Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 107 of 107

Thread: WW Race

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder View Post
    They have reason too, you guys were being very loud about how you were going for a natar win and that you had done the WW route enough times etc for the first few weeks into the server. The goal you guys set yourself and were vocal about you failed, miserably too with the time it took for the server to be over.

    TS are not going to come back and fight you as a WW alliance against you guys playing for a WW win. But what I would like to see is TS come back and fight you guys for a natar win whilst you go for a WW, see if the tables can be turned. We know TS can do the defence but can they do the hammers?
    Again you lot blabber on about the end game, your just repeating yourself now..

    And.. None of that is going to happen, sadly, so this major fluke will just remain as it is
    UK2 - Beetnik

    So sad, so afraid, so frantic

  2. #102
    Mrs. Fantastic


    Prolific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific MemberProlific Member Ryder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    2,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beetroot. View Post
    Again you lot blabber on about the end game, your just repeating yourself now..

    And.. None of that is going to happen, sadly, so this major fluke will just remain as it is
    You lot? You seem to confuse people with teams - just because someone doesn't agree with your view doesn't put them in the oppostition.

    It's no fluke, you guys were poor. If things are being repeated it's only because you're obviously not understanding the facts. But it's ok, you don't need to get so bitter about losing, there's always another server...
    Server 2, Round 4
    Server 3, Round 8
    Server 5, Round 8

    Current Servers;
    Com4 - IGN;Casper
    Uk5 - Gjenganger

  3. #103
    New Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sim City
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usul View Post
    We had a fair fight in our war.

    TS scored a lot of successes in the beginning, damaging a lot of your capitols (opinions might differ regarding whether it was a severe blow or just a scratch) - part of it might be us doing a great job, part of it might be an element of surprise.

    Later M managed a comeback putting us into the defensive - attacking a lot, capturing some artefacts. Part of it was you doing a great job, part of it was us losing steam (and possibly our management concentrating on end-game).

    Both of us did well in that war, both of us would have smashed ordinary alliances to pieces - both of us could of course have improved.

    The end-game was not very close. We are proud of (and surprised) the amount of ww-defence we did - probably it surprised our opponents as well. That was a vital factor - and luckily it was not fatal that we had too few end-game hammers (and even got those decimated by "accidents").

    Obviously you should have had more end-game "monsters" - was it the result of our initial success in the war ? Was it a result of you losing focus mid-game ? Was it simply due to much larger ww defence than expected ? Answering that sort of questions is IMHO much more interesting than people discussing who has the largest ........

    The northeast were a clear disappointment in the end-game - probably caused by fewer high-quality players and a lot of management difficulties, i guess.
    You and me, Usul, we could be friends.

  4. #104
    New Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Late to read this - but, BDS getting an honorable mention is strange. I don't remember them taking out any CON hammers except one which was borged on their main defender when a few of us decided we were leaving and we'd take out their main defender before we left. Leaving them weak. This defender deleted and BDS then joined CON/NA.

    Don't forget this was an ally who could not hold onto one small artefact, choosing instead to promptly and politely gift it to M, to stop CON trying to steal it, as they could not defend it.

    A couple of us done the rounds, destroying villages, desperately trying to lose our hammers so we could delete without troops. Numerous capitals were smashed and endless ridiculously small defence armies were killed.

    Also, as Yoink mentioned, leaders were not in it for the power - quite the opposite. Leaders found themselves in a position they did not covet, to hold the alliance together. We played the quad without planning for end game. We knew BDS were nothing to write home about, therefore almost all of the alliance were not interested in working with them and just enjoyed the scraps.

    What happened after, with CON/NA WW's I cannot comment on, as one who left the server early. But coming back to read about the final days makes me wish I had stuck it out.

    Congrats to TS, and Hancock.

  5. #105

    Default

    But why were you so eager to leave a server in a good strategic position ?

    CON/NA had the choice :
    You could choose to wait out, watch the M/TS war from the sidelines and prepare for end-game.
    You could choose to interfere in that war (trying to guess side with the weakest side).

    Instead several of your largest players/leaders chose to delete - which was probably a major part in the poor CON/NA result.

    Why?

    There must be some story there.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hancock View Post
    Let me clarify again for you:

    'almost half the active players'
    TS + TSI = 80 players
    CON + NA + PhoenixG + M* + *M* = 177 players*
    *) All 5 ally shot solely on our WW
    From my perspective (using numbers) this is less than 1/3 on our side and more than 2/3 against us...

    'at which point you ridiculed an entire server.'

    I like the numbers game partly cause it conceals some other issues.

    For example one of your own clearly explained in an earlier post (too lazy to quote here) how PhoenixG and Con/NA basically were noobs with probably a handful of able players. TS had 20+ good players to start with and the best of two quadrants. I believe only M was equal in quality to TS. Thus quite a balanced server.

    That is not to detract the achievement of TS but lets not exaggerate.

    Ryder can you please stop being so pleased for M eating dust lolol. It does not change the fact that Flock lost in the last S5

  7. #107
    New Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by usul View Post
    But why were you so eager to leave a server in a good strategic position ?
    Personally, I never intended to play the server out fully. I was on the Nemesis account, and started uk5 with a new dual to test how we worked and make sure we were sorted for UK2 restart.

    When original CON leadership failed, we stepped in to try keep the guys together, but lead with a few loyal silent partners I guess you could say.

    Tbf, one thing that has been said somewhere in this chat that i fully agree with, is that it was a weak quad with a few good players.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •