round 43 - ANQ|FL|HC love triangle

[Twigley]

I would also add that, both this round, and in round 37 which for some reason you've brought up, HC and the so called HC leadership of dRAGE, engaged in 1v1's whenever it was not an obviously un-winnable scenario. But, of course, you gloss over those, and claim it was 2v1 the entire round. 2v1's only happened when rank 1 was pulling away. Why do you not understand this? Also, round 33, your alliance was definitely engaged in a 2v1 on NOMW. Which was fine, 'cos NOMW were ahead. But you've conveniently forgotten?

Where did i say it was 2 v 1 all round?
dRage were one of the only alliances that i had any sympathy for that round.
When they hit sleep and it was obvious Apha were going to win, Res and Apha continuted not to hit each other when they were rank 1 and 3 and hit our alliance which was rank 4. Then the BS 2 v 1 continued.

I also don't think that rank 1 has pulled away in any of these situations.
This round we were smaller/the same size than HC untill we hit them, took some of their acres (and score with it) and dropped their score. The gap was a whole wave and a bit difference but looked like something because we gained acre score and HC lost it.

It's just the same as round 40 when we took 40k acres from rank 1 in a few waves after they declared on us ... then they went to other alliances just 10 hours after our attacks on them and started asking for the 2/3 v 1's. That's actually ridiculous but so standard of the same core of people.

That little difference is amplified when people start getting their fail maths out saying "Well actually you were 25% bigger than rank 2 so we went looking for help!!".
Yeah wow big deal. That 25% was achieved 1 v 1 and is a waves worth.
Do something on your own rather than asking for help anytime you lose a bit of ground.

I dont buy that arguement at all CF :/

 

[Garrett2]

Edit: Something i used to realise when i tried to defend the undefendable in round 30. When you have everyone saying you're wrong ... you have to just take a step back, use reason and logic and realise ... hey maybe they're right about that afterall. I should maybe conceed some ground there and move on. Protip.

I can only hope he takes your tip into consideration.

 

[Elevnos]

some HC 2 v 1'ed and were even on the end and QQing about being 2 v 1'ed. Shame on you.

Nobody ever complained, in HC, about being 2 v 1'ed, people were complaining about how you still use that as a way to just moan about something else this round... Then when you realise you've lost an argument about that then the subject will be changed to how "That's not the point, what I'm saying is that HC were terrible at the start of the round.", and upon someone admitting that, the conversation always ends up as how ANQ were the victims because they got 2 v 1'ed at the start of the round. Stop complaining about it like ANQ are the first alliance ever to be a victim of a 2 v 1, when in fact it has been you causing the 2 (or 3) vs 1s on occasions.

Just because you've been playing a little while longer than most people, doesn't mean you are automatically right about things. Just leave the subject, we've all been subject to the constant whining of a so called 'FTF' ally this round, who "did not want rank one" anyway! You are no hero just because your alliance didn't 2 v 1 somebody else as many times as another alliance, and I'm confident you, any many others, would have done the same thing given the situation to do so, as proved later on in the round.

Stop moaning about a FTW alliance trying to win, it's just what happens.

 

[Twigley]

The fail is strong with you again Elevenos.
You've managed to mis-quote my post.
I will give you time to ammend your post though.

I'm not talking about HC QQing this round. Im talking about some of the HC members who QQ'ed in round 37 when they got 2 v 1'ed by Luckysports alliance. And i don't see where i have 'lost' any arguement? You should probally re-read then delete your post because half of it you're arguing against something i never said. Congratulations.

And what are you talking about that I'm usually the one 2/3v1ing? You've been fed the same BS that IoF used to spread. You don't even know what you're talking about :/ Typical sheep. Just look since round 25 - this round when i have been leading and then count the times i have 2 v 1'ed then the times the same people that tell you everything you know have done it and stop being so ignorant :/ It's embarassing.

Nice to have you in the discussion though Pity you mis-understood it

Edit: Something i used to realise when i tried to defend the undefendable in round 30. When you have everyone saying you're wrong ... you have to just take a step back, use reason and logic and realise ... hey maybe they're right about that afterall. I should maybe conceed some ground there and move on. Protip.

I can only hope he takes your tip into consideration.

He wont but it's cool.

its like watching toby post.. I imagine him reading my posts and having a seizure when he posts his response.

That's a coincidence, because I imagine a spastic slapping random keys on a keyboard and dribbling onto his mouse when you post.

No need to be like this ... he is trying.

 

[CFalcon]

snip

snip

I also don't think that rank 1 has pulled away in any of these situations.
This round we were smaller/the same size than HC untill we hit them, took some of their acres (and score with it) and dropped their score. The gap was a whole wave and a bit difference but looked like something because we gained acre score and HC lost it.

It's just the same as round 40 when we took 40k acres from rank 1 in a few waves after they declared on us ... then they went to other alliances just 10 hours after our attacks on them and started asking for the 2/3 v 1's. That's actually ridiculous but so standard of the same core of people.

That little difference is amplified when people start getting their fail maths out saying "Well actually you were 25% bigger than rank 2 so we went looking for help!!".
Yeah wow big deal. That 25% was achieved 1 v 1 and is a waves worth.
Do something on your own rather than asking for help anytime you lose a bit of ground.

I dont buy that arguement at all CF :/

I wasn't involved in round 40, so I really can't comment on that.

I can't find the exact scores for when resistance on ANQ started this round, but if memory serves, ANQ were in the low 60s, FL were in the high 40s/low 50s, and HC were in the high 30s.
To be honest, we've been over this a dozen times already, and I standby what I've already said. No, that score difference is not traditionally what would call for a resistance. However, traditionally, resistances fail. If HC/FL had waited for ANQ to be equal in size to both of them combined, then ANQ would have won several weeks ago. You had shown yourselves to be by far the most competent alliance of the first 2 weeks, and there was no question of either HC or FL engaging in a successful 1v1 at that point.

And as for the "do something on your own" comment. We *did* do something on our own. We made the neccesary lineup changes to take us from being the worst to the best organised alliance of the three. Dealt with combined rush incoming from both when we were hitting one or the other. Destroyed ANQ alone. Destroyed FL alone. True we had a slight troop advantage on ANQ, but troop scores were equal when we hit FL.

I just see you taking, what, 36 hours of 2v1, and extrapolating it to define an entire round.

 

[edd]

Scores when resistance started were ANQ at 60bil, FL/HC both ~40bil i believe as i used those figures when Twigley had a go at me later that thursday.

 

[Twigley]

CF it's not really a 36 hour 2 v 1 when it was joint attacks together then a week snap with HC hitting us on a night and FL at 5/7am, every other alliance getting easy time off while we are sat there for a week being everyones only target (at rank 3) and us not being able to retal because incs suddenly appear from either side.

In the process we had members of our alliance quit and nobody could be bothered playing anymore due to what was happening. Which meant every night at 3am we wouldnt bother even defending your attacks on us and just sent out, recalled if it was fake on us.

So it's not really as simple as to say it was a very short 2 v 1 and that was it. It wasn't.

The "Do something on your own" comment was originally when we hit you and you had no reply. 0. Not a single peek from you. Just straight away running to other alliances. That was the really lame part and is why i likened it so much to round 40 (Which you had the pleasure not to be involved in). I didn't mean run to other alliances, take snaps, replace your alliance, outgrow people then hit them. That's not on your own.

Edit: I don't really blame you guys for 2 v 1ing. You were desperate to win (For whatever reason) and couldnt do it alone. Especially not with the alliance you had originally. I only started posting again when i saw someone said it was a good round. Which it may have been for you and your buddies with a snap but for others ... it definately wasn't. I was also annoyed DaX didnt accept my trophy.

 

[CFalcon]

I still don't know why FL agreed and honoured that snap. But from an HC standpoint, that agreement didn't have much impact on what we would have done either way. We had 5 new members still teching/growing, and didn't have much more than 50% of FL's troop score. We weren't going to be taking on FL when that started.

I will concede that that snap isn't easy to justify. But then you make the jump from that to "Do something on your own rather than asking for help anytime you lose a bit of ground." You do see the disconnect right?

 

[Elevnos]

I'm not talking about HC QQing this round. Im talking about some of the HC members who QQ'ed in round 37 when they got 2 v 1'ed by Luckysports alliance.

Sorry to misunderstand your post.
With that, why is it necessary to bring up the subject of other rounds to try to prove a point on something that is happening in this round? It's not the same thing no matter how much you try to argue that it is...

By the way, the 'you' was aimed at the majority of ANQ, but by Twigley logic, that's just something else to be condescending about towards others.

 

[Twigley]

I forgive you!!! <3

I brought up another round to show how this happens alot with the same names. Sorry if i shouldn't have done that. I am glad you're begining to understand logic

 

[Franny]

If your really going to argue.. Think your point through!

Twigley - Thats just another thread of you saying 2 alliances are Napped when they aren't. It only continues to prove my point. There WAS A nap between FL and HC this round, for (exactly) 1 week, at the end of the 2v1. A cease-fire if you will, to allow both alliances to be free to attack on their own without fear of retaliation.

I couldn't have put it any better myself Lucky. The 2v1 hasn't ended if it's a three horse race and the other two are Naped.

Have a nice day.

 

[willymchilybily]

so surely if a 2v1 is 2 alliances not attacking eachother. then you could say FL and HC were 2v1 vs ANQ for the entire first 3 weeks.....but to my mind we only actually hit you 2 alliances at once for just under a week? one week and few days in?

but yeah the 1 week neutral alliance policy was riddiculous. in the game 2 days is a long time. we shouldnt have napped that long i really dunno why leader chose that time...wiah they had asked others before confirming that.. one day would have done me. just a nice little break to get some sleep then go again. but whats done is done. HC went from no threat to decent threat. so fair enough.

also in round 37, alpha/rev stopped 2v1 quite soon on. but alpha piggied rev for alot. then got all arsey when rev waited for them to hit before they sent again to show them how annoying it was. to have some one get more/easy land by piggying your hard work I think it was more of a land scramble than a 2v1. land was leaking and it was just the alliances stepping over eachother. i dont think its a good example of what happened this round. this round was worse imo.

 

[bluehen55]

CF it's not really a 36 hour 2 v 1 when it was joint attacks together then a week snap with HC hitting us on a night and FL at 5/7am, every other alliance getting easy time off while we are sat there for a week being everyones only target (at rank 3) and us not being able to retal because incs suddenly appear from either side.

I think this is really the problem, that a lot of people are ignoring, and probably somewhat understandably. HC and FL didn't attack together or plan out times to hit together, but they weren't attacking each other, which just meant constant inc for us all day and night. It just turned most of the alliance back off of the game entirely and caused them to either quit or go much more inactive. Which is a shame because it was nice to have some old names back and working well together, but no one joined expecting to have to forgo sleep for weeks on end just to avoid being stomped into the ground, let alone actually competing.

 

[timtadams]

When there are only three 'competitive' alliances, and two of them form a NAP, you can say it's not a 2v1, but in the end it effectively is.

 

[LuckySports]

so surely if a 2v1 is 2 alliances not attacking eachother. then you could say FL and HC were 2v1 vs ANQ for the entire first 3 weeks.....but to my mind we only actually hit you 2 alliances at once for just under a week? one week and few days in?

but yeah the 1 week neutral alliance policy was riddiculous. in the game 2 days is a long time. we shouldnt have napped that long i really dunno why leader chose that time...wiah they had asked others before confirming that.. one day would have done me. just a nice little break to get some sleep then go again. but whats done is done. HC went from no threat to decent threat. so fair enough.

also in round 37, alpha/rev stopped 2v1 quite soon on. but alpha piggied rev for alot. then got all arsey when rev waited for them to hit before they sent again to show them how annoying it was. to have some one get more/easy land by piggying your hard work I think it was more of a land scramble than a 2v1. land was leaking and it was just the alliances stepping over eachother. i dont think its a good example of what happened this round. this round was worse imo.

The 1 week was MY requirement to participate and plan for the attacks. If it wasn't agreed to, I wasn't going to put in the effort to plan when I knew we'd just be at war again while I was away for a week and unable to do anything about it.. My vote was still to be lazy.. But i did set what needed to happen if they wanted my knowledge, and not just my (mostly useless vs their setup) troops. I was also the person who called the end of the agreed attacks before ANQ was completely put down. (Another VERY unfavorable decision..) I don't mind making the decisions people don't like, but they will be made if no one else will, and there was no point in coordinating attacks on ANQ anymore at that point.

This was more of a case of, everyone following me cause no one wanted to put in the effort themselves. Attacks mostly ceased from FL when I stopped planning and calling recalls. (We have a few willing organizers.. but we are all busy this round)

The attacks were much less organized afterwards, until HC picked up a few new members that kicked the rest of their alliance into fighting (Still surprised at the complete turn around.. Gotta have respect for that!)

Round 37 isn't a good example. I wasn't a leader, I was just a member. Throwing my name out there doesn't do anything because I wasn't involved in the decision making, on top of, we were never napped. The 2v1 was for.. a day, and the reason we didn't attack each other when dRage hit sleep was because we knew they lied about going in for a week and didn't want to be in the middle of a war when they came out 24/72 hrs later. If they had still been in sleep at 73 hours we already had plans to start hitting Aphallatosis (spelling?)



Also - I wasn't involved in Round 40 at all.. I was in Mo Dakka, and never sent on a single "resistance" attack. I barely logged in (<3 Podunk!)

And a final point - its always going to be the "same" names to you.. Because only a few people are still kicking around. Its not like we have thousands of active players to choose from, we have dozens at best. You are going to have repeats, My alliances do a pretty decent job of switching it up every round, new players, new names, or at least different. I've only played with about 1/2 the folks I was allied with this round before.. in the last 2-3 years.

But I digress, as much as I enjoy a good debate.. It's more fun when everyone is on the same level, instead of 20 people on 20 levels, and there are real facts, and not just opinions.

 

[flameharvester]

Twigley as i said in my origonal statement your mouth lost you the round!

Now to go into a little more depth I dont care when/how you lost rank 1 the point when the round was handed to HC was when we couldnt reach a decision on how we wanted to move on them. We kept hitting ANQ because you sat here on the forums all high and mighty and kept rushing us whenever we went out anywhere else and hence you were constantly in the back of our minds I know that I for one pressed that we didnt break the anap early and we didnt focus on hc but instead kept pushing on you.

If you had kept your mouth shut we wouldnt have viewed you as a threat and hence we would have moved on.

 

[avash]

When the week ended, all 3 alliances were on similar troop scores until there was a huge suicide from FL onto ANQ putting HC 1st. Even then for a long time HC had less troop score than the other allies. As flamey said alot of the attacking continued solely on ANQ just because of how much complaining went on.

Just annoys me how people say "You only won because we weren't trying, if we tried we would have won". What happened to people just saying well done, you won the round...just makes me sigh

 

[LuckySports]

Avash - You won the round, good job!

*pats Avash on the back*

 

[Twigley]

A load of uneducated rubbish

Oh we should have have waited for your superior good will to stop being massive faggots with a snap? I don't need to hear excuses for the inexcusable and for you to defend the undefendable. Jog on.

I think that this explains it best for you Avash. It's basically what i have said in this thread but you chose to ignore it. Maybe in IRC form it's easier to see.

1[18:08] <Twigley> The "Do something on your own" comment was originally when we hit you and you had no reply. 0. Not a single peek from you. Just straight away running to other alliances. That was the really lame part and is why i likened it so much to round 40 (Which you had the pleasure not to be involved in). I didn't mean run to other alliances, take snaps, replace your alliance, outgrow people then hit them. That's not on your own.
01[18:09] <Twigley> We were pretty much equal score untill we had 2 waves on 2 different nights on you
01[18:09] <Twigley> Then the acre loss your side and our acre gain made a gap
01[18:09] <Twigley> Which you exploited to **** by 2 v 1ing
01[18:09] <Twigley> Rather than just attacking back
01[18:09] <Twigley> I don't see how any of that can be defended
[18:09] <CF> the gap was rather larger than that
01[18:09] <Twigley> It was barely anything
[18:09] <CF> 50% isn't barely anything
01[18:09] <Twigley> You steal 20k back and the gap is nothing
01[18:09] <Twigley> It got to 50% because you left it
1[18:10] <Twigley> For 3 days
01[18:10] <Twigley> Then came with other alliances
01[18:10] <Twigley> Is that so hard to get or to understand?
01[18:10] <Twigley> Do you not get my point in anyway
01[18:10] <Twigley> We were pretty much bang on equal before we hit you
01[18:10] <Twigley> 2 waves of stealing 11k each wave
01[18:10] <Twigley> No reply
01[18:10] <Twigley> 3 days later
01[18:10] <Twigley> We have 2 alliances on our page
01[18:10] <Twigley> Now what the **** is that about
[18:10] <CF> yeah, we were a mess at that stage
01[18:11] <Twigley> So now you see what my point is
01[18:11] <Twigley> Do something on your own
01[18:11] <Twigley> You didnt
01[18:11] <Twigley> You waited to 2 v 1, snap, outgrow
[18:11] <CF> that isn't really fair
01[18:12] <Twigley> In what way
[18:12] <CF> i mean, it's true
[18:12] <CF> but it omits stuff
01[18:12] <Twigley> Like?
[18:13] <CF> that at the start of the conflict we had 5 new members still teching up, that we were 50% behind in terms of troops
[18:13] <CF> and that once we had re-balanced that disparity, we did go 1v1 with both of you
[18:14] <CF> i'm not denying that 2v1 happened, that snap happened, or that we were an awful alliance at round start
[18:14] <CF> i'm just saying we did actually achieve some stuff by ourselves
01[18:14] <Twigley> I wouldnt say you achieved it by yourselfs
01[18:14] <Twigley> Id say you killed our units
01[18:15] <Twigley> But it wasnt just a simple 1 v 1 fight
[18:15] <CF> it is never a simple 1v1 when there are 3 in the running
01[18:15] <Twigley> No because someone always acts the idiot
01[18:15] <Twigley> What you don't seem to understand is that when you play ****wit tactics and 2 v 1 then snap and make an alliance not be able to do anything but sit there
01[18:15] <Twigley> That that alliance just stops playing
* Insert me saying who our alliance members who quit / stopped playing were*
[18:16] <CF> i do understand, i've been there, and that snap is the one thing i don't defend


01[18:16] <Twigley> Our alliance just went to 0
01[18:16] <Twigley> Then you say that you did something by yourself and 1 v 1
01[18:16] <Twigley> No ...
01[18:16] <Twigley> The damage had already been done
01[18:17] <Twigley> What you did was clean up a little bit
01[18:17] <Twigley> Soon as we realised that snap was there ... that was us gone. One of you two had won it
01[18:17] <Twigley> We didnt even want to be a spanner in the works
01[18:17] <Twigley> So please dont pretend like you 1 v 1'ed us at any point
01[18:17] <Twigley> You simply sent alone after all the bullshit before
01[18:18] <Twigley> Against an alliance that had quit
01[18:18] <Twigley> :/
01[18:18] <Twigley> And you will know 100% thats damn true as we didnt defend at all
01[18:18] <Twigley> Even though we were all online
[18:19] <CF> like i said, i really can't defend that snap
01[18:20] <Twig|food> As long as you understand what it did and why i am so annoyed that you guys think it was then a 1 v 1
01[18:20] <Twig|food> Then w/e


The only thing i saw HC do half decent at this round was beat FL after they outgrew them.

 

[Angela]

When the week ended, all 3 alliances were on similar troop scores until there was a huge suicide from FL onto ANQ putting HC 1st. Even then for a long time HC had less troop score than the other allies. As flamey said alot of the attacking continued solely on ANQ just because of how much complaining went on.

Just annoys me how people say "You only won because we weren't trying, if we tried we would have won". What happened to people just saying well done, you won the round...just makes me sigh

hmm 95% of people on the forums will put the winning alliance down you only have to read back in the forums to know that, if they didnt win it then then obviously the other alliance didnt deserve to win it.