Round 35 Award Discussions

[CFalcon]

We don't grow into your range because we know that if we do, we're going to die as your alliance is over four times our size in score. You could almost say that was "smart" as well. However, stacking four of your members with a combined score of 200b up on one tick attacking us, then recalling against defence from six of our members worth barely half of that score... yep, I'd say that sounds pretty much like scorequeening to me. There is a difference between a smart recall where you would lose more troops than the enemy and running from a battle because you might drop a few billion in score while wiping the enemy out completely, not to mention getting bounty for the privilege.

Webvictim, you seem to be a sensible guy, and you seemed to be so close to getting it right with this post, but you've managed to go and draw the exact wrong conclusion.

1. Generally the winning alliance has alot more land, and therefore alot more score. A massive difference in fighting capacity does not neccesarily follow from a massive difference in score.

2. I'm not in ArMod, but I've idled in the ArMod channel all round, and I've seen countless conversations of attacks where ArM have seemed to be almost suicidal in their attitude towards attacking you. I can remember plenty of reports along the lines "Friendlies Dead 5 trill, Enemies Dead 2 trill, yeeeeaaah good BR".

3. Because nobody is capable of arguing properly on these forums, you've all managed to (willfully or not) mis-understand Twig's perfectly valid point that; if not growing in range of certain death isn't scorequeening, then recalling from overwhelming defence cannot be called scorequeening either. Instead you're all jumping on Twigely for labelling not growing as scorequeening. Arguments can NEVER be settled if neither side is willing to acknowledge when the other has made a valid point, which is how 99% of the stupid debates on these forums happen.

4. I've been lucky enough to play with Silence and IoF for best part of the last two years. Terms I would use to describe might include lazy, moody, suicidal, insane, sexy ( ), but not score-queeny. I know that they are better judges of this game than to be

running from a battle because you might drop a few billion in score while wiping the enemy out completely

5. There are hints here of "OMG, you have to put 5 people on a tick, how nooby". That's how the game works. If your alliance has a record of being able to put 10+ people on a tick defending, then the attackers must be prepared for that and send accordingly. If you don't want to be mass attacked, then don't mass defend.

 

[webvictim]

Recalling because of certain death is not score queening. It's just the smart thing to do. Trying to argue it any other way is retarded.

Arguments can NEVER be settled if neither side is willing to acknowledge when the other has made a valid point, which is how 99% of the stupid debates on these forums happen.

Your definition of "certain death" is clearly a little more loose than mine. When you have a ton of seeds stocked and well over twice as many troops as the alliance you're attacking, yet you still recall, that isn't certain death. It's scorequeening. You can argue over semantics and the definition of the phrase "scorequeen" if you like, but there is still truth in whatever way you choose to interpret it. CFalcon's point above actually helps me to understand why you can't see this. It's your hideous ego and your immature inability to admit that anybody else has a valid point.

1. Generally the winning alliance has alot more land, and therefore alot more score. A massive difference in fighting capacity does not neccesarily follow from a massive difference in score.

Indeed, the fact that AR Mod have such a lot of land means their scores are higher. This doesn't change the fact that they *do* have far greater amounts of troops than we do. I do admit that this isn't the "four times as many" I alluded to in my previous posts. but it's still a substantial amount more.

I'm not in ArMod, but I've idled in the ArMod channel all round, and I've seen countless conversations of attacks where ArM have seemed to be almost suicidal in their attitude towards attacking you. I can remember plenty of reports along the lines "Friendlies Dead 5 trill, Enemies Dead 2 trill, yeeeeaaah good BR".

Fair enough, point taken, but I think that's largely because they're bored. Nobody attacks them (other than bounty rushing) because they split, backstabbed, scorequeened and recruited their way into being the biggest alliance in the game. Unless we stacked up most of the smaller alliances against them for a powerblock, which doesn't happen easily as there are too many different agendas in the game, then the odds of them actually having to defend were minimal. So, if you don't have to defend anything, why not go attacking the few targets you have just for a bit of a laugh? What's the point in playing a game to sit at the top with no targets? Twigley already said that the game is now so inactive that even noobs can make top 50 - it seems that noobs can also make top 10.

3. Because nobody is capable of arguing properly on these forums, you've all managed to (willfully or not) mis-understand Twig's perfectly valid point that; if not growing in range of certain death isn't scorequeening, then recalling from overwhelming defence cannot be called scorequeening either. Instead you're all jumping on Twigely for labelling not growing as scorequeening.

I'm not arguing that recalling from *overwhelming* defence is scorequeening, I'm arguing that recalling from *underwhelming* defence is scorequeening. I don't expect five large attackers to stay against twelve smaller defenders. I do expect them to stay against five smaller defenders. This is the difference.

5. There are hints here of "OMG, you have to put 5 people on a tick, how nooby". That's how the game works. If your alliance has a record of being able to put 10+ people on a tick defending, then the attackers must be prepared for that and send accordingly. If you don't want to be mass attacked, then don't mass defend.

That's an inference on your part rather than an implication on mine - I didn't actually make that point in my posts. The point was merely to say that they have attacked us countless times with enough troops to wipe out the defence, and yet more often than not they don't stay. That's all I was saying with this.

 

[Twigley]

Twigley already said that the game is now so inactive that even noobs can make top 50 - it seems that noobs can also make top 10.

Yup, we is uber n00bs!

 

[TaO]

***** moan ***** ***** moan..

Scorequeens!!
No you're scorequeens!

In the end, we all are scorequeens as we all want the highest score..

Can we now just stop *****ing and moaning
Thanks you!

 

[webvictim]

Go away BB, you've retired!

 

[Iamsmart]

god

i really feel like i should actually write an alliance story or whatever they are called for omgpop to clear the air

 

[Ram]

Seed whoring? I'll have nothing of te sort!

 

[MacMikey]

I normally avoid this kind of discussions as there will never be a "winner" but come on Webby.

I'm not arguing that recalling from *overwhelming* defence is scorequeening, I'm arguing that recalling from *underwhelming* defence is scorequeening. I don't expect five large attackers to stay against twelve smaller defenders. I do expect them to stay against five smaller defenders. This is the difference.

There is also a little part about counter routes.
5 Big robo's/strikers attacking and 5 little rpg's defending?
If you recall on that its not because of SQ's, its common sense.
There is no use in getting your **** killed and get nothing in return.

 

[Ahead]

This thread has made my day. Webnoob, keep posting you are hilarious, IoF and Silence have pretty much been the opposite of SQs this round. And looking at some of your players from an outside perspective, it actually looks like some of your players are the SQs (either that or they just don't like defending), as the amount of land your alliance has lost compared to the amount of staff it has in total is ludicrous.

As always, CF got it spot on - you should have saved more embarrassment by agreeing with everything he said instead of arguing against most of it and being so defensive.


Also, thank you Twigley for making me lol. Amazing post

I think you deserve the DA award.

P.S. stop going on about the bounty - people have got big bounties in the past on much more active people than Silence, and I hardly think anyone in his alliance, especially him, cares about it tbh


P.P.S. killing THC in one day is not a big achievement. They don't deserve a rank 3 position in the alliance rankings tbh, and the fact they were there and died to a pretty sub-standard alliance shows how inactive the game is nowadays.

 

[Iamsmart]

Out of curiosity, are you even playing this round Ahead?

 

[Davs]

I wanted an excuse to give Darryl mention

 

[Dax]

3. Because nobody is capable of arguing properly on these forums, you've all managed to (willfully or not) mis-understand Twig's perfectly valid point that; if not growing in range of certain death isn't scorequeening, then recalling from overwhelming defence cannot be called scorequeening either. Instead you're all jumping on Twigely for labelling not growing as scorequeening. Arguments can NEVER be settled if neither side is willing to acknowledge when the other has made a valid point, which is how 99% of the stupid debates on these forums happen.

One word, three letters, repeated for effect:

Egoegoegoego.

 

[Dark_Angel]

I think you deserve the DA award.

Oh **** off

 

[Silence]

3. Because nobody is capable of arguing properly on these forums, you've all managed to (willfully or not) mis-understand Twig's perfectly valid point that; if not growing in range of certain death isn't scorequeening, then recalling from overwhelming defence cannot be called scorequeening either. Instead you're all jumping on Twigely for labelling not growing as scorequeening. Arguments can NEVER be settled if neither side is willing to acknowledge when the other has made a valid point, which is how 99% of the stupid debates on these forums happen.

One word, three letters, repeated for effect:

Egoegoegoego.

I stayed out of this bollocks argument because I have come to terms, like CF, posting a well constructed argument is useless because people here are too stupid to recognise it.

But this was lols. That quote just summed everything up so beautifully and just made CF so right its funny, maybe it even hurts a little, who knows. Posting that Dax just proved CF sooooooooo right in every way. I really hope it was intentional, but its difficult to recognise sarcasm so you dont get the benfit of the doubt so.... *FACEPALM*

Thanks for all the mentions and speculation as to what my intentions were and are, thanks! Much appreciated that you care so much.

Nowwwwwwwwwwww who will post something bollocks next?! :O

Whos is a SQ?!?!?! I DUNNO! MAYBE SOMEONE WHO ATTACKED ME AND MADE ME CRY ARE SQs?!?!?!?!?!?!

...damn you Ias, killing me is such SQ behaviour because, because, YOU GAINED SCORE OFF IT ZOMG, AND ONLY STAYED BECAUSE YOU WOULD WIN, ZOMG.

 

[Iamsmart]

I...what..

 

[Silence]

I...what..

Yeah you heard, SCOREQUEEN

 

[Souls]

Yep. You're a scorequeen. Don't deny it.

 

[Iamsmart]

Screw you guys i am going home.

 

[Twigley]

* steal a home.
Scorequeen. BIGMOUTH
People argue aganst the name of the poster rather than the content that is posted, and I have said this many a time. Although if its IOF then you must always flame.

 

[Iamsmart]

gg