Account of the war

[MichielK]

Ive never made these claims before (or CBK), i think u will find those making such claims r those whose 'facts' have always been questionable.

Actually, CBK said this about the Sunny-LSHRV merger: "Growth rate is clearly in favour of us. 60-80 members turning their attentions on C2, that's gonna make a difference for sure." Turns out it didn't make any difference at all, of course.

Many other people made posts to express how this merger would change the entire war, and I'm not going to post them all here. However, this has to be one of my favorites: "The tide of the war has changed." - Alexhol

Not really, since he still ended up being rimmed by LSHRV. I wonder how he feels about the merger now :icon_wink:

Using the analogy of a football team (apolologies to all u yanks out there!) but if Manchester United lost Wayne Rooney, probably the best player on the planet atm, but they managed to win every title in their next season, doesnt that show that its the team and not individuals who win the day?

Using the same analogy, how well would Manchester United do if they lost all their substitutes and youth players? That's the situation you're in right now. Average skill may be up, but it left you very vulnerable. What happens if you now lose two of your top players to real life issues ("injuries")? There is no way for you to prevent that, and you now find yourself without the roster depth to deal with it.

 

[DeletedUser]

SF vs. C2 in the past 2 weeks
[spoil]
Side 1:
Tribes: SF
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: C²
Players: kreamer

Timeframe: 20/07/2010 00:00:00 to 03/08/2010 23:51:43

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 39
Side 2: 22
Difference: 17

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 364,980
Side 2: 205,012
Difference: 159,968

[/spoil]
Plight vs. C2 past 2 weeks (Sorry if I missed an individual)
[spoil]
Side 1:
Tribes: Plight
Players: Pedro Clara ltdavis2008 dopeas

Side 2:
Tribes: C²
Players: kreamer

Timeframe: 20/07/2010 00:00:00 to 03/08/2010 23:51:43

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 111
Side 2: 86
Difference: 25

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,039,197
Side 2: 806,681
Difference: 232,516

[/spoil]

Michiel although I love the way you keep saying you've changed focus elsewhere. The results don't seem to be showing it this way. Your losing to both Plight and SF in the past 2 weeks. I must of missed someone in the stats so it reads this way. SF battle team are ready but due to the misdirection of troops not heading towards us, they are just getting lost elsewhere.

Using the same analogy, how well would Manchester United do if they lost all their substitutes and youth players? That's the situation you're in right now. Average skill may be up, but it left you very vulnerable. What happens if you now lose two of your top players to real life issues ("injuries")? There is no way for you to prevent that, and you now find yourself without the roster depth to deal with it.

This applies to C2 as well. What if you lose Lamarth, Adamjrose or Crosamich. There the three that were causing the damage, and have got the majority of the war conquers. Except losing one of your top 20 players is like us losing two top twenty players. You have more eggs in the one basket so to speak, so I believe you losing a player would have more of an impact then us losing one or even two. I conclude this from the average points per player and cross referencing players points from your tribe to ours.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, CBK said this about the Sunny-LSHRV merger: "Growth rate is clearly in favour of us. 60-80 members turning their attentions on C2, that's gonna make a difference for sure." Turns out it didn't make any difference at all, of course.

There is one very important difference in comments made at that time and comments made now... the war stats were already against LSHRV in every area. The difference is that at this stage SF are up in many areas and thats why SF can quite rightly agree theyve got their best team that theyve had since the start of the war.

Using the same analogy, how well would Manchester United do if they lost all their substitutes and youth players? That's the situation you're in right now. Average skill may be up, but it left you very vulnerable. What happens if you now lose two of your top players to real life issues ("injuries")? There is no way for you to prevent that, and you now find yourself without the roster depth to deal with it.

U just said exactly the same as me... i agree the team is made up with subs, youth players and subject to injuries. C² is open to exactly the same issues for their team. I was highlighting the difference the current SF team has over a few starplayers leaving in the past. Basically that any TW tribe is about team and not a couple of starplayers.

I repeat, SF is at its meanest and leanest its been since the war started.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, CBK said this about the Sunny-LSHRV merger: "Growth rate is clearly in favour of us. 60-80 members turning their attentions on C2, that's gonna make a difference for sure." Turns out it didn't make any difference at all, of course.

I think it did make a difference though up until the C2 merge with TKR. Admittedly it didn't make enough of a difference, but the Sunny merge definately made a difference. I'm amazed that you can argue that it made zero difference.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have not changed his stats nor manipulated them, I use the same numbers with different conclusions, and the reasons where this and that have come from.

SF vs. C2 in the past 2 weeks
[spoil]
Side 1:
Tribes: SF
Players:

Side 2:
Tribes: C²
Players: kreamer

Timeframe: 20/07/2010 00:00:00 to 03/08/2010 23:51:43

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 39
Side 2: 22
Difference: 17

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 364,980
Side 2: 205,012
Difference: 159,968

[/spoil]
Plight vs. C2 past 2 weeks (Sorry if I missed an individual)
[spoil]
Side 1:
Tribes: Plight
Players: Pedro Clara ltdavis2008 dopeas

Side 2:
Tribes: C²
Players: kreamer

Timeframe: 20/07/2010 00:00:00 to 03/08/2010 23:51:43

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 111
Side 2: 86
Difference: 25

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 1,039,197
Side 2: 806,681
Difference: 232,516

[/spoil]

Michiel although I love the way you keep saying you've changed focus elsewhere. The results don't seem to be showing it this way. Your losing to both Plight and SF in the past 2 weeks. I must of missed someone in the stats so it reads this way. SF battle team are ready but due to the misdirection of troops not heading towards us, they are just getting lost elsewhere.

I'm amazed that you can make these two posts and still think they are credible. You claim you use all the numbers, and then follow it with a post where you cut the stats down to a short time period that seems to favor you. Try looking at the stats from the beginning of each war. C2 is up 1349 conquers on SF, and that's not counting those lost when you guys disbanded LSHRVa. In the Plight war, C2 is up 210 conquers. THAT is using all of the numbers.

This applies to C2 as well. What if you lose Lamarth, Adamjrose or Crosamich. There the three that were causing the damage, and have got the majority of the war conquers. Except losing one of your top 20 players is like us losing two top twenty players. You have more eggs in the one basket so to speak, so I believe you losing a player would have more of an impact then us losing one or even two. I conclude this from the average points per player and cross referencing players points from your tribe to ours.

First of all, I would like to point out that both Jeor and Rascal have more conquers in these wars than I do, and I believe Kaz and Rag are about even with me as well.

As for your argument, that is one mighty big if. The stats also don't back up the possibility. In C2's top 20, we have no one showing no growth or negative growth through the last 7 days. The person showing the least activity would be Rag1, with 4 days of negative growth, one day of zero growth, and two days of positive growth. However, those days of negative growth were minor, suggesting damage taken from rams and cats rather than villages taken.

In SF, there are three members in the top 20 showing zero or negative growth through the last seven days: Monte, Norym, and Nemam. Monte is actually rank 4. Might we be seeing another top 5 member going barb soon? Other members of note would be Zvone who shows three days of zero growth, one day of negative growth, and three days of positive growth, as well as Rauzera who shows 4 days of no growth, one of negative growth, and only two of positive growth.

We may have all of our eggs in one basket, to use your words, but we do a much better job at making sure they remain unbroken.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm amazed that you can make these two posts and still think they are credible. You claim you use all the numbers, and then follow it with a post where you cut the stats down to a short time period that seems to favor you. Try looking at the stats from the beginning of each war. C2 is up 1349 conquers on SF, and that's not counting those lost when you guys disbanded LSHRVa. In the Plight war, C2 is up 210 conquers. THAT is using all of the numbers.

I don't say that you aren't ahead in this war with us or with Plight. Essentially you were fighting a tribe half your size until Plight managed to get into the picture and this is when things have changed. If you check the forum I started on SF vs. C2 I have a week by week stat of war conquers from this declaration. Which shows since the open borders policy, that SF have more then held there own and are slowly clawing back the lead that C2 has.

I referred my numbers to the point where MichielK says that we are only up a couple of conquers due to the fact that c2 attention is not focused on us any more. That being the case, who are you focusing on if both Plight and SF are both up in the past two weeks. SF are winning since Plight were introduced into this war. C2 are up overall on Plight in the same period but in the past two weeks they are not. Maybe its just two bad weeks for C2. But to me it seems that the weaknesses in SF are almost all but gone and fighting with a so called level playing field with Similar size teams are revealing cracks into C2.

First of all, I would like to point out that both Jeor and Rascal have more conquers in these wars than I do, and I believe Kaz and Rag are about even with me as well.

Sorry for overrating your conquers and underrating Jeor and Rascals. It was not intentional.

As for your argument, that is one mighty big if. The stats also don't back up the possibility. In C2's top 20, we have no one showing no growth or negative growth through the last 7 days. The person showing the least activity would be Rag1, with 4 days of negative growth, one day of zero growth, and two days of positive growth. However, those days of negative growth were minor, suggesting damage taken from rams and cats rather than villages taken.

I don't believe point growth can be classed as growing or being active. I can be online 24/7 for a whole week and just solely build troops, move resources around, store packets, send support to team mates, build scripts and ops together to name quite a few of these, and still keep my points the same. Lose 1 level of wall and I can have negative growth. I agree that it can be an indication that these players are not fully active, but without actually having the account it is truly just speculation.

We may have all of our eggs in one basket, to use your words, but we do a much better job at making sure they remain unbroken.

I cross referenced the player vs. player ranks within the tribes again. Your top 37 players would fit into our top 11. So again, 1 C2 member going inactive is worth a lot more then 1 SF member going inactive. I like your analogy so I'll apply it to this. C2 eggs are like big ostrich eggs, and SF eggs are like pidgeon eggs. You could make a darn big omellete with a C2 player falling off the humpty dumpty wall but an SF member going inactive can be fixed with all of my heavy horses and all of my kings men (nobles).

 

[MichielK]

Pearcy,

I'm not going to respond to everything that was said above, since I think it's clear that "longterm data is vastly superior, unless shortterm data shows us ahead" is a rather silly way to make an argument. Also, if you're claiming not to know where our focus has been lately, you're either playing dumb or communication is even more broken down within SF than I expected.

Anyway, since apparently you've decided that two week data is now superior, here's what happened to the three warring tribes in the past two weeks:

• C²: +2 million points
• Plight: -7 million points
• SF: -2 million points

I think I speak on behalf of all of C² when I heartily congratulate you with your "victory", and hope you'll have many more that are just like it! :lol:

Finally, if you think we are far more likely to get in trouble if a single member leaves, you may want to have a look at the excellent post Axl made regarding individual conquers (I'm not going to recalculate all the data, and will use his). You'll see that there are in fact 10 people in our tribe with more conquers than your most active nobler, and 19 with as many conquers as your second most active nobler. If you look at net gains, that number skyrockets: last time I checked, it was our top 32 above your top player, though we may have dropped a few spots since then.

You want to talk relative contribution? Our top nobler accounts for 10% of our conquers, yours for 13%. Our biggest player accounts for 3% of the tribal size, your biggest player accounts for 6%. No matter how you spin it, it's obvious that we're in a much better position to lose one or two players than you are...not to mention that we're far less likely to actually lose them judging by the track records of both tribes.

Also, can you go easy on obvious falsehoods like "Lamarth, Adamjrose and Crosamich have the majority of the war conquers"? As impressive as these three are, they have around 25% of the war conquers...and outside small African dictatorships, 25% is not a majority. Besides, how big is the contribution of your top 3 noblers?

28%. Right.

MK

 

[MichielK]

U just said exactly the same as me... i agree the team is made up with subs, youth players and subject to injuries. C² is open to exactly the same issues for their team. I was highlighting the difference the current SF team has over a few starplayers leaving in the past. Basically that any TW tribe is about team and not a couple of starplayers.

You misunderstood me then. As I've argued in the post above, SF is far more dependent on a few well-performing players than C² is. Combine that with the fact that SF has less players to begin with and a long history of losing them, and that makes you more extremely vulnerable. While we clearly also have some players that have done better than others, we have a far bigger group of above-average players to fall back on should one of them quit the game.

I'm not saying that your team is made up of subs and youth players...I'm saying you now lack the subs and youth players to replace one of your stars if they disappear.

I think it did make a difference though up until the C2 merge with TKR. Admittedly it didn't make enough of a difference, but the Sunny merge definately made a difference. I'm amazed that you can argue that it made zero difference.

I agree that zero is unlikely, and should have phrased that better. It made no noticeable difference for our side. That's perhaps also not something you like to hear, but it is the truth, and I'm pretty sure the conquers back it up (I've posted them somewhere, might add the numbers later).

EDIT:

Found them!

• September: 266 - 52 (+214)
• October: 261 - 70 (+191)
• November: 125 - 14 (+115)
• December: 166 - 16 (+150)
• January: 118 - 14 (+104)
• February: 105 - 11 (+94)
• March: 102 - 24 (+78)
• April: 150 - 13 (+137)
• May: 306 - 127 (+179)
• June: 187 - 128 (+59)

Now, the merger happened around December 11th. Despite the fact that December was a "short month" (two attack breaks), we still managed to beat our November score by a wide margin. Things slowed down a bit after that for various reasons (mainly the complete removal of some of SF's weakest players from the frontline), but were right back to normal in April and May.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree that zero is unlikely, and should have phrased that better. It made no noticeable difference for our side. That's perhaps also not something you like to hear, but it is the truth, and I'm pretty sure the conquers back it up (I've posted them somewhere, might add the numbers later).

EDIT:

Found them!

• September: 266 - 52 (+214)
• October: 261 - 70 (+191)
• November: 125 - 14 (+115)
• December: 166 - 16 (+150)
• January: 118 - 14 (+104)
• February: 105 - 11 (+94)
• March: 102 - 24 (+78)
• April: 150 - 13 (+137)
• May: 306 - 127 (+179)
• June: 187 - 128 (+59)

Now, the merger happened around December 11th. Despite the fact that December was a "short month" (two attack breaks), we still managed to beat our November score by a wide margin. Things slowed down a bit after that for various reasons (mainly the complete removal of some of SF's weakest players from the frontline), but were right back to normal in April and May.

This information does further prove my point and that my opinion that the Sunny merge would make a difference was correct. I don't know exactly when the merge happened, but I'll stick to your date. I'll ignore the December stats, because we could argue all day about them and neither of us will change our opinions. The stats for January, February and March show that the merge helped slow things down and slowly level things up. The TKR merge was in February and that certainly helped C2, followed by a BANG merge in late April which from your stats above, proves that each merge has made a difference. Now Plight declare open boarders on C2 and the stats turn around again. I'd argue that not only the Sunny merge, but each of those events have made a positive difference for each side in the war.

The main point though is that I said the Sunny merge would make a difference and it did. It's still making a difference to this day.

EDIT: I think we've gone a long way off topic. I was thinking that it might be interesting if we could use this topic to vote for the account of the war in each tribe. C2 players vote for the best Plight account, Plight vote for the best SF account and SF vote for the best C2 account for example would be an unbiased way of doing it. Any poster from another tribe can vote for who they like. That's just something I thought might be interesting related to this topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

Things slowed down a bit after that for various reasons (mainly the complete removal of some of SF's weakest players from the frontline), but were right back to normal in April and May.

You not only ignored that, CBK, but you said "we could argue about the December stats". How? The merge occurred in December, December was a better month than November, even with 2 attack breaks.

 

[DeletedUser]

You not only ignored that, CBK, but you said "we could argue about the December stats". How? The merge occurred in December, December was a better month than November, even with 2 attack breaks.

I did answer it in my mail, read again :icon_biggrin:

Because from MK's dates, the merge happened on the 11th December, which means that you would have to take out the first 11 days and the number of days after that before support arrived/nukes arrived/players relocated to the frontline etc (one or the lot), which means that those stats are inaccurate when assessing what effect the Sunny merge had for that whole month alone. That's why I ignore the stats for that month and won't argue what difference they made. If we know the exact date that Sunny support reached the frontline or when the first nuke landed or when everyone had relocated and then we count the stats for December from that point on, it would be a lot more accurate, but still very arguable because that date could've been the date when only 5D landed on the front, rather than 500D for example.

 

[DeletedUser]

Things slowed down a bit after that for various reasons (mainly the complete removal of some of SF's weakest players from the frontline), but were right back to normal in April and May.

Still ignored.

And April and May still refute that point...and if you can use that reasoning for December, the BANG! merge in late April still shows April as a dominant month before the merge, and for some time after while support was being moved.

 

[DeletedUser]

Still ignored.

And April and May still refute that point...and if you can use that reasoning for December, the BANG! merge in late April still shows April as a dominant month before the merge, and for some time after while support was being moved.

If you're not going to bother to read my post, when I've already answered the question, I won't bother to read yours. K thanks bye :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

Quote the part that refutes it, please do. April and May stand unrefuted examples, except for your BANG! merger statement, when the BANG! merger is invalid for April. And the part about you removing players still stands. Again, you're the one not reading. I'm quoting directly, you're just claiming I'm not reading.

 

[MichielK]

This information does further prove my point and that my opinion that the Sunny merge would make a difference was correct. I don't know exactly when the merge happened, but I'll stick to your date. I'll ignore the December stats, because we could argue all day about them and neither of us will change our opinions. The stats for January, February and March show that the merge helped slow things down and slowly level things up. The TKR merge was in February and that certainly helped C2, followed by a BANG merge in late April which from your stats above, proves that each merge has made a difference. Now Plight declare open boarders on C2 and the stats turn around again. I'd argue that not only the Sunny merge, but each of those events have made a positive difference for each side in the war.

The main point though is that I said the Sunny merge would make a difference and it did. It's still making a difference to this day.

There's actually a really easy way to refute this. The merger happened in December, and you want to ignore those stats. I don't think you're correct, but for the sake of argument let's assume that December is the last month that is free of Sunny influence.

Now, you mentioned that Sunny would be helpful both on attack and on defense. If you look at the conquers made by LSHRV, you'll notice that these actually go down in January. In fact, they go down in February as well. Unless you want to argue that it took 3 months for Sunny's nukes to travel to the front, that's pretty clear evidence that the merger did not make a difference on offense. Since it didn't, I find it hard to believe that there'd be a serious effect on defense. My explanation (the removal of the worst players from the frontline) seems far more logical.

Either way, we didn't notice any difference on either offense or defense. If the people on your side did, good for you :icon_wink:

EDIT: I think we've gone a long way off topic. I was thinking that it might be interesting if we could use this topic to vote for the account of the war in each tribe. C2 players vote for the best Plight account, Plight vote for the best SF account and SF vote for the best C2 account for example would be an unbiased way of doing it. Any poster from another tribe can vote for who they like. That's just something I thought might be interesting related to this topic.

That's an interesting way to do this, actually. However, are we going to elect one player per tribe? If you want to elect one player overall, that actually gives neither SF nor C² an incentive to vote :icon_razz:

 

[DeletedUser]

Anyway, since apparently you've decided that two week data is now superior, here's what happened to the three warring tribes in the past two weeks:

• C²: +2 million points
• Plight: -7 million points
• SF: -2 million points

I think I speak on behalf of all of C² when I heartily congratulate you with your "victory", and hope you'll have many more that are just like it! :lol:

After double checking the stats, MVOOMV had 3.7million points on his departure from SF. Take that into consideration and we gain 1.7million points in this period. Thats not rocket science. And I do class that as a victory. And the majority of these points will return to the hands of SF and its allies. CBK has shown how each merger has made a difference for whichever tribe gains the players, now to believe that the same statistics apply to each situation along the timeline of events is incorrect. Hence I'm quite happy to take any statistics from the 26th of June, as no other significant event has occured since then. I keep the SF vs. C2 forum partially up to date. Will be doing the past two weeks stats there soon.

Finally, if you think we are far more likely to get in trouble if a single member leaves, you may want to have a look at the excellent post Axl made regarding individual conquers (I'm not going to recalculate all the data, and will use his). You'll see that there are in fact 10 people in our tribe with more conquers than your most active nobler, and 19 with as many conquers as your second most active nobler. If you look at net gains, that number skyrockets: last time I checked, it was our top 32 above your top player, though we may have dropped a few spots since then.

You want to talk relative contribution? Our top nobler accounts for 10% of our conquers, yours for 13%. Our biggest player accounts for 3% of the tribal size, your biggest player accounts for 6%. No matter how you spin it, it's obvious that we're in a much better position to lose one or two players than you are...not to mention that we're far less likely to actually lose them judging by the track records of both tribes.

Also, can you go easy on obvious falsehoods like "Lamarth, Adamjrose and Crosamich have the majority of the war conquers"? As impressive as these three are, they have around 25% of the war conquers...and outside small African dictatorships, 25% is not a majority. Besides, how big is the contribution of your top 3 noblers?

28%. Right.

It is true, Axl is a far better player then most of us, I'd say all of us here in SF considering the situation he has made for himself and his record clearly show this. I agree with most of what you said. If we lost some of our key players (Axl, Giaxbe - I assume these are the fellows) it would be devastating for us, maybe more so then you losing your top member. Generally speaking though, those are the players that would be here for life so I'm not worried about either of them.

Apologies for the obvious falsehoods, I tried remembering the names that were on top of the c2 conquer list and got 1 wrong. (still not checking might be 2 or even all).

If we lose one of players thats not a top 5 conquerer it will have little effect on the war efforts. Going by your numbers where everyone has a % of these conquers then yes, losing a member of yours is going to make a difference in your stats since proportionally more even.

 

[DeletedUser]

After double checking the stats, MVOOMV had 3.7million points on his departure from SF. Take that into consideration and we gain 1.7million points in this period. Thats not rocket science. And I do class that as a victory. And the majority of these points will return to the hands of SF and its allies. CBK has shown how each merger has made a difference for whichever tribe gains the players, now to believe that the same statistics apply to each situation along the timeline of events is incorrect. Hence I'm quite happy to take any statistics from the 26th of June, as no other significant event has occured since then. I keep the SF vs. C2 forum partially up to date. Will be doing the past two weeks stats there soon.

I'm amazed that you keep trying to throw out players who went barb as inconsequential, and then try to call a 2m loss overall as a victory.

It is true, Axl is a far better player then most of us, I'd say all of us here in SF considering the situation he has made for himself and his record clearly show this. I agree with most of what you said. If we lost some of our key players (Axl, Giaxbe - I assume these are the fellows) it would be devastating for us, maybe more so then you losing your top member. Generally speaking though, those are the players that would be here for life so I'm not worried about either of them.

Life happens. Death, illness, marriage, divorce, children born, college starts/ends, new job, moving, and the list goes on. Many players are really dedicated to this game, but in the end, its a game, and I have no doubt that any player would willingly give up this game if their life called for it. You can not just take it for granted that these players will always be there.

Apologies for the obvious falsehoods, I tried remembering the names that were on top of the c2 conquer list and got 1 wrong. (still not checking might be 2 or even all).

I wasn't trying to point out falsehoods in your statement so much as I was trying to show how much you understated it. We have quite a few players who've taken a lot of villages in these wars. So losing one would be a lot less devastating than it would be for SF, because we have a lot more members who've shown they are capable of picking up the slack. If SF loss say Axl, I'm not sure you have anyone who could fill his shoes.

If we lose one of players thats not a top 5 conquerer it will have little effect on the war efforts. Going by your numbers where everyone has a % of these conquers then yes, losing a member of yours is going to make a difference in your stats since proportionally more even.

I disagree. There are two main reasons for low conquers in the war. One would be simply being inactive in the war, whether the account is really inactive, or the player just really doesn't care and doesn't contribute. Then there is the player who contributes in other ways. Sitting, sending support, sending nukes, and things like that. Losing one of these players who are essential to keep a tribe running during a war would be just as devastating, if not more so, than losing one of your top conquerors.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. MVOOMV has not gone barb. We did not lose 2 million points. We have placed 3.7 million points outside of the tribe and will gain them all back. So to say we LOST 2 million is not correct. I dont need to explain it again.
2. Life happens to C2 players as well. I'm assuming someone over there has a life.
3. Its taken me way too long to move to the front. I have some sort of prescence there now, and I'm now in the long process of moving into Axls' shoes and surpassing him.
4. Losing one of our tribe runners would be worse I agree with that.

I'd say there are three reasons for low conquers:
Inactive
Doesn't Care or Contribute
Demographic

I've had low conquers and still. Never been inactive and always contributed. There can be reasons why some players generally the front line players take the village for the work of a backline player simply due to timings.


A Bit Off Topic:
I think an interesting statistic here would to put all former sunny players vs. C2 members in war conquers since 11th Dec (Approx Merge Date). I believe this will give an indication as to why some members have low conquers and don't appear to be contributing as its taken these players too long to get "statistically" involved. Thats why Giaxbe, Grandecapo, Black, Sw7ch, Msterjake to name just a small few of the many and many players that has reaped the rewards of my support in ODD and saved villages, yet I appear to have no credit except for the little voices inside my head saying I did the right thing.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. MVOOMV has not gone barb. We did not lose 2 million points. We have placed 3.7 million points outside of the tribe and will gain them all back. So to say we LOST 2 million is not correct. I dont need to explain it again.
2. Life happens to C2 players as well. I'm assuming someone over there has a life.


A Bit Off Topic:
I think an interesting statistic here would to put all former sunny players vs. C2 members in war conquers since 11th Dec (Approx Merge Date). I believe this will give an indication as to why some members have low conquers and don't appear to be contributing as its taken these players too long to get "statistically" involved. Thats why Giaxbe, Grandecapo, Black, Sw7ch, Msterjake to name just a small few of the many and many players that has reaped the rewards of my support in ODD and saved villages, yet I appear to have no credit except for the little voices inside my head saying I did the right thing.

1) Saying the points are outside the tribe and that you will gain them back is one of the best Baghdad Bob type statements I have heard in a while.

2) Yes life happens to us all, no one will dispute that.

The last part:

Yes, the defenses sent forward by the current and ex-sunny players made a huge difference on the southern portion of the front, and I am pretty sure no one would argue differently. However another major cause (not going to get into an argument as to which is larger) was that in the southern portion of the front c2 was in no way prepared for the war and so was running purely on momentum. When we had punched through the LSHRV lines we had to stop and consolidate our position at some point, just the nature of war. This plus the Sunny support is what slowed us down (but not stopped us) in the south.

 

[MichielK]

1. MVOOMV has not gone barb. We did not lose 2 million points. We have placed 3.7 million points outside of the tribe and will gain them all back. So to say we LOST 2 million is not correct.

Of course it's correct, Pearcy. It's really not an advanced concept: you had those villages, and now you don't. That means you lost them. Once you get them back, we'll count them again...but you can't realistically expect us to take into account the future villages you might take when determining how you did in the past two weeks.

Also, quit refering to this as "we placed X points outside the tribe". This is not someone who quit and wants to give his villages away for free. SF once again decided for whatever reason to eat a former Sunny player who did not want to be eaten (remember Alex?). To dismiss this as insignificant and not worth mentioning is either very naive or very stupid.

He took about a dozen villages off of SF members already, and is up by 8 million ODD in the past week and a half. Granted, that's not very impressive (then again, how well would any of us do if our tribe turned on us like that?), but he is costing you troops, nobles, time and effort, not to mention that sooner or later some of your tribemates will catch on and realise they have more to fear from their own tribe than from us....but yeah, keep sending support far away :lol:

Btw, I seriously hope none of you were sitting him just before or during the first days of eating. If you did, he'd have an excellent chance to file a sitter abuse ticket.

As for inactivity...sure, life does happen to every tribe, and we all lose players to that. However, you're also losing players to many in-game reasons as well. Gammy, Kreamer, Robonot, MV and Alexhol are just a few examples of players that you did not lose to life, but rather to internal issues. You claim that your top players are not the types to quit. Well, where's Zvone? Where's mlions? Where are all the other oldschool HRV leaders who shouted from the rooftops that they'd never quit, and then did exactly that? Your top players quit at a higher rate than any remaining tribe in W16, and rather than planning for what to do when that happens you just stick your head in the sand.