DeletedUser
Guest
I choose dare
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.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.
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.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.
this is 64..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)."
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
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.
Note the weak argument virus has we're in the opening section of his post and he is attempting personal insults.
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.
lets take a look at the last tribe i led...we won world 33...pinder
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.