Folks don't lead due to trying to fight against a stacked deck over and over. When there are fairly equal battles and you have a chance to win or lose then the adrenaline rush is there and worth leading, when you lead every time with twice as many opposing you then it's time to walk away as it's depressing. One of the reasons I don't bother attending battles now never mind leading them...waste of time, energy and not fun.
This is called guerrilla tactics(warfare), those who are against it would probably say, it never existed in the western times, so it shouldn't exist now....
I don't think anyone in AR reported your multis, which had plenty of time in-between so I wouldn't even call them multis (unless the time in-between was changed by the team beforehand in which case fair enough). I'm sure you can continue to dig in the same way you have dug so far and there won't be any reports. I was going to attack a Med/Large fort the other day but the only ones available were Jacob's Haven and In Our Memory. I don't think anyone can attack those without looking like a bit of an a-hole.
Of course digging smalls sucks, moving to smalls in AZ would continuously piss off people because they can't get in. They might not be pissed off after 1 day, 2 days, or even 1 week of smalls but they will eventually - it's happened many times in AZ and will happen again.
Were you not on ''YOUR side'' in Arizona since you've joined the world?On top of that, rarely ever being at a FF.@Annie-Bell , YOUR side Arizona Rangers wins most of the battles for years now because you're significantly stronger...
and yes your side does not dig except once per month. i think there's a difference between digging and giving forts back.
Arizona probably had the least amount of impact on these policies on .net. These were probably influenced mostly by Colorado because of the pumpkin digs. I'm not sure how the new worlds are, but I'm sure there are some multi-diggers there too. And, as Lyrinx said above, the .ro community probably played a huge role in this where one of the worlds there had close to 10 multis dug almost daily, so all in all Arizona is more innocent than people think.
You literally ignore twb/og/freelancers(danes joining your side all with gringo level 0-1.)I don't think anyone in AR reported your multis, which had plenty of time in-between so I wouldn't even call them multis (unless the time in-between was changed by the team beforehand in which case fair enough). I'm sure you can continue to dig in the same way you have dug so far and there won't be any reports. I was going to attack a Med/Large fort the other day but the only ones available were Jacob's Haven and In Our Memory. I don't think anyone can attack those without looking like a bit of an a-hole.
It's obvious at this point that the defending side will win the battle 90% of the time but what's stopping BB players from bringing the same numbers in an attack that they normally have in a defense (granted there are some solo players who only join defenses). In attacks, AR would almost always bring numbers equal to your defense, yet when you attack, you get about 25-35 players. BUT, look at one of the recent attacks at 'South of Haven' the other day, where you had higher numbers than normal in attack and much higher chances of winning. You had 58/193 so it's obvious that it's possible for BB to win if its members would actually bother to move to fort.
Of course digging smalls sucks, moving to smalls in AZ would continuously piss off people because they can't get in. They might not be pissed off after 1 day, 2 days, or even 1 week of smalls but they will eventually - it's happened many times in AZ and will happen again.
Were you not on ''YOUR side'' in Arizona since you've joined the world?On top of that, rarely ever being at a FF.
But I agree with you, I do think AR is stronger but not by as much as people make it up to be.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, and definitely not at you Artem for trying to dig FF, but insinuating that it's 100% AR's fault and they need to change is just plain ridiculous.
- AR has 222 members compared to the 193 in BB, but the most people AR has had in a fort recently was just under 80 people, so that 29-player difference makes little difference.
- AR has an average lvl of 151 and BB of 147 - the difference is insanely insignificant
- BB even has more Union Officer players than AR
- Where AR is stronger is that our HP is way higher than yours, but the numbers of your duelers/damagers far exceed ours. AR has older players and thus with more APs and SPs too, but the difference is not actually that high compared to some BB players.
Arizona probably had the least amount of impact on these policies on .net. These were probably influenced mostly by Colorado because of the pumpkin digs. I'm not sure how the new worlds are, but I'm sure there are some multi-diggers there too. And, as Lyrinx said above, the .ro community probably played a huge role in this where one of the worlds there had close to 10 multis dug almost daily, so all in all Arizona is more innocent than people think.
And this whole ''it's cvr's fault'' is by far the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The whole of AR and a lot of players from Colo have no problem with him, but obviously, (most) people who have never been in AR know better - 'he who has never tasted the grape says sour'
And to the market thief, who I won't name, who states that forts were stolen, wtf are you smoking?
Long rant over, classic server is back up so going there
yes, i was. i don't need to be at fights to know what happens though, right?
I wonder why
Throwback to when AR put a gun to the head of Swedish players and forced them to join the alliance, it's called recruiting and they joined by their own free will and BB could have done it but they didn't. There are still lots of Swedish players without an alliance, fyi. Go back to almost this time last year when all of the DK players migrated to AZ and they joined BB...and maybe just over a week later they left angry as they can be. I don't know what happened so I won't point fingers, but how hard could it have been to talk things through and retain about 60 players instead of the current 15.
So let me get this right:Your the opposition who made a mistake by throwing things at the market, of course I would interrupt goods who is from the opposition
Its called sabotage genius.
You kinda do, not always. Being at forts gives you a much better understanding than seeing the end results.yes, i was. i don't need to be at fights to know what happens though, right?
the fact that i was in that alliance and i personally say that alliance is much stronger doesn't raise a question mark?
As stated, i think AR is stronger mainly because of one of best ff leaders in game that players seem to flock to, and because it has maintained as solid alliance for decade. We have lost attacks, rarely lose defends, but happens as well. I recognize some go with deflecting real thoughts with whatever they do to try to alter game, dont place alot of value in any comments by some. Also stated if opposition got act together and did things not against their own team but for their team would outdamage (so many unutilized duelers) and likely out number AR, but for whatever reason opposition is not able to maintain that. What did clearly state is that use of multis to wake up other alliance to split up or whatever u guys asking is not very fair gameplay. I know we did in places like juarez, and now players via negativity is spamming to gang up on now weakened team in spirit of want battles and after while that gets old too for all.@Annie-Bell , YOUR side Arizona Rangers wins most of the battles for years now because you're significantly stronger...
and yes your side does not dig except once per month. i think there's a difference between digging and giving forts back.
you're literally contradicting yourself when you say that AR seems stronger only because it defends, cause then you end up saying if AR digs the smalls and take them it's gonna add to the "finger pointing of domination". so deep in there, you know your side is stronger and will take all forts anyway?
i don't agree with those multis dug on arizona because in my experience it affects attendance. i don't have any proof but i think if anyone was to make some stats it would show.
as on topic...well, those rules don't really change much except for those individuals that dig like 10 battles a day. on colorado for example, when someone digs a multi, the attacker ratio is always like 1:3, 1:4...basically a battle without much purpose. we consider that a multi. it's kind of impossible to regulate those, so what happened now is basically most that can be done, i guess.
there is also the "strategic" aspect of a neutral alliance digging someone's fort so it can't be dug for 24 hours. i don't see that in there. that should be a bannable offence.
as someone else said, there are a lot of workarounds to these "policies" and you can see them from a mile away
we want you to dig them..
Pretty sure idea of fort battles is to kill opponents and winOh congratz to scarlet for making sure i was only person ko'd for survive ff quest in 5 v 6 battle ...
[07:25] Rammy McSpewvin: what an FF. everything i've ever wanted.
[07:25] ScarletKisses: says she won writes poems for me and follows me to every world
[07:26] Annie-Bell: dont worry scarlet i know this made ur year
[07:26] ScarletKisses: you arent important enough to do that
[
