Pnp Once upon a time in psi

DeletedUser25380

Guest
not much happening

This was sarcasm, but I guess you missed it :p

Frankly our own ingame forums have become a bit boring, certainly not the chaos you seem to think there is, actually not much happening, there were only a few hundreds attacks in last op and a few today, nothing much really, I guess that's why you start seeing us coming to the externals for distraction... but considering the level of the discussions here I don't think you'll see that sustained
 

DeletedUser

Guest
This was sarcasm, but I guess you missed it :p

Frankly our own ingame forums have become a bit boring, certainly not the chaos you seem to think there is, actually not much happening, there were only a few hundreds attacks in last op and a few today, nothing much really, I guess that's why you start seeing us coming to the externals for distraction... but considering the level of the discussions here I don't think you'll see that sustained

Hmm sarcasm is just for people with no life number 1.

only a 100 attacks and 40 cities lost damn I wanna see grepostats when that jumps up to 1000 number 2.

Most of you did not come to the exts for distraction you came to post excuses on the happenings of the last couple of days number 3.

The level of discussion is suitable for us middle-aged adults and if you cannot cope with it then that is a damn shame, I even went through the trouble of a possible Skype room for us to take this on a more criticizing level, a shame number 4.
 

DeletedUser25566

Guest
Is that why you got the boot ? So a 4tress player could come in?

Is this why your so bitter and sour broski?

One detour real quick. Ryan it would have been easy to defend that city if i wanted. There was two cs only at the city and 10 hours apart with no clearing attacks. This is whats funny about this massive op is that i had at the most 8 attacks on my screen thats to ace adding in some harbor checks. Other then that i was sleeping like a fat kid like TBRO above who knows how to count calories

Back to BROSKI------ if your a stat man look at all the inactives you all take LMAO



Broski, I just want to point this out. First of all Broski, your cities were surrounded by our cities, do you think we didnt spy, or did you forget that was possible?

Second Broski, had you managed to defend that from the first CS broski we could have sent another, quickly and cleared it.

So please don't enjoy the fact that you didn't try to snipe the CS to much.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
First of all, I would like to state I did find cisfe's PnP humorous and seemingly in jest without being too serious, despite some discrepancies. I gave him some rep for the effort he put in, at least it helped to stimulate some discussion on the forums here which has has ground to a halt since about several months ago. My main issue is that his pictures were thumbnail sized and that took a little off the quality, that and the overall notion that SF as an alliance has coasted its way through this world. Perhaps a handful of players in SF might be guilty of that, even Curly has admitted to mainly being a simmer for SF, and there are others worth noting too, but I digress. I'd like to take to pieces some responses here upon reading through the facepalm-worthy discussion.

While this was occurring new alliances started to bloom In what is know in this world as the RIM. These new alliances while decent could never match up to the pure strength and starting so late could never reach the levels of the great Shadow Falls. They fought each other in great battles both sides taking blows.

A factor missing here is that rim alliances tend to have the benefit of safety in terms of distance and core alliances being tied up in other wars in the meantime giving them a chance to grow in relative peace, at least by comparison to the amount of warring that tends to occur in the core of a given world, Psi being no exception here. Had CA started in the core, chances are their members would be singing a very different tune on the externals, as most alliances do when they are losing. The wars SF has engaged with, on the other hand, are many, sizable, and often with little to no outside help. They have rimmed players and even alliances made up of very experienced and organized players in D3TH, PJ, TUQ, RE, FS, BE, and 4TRESS at different intervals in the server. At one point in time, SF was fighting the last three at once and still doing well for itself, and this was during the peak of all three groups. You would be hard pressed finding SF players who would not concede that many of these groups, with the exceptions of 4TRESS, had no worthy adversaries.

Shadow Falls the mighty alliance was not dominating like they should. They had the points they had the BP. What was going wrong. The problem was a new up and coming alliance called ORCA. Now they did not have the points and the BP they earned did not show. However they took the early lead. Now this does not sit well with the top alliance since September 26th :eek: . ( i wasn't even playing at this date) They expected this world to bow down to them and let them win in peace.

While it should be noted that no-one in SF leadership considered wonders to be something to breeze through with ease, CA has never achieved anything that would be noteworthy of a great alliance that you allude to here, and in the previous quoted paragraph. For one, ORCA has never fought on the level or with the kinds of rivals SF has, with the possibility of 4TRESS as an exception, but by your own logic of 'teaming up' ORCA had assistance from SF in this respect. This position is far from consistent on your part.

Wow! Three of the top five alliances were only able to take a small amount of cities that were left basically undefended? That is impressive! You are telling me that you took cities that the players abandoned?

You must be mighty indeed! Time to give up guys! They took undefended cities from us. What will we do? How can anyone stop three alliances from taking cities that you even said we didn't defend! Woe is ORCA!!!!

It never ceases to amaze me just how often arguments like these get used when an alliance loses cities, I'm sure if a good alliances performance is less than perfect, the sore losers will shift arguments and nitpick, and then claim they aren't so great. It should also be noted that SF do considerably less bragging than most alliances of the past who have achieved similar or even greater success, indeed, most SF players avoid the externals as a general rule. If what a few have responded here early on in this thread is bragging, what does that make of ORCA responses and the PnP? lol

And talking about taking a WW city? We had already stopped sending to the gardens. They only served to make you spend resources on something other than Temple. But congrats on taking ANOTHER undefended city. I can't wait for one day when I can brag about taking a city with no defense.

Now we get to the 'it was all a ruse to sidetrack you' argument, it's not like as if this hasn't been heard before many times. After clicking that link, you should check the 'other uses' section, this would accurately describe your responses in a nutshell. While it can be true that an active alliance ONLY taking inactive players isn't exactly that skillful, however, that applies to circumstances or alliances that do that as a general rule or have only ever done it. If it is done for tactical reasons as a side to taking active cities, then the one losing cities is simply making up excuses and shifting the criterion for what is deemed a good alliance. I can pretty much summarize that whatever world you join, you will always shift your position to suit the circumstances, rather than admit a loss.

What alliances oh they are gone same as the alliances we toppled whether it was as a Macedonian Olympus returns or Chrome angel.... There were some big one i am pretty sure you guys and BE even jumped in on one target after we broke them forget the name tho.

The difference between SF toppling FS/4TRESS/BE/TUQ/RE/other alliances is that for the majority of the time, they were taking active cities or a mixture of active and inactive, often alone and against more than one enemy. OR and CA couldn't even claim something along the lines of this at any point in either of their existence, only combined now and with SF and co attacking them can they even claim it, but they are losing. I can understand why your team mate who I previously responded to seems to be irate and wants to selectively use evidence to suit his beliefs than be objective, I probably would too if I were in his shoes.

And how is SF track record lately? You were attacking WG, and they are not toppled. you were attacking 4T for a long time, and they are not toppled, you were attacking BE, and they are not toppled. You were attacking FS, and they are not toppled. (They still exist, just under a different name :p)

So it seems that the alliances that were good enough to stick around the this stage of the game, are the ones you fail entirely against. Doesn;t sound like a great legacy to me...

I'm sorry, when was the last time OR or CA fought a coalition of sizable alliances by themselves, while suffering internally, with little help, with a spy that was giving away loads of information to the enemy, and when the coalition was supporting each other constantly? Your theater critic side is now shining brightly. As Curly has highlighted, FS and BE ended up in a war with SF where both alliances, with the exception of what was going on in O56 which was a mixed basket, they were losing territory. FS have merged into SF now, which should very much put to rest the response you made here.

The attempt on Wargasm was at best a handful of players, if not mostly by one account; rekoor. Wargasm were getting support from 4TRESS and that is no secret either. So far, given the large number of inconsistencies and chest-thumping in your replies, we can denounce the idea of you having an authoritative viewpoint on the subject.

The rest of ORCAs responses, and I should add Bangbros replies aren't even worth quoting as they are circle-jerking and some behaving like sore losers, all the while resulting to insulting the intelligence of other posters, which is helpful to nobody who is trying to follow this in a more results-driven manner.

I have to agree, ORCA are pretty poorly informed :p. They seem to think that we are simmers, attacking turtles is easy somehow (still trying to work out this one), hybrid cities are good, and as such, ORCA cities are mixed offence and defence, giving away cities to fall back to defend O76 is fine, yet taking the core and fighting alliances is simming. You also seem to think that it makes sense to waste millions of resources on a fake wonder, and despite this you wasted probably 100m resources on artemis.

Here is something sorely missing from previously mentioned responses, actual facts worth talking about. Curly here hits the nail on the head. ORCA seems to only be filled with braggarts upon closer inspection, and masters of never conceding anything; all the while dismissing the efforts of an alliance that has achieved more in this world than they have at least in terms of fighting. One can even bet that if SF did win wonders fairly and squarely, ORCA would somehow put spin on it claiming it wasn't so using convenient 'evidence' to support their viewpoints.
 

DeletedUser15240

Guest
Ok, so I thought I would just make a list of ORCAs bold claims and accusations, and a little added comment.

1. ORCA made a decoy wonder which they wasted millions of resources on to try to spreak our resources to a wonder which we intened to build anyway, despite the fact they are building 5 while we build 3 and a 1/2 wonders.

2. ORCA purposely lost this wonder, despite the fact they still defended it, with slingers and catapults!

3. ORCA lost cities on purpose yet the still defended them poorly, wasting troops.

4. ORCA accused Shadows Fall of coasting and doing nothing for the world whilst they intend to lose cities in order to fall back to defend ocean 76

5. ORCA have had 1 war in the world, against wargasm, where it looks like they lost more than they gained tbh.

6. ORCA are geniuses at this game basically, yet they build hybrid cities.

I'll add more if I can think of more.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I could go line by line of you message horus but it would take to long so i will hit on a few key pts... Curly get a clue and quite repeating yourself... Yea we build hybrid cities we are noobs. But these noobs are gunna build 3 wonders....

But i would like to point out one thing Horus You seem to be a pretty experienced player and yes coming out of the core is different than the RIM I too know this, you have to be more aggressive and active at the start.. But when you are the dominant attackers from the core the alliances around you turn into turtles. And its understandable that you coast bc of this. But if you didnt coast I think you guys would have built all 7 wonders without another alliance building one. ( I play in gyth and am in an alliance 100x better than SF and was a core same thing is happening there that happened here except we arnt coasting and u can tell).

The other thing I want to hit on is you saying since our existence we have not won a war.... Your right considering we just formed a month and a half ago.... But I bet the alliances of CA or OR or TM did exterminate alliances.... How about this you name the last alliance you did this too FS doesn't count since a lot joined you and you didn't really take many cities to force them to join..... We will see if half our players where even playing when you did this....


As For my pnp it was supposed to be funny not thoroughly examined in my opinion the majority of you guys have coasted the past 6 months... Thats my opinion and i think the stats would show it if they went that far back now you did have a resurgence about a month ago so thats why it doesn't go 7 months back.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I could go line by line of you message horus but it would take to long so i will hit on a few key pts... Curly get a clue and quite repeating yourself... Yea we build hybrid cities we are noobs. But these noobs are gunna build 3 wonders....

Um you don't have to be good to send resources, you have a bunch of noobs that took over new accounts and only know HOW TO send resources. Definition of simmer? le theaters found in all your cities, proof my friend proof you guys lack the knowledge or experience.
Listen anyone can build wonders look at Mayatopia or EE. So what is your point? You merged with OR to be able to get this far so basically, CA has achieved nothing OR has achieved nothing so you had to merge to achieve something but even so building wonders is nothing if you can't get all 7. So basically building 3 means literally nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Um you don't have to be good to send resources, you have a bunch of noobs that took over new accounts and only know HOW TO send resources. Definition of simmer? le theaters found in all your cities, proof my friend proof you guys lack the knowledge or experience.
Listen anyone can build wonders look at Mayatopia or EE. So what is your point? You merged with OR to be able to get this far so basically, CA has achieved nothing OR has achieved nothing so you had to merge to achieve something but even so building wonders is nothing if you can't get all 7. So basically building 3 means literally nothing.

We are noobs and simmers I said so in my line above.... Shipping the resources has to do with activity thats all we are very active noobs. So you shouldn't worry about our attacks they will be noobish. Our Ls nukes are 10x smaller than yours and our land nukes have 5 ls in them. So build some more fire ships.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
We are noobs and simmers I said so in my line above.... Shipping the resources has to do with activity thats all we are very active noobs. So you shouldn't worry about our attacks they will be noobish. Our Ls nukes are 10x smaller than yours and our land nukes have 5 ls in them. So build some more fire ships.

Sending rez activity? no, the amount of rez send daily has to do with activity.
Fire ships <----- Fun early on useless later on :).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
The below forum rules quote applies to at least two posters in this thread.

Tyrion said:
suggest, or allege, any cheating/botting/multi-accounting/etc... are prohibited on the Forums. The proper venue for those matters are through Support Tickets
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
ORCA seems to only be filled with braggarts upon closer inspection, and masters of never conceding anything; all the while dismissing the efforts of an alliance that has achieved more in this world than they have at least in terms of fighting. One can even bet that if SF did win wonders fairly and squarely, ORCA would somehow put spin on it claiming it wasn't so using convenient 'evidence' to support their viewpoints.
As is standard, I was enjoying the reading of your post until I saw the above comment. That is a rather broad comment and I believe if you give it more thought, you'll rephrase it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But i would like to point out one thing Horus You seem to be a pretty experienced player and yes coming out of the core is different than the RIM I too know this, you have to be more aggressive and active at the start.. But when you are the dominant attackers from the core the alliances around you turn into turtles. And its understandable that you coast bc of this. But if you didnt coast I think you guys would have built all 7 wonders without another alliance building one. ( I play in gyth and am in an alliance 100x better than SF and was a core same thing is happening there that happened here except we arnt coasting and u can tell).

The problem with the 'coasting point' depends on what the definition is, what you're essentially arguing is inactivity, but the same could be said of ORCA, especially the former Olympus Returns and Chrome Angels alliances prior to merging. Yes, worlds polarize depending on where the aggressors are coming from and it usually is from the core most of the time in any world, but the problem with the analysis of the other guy I quoted in the previous response is that he argued that fighting turtles is somehow easier than fighting offensive players. The truth is that the opposite is the case, or that in many cases, it shouldn't matter which tactic an alliance employs, there is challenge and difficulty either way.

I agree that there are better alliances elsewhere than here, and turtling is not exactly a bad tactic in my view, despite the fact I have been vocal about some alliances behavior in that respect. I have seen defensive alliances that would put virtually anything here in Psi to shame with a handful of exceptions, and offensive alliances that, with the same world speed, doubled the offensive output of BE, FS, and SF combined. If there is any criticism that should be levied towards SF for its role in this world, it should be from that basis, and I can tell you that there has been a long-standing conflict internally between me and the way some leaders have managed SF, indeed despite the founders interest in wonders, and one other leader having experienced building them in Alpha, had I not put together a plan; albeit a rather rushed and incomplete one due to time running out, SF wouldn't have had a fighting chance at wonders. Then again, had other leaders listened back in January and not in April to start planning, SF would have had all 7 in the bag without much stress, without having to rush to colonize, and without many of the arguments that came about.

The famous military adage of the 7 Ps applies here, and like I said before, as a former active leader in the group, I can vouch that the sizable lethargy, lack of structure, and an inability to act and change the situation immediately by other leaders; instead everything being dragged out and being twice as hard as it should have been, SF would be in better shape and in a much better position, this includes being able to (for the most part) avoid the large loss of core SF players that were the original backbone of the alliance back in January over some recruitment mistakes, and others later on for similar reasons. Had things been different, 4TRESS wouldn't have lasted very long, the tiff with FS and BE would have been solved long ago instead of in recent months, SF would have won the wonders by now with little competition, and the evolution of the world would have been very different.

The other thing I want to hit on is you saying since our existence we have not won a war.... Your right considering we just formed a month and a half ago.... But I bet the alliances of CA or OR or TM did exterminate alliances.... How about this you name the last alliance you did this too FS doesn't count since a lot joined you and you didn't really take many cities to force them to join..... We will see if half our players where even playing when you did this....

Well I only meant in the coalition sense, since that was the criterion by which some here proclaimed an alliance having to fight to be great, but ORCA itself is a coalition fighting another coalition (SF + allies), so not only does it not fit the very rhetoric it is using, but it is even losing despite more or less having a 'fairer' playing field. Prior to the merge, CA and OR together were fighting Wargasm for a sustained period and were not really winning by any stretch of the imagination. OR was stagnating and collapsing quite visibly, and CA was keeping them alive in a similar sense to the more active branches of 4TRESS keeping some of its dying branches alive when fighting SF.

In regards to naming an alliance, FS did lose a lot of cities to SF, but also to 4TRESS during the same period. At this same point, BE, with the exception of O56 where it was to-and-fro, was losing cities to SF, without any major alliance intervening on SF behalf to help. BE and FS were on good terms at this time as well, and BE was comprised of more experienced players generally speaking than FS, with some exceptions. Technically neither were crushed, but the rate at which that war was going, neither FS or BE would have existed in a few months time if not for a change in diplomacy aimed at attacking 4TRESS later and trying to take them out. FS and BE lost many players during and after the war with SF, including plenty of cites. Some even left under the 'RL' guise ignoring that they were under constant assault by SF players.

As For my pnp it was supposed to be funny not thoroughly examined in my opinion the majority of you guys have coasted the past 6 months... Thats my opinion and i think the stats would show it if they went that far back now you did have a resurgence about a month ago so thats why it doesn't go 7 months back.

Apart from two quotes from your PnP, I already said I acknowledged that it was in jest, I was pointing out some inconsistencies, one of which is that if the majority of SF was coasting, then so were the overwhelming majority of the server since SF, despite setbacks, internal nonsense, several months of spying from certain players, etc... were among the most active in Psi. At the end of the day, there isn't an alliance that has faced as many wars with as many hampers and losses that SF has had, and still come out as the most competitive on the fighting and wonder fronts. In short, there is no comparison, despite the barking of some here. Even FS and BE players who have been in some of the longest conflicts with SF would admit they have some excellent and active group of players.

As is standard, I was enjoying the reading of your post until I saw the above comment. That is a rather broad comment and I believe if you give it more thought, you'll rephrase it.

Thanks Farg, and appreciate that you pointed this out. Instead of editing the previous response, I think I will retract the bragging point for ORCA, seems to me some might fit the description, but there are some good players past and present particularly from the CA bunch. cisfe would certainly be one of them.

As for the comment about SF being the more accomplished here, it is a technical truth, but as you can read above, I have rephrased that with more detail. That isn't to say that some issues I had with leadership, direction, and management didn't cause me to stop playing Psi, which I should reiterate. SF is far from calling itself one of the best in all of grepolis, maybe in Psi, but not overall. If leadership had its wits about it earlier and was more active instead of playing pass the parcel with duties and delaying crucial decisions, and avoided making bad decisions; SF would more than qualify.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser6156

Guest
Right I'm done cleaning I think.
Just a couple of things to bear in mind before you next post.
Firstly if you want to discuss off-topic things use the off-topic forum that's what it is there for.
Secondly, insults no matter how insignificant you may deem them are not allowed anywhere on this forum. If you have nothing constructive to the thread to add then don't post.
Thirdly everyone deserves some respect, at the end of the day this is a game and I'm sure no one comes on to get abused so treat each other with some respect please.
Finally enjoy the game and have fun that's the most important thing. (make sure you stay within the forum rules though ;))
Thank you all for your co-operation and I apologise for the time that this thread has been closed
fingolfin
 

DeletedUser

Guest
But here we go on topic post, ORCA horrible bad leadership, horrible players. Only build wonders so far because of how big they are & because they were cowering behind OR for months while OR took the heavy hits CA merely stood back & watched. But now you wanna come talk big?
 

DeletedUser10984

Guest
As for the comment about SF being the more accomplished here, it is a technical truth, but as you can read above, I have rephrased that with more detail. That isn't to say that some issues I had with leadership, direction, and management didn't cause me to stop playing Psi, which I should reiterate. SF is far from calling itself one of the best in all of grepolis, maybe in Psi, but not overall. If leadership had its wits about it earlier and was more active instead of playing pass the parcel with duties and delaying crucial decisions, and avoided making bad decisions; SF would more than qualify.
I would say comparing any alliance against ones in other worlds isn't going to set well. There are plenty of factors that go into the alliances: different world speeds, different alliance caps, higher or lower level of competition, there are just too many variables to try and compare alliances on different worlds. SF has shown to be a power on Psi and that is honestly the most that can be said on the issue.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@Horus
I think your comments towards SF leadership is a bit over the top :D
I agree, there's been a few mishaps, there always will be, esp. when playing on the same server for a year, but all in all, I can't complain, unless I expected the perfect, which I don't..

My 2 cents on Psi alliances:
ORCA did a fine job as a rim alliance, would've been a great job if they had been more war active(and better fighters), but I suppose there's still time for that. ^^

4T... Never reached for the stars, but they are still here, so if that were their only goal, I suppose they succeeded at that.

BE "hit hard and hit with precision" seem so to be their motto and they've excelled at that, more than others are capable of, so hats of to that. :)

FS were a bit like BE, but in a more tight spot. Good bunch. :)


Wargasm kept themselves under the radar for a long time untill they hit OR n CA and did well at that, tho' OR never were a major player on Psi. Wargasm have become a serious player in Psi. A slow start, but a nice finish ;)


SF family. My own alliance, so it's going to be biased, but I think we've done what we came here to do. There's still things to be done ofcourse and I expect us to succeed :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
@Psiclone this isn't a top 12 thread. :p

If you want to list how my discussion of leadership was over-the-top, feel free. The 7 Ps argument doesn't require perfectionism, it is a reflective point, and one that has been gained from experience observing and often being within alliances from other worlds that lost great players due to poor planning and short-sighted decisions. So no, rather than pretend everything was perfect, and that no issues came up, a realistic assessment was in order. Being that this was your first world, I'd expect the kind of response you made above.

When I think about this, we have already had this discussion, and I think in many ways you more or less agreed with my assessment, which was the basis of the response here.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Horus,

Completely agree with your 7 Ps. Based on my 1st wonder experience here in Psi, starting to plan 3-4 months in advance was not nearly enough time. We wasted way too much time posting in forum and messing around rather then executing. It should only take about 6 weeks to turn a colonized city into one that is fully built if you are a relatively large player and filling the warehouse 2 x day from other cities. While some players are able to do this, it is clear that others just take a lot longer. Reconfiguring existing cities should take even less time, but how reliable people are about doing this is hard to predict. Would be interesting once wonders are all built to see what strategies everyone else used to optimize their building speed. There are the obvious ones, but I think there are some more subtle things that can help as well.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
allright people can we please stop going off topic, this thread is about Once upon a time in PSi... :p lets keep it at that..
 
Top