Lol you're making so many assumptions .... I never said the majority of x didn't have good/skilful players etc... I was just asking a question regarding the rumours on the-x- leadership ... you're going on the defensive for no reason lol.... if you're talking about me when you say lack of skill...maybe you're right... maybe I'm not as good as you but guess what I'm in the core on my own somehow surviving wow's only active in core, surprised I'm still there and guess what I didn't jump when the going got tough... no one can accuse me off that
-
Hello, Guest!
Are you passionate about Tribal Wars 2 and like to help your fellow players?
We currently have open positions for Forum Moderators!
>> Join the Tribal Wars 2 Team now! <<
We would love to hear from you!
DeletedUser5161
Guest
First of congrats -x- well played. I will have to say the end game is taking much longer then expected. Especially after the implosion of tribes. That might be due to some players effectively now wasting nobles at this point in the game nobling non top 10 tribe villages for personal vendettas.
Oh yeah first time caller long time reader. Love coming and reading these.
Oh yeah first time caller long time reader. Love coming and reading these.
DeletedUser2369
Guest
@Thatsmyspot I only made one assumption, and im still convinced its right based on your track history.
Also that wasnt defense, it was offense, though I can understand how you might confuse the two.
Surviving in the core when nobody sees you as a threat is not something to brag about, in fact its something to be ashamed of. Your friends were more threatening than you so got kicked out, then -X- reached you and went "eh, hes not gonna be a problem, lets go somewhere where our nukes and nobles will actually take down a threat". You dont have the bash to indicate any other situation.
@Screwlose welcome to the forums. Endgame actually usually takes this ling, the victory condition is so high, the motivation is so low, and the losing tribes barb-munch for no other reason than to extend the game - though its not as efficient as taking -X- vills, they still have an endless number of nobles as they regain the noble-slots everytime we take a village off of them. If the other tribes put up some sort of challenge then the motivation would be back and the endgame would go faster (counter-intuitive, I know). Thats not actually a dig at the other tribes who arent giving a challenge, If theres no motivation for the winning tribe to go to war without a challenge, theres even less motivation for a tribe who has already lost to go to war with no chance of winning (again, "no chance of winning" is not a dig, when then enemy are so much bigger and more organised, its just an observation, situation would be the same regardless of who was "winning" and "losing"). Basically the game was won weeks ago, now we just have the most boring part of the game (mass farming from dozens, if not hundreds, of villages each in order to pay for the coins to allow us to keep taking the barbs the other tribes are taking with their freed nobles) to get through untill innogames finally accept that the world has been won.
I havent done an update this week, simply because the changes are relatively minor, in that what i say each week has become almost a script, the increases are about the same, the wars are about the same (i.e. non-existent except for -X- taking top10 villages as they get nobles available). The only thing that could change the world in any great manner now would be either -X- imploding (unlikely with the victory in sight) or other tribes disbanding giving -x- a greater percentage, and maybe the victory (particluarly the top6 tribes, the others would get replaced by a similarly sized tribe so no major difference)
Basically the only thing relevant this week si that -X- is now on 74% of top10 villages, victory is at 80%. They need to take another 345 villages, plus 0.8 for every barb the top10 tribes take, off of top10 tribes, or 4-5x that in barbs/non-top10 villages
Also that wasnt defense, it was offense, though I can understand how you might confuse the two.
Surviving in the core when nobody sees you as a threat is not something to brag about, in fact its something to be ashamed of. Your friends were more threatening than you so got kicked out, then -X- reached you and went "eh, hes not gonna be a problem, lets go somewhere where our nukes and nobles will actually take down a threat". You dont have the bash to indicate any other situation.
@Screwlose welcome to the forums. Endgame actually usually takes this ling, the victory condition is so high, the motivation is so low, and the losing tribes barb-munch for no other reason than to extend the game - though its not as efficient as taking -X- vills, they still have an endless number of nobles as they regain the noble-slots everytime we take a village off of them. If the other tribes put up some sort of challenge then the motivation would be back and the endgame would go faster (counter-intuitive, I know). Thats not actually a dig at the other tribes who arent giving a challenge, If theres no motivation for the winning tribe to go to war without a challenge, theres even less motivation for a tribe who has already lost to go to war with no chance of winning (again, "no chance of winning" is not a dig, when then enemy are so much bigger and more organised, its just an observation, situation would be the same regardless of who was "winning" and "losing"). Basically the game was won weeks ago, now we just have the most boring part of the game (mass farming from dozens, if not hundreds, of villages each in order to pay for the coins to allow us to keep taking the barbs the other tribes are taking with their freed nobles) to get through untill innogames finally accept that the world has been won.
I havent done an update this week, simply because the changes are relatively minor, in that what i say each week has become almost a script, the increases are about the same, the wars are about the same (i.e. non-existent except for -X- taking top10 villages as they get nobles available). The only thing that could change the world in any great manner now would be either -X- imploding (unlikely with the victory in sight) or other tribes disbanding giving -x- a greater percentage, and maybe the victory (particluarly the top6 tribes, the others would get replaced by a similarly sized tribe so no major difference)
Basically the only thing relevant this week si that -X- is now on 74% of top10 villages, victory is at 80%. They need to take another 345 villages, plus 0.8 for every barb the top10 tribes take, off of top10 tribes, or 4-5x that in barbs/non-top10 villages
So passive aggressive... I asked any simple question ... I got a sermon on the mount instead ... nevermind man thanks anyway
DeletedUser2369
Guest
lol, wasnt passive at all i thought. Ill try to remove the passiveness next time, my bad.
DeletedUser2616
Guest
abandoning crap leaders =/= jumping ship, why don't people grasp this fact? if im in a tribe and it's lead by a flog then of course im gonna betray.
also it's not a simple question, it's explicitly stated in the rules not to discuss bans on the forum. only simple thing here seems to be you.
hard to make on a call on how long 6% would take, but maybe 3 weeks?
also it's not a simple question, it's explicitly stated in the rules not to discuss bans on the forum. only simple thing here seems to be you.
hard to make on a call on how long 6% would take, but maybe 3 weeks?
DeletedUser2369
Guest
honestly the three inactives I know of have slowed us down, before that it was 4-5% per week, this week was more like 2%.
I think we are about done with the neccasary internalling, so 2 weeks is my estimate.
I think we are about done with the neccasary internalling, so 2 weeks is my estimate.
People passing judgement down on others performance/efforts ... it's a common thing on these forums .... very sad
DeletedUser2369
Guest
Yeah, it's almost as if this thread was started to display, show, and discuss players/tribes performance in this world... oh wait...
Ok I didn't really articulate myself the way i wanted too ... I mean it seems people are quick too jump on people claiming they are crap or failure etc without understanding their position and the hard work they put in despite numerous difficulties... but no ... you're just a crap leader etc... I find it a bit unfair ... anyway I didn't realise bans couldn't be discussed in forums... I only asked about that I don't wanna get on a whole different topic like we all ready have done here... so I don't wanna big back and forth argument again I'll just leave it at that
DeletedUser5131
Guest
Lets be real, any collection of leaders who manage to bungle a 2v1 tribal backstab so unbelievably badly deserve to be laughed right into oblivion
DeletedUser2369
Guest
Let me paraphrase for you thatsmyspot:
"I just wanted to go off topic, I didn't want to return to the purpose of this thread as we have done so I'll just leave it at that"
As for being too quick to assume. You'd be surprised how much we actually understand, the problem is you still fail to take responsibility for the tribe you are supposedly leading, while I have taken the heat and responsibility for a tribe I'm only a member of, stop making excuses and accept that a tribes performance is ultimately attributable to its leaders and its position (though some of that is also the responsibility of the leaders). Your position prior to the war was almost as good as you could ask for, so the only thing left to blame is the leaders.
"I just wanted to go off topic, I didn't want to return to the purpose of this thread as we have done so I'll just leave it at that"
As for being too quick to assume. You'd be surprised how much we actually understand, the problem is you still fail to take responsibility for the tribe you are supposedly leading, while I have taken the heat and responsibility for a tribe I'm only a member of, stop making excuses and accept that a tribes performance is ultimately attributable to its leaders and its position (though some of that is also the responsibility of the leaders). Your position prior to the war was almost as good as you could ask for, so the only thing left to blame is the leaders.
I will take responsibility... I'm the last wow/darkness leader probs still around... I do regret some of the diplo errors made espec the 24hr rule (wasn't my decision too make at time)... I did as much as I could for my tribe... top donater/ many supports etc... but I think being labelled a crap leader and retarded is harsh ... I understand many x player's are great experienced well learned players... I'm not disputing any of this.... obviously despite many difficulties I failed too lead wow too victory.... but crap leader is somewhat unfair... under different circumstances I may have lead wow too closer challenge but alas wasn't to be
DeletedUser2369
Guest
somehow i dont think those last two should be in the same paragraph as the first.
This is how you should have made that comment:
Se the lack of excuses, justifications or false claims of "fate frowning on me"?
The reality is, there is justification of the "crap leader" considering the comparative strengths of the WOW/darkness alliance and -X- and how fast wow/darkness died. So saying "crap leader" is not unfair at all.
Compare those two, 3 weeks apart I believe, and the stats between those dates by PLAYERS (so excluding the tribe changers) are
So at the start of those three weeks WOW and Darkness had 5.2mill points, and 144 members, facing up against -X-'s 2mill points and 37 members.
Your position was near perfect. Good leadership would have made sure their members were
1. ready for war (you hadnt been bled by any other wars yet)
2. aware of strategies and how to defend
3. Having good morale (a happy tribe does not desert)
4. active
5. aware of their channels for tribe support/help
6. ready and willing to work with their neighbours
less than 2 weeks later Darkness declared war, and a few days after that WOW declared war. -X- were ready, they responded, they poached the dissaffected members from WOW and Darkness (so leaders did not do #3), pretty much destroyed Darkness in less than 2 days (so leaders did not do #1), then marched through WOW (or HOT at the time) player by player, not encountering any organised opposition (so leaders did not do #2, #5 or #6, in fact one leader bragged to me about how well their account had held out in a province where 25 of their tribemates' villages had been taken).
These things are not the tribes fault. They are the leaders fault. The leaders are responsible for selective recruitment, for training, for setting the tribal standards, and for dealing with players who did not meet those standards.
If wow/Darkness were not ready for a war they started, its because the leaders did not ensure their members were creating enough troops, or the right troops, the leaders did not ensure the front lines were ready for the inevitable response to the declaration of war (mostly with pre-stacked vills, or local defense ready to move, or at least active at the time war was declared),
If players left the two tribes who were in the position of strength for the tribe that was smaller than both, and about to be at war with both, then they had no faith in the tribes they left, and the results have proven them right, dont blame them, its your job to ensure your players are not only ready for war, but also confident in their ability to fight it.
The stats I have just uploaded show that the 60 members who ended up in -X- each did 2x the attacking that each of the 120 players in WOW/darkness did (there were more members than that in wow/darkness, but several of them were decimated so badly in the last week that they no longer showed in my stats) as a whole the 60 players took nearly 3 villages for each village the 120 players took.
The strongest excuse the leaders of WOW have given for their failure to prepare their tribe is that they had so many council members that it was hell to get any decisions through. However this is also the fault of the leaders. A merge does not need to add new council members. As a potential merger, merging into a tribe willing to have that many leaders is stupid and you shouldnt have merged, as the mergee, you should have stopped the situation from arising, and denied any mergers who stipulated that they had to be in a bloated council. If you tried and were out-voted, you are still responsible for the decisions untill you decided that the tribe was going the wrong decision and left the council, if not the tribe.
So yes, now that the stats have been shown once more "crap leader" is very fair, as for the "being labelled retarded" comment, that was not said, not here at least. You are introducing accusations to make us sound worse than we are. Stand up, accept that you lost the war, that your leadership could use some improvement, learn from the mistakes made here, and do better next time. Its that simple. Every time you whine about how "judgemental" we are being actually undermines your ability to lead in the future, and serves no purpose whatsoever in the present.
Btw just wanna add I wasn't Sole Leader for most of this, that you mention... I was recruiter ... once the war was looking rather unsalvagable, I was then given sole leadership of what was left after the core was pretty much taken by x
Already said I accepted my responsibility! ... I did what I could with what I had left ... evidently didn't have a chance by then but tried regardless
By which I mean I was one of many 'co leaders' ... mostly were unable too agree on joint decisions... too many cooks comes too mind
DeletedUser2369
Guest
Dude, just stop. every time you "accept responsibility" you add caveats, excuses, or justifications. One of which I have already addressed even before you brought it up:
I take responsibility ... under different circumstances I may have lead wow too closer challenge ... I wasn't Sole Leader ... I mean I was one of many 'co leaders' ... once the war was looking rather unsalvagable, I was then given sole leadership ... evidently didn't have a chance ... I did what I could with what I had left ... you see the pattern ?? you say you are responsible for your failure but everything you write after that is "screaming" : it's not my fault , i did nothing wrong , it wasn't my decision to make ... i feel like i'm watching a stand-up comedy tbh
Btw you know what's really sad about your last posts here ? you are accusing others of lacking good sport because they judge you "harshly" as a leader when you couldn't even congrats -X- on their win ... instead you tried in your first post to discredit their win with your "rumors"
Btw you know what's really sad about your last posts here ? you are accusing others of lacking good sport because they judge you "harshly" as a leader when you couldn't even congrats -X- on their win ... instead you tried in your first post to discredit their win with your "rumors"