Note from an oldy.

DeletedUser911

Guest
Fair enough. I'm probably not in that particular audience, but I can see the fun in that.



To be fair, you said strategists would criticize your aggression, which is not what I did. In fact, I think I've always been pretty clear in my appreciation for your quest for euthanasia...it continuously brought life and excitement to W16 (doesn't hurt that I was in K72 either).

What I criticized (if you want to call it that) is judging players by your standards and your standards alone. These players must have value for Plight where it is now, even if you'd never recruit them. I think it's unfair to put them down like this (small, childish, babysitting) simply because they don't fit what you'd look for in a player...after all, very few people measure up to that to begin with.

Indeed, I only meant to illustrate the point of view of the particular type of player that I typically prefer to entertain. In no way did I intend to size up all other players outside of the 'elite'. (Although I'm not terribly afraid of offending them either).

otherwise they'll fail simply through having too few members.

And here in lies the challenge of both playing at a disadvantage, and still achieving victory. That was the goal I had for Plight. Of course exceptions were made here and there to my chagrin (usually because an elite player often comes paired with a 'so so' player). If I had it my way, I would have played with only Elites and it would have been quite the challenge.

Again, this is not a strategy proposal (even though I might have pretended it was in past times) it is merely my late confession in regards to what my goal actually entailed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MichielK

Guest
Indeed, I only meant to illustrate the point of view of the particular type of player that I typically prefer to entertain. In no way did I intend to size up all other players outside of the 'elite'. (Although I'm not terribly afraid of offending them either).

No kidding :icon_wink:

Weren't you the driving force behind the "CENTER school for eliteness" as well though (I could be wrong about this one, can't find the post)? That doesn't seem to mesh well with an unwillingness to work with non-elite players.
 

DeletedUser52669

Guest
There is no doubt that SJC is one of the best leaders to play TWs. I only wish you would have the time and drive to lead another group of players on a mission to rid the game of those unworthy. I bet there would be many in lock step behind you.

Your style and gift of speak (or in this case type), is one of a kind in TW and that is a talent, which is one of the most important aspect in this game outside possibly of activity. With words SJC, inspired the troops and put fear in the enemy. It is important to remember, manipulating your enemies and sometimes allies to ones advantage is what makes this game a challenge. Wave after wave of axe and rams is simple to do and counter, the real effort is overcoming the human aspect of the game. It is also where the fun is to be found.

So being critical who won what and who was more important in these wars and those wars is really unimportant. The one thing we should remember is SJC is one of the few leaders and players who could work the human element so well.

Now I will remove my head for SJC's rear :icon_eek:, but he definitely deserves more respect for his talent.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No kidding :icon_wink:

Weren't you the driving force behind the "CENTER school for eliteness" as well though (I could be wrong about this one, can't find the post)? That doesn't seem to mesh well with an unwillingness to work with non-elite players.

MK, I have an issue with this statement. SJC, in making Plight, would obviously have attempted to only bring in the "elite" as he deemed them. That does not mean he would not be willing to work with the "non-elite", illustrated by:

Which by the way: I do use 'so so' players outside of the tribe at times. I made friends with plenty of 'so so' players. Next to none of them were invited into Plight while I was Duke though.

While he does exhibit a tendency to only wish for the elites to make it to the end, euthanizing all the rest, in his lack of motivation for other area, he has devoted himself to making more elites, in a much smaller and more compact group. Whereas taking in non-elites to fill all the remaining spots when he was the duke of Plight would be tedious training and much more difficult. Sure, he could have taken them in one at a time, but the time is different. He is no longer intent on leading Plight, but rather intent to find a purpose. His purpose at the moment is to train more elites for "future Plights".

Thus, he is unwilling to attempt to mesh elites and non-elites in a tribe aimed for victory, but keeps them separated in order to make his training or lack thereof more effective for the elites (who prefer company of other elites), and non-elites (who prefer company of anyone).
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Indeed, I only meant to illustrate the point of view of the particular type of player that I typically prefer to entertain. In no way did I intend to size up all other players outside of the 'elite'. (Although I'm not terribly afraid of offending them either).



And here in lies the challenge of both playing at a disadvantage, and still achieving victory. That was the goal I had for Plight. Of course exceptions were made here and there to my chagrin (usually because an elite player often comes paired with a 'so so' player). If I had it my way, I would have played with only Elites and it would have been quite the challenge.

Again, this is not a strategy proposal (even though I might have pretended it was in past times) it is merely my late confession in regards to what my goal actually entailed.
I think everyone who starts a tribe wants to make it full of elites. That's where I think you differed. Many people will seek to recruit some elites, and then find active new players to teach and make elites, where you searched out the elite and exluded almost everyone else.

But you stated something about playing at a disadvantage yet winning. I would honestly agree with you here. I would rather have skill on my side and be outnumbered by opponents of lesser skill than the opposite way around.

So in some aspects I do agree with you, and some I disagree, but I can't say you are or were in any way wrong considering Plight is still going strong.

I do think it would be interesting to see you start a tribe in a new world and see how it progresses from the beginning.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
As one of the many players who helped Plight through some dark times and who helped guide Plight to where it is now (a place Soc does not like), I'd like to offer my opinions on a few things.

1) Soc, you left Plight in the lurch and I don't think you should be complaining about how the tribe has turned out. You elevated me to a leadership position and then you kinda disappeared, for weeks at a time. I understand RL takes precedence but in your absence Seagryfn and I (and others) kept the tribe together and led it as best we knew how. If you wanted Plight to remain your tribe, run the way you wanted, then you needed to stay active and continue to lead. SG and I would have been fine with that. There was no coup d'etat -- it was an abdication. I think you should come to peace with that and it doesn't seem like you have. I feel like you're bitter about things, which makes me feel bad as I liked you when you led Plight. But it doesn't make me feel guilty about where Plight is now. For me personally, Plight feels like a better tribe now.

2) Just as an aside, I'd like to contrast how you and I stepped down. You not only basically disappeared on us, but we've heard (while this is just rumor, we did hear it from several separate sources on a number of occasions) that you had been badmouthing the way I and SG were running the tribe. It felt to me like you were doing a little sabotage. Not as much as you could have, certainly, but it felt like there was bitterness there that you were venting (from what others told us).

For my part, I took over the leadership position after you left and led the tribe as best I could. I kept having disagreements with a couple of key players and I eventually decided that my management style wasn't working with those players. I told SG and Qoffee that I wanted to step down, as I felt that'd be best for the tribe. And I feel that was a good decision. I like the direction the tribe has been moving in with them leading it and I think the players who were unhappy with me are happier now.

But once I decided to step down and let others determine the direction of Plight, I've remained in the tribe. I've remained active and supported the current leadership in any form I could. Frankly, I feel this gives me the right to comment on the current state of Plight but IMO the way you disappeared on the tribe means you gave up that right. Again IMO, but it feels to me like a lot of your comments since have come from a sense of bitterness that Plight didn't fall apart or disband when you left.

3) I think we were getting our asses kicked in the Orc war. Our whole northern front completely fell apart, from players who quit and others who just ran away and cowered. I give you props for holding the tribe together then; I think that was your finest hour. You got some of the bigger southern players, me and a couple others, to move up there and prop things up. And I was sitting a position from which I did a lot of damage up there, knocking out a couple of players. And a few northern players, such as AG33, were working well up there. But I think we were one good push from completely falling apart up there, all the way down to our southern strength. The fact that the push never came had little to do with us and more to do with our foes' lack of will to press it home. Viewed in the very best light, IMO, that war was a stalemate for us and we were very lucky to get that.

4) Frankly, I don't get the whole elite thing. I don't know who's elite and who isn't. I certainly don't consider myself to be. I've just been active and juggled as best I could. I guess there are two players in W16 I think of as "elite," about whom I've thought, "Wow, I hope to hell I never have to fight them even up." And that's Seagryfn, because I've seen amazing offensive and defensive skill from her and learned a lot from her, and AxltheCat. While I have no contact with him in W16, I started out next to him in W36 and saw him grow 2-3 times faster than me under identical conditions. Yikes, glad he's on my side.

While there are many other players I like and respect in W16, including you Soc, I have no clue where to draw the "elite" line nor (for the most part) who would be on each side of it.

Sorry to be so late into this thread and perhaps address dead issues, but I very rarely visit the PnP forums.

FWIW,
Mike
 

MichielK

Guest
Thus, he is unwilling to attempt to mesh elites and non-elites in a tribe aimed for victory, but keeps them separated in order to make his training or lack thereof more effective for the elites (who prefer company of other elites), and non-elites (who prefer company of anyone).

That makes perfect sense, thanks for the explanation :)
 

DeletedUser911

Guest
As one of the many players who helped Plight through some dark times and who helped guide Plight to where it is now (a place Soc does not like), I'd like to offer my opinions on a few things.

And if anyone is looking for a word with somebody else who can effectively communicate: here he is.

I'd like to first point out that I'm not embittered about you and Seagryfn or about anything you two have done. I've always been aware of where you both would take the tribe had I disappeared or gave up leadership. I'm not upset either about the way you two perceive Tribal Wars, or this world. At times I sympathize with your causes--in my moments of weakness--and I most certainly have great respect for the both of you; primarily I have respect for the great fortitude you both show in both leadership and play.

With all of that out of the way, I would like to beat my dead horse a bit. (Before I do, I must say that people have made this thread about a lot of things that it has nothing to do with; One of those things was strategy, and the other was about my personal feelings about Plight. Neither of which I intended to comment on originally). The dead horse I wish to beat is that Mikebro and Seagryfn probably have the best practical system that is possible right now: on paper and in play. The dead horse is that my focus has everything to do with entertainment and little to do with actual strategy. Had I been playing TW at as great of length as I once was, I would never admit this; admitting this undermines my call to action and diminishes my cry for outrageous aggression.

You may view this as a confession. All along many thought that Plight's aggressive ways were the cause of their great success. Unfortunately, this is not entirely true. (Our aggression, however, did indeed strike fear into people: causing them to freeze up, question their own play, or even question the leadership they played under). The real thing that caused our success was the enormous sense of purpose that Plight's theme enabled. 'Unrelenting aggression and Euthanasia of the weak' was a theme everyone in Plight came to uphold.

If you want success, gather a group of bright people all under one roof. If you want to gather people, give them a sense of purpose that they never felt before; everyone that thanks me for my leadership in Plight, in part thanks me for this. (That includes those who were merely experiencing Plight from the outside).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mLions

Guest
Greetings Socreates,

good to hear from you again.

There are a few things that disturb me generally in RL and consequently in this game:

1) People who live in the past
2) People keep saying 'if only, then', trying to stress how great they would be if only the circumstances would change
3) People who like to hear the sound of their words, needlessly talking and engaging in rhetorics expecting the admiration of others
4) People with false perceptions about themselves
5) People who leave an organisation and then rubbish it.

And your post here and a few comments tend to indicate that you covered almost 5 out of 5 of the above. I say almost because I'm not definitely sure about #4, but am starting to doubt it since you're of an opinion that Plight was great and had a PURPOSE while you were leading it, and now there are no goals, no purpose, NO THEME. To this I can only say: what are you smoking?

Perhaps I'm not the sharpest tool in the box but what THEME are you talking about - Euthanizing the whole world? You expect this to be entertaining or give anyone purpose? Plight was just another tribe to the rest of us - a great tribe, but your name was nothing more than a name.

If you want to retire, retire. We all understand. Some of our best retired and didn't write the whole speech about it. (Drew) But don't think that Plight has no purpose or goals. Plight today is a better tribe than it ever was because it finally has a stabile and sensible leadership. Mike and Sea are responsible, organised, capable and firm leaders who enjoy the utmost respect.

You? You never had our trust. One couldn't know where you stand, nor what you stand for. You always seemed like a guy who would sell his mother for a bag of eggs. I know you're quite a nice guys in RL, but here - wouldn't trust you to hold my bicycle.
You must have been a good leader inside the tribe as you earned a lot of respect from your team-mates. (although, some of the worst leaders in this world enjoyed the strongest devotion of their members - thinking here about hill berries and ... what was name of LOD's leader again?) But then again, you allowed that kid to drag you into the war against ORC (and then he promptly disappeared) - the war which you shouldn't have mentioned as one of the Plight's achievements because they kicked your butt and if it wasn't for Sea and a few others, Plight would have collapsed. =HRV= had an offer to attack you from south while you battle ORC and GUNS from north and east, and we never entertained this idea mainly because we had/have friends in Plight, but you are not one of them.

And just to end this ranting of mine: do you know why all 'elite' players aren't playing anymore? (I really hope this is no revelation to you):
Because what made them 'an elite' disappeared: a lot of time they could afford to spend on this game. No one has so much time to play this game constantly. It's easy to lock yourself up in a room and play TW for 6 months, be online 24/7, be there to send all attacks perfectly times, be there to snipe the trains and move the troops.
But once the parents/spouse/school/uni/work demands the RL responsibility then the 'elitism' disappears. "Elitism" isn't about guys who are more 'skilled' or clever than other players - it's about the time they put into this game. So, I wouldn't really boast about it - it admits something no one should be proud about.

About current leadership of Plight - Seagrfyn and Co were there in the hardest time of Plight - when you dragged them in the war you didn't know how to win, and they are also there for them now when the inactivity kicked in. They are still planning and warring, undertaking the tedious and mundane tasks that no one will praise them for but which keep this tribe alive and well.

You shouldn't say anything but praises for current Plight's leadership. Anything else will do you no credit.

If you came just to tell us you're retiring - it was good to know you. All the best in RL.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Mlions speaks the truth, I agreed with 99% of what he said.
 

matto1

Guest
mlions my man, top post.

Actually the first post that has made me login to a forum account to post a comment in a long time, so kudos from me.

Old/Retired Funkmun
 

DeletedUser

Guest
And just to end this ranting of mine: do you know why all 'elite' players aren't playing anymore? (I really hope this is no revelation to you):
Because what made them 'an elite' disappeared: a lot of time they could afford to spend on this game. No one has so much time to play this game constantly. It's easy to lock yourself up in a room and play TW for 6 months, be online 24/7, be there to send all attacks perfectly times, be there to snipe the trains and move the troops.
But once the parents/spouse/school/uni/work demands the RL responsibility then the 'elitism' disappears. "Elitism" isn't about guys who are more 'skilled' or clever than other players - it's about the time they put into this game. So, I wouldn't really boast about it - it admits something no one should be proud about.

I agree with everything but this. Just because someone can afford hours and hours of time in front of the computer doesn't mean that they could be considered elite. Some players still couldn't send attacks timed perfectly.
The true elite have a knack for this game. Something about them (and their strategies) allows them to grow faster and stronger than most anyone.
 

jakeeboy

Guest
I agree with everything but this. Just because someone can afford hours and hours of time in front of the computer doesn't mean that they could be considered elite. Some players still couldn't send attacks timed perfectly.
The true elite have a knack for this game. Something about them (and their strategies) allows them to grow faster and stronger than most anyone.

And then there are other players who have a knack for the game and have tonnes of time, but have never been taught how to play. I still need some nurturing of my own. I have never been exposed to war, and the attacks by Ad Inf. where so sloppy and miss-time I got very little experience from them. There are many, many players like this and I think I am one of them. Anyway their's my two cents.

*plonk*
 

matto1

Guest
I agree with everything but this. Just because someone can afford hours and hours of time in front of the computer doesn't mean that they could be considered elite. Some players still couldn't send attacks timed perfectly.
The true elite have a knack for this game. Something about them (and their strategies) allows them to grow faster and stronger than most anyone.

You know, this 'knack' you mention is really just a mix of reasonable intelligence, a desire to be the best and lots of time available.

The strategies and decision making that make elite players seem elite aren’t hard to learn, it’s just they come into a world with the intention to dominate. However without lots of time available this just isn’t possible.
 
Last edited:

mLions

Guest
macondude,

you're right - not everyone will become an 'elite'. A number of reasons for that:
1) Too young age to be mature
2) Not interested in learning
3) Not interested in being really good
4) Not able to process the finesses of the game (read: dumb)

But for an average bloke with a good motivation to learn and succeed, it's not so hard to be an 'elite'.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If it's that 'easy' to become an elite, then one can wonder if these people should be called elite. Elite is a term used for the best in a certain activity and not for everyone who can reach a reasonable level. It's like football, everyone can learn it to a certain degree, but only a few are good enough to make a living out of it and even less become millionaire with this. I've also seen it with other pc-games, like half-life, only a few get really good.

mLions gives very good reasons for this. These are guidelines for anyone who wants to be reasonably good in this game. To become elite I think one more reason should be added:
5) One must have a certain talent to use all the games features to its fullest.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The term elite is debatable, at best. In the simplest form, a player who has exceptionally mastered all aspects of the game could be considered elite. However, since this game is team based and not individual based, we have to exclude some of those aspects. I think you can have elite groups or teams or tribes, but unless everything was one vs. one, calling a single player elite is a bit far fetched. If a person with good common sense and the aptitude to learn attacking, defending, strategy, etc., masters all of those areas, they are technically elite right? Hmm, what if that elite player gets attacked by 4 or 5 at least above average players? That elite player is now on the rim. Is he still elite? Technically he is still an awesome player who has mastered the game, but inevitably fell to simple attrition. In that case, it matters not who is the uber elite of the bunch, individually speaking, for if several other above average players decide to take that elite dude out, he's done. That is why I don't think you can relate elite with an individual.

Take axl for example, the #1 player. He is the number one player based on points alone; although one could argue you cant have points without villages, can't have villages without taking them, etc., etc.

But the gist of it is, if he were to be attacked by say 4 or 5 large players, he would undoubtedly get support from his tribe. Well, what if he didn't receive any support and he was on his own? If these 4 or 5 players were above average in attacking and defending, axl would lose. There are so many variables that can be thrown into any equation to find out who is considered elite. It's almost pointless to try, but fun to hear everyone's own ideas about what makes a player 'elite', in their own words.
 
Top