Thinking of playing - Don't (Chronicles of a RageQuiter)

Changer

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
475
Location
London
If I was a SA with traps in the rank 1 ally, then I think I would let a hypno bribe them to lose score and get more targets.

Not saying it wasnt arranged or anything, I dont even know what youre talking about.
 

Ogluk

Official Helper
Community Operator
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
764
Location
Bracknell
If I was a SA with traps in the rank 1 ally, then I think I would let a hypno bribe them to lose score and get more targets.

Not saying it wasnt arranged or anything, I dont even know what youre talking about.

Its the other way around, the hypno in R1 bribing traps from a solo SO :/
 

Davs

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
948
Location
England
Well, first of I don't understand how MD and Charades supposedly work together. As far as I recall we did both take part in the resistance at the early round, but have not done any joint attacks after that fizzled out. And remember, the ally-list just record actual damage done, I know for a fact several attacks have been tried, both ways, but pulled when defense showed up.

Now MD would have no reason to attack a bigger and more organized ally, and Charades probably wants: a) To get land with as little loss of staff and more importantly need for staff, as possible. If they send an all out attack, TBA would be on them like a cheap suit in a matter of minutes.
b) Killing of all bigger members of MD would mean they would be the only target a increasingly bored TBA could attack. Not a very enjoyable position I would think.

Power blocking is not the same as picking your targets wisely.

Essentially the same thing I said in my last post (which Twigs happily chose to ignore), just far more eloquently put.
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
930
Attacks have been sent either way, including some small rushes from MD coming our way.

1. Why do we need to do an organised attack on a smaller alliance?
2. It's funnier not hitting them just to annoy TBA.
3. Land is easy to get for us else where, MD have good defence
4. We are happy concentrating our rushes on TBA.

I am not going to be swayed by crappy propaganda into hitting MD. If we want to hit MD or them hit us, im sure it will be in our own time when we want to. We have no mutual agreement not to attack each other, i think its just a lack of effort.
 

Dax

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
3,116
Location
Northants, UK
I go away for five days and all the toys are everywhere.
Calm down, children.

End of the day, complaining about 2 alliances not attacking one another on the FORUMS is not solving the issue. If you were as bothered as you claim to be, go to Azman himself about it.
Much the same about land/troop trading. Sort it out, people. Srs.
 

InSoMnIaC20

Head Gardener
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
464
If you know a way of getting a hold of him feel free to share, not that he would log on or do anything imo.
 

LuckySports

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,243
Location
Nonya
i know some people can get his attention on facebook.. though he also tends to ignore people.. so yea :p i reported blatant cheating a few rounds back through facebook and never got a response (it was holy.. luckily someone else got his attention later)
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
IoF im just copying you when you hated on my alliance 9 rounds ago.
I've just read the two threads from then and it's funny how you're saying what i was saying and im saying what you are. How times will change.


Vaguely on subject, I further added to the tooltip that pops up in the new alliance vs alliance combat stats, a "% of involvement".

So load up an alliance page, hover over one of their enemies, and you can see a "% of involvement" for land, kills, and bribes - compare that to "% of involvement" for other large allies around their range, and you will get a very good idea of how much "activity" there has been between them - ie is it a minor amount of privately agreed activity designed to try and avoid the new rules (because 0 activity would have been too obvious), or are they fighting like any two other alliances that have been near eachother all round have been?

The % is a % of the grand total - eg if an alliance has lost & gained a total of 500,000 land against other allies... and only 10,000 of it lost/stolen was from alliance X... then their % of land involvement with alliance X will be 2%.

I'm making no comments about any specific examples, merely informing people of a new tool available in-game and one way that information may or may not be helpful.

MoDakka havnt touched Charades all round? In land or a single kill? Or atleast its minor?
Charades have had 0.89% land involvement and 1.66% kill involvement?

Yeah real involvement, lol.
For me this is really helpful in showing just how little this apparent involvement is.
And it's the reason Azzer put it in.


And Davs, im not ignoring you i answered you along with everyone else.
Nobody has said there is a mutual agreement and ive posted several times to people to stop basing their arguement around the fact they are being accused of having a conversation to leave each other alone. Nobody is saying that.
But we now saying that we can use 'lazyness' as an excuse not to even touch your closest alliance for over half a round?
Is that now an acceptable thing?
You can both spout "cba hitting the other alliance but we aint mutually agreed it" and then you're now good to go?
Doesn't sound right to me.
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
930
Why does it matter if we haven't attacked MD?
We are lazy and cba, so why should we because you are crying? The more you moan, the less likely i will ever be to organise anything.

I'd rather annoy you guys with rushes, then hit an alliance half our size.
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
So you're admitting you can do something (rush us) and that MoDakka are only half your size (should be easy as pie then) but you STILL wont? You're going to continue on with what you were complaining about other alliances doing 9 rounds ago?

So you'd rather effectively powerblock everyone below you, not fight an alliance for most of the round and ask for help at every opportunity. Wont effect any outcomes of the round i just enjoy being able to hold that to you as this will probally be the last real round of bush.

Also i find it funny how you worked with them early round against us, have had less than 1% involvement (was under 0.5% until a few days ago) and then about a week ago you asked them to attack us again. Clearly you do want to keep working with them. Effectively being a powablockaaaa.
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
930
All i hear is crying and moaning.

:D


RushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRushRush

Long may the rushes rush
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
Good one.
You can't answer the question so resort to that.

Typical IoF
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
930
I have, we have no power block, in your view we do!

We'd rather rush you than hit them? Why is that a crime? Yea i asked them to join in some rushes, they declined.

/me shrugs

So we will keep rushing, which it what we all want to do! Not kill MD. Thats our goals and nothing you can say can make this change!

End of discussion for me! This is why i dont usually bother debating with you, you dont listen and have poor propaganda
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
Im using your arguement you spun 9 rounds ago.
So you're arguing against yourself.
You're calling your own arguement, or 'propaganda', poor.

Fine by me im glad we finally agree. :)
That was the whole point of this discussion to see how either A) you guys were right back then meaning you are hypocritical now. or. B) you would argue with your own point of view 9 rounds ago and be wrong then and prove me right.

Good times.
Back to food xxx
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
Another quality IoF response when the facts are put to him.
/me doesn't have a forum signature.
 

Enrico

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
518
Hmm one itsy-bitsy detail that Twigley seems to conveniently forget is that when the Powerblock-issue was solved some rounds back it was due to the top ally having wingmen-allies protecting them. Now the so-called PB is between the rank 2 and 3, and thus cannot influence what ally wins...
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,692
Location
UK
And what you, like podunk have confused, is that im talking about round 31, not round 30. S2N / RRR / Fail / Aili / OF round. That's when it was solved with the introduction of combat stats and the rule. And that's when im pulling quotes from Azzer / IoF etc saying we were powerblocking that round when we were doing half as much as what's going on now. And that's why i find all this very funny.
 
Top