Current War Scores

DeletedUser

Guest
Hmmm I wonder what all of those involve. P O I N T S
When are you LoM people going to stop contradicting yourselves?

So now we are talking about points? I thought you were talking about city gains earlier. If you use points to judge which alliance is best (which you shouldn't), take a look at the point rankings, dbp rankings, abp rankings, and fighter rankings.
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
So now we are talking about points? I thought you were talking about city gains earlier. If you use points to judge which alliance is best (which you shouldn't), take a look at the point rankings, dbp rankings, abp rankings, and fighter rankings.
What are you trying to say??? I have been talking about points this whole time. I am measuring growth in terms of cities, which are basically points. Look at my other posts.
 

DeletedUser39847

Guest
I am measuring growth in terms of cities, which are basically points. Look at my other posts.

Just to jump in here....is a player with 20 cities at 13k with 10k BP doing better than a player with 10 cities at 10 k with 50k BP?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If players want to sit idle in maxed out cities having City Festivals, all good for them if that's how they want to play the game (these players tend not to get involved in forum activities and just city build themselves then panic if attacked because they don't know what to do - we've all seen this happen). If players prefer smaller cities which means more troops/navy and earning BP then that's all good too (these players are stronger team players, get involved and do the deeds - these are the ones I prefer to play with). But the amount of cities in an alliance and the total city points for that alliance cannot be used as a sole measure of growth because size doesn't matter (I can't believe I've said that!) , the amount of cities doesn't matter either, it's how you use them that makes a difference.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
What are you trying to say??? I have been talking about points this whole time. I am measuring growth in terms of cities, which are basically points. Look at my other posts.

lol typical point whore, that knows very little of the game, look at my city numbers, my average points per city, and compare them with yours, you beat me hands down on a higher average, then compare my battle points with yours,

just because you build your cities to max on everything it does not mean you are a better player than me, (you possibly could be) but it should not be judged on how many points you have.

regards LoM out performing other alliances, I would not say this, however what I would say is we are doing dam well, considering what we are up against,
we have also have a lot of players recently leave the game due to being bored, real life stuff like that happens, so for you to use the line graph as a show of performance is a joke, would love to see your performance, ;)
DW have just got a big player go inactive so I would expect them to consume him, this will not make the line graph increase any, but go at a level line for a bit until all his cities are taken, you talk nonsense with your silly graphs!

I chose to play the game differently, my points in every world I ever play are always low, as only build what needs to be built.

total overall points means nothing to me,
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If players want to sit idle in maxed out cities having City Festivals, all good for them if that's how they want to play the game (these players tend not to get involved in forum activities and just city build themselves then panic if attacked because they don't know what to do - we've all seen this happen). If players prefer smaller cities which means more troops/navy and earning BP then that's all good too (these players are stronger team players, get involved and do the deeds - these are the ones I prefer to play with). But the amount of cities in an alliance and the total city points for that alliance cannot be used as a sole measure of growth because size doesn't matter (I can't believe I've said that!) , the amount of cities doesn't matter either, it's how you use them that makes a difference.


So it is true, size does not matter :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Graeme, honey, that is the first time those words have ever passed my lips :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
lol, superb, it is a good job I am a fat lad then,

when we going for that drink ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Just waiting for the nod from you, but it might be an idea to ask Mr TW to tell his boys in O46 to take a break and go for a day out or something, otherwise you'll likely be stood up because of Grep.
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
Just to jump in here....is a player with 20 cities at 13k with 10k BP doing better than a player with 10 cities at 10 k with 50k BP?

Not really but if they have survived that long without being eaten up then they must be in a good alliance. Either way, that is a minority, no need to bring that up because it's just like such a small percentage of players.
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
If players want to sit idle in maxed out cities having City Festivals, all good for them if that's how they want to play the game (these players tend not to get involved in forum activities and just city build themselves then panic if attacked because they don't know what to do - we've all seen this happen). If players prefer smaller cities which means more troops/navy and earning BP then that's all good too (these players are stronger team players, get involved and do the deeds - these are the ones I prefer to play with). But the amount of cities in an alliance and the total city points for that alliance cannot be used as a sole measure of growth because size doesn't matter (I can't believe I've said that!) , the amount of cities doesn't matter either, it's how you use them that makes a difference.
Cool story, bro. I don't understand why are you and other LoM players trying to focus on what I said instead of what exe0 said? I proved him wrong. Then I asked Quantum for an explanation of other ways an alliance can out perform and he doesn't answer. You don't answer. Graeme doesn't answer. I am trying to argue that LoM isn't out performing every other alliance, not how cities are gotten by gold or BP and such. Seriously stay on the argument don't just join in out of the blue.
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
lol typical point whore, that knows very little of the game, look at my city numbers, my average points per city, and compare them with yours, you beat me hands down on a higher average, then compare my battle points with yours,

just because you build your cities to max on everything it does not mean you are a better player than me, (you possibly could be) but it should not be judged on how many points you have.

regards LoM out performing other alliances, I would not say this, however what I would say is we are doing dam well, considering what we are up against,
we have also have a lot of players recently leave the game due to being bored, real life stuff like that happens, so for you to use the line graph as a show of performance is a joke, would love to see your performance, ;)
DW have just got a big player go inactive so I would expect them to consume him, this will not make the line graph increase any, but go at a level line for a bit until all his cities are taken, you talk nonsense with your silly graphs!

I chose to play the game differently, my points in every world I ever play are always low, as only build what needs to be built.

total overall points means nothing to me,

LOL, good job calling me a point whore. Act your age man. I'm 14 and you don't see me calling people names. Not that I take it to offence, but I see it as a last resort when all else has gone wrong :p. Yeah, you have more cities than me, more bp. I guess I know very little of this game, that's why I've failed so badly. I joined Idalium in April and in my opinion I did well for my first world. Anyways, keep insulting me on my city count and stuff, it's funny.

I don't build my cities to the max though. Also, please re-phrase that first and second paragraph. I understood some of it, but towards the end of the first and second it kind of confused me. Are you meaning points as in BP? You're comparing a first time, late joiner, grepo player to someone who has been here since 2010. I don't think that is a fair comparison.

I will give you props to finally admit that LoM is not out performing every other alliance. Literally I've been arguing against that statement this whole time but other LoM members kept saying otherwise. I agree that you guys are doing fairly well up against three alliances, but you would of done better if you would of gotten the pacts straight. You guys ran into it, so I don't know if you didn't expect this to happen.

How is the line graphs a joke? I got them off of Grepostats.com, a valid source imo. Yeah you probably would like to see a first time grepo player's performance compared to yours. Go ahead and give yourself props for doing better than a first timer, congrats man! You have been playing Grepo for what, 3-4 years? Funny imo. I don't know how you think it's nonsense, I guess you didn't do to well in Elementary School when graphs were used in Math class : p.

Alright well I respect that and you should respect other player's way of playing Grepolis.
 

DeletedUser39847

Guest
Not really but if they have survived that long without being eaten up then they must be in a good alliance. Either way, that is a minority, no need to bring that up because it's just like such a small percentage of players.

Not really as players in that small point but city big BP category are generally there because they know how to play and play well. What is the point maxing a city to be a few spots up on point rank when they can't attack/defend.

My point is clever growth is not measured on cities points but on BP per player + cities gained regardless of size of them. If you measure an alliance's success over the BP rises you best re-evaluate your presumption.
 

DeletedUser25746

Guest
I will keep my point short as I think this is a discussion that I could write a long confusing text wall.

I do not agree with your standard of performance Nah. I think performance is something that can only be judged by viewing actions. LOM is performing at or above any alliance on this server from my view point . I think their performance has improved markedly since the merger. I have not had the view point to truly gauge ME or Apa but I am not sure either could deal with the 3 way pressure. From my view DW has never been tested enough especially lately for me to get s full gauge.

Above may not make complete sense as I tried to keep it short and quick and may have left out a point linking things together
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
Not really as players in that small point but city big BP category are generally there because they know how to play and play well. What is the point maxing a city to be a few spots up on point rank when they can't attack/defend.

My point is clever growth is not measured on cities points but on BP per player + cities gained regardless of size of them. If you measure an alliance's success over the BP rises you best re-evaluate your presumption.

"Not really as players in that small point but city big BP category are generally there because they know hwo to play and play well."

Re-phrase that for me, it doesn't make sense to me. You might of left something out or something but I just want to understand it. Thanks.

Seriously? Like I said it is suuuuuuch a small percentage that it doesn't matter. It's like saying, "What is the point of having a son if they can't even pass classes at school." There are kids like this, but again it's a small minority that it really has no affect on the rest of the world.
An alliance can have tons of BP rise but what goes along with the BP rise? Oh cities that's right!
 

Nakierza

<b>King Andromeda</b>
I will keep my point short as I think this is a discussion that I could write a long confusing text wall.

I do not agree with your standard of performance Nah. I think performance is something that can only be judged by viewing actions. LOM is performing at or above any alliance on this server from my view point . I think their performance has improved markedly since the merger. I have not had the view point to truly gauge ME or Apa but I am not sure either could deal with the 3 way pressure. From my view DW has never been tested enough especially lately for me to get s full gauge.

Above may not make complete sense as I tried to keep it short and quick and may have left out a point linking things together

I agree that they are doing well for going up against three other alliances, but how can you say they are performing at or above every other alliance? The other alliances are not up against three other alliances because they planned well and planned ahead. Legion of Mayhem fell into the mess they are in right now, and they might recover but seriously, they didn't plan well so how could you say they out perform or are at the same level with other alliances? (Btw, planning ahead and such goes with actions)

Now you did say you do not have a view point for the other alliances so sorry if what I said goes with that.
Anyways, I would love to hear what you think so if you want go ahead and type it.
 
Top