Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Tournament Qualifiers

  1. #21

    Default

    I'm not sure quite so long posts were needed to make your point Messy :p

    It's an interesting tactic. In the UK only settler and embassy pushing is really common. Some alliances go a little further and push to help repair accounts/armies/build q's when someone holds an artefacts. In the UK, generally 'pushed' alliance armies are mocked (and often for good reason, where it is genuinely the largest accounts growing at the expense of the smaller accounts).

    Where I've seen it more accepted that average accounts will support the top-end accounts is on russian servers/players. But that balance is different. The 'average' accounts will still grow to a good size while supporting the top-end accounts. This means it's less clear cut that one is growing at the expense of the others. Done fairly, it's 'average' accounts pushing res they find difficult to spend due to lower activity levels or limited use of gold to a very active, gold intensive for NPC account. It's a lot less clear that accounts aren't being played for their own benefit in this case. [sorry, the average vs. top-end is bit clumsy wording still, but it's late]

    I've sometimes wondered if it's down to the inherent political models in each country - the contrast of western capitalist/market-based societies vs. communist states where pooling resources and a central command driven economy prevails over market forces.

  2. #22
    Honoured Natarian MemberHonoured Natarian MemberHonoured Natarian MemberHonoured Natarian Member Trouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Leeds/Norwich
    Posts
    2,387

    Default

    Central command regularly prevails, why? Because if you rely on every one being "equal" or having a an "equal" say, what comes into play is stupid people. And this form of team become slows down by the weakest member, unless they are intelligent enough to accept other people are right. Which then I guess they are not so weak, but that is assuming people are not stupid. Trust me, on average people are stupid. Life isn't that hard.

    Central system does not allow for those errors, however if central command is bad obv your screwed. Example of this will be goats alliance uk1, go watch them crumble

    Especially when we have in the UK simply laziness and arrogance of players.

    Ego has and always will be a HUGE problem for the uk, why? Because people have a hard time accepting instructions from those they don't trust.

    Also most people are just really bad at the game and have inflated ego still. Copying strategies from the real pros and facing no competition because the UK servers are so weak.

    I agree with polotical model.
    But then we have such weak poloticians. Some of them are even clearly incompotent, like blatantly. And we have a largely silent "conservative" side, a very vocal "Labour" side, and then some greens etc liberals. It boils down to 2 sides that have a monopoly.
    They are both bad.
    But for some reason nothing is done.
    Neither deserve to rule. Yet they are allowed to by ignorance.

    For my personal side, Labours have the best hearts, best intentions, and they are often thinking more altruisitcally, yet they often have a lacking of understanding.
    Where as conservatives are often calous and somewhat elitist, or as is an unfortunate problem since both our political parties are REALLY REALLY BAD.

    They just chose to vote for the one that will make the least mistakes, which is clearly conservatives. IDK if labour got any one capable of understanding what a number is, I'm serious. I watched them a lot, 0 well constructed arguments using the "numbers" its like a dark art to them, rather use pretentious generalisations to try and spit on the enemy. PATHETIC!

    Tories are just as bad. Don't have the training for the job, still act like they are gods gift to the game, no you are only elected because your opponant is -1000000 and you are somewhat closer to 0.

    Cut the tax of the top guys, seems like its a price for effective administrators. WTF
    there was just no other choice. Cant let a pleb like ed milliband any where near command centre, be a disaster.

    Rant over
    No-cringe signature.

  3. #23

    Default

    If your account exists purely so a single account can become stronger (and you actively play this account), that is definately against the rules. Had a prime example of a player getting shut down for this earlier this round on ukx. He basically had an entire alliance settled around him in the middle of nowhere that he could freely raid alone, and they built themselves up so that he could get as much ress as possible.

    There is a chance they were bots, but that type of bot is so difficult to catch I am fairly sure the MH's just made it easy for themselves and eventually ruled him under the "each account must play to its own benefit"-rule and stopped them all (considering the main account was left untouched).

    So yea, it's not only bad morale and unfair, but also against the rules and may be punished depending on the MH.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Placebo View Post
    If your account exists purely so a single account can become stronger (and you actively play this account), that is definately against the rules. Had a prime example of a player getting shut down for this earlier this round on ukx. He basically had an entire alliance settled around him in the middle of nowhere that he could freely raid alone, and they built themselves up so that he could get as much ress as possible.

    There is a chance they were bots, but that type of bot is so difficult to catch I am fairly sure the MH's just made it easy for themselves and eventually ruled him under the "each account must play to its own benefit"-rule and stopped them all (considering the main account was left untouched).

    So yea, it's not only bad morale and unfair, but also against the rules and may be punished depending on the MH.
    That rule is extreamly hard for multihunters to use in my opinion. If that where the case they would have to ban all Personal deffers also. Since they only exist to protect 1 account.

    and i think that ally where banned because thoses acc where run by 1 bot. Looking at the acc they all looked exactly the same. Multiple people don't build like that.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lovgren666 View Post
    That rule is extreamly hard for multihunters to use in my opinion. If that where the case they would have to ban all Personal deffers also. Since they only exist to protect 1 account.

    and i think that ally where banned because thoses acc where run by 1 bot. Looking at the acc they all looked exactly the same. Multiple people don't build like that.
    A personal deffer exists to grow and also protect itself, it's a mutual benefit, since if a personal defender is attacked, the attacker will have a bad time afterwards

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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