BIO vs ghettocats

[John Snowstorm]

because anyone that ever uses rape in an example even when it's implied to be deplorable is pathetic!

you're retarded.

[WickedL]

If nobody in the top 10 would CF there would still be a crownwinner tho... It would just take a lot more planning and strategical insight. The way things are being done now is just a lot easier, you talk 5 minutes pre age with the rest of the competitors for the networth crown and then you CF them for 70% of the age. No need to worry about planning, politics, strats, ... In my opinion it would be a lot more interesting if people gave up on CF-ing so much. It just strikes me that people are defending this passive playing style by claiming it's the only way to win and that everyone else who doesn't do the same is a clueless newb. The only reason this works out is because you all agree to cf each other, if you didn't do this, nobody would be able to play like that. And let's be honest it's pretty likely that the same kd's would be in the top 10-15 again if people would stop cf-ing each other for 70% of the age.

Btw, I just don't get why some kd's keep joining in this CF-fest because they always lose. For instance (inso, OS, Simians) why do you guys agree with this playingstyle? It's pretty obvious that you guys are weaker in it than kd's like rage, hoh, ... It seems like you guys are happy with a 4th, 5th place every age....

[LukYspDe]

the point is, it's not comparable, yet you use it to shock and awe. pathetic.

[John Snowstorm]

Yea, it's not like people call GBP gang bang prot, or say that they raped kd x, y or z. It's not like people have said that cats are getting gang banged a bunch of times already.

Take your stupid feminist sentimentality and gtfo the internet. lmao.

[Palem]

Knock it off guys.

In breaking news; It appears that defeated contender Chael Sonnen was injured in his fight against Anderson Silva, the american fighter had been involved in an encounter with two brothers who broke one Sonnens ribs after they found him brutally raping their sister.

Ya, the two boys are likely gonna be off the hook with sports fans, if not with the law, but that's not what was posited in the analogy.

Is there a point you're trying to make with this?

[LukYspDe]

using it to prove a point in a way that no one will disagree with you is pointless and pathetic, you were trying to prove a point, you were not joking about it.

edit: i'll stop here cuz Palem asked

[Lead Pipe]

flogger, you wish the landscape would be more like the wild west, but you're doing a douche move to the kingdom which most fits into that description. If you want the landscape to change, allow change to happen.

IMO ghettocats style is a breath of fresh air to the stodgy politics of the ABS and anti-abs parties. A 3rd alliance or sizeable group of competitive independents would benefit the top AND the rest of the server.

[fwordz]

I'm not interest to discus about landrop in general. My suggestion is based on cats current situation and goals. I can be wrong can be right. We will find answer soon. GL and have fun.

the basis for the posts in there is "NOONE should ever be allowed to landdrop" (somethings devs seem to agree, but there are ALOT of problems getting rid of it.) and thats the mentality we have towards landdrop, even if we discussed it this age just cause it seems impossible to to play outside of t10 BS without it.

[John Snowstorm]

Only that you haven't stated anything that breaks the analogy palem, people might forgive kd x for messing up a pump if they had a good reason but the same is true in professional sport.

Some sportsmen would feel bad if they won because of some 3rd party or something out of both parties control, but some Utopians would too, I know several. There have been plenty of highly competitive Utopians.

Thus far the only thing you have said to break the analogy is that you think there are a higher number of professionals in an area where there it is the participants career. This is true, however it does not make the analogy 'bad' as you stated.

LukYspDe: it's called reductio ad absurdum, derp.

edit: we could tell if you actually edited, writing "edit" after your pathetic attempt at getting the last word in while actually ignoring palem isn't fooling anyone.

[Meeni]

If nobody in the top 10 would CF there would still be a crownwinner tho... It would just take a lot more planning and strategical insight.

It's been mentioned a few times in this thread:
1. Currently, dicing > warring
2. If you dice, you get more acres than people that war
3. If you wait and pump your kingdom you will be stronger than kingdoms that war.

If no one CFed, the winner would STILL be the kingdom that acted last and did not get involved in wars. Additionally, navigating your CFs properly is considerably more strategy than no CFs - vulturing is a solid tactic that will gain acres most of the time for the kingdom that sits patiently and waits. CFs provides a better opportunity for all kingdoms involved to compete and generally provides better gameplay (with the current game mechanics).

Btw, I just don't get why some kd's keep joining in this CF-fest because they always lose. For instance (inso, OS, Simians) why do you guys agree with this playingstyle? It's pretty obvious that you guys are weaker in it than kd's like rage, hoh, ... It seems like you guys are happy with a 4th, 5th place every age....

This is not immediately obvious. Kingdoms change rosters and fluctuate in strength consistently... also with a leading alliance Abs, there has to be an anti-abs in order for the rest of the kingdoms to be competitive. If they are strong that age, they will do well. If not, they will lose. The past few ages Abs has been stronger and has gotten the win (and likely will win this age) 3/4 ages. Doesn't mean it won't be different next age with a (hopefully better) lineup on each of these other kingdoms...

[Elit]

We've said this before, we don't want any part of the top play thank you very much. So saying "we have a long way to go" is actually a compliment, meaning we are not yet too involved in the top diplo crap to get out of it! So thank you Elit.

I didunt mean to offend and its good you take it for compliment. Having long way to go, mean you have to learn much more for game and how its work. Most from time your silly cats budies gave complete n00b examples like: if 2 kds gave notice week 2 and they have Cf till yr 8. People do CF to can dice and keep grow but its clear they will hostile/war later. When ? its depend from other factors. None give notice 5-8 weeks early and if some one make it none will accept it for active relation. Normal notice is 24-72h time. Its when both kds prepare to give his best for incoming war. Its produce much more fair and strategy interest wars from what you can have in midle/low range kds.
Another bad example:

The way things are being done now is just a lot easier, you talk 5 minutes pre age with the rest of the competitors for the networth crown and then you CF them for 70% of the age. No need to worry about planning, politics, strats, ...

Its very wrong. Land kds compete eatch other every age. They have his hate and dislike. Every one want to pown other for some old reasons. They dont talk 5 min before age start. You guys don't have any idea about land chart at all. First when age is freeze Your kd must choice his setup. Its need to be good enough for grow, good enough for dice and good enough for war. Its complex and hard combo. Many kds fail on it part from ages. Second you need to make your cfs very smart based on your and enemy kd setup. So you need to farm target kd in best timing for you and to prevent other competitors for farm them first. Its hell complicated job because there is many factors.

the basis for the posts in there is "NOONE should ever be allowed to landdrop" (somethings devs seem to agree, but there are ALOT of problems getting rid of it.) and thats the mentality we have towards landdrop, even if we discussed it this age just cause it seems impossible to to play outside of t10 BS without it.

Land-drop is part from game from very long. Its strategy choice and limit it wont make game better. My suggestion for landdrop was based on assuming cats are Waring kd not land. If you declare war there a lot "dirty" stufs can happen and you will loss war. This will hurt your war win result. If you dont declare you cant loss war. Simple ;)

[jdorje]

If nobody in the top 10 would CF there would still be a crownwinner tho... It would just take a lot more planning and strategical insight. The way things are being done now is just a lot easier, you talk 5 minutes pre age with the rest of the competitors for the networth crown and then you CF them for 70% of the age. No need to worry about planning, politics, strats, ... In my opinion it would be a lot more interesting if people gave up on CF-ing so much. It just strikes me that people are defending this passive playing style by claiming it's the only way to win and that everyone else who doesn't do the same is a clueless newb. The only reason this works out is because you all agree to cf each other, if you didn't do this, nobody would be able to play like that. And let's be honest it's pretty likely that the same kd's would be in the top 10-15 again if people would stop cf-ing each other for 70% of the age.

The problem is not the top kingdoms. The problem is the mechanics. Trying to convince competitive people to follow sub-optimal strategies is a lost cause.

[jdorje]

also with a leading alliance Abs, there has to be an anti-abs in order for the rest of the kingdoms to be competitive.

This is wrong. We do need alliances, because they are the most stable state. But the best situation would be three balanced alliances, or having no alliance control more than 1/3 of the top. Absalom and our allies only consist of 4 total kingdoms so this should not be that hard. Two other alliances of 4 kingdoms each competing for the top would make for consistent balanced ages.

Another thing that would make for consistent balanced ages, though, is if every conflict didn't slow you down. Right now if one alliance has 4 kingdoms in the top and another alliance only has 3, you can have each kingdom block 1-for-1 and be guaranteed to have one pull away. But "blocking" only works because every fight is guaranteed to slow you down. This is a standard tactic employed by both abs and anti-abs alliances over the last few years, and although it's interesting and all things would be a lot more balanced if it didn't work.

[Elit]

Yes top need more competitors. Had chat with proteus last day. He look bored, bio cant give him enough challenge. Its pity. He deserve much more stress and problems! :P

[ata]

This is wrong. We do need alliances, because they are the most stable state. But the best situation would be three balanced alliances, or having no alliance control more than 1/3 of the top. Absalom and our allies only consist of 4 total kingdoms so this should not be that hard. Two other alliances of 4 kingdoms each competing for the top would make for consistent balanced ages.

I doubt that 3 alliances is a stable state. Each pair of alliances has an incentive to merge, and if that happened you would have 2 alliances.

Another thing that would make for consistent balanced ages, though, is if every conflict didn't slow you down. Right now if one alliance has 4 kingdoms in the top and another alliance only has 3, you can have each kingdom block 1-for-1 and be guaranteed to have one pull away. But "blocking" only works because every fight is guaranteed to slow you down. This is a standard tactic employed by both abs and anti-abs alliances over the last few years, and although it's interesting and all things would be a lot more balanced if it didn't work.

Yes, and if war was better for growth than peace, I suspect KDs (even those on friendly terms) would prefer to fight each other than ally with each other.