A True Story about [V].

[DeletedUser]

Dvader - 357.464.546



Ni- 20.792.775
Wuke- 4.914.296
TAINT- 18.222.851

Total - 43,929,922

Sorry relative sizes blow that argument out the water, even if WUKE were at their old size of what? 80,000,000? you would still outsize them by about 200 million points. With a points difference like that it doesn't show you are extremely adept at warring multiple fronts, just that you are not terrible players.

Your points are extremely weak today, maybe you should take a break and come back with something a little more solid. We are putting up a fight, is it the best we can do? No. Will we remedy that? Yes. Fighting together or not, if your all hitting us it still adds up. I'm grasping at nothing here, I'm simply stating that [V] are not the terrible players your trying to make them out to be and that we are not the horrible tribe you want everyone to believe.

Its your fault, we need more cookies.

 

[DeletedUser86150]

No one have the blame that You and your tribe are weak.
Do You think that this can be argument to not attack you?
If you don't want to fight, then go play Simcity.

 

[DeletedUser]

Go read my posts, no-where did I say we don't want to fight. All I did was point out the relative size differences and how they would impact the stats.

 

[DeletedUser]

Dvader - 357.464.546



Ni- 20.792.775
Wuke- 4.914.296
TAINT- 18.222.851

Total - 43,929,922

Sorry relative sizes blow that argument out the water, even if WUKE were at their old size of what? 80,000,000? you would still outsize them by about 200 million points. With a points difference like that it doesn't show you are extremely adept at warring multiple fronts, just that you are not terrible players.

Your points are extremely weak today, maybe you should take a break and come back with something a little more solid. We are putting up a fight, is it the best we can do? No. Will we remedy that? Yes. Fighting together or not, if your all hitting us it still adds up. I'm grasping at nothing here, I'm simply stating that [V] are not the terrible players your trying to make them out to be and that we are not the horrible tribe you want everyone to believe.

Its your fault, we need more cookies.

My points aren't actually weak at all. You are just missing them entirely.

Go read my posts, no-where did I say we don't want to fight. All I did was point out the relative size differences and how they would impact the stats.

And so you can actually understand my points, the size difference is there however I have never disputed that fact. Nor have I ever disputed the fact you are fighting other large tribes at the same time. But the fact you aren't putting in a fight against us is what I was getting at.

A few hundred fakes to a few people isn't an operation in anyones books. Nor is 50 villages nobled in 1 month and 4 days considered fighting back when you are a 180m ranked #2 tribe.


You can not justify that any possible way.



'Nuff Said.

 

[DeletedUser]

[V] is showing an extremely large inability to be able to fight on multiple fronts. That's not worthy of a second ranked tribe, and that is purely a fact.

You were attempting to show that we were bad at fighting on multiple fronts by posting a comparison of your stats while fighting multiple fronts and our stats while fighting multiple fronts. I showed that comparison to be false and biased by showing the difference in the situations. Explain what I missed there?

My points aren't actually weak at all. You are just missing them entirely.



And so you can actually understand my points, the size difference is there however I have never disputed that fact. Nor have I ever disputed the fact you are fighting other large tribes at the same time. But the fact you aren't putting in a fight against us is what I was getting at.

A few hundred fakes to a few people isn't an operation in anyones books. Nor is 50 villages nobled in 1 month and 4 days considered fighting back when you are a 180m ranked #2 tribe.


You can not justify that any possible way.



'Nuff Said.

That last part I agree with, there has not been enough of a response from our side, something that will be rectified quickly. All I can say is watch this space.

 

[DeletedUser]

You were attempting to show that we were bad at fighting on multiple fronts by posting a comparison of your stats while fighting multiple fronts and our stats while fighting multiple fronts. I showed that comparison to be false and biased by showing the difference in the situations. Explain what I missed there?

Other than the fact I pointed out our stats and you turned it into your fighting on multiple front stats, only difference is I posted them. I think you have got it all round the wrong way. You should check into that Lanky as its becoming a habit for you to get order of events incorrect. As far as my posting our stats against our enemies, if you check the MAP, Taint aren't a frontline. They are behind it. yet we manage to deal with them despite our D being on the lines we share with [V] and not them.

Aggression wins wars, passiveness only costs you them.

That last part I agree with, there has not been enough of a response from our side, something that will be rectified quickly. All I can say is watch this space.

Look forward to it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Other than the fact I pointed out our stats and you turned it into your fighting on multiple front stats, only difference is I posted them. I think you have got it all round the wrong way. You should check into that Lanky as its becoming a habit for you to get order of events incorrect. As far as my posting our stats against our enemies, if you check the MAP, Taint aren't a frontline. They are behind it. yet we manage to deal with them despite our D being on the lines we share with [V] and not them.

Aggression wins wars, passiveness only costs you them.



Look forward to it.

I turned into multiple front stats because it is relevant to why we are not making more caps against Dvader, I would have thought that would be obvious. Then you posted your stats on multiple fronts. I have the order of things right, your comprehending wrong. Other than a comparison you have no reason to post your stats unless you want to show off. You don't have anyone fooled, the size difference shows it all. You have substantially more D than [V] or TAINT combined. You have that luxury.

 

[DeletedUser]

I turned into multiple front stats because it is relevant to why we are not making more caps against Dvader, I would have thought that would be obvious. Then you posted your stats on multiple fronts. I have the order of things right, your comprehending wrong. Other than a comparison you have no reason to post your stats unless you want to show off. You don't have anyone fooled, the size difference shows it all. You have substantially more D than [V] or TAINT combined. You have that luxury.

And you made that mistake of turning it into that multiple front stats discussion when you posted it in a thread relating to DVADER and [V]. Not XVI at all. Therefore, once again you are trying to deflect the points that were made.


So perhaps you should find more suitable excuses in the future.

 

[DeletedUser]

*sigh* If you do not see the relevance of it and how it pertains to the stats of this conflict then I don't care to educate you. Obviously your not having a good day.

 

[DeletedUser]

"DVADER is bigger"

Your point being? If [V] were better players, or had better leaders, they'd have become as big as DVADER.

"[V] isn't as bad as they seem for fighting on multiple fronts"

[V] got themselves into this situation, and even whilst fighting only XVI, began losing severely. If you want to bring in sizes, keep in mind XVI was less than 2/3 the size of [V], and began winning badly.

Come on, these are just ridiculous points. Damage control fail.

 

[DeletedUser86150]

...One group of people is better at looking at countdown clocks, inputting numbers into various calculators and pressing buttons at the right time than another group....

Can You guess witch group belongs the majority of [V] ?

:icon_wink:

 

[Stewinthepot]

"DVADER is bigger"

Your point being? If [V] were better players, or had better leaders, they'd have become as big as DVADER.

"[V] isn't as bad as they seem for fighting on multiple fronts"

[V] got themselves into this situation, and even whilst fighting only XVI, began losing severely. If you want to bring in sizes, keep in mind XVI was less than 2/3 the size of [V], and began winning badly.

Come on, these are just ridiculous points. Damage control fail.

i dont think its the fact that dvader is bigger more that dvader/xvi/buspar are bigger :icon_neutral:

and
Side 1:
Tribes: [V]
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: XVI
Players:

Timeframe: Forever

Total conquers:

Side 1: 14,508
Side 2: 20,619
Difference: 6,111

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,508
Side 2: 1,432
Difference: 76

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 127,427,068
Side 2: 170,032,995
Difference: 42,605,927

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 14,146,709
Side 2: 13,535,122
Difference: 611,587

uh im sorry what was that about them "winning badly"??? there not even winning

 

[DeletedUser]

There is no point trying. They're arguments just use a simple straw-man flaw. Misrepresentation of an argument to make it weaker and then attack that.

 

[DeletedUser]

:icon_neutral: are your parents brother and sister?

i dont think its the fact that dvader is bigger more that dvader/xvi/buspar are bigger :icon_neutral:

and

[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: [V]
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: XVI
Players:

Timeframe: Forever

Total conquers:

Side 1: 14,508
Side 2: 20,619
Difference: 6,111

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,508
Side 2: 1,432
Difference: 76

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 127,427,068
Side 2: 170,032,995
Difference: 42,605,927

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 14,146,709
Side 2: 13,535,122
Difference: 611,587

[/spoil]

uh im sorry what was that about them "winning badly"??? there not even winning

What was that, some kind of sick attempt at humor that failed miserably? I think so. You clearly didn't read my post. Here, let me bold some key words for you:

"DVADER is bigger"

Your point being? If [V] were better players, or had better leaders, they'd have become as big as DVADER.

"[V] isn't as bad as they seem for fighting on multiple fronts"

[V] got themselves into this situation, and even whilst fighting only XVI, began losing severely. If you want to bring in sizes, keep in mind XVI was less than 2/3 the size of [V], and began winning badly.

Come on, these are just ridiculous points. Damage control fail.

See the word "began"? Yeah, [V] did begin losing severely in the past few months. Curious, that Lanky talks about us misrepresenting arguments, when you are nit-picking and clawing at straws to attempt to save your PnP reputation. Want proof that you've been losing badly in the past few months?

[spoil]Side 1:
Tribes: [V]
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: XVI
Players:

Timeframe: Last 3 months

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 421
Side 2: 922
Difference: 501

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 3,961,249
Side 2: 8,618,256
Difference: 4,657,007

[/spoil]

Well?

There is no point trying. They're arguments just use a simple straw-man flaw. Misrepresentation of an argument to make it weaker and then attack that.

stew just misrepresented my argument. Pot, kettle, raven, crow...pick one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just out of interest, how many of those villas (for both sides) were against inactive players? Can you get that kind of intel..? Would be interesting to see if the stats are the same/similar for genuine 'fighting', so to say, rather than the much easier task of taking villas from an inactive player. I ask not out of particular bias towards any side..

 

[DeletedUser]

Good luck trying. That would take a good hour at least to compile, probably more.

 

[DeletedUser]

The fact that [V] has pretty much only recapped, and only recapped a handful of villages for that matter would mean that changing the stats to not include inactives would be inherently biased. If [V] had actually made some gains then perhaps this could be done fairly :icon_rolleyes:

It is not that easy to determine what is actually an inactive account (not unless you have internal access to the membership list). Many accounts that were not growing could simply have been in the hands of a sitter, or staying green in the hands of a partially active player. Making an example out of the Jaycoy account considering this account was more or less inactive, [V] booted the account. So it already is already far less included in the stats. [V] had no real reason to boot the account aside from saving stats, as I suspect they have done in the past (justicar), so do not worry sakura [V] does a reasonable job of trying to hide stats against inactives.

Regardless inactives are a product of a tribe, it was a tribemember who chose to quit, and it is up to the tribe itself to internal these accounts before a problem arises. So although they may be more easily taken for an enemy it is no less a legitimate take off of another tribe.

Considering that a couple of the accounts that you have booted/started to internal were not under these conditions when we started, and in some cases actually exhibiting account growth (jaycoy grew 300 points in the two days before we started eating the account indicate that it is probable that some of these 'inactives' are a product of us attacking them.

 

[king dalt555]

I would say for the most part a lot of them were inactive (or not doing much) and Dvader/XVI pushed them into quitting. That's the way this game works, some figure they don't have much time but hang on until they become under attack, and instead of handing the sitting over just abandon the account.


Not making excuses, just an observation agreeing that Dvader/XVI are/were big reasons for players finally leaving.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still, nothing more than speculation. Not one single member of V has left due to issues within the game; it's strictly an RL thing, as we can all testify to to some degree (including myself for a 6 month period)..

 

[DeletedUser]

RL issues are a lot more manageable when you're not under attack and losing villages. They compound most of the time, hence the quitting. No, issues within the game usually aren't the sole reason, but they are a contributing factor.

And to quote king dalt555:

I would say for the most part a lot of them were inactive (or not doing much) and Dvader/XVI pushed them into quitting. That's the way this game works

If I'm not mistaken, he was in [V], or is still in [V]. But I could be wrong there.