Top 12 Top 12 Sink or Swim

DeletedUser53846

Guest
i wasn't on dimale and this is my first EN world. Personally i like EN a lot more then US its a lot easier going. our alliance is indeed now having some internal issues but i still stick to my statement when we get the bugs worked out we will be back to killing it. Cities taken by zfg or have not been in any area that we honestly care to much about, to try and break cities that are 1.5-2 hours away with there support 1 hour away would just kill everything we have. I dont mind that cuz i rebuild quick but others dont waste money on this game like i do.

a lot of people might rag on us but tbh im still not worried about this world. will we win? prob not but will we get our arses kicked. probably not. i have yet to see a cs sent at any one of our top 10 ( maybe more ) members. the low fruit always gets picked off due to alarms or activity issues. so yes it is a good thing to tighten up numbers imo, the first city loss we have had that i actually care about happen today. thats about it though. IDK when vaj says HH big talks = me or jeremy, but i generally back it up just fine. BZC wanna make a statement then take one off the top player. wanna just pick at less actives go ahead. helps us weed out who is not fit to be on the world. i like bzc, they got as big of dicks ( gabby ) and egos as some of our ibwwg people.
 

DeletedUser53923

Guest
top 2 is ok?

ill get in on this action

e02ad9cebf7f9f1b09b3a31cfa98ecc3.png
 

DeletedUser53846

Guest
top 2 is ok?

am i rank 2? i thought i was rank 1. That player had a hissy fit and went afk. yall capitalized definitely a good take. zam you have my city list, you use to attack till you started getting cleared. send a cs bud im here.
 

DeletedUser53868

Guest
is ZFG really going forward with the idea of not building WW, just delaying the opponent's WWs?
 

DeletedUser53923

Guest
is ZFG really going forward with the idea of not building WW, just delaying the opponent's WWs?

the minute that changes, myself and half the alliance would ghost. consider it signed in blood.
 

DeletedUser52206

Guest
so....the other 11 cities were from players that were not good enough for ibwis and provoke us to take a city from a top member, now BZC and ZFG take 2 cities from no.2 of your alliance and you come up with that? really? is this the best you can say? "hissy fit?"
smiley_emoticons_daumendreh2.gif
 

DeletedUser53868

Guest
They should. WW are a server killer. Hey BB, nice to see you are still playing mate
I actually agree, worlds should be won by dominance like in Tribal Wars and the faster the worlds were, the more dominance alliances would need.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I actually agree, worlds should be won by dominance like in Tribal Wars and the faster the worlds were, the more dominance alliances would need.
That sounds much better, although it depends what constitues as dominance? Is it a certain amount of conquest? Certain amount of core oceans controlled?
 

DeletedUser53923

Guest
hey bend whats up bud. you know how it goes, i keep leaving, and then getting sucked back in... someday i shall retire for good i suppose.
 

DeletedUser41523

Guest
Oh wow Bend its been a couple years. Hope its all going well man.
 

DeletedUser53868

Guest
That sounds much better, although it depends what constitues as dominance? Is it a certain amount of conquest? Certain amount of core oceans controlled?
percentage of non-ghost cities controlled, that how it works on TW, a number dominance could exist, but then we would see people founding non-stop
 

DeletedUser13405

Guest
You could rig the number Alex to account for various factors...active enemy conquers in the core would count the most, followed by active enemy conquers outside the core, followed by inactive enemy cqers in the core etc. You could come up with a system that measures "dominance" and I think it would work very well.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
You could rig the number Alex to account for various factors...active enemy conquers in the core would count the most, followed by active enemy conquers outside the core, followed by inactive enemy cqers in the core etc. You could come up with a system that measures "dominance" and I think it would work very well.
I do agree that conquers in the core should count for more.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It would have to work that way otherwise people could just start 2 weeks late and win by conquering the poor schmucks on the rim.
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
On the other hand, the rim is less densely populated and doesn't have as many cities as the core, I think it would balance out
 
Top