DeletedUser
Guest
Right, I can't bring myself to comment on this one on a point-by-point basis. I'll do generals. In general, you are picking on points not the overall picture, which is why I loath point-by-point breakdown. I'm not saying you didn't make some valid points, but they were completely off the point/s I was trying to get across.
I suppose it'd help to state the only arguments I was trying to make so we don't drift around:
1) XVI hasn't picked up its pace considerably, particularly when factoring in that they currently aren't having to defend.
2) [V]'s performance in the war over the past month isn't really applicable, as they haven't been involved in it.
This was all my initial post was on, and this is branching far away from it. Your assessment looks like it assumes [V] aren't going to start fighting back at some point.
-I don't disregard net growth in the slightest. Did you see me posting that it was my opinion [V] should be running internals? No. You don't need to point out whats wrong with doing so, I know the ups and downs. My post was to point out your assumption (or at least what certainly sounded like an assumption) that [V] was performing poorly in the war was not really applicable, as they were not so much as attempting for a time. I was not defending [V]s decision to run internals at this time - not my argument.
-I don't see how you are making claims covering the war as strong as the ones you are viewing such a tiny (looking at the overall time-frame of the war) segment of it - particularly your opinion of increased XVI performance.
So, to draw a conclusion such as yours seems inappropriate.
Now, have XVI had a better couple weeks in terms of net growth? Yes. In general? Probably. But, to state its a turning point...well...I don't buy it. I can see the assessment if [V]s focus had been the war at the time, but not without.
-Ex-[V] barbs, almost exclusively, are being conquered. So yes, I feel like I can attribute this to internals - something along the line of 80%. Factor in that the majority of the small players hit are as a result of these players attempting to take advantage of these same internals and you get the picture. Suffice to say it is more than fair to consider internals the predominant priority.
-If the stats you're drawing your conclusions off of remain that impressive over more than a 48 hour period (say, two weeks at least) I will consider your assessment, but seeing a notable increase in nobling over a 48 hour period is nothing. Two players launching an op could account for that - hardly a "turning point". I suppose I'm calling your assessment premature.
I suppose it'd help to state the only arguments I was trying to make so we don't drift around:
1) XVI hasn't picked up its pace considerably, particularly when factoring in that they currently aren't having to defend.
2) [V]'s performance in the war over the past month isn't really applicable, as they haven't been involved in it.
This was all my initial post was on, and this is branching far away from it. Your assessment looks like it assumes [V] aren't going to start fighting back at some point.
-I don't disregard net growth in the slightest. Did you see me posting that it was my opinion [V] should be running internals? No. You don't need to point out whats wrong with doing so, I know the ups and downs. My post was to point out your assumption (or at least what certainly sounded like an assumption) that [V] was performing poorly in the war was not really applicable, as they were not so much as attempting for a time. I was not defending [V]s decision to run internals at this time - not my argument.
-I don't see how you are making claims covering the war as strong as the ones you are viewing such a tiny (looking at the overall time-frame of the war) segment of it - particularly your opinion of increased XVI performance.
So, to draw a conclusion such as yours seems inappropriate.
Now, have XVI had a better couple weeks in terms of net growth? Yes. In general? Probably. But, to state its a turning point...well...I don't buy it. I can see the assessment if [V]s focus had been the war at the time, but not without.
-Ex-[V] barbs, almost exclusively, are being conquered. So yes, I feel like I can attribute this to internals - something along the line of 80%. Factor in that the majority of the small players hit are as a result of these players attempting to take advantage of these same internals and you get the picture. Suffice to say it is more than fair to consider internals the predominant priority.
-If the stats you're drawing your conclusions off of remain that impressive over more than a 48 hour period (say, two weeks at least) I will consider your assessment, but seeing a notable increase in nobling over a 48 hour period is nothing. Two players launching an op could account for that - hardly a "turning point". I suppose I'm calling your assessment premature.
Last edited by a moderator:
