Originally Posted by
Proteus
My argument was SWEA has no reason to be cocky or to think they are good. They do not have an established record of doing well on any stage. Do you know what the term is in sports when someone unexpected/new/not-that-good wins something, they call it "an upset." They do not call it "ownage" or say the person making the upset is "better." Back to my example in tennis when Federer or Nadal lose in the early rounds to a much lower ranked player, it is an upset and it can happen..NO ONE will ever say that lower ranked player is BETTER than federer/nadal. One-off things happen all the time. Why are Federer and Nadal better? Their record. They have many titles and win/make finals consistently. If the person who upset them wants to become established as being better than that person needs to beat Federer/Nadal consistently or atleast win the grand slam while someon else beats federer/nadal. SWEA has no consistent history of beating top kingdoms nor do they have a history of crowning. Therefore SWEA can't say they are "BETTER" than kingdoms with a stronger record (AMA/BB/Havoc/Sanc/Rage). The other point is pewpew donated acres to SWEA to spite AMA. This was done by pewpew hitting outside of war instead of hitting SWEA, everyone knows this was not a legitimate war but a intenntional farmout to shape the charts.
The other point is it is easier to join a good kingdom that has a strong record than making one from scratch and doing the same thing. However, in both cases the person leading the kingdom regardless if it is new/old gets credit for leadership that results in success. When you join an established kd as a leader its usually because the old leaders scale back or retires. Every good kd has a good active core, its a given but when two kds fight who have good active cores its leadership plans/strategies that make the difference. You can't crown every age but being in the top3 places every age is obviously not "average" or "bad" its good. Yes people want to win gold in the olympics but winning bronze and standing on the podium is a big achievement. You do realize that everyone JOINS something right. I don't see you knocking flogger for *joining* Pulse instead of starting it and using that shell to make BB. You arent knocking trollfags for reforming new kingdoms with the exact same core of players+ leadership and doing well. Furthermore, in business you think when a company hires a new CEO just because it is an existing company rather than a start up a CEO wont get credit for profitability? Look at Apple, it is one of the greatest companies out there but whoever runs it has a huge task filling the shoes of Jobs and continuing that streak of innovation. Whoever becomes a president or congressmen or other elected official is obviously a joke too right since they did not start their own country. That argument makes no sense. Its harder to create something from scratch than join something regardless of what it is but it does not mean that joining an existing entity (kd, company, political body) and doing well is a joke.
So yeah running the same existing kingdom for 2 years and winning versus non-Abs and having only 1 war loss in 2 years while ending T3 every age is a good achievement. There are better ones like winning B2B crowns but face it majority of people who play do not have such achievements. I'd rather win a few crowns (prov, kd land, kd nw, etc.) and end T3 every age and have a strong winning record against all non-Absalom kingdoms than crown one time in questionable circumstances and never do it again. If SWEA gets blown out by the kigndoms they talked **** against this age everyone is going to believe last age was a fluke because if SWEA was better, SWEA would beat these kingdoms CONSISTENTLY.
Oh and yeah, I dont really use the logic of "if I dont like someone I am superior to them." I use record. I think baka is bad and look down on him but I can say so because of record. We farmed his cows 3x when he put them up and they were played by different players like himself, kygal, flogger, hint. We never lost in war to them and even farmed them to 50% our NW. Yes, I dont like baka because he dealbreaks, talks abig game but has never backed it up as he always ended up ****playing us and losing 1v1 but he is not good because I dislike him, he is not good due to the record I mention above.
There you go here is an unbiased post, I am doing this as an experience, if you ignore facts and spew some more bs ill just stop replying to you which will prove to all you do not consider facts and look at bull****.
If you want to make a valid case tell me why 1) I can't use record of beating someone over and over again like baka to say they are bad. 2) Why joining an existing kd and becoming its main leaders when its former leaders (in my case zoot/asf/ata) all take a back seat and stop leading and having good results is not a worthy achievement, if you look at the majority of kingdoms out there were pumped with new leadership over the years rather than be created (unless you consider mergers between 2 good kingdoms or remakes with same player/leader base "new"). 3) Why SWEA is better than any of the kingdoms I mentioned above when they do not have a record of consistently beating such kingdoms or crowning but the kingdoms they claim to be better than do.
If your argument holds water, than Rage as you call it should continue its T3 run and nearly perfect war record with me no longer there. Hoh who lost half of its leadership should also continue its t3 run as well. These are both existing kingdoms and anyone who joins them should be able to lead them and get the same results. Right?
Use facts if you can.
Reply With Quote
