Beast Blood VS Emeriti

[AquaSeaFoam]

Uuuh?

I would say the closest analogy to cards in utopia would be province stats.

[AquaSeaFoam]

He cries about Sheister writing propaganda and then all he does is doing propaganda for Emeriti in every post he makes.


That is also rich.

But I didn't cry about Sheister's propaganda, I just told him that if he was serious about there being a problem there was a simple solution. I'm just having a conversation here with Nesta since Nesta is unavailable by other communications means and according to Sheister, may consider WA messages to be harassment.

[Korp]

But I didn't cry about Sheister's propaganda, I just told him that if he was serious about there being a problem there was a simple solution. I'm just having a conversation here with Nesta since Nesta is unavailable by other communications means and according to Sheister, may consider WA messages to be harassment.

Maybe you type so much propaganda that you cant keep your own lies straight anymore? Its back there in page 40, you clearly complain that Sheister is writing forum propaganda. Ignoring someone isnt a solution thats just pretending there isnt a problem.

[13nesta13]

Utopia isn't poker and you're mistaken if you think the same strategy applies. In poker if you bluff all the way through and still lose the hand, the winner is probably quite happy with taking your money. I think it would be quite unusual in poker to have the game end mid hand to "save" the bluffer. In addition, in utopia, the "cards" are visible to all parties all the time.

In your broken analogy, you reached a point where you knew for certain your cards would not win and you also knew for certain your opponent would not fold. Yet you kept putting more of your own money in the pot (or more accurately directly in your opponent's hand) in hopes of stalling the poker game long enough that the game would get shut down to result in both sides losing their money in an effort to hurt your opponent even at your own expense. This harm you caused has little to no benefit to you in future hands and is much more likely to result in future harm to yourself.

Wrong. Up until eoa minus 3h i felt they might still wd. I basically gave 3 timelines. Eoa-71,eoa-12 (so we can't exit war and ws hit given min eowcf is 12) And eoa-3. Just so they buffed their absolute land and nw and honor (preventing us from ws suicide last tick). Sure it would benefit us more than them if they did that,since they're still stuck on #2 land and honor. But game theory suggests if you stand to benefit $1 and party b benefits $3 you'll still choose that rather than both ending -$1. Of course pure rationality assumed here. Obviously not the case as we all already know. From our perspective we either ended on 165k (no wd) or 195k (wd). There is an incentive to not wd.

Damn my high school economics teacher must be proud of me that I still remember all that was taught in class.

[Proteus]

Nesta let me challenge you to respond to this with logic and not a brush off response.

Your claim: Emeriti did not earn or deserve to crown this age as you so eloquently put it in your wall text post a page or two ago.

So let me challenge you to respond, who was most deserving to and best positioned to crown and based on what criteria?

Facts:
1. Prior to y3-4 it was a 3 man race between Emeriti, BB, and WSK with all three kingdoms in close land position
2. Pyro/BB had set up their cf to end with WSK and Emeriti at the same time, a deal that you yourself had made and agreed to
3. Upon cf expiration BB had noticed WSK and Emeriti had noticed Bb. All noticed happened same tick but Bb noticed 1-2 minutes earlier.
4. Bb stated they did not want to war Emeriti but rather war WSK
6. Emeriti retracted notice to Bb although we did not have to. No clause in our existing deal prevented us noticing you or required us to retract notice. Emeriti could have heavily vultured BB but did not
7. BB gained a lot of acres warring WSK but did not have any GC stocks and much less prepared than Emeriti
8. Emeriti noticed Bb and various members of Bb current and former LS pleaded with Emeriti to cf instead of fighting and gave Emeriti 16k acres for cf
9. After taking free acres for cf from BB, Emeriti retained the #1 land spot for the rest of the age until the last 3 days of war due to war Lang exchange and 6:15 having grown by over 50k acres in a few days time
10. Emeriti gained 37k acres fighting BB in war
11. As a result of war BB dropped from #2 land spot to #4 land. Emeriti only dropped from #1 to #2 due to hit exchange in war and Barcolo going by over 50k

Why BB wasn't most deserving
1. Lost 37k acres in war and 16k acres for a cf deal to Emeriti against their will
2. Remained lower land rank than Emeriti for vast majority of the entire age except for immediately after beating WSK
3. At no point in war against Emeriti was Bb up positive in land
4. BB had avoid two fights with Emeriti earlier in the age, 1) when Emeriti noticed at end of duration CF and you said you wanna fight WSK 2) after you won your WSK fight and offered us free land to cf instead of fighting

6:15
1. Not a crown contender / candidate until last few days of the age until Emeriti and BB locked in war neither side was going to WD from
2. Would not have been positioned to beat Bb or Emeriti in war had they fought 6:15 instead of each other.

So if not Emeriti, based on holistic game play throughout the entire age, who in your opinion was most deserving to crown?

Additionally you received two favors from us this age we were not obligated to give 1) retract cf even though we fairly noticed you at expiration of duration CF at which you QQed because you wanted a fight you felt more confident having, 2) allow you to give acres in lieu of CF instead of just beating you right then and there. Instead of returning this goodwill, you decided to block us.

Also I noticed you pride yourself on #gametheory a lot even though that is something cJ used to say and you appear to be ripping him off. But how does #gametheory allow you to make a cf with your two only competitors that expires at the same time and causes you to give up 16k acres of free land to your #1 competitor? Also what does #gametheory say about creating enemies for no reason with a kingdom that has consistently beaten you the past 4 ages, #gametheory would say its harder for you to crown now. Also why would we WD at eoa-3 when 1) we were winning and farming, thus giving you an unearned WW, 2) WD would not result in us winning land crown.

[Pillz]

Nesta let me challenge you to respond to this with logic and not a brush off response.

Your claim: Emeriti did not earn or deserve to crown this age as you so eloquently put it in your wall text post a page or two ago.

So let me challenge you to respond, who was most deserving to and best positioned to crown and based on what criteria?

Facts:
1. Prior to y3-4 it was a 3 man race between Emeriti, BB, and WSK with all three kingdoms in close land position
2. Pyro/BB had set up their cf to end with WSK and Emeriti at the same time, a deal that you yourself had made and agreed to
3. Upon cf expiration BB had noticed WSK and Emeriti had noticed Bb. All noticed happened same tick but Bb noticed 1-2 minutes earlier.
4. Bb stated they did not want to war Emeriti but rather war WSK
6. Emeriti retracted notice to Bb although we did not have to. No clause in our existing deal prevented us noticing you or required us to retract notice. Emeriti could have heavily vultured BB but did not
7. BB gained a lot of acres warring WSK but did not have any GC stocks and much less prepared than Emeriti
8. Emeriti noticed Bb and various members of Bb current and former LS pleaded with Emeriti to cf instead of fighting and gave Emeriti 16k acres for cf
9. After taking free acres for cf from BB, Emeriti retained the #1 land spot for the rest of the age until the last 3 days of war due to war Lang exchange and 6:15 having grown by over 50k acres in a few days time
10. Emeriti gained 37k acres fighting BB in war
11. As a result of war BB dropped from #2 land spot to #4 land. Emeriti only dropped from #1 to #2 due to hit exchange in war and Barcolo going by over 50k

Why BB wasn't most deserving
1. Lost 37k acres in war and 16k acres for a cf deal to Emeriti against their will
2. Remained lower land rank than Emeriti for vast majority of the entire age except for immediately after beating WSK
3. At no point in war against Emeriti was Bb up positive in land
4. BB had avoid two fights with Emeriti earlier in the age, 1) when Emeriti noticed at end of duration CF and you said you wanna fight WSK 2) after you won your WSK fight and offered us free land to cf instead of fighting

6:15
1. Not a crown contender / candidate until last few days of the age until Emeriti and BB locked in war neither side was going to WD from
2. Would not have been positioned to beat Bb or Emeriti in war had they fought 6:15 instead of each other.

So if not Emeriti, based on holistic game play throughout the entire age, who in your opinion was most deserving to crown?

Additionally you received two favors from us this age we were not obligated to give 1) retract cf even though we fairly noticed you at expiration of duration CF at which you QQed because you wanted a fight you felt more confident having, 2) allow you to give acres in lieu of CF instead of just beating you right then and there. Instead of returning this goodwill, you decided to block us.

Also I noticed you pride yourself on #gametheory a lot even though that is something cJ used to say and you appear to be ripping him off. But how does #gametheory allow you to make a cf with your two only competitors that expires at the same time and causes you to give up 16k acres of free land to your #1 competitor? Also what does #gametheory say about creating enemies for no reason with a kingdom that has consistently beaten you the past 4 ages, #gametheory would say its harder for you to crown now. Also why would we WD at eoa-3 when 1) we were winning and farming, thus giving you an unearned WW, 2) WD would not result in us winning land crown.

I like all this talk from Abs about how BB has made it harder for themselves to crown in the future... but obviously what has already happened is that Emeriti has made it harder for themselves instead, as evidenced by Age 71.

[AquaSeaFoam]

Maybe you type so much propaganda that you cant keep your own lies straight anymore? Its back there in page 40, you clearly complain that Sheister is writing forum propaganda. Ignoring someone isnt a solution thats just pretending there isnt a problem.

I looked back and it turns out that my quoted reply was indeed an accurate description of my post. Perhaps you need to re-read.

Wrong. Up until eoa minus 3h i felt they might still wd.

Then you greatly misjudged and are ignoring a significant part of equation. A wd was never even a 1% consideration for Emeriti at that time. Emeriti was clearly dominating the war. Flogger was pushing for you to wd (so he could continue to advertise that BB plays fair and deserves a fair chance to win). Protector, and mod had both promised that BB would wd if it was clear that you could not win. If you wd as promised and as you rightfully should have, then Emeriti wins the age. If Emeiti wd's, they can not win the age and still finish the same rank as not wd'ing.

But game theory suggests if you stand to benefit $1 and party b benefits $3 you'll still choose that rather than both ending -$1. Of course pure rationality assumed here. Obviously not the case as we all already know. From our perspective we either ended on 165k (no wd) or 195k (wd). There is an incentive to not wd.

You are misrepresenting the situation. BB benefited from withdrawing compared to staying in war certainly the last 3 days of the age if not before. You could have increased the rank you ended by wding sooner. As I stated in my previous post, it was obvious that there was no real chance for Emeriti to wd when they needed the ww to win the age. Either you are trying to play the fool to distract from the fact that you did it purely out of spite, or you misjudged this situation.

[Proteus]

I like all this talk from Abs about how BB has made it harder for themselves to crown in the future... but obviously what has already happened is that Emeriti has made it harder for themselves instead, as evidenced by Age 71.

I'm not a quant but I hope you realize the likelihood of crowning every single age in an uninterrupted streak is very low, right? It has happened only a handful of times in the history of the game and no one has ever 4peated before. The likelihood of us or any kingdom from a pure mathematical odds perspective to crown every single age has a low joint probability ascribed to it, so not having odds on your side is hardly evidence of such. Obviously its a lot easier to crown when no one tries to block you from doing it and when the losing kingdom calls it a day rather than try to influence the charts to make another kd crown when they have failed to do so. But your point is actually not relevant because actually this age, flogger had asked us to retract our notice and at a later time to give BB a cf instead of forcing a fight on them they did not want, to have a fair war later. As ASF pointed out, Emeriti granted BB these circumstances even though we were not bound to do so and the gesture should have resulted in goodwill from the BB side (it did not).

But going back to odds though, I would imagine the kingdom that has had the most crowns and wins against competitors in the top would be the most likely to crown again. Lets assume KD A has a 30% chance to crown and KD B has a 10% chance to crown and blocking introduces a negative variable of 25% into the equation, then Kd A has a 22.5% chance to crown and kd B has a 7.5% chance to crown, so a grudge match between Kd A and Kd B would still result in KD A having a better overall chance. Also your other post ignores the fact that BB has *yet* to crown. If they have not crowned in an era of neutral relations and easy to get CFs, how do these odds stack when someone is deliberately attempting to stop you.

Also Emeriti = / = ABS but I guess that's what trending among you trolls nowadays, call it flavor of the week.

[Pillz]

I'm not a quant but I hope you realize the likelihood of crowning every single age in an uninterrupted streak is very low, right? It has happened only a handful of times in the history of the game and no one has ever 4peated before. The likelihood of us or any kingdom from a pure mathematical odds perspective to crown every single age has a low joint probability ascribed to it, so not having odds on your side is hardly evidence of such. Obviously its a lot easier to crown when no one tries to block you from doing it and when the losing kingdom calls it a day rather than try to influence the charts to make another kd crown when they have failed to do so. But your point is actually not relevant because actually this age, flogger had asked us to retract our notice and at a later time to give BB a cf instead of forcing a fight on them they did not want, to have a fair war later. As ASF pointed out, Emeriti granted BB these circumstances even though we were not bound to do so and the gesture should have resulted in goodwill from the BB side (it did not).

But going back to odds though, I would imagine the kingdom that has had the most crowns and wins against competitors in the top would be the most likely to crown again. Lets assume KD A has a 30% chance to crown and KD B has a 10% chance to crown and blocking introduces a negative variable of 25% into the equation, then Kd A has a 22.5% chance to crown and kd B has a 7.5% chance to crown, so a grudge match between Kd A and Kd B would still result in KD A having a better overall chance. Also your other post ignores the fact that BB has *yet* to crown. If they have not crowned in an era of neutral relations and easy to get CFs, how do these odds stack when someone is deliberately attempting to stop you.

Also Emeriti = / = ABS but I guess that's what trending among you trolls nowadays, call it flavor of the week.

Emeriti repeatedly taxed BB after farming them out in wars.

BB decided to shaft Emeriti by blocking them from crowning this age.

Probability aside, Emeriti absolutely would have 4peated if not for BB's actions - actions which were a result of animosity Emeriti earned from BB's players due to their exploitation of BB when BB was in weak positions following a war loss.

Emeriti were the ones who sabotaged themselves in future ages by overplaying their hand as the dominant kingdom for a relatively long period (3-4 ages). Did BB take the same path, through different means, with last age? Absolutely. But Emeriti got there first and they paid for it.

[Minty]

Protector, and mod had both promised that BB would wd if it was clear that you could not win. If you wd as promised and as you rightfully should have, then Emeriti wins the age.

This statement is just aweful. Promise to WD if it was clear that you could not win? Who the **** are you to decide when a war should "rightfully" be withdrawn. Any KD is entitled to judge for themselves if war cannot be won or not. This sort of arrogance is appaling. Perhaps you should re-think once or twice what you are saying. That yellow username doesn't make you an authority on how other players are supposed to play the game

[Universe]

ASF was responding to the post where a bb leader admitted that they knew they couldn't win and stayed in war anyway so Emeriti wouldn't get the win. Try reading the whole thread before attacking another person over your distorted View of justice.

[Minty]

Read enough BB posts that suggests they didnt feel clearly beaten to have an opinion. And besides, even IF they did it out of spite, Which side is worse? The one that promises in advance to let the opponent win the age if they can't themselves, or the side that complains such a promise wasn't "rightfully" honored. Maybe promised to WD and chose not to, doesn't mean they "rightfully" should have withdrawn. It's in their right to do whatever they like. Maybe they did broke a promise, but that's the extent of their wrongdoing.

[Akkadian/Taylor]

6:15
1. Not a crown contender / candidate until last few days of the age until Emeriti and BB locked in war neither side was going to WD from
2. Would not have been positioned to beat Bb or Emeriti in war had they fought 6:15 instead of each other.

Everyone focuses on the end of the age and say had the age been longer then this or that would have happened instead. I wonder what would have happened if the age was indeed longer and Emeriti (or BB) did win. Would EOWCF + Notice have been enough time for Emeriti (or BB), a kingdom that just got out of a long war and lost their cows, to get ready for another war with a kingdom that hadn't been in in a hostile for several weeks? Interesting thought. The possibilities are endless! Just some food for thought.

[StratOcastle]

You're supposed to set a time limit and who has the most acres by such'n'such time. You could add stuff like built acres, nw of yaw, etc....even bonus ticks.

Someday, when you have enough experience points you'll see all these things.

[Sheister]

Strato,

They would not need experience points if they would stop filing the corners of their D 10's.

Just sayin...