Carphi Rumour Mill

DeletedUser22708

Guest
Gotham is very well aware of the statistics guys, I just think it's because we played against botusers in Rhammus that we've all become a little bit paranoid, including me :D
 

DeletedUser41715

Guest
Digital Mystikz said:
Gotham is very well aware of the statistics guys, I just think it's because we played against botusers in Rhammus that we've all become a little bit paranoid, including me :D
Click to expand...

If we managed so many excellent timings (not 75% as you claim but close to 50% I would say), then our success record against on line players would have been similar with the amount of attacks /supps that we send. However its close to 25-30%. I have no other way to prove we are not elephants. Only numbers speak the truth
 

DeletedUser22708

Guest
gkassimis said:
If we managed so many excellent timings (not 75% as you claim but close to 50% I would say), then our success record against on line players would have been similar with the amount of attacks /supps that we send. However its close to 25-30%. I have no other way to prove we are not elephants. Only numbers speak the truth
Click to expand...

The times your alliance tried to cs me the timings weren't excellent, they were average at best so you're right, numbers speak the truth
 

Aethilla

Phrourach
gkassimis said:
In every server I hear the same things. About how come BZC manage to have such timings. At least you don't accuse directly but only implying things. If you are open minded and you don't look for excuses to justify your alliances failing against us,the answer is simple. High activity and total participation of their members. When we do ops we arrange as many as possible to participate. When we send totally over 100 supps and 100 attacks, its normal statistically speaking to manage some excellent timings
Click to expand...


Like to put the record straight here, there was nothing like the 100 attacks and 100 supports that gkassisms mentions and I do not consider a total of 6 players being involved as showing high activity levels and total participation by an Alliance. 4 players managed to land 8 attacks 1 second before CS one of these players landed the CS and these same players plus 2 others also managed to land 4 supports same time as the CS and supports 1 second after CS. Not once was any type of anchor used, nor any of the other timing tricks you see of send and recall, splitting nukes.... just perfect timing and all this achieved in a 30 minute conquest.
If this was a one off occurrence I would say lucky fluke but it happens all the time! Let the following screen shots do the talking Screenshot_44.pngScreenshot_45.png
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser17088

Guest
Aethilla said:
Like to put the record straight here, there was nothing like the 100 attacks and 100 supports that gkassisms mentions and I do not consider a total of 6 players being involved as showing high activity levels and total participation by an Alliance. 4 players managed to land 8 attacks 1 second before CS one of these players landed the CS and these same players plus 2 others also managed to land 4 supports same time as the CS and supports 1 second after CS. Not once was any type of anchor used, nor any of the other timing tricks you see of send and recall, splitting nukes.... just perfect timing and all this achieved in a 30 minute conquest.
If this was a one off occurrence I would say lucky fluke but it happens all the time! Let the following screen shots do the talking View attachment 11854View attachment 11855
Click to expand...

Karma on any member of Anonynous in my opinion
 

DeletedUser52791

Guest
Aethilla said:
Like to put the record straight here, there was nothing like the 100 attacks and 100 supports that gkassisms mentions and I do not consider a total of 6 players being involved as showing high activity levels and total participation by an Alliance. 4 players managed to land 8 attacks 1 second before CS one of these players landed the CS and these same players plus 2 others also managed to land 4 supports same time as the CS and supports 1 second after CS. Not once was any type of anchor used, nor any of the other timing tricks you see of send and recall, splitting nukes.... just perfect timing and all this achieved in a 30 minute conquest.
If this was a one off occurrence I would say lucky fluke but it happens all the time! Let the following screen shots do the talking View attachment 11854View attachment 11855
Click to expand...


I had to recall my attacks and send them again 3-4 times. But then they was 1 sec before CS and you know our timing isnt always the best. Sometimes we need 2-3 attempts because you or Contra managed to get birs 1 sec before the CS!
smiley_emoticons_hust.gif
 

DeletedUser41715

Guest
Aethilla said:
Like to put the record straight here, there was nothing like the 100 attacks and 100 supports that gkassisms mentions and I do not consider a total of 6 players being involved as showing high activity levels and total participation by an Alliance. 4 players managed to land 8 attacks 1 second before CS one of these players landed the CS and these same players plus 2 others also managed to land 4 supports same time as the CS and supports 1 second after CS. Not once was any type of anchor used, nor any of the other timing tricks you see of send and recall, splitting nukes.... just perfect timing and all this achieved in a 30 minute conquest.
If this was a one off occurrence I would say lucky fluke but it happens all the time! Let the following screen shots do the talking View attachment 11854View attachment 11855
Click to expand...

When you kill so many of our cs with same sec snipes(and 90% of the times its only one snipe so we talk for 100% success), its ability but when the others send you some good timing supports/attacks (out of 100, I insist on that), its cheating? Something is wrong here. By the way when you return from VM laura? We missed you
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10962

Guest
Aethilla said:
Like to put the record straight here, there was nothing like the 100 attacks and 100 supports that gkassisms mentions and I do not consider a total of 6 players being involved as showing high activity levels and total participation by an Alliance. 4 players managed to land 8 attacks 1 second before CS one of these players landed the CS and these same players plus 2 others also managed to land 4 supports same time as the CS and supports 1 second after CS. Not once was any type of anchor used, nor any of the other timing tricks you see of send and recall, splitting nukes.... just perfect timing and all this achieved in a 30 minute conquest.
If this was a one off occurrence I would say lucky fluke but it happens all the time! Let the following screen shots do the talking View attachment 11854View attachment 11855
Click to expand...

Just because they're not all there in the end doesn't mean they didn't send with anchors then recall etc. Everyone seems to have moved to an automatic it's a bot attitude. It's a shame that people don't seem to ever think someone has sat there and diligently planned it rather than shouting bot not fair each time
 

DeletedUser41715

Guest
The only thing worst than noobs and cry babies are humourless people
 

DeletedUser41715

Guest
Digi do you know that reputation comments now show who made them? I remember in the past that you made a negative comment where you wrote "loser" and you signed as a different player. Xing. And you did the same to him signing as me. You must be really proud of yourself. A great thanks to inno for this update. Its payback time
 

DeletedUser52220

Guest
gkassimis said:
The only thing worst than noobs and cry babies are humourless people
Click to expand...

This is an odd comment coming from someone decidedly lacking in humor the last time we spoke in pm (two days ago). Just saying!
 

DeletedUser52220

Guest
How does one go 'off topic' on a 'rumor' thread? Just wondering!

AND

It's not a rumor if it was openly admitted by the person concerned anyway!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser41715

Guest
AliOoops. said:
How does one go 'off topic' on a 'rumor' thread? Just wondering!

AND

It's not a rumor if it was openly admitted by the person concerned anyway!
Click to expand...

And the question is: are you stupid or nuts? About stupidity sorry to say but science can't help but for the second you can have medical assistance
 

DeletedUser52220

Guest
gkassimis said:
And the question is: are you stupid or nuts? About stupidity sorry to say but science can't help but for the second you can have medical assistance
Click to expand...

Coming from a guy who made his personal info public and then threatened legal action as soon as it became common knowledge? Please.
 

DeletedUser41715

Guest
AliOoops. said:
Coming from a guy who made his personal info public and then threatened legal action as soon as it became common knowledge? Please.
Click to expand...

I already admitted my stupidity. For that you can accuse me. I don't mind. But even stupids have rights. Also trying to accuse me for things I haven't commuted is wrong
 

DeletedUser51423

Guest
gkassimis said:
I already admitted my stupidity. For that you can accuse me. I don't mind. Also trying to accuse me for things I haven't commuted is wrong
Click to expand...

I can only assume you meant to say committed, and I'm sorry, but it's not an accusation when you have already confessed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top