Popular Post Prefontaine Posted November 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Buorhann said: I don't think Pre is necessarily blaming you for all the evils, SRD, I think the idea of the top tier consolidation (Or any really) is what he's trying to get across is a problem for the game. It's just a coincidence that you're targeted given the history between you two and the situation at hand here. I could be entirely wrong on that though, but that's how it's coming off to me. You're correct. I've mentioned my distaste for IQ's consolidation and have made efforts to fix that as well, however as I said in my post, I can only really impact my alliance and have done what I can to fix the problems in the political environment I can see. As for SRD claiming I spend an alliances capital and then bail. I came back to Guardian to help fix the alliance that was falling apart at the time, I did more than that. Any political capital they had was from my earning it at that time. If I were to take over Guardian now, I would definitely be spending others capital then. TEst was under my helm for a year before I left. I typically only lead an alliance for a year at most, the game needs new leaders to step up and replace the old ones. Our only role should be to come back and help in times of need, which is why I'm back now. I came back to lead an alliance that didn't exist so once again I'm building up the political capital I'd be spending. I highlight this to show you, per usual, you're wrong. You get told why you're bad, how you're messing up. Instead of actually trying to comprehend whatever is being said about you, you try and attack the other, as if somehow telling me I did something years ago, unrelated to tier consolidation (which is my point) is bad. You have consolidated the top tier. You did not do it because you felt forced into a corner like IQ. Your ties to other top tier alliance are the problem. Don't worry about what TEst is doing, or has done. Don't worry what Guardian did during my time leading in this game because I can tell you for certainty, never did we consolidate a tier and sign treaties (or paperless agreements) with those whom could be a threat to us en mass. That is what you have done and are still doing. Should Grumpy move away from Guardian and tCW/TKR, stand along side alliances that have a strong mid tier group, and/or low tier group. Maybe get close to a TEst or tC for a little top tier support but nothing that puts a strangle hold in, you would get my respect. To some of your other points, a leader should take care of his or her members but not at the expense of the game. You should also fight along side your allies, but you should choose allies that create a more interesting political dynamic. I've long advocated that you don't have to only ally your friends, and only declare war on your enemies. You can fight your friends, I am currently in Guardian, an alliance I respect more than any other outside of TEst in this game. You can also work with your enemies. @James II and I have been working together on the same side of this war, and have even had several, dare I say pleasant conversations. If you look at the tones we had towards one another during TEsts fight with SA and basically any time we were posting at each other since I was in Alpha, we're not friends. You can respect alliances you fight against, and dislike alliances you fight along side of. This sort of environment creates a game where sides are less entrenched. Meaningful political shifts happen easier, and more frequently. Yes, SRD, you have a responsibility to your member ship, but we, leaders of alliances have a responsibility to the health of these games. The bigger your alliance is, either member count or average strength, the more important that responsibility is. I rarely speak in certainties, but I know I'm right on this fact. These games die when their major leaders worry to much about creating a world in which they can't lose rather than creating a world where they could lose. A one sided game isn't fun to anyone to play, and what often leads to their deaths. So by all means, SRD, keep trying to deflect and ignore my actual point. You're part of the problem, you're not the whole problem but you are definitely a large part of the tier consolidation problem. Understand that, and find what you want to do towards fixing that. Or don't and continue with those insults towards me which have no bearing on the point I am making. 1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatorius Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: You have consolidated the top tier. You did not do it because you felt forced into a corner like IQ. Your ties to other top tier alliance are the problem. Don't worry about what TEst is doing, or has done. Don't worry what Guardian did during my time leading in this game because I can tell you for certainty, never did we consolidate a tier and sign treaties (or paperless agreements) with those whom could be a threat to us en mass. That is what you have done and are still doing. Should Grumpy move away from Guardian and tCW/TKR, stand along side alliances that have a strong mid tier group, and/or low tier group. Maybe get close to a TEst or tC for a little top tier support but nothing that puts a strangle hold in, you would get my respect. I don't think it is fair to blame SRD for the top tier consolidation. Tier consolidation is an ongoing problem that has been built upon by just about everyone.... TEst has city requirements as well. Just about every alliance in the opposing coalition has participated in consolidation either directly or indirectly. For how many of the last wars has it been low tier vs high tier? Each war saw a little more consolidation as nations were given the option to be basically useless or join your allotted slot... and the so called neutral alliances were happy with the situation as long as EMC were attacking IQ instead of them. The paperless even took money to help consolidate the tiers by joining the winning side. We have all participated in the dogpile. Guardian is also allied to Grumpy...yet you have respect for them... Grumpy isn't forcing Guardian to be allied. Is it reasonable to assume that Grumpy might feel the same obligation to protect their friends? While an alliance leader might have an obligation to the game to make interesting dynamic moves that is such a subjective measure as to be basically useless... how do we determine what is in the long term health of the game? Did Partisan help the long term help of the game with his alliance with TKR... did Ripper in his time as Arrgh leader act as a destabilizing force and counter the rising TKR ascendancy? Did you counter the rising power of EMC when you could have helped? Papers please only happened after EMC had destroyed all other opposition. Nuke bloc was rolled when IQ was beaten down. Ultimately we are all to blame if consolidation is a problem not just Grumpy and SRD. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Buorhann Posted November 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Senatorius said: I don't think it is fair to blame SRD for the top tier consolidation. Tier consolidation is an ongoing problem that has been built upon by just about everyone. Just FYI, GOB wasn't initiated on and held no official papered ties to Guardian and TKR. So yes, it is fair to blame GOB for it. In any case, I personally can't fault GOB for the actions because I participated in consolidation to an extent with Mensa in Syndisphere. It has it's advantages. The only issue I have is when people in the upper tier go "There are no targets", then they later result in gang banging a small bloc of alliances 4-to-1 odds just because they haven't had action for over a year. That was quite possibly the most cowardly thing to do in the game, especially for all the veterans involved in that who proclaim they love to have good fights. 10 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatorius Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Just FYI, GOB wasn't initiated on and held no official papered ties to Guardian and TKR. So yes, it is fair to blame GOB for it. Is paper a required thing or is paperless ok? 9 minutes ago, Buorhann said: In any case, I personally can't fault GOB for the actions because I participated in consolidation to an extent with Mensa in Syndisphere. It has it's advantages. I don't fault the IQ-tS side for their current actions... it makes sense and the fighting has been fun. 9 minutes ago, Buorhann said: The only issue I have is when people in the upper tier go "There are no targets", then they later result in gang banging a small bloc of alliances 4-to-1 odds just because they haven't had action for over a year. That was quite possibly the most cowardly thing to do in the game, especially for all the veterans involved in that who proclaim they love to have good fights. I think the point is really that we all do that... how do we define the gang bang? Did IQ on KT count? What about NPO's first time? Is a dogpile measured in member count, score, cities, number of alliances or skill of players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 51 minutes ago, Senatorius said: Is paper a required thing or is paperless ok? Depends on who's the one judging it. In the situation I described, I do think GOB is "at fault" (Quotations there because really I don't think anyone is at fault and players just need to adapt to the situation at hand, but for the sake of this question - I'll answer it as so). They had a choice to ignore the conflict, but chose to further cement their standing with consolidating the top. You can tell me, "But Hippo, we all know that GOB would've been hit too." Honestly I wouldn't know. GOB is so far up in upper tiers, I honestly have doubts that you guys will get dragged down. Granted that leans more on the incompetence of any other high tier nation outside of GOB/Guardian that just fills slots that has no coordination at all. (So that's not on you guys, honestly) 57 minutes ago, Senatorius said: I think the point is really that we all do that... how do we define the gang bang? Did IQ on KT count? What about NPO's first time? Is a dogpile measured in member count, score, cities, number of alliances or skill of players? What your "allies" are going through right now? What you and your "allies" did against Nuke Bloc? Those are both clear examples of gangbang/dogpiles/whatever. That's not a hard thing to see or measure here. 2 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Senatorius said: I haven't seen anybody in Grumpy wanting to avoid this war or upset about being rolled. We are having fun so far( the last stand is always a fun scenario). I don't understand the reasoning that we are ruining everyones fun. Grumpy exists because it is fun to fight with people that communicate ( same reason I think that we enjoy fighting alongside Guardian).With so many alliances in this game you organize a blitz and peeps start talking about how the can't be on at that time etc. We saw it with the blitzes against Guard etc lots of fighters on your side were let down by the guys that weren't logging on or were doing stupid stuff(nuke spamming). I isn't just the size of the nation that gets you entrance into Grumpy but the willingness to coordinate and sacrifice that gets you in. Our friend got attacked and we defended them as best we could. We have had a good fight so far and lots of fun. Who could ask for more from the game? TLDR.... Grumpy is having a blast being destroyed ! No one is jumping out a window because the pixels are destroyed. This, to be honest. Getting rolled isn't painful. I was one of the hardest hammered nations in Terminal Jest, with no pre-existing savings other than my war resource stockpiles, and yet I was able to pay The Syndicate's bank back for my rebuild within a month or two of the end of the fight because a; good loot on the way down that was successfully squirrelled away, and b; infra isn't that much. The worst thing that can happen is that you get completely sat on, blockaded, and cycled through beige status by people being careful not to make mistakes, and that just means your war is over and you can sit back and relax with a cup of coffee. Edited November 2, 2018 by Avakael 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatorius Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Depends on who's the one judging it. In the situation I described, I do think GOB is "at fault" (Quotations there because really I don't think anyone is at fault and players just need to adapt to the situation at hand, but for the sake of this question - I'll answer it as so). They had a choice to ignore the conflict, but chose to further cement their standing with consolidating the top. You can tell me, "But Hippo, we all know that GOB would've been hit too." Honestly I wouldn't know. GOB is so far up in upper tiers, I honestly have doubts that you guys will get dragged down. Granted that leans more on the incompetence of any other high tier nation outside of GOB/Guardian that just fills slots that has no coordination at all. (So that's not on you guys, honestly) Ignore their ally getting attacked because the tier consolidation? I am sure there has been alliances that have said that there ally is going to win so we don't need to make it a dogpile but to ignore an ally that is going to be destroyed I don't see how that is an option. I can certainly see if Guardian did the offensive that might carry more weight. Was Grumpy suppose to sit back while IQ and tS won all the tiers easily? Quote What your "allies" are going through right now? What you and your "allies" did against Nuke Bloc? Those are both clear examples of gangbang/dogpiles/whatever. That's not a hard thing to see or measure here. I am not sure... how much do you have to be winning by for it to be a dogpile? I wasn't involved in the nuke bloc thing but didn't IQ accuse nuke bloc of being part of the upper tier consolidation? Why is it when nuke bloc is part of it they are ok with it but when consolidation hurts them it becomes a problem? Edit: the wiki has the SALT war at 2.5 to 1 in terms of numbers. Not great but most of Orbis' wars have a numbers discrepancy. 18 minutes ago, Avakael said: This, to be honest. Getting rolled isn't painful. I was one of the hardest hammered nations in Terminal Jest, with no pre-existing savings other than my war resource stockpiles, and yet I was able to pay The Syndicate's bank back for my rebuild within a month or two of the end of the fight because a; good loot on the way down that was successfully squirrelled away, and b; infra isn't that much. The worst thing that can happen is that you get completely sat on, blockaded, and cycled through beige status by people being careful not to make mistakes, and that just means your war is over and you can sit back and relax with a cup of coffee. Wars that sit on peeps are the actual real damage to the game... weeks of not being able to do anything sucks. Wars should be frequent and fast paced we just don't do it that way( and the game doesn't reward it) Edited November 2, 2018 by Senatorius Meh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Raoul Duke Posted November 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 2, 2018 I clicked here to read some war stats but it looks like i just read the entire season script of Days of our lives, circa 1989. 13 Quote Registered slot thief Buy the ticket, take the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Getting rolled isn't painful. Never getting a lick of sense and adopting tactics that make beating you still damaging and irritating for your enemies though, that must be truly depressing. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chief Wiggum Posted November 2, 2018 Moderators Share Posted November 2, 2018 Forum rule number I_don't_really_remember: (avoid) Topic Hijacking: Derailing a thread, or inducing topics that are not related to the original subject. I think that the thread is getting out of its original topic. No one is to be blamed, but please respect the intentions of the topic creator, especially in this case where a lot of work is needed to keep track of stats. Focus on the war stats and comments on them and the performance of alliances. CBs and politics/dynamics can be discussed elsewhere. This is certainly not a warning or demand. Just a kind request. Besides... 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Senatorius said: Ignore their ally getting attacked because the tier consolidation? I am sure there has been alliances that have said that there ally is going to win so we don't need to make it a dogpile but to ignore an ally that is going to be destroyed I don't see how that is an option. I can certainly see if Guardian did the offensive that might carry more weight. Was Grumpy suppose to sit back while IQ and tS won all the tiers easily? I don’t know if you’re intentionally being dense or you honestly have no idea on the questions you ask. In any case, how would anyone know Guardian was allied to GOB? I knew, but that’s because I have connections everywhere. Not everybody has that though. I’ll stop there though, since we are derailing. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 War stats for ya! There are currently 52 nations in the game with over 30 cities Grumpy and her allies have approximately 30 of them (it could be 28-32 I don't have crazy spreadsheet skills) Other interesting stats, When I left VE back in the day to create Grumpy with its large nation friendly environment, I had 20 cities, "That Guy" a member of VE also had 20 cities. 770 days later, I have 33 cities, and That Guy has... 21. So you can complain about about how big we have gotten and how we corner the market, but as you can see my ally base has about 58% of the nations above 30 not nearly as many as people spout out about, and those percentages drop real quick when you start dropping below 30 cities. The reason many of you don't have huge ass nations in your alliances, is either you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes, or the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations. Grumpy does not recruit, except for Beli, we constantly try to re-recruit Beli, after Rose poached him from us. 2 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 49 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: Grumpy and her allies have approximately 30 of them (it could be 28-32 I don't have crazy spreadsheet skills) On 11/1/2018 at 8:00 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I look at the numbers everyday rawr 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 When I watched the stats I asked if the 1017 IQ-Syndi players were the biggest coalition but then I realized those are only the players with at least one war and it's full of players with no wars, so I want to ask how many are in total? And how many with no wars and high infra? Asking for a friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Micchan said: When I watched the stats I asked if the 1017 IQ-Syndi players were the biggest coalition but then I realized those are only the players with at least one war and it's full of players with no wars, so I want to ask how many are in total? And how many with no wars and high infra? Asking for a friend I last counted over 1300 members on IQ/tS side to 280 on our side. That was a week or so ago tho, i believe we had some other bandwagon alliances join in since. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I last counted over 1300 members on IQ/tS side to 280 on our side. That was a week or so ago tho, i believe we had some other bandwagon alliances join in since. I think we are more, like 350-400 with the protectorates etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 27 minutes ago, Micchan said: I think we are more, like 350-400 with the protectorates etc. you are right, it looks like I just took, grumpy, tkr, guardian, tcw, and tesla, that equals 290. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland1 Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: I don't have crazy spreadsheet skills That's probably why you puff your little chest out with pride about growing your nations inefficiently with your Sweet Ronny Newspeak: "large nation friendly environment "= Elitist. New Nations need not apply. "So you can complain about about how big we have gotten" = Laugh with derision at your whaling, pixel hugging, and inefficiency "huge ass nations" = Pixel hugging whales; to be reviled and discouraged at every opportunity. "you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes" = Reinvested the alliance's resources most efficiency to maximize long term growth and revenue. SRD, do you understand the lofty concept of 5% being bigger than 4%? " the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations " = Not having things like THIS in our alliance page: " Contact Sweeeeet Ronny D if you are interested in joining. Tho before you do, ask yourself, would you be a good fit for an alliance that averages over 30 cities per member?" In SRD's bizarre, Martian logic not going out of our way to actively discourage newer players means we are "Not welcoming to large nations". This is, of course, patently absurd. Oh, we also don't charge a 10 million dollar up front fee for joining. How elitist of us. You see, the strategies and growth tactics of GoB are so backwards and inefficient that they have now had to invent their own little orwellian vocabulary to even attempt to justify them. They can't justify their idiotic concepts using actual logic and normal phrases so they've had to make up their own. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Seeker Posted November 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said: Other interesting stats, When I left VE back in the day to create Grumpy with its large nation friendly environment, I had 20 cities, "That Guy" a member of VE also had 20 cities. 770 days later, I have 33 cities, and That Guy has... 21. So you can complain about about how big we have gotten and how we corner the market, but as you can see my ally base has about 58% of the nations above 30 not nearly as many as people spout out about, and those percentages drop real quick when you start dropping below 30 cities. The reason many of you don't have huge ass nations in your alliances, is either you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes, or the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations. Grumpy does not recruit, except for Beli, we constantly try to re-recruit Beli, after Rose poached him from us. GoB folks that were from VE didn't view it as a community that works together towards a common goal. Any idea that resulted in taking away from those individual whales growth despite the economics dictating it was by far the better method were discounted because it was more important for those select few individuals to grow instead of the broader community as a whole to grow thus being more efficient overall. The people who stayed recognized that the alliance doesn't and shouldn't revolve around that hence stunting their own growth to grow tighter was more valuable to achieving our goals as alliance than their egotism. However using ThatGuy as an example is perfect in regards to what a member should be. He's certainly a loyal member who didn't jump ship unlike the former VE-GoB members. You're willingness to shit on individuals who aren't infatuated with their own pixels is humorous. It's quite possible these individuals valued the community more so than the obsession to farmville it up and dodge difficult wars. Instead of asking why these people haven't grown as much, perhaps you should re-examine what it truly means to be a part of a community and all that it entails. 4 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 You guys are so testy... I wasn't putting down That Guy (who I am not mistaken I turned down for grumpy membership due to his activity levels... whoops!) My point was that you see a congestion of upper tier nations all in the same spot because there are a ton of alliances that don't have the culture to support nation growth in the upper levels, like how VE now GoG became under seeker's leadership. Ashland if you want to talk efficiencies you are right tho, getting taxed to support little nations that then either leave or delete is the epitome of efficiency, good on you guys for helping out new... oh that's right you haven't been accepting new members for a while now. As for community, I do know in 770 days of grumpy we have had 2 members voluntarily leave, must be doing something pretty good. Back to war numbers! I have eaten a nuke in 30 out of my 33 cities, 3 more guys we can do it! 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Ashland1 said: That's probably why you puff your little chest out with pride about growing your nations inefficiently with your Sweet Ronny Newspeak: "large nation friendly environment "= Elitist. New Nations need not apply. "So you can complain about about how big we have gotten" = Laugh with derision at your whaling, pixel hugging, and inefficiency "huge ass nations" = Pixel hugging whales; to be reviled and discouraged at every opportunity. "you have prevented them from growing with exorbitant taxes" = Reinvested the alliance's resources most efficiency to maximize long term growth and revenue. SRD, do you understand the lofty concept of 5% being bigger than 4%? " the way you run your alliance is not very welcoming to large nations " = Not having things like THIS in our alliance page: " Contact Sweeeeet Ronny D if you are interested in joining. Tho before you do, ask yourself, would you be a good fit for an alliance that averages over 30 cities per member?" In SRD's bizarre, Martian logic not going out of our way to actively discourage newer players means we are "Not welcoming to large nations". This is, of course, patently absurd. Oh, we also don't charge a 10 million dollar up front fee for joining. How elitist of us. You see, the strategies and growth tactics of GoB are so backwards and inefficient that they have now had to invent their own little orwellian vocabulary to even attempt to justify them. They can't justify their idiotic concepts using actual logic and normal phrases so they've had to make up their own. Ha! You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often. The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well. Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it. We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 31 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: Ha! You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often. The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well. Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it. We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do. Oh the 10 million sign up fee was set specifically to discourage new players from trying to join... not that it stops them. New Fun Warstats! The list of alliances below have done less total infra damage than me. (as of 11/1/18) Afrika Corps, Camelot, Cobra Kai, Eastasia, Empryrea, GodFury, Horseman, Infowars, Oblivion, ODN, Seven Kingdoms, Sirius, the Enterprise, Typhoon, United Hoods, and UPN. I am within 30k infra destroyed of these alliances Acadia, Church of Atom, GoG House Stark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raoul Duke Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 *Horsemen Quote Registered slot thief Buy the ticket, take the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland1 Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Sephiroth said: Ha! You can say we are Elitist I wont deny that, but the reason some of us are so high up has nothing to do with putting priority into only our nation. All of us have been in multiple alliances and Grumpy is the environment where we feel we best fit in, apart from that we are all really close and talk to each other very often. The reason for our large size isn't because our priority is selfish, the reason we are so large is because of our activity, as you may have noticed we are around a lot which is the reason why we can coordinate so well. Our members dont just sit on our money and stack up cities, we actually invest in many smaller alliances, the difference is that we dont go out publicly trying to take credit for it. We have an entrance fee because we want to, just the same way you guys run tax's and try juicing larger players. we generally look to self optimize ourselves to the max efficiency so we can continue to invest our income in things that each individual player finds to be his own priority. We don't agree with the idea that every nation needs to be just another copy paste mass alliance like some do. Given our history I'm pretty disappointed to see that you feel this way. Your attitudes are destructive to the game and the community in the long term. We'll talk face to face once that ivory tower you're on gets knocked down a few levels, bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 3, 2018 Share Posted November 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, Ashland1 said: Given our history I'm pretty disappointed to see that you feel this way. Your attitudes are destructive to the game and the community in the long term. We'll talk face to face once that ivory tower you're on gets knocked down a few levels, bud. your nation link is broken. ok more war stats.... as of 11/1/18 Out of the top 57 nations with the highest amount of infra killed, only one of them is from the IQ/tS side (congrats Curufinwe of the Black Knights! you are 29!) 21 are from TKR 18 are from grumpy 10 are from guardian 6 are from TWC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.