Robbyn Gone?

DeletedUser29152

Guest
Either he has left or generously given all his cities away
 

DeletedUser14937

Guest
Well he definitely wasn't being generous.. he only gave his cities to one alliance how kind is that?
 

DeletedUser34939

Guest
someone called him out for killing his own troops so he quit.

Quick, someone make a meme: "Robbyn loses internet, just quits"
 

DeletedUser29152

Guest
it must be either RL or a ban coz i don't think he would just get bored of grepo and go
 

DeletedUser34939

Guest
thats the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

I'll miss you too robbyn
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I explained it on another thread. This conquest world is no fun or at least not for me. About you mojo, what can I say, you're a shallow guy with childish behaviour.

Why didn't you start on infectious? Would of actually fought back lol
 

DeletedUser9465

Guest
Is not about fighting back. Is about the conquest system itself that relies too much on hunting offline players. I just don't get any thrill attacking this kind of targets. I've explained this better on another thread. Of course, this is just me and my opinion but it's enough to make me stop playing it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Is not about fighting back. Is about the conquest system itself that relies too much on hunting offline players. I just don't get any thrill attacking this kind of targets. I've explained this better on another thread. Of course, this is just me and my opinion but it's enough to make me stop playing it.

start of war is usually hunt for enemy inactives yes. but eventually weak links are eaten and you need to hunt for inactive windows on active players and/or use manpower and skill to take down active players.

but I'm biased and find any other system revolting:)
 

DeletedUser9465

Guest
Hunting for inactive windows is very boring especially considering that landing a CS on an inactive player is not challenging at all. Taking active players is fun indeed, but on a unit speed 3 server an active guy can stack his city with lot of defence very quickly and then your manpower and skill alone might not be enough to overrun it. And then you need a bit of help from your allies and most of them might not be willing to provide it because they prefer to hunt off line targets. Or maybe, if your target turtles up massively, you need a larger op on his/her cities and you won't get it because, again, most people seem interested in finding and attacking off line targets solely. Eventually it becomes boring and frustrating or at least it did for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser29152

Guest
So I'm guessing some mn members feel that way and it annoys you?
 

DeletedUser9465

Guest
Not only some MN members feel this way. There is a more general pattern and I could notice it to MN enemies as well. If they realize the intended target is online they don't attack and try to find somebody off line.
 

Petrilo

Phrourach
- Big vs small, fighting against active online player

On conquest servers it is possible for smaller alliances to fight against the bigger and actually take cities from them, of course if they are smart enough, fast enough... good enough. You just need to land the CS and give your guys enough time to stack the city (as usual start sending supp some time before CS landing, land CS when target is off or be smart with the target that is online - send fake CS, send multiple fake CS, send multiple real CS but real support to just one... However, everyone prefers to go for it when the player is offline, yes. Overall it's the easiest way. Do I like it - no. Basically it comes down to hunting players off time. But, if the way to override this and force players to fight in their active time is to strip the lil' guy his god given right to take the city from the big guy, I'll just pass.

This is actually a question. I have never played a revolt server. This thread made me curious so I've done a little reading and draw some conclusions. Smaller sized alliances can't fight the big ones. Giving 12 hr heads up to the big alliances doesn't work well for them, big can stack that and just laugh at your attempt. You can be smart as much as you want but you are screwed if you are small. Is this true or I am missing something?
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser42103

Guest
I agree. Conquest give you much more chances, tactics, strategies.
And its real challenge for teamwork.
Its task for alliance to defence player when he is offline
Also good team should use opportunity when strong player oflline to get 4-5 his cities in 1 day.
Its team play
 

DeletedUser29152

Guest
I hate sniping though here....cyth is my first Conquest world and when I realised that players can send troops away and when they return they attack your siege. And in revolt worlds its true that you mainly attack small players and ghosts to get cities because they give less of a fight
 

DeletedUser9465

Guest
Hmm... not really. And what I see on this server from most alliances, smaller one included, has nothing to do with being smart, but only with planting a CS when the target is offline. Of course, finding when an active player is off line might be challenging but is not fun for me personally. I do agree that conquest could be much more entertaining and challenging due to its various options of sniping and due to the fact that you really can defend great using attack units to back snipe but this is not how it is played now. Conquest used to be a great system once but now is no longer the case, at least not in my opinion. And to think revolt doesn't need strategy is a mistake. It needs different kind of strategy and only if you use good strategy you can take cities from a good active player. And no offence intended Kudiwa, but it is not true that in revolt you mainly attack small players or ghosts. Truly entertaining is to attack and take cities from big players. Indeed, in conquest it's easier for a smaller player to take a city from a bigger player if he/she finds him offline. Then, with his alliance help, the smaller player can stack the siege to the roof making it impossible for the bigger player to break it. But don't forget, the bigger player never had a chance to really defend or use his/her skills... he lost only because he/she was offline (true for any offline target, of course, not only for the bigger ones).

Also, and now I am answering to Fadiga, teamwork is really needed on revolt servers as much as it's needed on the conquest servers but the big difference I've noticed is that on revolt servers it really is used a lot more than on the conquest ones. Except those situations when one alliance is sending defense to protect a siege or to attack offline targets (???) I didn't see much team work at all on Cythera (though I've seen a lot more of it on Pi). And real team work means to coordinate both in defense and in offense and to participate in big operations on multiple enemy targets that are online. This is what makes this game entertaining for me and not finding offline times of otherwise active players. And of course, if it is the duty of the alliance on conquest servers to defend a player when he is offline, it is also the duty of the alliance on revolt servers to do the same for its offline players. The difference lies in the fact that on conquest servers, if the attacking team is at least decent, it will land its clearing attacks, its CS attack and the support for siege in a matter of seconds making it very hard if not downright impossible for the defending team to break the siege on its offline player, while on revolt server the defending team has a much better chance to defend its offline player. At the end of the day it is probably only a matter of taste or choice. I most certainly prefer the revolt system, though I am aware it has its own shortcomings, but I am sure many prefer the conquest one. What is fun for some might not be so for others and what is dull for others might not be so for some.

@ Petrilo - the multiple and the fake CS tactics are and have to be used on revolt servers as well against better players.... this is in no way specific to conquest servers at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skiboot

Phrourach
I think both systems have their merits and at the end of the day it's about personal style.

First of all I will be honest and say that I have mainly played revolt servers and that my preference is definitely for revolt, but I started my Grepo career on a world speed 1, Unit speed 3 conquest server.

I likened the way I see conquest being played now recently to a mugging. Basically you sneak up on your intended victim and smash him over the head while he's not looking. While he's unconscious you tie him up and by the time he comes around his possessions have been stolen. It's a bit simplistic I know but actually not too far from how most cities are taken. I have to agree with Robbyn that for me there is little satisfaction or sense of achievement for me in taking a city in this way. On a revolt world - you usually know when the fight starts (when the revolt goes red) and personally there is a great thrill to knowing that your enemy is waiting for you and that a battle is about to begin.

I also do see a lot of snobbery from conquest players about the revolt system which I think is a shame. If you have ever played revolt to a very high level then you would know that it has its own set of intricacies and strategies that are just as complex as some of those used on conquest servers.

Ultimately I still believe it depends how you get your kicks as to which you will prefer.
 

DeletedUser29152

Guest
And no offence intended Kudiwa, but it is not true that in revolt you mainly attack small players or ghosts.

Well in ALL of the revolt world i have been in a joined on the rim so it was either i bottom feed or face strong alliances like HARPOON at the start until i find an alliance...but I guess we just play differently XD

and @Fadiga "Its task for alliance to defence player when he is offline" if you're lucky with some players you manage to catch them offline twice and kill 2 CS ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser21320

Guest
- Big vs small, fighting against active online player

On conquest servers it is possible for smaller alliances to fight against the bigger and actually take cities from them, of course if they are smart enough, fast enough... good enough. You just need to land the CS and give your guys enough time to stack the city (as usual start sending supp some time before CS landing, land CS when target is off or be smart with the target that is online - send fake CS, send multiple fake CS, send multiple real CS but real support to just one... However, everyone prefers to go for it when the player is offline, yes. Overall it's the easiest way. Do I like it - no. Basically it comes down to hunting players off time. But, if the way to override this and force players to fight in their active time is to strip the lil' guy his god given right to take the city from the big guy, I'll just pass.

This is actually a question. I have never played a revolt server. This thread made me curious so I've done a little reading and draw some conclusions. Smaller sized alliances can't fight the big ones. Giving 12 hr heads up to the big alliances doesn't work well for them, big can stack that and just laugh at your attempt. You can be smart as much as you want but you are screwed if you are small. Is this true or I am missing something?

This is a bit of a fallacy, you can quite easily combat for size advantage and stacking in a revolt server by revolting more cities. You revolt 12 cities, take the wall in all of them then you probe to find a weakness and take a city or 2 cheaply where possible. Seems far more strategic than "Oh, this guy is offline, let's take all his cities"
 
Top