countered; so for me: Acceptable

I agree with this assesment.

Malicar wrote:
I love how the AI will adapt to the more aggressive factions. Cravers went nuts in our campaign finally revealing their true nature. The bots were like we can't defend these guys we will have to turn to the hoomans. Lo and beyhold they came to us for help with Cravers. I fully expect once we abolish the cravers things will get messy again. Hey Desert Foxx did you play Galciv2? I'm pretty sure I talked to you on Stardock IRC. If not my apologies.

Yeah, AIs can help you fight against aggressive empires like Cravers. But I remember losing to HISHO with me allied to two other AI empires (Horatio and the robot guys). But that was when I was a noob.



I think you got the wrong Foxx. Apology accepted.

I love how the AI will adapt to the more aggressive factions. Cravers went nuts in our campaign finally revealing their true nature. The bots were like we can't defend these guys we will have to turn to the hoomans. Lo and beyhold they came to us for help with Cravers. I fully expect once we abolish the cravers things will get messy again. Hey Desert Foxx did you play Galciv2? I'm pretty sure I talked to you on Stardock IRC. If not my apologies.

Hey guys,



I realize a lot of people hate players that are very aggressive early game.



Should this play style be embraced as a strategy or be banned from the community?



DesertFoxx out.

Kantharr wrote:
Aggressive playing happens all the time. I seen that in magic 2012 on the 360 all the time (sometimes with me because I will get over-confident xD). But on ES, I will only be aggressive when I see someone play as a craver. I just have the urge to purge the galaxy of all parasites.

Yes. I hate Cravers! Almost always the first civ I wip out.

Well … except when I play them >-]

Aggressive playing happens all the time. I seen that in magic 2012 on the 360 all the time (sometimes with me because I will get over-confident xD). But on ES, I will only be aggressive when I see someone play as a craver. I just have the urge to purge the galaxy of all parasites.

Garbaad wrote:


I do not have to play like this, Aggro can be countered; so for me: Acceptable

Especially if people play cravers or a race with their affinity

Most should know I'm extremely aggressive in game. But during free weekend I have been letting the noobs live and answering any questions they have. I only attack the player with similar points to myself, or anyone being hostile to me. I would like to keep a lot of new people playing, so maybe multiplayer can get some attention, instead of bogus achievement g2g votes and minor background aesthetics that are mostly unnoticed as your eyes are fixed to some menu.

Of course it's a viable tactic. It's like claiming peaceful players are coward noobs who don't know how to fight-it's a ridiculous thought. Each method of play has pros and cons.



So yeah, playing aggressive is a very reasonable strategy. Granted with the influx of new people from the steam weekend, it may be a bit wiser to get a bit easier. In any other case though, full blown aggression is a perfectly acceptable strategy.

I have a hard time playing aggressive at all. Any time I do so it puts me behind to make the fleet instead of expanding and then my enemies just spank me mid-late game because they expanded a lot instead of making a fleet early-mid game. =/