Quantity or Quality?

[DeletedUser]

Really this debate has become a pissing contest over who is and isn't right, when defining what a mass recruiter is!!

Why bother even talking about another tribes recruitment methods?

Ok so zombie have recruited a lot of members and have been the not so glorious title of "mass recruiters". Is it really that big a deal? The only time we will see if it has paid off will be in the future, when its crunch time and they have to manage all those members.

Like I said in a previous post it wont matter if they mass recruit because, if they can handle a max tribe limit they will still get flamed for being mass recruiters. So nothing will change.

This entire thread was drawn up to bring a 2nd tribe into the light just to take some of the light from these so-called "mass recruiters" by pointing out different methods of recruitment.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that it is quite funny that no ZOMBIE or PUNCH! members are even posting anymore on this thread.

 

[Deleted User - 3135]

There is clear separation, the centre of each of these clusters is at least 2 Ks away from each other, and the edge is 2/3 of a K away. Nowhere did I say that the clusters recruited were small, the fact that I stated they were clusters actually implies the opposite if anything.

It isn't that separated. Was less so before too, but we haven't done quite so well in the K37 area as we did in others. Add a few white dots in that northern K37 section and you have a very good spread. Unfortunately, not everything always goes the way you want it. But things change. We were slow to launch in K48 and was actually performing worse than K37. Now we control it very well. The players also are fully onboard with what we are trying to and are achieving; and we get a great response. There is a very good environment within Zombie, one that I would bet is better than every tribe in this world. Strong marker to put down, but that's just how I feel.

Really this debate has become a pissing contest over who is and isn't right, when defining what a mass recruiter is!!

Why bother even talking about another tribes recruitment methods?

Why not?

It is an interesting argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

It isn't that separated. Was less so before too, but we haven't done quite so well in the K37 area as we did in others. Add a few white dots in that northern K37 section and you have a very good spread. Unfortunately, not everything always goes the way you want it. But things change. We were slow to launch in K48 and was actually performing worse than K37. Now we control it very well. The players also are fully onboard with what we are trying to and are achieving; and we get a great response. There is a very good environment within Zombie, one that I would bet is better than every tribe in this world. Strong marker to put down, but that's just how I feel.



Why not?

It is an interesting argument.

To me it seems separate enough to consider them 2 clusters. Honestly I have zero issue with what Zombie are doing, whether it will succeed or not is not for me to say, even if I had the slightest idea.

 

[Sellsword]

To me it seems separate enough to consider them 2 clusters. Honestly I have zero issue with what Zombie are doing, whether it will succeed or not is not for me to say, even if I had the slightest idea.

This is not an appropriate response. We need cheerleaders, so here's the pompoms . and do your thang.


People should bear in mind this thread is about a hypothetical case. Not about our tribe. If you would wish to use ZOMBIE as an example in a discussion, distinguish between Tribe B in the starting post and a minor w54 tribe that just happens to be full of braineaters.

 

[DeletedUser]

ZOMBIE are mass-recruiters because they recruited lots of players. Please, go ahead nad refute my points as to why they are not mass-recruiters, if not then do not reply.

Wow, how well I have done in the above statement :icon_rolleyes:. I have made the assumption that my statement is correct until proven otherwise, as you yourself have done, and this is where your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Fantastic response, I must say. This is what it boils down to: "No YOU"

I asked you to refute my points, and your response is "Here's my statement again, YOU refute it!". Once again, I might add, proving that you haven't read my posts, because I already addressed that definition Here, in a post earlier in this thread. Please read this post, and get back to me.

But wait! Apparently:

Yes, I have read your points, you do not feel they fit YOUR definition of mass-recruitment. If you think I in any way care about what YOUR definition of mass-recruitment is, you're sorely mistaken. Turning up on the externals blithering about how this is not mass-recruitment because YOU have so carefully defined a vaguely used term is pointless. Let me show you kindly.

You've already read my posts! That's really big of you, refusing to accept the possibility that anyone else might also have a point. So basically, you don't care what anyone else thinks, you just come onto the public forums in order to... to do what, exactly? If you don't care what anyone else thinks, why should they care what you think? And if noone gives a damn what anyone else has to say, why are they posting at all? That's a little bit silly, and probably a lie, as well. If you really didn't care what I had to say, you would just be ignoring my posts. What you're doing here is what is called "being a Hard Lad" in the area I'm from. It basically describes someone who acts tough and pretends not to care about anyone else in order to look "cool". Needless to say, beyond the age of about 17 (though in some unfortunately not so rare cases, much longer) it really doesn't work.

There are almost always multiple definitions of something. Always. A room is a space enclosed by a number of walls and a roof. Or is it? Another source describes it as "Any distinguishable shape within a structure". That doesn't necessarily need to be enclosed. How do you define a Wall? In most cases, we go with the most commonly accepted definition. This definition might shift and change depending on context, but if I were to say "I'm in a small room" to you, you'd have a pretty good idea of what I meant, regardless of any potential ambiguity. In this case, we both gave our definitions of Mass-recruitment. Yours agrees with Warham. Mine agrees with... pretty much everyone else in the thread, it seems. Not only that, let's take a look in the General forum to see if this has come up before.

Oh look! Here's one!. This guy specifically states that HIS mass-recruiting system makes no discrimination between players, he just takes em all in, regardless of what they're like, so long as they're above a certain points value. Note the lack of a "Selective" system, like I was describing (Unless of course you want to tell me that in early game, above a certain level of points = decent player, but I really would advise against that).

What, another one? Already?. Not even having to leave that thread, here's another! This guy seems to agree with my first post to the letter. Shocking, isn't it?

Back into the depths of history, we find This. Look at how every player in this thread instantly associates mass-inviting with a lack of a screening process. I think the above three examples show that My definition is definitely far more prevalent in TW history. But how about more recently? I ask you to look, if you need more evidence. Unfortunately, due to the fact that "mass recruitment" is also a phrase used to describe a premium feature ingame (who would have thought it, a word having two definitions...), it is quite hard to track down examples over the entire forum. I searched the general forums for such threads, but could only find old ones. Evidently, people are sure enough in the definition of "Mass-recruitment" that they feel no need to discuss it.

In Conclusion, I think I've made my point here. Is that enough of a "refutation"? Would you like me to put some more effort in to make up for the sheer lack of it in your posts? You're saying Mass-recruitment is simply the recruiting of a lot of players. I'm saying (and many others are also saying) that yes, recruiting a lot of players is an important part of the act of mass-recruitment, but it is not the only part, by any stretch of the imagination. Flour is the key ingredient in a sponge cake, and let's just say I wouldn't like to eat a cake based on that definition.

350g/12oz Odlums Self Raising Flour
275g/10oz Caster Sugar
275g/10oz Soft Margarine
5 Eggs
3 Tablespoons Milk

"Hey look, this cake is mostly Flour! So it's the same if we just eat flour, right? Right?"

Oh, and regarding the other "point" you made in your post:

There is clear separation, the centre of each of these clusters is at least 2 Ks away from each other, and the edge is 2/3 of a K away. Nowhere did I say that the clusters recruited were small, the fact that I stated they were clusters actually implies the opposite if anything.

Ever heard of a thing called "expansion"? It's quite important in this game, especially in early stages. Yes, they have two clusters, but quite obviously in a way that show their expansion plans, and quite obviously CHOSEN to that effect. Note that word, chosen. It'll be quite important later on in this post. Now, your comment that: "The location of these players actually very closely mimics that of late game mass-recruitment, where a tribe will recruit almost every player in the world they possibly can, often leading to 2 or 3 clusters of players nowhere near each other." Looks very much to me like an opportunity to get a dig in about the fact that they're obviously mass-recruiting, by using an almost completely unrelated statement.

Wow, their setup very much mimics that of a premade who have started late on the rim, all choosing the same direction! (it does, actually, much more than your example, as if they were doing that they'd have pockets on the other side of the WORLD, which is what late-game mass-recruitment looks like).

Let me give you another example: "Wow, that cloud looks almost like an alien spaceship firing its Death Lasers at the world!" I feel this is quite an appropriate example of how "looks like" is not a foundation for a point about how something must obviously be tru-

 

[DeletedUser57199]

Fantastic response, I must say. This is what it boils down to: "No YOU"

I think what it boils down to is a disagreement of views and stubborn ignorance.

In your/my opinion of mass recruitment is a focus on the recruitment aspect of tribal development. Therefore neglecting other aspects of tribal structure to make way for expansion/protection using the recruitment button.. therefore if done with other intentions in mind making it a more selective approach, a larger member count can't possibly be defined as mass recruitment (in our eyes).
example: [spoil]Recruiting a large amount of spoils after a war is not mass recruiting as long as the quality is upto standard.
Recruiting a large amount of spoils after a war is mass recruiting if the intentions include absorbing players for rank, appearance, intimidation of surrounding tribes, or fear.[/spoil]

From what I have gathered from Reaper and Warham views of mass recruitment is a much simpler view. Basically high amount of members means a high amount of recruitment meaning time and energy was spent recruiting in turn making said tribe a mass recruitment tribe.
example:
[spoil]50 members is not a mass recruitment tribe.
80 members is a mass recruitment tribe.
50 members plus a family tribe is also a mass recruitment tribe.
50 members plus an equal ally is not a mass recruitment tribe.
no exceptions (to my understanding)[/spoil]

We can argue this 1000 more times it won't change their belief, so lets agree to disagree.

You've already read my posts! That's really big of you, refusing to accept the possibility that anyone else might also have a point. So basically, you don't care what anyone else thinks, you just come onto the public forums in order to... to do what, exactly? If you don't care what anyone else thinks, why should they care what you think? And if noone gives a damn what anyone else has to say, why are they posting at all? That's a little bit silly, and probably a lie, as well. If you really didn't care what I had to say, you would just be ignoring my posts. What you're doing here is what is called "being a Hard Lad" in the area I'm from. It basically describes someone who acts tough and pretends not to care about anyone else in order to look "cool". Needless to say, beyond the age of about 17 (though in some unfortunately not so rare cases, much longer) it really doesn't work.

Reading and understanding are two different things that require to different parts of the brain. As frustrating as it maybe at times everyone has the right to post, even if its only repeat an inferior argument or puff out their chests :lol:

There are almost always multiple definitions of something. Always.A room is a space enclosed by a number of walls and a roof. Or is it? Another source describes it as "Any distinguishable shape within a structure". That doesn't necessarily need to be enclosed. How do you define a Wall? In most cases, we go with the most commonly accepted definition. This definition might shift and change depending on context, but if I were to say "I'm in a small room" to you, you'd have a pretty good idea of what I meant, regardless of any potential ambiguity.In this case, we both gave our definitions of Mass-recruitment. Yours agrees with Warham. Mine agrees with... pretty much everyone else in the thread, it seems. Not only that, let's take a look in the General forum to see if this has come up before.

That I disagree with, "a" room is a noun because it is a thing, room is a... uhh... well its not noun.. but never can never be taken with any other meaning.
As for the term mass recruitment, its a term we created for a browser game as we did with much of the lingo we use (noble train, sniping, stacking) which has evolved just as much as game the game play, I do agree with you about that. It will not remain the same forever but we can always nitpick the tiniest of details.

but to bring in mass-inviting will not change the minds of the people with different views, they want to be different then I think we humiliated them enough and should not sink down to their level... repeating arguments, and becoming more and more stuck on our own opinions.

 

[DeletedUser]

But to bring in mass-inviting will not change the minds of the people with different views, they want to be different then I think we humiliated them enough and should not sink down to their level... repeating arguments, and becoming more and more stuck on our own opinions.

Never get into an argument with an idiot they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[DeletedUser]

Watch the K66 part of -F- (12-16 players) destroy 2 continents of hung (100 players + another 2 acadamies). It's about to happen, we're currently winning (-F-). Therefore, skilled players with less numbers.

 

[DeletedUser]

where a tribe will recruit almost every player in the world they possibly can, often leading to 2 or 3 clusters of players nowhere near each other

Well thats rather ironic of you to say so isn't it mate :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Well thats rather ironic of you to say so isn't it mate :icon_wink:

I have tried to understand this, the only conclusion I can come to is that you do not actually know who I am. PM me or reply here if you want to expand.

@Petnquaranlor

[spoil]

Fantastic response, I must say. This is what it boils down to: "No YOU"

I asked you to refute my points, and your response is "Here's my statement again, YOU refute it!". Once again, I might add, proving that you haven't read my posts, because I already addressed that definition Here, in a post earlier in this thread. Please read this post, and get back to me.

Please do your best to understand in future, what my post was attempting to show was the futility of your argument in this thread. So far your arguments have done nothing but apply your definition of mass-recruiting to anothers and say that since their definition is not in line with yours it is incorrect. I'm sorry to say but this is NOT refuting someones definition any more than my own statement has been, thus my "No YOU" argument. I'm glad you picked up on what I was trying to get at, unfortunately you have completely missed the reason for doing so.

But wait! Apparently:

You've already read my posts! That's really big of you, refusing to accept the possibility that anyone else might also have a point. So basically, you don't care what anyone else thinks, you just come onto the public forums in order to... to do what, exactly? If you don't care what anyone else thinks, why should they care what you think?

I have cut the childish and out of place attempts at flaming my character, I figure most on here are beyond that stage. The reason why I said I did not care about your particular definition of what mass-recruitment is, is because you simply refuse to accept any points posted under what I consider mass-recruitment until I unequivocally debunk your definition, which clearly cannot be done, which I pointed out in my last post.

[spoil]There are almost always multiple definitions of something. Always. A room is a space enclosed by a number of walls and a roof. Or is it? Another source describes it as "Any distinguishable shape within a structure". That doesn't necessarily need to be enclosed. How do you define a Wall? In most cases, we go with the most commonly accepted definition. This definition might shift and change depending on context, but if I were to say "I'm in a small room" to you, you'd have a pretty good idea of what I meant, regardless of any potential ambiguity. In this case, we both gave our definitions of Mass-recruitment. Yours agrees with Warham. Mine agrees with... pretty much everyone else in the thread, it seems. Not only that, let's take a look in the General forum to see if this has come up before.



Oh look! Here's one!. This guy specifically states that HIS mass-recruiting system makes no discrimination between players, he just takes em all in, regardless of what they're like, so long as they're above a certain points value. Note the lack of a "Selective" system, like I was describing (Unless of course you want to tell me that in early game, above a certain level of points = decent player, but I really would advise against that).

What, another one? Already?. Not even having to leave that thread, here's another! This guy seems to agree with my first post to the letter. Shocking, isn't it?

Back into the depths of history, we find This. Look at how every player in this thread instantly associates mass-inviting with a lack of a screening process. I think the above three examples show that My definition is definitely far more prevalent in TW history. But how about more recently? I ask you to look, if you need more evidence. Unfortunately, due to the fact that "mass recruitment" is also a phrase used to describe a premium feature ingame (who would have thought it, a word having two definitions...), it is quite hard to track down examples over the entire forum. I searched the general forums for such threads, but could only find old ones. Evidently, people are sure enough in the definition of "Mass-recruitment" that they feel no need to discuss it.[/spoil]

Off-topic, please post your own thread if you want to talk about mass-inviting. Mass-inviting is a way of mass-recruiting, yet it is not the only way, as Zombie have shown.

In Conclusion, I think I've made my point here. Is that enough of a "refutation"? Would you like me to put some more effort in to make up for the sheer lack of it in your posts? You're saying Mass-recruitment is simply the recruiting of a lot of players. I'm saying (and many others are also saying) that yes, recruiting a lot of players is an important part of the act of mass-recruitment, but it is not the only part, by any stretch of the imagination. Flour is the key ingredient in a sponge cake, and let's just say I wouldn't like to eat a cake based on that definition.

"Conclusions" such as this waste not only your own time, but my own and anyone else here who happens to read your attempt at ramming your argument down their throat in the least subtle way possible.

In Conclusion, I am right. :icon_rolleyes:

Oh, and regarding the other "point" you made in your post:

Ever heard of a thing called "expansion"? It's quite important in this game, especially in early stages. Yes, they have two clusters, but quite obviously in a way that show their expansion plans, and quite obviously CHOSEN to that effect. Note that word, chosen. It'll be quite important later on in this post. Now, your comment that: "The location of these players actually very closely mimics that of late game mass-recruitment, where a tribe will recruit almost every player in the world they possibly can, often leading to 2 or 3 clusters of players nowhere near each other." Looks very much to me like an opportunity to get a dig in about the fact that they're obviously mass-recruiting, by using an almost completely unrelated statement.

Wow, their setup very much mimics that of a premade who have started late on the rim, all choosing the same direction! (it does, actually, much more than your example, as if they were doing that they'd have pockets on the other side of the WORLD, which is what late-game mass-recruitment looks like).

Get a "dig" in? Why would I feel the need to do that when I've already stated that I have nothing against what they're doing? In Conclusion, I wouldn't.

I will take back that it "very closely" mimics the locations of players in late game mass-recruitment, however it does still have that look to it. The two clusters are nearly a K away, and there is only a couple of villages stopping them from being a K away from each other at their closest points.[/spoil]

@Dankman

[spoil]

I think what it boils down to is a disagreement of views and stubborn ignorance.

As addressed in my post above the stubbornness is not from my side, this attitude has come from a poster feeling their view is inherently correct.

In your/my opinion of mass recruitment is a focus on the recruitment aspect of tribal development. Therefore neglecting other aspects of tribal structure to make way for expansion/protection using the recruitment button.. therefore if done with other intentions in mind making it a more selective approach, a larger member count can't possibly be defined as mass recruitment (in our eyes).

In my view the same recruitment is still mass-recruitment, even if the other tribal aspects are of a higher quality.

From what I have gathered from Reaper and Warham views of mass recruitment is a much simpler view. Basically high amount of members means a high amount of recruitment meaning time and energy was spent recruiting in turn making said tribe a mass recruitment tribe.

To me, mass-recruitment defines the number of players recruited by a tribe. I have seen spoils of war taken in, and be called mass-recruitment, these players integrated into the tribe successfully and still play there to this day. The fact that it is mass-recruitment does not make it bad, but the fact that it is not bad does not mean it is not mass-recruitment.

We can argue this 1000 more times it won't change their belief, so lets agree to disagree.

Which is the point made in my previous post, neither view is inherently correct until proven otherwise, as proving otherwise is impossible due to the vague nature of the description. This thread was to get peoples thoughts, I have posted mine.

Reading and understanding are two different things that require to different parts of the brain. As frustrating as it maybe at times everyone has the right to post, even if its only repeat an inferior argument or puff out their chests :lol:

Sad that you had to resort to this level, I do hope you are ashamed of this statement, otherwise I have misjudged you.

but to bring in mass-inviting will not change the minds of the people with different views, they want to be different then I think we humiliated them enough and should not sink down to their level... repeating arguments, and becoming more and more stuck on our own opinions.

Yess, to bring in mass-inviting is completely pointless, already addressed in first part of my post.

Again you resort to attempting to undermine my views by posting nothing but swill. I have not repeated arguments (certainly no more than either yourself or petn have), yes I still hold my opinion, as it seems do you, and yes, you have humiliated me. Never fear however, you haven't sunk down to "my level". :icon_rolleyes:[/spoil]

 

[DeletedUser]

Reaper, there really is no point in arguing with you, is there? That's three times you've commented on my posts, accused me of things you're doing yourself, and then gone off on a rant about how I'm obviously missing the point. Each time I had been called upon to refute your definition, I have given a number of reasons: Selective recruiting, acceptance ratio, etc etc. I think what the problem is here is that you are arguing based on the bare minimum of requirements for something to be "mass-" under any circumstances, whereas I am arguing based on the usage of the word in TW since .net was created. Take another example. a "group" in English just means a number of things bundled together under one name. There doesn't specifically have to be anything defining them, it's just a way to refer to them all at once. However, a Group in Maths has a veeeeeerry specific meaning (A group is a set which is closed under a given associative operation, for which there exists an identity and inverse for every element, if you're really interested). My point here is that while mass-recruitment in English could refer quite rightly to simple large-scale recruitment like you describe. The vocabulary of TW is such that the phrase has been given a far more specific meaning, with a more complex definition.

Does this make sense? Is there any way that you can even consider that it might be the case? You say that arguing here is futile, is that because you see an argument only as something to be won, and nothing else? I don't know about you, but I debate in order to flesh out my opinions, to learn and discuss my views with others. Yes, discuss, before you accuse me of attempting to shove my view down the throats of others. I have at every turn included a reasoning for my point of view. Every single one. The reason this debate is going nowhere is because some others in this thread are refusing to offer anything but the same repeated statement.

There is one thing I would like to address, though, something new you have said which I find interesting.

Off-topic, please post your own thread if you want to talk about mass-inviting. Mass-inviting is a way of mass-recruiting, yet it is not the only way, as Zombie have shown.

Surely, by your definition off mass-anything, mass-inviting is just the invitation of a large amount of people, regardless of the rest of the process? Zombie have what, 100 members, so surely as 100 members counts as mass-recruitment, the same number of invites which by virtue of the game mechanics must have been sent, should also count as mass-inviting? Thus, under your definition, if someone Mass-recruits, they must also mass-invite. Do correct me if I'm wrong, this is simply what I have taken you to mean from the original Warham post on the subject of this definition, and your subsequent picking up of his argument.

I do, however, apologise for some of the comments i made in my last post. the "hard lad" reference was excessive, and I do realise that the "getting a dig in" comment was just wrong, I'm not sure why I put it in. I still don't understand what your point is about the two clusters, though. I have seen and taken part in tribes that had no more than 4 or 5 players in any continent, but had 50-60 members. Both of them were premades. The late-game mass-recruitment layout forms because there are very few players left that are not in a main tribe. Thus, a tribe looking for new members either has to steal them from another tribe (in most cases, unlikely), or find osmeone who is in a smaller tribe or is tribeless. In early game, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of tribes, so this point is moot. The "main tribes" haven't really settled yet, and there are quite literally hundreds of players just close by that can be recruited. If a tribe DOES end up with two clusters, it is almost certainly by construction, rather than necessity. Indeed, one of the classic signs of mass-recruiting early stage is an over-population of a small area, leaving the innermost players in the tribe strangled with no room for expansion.

With regards to a number of comments in the second part of your post. You have definitely repeated arguments, simply looking back over your two posts responding to me is enough to see that. If we have repeated more than you, it is because you chose to repeat an argument which had already been had earlier on in the thread. If we are repeating ourselves, it is because you refused to read back for yourself. Secondly, I do not understand why you insist on constantly referring to the posts of anyone in this thread but your own as "Swill" or "a waste of time". You give out when others attack your posts, and then do the same right back? Most people in this thread have at least gone to some lengths to flesh out their points with some reasoning, it is most certainly not your place to come in and say that they are all useless, especially when you refuse to take the same measures yourself. Thirdly, I was one of the first to point out that Mass-recruitment isn't actually a bad thing in this thread. That you continue to flout it as a point you are making against us is laughable. Specifically, this part:

From what I have gathered from Reaper and Warham views of mass recruitment is a much simpler view. Basically high amount of members means a high amount of recruitment meaning time and energy was spent recruiting in turn making said tribe a mass recruitment tribe.

To me, mass-recruitment defines the number of players recruited by a tribe. I have seen spoils of war taken in, and be called mass-recruitment, these players integrated into the tribe successfully and still play there to this day. The fact that it is mass-recruitment does not make it bad, but the fact that it is not bad does not mean it is not mass-recruitment.

You basically just repeated exactly what he said, and then phrased a totally unrelated second part in a way that made it look like you were disagreeing with his point. We already know your point of view, that's pretty easy to see. I personally have already addressed it at least three times (interesting point: if we are repeating ourselves, could it be because you are not addressing our points?), and said while it is a valid definition, I feel it does not fully encapsulate the meaning as defined by usage in tribalwars. I have addressed my reasoning for this earlier in this post.

I am offering you points to discuss, examples of why I feel that the definition support by me and the majority of this thread is more applicable, and further arguments, with reasonings, to support my view, and all I'l getting in response is "Nope, Nope, that's not right, I'm right." I realise that you feel that this is all the thread is about, but as Bloodhood said, it's an interesting discussion. Discussion isn't about winning, it's about allowing people the chance to debate their views. P&P would be very boring if everyone decided from the off that there was no point in posting because the other guy would never agree with him. So please, if you are going to keep posting here, try addressing one of my many points, rather than just telling me that I'm wrong and that I'm trying to force my opinion down the throats of others. Because, in your own words:

Please, go ahead and refute my points as to why they are not mass-recruiters, if not then do not reply.

 

[DeletedUser]

Petn for Poster of the Year!

But in all seriousness, having not read the thread apart from the OP and a few of Petn's posts, I can truthfully say that ZOMBIE aren't mass recruiting. I have played under both dukes, I have been taught everything I know by both of them, and if there are any dukes that could pull anything off in TribalWars it's these two. I know that they wouldn't just blindly recruit, every single move they make has it's reasoning and strategy behind it. If you honestly think that ZOMBIE are a "fail", then come back in a few months and see where they are.

Oh, and stay out of K16 guys. :icon_wink:

 

[Sellsword]

Petn for Poster of the Year!

But in all seriousness, having not read the thread apart from the OP and a few of Petn's posts, I can truthfully say that ZOMBIE aren't mass recruiting. I have played under both dukes, I have been taught everything I know by both of them, and if there are any dukes that could pull anything off in TribalWars it's these two. I know that they wouldn't just blindly recruit, every single move they make has it's reasoning and strategy behind it. If you honestly think that ZOMBIE are a "fail", then come back in a few months and see where they are.

Oh, and stay out of K16 guys. :icon_wink:

I am so happy to have our own cheerleader now! Yes! Score! Now we can aspire to rank 4 as well!

Zombie have what, 100 members, so surely as 100 members counts as mass-recruitment, the same number of invites which by virtue of the game mechanics must have been sent (...)

We do not send invitations. We bite people and turn them into the Walking Dead.

Off-topic: I heard of a girl who got bitten in the face by a crocodile while wrestling with one for fun.
a) those are very groovy scars that will earn you free beers in rough bars
b) she was lucky it wasn't a zombie crocodile

 

[DeletedUser]

I am so happy to have our own cheerleader now! Yes! Score! Now we can aspire to rank 4 as well!

I hope you know who I am.

 

[DeletedUser57199]

As addressed in my post above the stubbornness is not from my side, this attitude has come from a poster feeling their view is inherently correct.

Actually I was gunna argue that both sides displayed ignorance in their arguments to insure that they were correct but after completely echoing my thoughts of your definition, yea your pretty ignorant...

I have seen spoils of war taken in, and be called mass-recruitment, these players integrated into the tribe successfully and still play there to this day.

Yes that was an example for my and petn's definition of mass recruitment.. did you in fact read the one I had for you guys?

50 members is not a mass recruitment tribe.
80 members is a mass recruitment tribe.
50 members plus a family tribe is also a mass recruitment tribe.
50 members plus an equal ally is not a mass recruitment tribe.
no exceptions (to my understanding)

And I see the complete opposite, where people are taken in as spoils of war and leave at the first chance they get... what's your point? Shit does happens, no two minds are the same.

Yess, to bring in mass-inviting is completely pointless, already addressed in first part of my post.

:icon_confused: yea.. you repeated your argument once more, I already addressed this in my post... we can give you 1000 more arguments the the public can see as valid but it won't chance a thing...

Again you resort to attempting to undermine my views by posting nothing but swill.

You undermined your own post by being an idiot
[QUOTE=DankmanXP]
From what I have gathered from Reaper and Warham views of mass recruitment is a much simpler view. Basically high amount of members means a high amount of recruitment meaning time and energy was spent recruiting in turn making said tribe a mass recruitment tribe.
[/QUOTE]

To me, mass-recruitment defines the number of players recruited by a tribe. I have seen spoils of war taken in, and be called mass-recruitment, these players integrated into the tribe successfully and still play there to this day. The fact that it is mass-recruitment does not make it bad, but the fact that it is not bad does not mean it is not mass-recruitment.

Thanks for agreeing! Oh wait never mind...? :icon_neutral:

I have not repeated arguments (certainly no more than either yourself or petn have), yes I still hold my opinion, as it seems do you, and yes, you have humiliated me.

Get over your hate for the brilliant poster that is petn and see that I have already stated that...
We have our firm beliefs in what we think mass recruitment is, you have yours... agree to disagree? Or continue humiliating yourself as the fool you so desperately want to be (oh wait I already said that)...

Never fear however, you haven't sunk down to "my level". :icon_rolleyes:

And finally if you only knew my ign, you would immediately realize I have no fear of looking like a troll on the forums, but I seen on going arguments like this destroy a mod's job before. If it was just me and you I would go down to your level kick you in the balls then douse you in gas after I'm done dancing around like an ignorant goof...


I'm going to wrap this up by saying, realize this isn't webster's dictionary's version of the term mass and recruitment put together, its a tribalwars term... Just like if you don't bothering upgrading your railway station before sending out your nobles, doesn't make it any less of a train.Stacking isn't stacking if you stack multiple defense villages with below 20K sp/sw. Sniping from 100 squares or point blank is sniping regardless.

 

[Sinnuh]

Watch the K66 part of -F- (12-16 players) destroy 2 continents of hung (100 players + another 2 acadamies). It's about to happen, we're currently winning (-F-). Therefore, skilled players with less numbers.

i will be looking forward to this

 

[Deleted User - 3135]

Watch the K66 part of -F- (12-16 players) destroy 2 continents of hung (100 players + another 2 acadamies). It's about to happen, we're currently winning (-F-). Therefore, skilled players with less numbers.

Or skilled players with more numbers?

(Wow thats a novelty)

 

[DeletedUser]

With regards to a number of comments in the second part of your post. You have definitely repeated arguments, simply looking back over your two posts responding to me is enough to see that. If we have repeated more than you, it is because you chose to repeat an argument which had already been had earlier on in the thread. If we are repeating ourselves, it is because you refused to read back for yourself. Secondly, I do not understand why you insist on constantly referring to the posts of anyone in this thread but your own as "Swill" or "a waste of time". You give out when others attack your posts, and then do the same right back? Most people in this thread have at least gone to some lengths to flesh out their points with some reasoning, it is most certainly not your place to come in and say that they are all useless, especially when you refuse to take the same measures yourself. Thirdly, I was one of the first to point out that Mass-recruitment isn't actually a bad thing in this thread. That you continue to flout it as a point you are making against us is laughable. Specifically, this part:

Not wanting to mock you at all Petn. (in fact I agree with what you are saying) but I feel what you are failing to realise here is that people like him are tunnel vision'd narrow-minded people who fail to realise that definitions can be mis-construed and misunderstood.

Take the term "nuke" for instance most people will say that the term "nuke" comes and stems from the dropping or a nuclear warhead thus nuking the drop zone. However in TW it comes from sending a large amount of OFF troops to kill large amounts of people and cause as much dmg as possible like a nuke. I use the "nuke" if I put something in the microwave I say i'm gonna nuke it for 3 mins purely because of the radiation found in microwaves.

People like him will always be the same and blast the same chants even when proved wrong. They take 1 meaning and stick to it and will not care of other people's thoughts or opinions on the matter.

Like I said earlier those people will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[DeletedUser]

Not wanting to mock you at all Petn. (in fact I agree with what you are saying) but I feel what you are failing to realise here is that people like him are tunnel vision'd narrow-minded people who fail to realise that definitions can be mis-construed and misunderstood.

Take the term "nuke" for instance most people will say that the term "nuke" comes and stems from the dropping or a nuclear warhead thus nuking the drop zone. However in TW it comes from sending a large amount of OFF troops to kill large amounts of people and cause as much dmg as possible like a nuke. I use the "nuke" if I put something in the microwave I say i'm gonna nuke it for 3 mins purely because of the radiation found in microwaves.

People like him will always be the same and blast the same chants even when proved wrong. They take 1 meaning and stick to it and will not care of other people's thoughts or opinions on the matter.

Like I said earlier those people will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

I've had my fair share of arguing with obstinate people during my almost four years of elder moderation, i know how to argue at that level Though to be honest, I am continuing the argument as much for the benefit of keeping a discussion going as I am to "win". My aim is never to be proven right (well, not primarily!), it is to provide and maintain interesting discussion, regardless of how some will attempt to end it in whatever way they will. I am happy to be proven wrong, provided that someone can provide interesting and solid proof of such a case. It that sort of situation, everyone learns something new: I learn that I was wrong in my views, and everyone else learns that moderators will admit that they're wrong (Not that we're wrong very often, mind!).