Why would anyone indy this round?
Huge boost to tower defenses and troop defenses.
Indy = easy land for leader grabs.
Any lizard with towers up and 30% land built in huts would be unbreakable. It's not hard to defend against leaders. At the very least you would have you waste yourself with suicides and murders before you got in. You might be able to use attack for the first bit... but after you take a bit of their land they're locked up tight.
0.8 hours ago Your Leaders were defeated by Division (#7) and you lost 306 Acres of Land! You lost 24377 Leaders, but you managed to kill 36814 of your attacker's Leaders. X 15
70% percent of my land built as leaders.
Your theory would work except for the fact leader attacks kill the defenders leaders.
Time to Revolt to Stoat.
Peace I nearly signed up yesterday but I know I'll lose interest after like 3-4runs :P
I want to try a lizard some time. Just can't be bothered now.
hmmm
lizard sounds like fun
i try
and isn't Sevz high risk? he was the only one talking about being Lizard a few weeks ago...
Quote from: Daryn on October 05, 2009, 08:27:01 PM
and isn't Sevz high risk? he was the only one talking about being Lizard a few weeks ago...
Redwall: Warlords > Discussion >
Turbo Discussion > Post reply ( Re: New here names Shadowforce )
Daryn is a spammer, what else is there to say?
And playing Indy in this code is stupid, but I needed to do it in order to break the blockage.
only because i let you Juska
shadow had no resources, curios to see what he does next run if he can't get land easy
Meh, after being onlined three runs in a row I still managed to break, and that wasn't because anyone let me. Only reason you broke in the first place was because you onlined. I doubt I'll be able to keep it up much longer though - midterm weeks are coming. Also, this topic is going to get split since we are no longer on this topic.
Quote from: Juska on September 30, 2009, 08:09:43 PM
Why would anyone indy this round?
Huge boost to tower defenses and troop defenses.
Indy = easy land for leader grabs.
Ok, answer me this. When arent land grabs from indys easy for leaders? They always are, so whats the difference? Even with a big defense bonus a good indy can still break any leader player.
The Point Alazar is this:
Because of the Huge Boost to Troop Defenses and the lack of a boost to Leader Defenses it is now much easier for a leader player to go unbreakable in comparison to before and at the same time it is no easier for an Indy to go unbroken because leaders hardly ever hit them with troop attacks anyway.
Yes, a good indy can break any leader player, as I did early in the set by breaking Division.
Quotebecause leaders hardly ever hit them with troop attacks anyway.
Untrue. A leader player will ALWAYS hit with troops if the option is there. Hitting with leaders has a very negative impact on a run, especially if the leaderer is not a stoat.
It is much easier for an indier to go unbroken because they can use more towers without impacting their leaders, and towers can make a big difference in leader defense if the defender has more land than the attacker. It's the nature of leader attack math.
You only broke me at the start because Sevah had onlined me the run before ^_^ Without that land freed, you wouldn't have been able to make those troops. Not that you didn't do well to do it, but just saying.
Sorry, when I said a leader will not hit an indy with troops what I meant is that a leader will not put effort into breaking a well-rounded defense if they can just leader attack.
Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda. Didn't.
Still not really true. I would rather spend 20b on troops to break an indy than sacrafice a ratio, espcially toward the end of a roun when leader players have resources to defend. You'll see lots of leader attacks toward the start of a round when they don't have the cash to do anything else, not so much near the end though.
So at the end of the round after leader players have Looted or Goldmined 500+ billion cash on land that they got from indies through leader attacks they spare some to actually break indies and that serves to prove your point.
This round, I have only leader attacked one person. Leaders as a rule do not use leader attacks, it just isn't worth it. And although I say you see it less at the end of the round, that doesnt mean that it is by any means common at any time in the round.
I've taken 82 Leader Attacks compared to 3 troop attacks over the past 19 hours.
and how are the people who did it faring as far as netting goes? ^_^
Juska your argument=fail.
Oh I dunno about that Ally. I've attacked for land with leaders more than a few times. Of course my land is usually absurdly low at the beginning of my run, so I'll be losing a bunch of leaders anyway. Today for example, I started on 11k land. So I leader attacked Brick by Brick 21 times, built huts, earned loyalty, and still made 40 bil cash and 3 bil food. I have 334 mil NW at present, Shadow, which puts me in 5th place. :)
Alazar your lack of argument = fail.
If you don't have any sort of evidence or useful thought to aid to the discussion then please do not post.
What empire are you even anyway? Probably #43 the Indy who pure one stacks.
as far as the excuse, you were only broken because i onlined you Shadow, you were onlining me at that point, i had the resources to take you out anytime but as my ingame messages said, i wanted to work with you and i was trying to get us both locking
as far as it goes with leader attacks, not a good way to get land, it makes your leaders power finish on 100% far later in the run and cuts profit by heaps
defensive empires are always gonna get taken over in fast servers
I didn't online you and you know it, but it's a moot point now.
i was online before you started running turns, during you running turns and after you got beat up
your making me sound like a dirty player that needed to online attack when i was just retaliating at the time because i didn't like watching you attack me
do you remember me trying to work as a 2 man team for about 4 days beforehand? i had plenty of time and resources prior
It is only an online attack if the guy getting hit is running turns. I made sure you weren't running turns before I attacked, so it wasn't an online attack.
I wasn't interested in teaming up, as I explained to you. Now it really doesn't matter at this point anyway.
Quote from: Juska on October 17, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
Alazar your lack of argument = fail.
If you don't have any sort of evidence or useful thought to aid to the discussion then please do not post.
What empire are you even anyway? Probably #43 the Indy who pure one stacks.
Are you blind? Dude seriously, leader players will ALWAYS break indy players with leaders. Indy Players will ALWAYS break leader players with troops. I have done this so many times, the defense obviously makes it a little harder, but saying that there is no point in playing indy is just stupid.
Troop Attacks is way better for a leader player, they will ALWAYS use troops first(at least the smart ones). Idk if you have ever played a leader strat but leaders are crucial and you don't want to have to destroy most of them everyone run and start building them back up from scratch.
That enough for you? Probably not cause you will just sit and argue your point til the end of time cause your head is to duck thick. Have fun with it.
You could have posted that without swearing. Please do that next time.
Also, you just argued both sides of the point...
Anyway, I usually attack with troops before leaders, if at all possible. If the person I'm going after either has to many troops for me to break profitably, then I may leader attack, because I'll probably still make more money from the land I get than I would if had shelled out for the troops I needed and not sacrificed the ratio. This current round, there have been a few times where I knew even if I spent all my cash, I might not be able to break, and so I hit with leaders. But as a rule, I attack with troops before leaders, even against well-rounded defenses.
Quote from: Shadow on October 18, 2009, 08:51:30 AM
You could have posted that without swearing. Please do that next time.
Oops, happens sometimes. But don't be so hypocritical cause there are many that i see that you swear in as well.
Quote from: Gen. Volkov on October 18, 2009, 02:09:16 PM
Also, you just argued both sides of the point...
Anyway, I usually attack with troops before leaders, if at all possible. If the person I'm going after either has to many troops for me to break profitably, then I may leader attack, because I'll probably still make more money from the land I get than I would if had shelled out for the troops I needed and not sacrificed the ratio. This current round, there have been a few times where I knew even if I spent all my cash, I might not be able to break, and so I hit with leaders. But as a rule, I attack with troops before leaders, even against well-rounded defenses.
I know I argued both sides, and good debater knows that you have to give in to valid points in the opposing argument.
And Ditto, troops are far easier and more efficient to use if at all possible.
QuoteI know I argued both sides, and good debater knows that you have to give in to valid points in the opposing argument.
And Ditto, troops are far easier and more efficient to use if at all possible.
Yes, you have to acknowledge both sides, but you also have to make a point. You never did. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs.
QuoteOops, happens sometimes. But don't be so hypocritical cause there are many that i see that you swear in as well.
The difference is that my swears are minor, and don't refer to other players. At the very least, limit your swears to generality, not insulting people. That's where it becomes a problem.
Sorry this may be off topic but i think a swear is a swear no matter where you put it.
There is no such think as a minor swear.
Quote from: Gen. Volkov on October 19, 2009, 01:34:27 PM
QuoteI know I argued both sides, and good debater knows that you have to give in to valid points in the opposing argument.
And Ditto, troops are far easier and more efficient to use if at all possible.
Yes, you have to acknowledge both sides, but you also have to make a point. You never did. You just rambled for 3 paragraphs.
Read it again, my point was that it is always more beneficial for leader players to attack with troops first.
Quote from: Shadow on October 19, 2009, 04:52:32 PM
QuoteOops, happens sometimes. But don't be so hypocritical cause there are many that i see that you swear in as well.
The difference is that my swears are minor, and don't refer to other players. At the very least, limit your swears to generality, not insulting people. That's where it becomes a problem.
And where did I insult him with a swear word? No where.
Quotecause your head is to [wash my mouth out!!!] thick.
Lol, that's pretty clear.
Anyway, point is, just don't do it.
QuoteRead it again, my point was that it is always more beneficial for leader players to attack with troops first.
Well you made it poorly then.
Didn't I already concede that if given an easy hole leaders will always attack with troops before using leaders? If not I give it to you now.
The inherent problem is that they won't ever work to break you with troops (some of them may like Shadow who apparently plays in a way to perfectly defeat all of my examples and yet I never see any evidence of it in game, at least I've seen Volkov murder indies to break them with troops.)
It still doesn't change the fact that the possibilities of going solo unbroken as a leader are much higher than they were previous, whereas the possibilities of going solo unbroken as an indy did not change, which is inherently unfair. My entire point is that it should also be harder to break leaders with leaders.
Alazar I have played as a leader many times, many of them on other servers because I enjoy playing different strategies. Have you ever run a successful farmer or casher (as in none-magic farming and cashing), how about a reseller or farm-indy hybrid?
If you know I'm going to continue to argue my point why do you even reply?
Quote from: Juska on October 20, 2009, 10:23:16 PM
Didn't I already concede that if given an easy hole leaders will always attack with troops before using leaders? If not I give it to you now.
The inherent problem is that they won't ever work to break you with troops (some of them may like Shadow who apparently plays in a way to perfectly defeat all of my examples and yet I never see any evidence of it in game, at least I've seen Volkov murder indies to break them with troops.)
It still doesn't change the fact that the possibilities of going solo unbroken as a leader are much higher than they were previous, whereas the possibilities of going solo unbroken as an indy did not change, which is inherently unfair. My entire point is that it should also be harder to break leaders with leaders.
Alazar I have played as a leader many times, many of them on other servers because I enjoy playing different strategies. Have you ever run a successful farmer or casher (as in none-magic farming and cashing), how about a reseller or farm-indy hybrid?
If you know I'm going to continue to argue my point why do you even reply?
Yes I have run those strats, not here at rwl though.
Cause i love to get people all torqued up, and I like to debate/argue. So now you know that I am going to continue to argu my point, why would you even reply?
You do not argue because you never add anything to the debate that is supported.
Quote from: Juska on October 23, 2009, 09:31:04 AM
You do not argue because you never add anything to the debate that is supported.
Ugh, *holds back obscenities*
If i was to add something that was supported than there is no reason for an arguement. Read your post :P
Juska has a very valid point
in 1 solo run, an indy cannot possible generate the base difference of leaders between itself and a wolf, Wolf having plus 30% and rat having minus 40% (high level players vs eachother)
10k land at 100% ratio=wolf 1,300,000 vs rat 600,000
The leaderer's massive advantage, +50% defense to troops, 4x defense towers, wolf has good defense, them towers become pretty darn powerful and no opening attack ops to counteract the fails from others
My point is, unless the indy gets the first run and knows how to foil there's no point sending a cripple into battle
So, the round ends tomorrow. Is there any chance of Turbo being working again before then? I would rather like to get a last run in, and perhaps spend some cash, so as to try and win the round.
We're working around the clock to fulfill your order. Please remember, here at Redwall: Warlords we appreciate the customer, you, and will do our best to serve your needs. If you have any further questions please feel free to open a ticket with our free 24 hour Help Desk service, located outside of reality.
- Peace Alliance
ahaha, no but seriously we're workin on it. I think what I'll do is guarantee that there will be at least 24 hours after the games are restored before we reset. Hopefully givin y'all enough time. This ain't that bad, at first we thought we'd lost /everything/... Games would have been wiped, and nobody would have even remembered how i got my butt handed to me on reg!
Quote from: Sevz on October 27, 2009, 01:28:03 PM
Redwall admin aren't too bad, PeaceAlliance makes me laugh, Windy chills me out and Shael's smokin hot, your a good team. Pity nothing gets done, you guys are as useful as bluehost
60minute maintenance in progress. (+20 hours remaining)
ROTFLMFAO
don't work too hard
AHAHAHHAHA
no offense intended
Sevz in Boredom Mode
How many days do you think this is gonna take?
*Windy is a Mod* And WolfBite is the other admin!
Quoteahaha, no but seriously we're workin on it. I think what I'll do is guarantee that there will be at least 24 hours after the games are restored before we reset. Hopefully givin y'all enough time. This ain't that bad, at first we thought we'd lost /everything/... Games would have been wiped, and nobody would have even remembered how i got my butt handed to me on reg!
LOL. Right. Sounds good, do keep us posted on the progress.
You know, I doubt Shael gets much of a kick about that kind of thing from strangers online. Keep it to yourselves unless you are sure...
Ahaha! Shadow's right...usually I find that kind of thing creepy, but the context Sevz put it in made it amusing.
i removed my comment
thanks for the feedback, last thing i wanna do offend Miss Shael
honestly, i think Shadow might be hiding something
no one else got jealous
Quote from: Sevz on October 27, 2009, 10:12:03 PM
i removed my comment
thanks for the feedback, last thing i wanna do offend Miss Shael
honestly, i think Shadow might be hiding something
no one else got jealous
Word!! Lol
(Shael is pretty, nothing wrong with complementing her, not gonna go all insane about it though lol)