some competision.

[LuckySports]

The new players at least show some promise, most of them understand the concept of rebuilding.
^_^

Yeah, I guess that is why we have such a healthy flood of new players in this game. Long live the playerbase.

we don't have many news players because rebuilding from scratch everyday gets old..

 

[Hobbezak]

Those were motives stated by your alliance Besides, there is NO good reason for an entire alliance to hit sleep for 3 days. Perioid..

2v1? Incase you forget, the 2nd alliance in that 2v1 was Res, and we sent all of 3 attacks, and that was in 2 days. If you can't handle 1 1/2 attack a day, even against those odds... I rest my case.

Res only stepped in to even the odds and keep your war going for a while longer, it was obvious Alpha were about to be beaten.. Much like we did against Alpha at the start.. The difference is, they didn't give (as much as it pains me to give them any sort of compliment)

The simple truth is, you gave up without a fight. You can use all the excuses in the world, but it won't change that damning bit of fact.


Much better to fight it out, no matter the odds.. I will never understand why people wimp out so quickly in this game. The new players at least show some promise, most of them understand the concept of rebuilding.


EDIT:

Oh.. and Hai Angela! ^_^

I'm sorry, but do you know how to read?
1. As I said (in about EVERY post I made on this), we had been warring for 1.5w prior to being 2v1'd. This means some people were already stretched thin, and instead of being selfish gits hitting sleep on their own and leaving everyone else hanging during understaffed times, they kept going for the team. So when they ask for an alliance sleepmode, I think neither your nor I should condemn that.
2. One and half attack a day... Perhaps the concept of 2v1 isn't entirely clear to you, not being 2v1'd yourself this round, but in general, it means you are attacked by 2 alliances. The difference here to receiving the inc you do, is that you get MORE incoming. 1.5 attacks a day turns into at least 3 per day, instead of 1.5 attacks which are larger. This is why being 2v1'd is harder, and why your argument is invalid.
3. Again, as I've said 2000 times already, they kicked(/raped) half of their alliance. It's obvious that they weren't stretched as thin as we were. But yeah, respect to the few people there who kept going.
4. Another reason why comparing apha to us, is silly, and I'm quite sure I've said this multiple times as well, is the concept of timing. They got 2v1'd when they were larger, on maybe 3 attacks, then got 1v1'd by an alliance of equal score. We had been warring for 1.5 weeks, THEN got 2v1'd, even when the scores were pretty much equal.
5. "You gave up without a fight". Giving up without a fight, but still doing more damage to Apha than Res. Talk about a non-fight there then.

 

[Angela]

im only going to comment on #5 as been stated numerous times res is more defensive than attacking alliance so yes you did more damage to them but you was also at one point playing to win (im sure i read that somewhere probably in this thread?).

oh and hey lucky

ps sorry if im showing my ignorance but i don't care enough to take much notice as to what is going on only reading the forums as im bored

 

[Ogluk]

We were more playing to stop Bruce from getting a win as a leader, in essence, as Hero did end up in charge of Apha, we achieved that goal, Apha fought back strong and fully deserve their win, even if there was less than scrupulous tactics involved, alls fair in love and war etc etc.

 

[CFalcon]

im only going to comment on #5 as been stated numerous times res is more defensive than attacking alliance so yes you did more damage to them but you was also at one point playing to win (im sure i read that somewhere probably in this thread?).

Really addressed to LS, but your post illustrates it better Angela.

Yes, you were a defensive alliance, and we were more of an offensive alliance. The point several people have tried to make is that we didn't "give up without a fight", it's just that our fight had been on the offensive rather than the defensive. Just because you're a defensive alliance doesn't allow you to negate all the offensive work we did when comparing pressure/speed of collapse/burnout.

This whole thread is jokes anyway. It's obvious to everyone that:

Aphal were by far the most committed alliance as evidenced by their early lead and fast rebuild after getting resisted, and they deserve rank 1 more than any other alliance this round.

Res have been a solid steady alliance, which have done well to maintain a consistent good rank despite constant incoming (albeit not as severe as RQ and Aphal's).

RQ were the best offensive alliance while they were trying, but burnt themselves out and didn't have the commitment to maintain top level play for the 3+ weeks required this round.

Anything beyond this assessment is really just ego polishing.

-----------------------

Also, this made me lol:

Also, not being FTW, theres no requirement to get on for major attacks, so seeing more than 11-12 people online to send an attack, that will stick around, is rare.

Seeing 18+ people online to send defense, thats a different story

There's nothing essentially different between defence and offence. You can't label us as FTW if we have lots of people on for attacks, and label yourselves as not-FTW if you have lots of people on for defence. What you've done there is taken reason and given it several hard smacks round the face while the logic-fail police have been standing watching. And now they're going to take you away.

I can swap RQ with Res and offensive with defensive in all of your posts referring to ftw/ftw and offensive/defensive and they stay both logical and relevant. Thus making all your points, .... pointless.

 

[Alcibiades]

CF is, as usual, bang on in his assessment.

 

[Angela]

CF is, as usual, bang on in his assessment.

Well not really since:

Yes, you were a defensive alliance, and we were more of an offensive alliance. The point several people have tried to make is that we didn't "give up without a fight", it's just that our fight had been on the offensive rather than the defensive. Just because you're a defensive alliance doesn't allow you to negate all the offensive work we did when comparing pressure/speed of collapse/burnout

i Will take this as if you are talking to me since, you seem to be talking to me, it is res ARE a defensive alliance not were, and i don't think ive been negative about your alliance or infact made a comment at all about why you went into sleep mode or the effect it as had on anything, i will say that from previous experience / rounds that an entire alliance going into sleepmode it as to my knowledge never ended pretty. You guys played a tactical decision (or at least its how it looked) and it didn't work seems everyone needs to move past it

 

[Alcibiades]

We have moved past it, it would appear you guys haven't. CF is still correct neither you or LS has broached the subject of how you guys have endured more and been under more pressure than dRQ. Feel free to try.

 

[Angela]

We have moved past it, it would appear you guys haven't. CF is still correct neither you or LS has broached the subject of how you guys have endured more and been under more pressure than dRQ. Feel free to try.

I will leave that to LS as ive already stated i don't care enough and only hang out here when im bored

 

[bluehen55]

Well I think it has been mentioned before and I'll just say it again, but there is nobody that spent time both in Res and dRQ, so its is impossible, or at least very difficult, for anyone to compare the pressure both allies have been under.

 

[Alcibiades]

That's fair enough lol. Always a pleasure to have more forum engagement

 

[LuckySports]

Also, this made me lol:

Also, not being FTW, theres no requirement to get on for major attacks, so seeing more than 11-12 people online to send an attack, that will stick around, is rare.

Seeing 18+ people online to send defense, thats a different story

There's nothing essentially different between defence and offence. You can't label us as FTW if we have lots of people on for attacks, and label yourselves as not-FTW if you have lots of people on for defence. What you've done there is taken reason and given it several hard smacks round the face while the logic-fail police have been standing watching. And now they're going to take you away.

I can swap RQ with Res and offensive with defensive in all of your posts referring to ftw/ftw and offensive/defensive and they stay both logical and relevant. Thus making all your points, .... pointless.

Getting people on for an attack is a lot harder, as most people won't send as they don't want to have to be around for recalls.. Defense is Easier, because its basically send and forget. Its fairly rare that we recall defense even when we know it won't end well.

Thats what differentiates between a FTW alliance, and the rest.. OFFENSE

 

[timthetyrant]

i thought the difference between FTF and FTW was the letters "F" and "W". Now i know we have been over this somewhere and sometime in the past, but i believe FTW is just a subcatergory of FTF, because winning is fun, i can enjoy the competition/challenge/pressure especially if it all works out, and then you have the rest of the round to beat down on peons. Im pretty sure no1 would play a game if they got no enjoyment.

So you get your kicks out of defending against the pressure and you are up for the the challenge, to have some fun now there isnt much competition. to me that sounds just like RQ when we were "FTW" except that we had both offense/defense.

PS:Angela is right, these forums do help fight the boredom

 

[LuckySports]

i thought the difference between FTF and FTW was the letters "F" and "W". Now i know we have been over this somewhere and sometime in the past, but i believe FTW is just a subcatergory of FTF, because winning is fun, i can enjoy the competition/challenge/pressure especially if it all works out, and then you have the rest of the round to beat down on peons. Im pretty sure no1 would play a game if they got no enjoyment.

So you get your kicks out of defending against the pressure and you are up for the the challenge, to have some fun now there isnt much competition. to me that sounds just like RQ when we were "FTW" except that we had both offense/defense.

PS:Angela is right, these forums do help fight the boredom

No one used the term "FTF" I've been saying "Not FTW" which is different.. Our goal isn't to win at all.

and yea, the forums DO Fight boredom.. ^_^

 

[No-Dachi]

Finally a sensible post!

This whole thread is jokes anyway. It's obvious to everyone that:

Aphal were by far the most committed alliance as evidenced by their early lead and fast rebuild after getting resisted, and they deserve rank 1 more than any other alliance this round.

Res have been a solid steady alliance, which have done well to maintain a consistent good rank despite constant incoming (albeit not as severe as RQ and Aphal's).

RQ were the best offensive alliance while they were trying, but burnt themselves out and didn't have the commitment to maintain top level play for the 3+ weeks required this round.

Anything beyond this assessment is really just ego polishing.

Well said. This sums it all up as far as I'm concerned.

 

[CFalcon]

Getting people on for a defence is a lot harder, as most people won't send as they don't want to have to be around for recalls.. Offense is Easier, because its basically send and forget. Its fairly rare that we recall offense even when we know it won't end well.

You see how easy this is? Only difference between the two is in your mind-set. Any difference in activity is purely circumstantial. I've been involved in a thousand defences that have been more time consuming than a standard RQ alliance attack, which quite alot of the time only requires ~5 mins of activity from most members.
Now I'll ask again, what exactly allows you to:

label us as FTW if we have lots of people on for attacks, and label yourselves as not-FTW if you have lots of people on for defence.

??

All this is besides the point anyway. I only got involved in this thread to refute this claim:

The simple truth is, you gave up without a fight.

Which I did refute in my previous post and you still haven't commented on. Am I to take that as a withdrawal of that statement? In which case my work here is done.

 

[Angela]

Now I'll ask again, what exactly allows you to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CFalcon
label us as FTW if we have lots of people on for attacks, and label yourselves as not-FTW if you have lots of people on for defence.
??

see this is how lazy im getting but from what ive read somewhere (who knows where) someone from your alliance said that you guys changed from ftf to ftw so technically you labelled yourself s

 

[CFalcon]

see this is how lazy im getting but from what ive read somewhere (who knows where) someone from your alliance said that you guys changed from ftf to ftw so technically you labelled yourself s

sshhhh Angela, I don't really care about the labels, I'm just trying to rip LS' argument apart 'cos I dislike faulty logic with a passion. And don't like having my motives/integrity called into question on the basis of faulty logic either.

Now I realise that

i don't think ive been negative about your alliance or infact made a comment at all about why you went into sleep mode

while LS has.

Hence:

Really addressed to LS, but your post illustrates it better Angela.

 

[Dax]

I think we went from active/contactable, to inactive/uncontactable - There hasn't been any detraction from our fun, it has merely been redirected.

 

[LuckySports]

Getting people on for a defence is a lot harder, as most people won't send as they don't want to have to be around for recalls.. Offense is Easier, because its basically send and forget. Its fairly rare that we recall offense even when we know it won't end well.

You see how easy this is? Only difference between the two is in your mind-set. Any difference in activity is purely circumstantial. I've been involved in a thousand defences that have been more time consuming than a standard RQ alliance attack, which quite alot of the time only requires ~5 mins of activity from most members.
Now I'll ask again, what exactly allows you to:

label us as FTW if we have lots of people on for attacks, and label yourselves as not-FTW if you have lots of people on for defence.

??

There is a huge difference between offense and defense. I've never been in an alliance where people were more willing to attack, and less to defend, it is usually the other way around.

For the average alliance member, the time required for defense is just long enough to be told where to send, and then they can go off to do whatever w/o worries for a bit.

For offense, they will have to be contactable in the event of a recall - that takes the potential required time from about 5-10 minutes, to closer to an hour. Most people don't want to spend that much time mulling around.


Now, for the coordinators, the time spent offense/defense is usually about the same, since they have to get people online, decide where to go, read the attacks/defense, pick land-hits/recalls, ect..

All this is besides the point anyway. I only got involved in this thread to refute this claim:

The simple truth is, you gave up without a fight.

Which I did refute in my previous post and you still haven't commented on. Am I to take that as a withdrawal of that statement? In which case my work here is done.

You hit mass sleep mode, Thats as good as giving up to me. Maybe I just have high standards for being stubborn? But I'd still be fighting if I was you guys. You could have lasted through the weekend and then went back on the offensive starting monday.