P&P R.I.P. Viva the resistance

[DeletedUser]

Is there any chance of pm,ing me ingame with what your idea's are m8.

 

[1Big Chief]

I am confused Marley, what are you talking about as I seriously have no clue.

There we go again .. eish

Im all for helping to stop this spread of multi's all over the world to work together with like minded people would be great

Even if there was a better option... other than a TW plan?

.. for calling desi a spy i can assure you he just wants to create a balance to achieve good honest battles not the subterfuge and deciet that you seem to deal in these days....

As we all do but Desi just can't be trusted anymore.. because of what he did to his fellow alliance & that TWv2 gave him a fort for appreciation for saving their forts from attacks

Taking a fort is a tough job yet we still don't approve of the use of this tactic. Would it make it easier for us to take ALL of the forts on this world...yes, but we don't need to or want to. We'll take them in a clean fight. Do you really want V2 to start using multi battles to take forts?

From what I've heard.. you have already
You guys don't want the truth.. you only want it one way.. and thats your way

Now, look at it the other day. Say the smaller alliance has 150 active members and the enemy alliance has 300 (these numbers are not meant to be accurate, just an example). Both these numbers are enough to max any size of fort on its own. However, when the smaller alliance chooses to use multi battles, they're giving the larger alliance the chance to utilise their number advantage. Say you attack two mediums and two smalls. Out of the four battles, the alliance with 300 active fort battlers would have the numbers to max all four of these battles, while your alliance of 150 members could only max two of them at best (a medium and a small, or two smalls with members left over for the remaining two battles). A more realistic scenario is that the smaller alliance would have a low attendance at all battles, or concentrate on one battle, either way would not have an effect due to the big alliance's numbers covering each fort adequately, not to mention moving numbers to one fort when they see the majority of the enemy congregating there. I know it's not realistic to expect 300 active fort fighters, but this is just an example and its principle still comes in to play; the bigger alliance may not be able to max all forts but it will be able to get more fighters at each one.

What do you think gives you a better chance of a victory? 100 vs 84 in a medium, or 50 vs 84 and 20 vs 42 in a medium/small multi?

Then you can take into consideration that the larger alliance is, in theory, more capable of launching multi battles of greater magnitude. So if they choose to retaliate the numbers would end up along the lines of 15 vs 42 at each of the big alliance's defences and then 50 vs 30 at the big alliance's attack. Wow, now the small alliances has lost two attacks and a defence just because they had in their heads that it would be easier to attack two forts rather than one when they don't have the numbers to fill them both, than have an even chance of taking a fort in a one on one battle.

Futurama.. finally.. someone who is thinking on the same lines as me.. finally.. but lets just turn it around a little.

Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1
I get an army to attack your alliance.. not a fort.. but your alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other dudes sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too

Ok.. but now you don't have the numbers to fill that fort.. maybe you can get about 40 more defenders
But because the odds are against you.. this might/will be construed as a multi
What is so wrong with having 3 attacks (FILLED ATTACKS).. its not the attackers problem if the enemy can't defend it.. its the defenders problem.. not true ?

Now.. I have asked numerous people this question.. even trying miss Arrogant.. but NEVER get a decent answer.. cause he/she steers off course again

So Futurama.. are you reasonable enough to give a decent answer to a valid question
You yourself brought it up.. as the attacker.. now answer it as the defender

Please note ALL (with opinion) .. I am not for multi's.. (but seriously was).. as I found out when Jakkals went Bos.. how tiring it can be .. and for little reward
BUT.. for the life of me.. I can't understand why I can't attack more forts at the same time.. and filling them.. (strictly filling them).. but not allowed to do so..
.. because the enemy cannot match us and thus just because TW+v2 say so

As much as I hate the idea of worthless multi's.. I fear there is no other option.. if we play by your rules
For the rest of you (as difficult as it might be getting these people).. don't cry when the army strikes.. and if you do multi's (waste-less multi's)...
Believe me.. I will join you in it.. and you know it will be the embarrassment you don't want.. because we have nothing to lose.. and you do

Thank you

 

[TequilaJoe]

But i did warn all of you. Remember the discussions we had about the treaty with Ken Gunslinger and JoeMoer? Remember me telling you all that if they would continue to violate the things we have build together, i would do anything in my power to stop them. I even said if there was no other option left, i would join V2 and take everyone who wanted with me. Trust me, i am a long way from joining V2, but i refuse to work together in an alliance with people who want to destroy everything we worked for.

I am looking for friends who share the ideas we always had. I truely hope you are one of them. You know you are always welcome.

So you were worried they would destroy everything we worked for so instead you destroyed it.

Makes no Ef'ing sense at all, Desi.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hypothetically.. (others... look up the word if needed)
Lets say.. (as I've been shouting on the roof tops).. lets say that in a million to 1
I get an army to attack your alliance.. not a fort.. but your alliance in general (but dealt with in fort battles)
But my army is 400 people and yours is 200.. now I attack a fort.. and only 140 of us (large fort) are allowed in.. tell me..
..must the other dudes sit on the hill and watch while their alliance fights.. or will it be acceptable that they can move on to the next fort.. and fill that one too

Hypothetically if Bill gates was my Grandpa I'd buy innogames and turn the west into a dress up game.Stop imagining things[like you have a 400 man army] when you have never managed to fill one large fort while attacking which BTW requires only 140 members.If you could you wouldn't have to talk hypothetically!

Let me reveal the facts and say what you really think.You don't believe in your members and in your opinion they are not skilled enough to beat us in an one on one battle.So you think the only way you can win a fort is if you declare battle on 10 forts and in one 20 attackers show up against my 10 defenders.

But your logic is flawed.If we are active enough we will always be able to defend against multi battles simply because we outnumber you and not the other way around.We could have 100s of L40 in-actives in our ranks if we wanted to.They may increase your number in the alliance page but they don't show up in fort battles.

 

[TequilaJoe]

Nope. Waiting for people to step up. Got a few reactions about players who agree with my ideas.

I sincerely have not heard even one (1) person who agreed with you, one person deciding for everyone.

Your so called hints were not even close to hints. All you showed us is you did not like what the other alliances were doing. You never said you were gonna shut down the alliance. You never even hinted you would shut it down.

It was NOT your choice to make alone. You asked no one else for ideas, not even one other founder. No one. No one agreed with you, no one agrees with you now either at least from the old Viva alliance.

 

[1Big Chief]

Hypothetically if Bill gates was my Grandpa I'd buy innogames and turn the west into a dress up game..

Another fool that doesn't know Arthur from Martha .. and not answering the question

Please Futurama.. answer the question.. so the noobs can give their traps a rest

 

[DeletedUser]

Another fool that doesn't know Arthur from Martha .. and not answering the question

Please Futurama.. answer the question.. so the noobs can give their traps a rest

If you were even a half decent player I'd get mad at you for calling me a noob.But considering you are an ignorant L55 los*r I am guessing you don't even know what the word means.Someone must've used the word against you and you thought hey if I can't win an argument with facts I will call the other guy a noob! I feel sorry for you really trying to make sense of a complex strategy game with your awesome brain power must be pretty hard.Well I got a shortcut for you just click the most shiny object that appears on your screen after you log in.Oh wait may be you have already figured that out and that's why your level is so high.:laugh:

On a more serious note your entire post is based on hypothesis and lies where you dream about having 400 members when you can even gather 40.I get it you are trying to get support of non V2 players but I doubt you will ever succeed because your argument is,'No one in this world should earn decent exp from fort fight because I Joemoer have no fort and can't level up!' .Yes I have read your in game forum post where you argue only way a low level player cal reach high rank is by multi fort battles!

 

[1Big Chief]

Again.. no valid reply !!

Jesse.. How old are you.. cause the "life scale" is leveling at 10 ?
Why is it so difficult for somebody to just answer the hypothetical question ?
Or do TW+v2 have to congregate to get an answer.. without prejudicing themselves

I'm waiting for Futurama.. not the rest who can't give a simple honest answer

 

[DeletedUser]

When you are trying to justify multi attacks on a real world creating a hypothetical scenario won't prove your point.If you want a valid reply try asking a valid question based on real facts.

The fact that you are calling me a fool and questioning my age proves that you yourself don't think your argument have any basis and thus have to rely on petty insults.

 

[1Big Chief]

(sigh... palms on face)

 

[DeletedUser7321]

WWPA was is resistance for how long 3-4 month?And yet you have the audacity to criticize Desi. Please check the facts first before copy pasting what your noob leader said in your internal forum.A leader who BTW sacrificed his whole alliance for one foul mouthed friend.WWPA are lika parasites who have never achieved anything on their own.Desi should've just kicked WWPA out instead of dissolving VLR.

Anyway I know some low levels think V2 is weak just because we wanted to follow the
treaty.Well I have seen too many of those come and go over the years to take them seriously.After a few months all of those noobs will be gone and V2 will still be here.I know Tom won't leave but it doesn't matter whether he stays or not.

I am not saying that V2 is invincible.One day some great alliance may rise and gain no 1 sport.But it certainly won't be these bunch[EC,ATW]

I did not copy and paste anything. The fact that you cannot form an intelligent thought on your own does not reflect poorly on me.

I am done with this topic. Debating with V2 is like debating with liberals. It is pointless because they will not bother to read, much less think about what is pointed out.


Enjoy your own, falsely earned, sense of superiority. You can have it.

 

[DeletedUser]

v2 is the enemy of all? :shootout:

 

[Deleted User - 819397]

I'm closing this thread down as it's degenerated from it's intended purpose into name calling. From there it's a short step to being against forum rules. If someone thinks that this thread should be reopened, PM me with a reason why. Otherwise, closed.