Begin the resistance! | R41
- Thread starter GooDGoodBye
- Start date
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
But has Hero criticised the Combo members who pansied around at their ally HQ scorequeening it up like pros?
if not, double standards much?
actually, he did.. daily! There was one person there that had a reason, the others were just lazy gits that didnt want to get pranked for defense (hence the large-scale replacement combo has had to undergo..)
But has Hero criticised the Combo members who pansied around at their ally HQ scorequeening it up like pros?
if not, double standards much?
actually, he did.. daily! There was one person there that had a reason, the others were just lazy gits that didnt want to get pranked for defense (hence the large-scale replacement combo has had to undergo..)
Except Chris_ and yourself are still in Combo when you were 2 of the more prominent HQ campers... ;o
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
I had a reason.. Chris has cleaned up his act since then
Im confused.
Is camping troops at HQ so they don't die scorequeening?
Is it not simply a survival tactic? Seems even more valid considering these alliances are only semi-ftw and don't want to be pranked due to inc. Seems like a totally reasonable tactic to me.
From all the way over here, I cant even see why anybody would care, apart from it maybe not fitting into the preferences of an attacker who might want kills.
I can understand people being called a scorequeen when they recall from a BR in which they would still win (we defenders are sometimes confused when an attacker would recall, when we predict big losses on our side). But if you recall from certain zeroing (or close to it) that is not scorequeening (what's the point of a BR if you barely fire?). Sending to HQ is similar to this. If you get inc, it is likely that inc will zero you easily, with not much opportunity for you to deal significant damage. Those BRs can, and should be avoided. Sending to HQ is one easy way of doing this.
So in the end, everyone *****ing about this 'scorequeening' tactic, just has their knickers in a knot and needs an excuse to ***** at people for doing so.
Or maybe i need to conform and accept an alternative definition of scorequeen to something like: a person who uses tactics to easily avoid certain death...
Is camping troops at HQ so they don't die scorequeening?
Is it not simply a survival tactic? Seems even more valid considering these alliances are only semi-ftw and don't want to be pranked due to inc. Seems like a totally reasonable tactic to me.
From all the way over here, I cant even see why anybody would care, apart from it maybe not fitting into the preferences of an attacker who might want kills.
I can understand people being called a scorequeen when they recall from a BR in which they would still win (we defenders are sometimes confused when an attacker would recall, when we predict big losses on our side). But if you recall from certain zeroing (or close to it) that is not scorequeening (what's the point of a BR if you barely fire?). Sending to HQ is similar to this. If you get inc, it is likely that inc will zero you easily, with not much opportunity for you to deal significant damage. Those BRs can, and should be avoided. Sending to HQ is one easy way of doing this.
So in the end, everyone *****ing about this 'scorequeening' tactic, just has their knickers in a knot and needs an excuse to ***** at people for doing so.
Or maybe i need to conform and accept an alternative definition of scorequeen to something like: a person who uses tactics to easily avoid certain death...
Tim I have to agree with you, I actually think that sending to your HQ to avoid incoming whilst getting a good nights sleep is more admirable than using sleep mode.
I would have thought it was quite an acceptable tactic for a FTF alliance, but apparently not!
I would have thought it was quite an acceptable tactic for a FTF alliance, but apparently not!
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
It is more admirable than sleep mode, less admirable than dressing like a little girl, and far less admirable than playing the game properly.
It isn't a direct choice between sleep mode and camping at HQ. If you think those are the only two options then you truly are a scorequeen.
Camping at HQ just adds more problems than it solves.
It tells any attackers you are offline and might not be able to send out.
It also tells them you have no troops at home so it is more likely to provoke an attack on your ID.
It also tells them that you can't defend any of your alliance mates.
And lastly, it makes people like me want to hit your alliance HQ to teach all the scorequeens a lesson.
If you don't want to be contacted, don't give out your number, or ask specifically not to be contacted that night. Leave your troops at home and it makes things easier for those who ARE going to be contactable overnight, since they only have to worry about defending you rather than you and the HQ.
It isn't a direct choice between sleep mode and camping at HQ. If you think those are the only two options then you truly are a scorequeen.
Camping at HQ just adds more problems than it solves.
It tells any attackers you are offline and might not be able to send out.
It also tells them you have no troops at home so it is more likely to provoke an attack on your ID.
It also tells them that you can't defend any of your alliance mates.
And lastly, it makes people like me want to hit your alliance HQ to teach all the scorequeens a lesson.
If you don't want to be contacted, don't give out your number, or ask specifically not to be contacted that night. Leave your troops at home and it makes things easier for those who ARE going to be contactable overnight, since they only have to worry about defending you rather than you and the HQ.
Might just be me, but i find camping hq insulting to your own alliances capabilities of being able to defend.
but yeah, might just be me
It also announces to everyone else that you're offline, and you most likely can't get online, once people realise that they can profit in other ways, ie, mass attack put fakes on the ones who camp at hq, etc
To put into perspective, i went essentially UC for a week when i went to Poland, whilst in the periphery of Kiwi's range, no sleep mode, no hq camping, no giving it away, and yeah, 1 inc i was offline for the entire week, if you don't broadcast it, chances are you won't get noticed anyway
but yeah, might just be me
It also announces to everyone else that you're offline, and you most likely can't get online, once people realise that they can profit in other ways, ie, mass attack put fakes on the ones who camp at hq, etc
To put into perspective, i went essentially UC for a week when i went to Poland, whilst in the periphery of Kiwi's range, no sleep mode, no hq camping, no giving it away, and yeah, 1 inc i was offline for the entire week, if you don't broadcast it, chances are you won't get noticed anyway
So youve managed to point out a number of issues with HQ camping. You have not explained why it is scorequeening.
And usually when people send to HQ, they accept land loss as inevitable. Might I remind you that we are talking about ftf alliances here. Thus, by accepting a land loss we only really have to worry about defending HQ if it gets inc.
Anyway, on the odd occassion a teammate is at HQ, it just means that i get the joy of last or mid ticking, which i prefer immensly due to to my route setup.
Its not all doom and gloom as far as i can tell.
Dax
Hydroponics Developer
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
You act like I've never played ftf before, Tim. Every round I play is like that. I have only played to win once, and I left that alliance to go solo.
I never said it was scorequeening, I was just pointing out why it is not admirable.
It is scorequeening though, because you're obviously terrified of getting killed and are hoping that the lack of bounty/eff/honour/fame is enough to discourage anyone from killing your stuff. Or sometimes the even lamer reason when more than one person does it, hoping for safety in numbers.
Dying is something that happens in this game. Dying is what the whole game is about. I just wish people would realise that and give up on their pathetic attempts to avoid it.
I never said it was scorequeening, I was just pointing out why it is not admirable.
It is scorequeening though, because you're obviously terrified of getting killed and are hoping that the lack of bounty/eff/honour/fame is enough to discourage anyone from killing your stuff. Or sometimes the even lamer reason when more than one person does it, hoping for safety in numbers.
Dying is something that happens in this game. Dying is what the whole game is about. I just wish people would realise that and give up on their pathetic attempts to avoid it.
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
I wasn't talking about you, personally.
Steve_God
Official Helper
Guys guys guys... put it in context.
I'm not a fan of people camping at the HQ, however when we (as a FTF ally) with the route set-up we had, are being constantly rushed with Harriers, we simply didn't have the units to deal with eta 2 (after the tick) inc, at all... even if everyone was online to defend, we would always miss the first tick.
Allowing people to park at the HQ when they were uncontactable was the only option. I didn't like it, but there was no other option.
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
Id like to add that you care more about preserving your own troops than being able to defend others. it also gives you no troops to stop land steals and relies on your alliance defending you because you want to sleep/go afk. pretty selfish
not on all occasions is preserving troops score the act of queening i agree with that. sometimes it is smarter to live and fight another day, and as toby pointed out there are ways and means to do that too.
The issue i have is when someone or thier alliance sends to hq regularly, then moans at an alliance who sent at the HQ to try and kill the targets they want to kill because those targets arent home. Then has the mindset to insult the alliance and its members on the battles they chose to fight and call the entire said alliance "score queens" that just shouts hypocrit to me. Thats what i think is sad. Especially when every shred of evidence shows the oposite. Not to mention im pretty sure they only want you to stay when they might win. Yet when you do stay on certain death they parade the battle report round like some magnificent shrine to be worshipped, claiming its some marvelous feat and said alliance who suicided is some how inadequate.
Hell to be honest i cant blame them. Ive seen alot of rank 1 incoming in my time. You have to take the small victories and use it for moral. You dont have to be a dick to the alliance in question though, and try to wind them up and resort to name calling, then go on forums all serious when they respond (perhaps childishly)and rub thier victories in your face for a change, because you riled them. What did you expect?
Last edited:
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
I agreed right until you started going off on a tangent.. I'm not sure you've actually been reading the BR posts from us this round if you really think all that
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
I agreed right until you started going off on a tangent.. I'm not sure you've actually been reading the BR posts from us this round if you really think all that
I dont know what part you think is the tangent. (apart from everything for the past 10 or more pages given the name of the thread) I'm gueessing the "small victories" as anything else cannot be proven via Battle report....I consider anything a small victory that doesnt change the shape or dynamic of the current rankings, and simply prevented your alliance losing more score/land/moral
Although if this is the case you would have to show battle report(s) of us dying
which kinda shows we cant be complete score queens, If we were then kiwi would only stay on the targets where you undersend or dont send, cant have it both ways. [should probably stop wanting to explore the tangent]LuckySports
Landscape Designer
I agreed right until you started going off on a tangent.. I'm not sure you've actually been reading the BR posts from us this round if you really think all that
I dont know what part you think is the tangent. (apart from everything for the past 10 or more pages given the name of the thread) I'm gueessing the "small victories" as anything else cannot be proven via Battle report....I consider anything a small victory that doesnt change the shape or dynamic of the current rankings, and simply prevented your alliance losing more score/land/moral
Although if this is the case you would have to show battle report(s) of us dying
your tangent was you going off on how much you think we enjoy or appreciate or love or whatever word fits (none seem to fit it quite right) the battles.. Your post started off about HQ camping, and ended up on being called score-queens for recalling on an attack..
Btw - there are Scorequeens (who try to avoid troop loss anytime) and scorequeens (who only avoid unnecessary troops loss, except when defending) I'm not a particularly big fan of either, but I would much rather have someone that defends and stays than someone that calls it a land hit if there's any chance of not winning the BR
Hamilton
Tree Surgeon
Leeroy's suicide
Battle Report - Defending Combo
[range] 100,000,000 allied Psychopathic Android attacked, killing 25,526,511 hostile staff.
[range] 84,425,007 allied Secret Agent attacked, killing 361,534,184 hostile staff.
[range] 113,438,464 allied Vampire attacked, killing 275,284,418 hostile staff.
[raised] 1,712,841 corpses twitched into life, becoming Lesser Vampire.
[range] 91,067,576 hostile Vampire attacked, killing 114,877,237 allied staff.
[raised] 2,620,308 corpses twitched into life, becoming Lesser Vampire.
[range] 77,734,539 allied Harrier attacked, killing 83,536,947 hostile staff.
[range] 3,651,623 hostile Gargoyle attacked, killing 8,595,333 allied staff.
[range] 24,458,092 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 20,451,566 hostile staff.
[range] 22,868,047 allied Ranger attacked, killing 25,153,976 hostile staff.
[range] 7,074 allied Werewolf attacked, killing 4,839 hostile staff.
[range] 28,966,153 allied Apache Longbow attacked, killing 31,967,034 hostile staff.
[range] 23,825,702 allied Tyrant Drone attacked, killing 1,540,525 hostile staff.
Died: 825,000,000 [£17,150,000,000,000] enemies dead. 123,472,570 [£3,461,185,109,000] friendlies dead.
Converted: 1,712,841 [£27,405,456,000] enemies converted. 2,620,308 [£41,924,928,000] friendlies converted.
Battle Report - Defending Combo
[range] 100,000,000 allied Psychopathic Android attacked, killing 25,526,511 hostile staff.
[range] 84,425,007 allied Secret Agent attacked, killing 361,534,184 hostile staff.
[range] 113,438,464 allied Vampire attacked, killing 275,284,418 hostile staff.
[raised] 1,712,841 corpses twitched into life, becoming Lesser Vampire.
[range] 91,067,576 hostile Vampire attacked, killing 114,877,237 allied staff.
[raised] 2,620,308 corpses twitched into life, becoming Lesser Vampire.
[range] 77,734,539 allied Harrier attacked, killing 83,536,947 hostile staff.
[range] 3,651,623 hostile Gargoyle attacked, killing 8,595,333 allied staff.
[range] 24,458,092 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 20,451,566 hostile staff.
[range] 22,868,047 allied Ranger attacked, killing 25,153,976 hostile staff.
[range] 7,074 allied Werewolf attacked, killing 4,839 hostile staff.
[range] 28,966,153 allied Apache Longbow attacked, killing 31,967,034 hostile staff.
[range] 23,825,702 allied Tyrant Drone attacked, killing 1,540,525 hostile staff.
Died: 825,000,000 [£17,150,000,000,000] enemies dead. 123,472,570 [£3,461,185,109,000] friendlies dead.
Converted: 1,712,841 [£27,405,456,000] enemies converted. 2,620,308 [£41,924,928,000] friendlies converted.