What really manic's leader is!

DeletedUser

Guest
HorseSoldier said:
It isn't more fun. You can form a huge alliance or family and shut down a world fast. It's been done. It's no challenge. It's boring, which is the opposite of fun.
Click to expand...

exactly and that's what FORK and Manic are doing together now.. slurping up the biggest players from instable tribes to join them up, eating the smaller one internal so there's room again.. if this was a 100 tribe limit world it already was as good as over.
Would be fun to see all the tribes form up against this movement .. might crack the nut for some players within Manic to open their eyes and see they're the weak ones :icon_razz:
 

Bcardi

Guest
WeAreElectric said:
Is he really WARstiner? Or HEARTstiner? Hmmmm!
Click to expand...

What do you think?

Also, please show were Manic asked other tribes to help. Cause I would like to see this.

DePECHVOG3L said:
exactly and that's what FORK and Manic are doing together now.. slurping up the biggest players from instable tribes to join them up, eating the smaller one internal so there's room again.. if this was a 100 tribe limit world it already was as good as over.
Would be fun to see all the tribes form up against this movement .. might crack the nut for some players within Manic to open their eyes and see they're the weak ones :icon_razz:
Click to expand...

So you claim FORK and Manic are allying up to dominate the world. That is so bad and boring. But that you want all the other tribes make an alliance to stop FORK and Manic. But that alliance is good? Your logic for today is hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
cool story bro.

no pic no proof. learn to take screenys.
 

DeletedUser26129

Guest
MANIC neverp layed world 50... atleast not with the real leadership and members.
 

HorseSoldier

Guest
Bcardi said:
Show me where I said I need a bunch of allies.
Click to expand...
When I said "you" I meant your tribe. It's tribal wars.

You're leadership makes your policies, not you. I happen to know our tribe was approached for diplomacy when you went to war with warlordz. but anywayz...

king geldwolf said:
i am the duke...
Click to expand...

and when criticized for having a big alliance, his response:
king geldwolf said:
its like being asked to do a 1 on 1....why would u do that? it will slow you down, has no benefit....

So why not use 40 people to fight that 1 person and kill him in 2 days time, noble all his vills with minimum losses, and carry on to the next....

MUCH faster, MUCH more effective, and MUCH MUCH MUCH more fun!
Click to expand...

Does your leader not represent you? Then you're doing it wrong...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Bcardi said:
So you claim FORK and Manic are allying up to dominate the world. That is so bad and boring. But that you want all the other tribes make an alliance to stop FORK and Manic. But that alliance is good? Your logic for today is hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I think your logic is flawed here...considering Manic and Fork is 3 mil up on the rank 3 and 4, and there is a much larger gap between them and the smaller tribes, it is NOT a flaw in logic that smaller tribes would create an agreement to fend off and even fight back their advances. Rather than just let the ranking tribes roll over the rest of the world, it prolongs their domination.

Not that it will happen, eventually it will be inactivity likely to get them :icon_rolleyes:

Regardless, your logic is still flawed.
 

Bcardi

Guest
TrueGrave said:
I think your logic is flawed here...considering Manic and Fork is 3 mil up on the rank 3 and 4, and there is a much larger gap between them and the smaller tribes, it is NOT a flaw in logic that smaller tribes would create an agreement to fend off and even fight back their advances. Rather than just let the ranking tribes roll over the rest of the world, it prolongs their domination.

Not that it will happen, eventually it will be inactivity likely to get them :icon_rolleyes:

Regardless, your logic is still flawed.
Click to expand...

It isnt flawed. Math works great here. Add up the total of the other tribes. And it far greater a number then Fork and Manic. Maybe actually think about and do before coming on here trying to say logic is flawed. It isnt that hard. Try it next time.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Now your reasoning is flawed lol a coalition of THAT size would neither be practical nor feasible you are exaggerating the scenario to make it sound ridiculous. Yet an agreement between tribes for a joint effort to halt the progression of the quickly advancing tribes is always a viable option while the assumed situation in which Fork and Manic are allied to dominate the world will only kill it quickly removing any competition that players in both tribes say they want (they want a fight, but not if there's any chance of losing it)

Tribes have formed agreements on other worlds when faced with a larger, common enemy in an attempt to slow them down or even destroy them, stop trying to make the situation sound ridiculous (or maybe you yourself are afraid of said fight?)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
we aren't afraid of a fight, we are always prepared for a fight.

i'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. remember that :icon_wink:
 

Bcardi

Guest
TrueGrave said:
Now your reasoning is flawed lol a coalition of THAT size would neither be practical nor feasible you are exaggerating the scenario to make it sound ridiculous. Yet an agreement between tribes for a joint effort to halt the progression of the quickly advancing tribes is always a viable option while the assumed situation in which Fork and Manic are allied to dominate the world will only kill it quickly removing any competition that players in both tribes say they want (they want a fight, but not if there's any chance of losing it)

Tribes have formed agreements on other worlds when faced with a larger, common enemy in an attempt to slow them down or even destroy them, stop trying to make the situation sound ridiculous (or maybe you yourself are afraid of said fight?)
Click to expand...

Maybe you should actually read what is going on. Cause now you have contradicted yourself. First my logic is flawed cause I asked someone how 1 alliance is boring but another is cool. Now my logic is flawed cause that is not feasible? Please stop posting on these things. You are just trying to troll and you are failing.

Also, I am pretty sure. There is no alliance between Fork and Manic. Hence your logic is flawed then. /end discussion
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Bcardi said:
Maybe you should actually read what is going on. Cause now you have contradicted yourself. First my logic is flawed cause I asked someone how 1 alliance is boring but another is cool. Now my logic is flawed cause that is not feasible? Please stop posting on these things. You are just trying to troll and you are failing.

Also, I am pretty sure. There is no alliance between Fork and Manic. Hence your logic is flawed then. /end discussion
Click to expand...

Now you are starting to annoy me.

1.Find me 1 person who disagrees that the rank 1 and 2 allying to kill a world is boring.

2.Your logic is flawed in that you say there shouldn't be an alliance between smaller tribes to fend off the rank 1 or 2, when they may (under the right leadership) have an increased chance.

3. This is were your reading and comprehension starts to take a hit. Your reasoning is flawed because you took the idea of such an alliance against the rank 1 or 2, and exaggerated it, by suggesting that all other tribes would band together for it, which simply isn't feasible.

4.I'm not contradicting myself, you are just an idiot. Rank 1 and 2 allied ALWAYS makes a world boring. It's only really something for endgame, when there are only a few tribes left and it's the push for the end so the alliances between high rank tribes are there because they are pretty much the only contenders left.

5. I said assumed alliance. I didn't say there WAS an alliance, it was merely hypothetical. So until YOU start reading my posts properly, please don't try to school me on them, only googly can do that. /waits nervously :icon_redface:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
TrueGrave said:
Now you are starting to annoy me.

1.Find me 1 person who disagrees that the rank 1 and 2 allying to kill a world is boring.

2.Your logic is flawed in that you say there shouldn't be an alliance between smaller tribes to fend off the rank 1 or 2, when they may (under the right leadership) have an increased chance.

3. This is were your reading and comprehension starts to take a hit. Your reasoning is flawed because you took the idea of such an alliance against the rank 1 or 2, and exaggerated it, by suggesting that all other tribes would band together for it, which simply isn't feasible.

4.I'm not contradicting myself, you are just an idiot. Rank 1 and 2 allied ALWAYS makes a world boring. It's only really something for endgame, when there are only a few tribes left and it's the push for the end so the alliances between high rank tribes are there because they are pretty much the only contenders left.

5. I said assumed alliance. I didn't say there WAS an alliance, it was merely hypothetical. So until YOU start reading my posts properly, please don't try to school me on them, only googly can do that. /waits nervously :icon_redface:
Click to expand...

honestly i think any alliance is boring unless your the underdog and want to even the playing field abit. you dont ALWAYS have to be ally's to take out a common enemy. so hypothetically if i was to kill somebody and somebody else jumped in, doesn't always mean i asked for there help or what not. 'perhaps it was in the better intrest of them aswell, or they seen a chance and took it or we had a common enemy and decided to aid in this conquest only'.

your only contradicting yourselve's. you both have valid point's but you trying to argue who is right, when theortically your both right lol which makes you both look like morons. so stop trying to compare e-hotdogs and move on with the show.

perhaps you should assume less, generally assuming gets you into trouble in the long run and makes you look stupid, not to mention burns bridges along the way. so perhaps you shouldnt burn every bridge you come across as you may need one later on. :icon_wink:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It wasn't my assumption, it was an assumption from earlier on that Bcardi was arguing and I played on.
I never said the underdog has to ally and I do agree with you about the situational advantage to joining a battle rather than forming an alliance for it.

You seem to do well enough with bridge burning, it's like you have spare materials behind your arson supplies, if you have hope, the rest of us can dream ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
TrueGrave said:
It wasn't my assumption, it was an assumption from earlier on that Bcardi was arguing and I played on.
I never said the underdog has to ally and I do agree with you about the situational advantage to joining a battle rather than forming an alliance for it.

You seem to do well enough with bridge burning, it's like you have spare materials behind your arson supplies, if you have hope, the rest of us can dream ;)
Click to expand...

i burn bridges for my own agenda as i play better and get less bored when i have people actually out to get me :icon_confused:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
flux0rx1 said:
:icon_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Where in that statement do I say it is mandatory for smaller tribes to ally together. I said it was logical.
There is a difference between "would" and "have to" or if you want the equivalent word; "must".

So try to argue, rather than idiotically multi quote me, or hush up.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
we can discus here all we want - as long as they remain in such tribe - they always defend their place. I have seen both talk different before .. now their situation has changed - suddenly it makes sense.
This topic for me has found no sense at all .. stubborn stuff.. bleh. better ignore and go with it or do something about it later..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top