DeletedUser
Guest
Is he really WARstiner? Or HEARTstiner? Hmmmm!
It isn't more fun. You can form a huge alliance or family and shut down a world fast. It's been done. It's no challenge. It's boring, which is the opposite of fun.
Is he really WARstiner? Or HEARTstiner? Hmmmm!
exactly and that's what FORK and Manic are doing together now.. slurping up the biggest players from instable tribes to join them up, eating the smaller one internal so there's room again.. if this was a 100 tribe limit world it already was as good as over.
Would be fun to see all the tribes form up against this movement .. might crack the nut for some players within Manic to open their eyes and see they're the weak ones :icon_razz:
cool story bro.
no pic no proof. learn to take screenys.
When I said "you" I meant your tribe. It's tribal wars.Show me where I said I need a bunch of allies.
i am the duke...
its like being asked to do a 1 on 1....why would u do that? it will slow you down, has no benefit....
So why not use 40 people to fight that 1 person and kill him in 2 days time, noble all his vills with minimum losses, and carry on to the next....
MUCH faster, MUCH more effective, and MUCH MUCH MUCH more fun!
So you claim FORK and Manic are allying up to dominate the world. That is so bad and boring. But that you want all the other tribes make an alliance to stop FORK and Manic. But that alliance is good? Your logic for today is hypocrite.
I think your logic is flawed here...considering Manic and Fork is 3 mil up on the rank 3 and 4, and there is a much larger gap between them and the smaller tribes, it is NOT a flaw in logic that smaller tribes would create an agreement to fend off and even fight back their advances. Rather than just let the ranking tribes roll over the rest of the world, it prolongs their domination.
Not that it will happen, eventually it will be inactivity likely to get them :icon_rolleyes:
Regardless, your logic is still flawed.
Now your reasoning is flawed lol a coalition of THAT size would neither be practical nor feasible you are exaggerating the scenario to make it sound ridiculous. Yet an agreement between tribes for a joint effort to halt the progression of the quickly advancing tribes is always a viable option while the assumed situation in which Fork and Manic are allied to dominate the world will only kill it quickly removing any competition that players in both tribes say they want (they want a fight, but not if there's any chance of losing it)
Tribes have formed agreements on other worlds when faced with a larger, common enemy in an attempt to slow them down or even destroy them, stop trying to make the situation sound ridiculous (or maybe you yourself are afraid of said fight?)
Maybe you should actually read what is going on. Cause now you have contradicted yourself. First my logic is flawed cause I asked someone how 1 alliance is boring but another is cool. Now my logic is flawed cause that is not feasible? Please stop posting on these things. You are just trying to troll and you are failing.
Also, I am pretty sure. There is no alliance between Fork and Manic. Hence your logic is flawed then. /end discussion
Now you are starting to annoy me.
1.Find me 1 person who disagrees that the rank 1 and 2 allying to kill a world is boring.
2.Your logic is flawed in that you say there shouldn't be an alliance between smaller tribes to fend off the rank 1 or 2, when they may (under the right leadership) have an increased chance.
3. This is were your reading and comprehension starts to take a hit. Your reasoning is flawed because you took the idea of such an alliance against the rank 1 or 2, and exaggerated it, by suggesting that all other tribes would band together for it, which simply isn't feasible.
4.I'm not contradicting myself, you are just an idiot. Rank 1 and 2 allied ALWAYS makes a world boring. It's only really something for endgame, when there are only a few tribes left and it's the push for the end so the alliances between high rank tribes are there because they are pretty much the only contenders left.
5. I said assumed alliance. I didn't say there WAS an alliance, it was merely hypothetical. So until YOU start reading my posts properly, please don't try to school me on them, only googly can do that. /waits nervously :icon_redface:
smaller tribes would create an agreement to fend off and even fight back their advances. Rather than just let the ranking tribes roll over the rest of the world, it prolongs their domination.
I never said the underdog has to ally.
It wasn't my assumption, it was an assumption from earlier on that Bcardi was arguing and I played on.
I never said the underdog has to ally and I do agree with you about the situational advantage to joining a battle rather than forming an alliance for it.
You seem to do well enough with bridge burning, it's like you have spare materials behind your arson supplies, if you have hope, the rest of us can dream
:icon_rolleyes: