DeletedUser
Guest
Actually he quit, soo wasent that much of an achievemend because whoever got hes account was inactive, quite hard for support aye =)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Actually he quit, soo wasent that much of an achievemend because whoever got hes account was inactive, quite hard for support aye =)
DeletedUser
Guest
Actually he quit, soo wasent that much of an achievemend because whoever got hes account was inactive, quite hard for support aye =)
He's quit? And the person sitting him is inactive?
My oh my, look at what we have here,
The hammer and the anvil (478|388) K34 8,946 carlo111q [H.G.H] wizardk 17th August 2008 - 12:43:16
Nobled earlier today.. Didn't you say he had quit? :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
just trying to hide the fact that one of there members is getting nobled
DeletedUser
Guest
just trying to hide the fact that one of there members is getting nobled
Ex-member.
He "left"
DeletedUser
Guest
I can see how this looks...but if you will bear with me. I think we can all agree that using sat account to noble a village is no great feat and would probably take a sitter 5 minutes tops to organise. Also I think it is plausable not to defend/support an account of a member who is quitting.
You leave a sitter to keep an eye on things whilst the account is internally nobled, not to fend of noble attacks.
See what I am getting at?
You leave a sitter to keep an eye on things whilst the account is internally nobled, not to fend of noble attacks.
See what I am getting at?
DeletedUser
Guest
I can see how this looks...but if you will bear with me. I think we can all agree that using sat account to noble a village is no great feat and would probably take a sitter 5 minutes tops to organise. Also I think it is plausable not to defend/support an account of a member who is quitting.
You leave a sitter to keep an eye on things whilst the account is internally nobled, not to fend of noble attacks.
See what I am getting at?
Not really.
If the sitter is going to continue nobling enemies, then he/she should also fight against them.
DeletedUser
Guest
Well I think that fending off enemies is too time consuming for most sitters to manage. Also what gain do you have from defending the villages of a player who is quitting. They are not going to be internally nobled because the tribes efforts are going into a war, therefore the account is pretty useless, but using it too noble/send nukes at an enemy is quick easy and an annoyance to the enemy.
DeletedUser
Guest
Well I think that fending off enemies is too time consuming for most sitters to manage. Also what gain do you have from defending the villages of a player who is quitting. They are not going to be internally nobled because the tribes efforts are going into a war, therefore the account is pretty useless, but using it too noble/send nukes at an enemy is quick easy and an annoyance to the enemy.
You boost your war stats, the same reason that you noble an enemy.
DeletedUser
Guest
I think it is more logical to boost war stats by defending active accounts rather than using time and troops on an account that will not be played.
DeletedUser
Guest
I can see how this looks...but if you will bear with me. I think we can all agree that using sat account to noble a village is no great feat and would probably take a sitter 5 minutes tops to organise. Also I think it is plausable not to defend/support an account of a member who is quitting.
You leave a sitter to keep an eye on things whilst the account is internally nobled, not to fend of noble attacks.
See what I am getting at?
I agree with you. But Furniture said the "sitter" was inactive also. So how can an inactive account noble barbs on its own? :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
Well I think that fending off enemies is too time consuming for most sitters to manage. Also what gain do you have from defending the villages of a player who is quitting. They are not going to be internally nobled because the tribes efforts are going into a war, therefore the account is pretty useless, but using it too noble/send nukes at an enemy is quick easy and an annoyance to the enemy.
Exactly. A player who is quiting. So why noble barbs to make the account better. Is it being perma-sat? And like you said, they wont be internally nobled, so whats the reason of nobling villages if its not benefitting the tribe or the player..?
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree with you. But Furniture said the "sitter" was inactive also. So how can an inactive account noble barbs on its own? :icon_rolleyes:
Well I think it depends how define 'inactive', for me inactivity is anything short of less than at least 2 hours a day. You know and I know that nobling a barb takes less than 2 hours a day.
Exactly. A player who is quiting. So why noble barbs to make the account better. Is it being perma-sat? And like you said, they wont be internally nobled, so whats the reason of nobling villages if its not benefitting the tribe or the player..?
Noble a barbarian and your opponent doesn't have it.
(I apologise for the following bad analogy)
Its like taking water from a thirsty person, just to throw it away. Sure you don't use the water but neither does the thirsty person, hence you have caused sufference to the thirsty person.
(My god that was awful)
DeletedUser
Guest
Well I think it depends how define 'inactive', for me inactivity is anything short of less than at least 2 hours a day. You know and I know that nobling a barb takes less than 2 hours a day.
Well yea, I'd consider it the same. But from the post of Furniture, it seemed that inactive had meant not playing the account. Maybe im wrong, it's just what came into my head when I read it.
Noble a barbarian and your opponent doesn't have it.
(I apologise for the following bad analogy)
Its like taking water from a thirsty person, just to throw it away. Sure you don't use the water but neither does the thirsty person, hence you have caused sufference to the thirsty person.
(My god that was awful)
Meh, I've heard worse :icon_wink: But difference between water and Barb villages - water seeps into the ground or runs off. Barbs are there regardless of being nobled. Just because someone nobles them, doesn't neccessarily mean they can't be re-nobled.
DeletedUser
Guest
The way I see it you have an account that is not worth much, not useful for a tribal member to take over, you can still use it as more of a mess around account.
More villages = more troops = more problems.
If they are wasting there time nobling the villages of an inactive account, guess who they aren't attacking.
You see there are many benefits for logging on to an account every day for about 15 minutes, but defending it to the hilt, well thats just crazy talk in my opinion. Saving the villages for no one, well it doesn't quite make sense.
Yours sexually
MB
More villages = more troops = more problems.
If they are wasting there time nobling the villages of an inactive account, guess who they aren't attacking.
You see there are many benefits for logging on to an account every day for about 15 minutes, but defending it to the hilt, well thats just crazy talk in my opinion. Saving the villages for no one, well it doesn't quite make sense.
Yours sexually
MB
DeletedUser
Guest
Well yea, I'd consider it the same. But from the post of Furniture, it seemed that inactive had meant not playing the account. Maybe im wrong, it's just what came into my head when I read it.
Well he dident requested support he dident mail people, Hence I even mailed him and had no reply. I call that inactive. Soo back to what my point was, It's not really a achievemend to noble a inactive player who had barely support.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Well he dident requested support he dident mail people, Hence I even mailed him and had no reply. I call that inactive. Soo back to what my point was, It's not really a achievemend to noble a inactive player who had barely support.
Im slightly inactive and had no support.. So its the same scenario for 10-14 of you guys trying to noble me.
DeletedUser
Guest
Yeah well I had no support, so same goes for me.
But please can we leave the individual petty cases and the unnecessary bitching out of this thread. There is no need to flame it, yes I know I am resposible for this too.
The game of Tribal wars is about tribe tactics not the shortfallings of a few.
Now lets keep on track shall we?
But please can we leave the individual petty cases and the unnecessary bitching out of this thread. There is no need to flame it, yes I know I am resposible for this too.
The game of Tribal wars is about tribe tactics not the shortfallings of a few.
Now lets keep on track shall we?
DeletedUser
Guest
Okey I leave it there... Just one thing, soo you guys are saying youre that inactive you dont read ya mail for more then 3 days :>?
DeletedUser
Guest
I would call that inactive, but the problem is the labeling of a 'dead' account and an 'inactive' account. As both can mean the same thing. Its difficult to describe when there isn't really a useful intermediate.
DeletedUser
Guest
stats?
Share:
