Ending Powerblocks :(

[Enrico]

i thought the point was to not just make a rule against it because it is so hard to enforce. you can't just say "oh, well he hasn't attacked this random guy all round so they must be PB'ing." and where do you draw the line of "enough" attacks on them?

Nah.

Rank 1 ally hasnt attacke ally X all round, ally X never participate in the attacks on rank 1 ally = possible PB.

Same as the above, but ally X is rank 2... = probable PB.

Same as above, but ally X counters the attacks the resistance does on rank 1 ally = PB (Or rank 2 is incredibly stupid.) Azzer can release his monsters on the two...

 

[willymchilybily]

What i think is the problem is that the most ACTIVE, CONTACTABLE, and experienced (not in caps because 'experience' comes really easily in bush) players of bush ALWAYS make ONE stacked ally. This round, if the power blocked wasnt formed, WH would have won the round in less than 10 days, and it would've been the same old same old for me and many other players who would steal, get owned, steal, get owned.
Also, from Ahead i have learned that next round there is an ally with the best line up hes ever seen, i saw some of the line up, and if hes serious, the next round will be just as boring as this round. i might as well quit now, because those guys are all contactable, all active for more than 12 hours a day, and have all the necessary "experience", yes, they will win the round in less than a week and then we will have the same old thing seed whoring to bottomfeed going on

Hit the nail on the head in my opinion.

shame this quote got requoted so much as now it feels like were just going in circles. but although the points made were good. they ignore the fact that 60 members (3 winged allies) have 3:1 on any alliance they chose to rape.
and being the at the top doesnt necesserily mean that rank 1-60 are taken. they may spread a bit lower.(1-100) this means that there are far more targets as a whole that can be bashed and destroyed. where as if it was just one allie 20 members. odds would be 1:1 attacking 30% score 3:1 which can be handled with good organisation and the fact attacking at 30% means its unlikely the whole of an enemies allie can attack due to range. but all the defence can defend. but with 60members attacking at 30% means even if they cant all reach a target or its allie members there will still easily be enough members on the attack to fully over power the allie.

hence there is a power block. not just blocking people reaching the top 20 but reaching top 50 or further down. the effect is much larger, yet the player base much smaller(as previously mentioned). and the effect much more catastrophic. and not only that once you have been bashed. you may be out of the top allies range. but there is another 2 allies that can hit you. in effect you have absoloutly no hope without a force of equal size and activity. (aka a resistance) and when it is so extreme that there is nothing you can do it becomes frustrating. and people quit. if there was a way you could defend your self or have a chance. then it would be fair. this is why so many people play solo and i have done before. and why so many liked bunkers. because it gives you an advantage of being able to challenge any incoming if you balanced your military right. but it hindered landing ability. so slow growing. but least you had a chance. people like to think if they work hard they can do something. but with the situation thats form they still cant do anything. not alone.

The game should be like poker. you place your bet confident based on what you know about what you have. and u can even predict what your enemy has. you see what happens when your attacking see what comes up (defence/incoming) act accordingly (run away to fight another day, ralley the troops and bluff it) pick and chose your fights. at the moment the game gives you this ability to a limited degree. but in effect with a power block or current situation the odds are against you from the styart and you cant even take out one allie without being bashed by another 1 or two. whilst being defended against. the problem with top allies uniting is it normally takes 3 allies to take down the top one. but to take down the top three. with such a giant giant gap in scores. i imagine it will take every other allie in the game. or more.


my crap 2 suggestions

• Allie AR (only stun/disable the over powered incoming) been mentioned. not really ideal. but a possability.
  
• the "HARDCORE" war decleration. at the moment you can declare war on any one. and this allows you to actually kill them. actually give them a good thrashing and they stay dead. perfect. i say keep this system but adap it. if you declare war on someone in an allie bigger than you or > 75-80% your size. Then the same rules apply. but 2 differences the war decleration is quicker (by a moderate amount) and any one not in either allie not a part of the war that attacks a target who is in this "hardcore" war mode will recieve a significantly increased land cap (to the point of making the steal useless) and the party at war will recieve an increase in injuries and insurance (making it harder to cost effectively kill the target. thus not only does declaring war allow you to kill your target. but it stops other people coming along and backstabbing/helping either side during the war.

why do this? you can send an attack without fear of any third parties countering because they will make so little on any steals. and any offliners will get a semi/relatively substantial insurance/injury (in comparison of the base line)

also if there is a power block. your allie is getting bashed by napped allies. you can declare war on one of them. then only that allie will be in a position to inflict noticable damge on you. thus reducing the incoming you have to face.

there is also the potential for it to be one sided hardcore war mode. for example you declare war on some one 130% of you, you being 76% of them. both allie enter H.C. war mode (assuming allie 2 declare war back ofc) now the rules above apply. but once the smaller allie drops to below 70-75% range the bigger allie no longer gets that bonus of being in HC war mode. but the smaller alliance does. this means the smaller alliance can only be effectively raped by the bigger enemy. until the war is called off. but the bigger allie can now be attacked by the war party and another without the benfit of hardcore war mode. thus allowing resistances to still function.

PROBLEMs:
neutral waring. if you declare war on another allie similar range to stop your self taking such heavy casualties from another force. using the system to gain an edge against a larger agressor. this leaves room for abuse. my suggestion is a status telling you if you are in hardcore war mode or not. and this should be based on range of allie/targets. and damage done/recieved from the waring party. if hardcore war mode clicks on just after the first battle tick. and then stays on whilsty damage done/recieved by/to targets in question maintains at a certain level. 2-3 days with no fighting. good bye hardcore war mode until you attack again.

the other problem. you will need your allie itself to be notified of your war status. your'll need to notify incoming hostiles that they will get heavily capped for attacking the target as they are at war. and they may even need to tell you what incoming you are at war with by some sort of marker on incoming mob to tell the difference between incoming that is not a part of the war effort. etc.


summation:
in short this will have little effect on the game in general. but should stop multiple allies bashing smaller ones. or stop two/three allies ganging up on one of a similar size. hindering them working together. or reducing the benfits if they do. would you really risk your men to help some one else kill an allie if it meant they got all the land and you got none. if your attacks gave the targets good insurance and that the target takes minimal losses from you in the long run.
would you really weaken yourself and trust that the person reaping the rewards wont just turn on you when you are weaker than them?

this idea doesnt stop a play style as you can still bash low down if you like. you can still gang bang if you like. its just to try and level the playing field. stopping collusion and powerblocks being as effective if the allie is willing to declare war on the agressors.

 

[Matthew]

Two Words:
Creators Hour!


Topic 1: How to prevent Powerblocks from forming/existing in the game.
(i) In-game mechanic options.
(ii) EULA modifications / admin intervention options.

I don't think we quite need to go to the extent of a creators hour. I just think this thread needs to act as a realisation that powerblocks do actually have a negative impact for business, gameplay and the actual validity of alliance rankings.

To make it official in the EULA to have no winged alliances imo is slightly over the top. This is purely because it becomes difficult to distinguish between which alliances are winging and would this affect resistances? As it shouldn't be deemed fair for lower players and alliances to be able to have wings and the top ones not be allowed. Just take the context of this round, TDL/TDT and Eth/RF got no attention in this thread and really they should have. They were both winged alliances and are equally as guilty as TBA. Although I can confirm that both of these previously winged alliances have split.

Ultimately we just now need to move on from this lunacy and a lot of people have said they will no longer be involved in a powerblock. I just hope that all these claims and promises made are truthful.

 

[Garrett]

Ultimately we just now need to move on from this lunacy and a lot of people have said they will no longer be involved in a powerblock. I just hope that all these claims and promises made are truthful.

a glimmer and hope of common sense. all i can do is plant this in the ground, water it, and hopefully watch it grow.

 

[Younge]

Why do you need a creators hour?

You have a very simple solution! Come on... Guess it!
Yes that's right! You drop this friendship bullshit and start playing the game!

Before you all pick at me saying you would say this and that!
Lets just point out something, In round 13 i was in Virus, i was in the winning alliance and my alliance friends decided to attack my pnap... i was not happy about this and i defended her... i killed three of my fellow friends. Yes they was pissed! But i have the best memory of this game! The morel is simple.

"You came in this game without friends... you make some very good friends... if your worried about loosing those friends due to having a bit of fun killing each other then where they really your friends in the first place?"

Look, i am not asking you to dig at me as a person, but respect my opinion as a game!

If i was in TBA i would love to take on another alliance the same size!

It be awesome! Tactics would win it! Leadership would show and most of all the overall winner would be the one which kills the other two!

Just think about it guys!
We don't need no bullshit hour!
We need WAR!

 

[Enrico]

Younge has a important point: friendships are not something to drag into the game.

When you play, any and all can be a target, or an ally, depending on what you need or feel like.

I don't buy the silly "oh, safelist him, he's a nice guy"-crap som allys tend to encourage!

 

[Jerrysminion]

Along with just playing the game,

Why dont we introduce bots through out the entire ranks, including the top 50?

 

[tobapopalos]

Along with just playing the game,

Why dont we introduce bots through out the entire ranks, including the top 50?

Because that would be ****.

 

[Matthew]

Along with just playing the game,

Why dont we introduce bots through out the entire ranks, including the top 50?

Because that would be ****.

And we already have Evo.

 

[CFalcon]

An important point has been missed here. People say that WH/Chance/TDL could, if they put their minds to it, take on TBA one wing at a time and maybe win.

Now firstly, I'd like to know if any of the people making these statements have ever been actively involved in a successful resistance? Thought not. Resistances with far more motivated players have failed against alliances far less ahead on score than TBA.

Secondly, the ability to swap members makes it almost impossible. The difference in score between WH/Chance/TDL and SG or Overlude, while admittedly now quite daunting, until very recently at least was surmountable and comparable to differences in score in previous rounds with successful resistances (or at least good attempts). However, the main way resistances gain their initial foothold is by repeated rush attacks to weaken 20 members with large troop counts down to 10-15 before the more serious land runs start. This round this hasn't been possible.

I've seen many successful rushes, and indeed at one point SG seemed to be on the ropes, but some tactical moving of dead players and replacement with large defenders means that for all the resistances' hard work, nothing is gained. Rushes alone cannot make a successful resistance if they cannot be capitalised upon and converted to proper land runs. THIS is the difference between a single alliance running away and a block of 60.

A single alliance can counter attack in much the same way as a PB, but they are only 20 people and can be worn down with determination. As has been said elsewhere, the incoming from TBA is quite often manageable, and where it isn't a landloss isn't too much to worry about. But it is the inability to make any lasting impression when hitting back that has made any real resistance this round give up. The swapping of players means the resistance can't work on one wing at a time, it's all 60 or nothing. And 60 players means 3x the work for the resistance. Resistances often fail with a regular work load, 3x is too much to ask, especially when a large proportion of the active player base is unavailable to resist due to actually being in the PB.

I'd agree that prevention of powerblocks is more of a community issue than a game mechanical one, but I think this is one area that could make them more susceptible to a successful resistance. Sorting member swapping should be fairly easy to do without infringing too much on the rest of the game.


I did my on topic part, I kinda feel justified in indulging in this bit. The above stuff is what I'm really posting.
I apologise now for backtracking and going slightly off topic, but I had to make these last 2 points after reading through, really got me angry. Aimed mainly at JubJub, antinoobkiller, Eden and Davis:

1. I've been here for more than 20 rounds and have only been in a winning alliance once, and that was kind of by accident. I don't really care if I win, if I did I'd probably try more. I even quit the winning alliance this round. To say that I'm annoyed at a powerblock because I'm not winning is absurd, and the same applies to anyone else.

2. To say that Chance are a crappy land farm that always fake and fell at the first sign of a real wave is, either unknowingly or deliberately, ignorant. For weeks we have been giving as much as WH, been making just as successful defences, and no-one has ever backed out of a dangerous defence through personal score queening. Admittedly our determination has been flagging lately while WHs still seems to be strong, so well done to them, and I have no shame in admitting that WH are better than Chance for it. But to say we couldn't have had a damn good go at them when we were still active is insulting beyond belief. Remember that quite often the 'best' alliance doesn't end up winning.

Also, don't go giving yourselves smug pats on the back because you managed to win a couple of BRs recently. We've been on call to defend constantly for the last 6 weeks, we are getting tired, occasionally an attack will get through. Congrats. It happens. Being the only player this round in both Chance and the 'pro' TBA wing, I'm in a far better position than you to judge, so don't try and talk down to me. I know who I'd bet on in a head to head.
Edit:
[size=-2][16:39] <@Ahead> ROFL
[16:39] <@Ahead> MEGA ROFLS
[16:39] <@Ahead> CFalcons post was immense
[16:39] <@Ahead> and williamxnoob
[16:39] <@Ahead> just rofl'd it
[16:39] <@Ahead> READ IT!
[16:40] <@Beej> ok!
[16:40] <@Beej> all of it?
[16:40] <@Ahead> yes!
[16:40] <@Ahead> its lol's
[16:40] <@Ahead> you will read CFalcon's and think yes he is so right
[16:40] <@CFalcon> omfgroflbbq
[16:40] <@Ahead> and you will read antinoobnoobs reply
[16:40] <@Ahead> and be like
[16:40] <@Ahead> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
[16:42] <@CFalcon> i don't even know where to begin
[16:44] <@Ahead> yeh im not even gonna attempt to reply[/size]

 

[Younge]

Why do you need a creators hour?

You have a very simple solution! Come on... Guess it!
Yes that's right! You drop this friendship bullshit and start playing the game!

Before you all pick at me saying you would say this and that!
Lets just point out something, In round 13 i was in Virus, i was in the winning alliance and my alliance friends decided to attack my pnap... i was not happy about this and i defended her... i killed three of my fellow friends. Yes they was pissed! But i have the best memory of this game! The morel is simple.

"You came in this game without friends... you make some very good friends... if your worried about loosing those friends due to having a bit of fun killing each other then where they really your friends in the first place?"

Look, i am not asking you to dig at me as a person, but respect my opinion as a game!

If i was in TBA i would love to take on another alliance the same size!

It be awesome! Tactics would win it! Leadership would show and most of all the overall winner would be the one which kills the other two!

Just think about it guys!
We don't need no bullshit hour!
We need WAR!

So out of 60 odd members in TBA noone had any comments?
Really?
Seriously?
Ok

 

[Antinoobkiller]

An important point has been missed here. People say that WH/Chance/TDL could, if they put their minds to it, take on TBA one wing at a time and maybe win.

Now firstly, I'd like to know if any of the people making these statements have ever been actively involved in a successful resistance? Thought not. Resistances with far more motivated players have failed against alliances far less ahead on score than TBA.

Secondly, the ability to swap members makes it almost impossible. The difference in score between WH/Chance/TDL and SG or Overlude, while admittedly now quite daunting, until very recently at least was surmountable and comparable to differences in score in previous rounds with successful resistances (or at least good attempts). However, the main way resistances gain their initial foothold is by repeated rush attacks to weaken 20 members with large troop counts down to 10-15 before the more serious land runs start. This round this hasn't been possible.

I've seen many successful rushes, and indeed at one point SG seemed to be on the ropes, but some tactical moving of dead players and replacement with large defenders means that for all the resistances' hard work, nothing is gained. Rushes alone cannot make a successful resistance if they cannot be capitalised upon and converted to proper land runs. THIS is the difference between a single alliance running away and a block of 60.

A single alliance can counter attack in much the same way as a PB, but they are only 20 people and can be worn down with determination. As has been said elsewhere, the incoming from TBA is quite often manageable, and where it isn't a landloss isn't too much to worry about. But it is the inability to make any lasting impression when hitting back that has made any real resistance this round give up. The swapping of players means the resistance can't work on one wing at a time, it's all 60 or nothing. And 60 players means 3x the work for the resistance. Resistances often fail with a regular work load, 3x is too much to ask, especially when a large proportion of the active player base is unavailable to resist due to actually being in the PB.

I'd agree that prevention of powerblocks is more of a community issue than a game mechanical one, but I think this is one area that could make them more susceptible to a successful resistance. Sorting member swapping should be fairly easy to do without infringing too much on the rest of the game.


I did my on topic part, I kinda feel justified in indulging in this bit. The above stuff is what I'm really posting.
I apologise now for backtracking and going slightly off topic, but I had to make these last 2 points after reading through, really got me angry. Aimed mainly at JubJub, antinoobkiller, Eden and Davis:

1. I've been here for more than 20 rounds and have only been in a winning alliance once, and that was kind of by accident. I don't really care if I win, if I did I'd probably try more. I even quit the winning alliance this round. To say that I'm annoyed at a powerblock because I'm not winning is absurd, and the same applies to anyone else.

2. To say that Chance are a crappy land farm that always fake and fell at the first sign of a real wave is, either unknowingly or deliberately, ignorant. For weeks we have been giving as much as WH, been making just as successful defences, and no-one has ever backed out of a dangerous defence through personal score queening. Admittedly our determination has been flagging lately while WHs still seems to be strong, so well done to them, and I have no shame in admitting that WH are better than Chance for it. But to say we couldn't have had a damn good go at them when we were still active is insulting beyond belief. Remember that quite often the 'best' alliance doesn't end up winning.

Also, don't go giving yourselves smug pats on the back because you managed to win a couple of BRs recently. We've been on call to defend constantly for the last 6 weeks, we are getting tired, occasionally an attack will get through. Congrats. It happens. Being the only player this round in both Chance and the 'pro' TBA wing, I'm in a far better position than you to judge, so don't try and talk down to me. I know who I'd bet on in a head to head.

Dude im sorry but you cant argue against the fact that Inimical, SG and Overlude are the best,biggest,smartest Alliances this round. If you say anything else then thats jeolusy from you cause its impossible to argue against facts. Sure you can think whatever about them and give me 100 reasons why WH and Chance are fare better alliances but that dosnt count a ****. This was Inimical, SG and Overlude round and you cant argue against that, im sorry, I know ppl are pissed cause they never stood a chance against the overhelming forces and their coorporation and the so called powerblock.

FFS Im sure im the ****in only player in this game that play on my own and understand how ****in much easier it is to be in a top alliance or having naps or even have friends in this game or being on safelists. FFS, dont you think I see how many of you cheat and abuse AR. Really its beyond my understanding how some of you can think you are good when your not even playing against the best but with the best. Its so ****in sad and frustrating for alone solo like me. EVEN THE ppl restarting and boosting themselves up cause they are in a big alliance.

To see your whine about tba is just showing how complete selfish noobs u all are and SORE LOOSERS. EVERYONE WANNA WIN, DONT ****IN TRY TO BELIEAVE IN SOMETHING ELSE. WAR HAVE NEVER BEEN FAIR. IT IS DIRTY AND NASTY, EVEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.

DONT BLAME TBA WHEN YOU HAD ALL THE SAME OPPURTUNIETS AS THEY HAD. DONT COME UP WITH CRAP LIKE IT DESTROY THE GAME because it dont. PLayers come and go, its like that in every game.

Azzer shouldnt focusing on keeping everyone happy in game especially the veterans, he should try think on how to make this game attractive for new players not how to keep the old dogs happy. They stay or find another thing to do. kk

SO PLEASE LET TBA BE.

Btw i hope this game someday become a pure solo game with no alliances and pnaps. Then you can really talk about the wicked sicked players, noobs , leechers etc.

 

[Jubjub]

An important point has been missed here. People say that WH/Chance/TDL could, if they put their minds to it, take on TBA one wing at a time and maybe win.

Now firstly, I'd like to know if any of the people making these statements have ever been actively involved in a successful resistance? Thought not. Resistances with far more motivated players have failed against alliances far less ahead on score than TBA.

Secondly, the ability to swap members makes it almost impossible. The difference in score between WH/Chance/TDL and SG or Overlude, while admittedly now quite daunting, until very recently at least was surmountable and comparable to differences in score in previous rounds with successful resistances (or at least good attempts). However, the main way resistances gain their initial foothold is by repeated rush attacks to weaken 20 members with large troop counts down to 10-15 before the more serious land runs start. This round this hasn't been possible.

I've seen many successful rushes, and indeed at one point SG seemed to be on the ropes, but some tactical moving of dead players and replacement with large defenders means that for all the resistances' hard work, nothing is gained. Rushes alone cannot make a successful resistance if they cannot be capitalised upon and converted to proper land runs. THIS is the difference between a single alliance running away and a block of 60.

A single alliance can counter attack in much the same way as a PB, but they are only 20 people and can be worn down with determination. As has been said elsewhere, the incoming from TBA is quite often manageable, and where it isn't a landloss isn't too much to worry about. But it is the inability to make any lasting impression when hitting back that has made any real resistance this round give up. The swapping of players means the resistance can't work on one wing at a time, it's all 60 or nothing. And 60 players means 3x the work for the resistance. Resistances often fail with a regular work load, 3x is too much to ask, especially when a large proportion of the active player base is unavailable to resist due to actually being in the PB.

I'd agree that prevention of powerblocks is more of a community issue than a game mechanical one, but I think this is one area that could make them more susceptible to a successful resistance. Sorting member swapping should be fairly easy to do without infringing too much on the rest of the game.


I did my on topic part, I kinda feel justified in indulging in this bit. The above stuff is what I'm really posting.
I apologise now for backtracking and going slightly off topic, but I had to make these last 2 points after reading through, really got me angry. Aimed mainly at JubJub, antinoobkiller, Eden and Davis:

1. I've been here for more than 20 rounds and have only been in a winning alliance once, and that was kind of by accident. I don't really care if I win, if I did I'd probably try more. I even quit the winning alliance this round. To say that I'm annoyed at a powerblock because I'm not winning is absurd, and the same applies to anyone else.

2. To say that Chance are a crappy land farm that always fake and fell at the first sign of a real wave is, either unknowingly or deliberately, ignorant. For weeks we have been giving as much as WH, been making just as successful defences, and no-one has ever backed out of a dangerous defence through personal score queening. Admittedly our determination has been flagging lately while WHs still seems to be strong, so well done to them, and I have no shame in admitting that WH are better than Chance for it. But to say we couldn't have had a damn good go at them when we were still active is insulting beyond belief. Remember that quite often the 'best' alliance doesn't end up winning.

Also, don't go giving yourselves smug pats on the back because you managed to win a couple of BRs recently. We've been on call to defend constantly for the last 6 weeks, we are getting tired, occasionally an attack will get through. Congrats. It happens. Being the only player this round in both Chance and the 'pro' TBA wing, I'm in a far better position than you to judge, so don't try and talk down to me. I know who I'd bet on in a head to head.

Dude im sorry but you cant argue against the fact that Inimical, SG and Overlude are the best,biggest,smartest Alliances this round. If you say anything else then thats jeolusy from you cause its impossible to argue against facts. Sure you can think whatever about them and give me 100 reasons why WH and Chance are fare better alliances but that dosnt count a ****. This was Inimical, SG and Overlude round and you cant argue against that, im sorry, I know ppl are pissed cause they never stood a chance against the overhelming forces and their coorporation and the so called powerblock.

FFS Im sure im the ****in only player in this game that play on my own and understand how ****in much easier it is to be in a top alliance or having naps or even have friends in this game or being on safelists. FFS, dont you think I see how many of you cheat and abuse AR. Really its beyond my understanding how some of you can think you are good when your not even playing against the best but with the best. Its so ****in sad and frustrating for alone solo like me. EVEN THE ppl restarting and boosting themselves up cause they are in a big alliance.

To see your whine about tba is just showing how complete selfish noobs u all are and SORE LOOSERS. EVERYONE WANNA WIN, DONT ****IN TRY TO BELIEAVE IN SOMETHING ELSE. WAR HAVE NEVER BEEN FAIR. IT IS DIRTY AND NASTY, EVEN I UNDERSTAND THAT.

DONT BLAME TBA WHEN YOU HAD ALL THE SAME OPPURTUNIETS AS THEY HAD. DONT COME UP WITH CRAP LIKE IT DESTROY THE GAME because it dont. PLayers come and go, its like that in every game.

Azzer shouldnt focusing on keeping everyone happy in game especially the veterans, he should try think on how to make this game attractive for new players not how to keep the old dogs happy. They stay or find another thing to do. kk

SO PLEASE LET TBA BE.

Btw i hope this game someday become a pure solo game with no alliances and pnaps. Then you can really talk about the wicked sicked players, noobs , leechers etc.

Seriously, i am in TBA and we are by far the WORST, Dumbest and biggest alliance. JJ has even said it himself. We defend well (When we get inc) but we attack and take huge losses. Sorry, but i can't listen to you troll on about how TBA are the best when we openly admit that we suck. Btw no offence to anyone in TBA <3
If i was in-range of you, i would kick your ass with my skeelz

 

[timtadams]

lmfao!

PWND xD

And Grammer = EPIC FAIL

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

 

[Koeniej]

Along with just playing the game,

Why dont we introduce bots through out the entire ranks, including the top 50?

Because that would be ****.

lmao

 

[marvin]

...

...

Seriously, i am in TBA and we are by far the WORST, Dumbest and biggest alliance. JJ has even said it himself. We defend well (When we get inc) but we attack and take huge losses. Sorry, but i can't listen to you troll on about how TBA are the best when we openly admit that we suck.

You sure you're not just describing yourself there Nubnub?

Please. Stop talking.

 

[Koeniej]

An important point has been missed here. People say that WH/Chance/TDL could, if they put their minds to it, take on TBA one wing at a time and maybe win.

Now firstly, I'd like to know if any of the people making these statements have ever been actively involved in a successful resistance? Thought not. Resistances with far more motivated players have failed against alliances far less ahead on score than TBA.

Secondly, the ability to swap members makes it almost impossible. The difference in score between WH/Chance/TDL and SG or Overlude, while admittedly now quite daunting, until very recently at least was surmountable and comparable to differences in score in previous rounds with successful resistances (or at least good attempts). However, the main way resistances gain their initial foothold is by repeated rush attacks to weaken 20 members with large troop counts down to 10-15 before the more serious land runs start. This round this hasn't been possible.

I've seen many successful rushes, and indeed at one point SG seemed to be on the ropes, but some tactical moving of dead players and replacement with large defenders means that for all the resistances' hard work, nothing is gained. Rushes alone cannot make a successful resistance if they cannot be capitalised upon and converted to proper land runs. THIS is the difference between a single alliance running away and a block of 60.

A single alliance can counter attack in much the same way as a PB, but they are only 20 people and can be worn down with determination. As has been said elsewhere, the incoming from TBA is quite often manageable, and where it isn't a landloss isn't too much to worry about. But it is the inability to make any lasting impression when hitting back that has made any real resistance this round give up. The swapping of players means the resistance can't work on one wing at a time, it's all 60 or nothing. And 60 players means 3x the work for the resistance. Resistances often fail with a regular work load, 3x is too much to ask, especially when a large proportion of the active player base is unavailable to resist due to actually being in the PB.

I'd agree that prevention of powerblocks is more of a community issue than a game mechanical one, but I think this is one area that could make them more susceptible to a successful resistance. Sorting member swapping should be fairly easy to do without infringing too much on the rest of the game.


I did my on topic part, I kinda feel justified in indulging in this bit. The above stuff is what I'm really posting.
I apologise now for backtracking and going slightly off topic, but I had to make these last 2 points after reading through, really got me angry. Aimed mainly at JubJub, antinoobkiller, Eden and Davis:

1. I've been here for more than 20 rounds and have only been in a winning alliance once, and that was kind of by accident. I don't really care if I win, if I did I'd probably try more. I even quit the winning alliance this round. To say that I'm annoyed at a powerblock because I'm not winning is absurd, and the same applies to anyone else.

2. To say that Chance are a crappy land farm that always fake and fell at the first sign of a real wave is, either unknowingly or deliberately, ignorant. For weeks we have been giving as much as WH, been making just as successful defences, and no-one has ever backed out of a dangerous defence through personal score queening. Admittedly our determination has been flagging lately while WHs still seems to be strong, so well done to them, and I have no shame in admitting that WH are better than Chance for it. But to say we couldn't have had a damn good go at them when we were still active is insulting beyond belief. Remember that quite often the 'best' alliance doesn't end up winning.

Also, don't go giving yourselves smug pats on the back because you managed to win a couple of BRs recently. We've been on call to defend constantly for the last 6 weeks, we are getting tired, occasionally an attack will get through. Congrats. It happens. Being the only player this round in both Chance and the 'pro' TBA wing, I'm in a far better position than you to judge, so don't try and talk down to me. I know who I'd bet on in a head to head.
Edit:
[size=-2][16:39] <@Ahead> ROFL
[16:39] <@Ahead> MEGA ROFLS
[16:39] <@Ahead> CFalcons post was immense
[16:39] <@Ahead> and williamxnoob
[16:39] <@Ahead> just rofl'd it
[16:39] <@Ahead> READ IT!
[16:40] <@Beej> ok!
[16:40] <@Beej> all of it?
[16:40] <@Ahead> yes!
[16:40] <@Ahead> its lol's
[16:40] <@Ahead> you will read CFalcon's and think yes he is so right
[16:40] <@CFalcon> omfgroflbbq
[16:40] <@Ahead> and you will read antinoobnoobs reply
[16:40] <@Ahead> and be like
[16:40] <@Ahead> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
[16:42] <@CFalcon> i don't even know where to begin
[16:44] <@Ahead> yeh im not even gonna attempt to reply[/size]

I agree with most but the member swapping thing was sorted aaages ago

 

[CFalcon]

No, the ability to swap rapidly to deal with current incoming was sorted. Swapping members to spread attrition was not.

 

[Tombi]

well since ive been in sg we havent had any member swapping between Lude and Inim so yeah you can give that argument up already and TBA were not the only people to use the member swapping loophole, virus did aswell

 

[CLem]

well since ive been in sg we havent had any member swapping between Lude and Inim so yeah you can give that argument up already and TBA were not the only people to use the member swapping loophole, virus did aswell

that's the worst justification of exploiting a loophole. "we are not the only people that steal money from old people and kick babies for fun, other people do it as well so we are not all that bad!!!11!!"