Yes I've played on this world... much more than you, actually (although I will admit I didn't spend nearly as much gold/money as you did). I even played alongside you in SF and boy was I glad to see you go (both times). It makes playing that much more fun. But no I'm not going to tell you who I am -- I'm sure that the few SF members who did like you won't like me for telling people how annoying you are.
lol... now we're getting into who has played the world more... and you are calling me egotistical. Talk about making a point over something trivial. Even if this were the case, you don't need to have spent a great deal of time in Psi to realize my points about 4TRESS, which was the whole reason about the activity point being brought up to begin with as I was asked if I have played here before. I didn't know it was going to turn into a contest.
I guess we'll have to take your word for it then that you played in SF. Just out of sheer curiosity, I have asked spartan-fury if he knows who you are and he hasn't the faintest clue. If you hypothetically were an SF member, you had plenty of time to message your perceivable annoyance on the alliance forums, or failing that; PM me about any issue you might have if you are an SF member, instead you are now going on the externals and lurking wherever I post lately in these sub-forums. Talk about immature and cowardly behavior.
LOL. Clearly people only bad-mannered and belittling when they intend to be. It's this kind of "logic" (read: fallacy) and blindness which causes people to dislike you.
While we're on the subject of fallacies, look up straw-man and non-sequitur arguments, as that is your counter-response here from start to finish. I am not blind to instances where I have become hostile to a player, I just don't accept your extremely sweeping and generalized arguments, especially the one about me being the most egotistical player ever, or even close. Yes, I have taken some people to task and have expressed some hostility towards them, but it is not something that is unwarranted or done for the kinds of reasons that would define a highly egotistical player. Given the high irrationality to low substance ratios in your posts, they should be taken with a grain of sand, especially since you come out of the blue and have no trouble talking about my history here even in detail and condemnation while not revealing who you are. The point still stands, I can be aggressive that is true, just like anybody else, but the actual instances of me doing so towards other players, inside or outside the alliance is neither unwarranted all the time, or too low for it to even resemble the argument you are making.
Similar to above -- there is no proper implication there. Just because they claim to have had trouble maintaining multiple worlds doesn't mean that people like you didn't make them want to quit.
Just because they left doesn't mean it was because of me either, claims with no evidence require just as much evidence to refute, a subtle nuance you didn't pick up on when you were responding here. The difference between you and me is that people know who I am, and I knew a lot of players and leaders in various core alliances early on when I was in Age of Enlightenment, especially the examples listed, and none ever openly expressed what you are describing to me. Sure that may not necessarily mean that it wasn't an underlying reason, but that doesn't mean it was either by absence of evidence. I knew many of these players well, some of which are more than happy to tag a long with me to a certain future world that comes out. Obviously if they felt the way you described without expressing it, they would have rejected my offers and also wouldn't have invited me to a multitude of alliances in older and newer worlds, or even in other online browser games.
Players in BE started to leave after I had already left last year for their own reasons (lack of time, being bored, etc...), many players in SF left over a number of reasons, one of which was the sudden destruction of my old account, and some recruitment issues that happened soon after. FS players left much later and I happen to get on very well with their leader in recent months, she doesn't echo your viewpoints.
Uh oh. Your ego is showing again. I said people like you.
Uh oh, your lies are showing again. You seem to have made a distinction here that was never intended.
I'm not sure why so my Grepolis players believe this to be true. There is so much hatred towards "turtles". To you and the rest of that "considerable number of players": play smarter, not harder. There's no reason not to play the game the best/most efficient way. And as has been said above that is not attacking willy nilly for ABP.
The reason they believe this, and have believed this for the two and a half or so years that Grepolis has been in existence is because there is a greater wealth of options available to defend with, and that defensive units have a higher values than offensive units, not to mention spells, defensive myth units being significantly stronger than offensive myth units, and many more items that could be listed. This game is geared towards the defender, and always has been. If this is something you are unfamiliar with; welcome to Grepolis. I hope you take the time here to learn how to play the game.
Attacking 'willy nilly' for ABP, lol. As it has been said many times before, defending is easier to do than attacking for obvious reasons. People in the offensively-geared alliances like SF, BE, and FS do not send attacks randomly, they carefully plan their targets and time their attacks often very well, something you should have known by now if you were an SF player.
I think that we can agree to disagree on a few things and don't need to keep up the back and forth. Ultimately, I think the blame for turtle play doesn't necessarily lie with any person or alliance, but is the result of the way the game is set up. Attacking takes much more time to do properly, and isn't properly rewarded. I think that many players quickly realize that they can run festivals to generate culture, take recycled cities or go after easy targets, and rarely risk losing cities by building defense in the majority of their cities all with much less time invested than if they choose to attack. On the other hand, if you attack, you often will have a worse kill ratio and get less bp (assuming the person you attack can defend reasonably), you have to use more resources and invest more time to rebuild at a slower rate, all the while you are doing significantly fewer festivals and hence not generating culture. There are lots of ways this could be fixed:
1. Change the relative strengths of offensive and defensive units to tip the balance towards the offensive units.
2. Give less of a bonus for stacked defense units.
3. Change the # of farm spaces require for bir and LS so they are equal or closer to equal.
4. Slightly lower the # of resources required for offensive units and increase for defensive units.
5. Make the build times of LS and bir equal or closer to equal.
6. Make victory processions from abp more valuable in terms of culture than those from dbp or city festivals.
Just some random thoughts.
As much as I would like to agree with you, the game is slanted towards defense for a reason. If it wasn't, then city takeovers would be significantly easier than they might be now, and players wouldn't be able to juggle this game well with other activities. You can choose to play a strategy that requires only stacking like an imbecile, or you can take a risk and go on the offensive. The choice is up to the player at the end of the day. People who choose the easy way out aren't doing anything impressive or noteworthy. Same goes for those who mostly do festivals and not victory processions.
Hellothere186 = Crotemp?
+rep if correctly
.
Could be, at least I suspect this might be the case when reading his response here. He is getting worked up over my bashing of turtles, claims to have history in SF, displays markedly anti-social behavior, he rushes to the defense of 4TRESS, etc... we all know what happened to that over-sized newb, he held a petty grudge against SF because of Alison, and when extended a hand to join SF, he then turtles up and spies on the alliance for months while defending cities that SF players try to capture. When extended a second chance by leadership, he agrees to stop only to then start demolishing his cities everywhere. Need I say more? Glad to see that njub was rimmed in the end.
