Truth

mattcurr

Guest
He was curious as to who you were, you stated that you were making a return. You reinforced the fact that you were a player from older worlds by commenting on the changes (which btw i don't think have changed at all for the last 5 years) so he was interested as to who you were which was quite obvious no need to go all defensive on your previous worlds because you have an emotionally unstable personality disorder. Get over it, take some pills if necessary.
Only mentioned because I was making fun of him for not knowing much. Not "making a return" simply returning. Note the weak argument virus has we're in the opening section of his post and he is attempting personal insults. Good one.

We have always had noobs writing the same shit on the new world forums every time they open, as well as older players coming in giving it billy big bollox, you fall into the latter. If you don't want a pissing contest on past worlds, why not give you opinion on why you think early world dip is a good thing. Your opinion seems really strong in this otherwise we wouldn't have the amateur dramatics.
Really, I think a lot has changed when I started people sucked pretty horribly, then around w20-47 game play was really good from quite a lot people past that I have noticed a steep decline. And in the four months I have been gone this time it's seemingly dropped like a rock. Strong opinion? Not really, it's more like an opinion that I hold that swords are not very useful in attack it's a rather weak opinion actually doesn't really deserve a supporting argument anymore.

But I mean if you really do want a supporting argument. Diplomacy is very good in early game because having nap's and allies means less people immediately taking you on. It means help defending, help attacking, help gathering information, in your K and in the surrounding ones. I mean sure you could think you're great enough to take on the world alone. But those people basically get killed every time, or sacrifice more than I would be willing to to succeed short term. I thought these were the reasons for diplomacy period? Pretty much a no brainer.

But if you do feel like attempting to support your opinion save the personal insults, they are trite, at least have some wit if you're going to attempt it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But I mean if you really do want a supporting argument. Diplomacy is very good in early game because having nap's and allies means less people immediately taking you on. It means help defending, help attacking, help gathering information, in your K and in the surrounding ones. I mean sure you could think you're great enough to take on the world alone. But those people basically get killed every time, or sacrifice more than I would be willing to to succeed short term. I thought these were the reasons for diplomacy period? Pretty much a no brainer.

Mattcur:

The type of diplomacy that is usually concluded in the early game isn't worth being called "diplomacy". It's often overdone, just a reaction to the misunderstanding that new players often have that numbers are the only important quality. While a small amount of diplomacy may be valuable in early game, it's relatively difficult to determine which tribes would be worth having diplomatic relationships with. If you don't ally/NAP VERY selectively, then you end up in a situation where, because of the diplomacy, your tribe is choked out, unable to grow because of the inability to attack the players that are farming their area dry, and in many cases, unable to form the farms as the newer tribes take in players that should be farmed, not taken in.

Granted, the way that they expressed their opinion is an overgeneralized statement that, if taken to the full extreme, could result in similarly misguided views. However, it's a common statement because the issue of over-diplomatic tribes is much more common than that of under-diplomatic tribes. Trying to prove the exception, which is a tiny portion of the actual issue, when the exception does not likely apply to the tribe on which this thread is originally based, is arguing semantics.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Only mentioned because I was making fun of him for not knowing much. Not "making a return" simply returning. Note the weak argument virus has we're in the opening section of his post and he is attempting personal insults. Good one.

No need to talk to the audience about the way i post. The only audience you should care about is the one you are replying to, but yes i have noted it and duly replied to your reference of my last post to you.

Really, I think a lot has changed when I started people sucked pretty horribly, then around w20-47 game play was really good from quite a lot people past that I have noticed a steep decline. And in the four months I have been gone this time it's seemingly dropped like a rock. Strong opinion? Not really, it's more like an opinion that I hold that swords are not very useful in attack it's a rather weak opinion actually doesn't really deserve a supporting argument anymore.

I played w1-8 had a break then played w8-32 the differences were minimal as are they now, i see alot more slinks claiming to have skills in game on these forums but other than that, same same.

But I mean if you really do want a supporting argument. Diplomacy is very good in early game because having nap's and allies means less people immediately taking you on. It means help defending, help attacking, help gathering information, in your K and in the surrounding ones. I mean sure you could think you're great enough to take on the world alone. But those people basically get killed every time, or sacrifice more than I would be willing to to succeed short term. I thought these were the reasons for diplomacy period? Pretty much a no brainer.

But if you do feel like attempting to support your opinion save the personal insults, they are trite, at least have some wit if you're going to attempt it.

I don't need to express how i feel about early diplomacy, in great detail to be honest. It sucks. Why? because any player or tribe with any idea of how to play this game should be able to deal with the over crowded sum of noob, mass recruit tribes in the early world. If they don't then maybe they should concentrate more on the game than the forums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't need to express how i feel about early diplomacy, in great detail to be honest. It sucks. Why? because any player or tribe with any idea of how to play this game should be able to deal with the over crowded sum of noob, mass recruit tribes in the early world. If they don't then maybe they should concentrate more on the game than the forums.

I wonder if you'd have the same tunnel vision if you started near a tribe who knows what they are doing :lol:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah i'd turtle as i do every world :icon_confused: Please point me to such tribe, i'll make sure i set up a personal nap with their top player so i'm safe :icon_rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You keep assuming that there is one solution to everything and that solution is what people are implying.

Here's a scenario for you: "Yourself and friends join the game in a nice spread in the same corner of the world. Incidentally, you notice a tribe full of 'skilled players' are in the same area. After looking up their previous experiences you notice their tribe has players that far surpass the skill set available in your own tribe. You know that your tribe cannot beat them in a fair fight (1v1)."

So, tell me..in that scenario you think the usage of diplomacy is a bad thing? Now before you rush another reply, try thinking who else is in the world.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Here's a scenario for you: "Yourself and friends join the game in a nice spread in the same corner of the world. Incidentally, you notice a tribe full of 'skilled players' are in the same area. After looking up their previous experiences you notice their tribe has players that far surpass the skill set available in your own tribe. You know that your tribe cannot beat them in a fair fight (1v1)."

Well that scenario wouldn't happen, come on now. You're just being silly :icon_wink:

If it were to happen though (which is highly unlikely, we skilled gentlemen) i would remember the second part of the games name and try not replace it with "hugs", however i'm no diplomat and never will be due to this very fact. I'm just a grunt who grumbles.
 

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
408
Err
I do apologize if my insults aren't as subtle as yours. i do not know whether or not you have a personality disorder but you shows signs of having one due to your posts in this thread. No need to talk to the audience about the way i post. The only audience you should care about is the one you are replying to


Err, what?

These are forums. Public forums. Not private messages. You don't write posts as if the audience consists of one person. The audience is the entire community.

ViRuS said:
I played w1-8 had a break then played w8-32 the differences were minimal as are they now, i see alot more slinks claiming to have skills in game on these forums but other than that, same same.

mattcurr has achieved far far more in this game than any of the people arguing against early diplomacy. That is empirical fact. He's also led far more successful tribes than any of the people arguing against early diplomacy.

You seem to care about what makes a tribe look "leet". Matt only cares about what is effective. Diplomacy is effective. It might not impress people, but using diplo early on is the path of least resistance and thus the most effective way to play.

Let's take a look at the last tribe Matt led:

1 R4KI 22.382.857 23.213.638 48 483.617 3803 6.104
2 One 16.256.699 16.900.828 48 352.101 2771 6.099
3 Omen 13.008.381 13.087.589 41 319.209 2122 6.168

And that was after a large percent of the members started going inactive. Earlier on they were more than double rank 2. I am thinking he just might be more qualified to determine what works and doesn't when leading than most of the people in this thread who've never led a top 10 tribe, let alone a rank 1 tribe, and certainly not a rank 1 tribe that was double the size of rank 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm well aware this is a public forum with a wider audience however him addressing the audience;

Note the weak argument virus has we're in the opening section of his post and he is attempting personal insults.

..was what i commented on.

Again i don't give a tiddly tink about previous worlds, please keep the converstaion on 64. As for the leet bit, i have to disagree with you there. I'm my own person. My tribe on the other hand has diplomacy in place. I'm not here to impress people i'm here to do just this, what i'm doing.

EDIT: Who is the one trying to impress here? RAKI, Mattcurr you had a rank 1 tribe. Round of applause. You now win this debate due to that very fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
408
Thriving without diplomacy might get you more respect than winning through the use of diplomacy, but that doesn't make diplomacy a poor strategy. It's simply the path of least resistance and the easiest way to win. Some people care about winning in a way that people will deem to be respectable, others merely care about winning and do whatever is necessary to do so.

There's simply no way you can logically argue that using diplomacy isn't beneficial. It's basic troop conservation strategies on a wider scale. That is all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Thriving without diplomacy might get you more respect than winning through the use of diplomacy, but that doesn't make diplomacy a poor strategy. It's simply the path of least resistance and the easiest way to win. Some people care about winning in a way that people will deem to be respectable, others merely care about winning and do whatever is necessary to do so.

There's simply no way you can logically argue that using diplomacy isn't beneficial. It's basic troop conservation strategies on a wider scale. That is all.

A no diplomacy tribe who continues throughout the world without dip would get my respect yes, if they were successful at playing that way. Again i believe you are reading between the lines, or just adding what you see fit to enforce your side of the debate. I never said i don't agree with diplomacy i said i do not believe in diplomacy in the early world. I also gave my reason why, no more no less. It's there to see. Feel free to add more to what i write, i'd be happy to share my password with you and you can write it for me then i won't have to respond to your imaginary conclusions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser95698

Guest
lets take a look at the last tribe i led...we won world 33...pinder
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Virus, you seem to argue your statements with nothing more than personal attacks on those with a different opinion. Through reading all your posts, I've derived that you think early game diplomacy is dumb because you don't like to play Tribal "Hugs". You have not stated why your way is effective, whereas both Nauz and Matt did so with their arguments.

If I didn't know who any of you were, and I read this argument objectively, I would still have more respect for those arguing against you, because they had more to say about the actual strategy of the game. It's not always about player ego. You should realise that.
 

ALessonInPointWhoring

Contributing Poster
Reaction score
408
lets take a look at the last tribe i led...we won world 33...pinder

That's completely irrelevant when relating to early game diplomacy. Said tribe did not even exist early game, I was in the rank 1 tribe on W33 during the early stages of the game, it was Evolve, not Pinder.

Therefore whether or not Pinder won has nothing to do with how much you know about successfully leading tribes during the early stages of the world, and thus indirectly whether you know if diplomacy is effective during the early stages of the world or not. You may very well be a good leader overall, but winning a world with a tribe that did not exist during startup on the world in question doesn't actually back up your argument any.

A no diplomacy tribe who continues throughout the world without dip would get my respect yes, if they were successful at playing that way. Again i believe you are reading between the lines, or just adding what you see fit to enforce your side of the debate. I never said i don't agree with diplomacy i said i do not believe in diplomacy in the early world. I also gave my reason why, no more no less. It's there to see. Feel free to add more to what i write, i'd be happy to share my password with you and you can write it for me then i won't have to respond to your imaginary conclusions.

Diplomacy early on is just as useful as diplomacy later on. It may not be necessary to do well early on, but that doesn't mean it can't be beneficial. While true on both tribal and personal levels it's easier to show why on a personal level.

Let's create a hypothetical scenario: We have two equally skilled players in identical areas. One clears all their own noble targets and plays the "standard" way. The other one makes friends with all of their neighbors and convinces them to attack each other and then cleans them up once they've lost the majority of their troops doing so. The first player may do okay, but he will never be able to grow as fast as the second player because the second player is conserving his or her troops far more effectively than the first player is. The same principles can be applied on a tribal scale. If I can manipulate an entire tribe to do my bidding allowing me to use their troops as my own it is obviously going to benefit me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top