Top 12~Sink or Swim?

Mac Bolan

Peltast
Infection has good players. Yes some were pretty crude and big headed. But you cant blame the whole group because of a few people. Its going to happen more times over. This world is only beginning... More surprises will await everyone at the next turn of events im sure....
Ok now stop agreeing with me Clint. We are suppose disagree. Guess I need to resend you that memo. ;)
 

xCeReAlKiLlAx

Guest
Hmmm.....if they were any good they wouldn't have bailed. So if someone takes on a sinking ship, what happens to them?

It is a rhetorical question.
 

redmage111

Citizen
Respectfully, it's a good thing it IS meant to be a rhetorical question, because the preceding statement and it's conclusion don't necessarily stand to reason. There are a number of reason why players may leave a sinking alliance, not all of which amount to "they aren't any good."
Perhaps a better way to think of it might be that one can either just decide to fight it out to the bitter end and have their hard work on a server be useless because the weight is crashing down..or they can do the sensible thing and follow friends elsewhere and find their position stronger.
As for what might happen to an alliance taking in players from a defeated alliance..again, it neither means those players taken were bad nor does it mean that they necessarily inherent the sinking ship status. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and of course egos and so forth do get involved and possibly cause issues, but it's just as likely that the alliance that won will come out stronger than before and I've seen nothing in the question 'asked' that indicates otherwise. Context is everything.
 

Mac Bolan

Peltast
Hmmm.....if they were any good they wouldn't have bailed. So if someone takes on a sinking ship, what happens to them?

It is a rhetorical question.
My whole feelings on it is Infections had some players who talked a lot of trash. When it came time to deliver they fell short. Some of the guys in Infection are victims of choosing a alliance that looked good at first but fell short. Alliances come and go and players shift around. The ones running their mouths are gone. Pick up the pieces and move on.
 
Last edited:

KZG3

Philosopher
I think I touched a sore spot.
Lol. Come on now Killa...

You really think we are a sink? If you can find any stat/metric that indicates a sinking ship, by all means let me know. Gives us something to improve upon.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me though. :D
 

xCeReAlKiLlAx

Guest
I can't speak about Infection, as I don't know any of their players. But when you allow the players you are beating on into your alliance, instead of just taking their cities, you are asking for trouble. Especially if they don't want to be there, and they are joining so they don't have to defend anymore. They don't become part of the team, now you have cliques. Off my soapbox before I give too many pointers.

I don't think you will sink, time will tell if you swim or float. It is hard to keep the finger pointed to the other big fish, when others realize they bigger fish was playing them.
 

redmage111

Citizen
By allowing members of a defeated alliance into one's own alliance CAN be an issue , depending on the context. On the other hand, there's nothing being ruthless for it's own sake in the guise of smart play adds to the game. If someone is talking big, or just being a nuisance, sure, run them into the ground. But if you've clearly beaten another alliance and there can be an amicable solution--be it a merger or taking on players--that can also make an alliance stronger. There are valid points brought up in the idea of cliques etc...but it feels like you're making a blanket assumption on something you've admitted to being unqualified to make a contextual case against in your opening sentence. If you can't speak about Infection and don't know any of their players..perhaps I can just say that by and large they've been a good group of people who have played/play exceptionally well over the duration of the server. Unless you've got a specific case to make, it just feels like a combination of past bad experiences jading against taking players in and wishful thinking skewing your view on it. Time will always tell, and so much changes...but's difficult to do any finger pointing at all when some of the big fish haven't come to play with the other big fish yet.
 

xCeReAlKiLlAx

Guest
You are taking things way to personal crimsonmythicalbeing. I am not making assumptions, I have been on both sides. Yours and MDs, and have seen it happen with other, so I am speaking from my experience. What just happened rarely works this early in a server, can it work sure. I have beating alliances into the ground, and have taken in players. You will find a couple who buy in, but most never feel at home and still only work with people they are comfortable with. I think it is pretty obvious I am poking your fire. But again, what just happened rarely works.
 

redmage111

Citizen
How would you say you're 'poking my fire'? I was considering this a mostly civil conversation..am I wrong? If anything, I'm operating under the impression--and if it's wrong, I apologize, of course--that you're taking the game far too seriously in the 'beat enemies into the ground' approach. I happen to just disagree with your conclusions, that's all. It's possible to respect someone's experience and still realize that it's not necessarily true, especially in light of lacking evidence. Sometimes it's just necessary to wait and see.
 

party1234

Artisan
How would you say you're 'poking my fire'? I was considering this a mostly civil conversation..am I wrong? If anything, I'm operating under the impression--and if it's wrong, I apologize, of course--that you're taking the game far too seriously in the 'beat enemies into the ground' approach. I happen to just disagree with your conclusions, that's all. It's possible to respect someone's experience and still realize that it's not necessarily true, especially in light of lacking evidence. Sometimes it's just necessary to wait and see.
Is this not a war game? Isn't the point to, as you put it, "beat the enemies into the ground?" If it isn't, then why are you playing?

I'm here (granted I showed up late to the 'party') to fight and cause havoc, or get rimmed doing so.
 
Last edited:

redmage111

Citizen
Absolutely, the point is to fight and win etc..and if you can't come to an accord with an enemy..well that's fun too. I'm just saying I'm just as okay with an alliance bringing in once enemies ..It can backfire, sure..but it's a good faith sort of thing..and if it's an option between just crushing people and bringing willing people in..well..I'll choose the latter. I dislike the idea of just crushing someone entirely if it's not necessary. Sounds moderately sensible now? I hate the idea of not having enemies to fight as much as the next, but..there are always new threats that can creep up..and there's always people who get to the party late, right:)
 

KZG3

Philosopher
Its pretty simple honestly. Infection and ourselves have been fighting each other since this server started. Sometimes the fights were open conflicts and some were more subtle politicking.

What it basically comes down to is location and timing. Would a move like this have been possible with Aesur and XG at the helm? Not a chance. They shot us down on nap requests early and we returned the favor later.

However, as everyone can see, they are no longer around. The rest of the guys left are who actually did the legwork and made infection who they are/were. Aesur and XG just liked to soak up the limelight while their men went to work.

I think people will be surprised at how quickly we get up to speed with our two "cliques" after the transition.

The location of our two groups is the driving force behind the move. Taking a look at the maps will show why.
 

KZG3

Philosopher
Whatever helps you to sleep at night. I can see all of the Stuart Smalley leaders of grepo looking at the mirror and saying, " I'm a great leader. I am smart enough. And doggone it, people like me." You call it a tantrum or whatever makes you feel good, but the fact of the matter is that people get stuck in these dysfunctional alliances that take all the fun out of the game with their draconian mandates, or they urge their members into battles that the great and awesome leaders don't participate in. You go ahead with the blaming of the unhappy members for leadership dysfunction, it will only create more unhappy members. the only thing that matters is that the leaders are happy, and they are their happiest when they can blame someone else for their failures.

League of Ugly Strategies: sink, because they cannot keep a top 20 player..
Nostradamus? Is that you?
 

CLINTAURUS

Peltast
I GUESS I WILL DO A TOP 3.....


#1 ..... US.....

#2...... US.....

#3...... 1MAP.......


YOUR WELCOME.... HOPE THIS HELPS EVERYONES OPINION.....

 

CrankyOldMan

Guest
Our opinion on your Narcissism? We already knew that Clint. :)