DeletedUser
Guest
WARNING: This is a wandering and disorganized attempt to set the forum record straight. Please read this carefully so you will understand what is said. I'm sure some will twist and misquote but this is the untold story of L&S.
DangerousDan's posted opinions and numbers are way off. Johnblaze (my founders account) was cooping about 20 in-active accounts. Of course that means I only was able to play my account and a couple others due to time limitation. Most of those cooped accounts were used only for building their own defenses and contributing resources to the tribe account ( a sitting purpose endorsed by the cooping policy) . No Player has time to sit 5 or 10 accounts and use them to push his. Try shipping resources from one player to an other in mass. I tried it early in the cooping of accounts. It takes huge amounts of time. Raiding from my own account took less time and was more productive.
There was one other player in L&S who cooped several accounts. I was not aware of him pushing from the accounts he cooped. As for having multiple members sitting 5-10 accounts it never happened. Most of our inactives had no one sitting them. I did ask members who asked for support to set me up as coop.
That is why DD was asked to set Johnblaze up as coop. He asked for support but was unwilling to coop. We wanted to defend his villages when he was offline. He asked us to send support to whole provinces of his villages. As it turned out the attacks on DD were fake but he used them as the excuse to leave and join SA. His Defensive bashpoints during the 'S.A attacks' did not change. I asked DD for attack reports and he refused to give me even one. He said he was too busy. That is when I became insistent that he set johnblaze as sitter. I knew we were being misled and before accusing him I wanted to see the attacks myself to be sure I was not wrong. Of course he would have been exposed as saying he was being attacked when he was not so he left to join S.A. at that point.
Anyway for saying he left because he did not like my passive approach....That would be a normal viewpoint of a attack player. I am not an attack player. I'm a defensive player. And I am very good at it. I personally sat the accounts S.A was attacking when we finally stopped their expansion. Sandinista, TimDJtracy, Esruc, Wad2D0, Winn and others were under attack and being captured. I take credit for defending (cooping) those accounts and helping to build a wall around S.A that they could not break through. That was the beginning of then end for S.A.
I did not use any of these account for pushing. And others did not either to my knowledge. As a tribe we took a strong stand that we did not want to internalize our inactives. Since the game was based on village numbers internalizing villages was a waste of time. I encouraged our members to capture barbarians or S.A villages.
After we got the wall up around S.A they began to capture all their own inactive players. Of course this helped us since their village numbers went down instead of up. Capturing inactive villages is a zero sum gain situation. Another strategic mistake S.A made. They used their troops to clear their own members villages instead of attacking us. All these captures did was make their big players bigger but the tribe got smaller.
Attack players frequently feel that their approach is the only good approach. My approach as L&S leader was that every active player whether a fighter, a builder, a defender, or a supporter is strategic to the tribe. And so you see our approach and S.A's were diametrically opposed. If I was wrong we would have lost. But I studied the game and defensive force was stronger the aggressive attacks in TW2. It makes no sense to attack someone when they will lose if you can get them to attack you. So we spent a huge amount of time defending every members village. The result was S.A grew weaker and we grew stronger. So my passive approach was more effective then his "all attack all the time". I literally had 4 defensive villages for every offensive village from start to finish in this game. The reason I did not get attacked was that our enemies could not find a weak point to attack. Mark70 and Omar89 were both my neighbors. They only were able to capture a very few villages from me.
Just because someone makes hundred of posts on the game forum they become listed as a "NOTABLE MEMBER". They dominate the forum through their many posts and make the forums look 'alive'. But in fact it is by getting the vast majority of world members on the forum that a successful forum is created. 700 posts does not prove anyone as NOTABLE. Just that they have a big mouth and 100 times the opinions of the average TW2 player. In the end DangerousDan used his forum status to try to twist the game to his favor.
CONCLUSION:
So you see that DangerousDan's whole concept of what L&S was doing was wrong. When the coop rules came out we made no changes. But he took a victim's attitude and tried to play this whole thing up as a way to change the rules to hurt us. The changes did not hurt us because we were not pushing accounts. So what we see is one player twisting the games rules to see if he can gain an advantage for his tribe and in the belief it will hurt another tribe. He was wrong so we did not speak against him in the forum. And it made no difference in the process of winning or the end result.
TW2 needs to be warned of complaining players who would twist the game for their benefit. It is the gamers that follow the rules and don't complain that make the game grow and thrive. The sitting changes that were made to avoid pushing were largely useless and only caused more problems...not less.
If you look at the inactive players of each tribe you will see that L&S had more active players the SA. Otherwise we would not have won. By SA's leaders attitude that only attack players were good they demoralized and destroyed SA. By making multiple strategic mistakes they lost even the chance of winning. By complaining against the game and its rules they showed that they felt they had to twist the rules to gain a benefit and discredit other better players then themselves.
DangerousDan's posted opinions and numbers are way off. Johnblaze (my founders account) was cooping about 20 in-active accounts. Of course that means I only was able to play my account and a couple others due to time limitation. Most of those cooped accounts were used only for building their own defenses and contributing resources to the tribe account ( a sitting purpose endorsed by the cooping policy) . No Player has time to sit 5 or 10 accounts and use them to push his. Try shipping resources from one player to an other in mass. I tried it early in the cooping of accounts. It takes huge amounts of time. Raiding from my own account took less time and was more productive.
There was one other player in L&S who cooped several accounts. I was not aware of him pushing from the accounts he cooped. As for having multiple members sitting 5-10 accounts it never happened. Most of our inactives had no one sitting them. I did ask members who asked for support to set me up as coop.
That is why DD was asked to set Johnblaze up as coop. He asked for support but was unwilling to coop. We wanted to defend his villages when he was offline. He asked us to send support to whole provinces of his villages. As it turned out the attacks on DD were fake but he used them as the excuse to leave and join SA. His Defensive bashpoints during the 'S.A attacks' did not change. I asked DD for attack reports and he refused to give me even one. He said he was too busy. That is when I became insistent that he set johnblaze as sitter. I knew we were being misled and before accusing him I wanted to see the attacks myself to be sure I was not wrong. Of course he would have been exposed as saying he was being attacked when he was not so he left to join S.A. at that point.
Anyway for saying he left because he did not like my passive approach....That would be a normal viewpoint of a attack player. I am not an attack player. I'm a defensive player. And I am very good at it. I personally sat the accounts S.A was attacking when we finally stopped their expansion. Sandinista, TimDJtracy, Esruc, Wad2D0, Winn and others were under attack and being captured. I take credit for defending (cooping) those accounts and helping to build a wall around S.A that they could not break through. That was the beginning of then end for S.A.
I did not use any of these account for pushing. And others did not either to my knowledge. As a tribe we took a strong stand that we did not want to internalize our inactives. Since the game was based on village numbers internalizing villages was a waste of time. I encouraged our members to capture barbarians or S.A villages.
After we got the wall up around S.A they began to capture all their own inactive players. Of course this helped us since their village numbers went down instead of up. Capturing inactive villages is a zero sum gain situation. Another strategic mistake S.A made. They used their troops to clear their own members villages instead of attacking us. All these captures did was make their big players bigger but the tribe got smaller.
Attack players frequently feel that their approach is the only good approach. My approach as L&S leader was that every active player whether a fighter, a builder, a defender, or a supporter is strategic to the tribe. And so you see our approach and S.A's were diametrically opposed. If I was wrong we would have lost. But I studied the game and defensive force was stronger the aggressive attacks in TW2. It makes no sense to attack someone when they will lose if you can get them to attack you. So we spent a huge amount of time defending every members village. The result was S.A grew weaker and we grew stronger. So my passive approach was more effective then his "all attack all the time". I literally had 4 defensive villages for every offensive village from start to finish in this game. The reason I did not get attacked was that our enemies could not find a weak point to attack. Mark70 and Omar89 were both my neighbors. They only were able to capture a very few villages from me.
Just because someone makes hundred of posts on the game forum they become listed as a "NOTABLE MEMBER". They dominate the forum through their many posts and make the forums look 'alive'. But in fact it is by getting the vast majority of world members on the forum that a successful forum is created. 700 posts does not prove anyone as NOTABLE. Just that they have a big mouth and 100 times the opinions of the average TW2 player. In the end DangerousDan used his forum status to try to twist the game to his favor.
CONCLUSION:
So you see that DangerousDan's whole concept of what L&S was doing was wrong. When the coop rules came out we made no changes. But he took a victim's attitude and tried to play this whole thing up as a way to change the rules to hurt us. The changes did not hurt us because we were not pushing accounts. So what we see is one player twisting the games rules to see if he can gain an advantage for his tribe and in the belief it will hurt another tribe. He was wrong so we did not speak against him in the forum. And it made no difference in the process of winning or the end result.
TW2 needs to be warned of complaining players who would twist the game for their benefit. It is the gamers that follow the rules and don't complain that make the game grow and thrive. The sitting changes that were made to avoid pushing were largely useless and only caused more problems...not less.
If you look at the inactive players of each tribe you will see that L&S had more active players the SA. Otherwise we would not have won. By SA's leaders attitude that only attack players were good they demoralized and destroyed SA. By making multiple strategic mistakes they lost even the chance of winning. By complaining against the game and its rules they showed that they felt they had to twist the rules to gain a benefit and discredit other better players then themselves.