Why do you post?

DeletedUser

Guest
@ Andrew:

My POV has never changed and I am sure that I had made it rather clear in the 2 years I was here. I credited you with at least that much intelligence.

I know that Z was a part of it all but at least he admits it. His goal was the same as yours back then - just to turn the world blue and get this world over with asap. At least he got the chance to play for fun too.

In regards to leadership decisions, my point wasn't to escape responsibility. I know that we made mistakes and, in hindsight, I personally made 1 pretty big one early on. I still wouldn't go back and change it because it may also affect the really good things I got out of TW. We both know that when there are a group of leaders, you can't always get what you want. I hated family tribes from day 1 and still hate them. When I was still a baby noob it was a G-Khan like tribe that I aspired to be a part of. I was lucky enough to find Bizman who in turn led me to -MM- :)

One more time just for you: I really do hate ALL family tribes. Had I have had it my way, I would have played my end game in a Super Tribe. By Super Tribe I don't mean point whores, I am referring to good fighters. It would have been a big challenge but W18 would have been alive and fun. Even if I had been the enemy, if that is how you had won, you would have gained my respect.

PS Are you going soft on me?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This thread needs more

popcorn.jpg



I post less and less because few people matter anymore.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Andrew Done said:
Of course, lest we forget, it was Z who personally claimed responsibility for the UA. I only claimed some of the credit for Apoc. Therefore I suggest you direct all further rants in his general direction. Yay!
Click to expand...

Indeed. And I readily admit that the purpose of the UA was to create an unfair advantage. The purpose was to guarantee a victory, no chance for a loss, no fair running, no fun involved, and to end the world as quickly as possible. In hindsight I regret the decision made, ultimately it was selfish and not conducive to a fun gaming environment for all involved. It was like playing monopoly with 4 players joining together against 3 players playing alone. Not exactly fun.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Interesting.

I would, of course, argue with the words "unfair" and "guaranteed". All's fair in love and war, and nothing is guaranteed. But, yes, the objectives of UA and Apoc have long been known (we have restated them enough). Your hindsight clearly works differently to mine. That's OK, we're all different. That's what makes the world go around.

It is possible that, with hindsight, you may have elected a different path. As a key leader within TWA, that may have slowed its formation or maybe prevented it entirely (as, indeed, anyone of the then leaders of RKN, TWA, DS & BA might have). However, Zurtle's influence notwithstanding, I think the tribes in the west were always more inclined to diplomacy than those in the middle and east. That probably had a lot to do with the fact that Legion and MM were so dominant at that time. Ironic really; MM and Legion had a very significant hand in the formation of their own nightmare.

Of course the middle/east could have reacted in a similar fashion when their nightmare started to gain more and more influence over the world (ironically after the split of UA - although, as you know, Apoc and BA always shared a common vision). I'm guessing their independent histories and success up to that point prevented them forming meaningful responses to the west. I wonder which came first ; the tribes (as a whole) self belief or their leaders' hatred of families? I'm guessing they are inextricably linked.

Clearly the east did not believe that the west's alliance could hold together in the long term. That was, as they say, their undoing. As it turned out the cross-tribe culture, strategy & objectives of Apoc/BA were stronger than those of the individual "super tribes" of the east, which led to greater fragmentation when, what the east really needed, was less fragmentation.

You, Bella and others may argue that the UA/Apoc/BA ruined this world. I can't speak for you, I can only say that I have found the whole exprience a lot of fun (shock, horror) as I have the debate that has raged around it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Andrew, I will give you one more example which may help you to finally understand our pov more accurately.

Imagine you are playing a game of soccer with your son. How satisfying would it be to beat him? It's not like you don't know that you are going to win no matter what, right? Now imagine playing against Pele or Maradona and winning. How satisfying would that be? There would be no words to adequately describe the feeling.

The way the UA/Apoc played was like you against your baby son but on your side you also had your wife, cousins and neighbours playing with you to help beat your son. It's like, yeah you won. Wow, 'congratulations'.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
MsBella said:
Andrew, I will give you one more example which may help you to finally understand our pov more accurately.

Imagine you are playing a game of soccer with your son. How satisfying would it be to beat him? It's not like you don't know that you are going to win no matter what, right? Now imagine playing against Pele or Maradona and winning. How satisfying would that be? There would be no words to adequately describe the feeling.

The way the UA/Apoc played was like you against your baby son but on your side you also had your wife, cousins and neighbours playing with you to help beat your son. It's like, yeah you won. Wow, 'congratulations'.
Click to expand...

But soccer is a team sport. :O
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Bella (and Zurtle),

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I don't see any of your examples (Monopoly or football) to be actually representative, at least not they way you present them. We all have to play within the same rules. We have all had the same opportunities/options.

A better example (in my opinion) is the following: You and your mates go to the park for a game of footie. Two "captains" are selected and they are then asked to take turns selecting the players for their side. One of the captains refuses to pick any players to join him, some of the players refuse to play for either captain, whereas one of the captains simply picks a team.

Zurtle's Monopoly analogy doesn't really work as the game is not a team game, it doesn't have a formal mechanism for teaming up, and the win criteria for that game are pre-defined (last man standing). TW is very different in that there are mechanisms by which the players (tribes) team up i.e. alliances/NAPs, shared forums, shared claims etc. In fact TW positively encourages the use of diplomacy.

Bottom line: Apoc & BA have used every element of the game to prevail. The others have either refused to use those mechanisms or used them "inexpertly". If that disparity has undermined your enjoyment of the game then you really have three choices: Change the way you play (clearly not an option), start a new game (world) and hope that your opposition doesn't use the full extent of the rules in the way Apoc/BA has, or petition TW to make inter-tribe collaboration difficult/illegal.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Andrew Done said:
Bella (and Zurtle),

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I don't see any of your examples (Monopoly or football) to be actually representative, at least not they way you present them. We all have to play within the same rules. We have all had the same opportunities/options.

A better example (in my opinion) is the following: You and your mates go to the park for a game of footie. Two "captains" are selected and they are then asked to take turns selecting the players for their side. One of the captains refuses to pick any players to join him, some of the players refuse to play for either captain, whereas one of the captains simply picks a team.

Zurtle's Monopoly analogy doesn't really work as the game is not a team game, it doesn't have a formal mechanism for teaming up, and the win criteria for that game are pre-defined (last man standing). TW is very different in that there are mechanisms by which the players (tribes) team up i.e. alliances/NAPs, shared forums, shared claims etc. In fact TW positively encourages the use of diplomacy.

Bottom line: Apoc & BA have used every element of the game to prevail. The others have either refused to use those mechanisms or used them "inexpertly". If that disparity has undermined your enjoyment of the game then you really have three choices: Change the way you play (clearly not an option), start a new game (world) and hope that your opposition doesn't use the full extent of the rules in the way Apoc/BA has, or petition TW to make inter-tribe collaboration difficult/illegal.
Click to expand...

Actually on some worlds, you can support only your own tribe and there are smaller limits on member numbers, thus trying to discourage huge family tribes. I might be wrong but I don't think that the objective was for 25 out of 30 tribes to be allied (those numbers are not exact btw).

Your footy example is not accurate either because we all played in our tribes and experienced team play. We also had a Diplomat and a Recruitment Officer which were both utilised. What we didn't do is exploit the situation.

In my earlier example, there are no rules to stop your family teaming up against your son, it's just that it wouldn't be in the spirit of fair play and competition. Before you go on about 'all is fair in love and war', TW is neither a romance nor a real war, it is a game where you would think that the main objective would be to have fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Who knows the intent of the game designers? We can only play the hand we are dealt.

So you are suggesting I don't use, sorry "exploit", all the features of the game in order to make it fairer on those who don't want to? That's very fluffy thinking and really doesn't seem consistent with the "Wars" aspect of the game.

Once the game is afoot this game isn't about being fair or maintaining the status quo. If is was we would hand back a village for every one we took and regularly swap players to keep the sides even. No, it's about coming up with strategies/tactics that defeat the enemy on an individual and collective level. We (Apoc and BA) have done that very effectively and will continue to do so until we have achieved our objectives.

You may view our strategies as unfair however we will win within the rules framework of the game. If you view that framework as unfair then fine, take it up with the game designers, not us. If you are playing/intend to play another world then you should be aware that, while the rules are as they are, the game will favour tribal collaboration in order to achieve shared goals. If the penny drops on that world then you will be in a world of hurt...

Picking up on that last point; to the best of my knowledge, W18's evolution has been relatively unique whereas the rules we work under aren't. That suggests that building and sustaining a coalition such as the one populated by Apoc and BA is pretty difficult. That should give you a glimmer of hope for when that penny drops; the chances of those leaders making such a coalition work will depend upon shared values, parked egos and hard work (and not a little shared understanding, informal or otherwise, of game theory).

Before I post I would just like to address your last paragraph. Firstly, a request, please avoid the specific family references. Secondly, the reason your example really doesn't work is: I would have no desire to beat my son. I would be playing purely for the joy of seeing him develop and have fun. This is Tribal Wars. I have developed friendships with many in my coalition and even one or two in the enemy camp but those friendships are a nice side-effect of my primary objective i.e. for subscribers to our (shared) objective to win a game in which we all have the same opportunities and are constrained by the same rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Honestly, this thread really doesn't have any use to it. Sure, its an interesting question (The first post) but i would say not well worded (If there is a way to put a question across without some people, who i swear said they would leave and go live their lives, and are now back annoying again) to suit the minority of haters.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Assasin Strike said:
Haters? Where?
Click to expand...

You have to excuse him Assasin. He was one of Apoc's later recruits :)

@ Andrew: Again, I am just saying that I don't agree with your style of play. Power to you if the family method made you happy. I never asked you to change it for my sake. The thing is you want me to respect your so-called achievements and that is something that will never happen because I don't see it as a true achievement like you do.
 

DeletedUser67005

Guest
Consider him excused... ;)

Besides, how easy was recruiting the west, Andy, while the east fought for dominance?

You know, "War"?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Andrew Done said:
IRL I hate recruiting nearly as much as I do in TW ;-)
Click to expand...

In that case, the number of your employees would not be exceeding a measely 50,000 or so, right?

@ Assasin: I think this is Peter having fun :icon_biggrin:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Awesome debate I truly love it. Though I doubt any of us will ever pour what we did into another world in a widespread way. I truly think there would be an interesting shift. That shift would be Zurtle(I just think it would be such a wildcard that none could predict if he believed what he appears to believe now). Some things are about the map though. Just like in life. I could be close friends with 100's of tw players. I've found plenty to be honorable and interesting from both sides.
In this light I'm gonna start a thread that might be of interest. About what an avg leader in the core of the world might change were he to do it over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top