Sexy Grannies - I declare war | R30

[Dark_Angel]

Note to self and to others - Darkmane isn't a reliable trustworthy ally player.

Note to self, those involved in a power block have lost any respect from me =)

Silence's Alliance History:
Round 18 - Member of the Powerblock alliances Cappuccino & Surreal.
Round 17 - Member of the Powerblock alliances Symbiosis & Valhalla.

Nuff said

You should learn your bush history lessons Steve. Those were not powerblocks.

Nuff said ?

I was in Valhalla. And though my memory sucks, I can quite clearly remember working very closely with Symbiosis.

How was it not a powerblock? - Oh, they didnt come under the banner "TBA" Ofc, how silly of me

 

[f0xx]

Note to self and to others - Darkmane isn't a reliable trustworthy ally player.

Note to self, those involved in a power block have lost any respect from me =)

Silence's Alliance History:
Round 18 - Member of the Powerblock alliances Cappuccino & Surreal.
Round 17 - Member of the Powerblock alliances Symbiosis & Valhalla.

Nuff said

You should learn your bush history lessons Steve. Those were not powerblocks.

Nuff said ?

I was in Valhalla. And though my memory sucks, I can quite clearly remember working very closely with Symbiosis.

How was it not a powerblock? - Oh, they didnt come under the banner "TBA" Ofc, how silly of me

Your memory serves you right. You seem to have deliberately forgotten though, that at that aNAPs still existed, so two alliances working as one group was the norm. If we draw a parallel from this round to that round and create a powerblock equal to TBA, Sym and Valhalla should have had 6 alliances working as one

 

[Dark_Angel]

Ofc they were aNapped, but they were a powerblock regardless

I only mention it because we all too often forget that powerblocks' used to be the norm, and people who should know better make out that TBA is the first and only powerblock that has ever existed.

Bring on round 31

 

[Steve_God]

Norm or not, it was a powerblock of 40 members both times.
They could have easily split and warred with each other to secure the 'Rank 1 win' with the other.

I'm not denying that our current powerblock is in anyway 'good' - I'm just making a point about Silence trying to take a moral high ground against something that he was involved with for 2 rounds running previously

 

[f0xx]

Now you guys are getting really hilarious.

When ANY group is made out of 40 players, and the group that wins the round is made out of 40 as well, then that is not a powerblock.

When any group is made out of 20, and the winning group is made out of 60, then this is a powerblock.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I don't base my definition of a powerblock on numbers. I base it on the effect it has on the rest of the playerbase.

As such - in my view a powerblock is a formation of alliances that undermines the value of skill and relies more on brute force than strategy.

I refer you to a quote from one of the leaders of the Sym/Val powerblock back when, as you quite rightly pointed out such blocks were "legit":

so that left Welshie running the Sym/Val attacks while I ran the attacks for NRAA. No matter what we did, we encountered no defence, from anywhere. Every attack gained land or killed a player off, it was

A powerblock is, by and large, an unwelcome and overwhelmingly powerful force in the game that ruins gameplay for the mid-lower ranks.

aNapped powerblocks of days gone by fit this criteria quite nicely, as you can see from even the leader's description of the seamless nature of brute force attacking. I see little difference between those days and today. TBA has a formation of 3 alliances, not 2, being the major difference. However again the effect is similar to that of a 2-wing powerblock.

And whilst I'm not denying that TBA is, horribly "wrong" - to criticise it so heavily when you've been involved in one yourself - is to me rather preposterous. (Yes they were an everyday thing back then, but as Steve has pointed out, why didnt these alliances split and fight when they'd won? That is the main criticism of TBA..)

 

[Steve_God]

When ANY group is made out of 40 players, and the group that wins the round is made out of 40 as well, then that is not a powerblock.

Winning Alliances in those rounds were made of 20.
Winning Groups in those rounds were made of 40.

The fact there was an A-Nap system in place is irrelevant - Two alliances, two separate leaders, two groups who could potentially want to be the 'Rank 1 alliance'.

Same situation as today, but with two instead of three.
Again, not saying it's right - just backing up my previous point


Edit: I really should refresh after typing my replies up before posting - it's just getting silly with me seeing DAs post AFTER I've written mine up - lol

 

[f0xx]

A powerblock is, by and large, an unwelcome and overwhelmingly powerful force in the game that ruins gameplay for the mid-lower ranks.

That can basicly be said about ANY winning alliance, even TGA, which was exactly the opposite of a powerblock.

Your definition skills, my friend, suck, and are sadly again nothing more than an unseccessful attempt to justify your pathetic powerblock by using a logic that is flawed.

You never sieze to amaze me, DA, and sadly, Steve...

[edit]

@ Twigley: the only difference is that back then there was an IN GAME SYSTEM which encouraged the use of 2 alliances as means of winning, unlike now, when such system is not only NON EXSTANT, but you also had the game creator himlself saying that powerblocks in general (powerblocks like TBA, not like the ones you are trying to make them be) are hurting the game.

 

[Dark_Angel]

f0xx, where am I justifying TBA?

TBA is wrong, it was a silly idea and its one I won't be involved in again. Done, dusted, already admitted it.

What I have a problem with is hypocrites who criticise TBA at every opportunity, mainly because they didnt split up when they had a clear lead, when they've themselves been involved in a powerblock(s) that failed to do the same.

That is my opinion, like it or not

[edit] And with regards to your first point, as you well know I'm referring to a formation of alliances, not one by itself.

 

[f0xx]

when they've themselves been involved in a powerblock(s) that failed to do the same.

And that is exactly what is wrong, because the example you gave, Sym and Val, Cappucino and Surreal, WERE NOT POWERBLOCKS.

They were a group of 40, fighting other groups of 40. The ratio of the numbers is 1:1. Back then 2 alliance = 1 group. AND THAT WAS THE NORM.

Now the norm is 1 group = 1 alliance. Not three. Your attempt to compare TBA to Sym and Val is just... like trying to compare a lightweight boxing champion to heavyweight one.

 

[Dark_Angel]

And tell me, f0xx, did the game mechanics at the time prevent aNapped alliances dropping their aNaps and fighting it out for rank 1?






I didn't think so >.>

 

[f0xx]

And tell me, f0xx, did the game mechanics at the time prevent aNapped alliances dropping their aNaps and fighting it out for rank 1?






I didn't think so >.>

So just because an ally which wins can kick half of its player and land rape them and in the end still wins means that they should? Just because an ally can win with 10 players means that if they win with 20 then it's a powerblock?

You don't seem to understand. If Man United faces my town's football team, they will not go against them with 6 players, instead of 11, even though they don't need 11. They might face them with their reserves, but it is still 11 vs 11.

Different times define what is appropriate behaviour. Back then two alliances working as one was the norm. That is what was appropriate to do. Now it is not.

[edit] We've had powerblocks in the past too, I am not saying we never had them, but the rounds which you use as example were not powerblocks.

 

[Ahead]

1. - No he isn't. He was huge but my TLs would have wiped his troops before he had time to blink.

2. - Skill to defend one person? He's dead - and we still have a very steady rank 2. He didn't kill the entire alliance, he caused a reasonable amount of damage and is now dead. But if you wanna join his fanclub, be my guest !

3. - This whole "I lost so I'm just going to flame the winners" line is getting very very sad Ahead/Farvie/Fardie, or whatever you like to call yourself these days. Grow up, and try again next round

Perhaps we should invent a new award for you The sore loser award. I can think of nobody more worthy

1 - Why didn't you kill him before he did all that damage to your alliance that made you cry then?
2 - He may be dead now but he obviously made a big enough impact for you to come on here and moan about it. I am already a member.
3 - Sorry I hope you're not calling yourself "the winner" here? From where I'm sitting you're in the rank 2 alliance..? Or is everybody a winner nowadays? Who said I even want to go ftw next round?

I have won rounds in the past, I don't care it's nothing new for me. I don't care that I didn't win, I care about the methods that you used to win, and the way you prevented a proper 1 on 1 on 1 battle for rank 1.

 

[Garrett]

'oh ow my sandy vagina hurts' is what I get from S_G outta this thread.


I'm just mad at FeR for dying after all that work of putting DA from 2nd to 3rd with less than 100M troops.

Now me being a severe underdog and doing that? That is skill. Sitting on acres to a top 10 finish is not.

Thank you, drive thru.

 

[Dark_Angel]

1 - Why didn't you kill him before he did all that damage to your alliance that made you cry then?

I've been offline this weekend, spending some time with my gf.

2 - He may be dead now but he obviously made a big enough impact for you to come on here and moan about it. I am already a member.

Just the principle really.

3 - Sorry I hope you're not calling yourself "the winner" here? From where I'm sitting you're in the rank 2 alliance..? Or is everybody a winner nowadays? Who said I even want to go ftw next round?

I'm very pleased with S_Gs finish - rank 2. And I'm referring not to your opportunist flaming of S_G, rather your flaming of TBA as a whole.

And do you know what Ahead, I wouldn't even be bothered by it if it was a normal amount of flaming. You're entitled to moan that TBA ruined the round. Just not at the slightest opportunity and on an almost daily basis :/ That is what I'm saying is sad - given that this is, after all, a game.

 

[Garrett]

1. - No he isn't. He was huge but my TLs would have wiped his troops before he had time to blink.

2. - Skill to defend one person? He's dead - and we still have a very steady rank 2. He didn't kill the entire alliance, he caused a reasonable amount of damage and is now dead. But if you wanna join his fanclub, be my guest !

3. - This whole "I lost so I'm just going to flame the winners" line is getting very very sad Ahead/Farvie/Fardie, or whatever you like to call yourself these days. Grow up, and try again next round

Perhaps we should invent a new award for you The sore loser award. I can think of nobody more worthy

1 - Why didn't you kill him before he did all that damage to your alliance that made you cry then?
2 - He may be dead now but he obviously made a big enough impact for you to come on here and moan about it. I am already a member.
3 - Sorry I hope you're not calling yourself "the winner" here? From where I'm sitting you're in the rank 2 alliance..? Or is everybody a winner nowadays? Who said I even want to go ftw next round?

I have won rounds in the past, I don't care it's nothing new for me. I don't care that I didn't win, I care about the methods that you used to win, and the way you prevented a proper 1 on 1 on 1 battle for rank 1.

DA cares about rank the way self absorbed people think your paycheck is the only measurement of peoples value.

There is no arguing with him. You serve yourself well by letting it go.

[edit] However, anyone not caring about their value finish and wanna suicide their troops with me again on ANY target. Let me know and my sa are at your disposal.

 

[Dark_Angel]

1. - No he isn't. He was huge but my TLs would have wiped his troops before he had time to blink.

2. - Skill to defend one person? He's dead - and we still have a very steady rank 2. He didn't kill the entire alliance, he caused a reasonable amount of damage and is now dead. But if you wanna join his fanclub, be my guest !

3. - This whole "I lost so I'm just going to flame the winners" line is getting very very sad Ahead/Farvie/Fardie, or whatever you like to call yourself these days. Grow up, and try again next round

Perhaps we should invent a new award for you The sore loser award. I can think of nobody more worthy

1 - Why didn't you kill him before he did all that damage to your alliance that made you cry then?
2 - He may be dead now but he obviously made a big enough impact for you to come on here and moan about it. I am already a member.
3 - Sorry I hope you're not calling yourself "the winner" here? From where I'm sitting you're in the rank 2 alliance..? Or is everybody a winner nowadays? Who said I even want to go ftw next round?

I have won rounds in the past, I don't care it's nothing new for me. I don't care that I didn't win, I care about the methods that you used to win, and the way you prevented a proper 1 on 1 on 1 battle for rank 1.

DA cares about rank the way self absorbed people think your paycheck is the only measurement of peoples value.

There is no arguing with him. You serve yourself well by letting it go.

[edit] However, anyone not caring about their value finish and wanna suicide their troops with me again on ANY target. Let me know and my sa are at your disposal.

I play to win Garrett :s

It just so happens playing to win means caring about your value :/

I apologise if that offends you, but I'm entitled to have a playstyle

Furthermore, if you can name me a round in which someone has done well, value wise, without caring about their score, do let me know... (think carefully about your definition of doing well.)

 

[Garrett]

1) not talking to you. I was trying to advise ahead.

2) i said nothing about your playstyle. if you think I did, then you missed the point of my post entirely. which is my problem with you to begin with.

3) thank you and have a nice day.

 

[Dark_Angel]

1 - Well you're discussing me, so I'm talking to you

2 - Oh right o.0

Also, you should probably edit your first post to "my remaining SA"

 

[Garrett]

It's ok troller, I said what I said.

It's not my fault you don't understand.