Nakierza
<b>King Andromeda</b>
There are more ways to outperform everyone than just growth...
Like what?
I mean if you aren't doing too well in growth how can you be doing well in other categories?
Last edited:
There are more ways to outperform everyone than just growth...
Like what?
I mean if you aren't doing too well in growth how can you be doing well in other categories?
ABP, DBP, gaining or losing ground in wars, etc.
Hmmm I wonder what all of those involve. P O I N T S
When are you LoM people going to stop contradicting yourselves?
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.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.
I am measuring growth in terms of cities, which are basically points. Look at my other posts.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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,
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.
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