Only if you assume that we're all deliberately crafting our forum posts to stay on-message.
Which I do.
Personally, I don't know if Tom would artificially augment the Zuma if they turned out to be losing. I don't know his official position on this. But I sort of doubt it. Based on his policies in other places, I think his attitude would be along the lines of, "If they got defeated, then they deserve to be gone, and if you defeated them, you deserve their land."
Yay. We deserve worthless badlands. That'd totally be worth the trouble. And if we destroy the Zuma, we'd break ourselves in the process, and some other player (probably one better at playing Zumamaster) would come in behind us and kill us.
But, again, it's not like I think there's a solution to the problem. I think the GM has done about as good a job as he/she can be expected to, given the circumstances: but that the best that can be expected is that the Zuma will only ruin the experience for 80% of the players who interact with them. I'll reiterate what I've said: I'd be fine with the Zuma rampaging through and destroying Terran. Do it. But it's the sitting around doing nothing, shutting down every avenue for potential conflict that's bothersome. Every time something gets started, the Zuma come in and shut it down.
People need to stop thinking they can influence IC events by OOC whining on the forum.
This is an accusation without any foundation.
