APOC vs "The World"

[DeletedUser]

Have you ever competed with someone and, after winning the game, you went to that player to shake hands and exchange pleasentries but, instead of them reciprocating, they simply walked off the field of play muttering how you hadn't won, it was they who had lost, and only because... (insert excuses)?

I have.

No, actually. We've always won quite convincingly.

Once again though, I was merely setting Macman's assumptions right.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, actually. We've always won quite convincingly.

That would explain your inability to deal with failure.

 

[DeletedUser]

That would explain your inability to deal with failure.

Not true. If there is something I fail at initially, I will try again until I figure it out. I will always do my best and not settle for failure. That's how I deal with it. Even on TW there was a list of things that I had to achieve before I left seeing as there was no real fight for me. Apoc didn't play this game in my view - even in your personal chronicle the major theme throughout is we merged, then merged and then merged again.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right, they didn't play the game. They manipulated the game to take villages and conquer everyone.

 

[DeletedUser]

Not true. If there is something I fail at initially, I will try again until I figure it out. I will always do my best and not settle for failure. That's how I deal with it. Even on TW there was a list of things that I had to achieve before I left seeing as there was no real fight for me. Apoc didn't play this game in my view - even in your personal chronicle the major theme throughout is we merged, then merged and then merged again.

That's because, as a leader, my focus was on leadership, conciliation and diplomacy. What was yours on?

 

[DeletedUser]

No, actually. We've always won quite convincingly.

You might want to engage in more competitive enterprises to experience "The Agony of Defeat." Particularly in athletic contests, once the game or match is over, there is (normally) a winner and there is a loser.


There is no way to ... as you said....

If there is something I fail at initially, I will try again until I figure it out. I will always do my best and not settle for failure. That's how I deal with it.

In many competitive games and such, you don't get a chance to "figure it out." If you don't find a way to win during the match, then you lose. It's that simple.
Surely, you understand this concept.

In my view... all the people who deleted their accounts in TW are the equivalent of "injured players" in sports events. For whatever reason, a person is no longer able to "compete". They cannot play. Circumstances beyond their control intervened and prevented them from finishing the game.
Sometimes people decide to "retire", too. Which is fine, too. We've all lost good players from our tribes due to RL and boredom. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that the players are no longer around to help their team. The act of retiring takes them off the field just as much as an injury does.

When I view the totality of your posts, I can only assume that you hold a double standard for your opponents. You view the deletions of your tribemates as somehow worse than the deletions of enemy players. If your tribe forced an opponent to quit, you crow about it. When you (or your friends) delete under attack, it's because you were bored and achieved everything you wanted... and you knew you'd be able to beat all your opponents, you just couldn't be bothered.
Quite the double standard... that you either ignore out of stubbornness or just never considered before. If it's the latter... you've now been made aware. If it's the former.. then you have a very poor sense of sportsmanship.

Just as in RL... after the loss, just say, "Good game" and be done with it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Psst, people. This thread was started as a stats thread...

Conquers (30 days) for:
Apocalypse (43.86%)
Apocalypse: Now! (6.96%)
Apocalypse:Famine (16.98%)
Balkan Alliance (22.73%)

Score: 996,296,243
Players: 281
Villages: 131,223
90.52% of all player villages
Avg. Player Score: 3,545,538
Avg. Player Villages: 466
Avg. Village: 7,592

Captures: 8381
Enemy: 5246
Unknown: 1959
Internal: 796
Barbarian: 380

Losses: 65

Growth = All Captures -
internal captures - losses
Growth = 7520 villages
----------------------------------------------------
Conquers (30 days) for:
TURKO (%)
WarGods of Freedom (.2%)
Pantheon Reborn (%)
knights of the realm (%)
Cold Blooded Killers (%)
Tribe of Disc (%)
The Phoenix (4.58%)
Fellowship of the Weirdos (%)
The Holy Roman Empire (%)
The Rebel Alliance (.01%)
A Cute Puppy (.01%)
Phoenix (.08%)
Knock Out (%)
Very Small Tribe (.48%)
Just hanging around (%)
The Flying Circus (.18%)
The Foresters Pioneers (2.01%)
Ancien Regime Dominion (.15%)
My 1st World (%)
The Danger Zone (.2%)
Not Going Away (.02%)
non-aggressive-pact (.03%)
Silly Apoc, I was always loyal (.01%)
rockman (.14%)
life (.02%)
Ancien Regime Dominion SE (.17%)

Score: 115,109,068
Players: 85
Villages: 12,044
8.31% of all player villages
Avg. Player Score: 1,354,224
Avg. Player Villages: 141
Avg. Village: 9,557

Captures: 1383
Enemy: 61
Unknown: 17
Internal: 53
Barbarian: 1252

Losses: 4277

Growth = All Captures -
internal captures - losses
Growth = -2947 villages

 

[DeletedUser]

That's because, as a leader, my focus was on leadership, conciliation and diplomacy. What was yours on?

Nobody told me that as leader and diplomat I should have been focussing on mergers only. It would have saved me a LOT of time and effort. I would have been able to play my own account properly (and sleep more) instead of account sitting, dealing with tribal issues, members and their tantrums, planning ops, participating in ops, negotiations, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

You might want to engage in more competitive enterprises to experience "The Agony of Defeat." Particularly in athletic contests, once the game or match is over, there is (normally) a winner and there is a loser.


There is no way to ... as you said....



In many competitive games and such, you don't get a chance to "figure it out." If you don't find a way to win during the match, then you lose. It's that simple.
Surely, you understand this concept.

In my view... all the people who deleted their accounts in TW are the equivalent of "injured players" in sports events. For whatever reason, a person is no longer able to "compete". They cannot play. Circumstances beyond their control intervened and prevented them from finishing the game.
Sometimes people decide to "retire", too. Which is fine, too. We've all lost good players from our tribes due to RL and boredom. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that the players are no longer around to help their team. The act of retiring takes them off the field just as much as an injury does.

When I view the totality of your posts, I can only assume that you hold a double standard for your opponents. You view the deletions of your tribemates as somehow worse than the deletions of enemy players. If your tribe forced an opponent to quit, you crow about it. When you (or your friends) delete under attack, it's because you were bored and achieved everything you wanted... and you knew you'd be able to beat all your opponents, you just couldn't be bothered.
Quite the double standard... that you either ignore out of stubbornness or just never considered before. If it's the latter... you've now been made aware. If it's the former.. then you have a very poor sense of sportsmanship.

Just as in RL... after the loss, just say, "Good game" and be done with it.

I don't know whether you play a competitive sport in RL or not but I have played a few (from your post it seems like the answer would be no). In all sports you have practice sessions, weekly games throughout the season and then you have the finals playoffs leading up to the Grand final. You may make mistakes in the earlier sessions but you practice until you perfect a certain move or play or whatever. In RL, I am quite competitive and when I play, I play hard.

As for deletions of friends, it WAS worse for -MM- coz we were an independant tribe. We didn't have 25 extra tribes to pull players from. I understand that on a personal level that losing a friend would affect everyone in a similar manner but that was not my point. As for my sportsmanship, you should know from my play on TW that I like a fair playing field. I don't cheat in any way or 'enhance' my chances of victory. If I win, I earned it and if I lose to a worthy opponent, I will iron out mistakes and be ready for the re-match. It doesn't matter if I lose as long as I know I did my best.

In TW, I have complimented players where deserving. You guys want me to say how good you played. Like I said many times, hugging, mass recruiting and cleaning out inactives solely is not something I consider as good sportsmanship. You can see from my posts last year (regarding the UA) that my view was the same as it is now so you can't play the 'sore loser' card now.

 

[DeletedUser]

Nobody told me that as leader and diplomat I should have been focussing on mergers only. It would have saved me a LOT of time and effort. I would have been able to play my own account properly (and sleep more) instead of account sitting, dealing with tribal issues, members and their tantrums, planning ops, participating in ops, negotiations, etc.

Did I say only? No.

I have to say it sounds like you very busy doing many things. Unfortunately, judging from the aftermath of your leadership, it seems that you did these things poorly. Perhaps you should have delegated some of your responsibilities to someone who might have performed the associated roles a little more successfully?

 

[DeletedUser]

(from your post it seems like the answer would be no).

Perhaps you could substantiate that conclusion? I'd be interested to see your "logic".

until you perfect a certain move or play or whatever.

I think it is fair to say that "perfecting" a "move" in a competitive sport is impossible. It is more likely that you might get close in a pastime that doesn't involve other people. Competition has a nasty habit of countering your "perfect" move. Of course you knew that.

As for deletions of friends, it WAS worse for -MM- coz we were an independant tribe.

Which is precisely why our strategy was/is superior to yours. You had no plan B.

I don't [...] 'enhance' my chances of victory.

So all that practice isn't to enhance your chances of victory? Why do it then?

If I win, I earned it and if I lose to a worthy opponent, I will iron out mistakes and be ready for the re-match.

This is the funniest quote of the lot! You clearly don't even recognise your mistakes. You just keep saying that the opposition cheated! Sorry Bella but we didn't. The game encourages collaboration. You failed to "learn" and respond accordingly. If you adopt the same "sulky" response to being beated in the sports in which you participate then your stubborness will continue to prevail over your competitiveness.

It doesn't matter if I lose as long as I know I did my best.

Sorry, but that is weak. Not least because it isn't true. You didn't. You refused to understand/acknowledge your opponents game and adapt. You didn't do your best. In fact you couldn't have done much worse.

In TW, I have complimented players where deserving.

It seems you have decided you are the ultimate authority on what constitutes good play. News flash: you aren't!

You guys want me to say how good you played.

Nope. We just want you to either be a good sportswoman or shut up. We don't want your blessing, and we don't want your sulking.

you can't play the 'sore loser' card now.

You are a sore loser. That's a fact.

 

[DeletedUser67005]

You just keep saying that the opposition cheated! Sorry Bella but we didn't.

You personally may not have cheated Andrew, but some of you did (Socolofi), which is more than can be said for MM...

You are a sore loser. That's a fact.

Wrong again. That is an opinion, not a fact. The Twin Towers were destroyed. THAT is a fact...

 

[DeletedUser]

So all that practice isn't to enhance your chances of victory? Why do it then?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? From the sentence it is fairly obvious that "or" is meant to be "to".

I think it is fair to say that "perfecting" a "move" in a competitive sport is impossible. It is more likely that you might get close in a pastime that doesn't involve other people. Competition has a nasty habit of countering your "perfect" move. Of course you knew that.

Once again you are arguing semantics

Which is precisely why our strategy was/is superior to yours. You had no plan B.

Your strategy was ally as many people as possible until you outnumbered the opposition by an insurmountable quantity. What Bella and others find funny is that you seem to be proud of this accomplishment. Even your chronicles were pretty humorous, they were essentially "I managed this merge, then this merge, then this merge" lol.

You seem to equate someone not using the same strategy as you as some sort of lacking on their part. When the truth of the matter is some people actually joined the game to play and have fun. I know for a fact most of you disliked this game and only created a mass alliance with a twofold mission, allow yourselves to be lazy and to end the game as soon as possible while gaining some sort of consolation pseudo victory.

It's funny to me that you equate this "victory" with skill and superiority to the opposition. The opposition never wanted to bend the rules in the way that you did, because they didn't have the same goals as you.

It seems you have decided you are the ultimate authority on what constitutes good play. News flash: you aren't!

Nowhere in her post does she state that she is the ultimate authority on what constitutes good play. Nowhere does she even suggest it or hint it in fact. If you read it again, you will see she states what she considers in her personal opinion to be good play. She specifically states " is not something I consider as good sportsmanship" Notice the use of the word "I" to denote ownership of the opinion and to isolate the opinion as hers and hers alone (although I am sure many share the opinion, myself included).

Sorry, but that is weak. Not least because it isn't true. You didn't. You refused to understand/acknowledge your opponents game and adapt. You didn't do your best. In fact you couldn't have done much worse.

She acknowledged your game, and acknowledged it was not true to the spirit of the game. Why would she adapt to your play style when such would have required her to play in the same style which you already know she disagrees with? A classic case of stooping to the level of someone else. Not all people would throw their morals out so easily. It is irrelevant as to whether you consider your play style to be cheap or otherwise; she considered it cheap, so to do the same would have been throwing her moral character out the window, for a game. It is obvious to me that you do not know her in the least.

The last sentence of your quote is just pathetic to be honest, not even worthy of a response.

You are a sore loser. That's a fact.

Lol, I'm guessing next you will say that I too am a sore loser? It's funny that I have noticed a recurring theme in your posts, all of your opinions are facts, and you are of course never wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Did I say only? No.

I have to say it sounds like you very busy doing many things. Unfortunately, judging from the aftermath of your leadership, it seems that you did these things poorly. Perhaps you should have delegated some of your responsibilities to someone who might have performed the associated roles a little more successfully?

We were a team of 4 and we did share duties (remember we were in that chat together?). Whilst we were together, -MM- was ranked 1, had the most villages, highest ODA and had the best group of players in the game and everyone in the tribe enjoyed both the camaraderie and the game. Whilst you focused on allying 3/4 of the world, we focused on making the game fun for our tribe. Even when certain events happened, we maintained rank 2 and it took you how long and how many mergers/member reshuffling to catch up to our stats?

Even in MIM, whilst I was leading we were doing very well in the war and spirits were high in the tribe. It's not definate whether my plans would have worked or not but we had a great chance of succeeding. As soon as leadership was taken over, conquers almost stopped, there was low morale in the tribe and many people quit and/or deleted. I was asked several times to resume as Duchess (even by those who wanted me gone in the first place) but I refused and instead NAP'd with you and proceeded to take out almost all actives left, thus sealing the world's demise. Don't you have more cleaning to do or is your well of nonsense bottomless?

PS Click on view post for a reply from Zurtle to your long post. He pretty much covers it.

 

[DeletedUser]

You personally may not have cheated Andrew, but some of you did (Socolofi), which is more than can be said for MM...

You have no idea how bad they really were Assasin - I got to see it first hand when I joined =V=. Andrew is in all the chats so he knows exactly how many proxied accounts they have (many played by Natasha and even their top ranked players) and he can tell you who had been playing the stony n account for many months.

You would have thought that the cheating would have stopped when victory was sealed but it just got more disgusting. They tried to pay off swordy with premium, they hijacked accounts in -PX- and I saw players being offered a selection of proxies so that they could stay anonymous.

Yes, they do dominate the world (finally) but there isn't a dirty trick in the book that they didn't utilise at least once. In most games/sports you'd be disqualified but here they get to 'win' and feel awesome about themselves. Yay for Apoc.

 

[DeletedUser]

Honestly who cares if they cheat or not?
I don't think it would've been very fun to keep playing for
2 or more years just to beat Apoc. :icon_neutral:

Although I do think it is pretty pointless to play now...
Considering the chances the number of actives with
a chance to beat Apoc - aka none - but it's not me.

Maybe it was their goal in the end to win quick. And then do...
Whatever they're doing and have fun at it. :icon_eek:

If they are? Clear, clear... Send nobles to the inactive.
Oh fun!​

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't care that they cheated or mass hugged. Great for them if that's how they like to win. They just need to accept that they will not get the respect they long for from everyone else.

 

[DeletedUser]

PS Click on view post for a reply from Zurtle to your long post. He pretty much covers it.

Not a chance. I am ignoring him as he is incapable of the posting without hate. I have no reason to believe his MO has changed. I'll just have to assume that I scored with every point ;-)

 

[DeletedUser]

Andrew is in all the chats so he knows exactly how many proxied accounts they have (many played by Natasha and even their top ranked players) and he can tell you who had been playing the stony n account for many months.

Actually I always set my notifications to Andy or Andrew. I only listen for my name!

I wasn't aware of any proxied accounts. I knew that we ran stonyn but assumed it was sat.

Incidentally I have always been against perma-sat (let alone proxied) accounts. Such accounts only cause internal conflict and rarely actually add value. Personally I'd rather nuke an opponent and get the ODA. As for Def, support from sat accounts is rarely timely enough to be very useful.

My position has been reinforced with the understanding that, in order to win the world, one tribe must own 70% of the player villages. I did a few calculations and worked out that the only account worth sitting would have to have over ~16M points (i.e. Zain, Davide or me!)

If you doubt my position then you can ask any of the other leaders of Apoc or BA. Even Zurtle couldn't (shouldn't) argue!

 

[DeletedUser67005]

Yup, Stony n was run by Soco. He just recently received a 500 village penalty, or am I imagining things?...