51 awards discussions

['Tiger']

Thats Brandon.

 

[Spiky Spoon]

oh i know. i wanted to kick him, but the powers that be didn't. lol

 

[flameharvester]

... Removing logic.....
... Logic removal complete.....
... Removing Discourse.....
... Discourse removal complete.....
... Removing Common Decency.....
... ERROR...
... ERROR...
..................
... Could not locate line common decency.....
... No Common Decency on internet.....

 

[Garrett2]

back in your hole flamey! logic and discourse has no place here. (i still love you tho, mmm bacon sammiches.)

 

[flameharvester]

sigh, I doubt I will ever understand the single minded insanity with which these forums are filled.

/me relurks

 

[Max]

* Player of the Round - Solo - Shronock was always a challenge to land on, at his height in the round I simply couldn't beat him!

Usually Max is a benign creature, but in this case I feel quite irritated - Anybody can send pure CG to an ID picked from a hat for easy land (I did it in R40-something in Jukebox, but at least I hounded alliances with them), but to judge a solo on their ability to stop a pure CG player in the R1 alliance attacking constantly at +2 doesn't necessarily make them brilliant at playing solo. Not that this is to take anything away from what Shronock achieved, it's just an observation that you can't judge a solo on that alone.

That's fair enough Dax and I appreciate your point of view. It may help to further justify my choice here. I would personally judge a solo player on the following qualities:

1) Impact on the round as a whole (is he hounding big alliances / bounty hunting / terrorising the alliances around him?)

2) Survivability (is he tactically sound when faced with odds seemingly overwhelmingly against his favour?)

3) Achievement (has he achieved any particular goal or statistic? the more difficult the better)

Now I can clearly only judge these factors based on the information available to me through statistics or personal experience.

There are no solos at all that stand out for me with regards to 1) this round, they seem to be on the whole an introverted and turtling bunch.

With regards to 3) I see one solo who achieved a Glorious h/f rating, but I have no concept of his survivability or impact on anyone else. I see one solo who achieved rank 1 effectiveness through arson rushing PoMs. And I see Shronock with rank 1 briber, rank 1 had killed and rank 1 damage taken. Out of those three the latter for me is the most impressive.

That leaves us with 2). Clearly in raw terms the multis were the best survivors but also discounted. I had the opportunity to try and land on most of the solos in the top 100 so my personal experience is quite fair I think. Two solos stood out as having the better tactics - one was Arild (who always bought up just the right and efficient amount of troops, while also ensuring that if I had sent more I would have triggered). The other was Shronock - there was an incredibly slim margin for error and we had an immensely fun "cat and mouse" game for a few weeks. Just when I thought he was offline, he'd pop on and buy more. He had a good ratio of troops. The BRs were just SO CLOSE and he'd often have a high AR as an active puppet. He attacked a lot, which made it hard to calculate AR. All in all, in my experience, he was a magnificent adversary, and on top of it all we shared a bit of light hearted banter

So I do agree with you Dax, I'm just afraid that an ability to stop a massive CG incoming was my main way of differentiating the top solos, as nothing else really stood out on the other "feats" of good solo play. Worth pointing this out though.

 

[Dax]

In regards to effectiveness I wasn't intentionally spamming for that, it was just to get as large a list of NLD disabled as possible!

And back when you were attacking, Twiglet was my totally inactive Pnap - Whereas now I have ToY back the defence has gone back to becoming a fortress of snarling teeth and steel.

Now to me, land as a solo is replaceable - It's sometimes a necessary sacrifice for the long term good of keeping your troops to simply take more with. So in the long run, Shronock and ArilD may have repelled yourself - But they aren't so great at repelling everybody else (ahem, bounty).

As I said, stopping a pure CG player is a whopping hard expectation of an arsonist player with only a striker player to boot and at only one stage I had 1.5m trex at my behest - Otherwise Twiglet was a no show every time. But otherwise the trio of myself ToY and Chris is practically bulletproof in a different way to the normal solo route setups.

Again please don't take this as me saying anything for myself, it's just pure CG at +2 is not something you prepare for as a solo at all.

 

[jamesNchina]

>>* Worst Player -

Brandon. Learn to set a freaking alarm man. How many times did you suicide? 5? 6? In a FTW alliance that's just not acceptable.<<<

Got to love it when fellow team mates vote someone as worst player when that person ends up finishing higher rank than 60% of the alliance :/
Oh and Spiky ... obviously you wouldn't know the difference between "liability" and asset if it hit you in the face.

 

[Garrett2]

Sitting on lands and seeds means you can score high easily. Score never tells the whole story. If one is low on the friendly mobs sent list and otherwise didn't contribute other than to themselves, then liability can definitely apply.

I wasn't in the ally, so I cannot say.

 

[Gazzy]

James, suiciding meant he had easy targets long after we had none. Does that make him better than others? In my opinion, no.

 

[Gazzy]

Also, he screwed over a number of waves, but asking to be included but then not showing up, or getting on to pranks. As our first firing AD, not having the assigned Striker often meant that the other 3-4 players on his target, who had made the effort to be online, had to recall.

 

[Dax]

Also, he screwed over a number of waves, but asking to be included but then not showing up, or getting on to pranks. As our first firing AD, not having the assigned Striker often meant that the other 3-4 players on his target, who had made the effort to be online, had to recall.

The message held within this is clear: You assign the vital routes to people you can rely on. Subsidiary routes can be played by people that cannot be relied upon, although ultimately you should never take unreliable players into a rank 1 seeking alliance.

 

[jamesNchina]

James, suiciding meant he had easy targets long after we had none. Does that make him better than others? In my opinion, no.

sounds like a hell of a lot more fun to play out the round than sitting for weeks with nothing to do but look for rushes or being pranked on to send away from rushes.. Oh but I guess winning and fun are not to be considered when FTW
And I never said his rank/score made him better - but being rank 8 certainly doesn't make him the worst either.
I've had issues with Brandon and others who send and then disappear but I never felt it was worthy of branding (pun intended) them with worst player award.

 

[Spiky Spoon]

Well we didn't pick him or his route. We just had to live with the consequences and he really is that bad. it's not just the sending and going off line. there were other factors.

And Dax, i agree he shouldn't be in the alliance. I said as much to Alex, but the end of the day it's his alliance and his choice.

 

['Tiger']

Also, he screwed over a number of waves, but asking to be included but then not showing up, or getting on to pranks. As our first firing AD, not having the assigned Striker often meant that the other 3-4 players on his target, who had made the effort to be online, had to recall.

Sounds so familiar

 

[jamesNchina]

Yep I agree Brandon should never be allowed to play on anything remotely resembling a FTW alliance. What with his abundance of enthusiasm, genuine effort to try and be helpful and that irritating propensity of his to never be derogatory and insulting to any of his team members.. that **** just doesn't cut it! :/

 

[Gazzy]

You're presuming he only did this once we had won James. Which isn't the case. You also suggest it was a tactical choice of his, which it wasn't. In fact a number of people chose to suicide, fine. But he did it accidentally. Again. And again.

I don't care about his end score, he's not an asset to a FTW alliance. In fact he's a liability. Which is why he gets that award off me.

@ Dax, I agree. But it wasn't my call.

 

['Tiger']

James, he done it in the Adram round. We would end up watching his attacks for him. He would go offline. We would prank him ~15 times but he wouldn't respond a die. He is a liability, and isn't an alliance person.

I hope people know this now.

 

[Gazzy]

I should clarify, it's not his incompetence that irks me. I'm fine with bad players and happy to help any that want helping.

But ... He has the skill, knowledge and capacity, but is too moronic to put it to use.

The fact that he does so is quite offensive to the players around him, in the alliance, where everyone is required to pull their weight.

 

['Tiger']

Couldn't agree more!