Top 12 Sink or Swim

  • Thread starter DeletedUser54029
  • Start date
Rachel.L

Rachel.L

Phrourach
Kal Gordon said:
So you have a bunch of 'friends' that you are happy to go break sieges for, but they aren't pacts? You may as well pact if you are going to be helping each other break sieges, especially when some of those sieges aren't even in your territory. You had to go out of your way to get them. You're getting friendly with basically anyone in the North who will fight us.
Click to expand...

currently not fighting on or against any of your teams, so this is just a plausible suggestion, kal

i've been playing a long time, many worlds, and i have friends in the game (yeah, real friends)
sometimes they play for a team that is an "enemy" of my alliance
i don't participate in ops on them and if a siege is mounted against them, not involving my alliance/ pact-mates, i help to break it
this is not aiding the enemy or coordinating with them, and it is sanctioned/ known to alliance leaders (both sides)
in every world, in every alliance, i have known multiple members who have had personal relationships they handled in such a manner
it doesn't mean pacts, naps, or anything nefarious between alliances since these are individuals acting

just a thought....
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
Rachel.L said:
currently not fighting on or against any of your teams, so this is just a plausible suggestion, kal

i've been playing a long time, many worlds, and i have friends in the game (yeah, real friends)
sometimes they play for a team that is an "enemy" of my alliance
i don't participate in ops on them and if a siege is mounted against them, not involving my alliance/ pact-mates, i help to break it
this is not aiding the enemy or coordinating with them, and it is sanctioned/ known to alliance leaders (both sides)
in every world, in every alliance, i have known multiple members who have had personal relationships they handled in such a manner
it doesn't mean pacts, naps, or anything nefarious between alliances since these are individuals acting

just a thought....
Click to expand...

I agree Rachel, and it is a valid point. I've seen things happen similar to how you described on multiple worlds. The reason that I said it as I did, is that it isn't just one or two players from each alliance helping each other. It's multiple players from their alliance helping multiple different players in the Jesters alliance family. At first I thought it was just a friend thing when one or two attacked a siege on a Jesters member in 43. But when it started happening more, with lots of different players involved, that's when it seemed more like a pact. And I'd need to check, but I am pretty sure that an ex-member of the Jesters family told me that they were friendly with Simmerville. You do have a good point, it's just that it happened a bit differently to that. (Sorry if I misled people with the initial description of it).
 
Rachel.L

Rachel.L

Phrourach
as i said, kal, not involved with either/ any of the groups you mentioned so idk specifics
it could be a pact (not saying it is, don't yell at me ppl) that no one wants to admit or it could be nothing
was just giving another pov
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
I understand. That's why I said it was a good point, just not the explanation in this case. They don't seem to want to admit to being even vaguely friendly to anyone (except their former sister alliance WGUF), which is the funny part for me.

Good luck in OWS. Seems you lot are doing very well. :)
 
Rachel.L

Rachel.L

Phrourach
understand
from my perspective, the truth always comes out, whatever it is, so ppl should just be up front

the ows group is doing well atm, and i'm sure they appreciate your support but afraid i can't claim association
small crew in a sea of enemies and frenemies just trying to hold our own
 

DeletedUser54792

Guest
It is always amazing to see how things change week by week. And it is good to see that at least some of the people with good senses of humor are still here. I think it is time for another Sink or Swim. Not by me of course, I'm too lazy for that. :p
 

DeletedUser4278

Guest
Sorry i have taken so long to respond kal i have been busy but now if you will just give me 5 mins to prove you wrong that would be great :p

Kal Gordon said:
1) I notice that you avoided the point that Ianmiyster got it completely wrong (or lied) about the nature of the ban. Nice dodge on that. ;)
Click to expand...
So your saying im lying about the attackable ban which occoured just after Ra Xy joined us. Below you can see here 5 days no ABP and no point for the last 3 days ( i believe building ques still continue while banned) He was banned i believe from the 20th untill the 24th. Having joined simmers on the 19th (a local site near you)

http://prntscr.com/fb8q5e

You can see a little -1 which is cities lost to a dyames manuel at 2017-04-24 15:31:14. So he was in VM and he was attackable. So im unsure if your lying in denial or just plain unobservant (all highly possible). but the nature of the ban was attackable you guys just didn't capitalise.


And sorry to go over the revised score (wrong once already i believe) but what about all the cities we have taken via recruitment when Ra Xy joined he had 32 when loli joined he had 49 cities and jusbfy had 20 or 22 not sure so lets low end estimate at another 101 cities going from the OSG family to simmer vile so i would make the actual score at:

OSG 4 vs simmerville 152

unless my math is wrong somewhere?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54192

Guest
Your own screenshot shows something that is pretty good backup for my point that Raxy's ban was non-attackable: look at how he has 0 DBP for 3 consecutive days. Now, if someone in Simmerville had an attackable ban for 5 days, I am pretty sure that they would be getting at least a few DBP each day, right? He wouldn't have had 0 troops and no heroes in every city for those 3 days, so any attacks would have got him at least a few DBP.

I know his ban was non-attackable, because I checked by trying to send an attack, and it came up with that red banner explaining that you can't attack that player because they are banned. And I think his ban started on the 19th, which would bring him out of it at some point on the 24th, enabling his city to be conquered.

Multiple people tried to attack during his ban, and we all got that little red banner informing us that his ban was non-attackable.

I haven't checked the intel sites, so I don't know the exact number of conquests. I do know that you are winning. But I have also never seen someone include cities gained by defection in their number of conquests. Those aren't cities that were taken by force. They were gained when a player switched sides. You are winning on conquests, yes. But to say you have taken 152 cities is misleading. You have not conquered 152 cities. And conquers are what are used to define the score between two alliances.

So yes, your maths is wrong, because you added in a bunch of cities which don't count for the score, because the score between alliances is that of conquests.
 

DeletedUser20914

Guest
Kal its my turn now to ask you to take your personal arguments/issues to the trash talk tab,
this is swim or sink tab, remember ?

life is a wheel
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
At least it was to do with conquest scores and issues between two top alliances, Roni. You and Electrico was just a string of personal insults, when you were way outside of the Top 12 alliances. :)
 

DeletedUser54661

Guest
Kal Gordon said:
2) Not crazily aggressive towards every alliance around. For example, some of your players actively avoiding hitting members of Timber Wolves for a while, even when perfectly positioned to do so. (I've seen the evidence of one of your players saying as much).
Click to expand...


Really? Why not just come out and say "Klaim and TSL joined Simmers and won't attack old alliance mates"? Kal.. I lead the damn wolves. The least I could do is not out right attacking them after letting the alliance fail. It's called gd respect and loyalty. Just like I won't attack Kitnstar or Hunk007 in OSG. Or Kaybar in Bald Crew. Jesus, Kal.. it's only been a month. Some of these players I've been friends with since day one. You don't think I openly told Simmers as much when I joined? The rest of the Simmers are free to do what they wish without so much as a peep from me, I just refuse to assist.


Edit*

And sorry Roni for keeping this off the tracks.. but that quote was personal. It needed to be said, and unfortunately I didn't see it sooner as I dont check here often since this place is usually dead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54192

Guest
I guessed you had said so, based on what I heard from some ex-Wolves. Because I was trying not to drag names into it. It may have been a poor example, I can agree on that. (Although I think TSL was discriminating between those still in Wolves and those of his teammates who moved to OSG.) Maybe I mistook it in your particular case. I've seen plenty of examples of people changing sides and then going after their old alliance-mates, and I've seen it on every server that I've played on, so changing sides and attacking old teammates seems to be the norm to me. (I haven't been in the situation where I could fight a team I'd worked with for a long time, so never had to make that decision myself). (Minus Selymbria, as I don't think it's had time to happen yet). But the point would still stand with other examples, such as Jesters.

Sorry Roni. Still, at least it is between Top 12 alliances. ;)
 

DeletedUser54661

Guest
Can someone please do a sink or swim post? :) I'd do it, but I haven't played enough and feel I wouldn't do it any justice. This thread is one of the sole reasons I ever come on the boards... sadly this server seems lacking with it :(
 

DeletedUser54192

Guest
I agree. Unfortunately, if a world doesn't have lots of major changes, the Top 12 thread starts to die. The last two actual major changes I can think of were the fall of Stay Cool, and the merge between S.T.O.R.M. and Modern Warfare, to make Unpleasant Dream. I think there has been a Top 12 since SC's fall, but not once since the formation of Unpleasant Dream. (Which was a change, but nowhere near as major as the fall of SC, in my opinion, just due to how much of an effect it had on the server as a whole). So unless we start seeing a few more changes occurring, I think this thread will continue to drift.
 

DeletedUser20914

Guest
Klaim147 said:
Really? Why not just come out and say "Klaim and TSL joined Simmers and won't attack old alliance mates"? Kal.. I lead the damn wolves. The least I could do is not out right attacking them after letting the alliance fail. It's called gd respect and loyalty. Just like I won't attack Kitnstar or Hunk007 in OSG. Or Kaybar in Bald Crew. Jesus, Kal.. it's only been a month. Some of these players I've been friends with since day one. You don't think I openly told Simmers as much when I joined? The rest of the Simmers are free to do what they wish without so much as a peep from me, I just refuse to assist.


Edit*

And sorry Roni for keeping this off the tracks.. but that quote was personal. It needed to be said, and unfortunately I didn't see it sooner as I dont check here often since this place is usually dead.
Click to expand...

No worries bro, this was sorta personal between me and Kal, since he tried to stop me once before...
 

DeletedUser54494

Guest
Sad to see how Roni is just trolling externals coz he cant do anything. S.T.O.R.M can be found in a ditch now lol.

You hurt your neck while looking down on us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top