The beginning of the end of world 18

DeletedUser

Guest
hmm... where to start...

- you failed to win w18 as you insisted on putting you own personal vendettas and aims above those not only of you allies but your own tribe... I will give you credit for helping accelerate the demise of mm by pulling half their players purely so you could "get revenge" on zzdragon...

- You actually did approach and use an alliance with "huggers" apoc, to protect yourself whilst you attempted to chase the vendetta... unfortunately we weren't willing to allow you to "hoard" personal k's and therefore the alliance broke down... hmm seems like we were the ones that wanted to get on and attack actives rather than "clean up" our "own" k's

As regards mm... they were a superb tribe, full of fun people- no argument... unfortunately they were destroyed as much by the egos of some of their leaders as by RL.

You are wrong on both accounts. Super Sweet, etc leaving had nothing to do with neither me nor the issues with zzdragon. Joann and I were left to try and pick up the pieces. When some in council wanted to merge with Aggression, they all knew I was against it but I went with majority preferences and even put forth my best effort to make it work. The fact that zz is a complete a$$ is not my fault. Once again, it was not me that ended that alliance. Finally, when I left MIM, it had absolutely nothing to do with zz - it was purely due to an internal conflict with INF. I did want to kill zz and everyone knew that but i never put my interests ahead of the tribe's. It was only when I left MIM that our little crew nobled zz villages as well as VST as well as davidemah, etc to our heart's content :)

In regards to me approaching Apoc, you again have it wrong. At that time I was friends with Zain and Wolfhunt from the leader skype chat we had from your UA days. It was Wolfhunt that approached me and made promises that he would break (every single one of them). We were offered a NAP because VST and S had declared on us. It was to your benefit that we fight them for you so yeah, you're welcome :) Apoc was greedily taking villages within our clusters in our home Ks so of course we told you where to go. We had single handedly killed VST and you wanted to ride on our coat tails even though you still had at least 30Ks to clean up in your area. In hindsight I guess I know why. You needed us to kill the enemy so you could come in and just clean up as usual. It would be too hard for you to learn how to send timed attacks at this late stage of the game.

Next time try to include at least one real fact in there, ok?
 

Ray Joakim

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
0
Your observation is fundamentally flawed.

You appear to be confusing game constructs with real relationships. Those relationships may only last for the duration of the game but they are no less real.

My loyalty is to my tribemates, real people who trust me and I, in turn trust. Anything I do in TW against the enemy is fair game. My enemy, though real people too, are not people to whom I have pledged my support and loyalty.

Incidentally you would know, if you actually read through these forums, that I think spying, at least on w18, is pointless.

P.S. I used to be in the armed forces and morals and ethics are not dropped when you don your fatigues. If anything one's morals and ethics are what keeps you sane and doing the right thing.

e-villages are not the issue. Trust and loyalty is.

That is true for some. Personally I'd rather go down fighting for and with my friends.

I'm most certainly not getting confused. You're the one mixing a real life moral code with a WAR GAME. Real relationships can exist, however the things players fight over are ultimately insignificant, and therefore so are the reasons. Things like "trust" and "loyalty" are valueless in a war game due to the insignificance of the things you fight over. The game promotes the domination of others. However, people like to bring in their own moral codes into the game, and they are more then welcome to if it makes them feel better. However, it does seem a little silly because of what you're staking your moral code over: some e-villages. More often then not these moral codes aren't the actual reasons; more so self preservation.

After your position is secured, you can be as trustworthy and loyal as you like, and the more people who believe you the better. And sometimes it goes out of control and everyone decides to hold hands together and end the game in a peaceful unification. In my opinion, players should not lie to themselves and follow some insignificant moral code in game, and just do what the game promotes you to do: to steal, destroy and dominate. They'd have alot more fun for it.

Besides, where were your morals when you nobled all your villages? Surely that's stealing, and would therefore be immoral? You wouldn't steal in real life, but the game allows you to do so, without consequence. And that's absolutely fine. You let go of his moral code in game somewhat so you can commit actions ingame that'd be hurtful in real life. After all, the real players who originally held your villages aren't losing much, are they? Why not just let that moral code slide even more, and backstab any player you meet, if it's to your advantage, even if they are your ally for 2 years? They aren't losing much, are they? Seems pretty hypocritical if you follow your moral code in some cases, and not others. Hence my cynicism of trustworthiness and loyalty in this game.

If I was to noble my friend, nothing to stop him from continuing to be my friend is there? It's not like I've broken a moral code that I've been brought up with throughout real life because what I've done has had no effect on either of our lives. People always say they would go down fighting - was surprising how untrue that was when I put it to the test with the various players I faced. It was amusing how our last ally, FEMA - a tribe of similar (when combined) size to DNY, preached the exact same things as you do now. When war broke out, DNY were labelled as evil, and without morals by some, as if right after we nobled them, we'd go on to committing some heinous act in real life. There's a difference.


You are correct but let's not forget that it is those same reasons that we coalesce into tribes as well.
Which brings us back to the original opinion of the use of alliances. By forming into an alliance that includes nearly all remaining players of the world, the point of the alliance/family is lost, and now you'd be taking the easy way out simply by resting on your laurels. Hence various comments about how w18 has an easy victory brought about Morthy's decision to allow an alliance to close a world, rather then a single tribe. Hopefully he reads this, and this changes in the future, as it degrades the requirement to close a world.

Not misinformed. I am simply stating the values I think moderators should espouse.
I said you were misinformed to expect that from moderators in the first place. Do you expect football referees to give neutral opinions when discussing football at the pub?
Aren't we all!
Some more then others, it'd seem.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Finally, when I left MIM, it had absolutely nothing to do with zz - it was purely due to an internal conflict with INF. I did want to kill zz and everyone knew that but i never put my interests ahead of the tribe's. It was only when I left MIM that our little crew nobled zz villages as well as VST as well as davidemah, etc to our heart's content :)

bella.. you seem to forget.. or maybe just weren't aware.. but I was in the chats with you, and had access to the mails etc, we were in a chat discussing your plans to attack ~s~ and zz in particular at least a month before you "left MIM and had vst and ~s~ declare on you" indeed- YOU launched on ~s~ first :lol:

We were offered a NAP because VST and S had declared on us.

see above

It was to your benefit that we fight them for you so yeah, you're welcome :) Apoc
... yep.. thanks for that.

[apoc]greedily taking villages within our clusters in our home Ks so of course we told you where to go.
yeah worked out well for you :*


Next time try to include at least one real fact in there, ok?
You mean REAL facts or msbella facts?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Apoc was greedily taking villages within our clusters in our home Ks so of course we told you where to go.
That was one of the fundamental problems. "Your" Ks were our front line. They were also riddled with red dots. Apoc has always espoused an integrated front line (check out the player maps) and so your insistence on securing "your" K was anathema to our model, it erected a significant obstancle between us and our mutual enemies and, to be honest, exposed your longer term plan to turn on us at a later stage in the game (at which point you would have been embedded in "our" territory and hitting us from behind our front lines.

If you had accepted the idea that we fight together and share territory the subsequent parting of the ways may never have happened. Your claims of broken promises are bogus. The real split happened because you couldn't accept that to ally with us meant having to share a longer term vision in which we were integrated. That's fine but don't blame WOlfhunt or anyone else for an outcome that, given your position, was inevitable.
We had single handedly killed VST and you wanted to ride on our coat tails even though you still had at least 30Ks to clean up in your area. In hindsight I guess I know why. You needed us to kill the enemy so you could come in and just clean up as usual.
Mmm... OK, =V= did a significant amount of damage to VST (1172 conquers) but Apoc did more (1360) and it was Apoc that got VST to quit the field.
Next time try to include at least one real fact in there, ok?
Hopefully I have achieved your criteria. Of course you won't accept my rationale for the conflict between Apoc & =V= but I wouldn't expect you to!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
well... having read most of the trolling on these pages before glazing over and wondering what the hell I was doing there I want to say that w7 players have a good point. if they have dominated their world it really should have been closed already. But on the same token it shouldnt take away from Apoc's accomplishments. We have already hashed over how different goals and strategies existed in the game. People played the way they wanted and it was a hoot. I still say congrats to all those who lasted this long... I admire your dedication. I however still like the way I played when I was on and wouldnt change a thing just to reach end game.

I find it sad that macman still goes on about deleting losers. to you I would say why would people you are playing against keep paying to be insulted. seriously macman... you wonder why people delete... it has nothing to do with your ability but rather their realization that it really means nothing and isnt worth the verbal abuse. But that is what TW brings out and I have done my fair share of trolling. I suspect if I was still here I would be similar so I am not going to throw stones... In the end APOC met the requirements as set out by TW and that is to be applauded.

for W7 players... your issue seems to be with Morthy and not w18 players. I have played with and against these people and can say they not the noobs you claim they are. you cant make that call unless you have been here. I actually am offended that you call them huggers.... only w18 players can abuse our beloved apoc (family... blech!...lol)... we have trolled them for years and have earned that right... you havent so please go back to your corner and work on reaching your own requirements. I personally would have liked to see a free for all end to this game... where former allies and teammates just go for it and have a great time. they deserved that... but if APOC and BA feel that strongly about their alliance then it is their choice on how they want to end their world.

Congrats again to Apoc and BA... I hated you in game but that just means you were a good opponent to have... I wish I had a few more players like you in my new game and if anyone is looking for a new challenge drop me a line... I know you would be awesome there too... cheers and good luck in the future to all.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
well... having read most of the trolling on these pages before glazing over and wondering what the hell I was doing there I want to say that w7 players have a good point. if they have dominated their world it really should have been closed already. But on the same token it shouldnt take away from Apoc's accomplishments. We have already hashed over how different goals and strategies existed in the game. People played the way they wanted and it was a hoot. I still say congrats to all those who lasted this long... I admire your dedication. I however still like the way I played when I was on and wouldnt change a thing just to reach end game.

I find it sad that macman still goes on about deleting losers. to you I would say why would people you are playing against keep paying to be insulted. seriously macman... you wonder why people delete... it has nothing to do with your ability but rather their realization that it really means nothing and isnt worth the verbal abuse. But that is what TW brings out and I have done my fair share of trolling. I suspect if I was still here I would be similar so I am not going to throw stones... In the end APOC met the requirements as set out by TW and that is to be applauded.

for W7 players... your issue seems to be with Morthy and not w18 players. I have played with and against these people and can say they not the noobs you claim they are. you cant make that call unless you have been here. I actually am offended that you call them huggers.... only w18 players can abuse our beloved apoc (family... blech!...lol)... we have trolled them for years and have earned that right... you havent so please go back to your corner and work on reaching your own requirements. I personally would have liked to see a free for all end to this game... where former allies and teammates just go for it and have a great time. they deserved that... but if APOC and BA feel that strongly about their alliance then it is their choice on how they want to end their world.

Congrats again to Apoc and BA... I hated you in game but that just means you were a good opponent to have... I wish I had a few more players like you in my new game and if anyone is looking for a new challenge drop me a line... I know you would be awesome there too... cheers and good luck in the future to all.

Did someone mention new game :icon_razz:

Nice post btw LB!
 

torflek

Guest
for W7 players... your issue seems to be with Morthy and not w18 players. I have played with and against these people and can say they not the noobs you claim they are. you cant make that call unless you have been here. I actually am offended that you call them huggers.... only w18 players can abuse our beloved apoc (family... blech!...lol)... we have trolled them for years and have earned that right... you havent so please go back to your corner and work on reaching your own requirements. I personally would have liked to see a free for all end to this game... where former allies and teammates just go for it and have a great time. they deserved that... but if APOC and BA feel that strongly about their alliance then it is their choice on how they want to end their world.

Rednecks called APOC huggers first I believe who was world 12. I certainly haven't called W18 noobs. I would say they were cop outs. They may have been good upto now, but quitting before the end for a stalemate draw is declaring hippy peace in W18.
 

DeletedUser53550

Guest
... but if APOC and BA feel that strongly about their alliance then it is their choice on how they want to end their world.

I believe that APOC and their allies stopped their premium and then threatened to delete if Morthy refused to end the world, rumours of APOC players threatening to hold their breath until they turned blue have been denied.

Morthy couldn't withstand this emotional onslaught and caved in. So the world will end without a winner. 4 tribes tied together in an alliance of equals. World 18 ends, not with a blast on the trumpet of victory but with the soft rattle of toys being placed back in the pram from where they came.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Rednecks called APOC huggers first I believe who was world 12. I certainly haven't called W18 noobs. I would say they were cop outs. They may have been good upto now, but quitting before the end for a stalemate draw is declaring hippy peace in W18.

I'm sorry if I generalized... it wasn't my intent... this is exactly what I mean though... if you had played here you would know that I like to lump groups together for the sake of trolling ease...lol

I love the hippy peace comment though... too funny...:) But like I said... TW set out the requirements and this world has chosen to meet the ones set out for family tribes... not my preference personally but it's not my call.... or yours.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm most certainly not getting confused. You're the one mixing a real life moral code with a WAR GAME. Real relationships can exist, however the things players fight over are ultimately insignificant, and therefore so are the reasons. Things like "trust" and "loyalty" are valueless in a war game due to the insignificance of the things you fight over. The game promotes the domination of others. However, people like to bring in their own moral codes into the game, and they are more then welcome to if it makes them feel better. However, it does seem a little silly because of what you're staking your moral code over: some e-villages. More often then not these moral codes aren't the actual reasons; more so self preservation.
Clearly you are more detached from the people you fought with and the real relationships that develop in and around the game. I'm not saying you are a bad person for decoupling your real self and your game persona. Many can easily keep the two seperate as their interactions with other players are relative limited and contrived. As a leader within a major tribe within such an all-cosuming game I have been in constant dialogue with friends (and enemies). I simply don't possess the energy to seperate my own morals and ethics from those that I project when engaged that dialogue. As such I never played false. In fact I never played false with my enemies either (not necessarily good in a war game!) but then my objective was "world peace" (yes, I'm a hugger!) and to turn the world blue.
After your position is secured, you can be as trustworthy and loyal as you like, and the more people who believe you the better. And sometimes it goes out of control and everyone decides to hold hands together and end the game in a peaceful unification.
Sounds perfect!
In my opinion, players should not lie to themselves and follow some insignificant moral code in game, and just do what the game promotes you to do: to steal, destroy and dominate. They'd have alot more fun for it.
I guess it's a case of horses for courses.
Besides, where were your morals when you nobled all your villages? Surely that's stealing, and would therefore be immoral? You wouldn't steal in real life, but the game allows you to do so, without consequence. And that's absolutely fine.
We are clearly arguing at cross-purposes. My issue is not killing the enemy, my issue is turning on real people who have committed to follow my leadership and have shown unswerving loyalty throughout the game, simply to achieve someone else's definition of a victory. I regard being declared the winner of w18 while honouring that loyalty as a far greater achievement.
After all, the real players who originally held your villages aren't losing much, are they? Why not just let that moral code slide even more, and backstab any player you meet, if it's to your advantage, even if they are your ally for 2 years?
Simply because the first are my enemies who have no other objective to eliminate me before I eliminate them, the second are my friends/allies. There is no moral grey area, the two are as different as chalk and cheese.
They aren't losing much, are they? Seems pretty hypocritical if you follow your moral code in some cases, and not others. Hence my cynicism of trustworthiness and loyalty in this game.
We will have to agree to disagree.
If I was to noble my friend, nothing to stop him from continuing to be my friend is there? It's not like I've broken a moral code that I've been brought up with throughout real life because what I've done has had no effect on either of our lives.
Not if your friendship transcends (or pre-dated) TW and there was a common understanding that you might noble each other. If, however, that friendship was born of being thrown together by TW in the belief that you were on the same side then I would say, though there maybe no reason to not continue that friendship, it could be argued that the friendship was based on a lie and so why would you wish to try to re-establish "real" trust?
People always say they would go down fighting - was surprising how untrue that was when I put it to the test with the various players I faced. It was amusing how our last ally, FEMA - a tribe of similar (when combined) size to DNY, preached the exact same things as you do now. When war broke out, DNY were labelled as evil, and without morals by some, as if right after we nobled them, we'd go on to committing some heinous act in real life. There's a difference.
Of course there is but, considering we all spend as much time playing this game as we do, the betrayal of trust may seem no less real to the betrayed, despite the self-serving justifications presented by the betrayer.
Which brings us back to the original opinion of the use of alliances. By forming into an alliance that includes nearly all remaining players of the world, the point of the alliance/family is lost, and now you'd be taking the easy way out simply by resting on your laurels.
I agree, but forming an alliance that includes the remaining players is not how this world has gone into the end game.

Our alliance was formed 2 years ago between a number of rim tribes whose existence, let alone chance of winning the world, was threatened by a number of very well established and, at that time, very potent core tribes. Even if you aggregated across the whole of that alliance we were very much in the minority (I think we may have had 2 or 3 tribes in predominantly the bottom half of the top 20 - someone may have more precise figures).

It was that alliance that ensured mutual survival and allowed us to take the fight to the core tribes, defeat them, and move through the core to dominate the world.
Hence various comments about how w18 has an easy victory brought about Morthy's decision to allow an alliance to close a world, rather then a single tribe. Hopefully he reads this, and this changes in the future, as it degrades the requirement to close a world.
Hopefully he does read this and thinks "Hey! Isn't it great that there is more than one way to bring about the conclusion of a world! Better still that means that our potential players have far more choices as to how to live their TW lives which can only encourage a greater variety of players to the game."
I said you were misinformed to expect that from moderators in the first place. Do you expect football referees to give neutral opinions when discussing football at the pub?
Of course not, but I don't expect them to voice an opinion in the players tunnel!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Rednecks called APOC huggers first I believe who was world 12. I certainly haven't called W18 noobs. I would say they were cop outs. They may have been good upto now, but quitting before the end for a stalemate draw is declaring hippy peace in W18.

Is there another word I should be using besides hug/hugging/huggers? I never called them noobs either but 20+ tribes with over 1000 members!!!! :icon_eek: I thought they were huggers before MsBella brought that to light, she just confirmed it.

Andrew, seriously, you owned a 10 to 1 ratio over your enemies and you say this world was not easy? What, the fingers cramp up sending attacks? :lol:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Is there another word I should be using besides hug/hugging/huggers? I never called them noobs either but 20+ tribes with over 1000 members!!!! :icon_eek: I thought they were huggers before MsBella brought that to light, she just confirmed it.

Andrew, seriously, you owned a 10 to 1 ratio over your enemies and you say this world was not easy? What, the fingers cramp up sending attacks? :lol:
Please see my post above.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
huggers... that seems the right word based on the past.... but this world wasnt that easy for those of us who were enemies to apoc... I remember having 1000's of new incoming a few times a day for months.... I would actually get upset if they stopped...lol we had some good days like watching some apoc tribes fold... and we had some bad days... the hungry chickens comment comes to mind... but then again the east players were playing a different game and didnt have the patience for 300 hour noble trains... not when a better target was so close and deserving. This game runs with high emotions and I think some people take things way too personal. thats why I understand the w7 players frustration at being passed over for an end. Keep it up guys your turn will come soon and you will have ended your world your way. That will be a happy day for you all and will be well deserved.

Hehe... I cant believe I am defending Apoc on here... I must need a shrink!...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Hopefully he does read this and thinks "Hey! Isn't it great that there is more than one way to bring about the conclusion of a world! Better still that means that our potential players have far more choices as to how to live their TW lives which can only encourage a greater variety of players to the game."

I tend to disagree with this point, in this particular game, the way one player plays directly affects the way other players have to play. When you join a world you have no idea the type of players and leaders you will be playing against. In the case of W18 a strong group of families emerged, many players were not able to enjoy this and probably quit the game over it, meaning less money for TW. To better determine profitability from a TW standpoint they should compare the money made from this server vs other servers. While I certainly don't know for sure, I don't think this server was as profitable as others that have not been as dominated by family tribes. If you were to advertise a soccer/football match with 22 adults on one team vs 11 children on the opposing team, I very much doubt you would have many people eager to participate.

The bottom line is, most of you got bored of the game over time and didn't enjoy the stress the time consumption added to your daily lives, The fact that the game keeps playing even when you are not online is largely responsible for this. A lot of you wanted to quit, but you also wanted some semblance of a finish or victory to the world, hence the creation of the alliance of tribes that was created. It was an effort to end the world as quickly as possible so that you could quit with your finish. It was not because "we like playing this game this way" it was "we hate this game, we need it to end" How many of you plan on playing a new world? Pretty much none of you. To say that the style of play that you incorporated is profitable for TW over more traditional methods is false and you know it. (I'm not saying it wasn't profitable, I'm certain it was very profitable, but not as profitable in the long run).

Now if they advertised the server as "this is a family tribe server" then you would be onto something. But I doubt many would join.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
TWA-N1, TWA-N3, TWA-N4, TWA-NE, TWA-RB, TWA-S, TWA-ST, TWA-W, TWA-X, RKN-C, RKN-N, RKN-R, RKN-S, DVA, DS, DS-08, [BA], {BA}. The original 18 member tribes of the UA, topping out at between 1500-1700 members. This was roughly 5-7 months into the start of the world iirc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I knew we didn't have that many in the tribe, but I didn't know about members. No one listens to me, though.
 

DeletedUser53550

Guest
TWA-N1, TWA-N3, TWA-N4, TWA-NE, TWA-RB, TWA-S, TWA-ST, TWA-W, TWA-X, RKN-C, RKN-N, RKN-R, RKN-S, DVA, DS, DS-08, [BA], {BA}. The original 18 member tribes of the UA, topping out at between 1500-1700 members. This was roughly 5-7 months into the start of the world iirc.

Wow. That's an awful lot of players to provide defense and nuke support - how on earth did APOC (and friends) only draw this world??
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Wow. That's an awful lot of players to provide defense and nuke support - how on earth did APOC (and friends) only draw this world??
mainly because some of these tribes never existed within the ua.. or were tribes set up by enemies /neutrals to try and hide under the radar.. it failed :icon_twisted:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
mainly because some of these tribes never existed within the ua.. or were tribes set up by enemies /neutrals to try and hide under the radar.. it failed :icon_twisted:

No...all of those tribes were in the original UA...

*edit* Actually that was the tribes list for April 09, there may have actually been more tribes in the UA originally, the number 27 is cropping in my head but I can't find the UA's coming out thread to back this up. It was probably deleted due to flaming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top