[QUOTE=MorbidAngel;15052343]you are ****ty player sir. Deal with it.
****ty player because why? You tell me oh great one.
[QUOTE=MorbidAngel;15052343]you are ****ty player sir. Deal with it.
****ty player because why? You tell me oh great one.
Last edited by Bishop; 02-11-2010 at 11:34. Reason: language, flaming
Who ever said I was a Monarch? Think your reading what you want to read in my posts. I never had the time to devote to monarchy. And Me saying I suck was facetious as a TOP 50 kingdom to the TOP kingdoms was considered GHETTO. Do you get it now? Damn, people...Originally Posted by Korp
So I have to do away with my holier that thou attitude when posting in a cheaters 'greater than thou' posting? And here I thought it was the OP that had the ego problem. lol And my holier than thou attitude was brought out by people making claims that I cheated as well which is bull****. Think I have a right to respond to that don't you?
Sure there were ages we had a full kingdom for the full age. But as the player base numbers dropped so did the number of players in our kingdom from age to age unlike the cheating trading/recruiting top. WE DID NOT CHEAT TO KEEP A FULL 25 PROVINCE KINGDOM AGE AFTER AGE, YEAR AFTER YEAR like the top kingdoms did. And where in the hell did I ever say I was a monarch??!! I wasn't. So stop with that crap already.What, you had all that time to build a kd and you dont even manage to keep 25 provinces? I guess there is something wrong with you then and your so called "skills". I never been in a kingdom where all provinces manage to login in at the drop of a hat, it takes planning, to do such things. Neither have i been in a kd where all provs were traded, there was usually a core of people that played toghter and learned to know each other. But I wasnt even talking about competing with the top, i said a decent kd, a decent kd used to be around top 50 ish.
Quick questions for you... Do you deny that this stuff went on and was considered 'acceptable' by the top kingdoms? If so then what the hell are you arguing with me for? A hard on? Really?
And for the record we made several strides into the top 50-30 and as high as a top 25 kingdom. But inevitably we would run into some gang-banging alliance and get knocked back down to the top 100 with double/triple hostiles and all kinds of fun ****. Even at the end of our run as a kingdom we were still a pretty damn good kingdom. Joboloob was worried about leaving and creating his own kingdom because he enjoyed his stay in our kingdom so much. So no, we did not suck... only in the eyes of the cheaters did we suck.
Last edited by Fates Warning; 20-10-2010 at 06:25.
Thank you Palem. Finally someone with a large enough brain to get it. And for the record I haven't said anything about it playing by the rules still limiting my success or me being a monarch so I don't know where they come up with that stuff. What I did was post in a ego filled post about how they broke the rules to become these great kingdoms of the past. Plain and simple yet all I get in response is "PROVE IT'. 'YOUR FULL OF ****', 'YOU SUCK' etc etc etc... and try to say that I AM LYING. LMFAO!!!! We know who is spilling the BS around here and it sure the hell is not me.
Actually I believe YOU butted into my response to MorbidAngel.... Sucky metal band btw.
Last edited by Fates Warning; 20-10-2010 at 07:13.
So you can say "you guys cheated" but you don't have proof (and proof is impossible to get), yet if we say it we are "spilling the BS". Please explain how this works.
I put it to you that you cannot claim that any kingdom was innocent of cheating. You can only say that you, as an individual, did not cheat.
Support email: utopiasupport@utopia-game.com <- please use this and don't just PM me| Account Deleted/Inactive | Utopia Facebook Page |PM DavidC for test server access
Seriously, the discussion about trading is still going on? It's only interesting for people who want something to blame for their own failures. The great kd's were great for other reasons than trading. Trading does not equal auto-success, and never did, and as such is utterly uninteresting in this discussion. If you want to talk cheating you should talk about xlogging and farming, because if you have proof that the mentioned great kd's were doing that, it would actually mean something.
Fates Warning, I'm guessing people deduce that you're a bad player from the fact that you're trying to make it look like the only reason you and your kd couldn't compete was because of trading. Having played for as long as you claim to have, there is no reason for you to not have done well at least one age even without trading. Have you? You're all over this thread screaming about how the great kd's are not great because of trading. For that point to make any sense, you need to show why trading was such a major factor. I can agree that it's a major factor when it comes to longevity, but longevity is not something that matters to me at all. A great kd depends on dedication and great leadership. Most kd's don't have the latter, and so fail to produce the former. If you can't respect people for being skilled, creative and dedicated, solely because they broke a retarded rule, then you're never gonna convince me you're not here because of envy.
Okey, you never said you were monarchy at least that should be achievable after spending so much time in one and same kd. You never had the time for monarchy but you seem to know everything that goes in your kd, dont go too well hand in hand.Who ever said I was a Monarch? Think your reading what you want to read in my posts. I never had the time to devote to monarchy.
The difference is that you think you are better than anyone else cause you claim that you didnt cheat (without proving anything) While us cheaters we freely admit that we cheated. But honestly even without cheating I would be better than you.So I have to do away with my holier that thou attitude when posting in a cheaters 'greater than thou' posting?
Why is that BS? You dont seem to have any problem furious claim that every top kd cheated without providing anything more than your word. No you dont have the right to respond to that when your own attitude isnt better at all.by people making claims that I cheated as well which is bull****.Think I have a right to respond to that don't you?
Playerbase dropping is a quite new thing, consider you have had plenty of years when there was a overflow of players.Sure there were ages we had a full kingdom for the full age. But as the player base numbers dropped so did the number of players in our kingdom
If you have read what Ive wrote i provided several times where i admited that it was socially accepted to trade for us. So there was no real need to ask. The discussion of this all was there neither you or Palem has provided any proof that top kds cheated. Palem is a bit more reasonable than you but you, you're a totally different matter. You're like a rabid dog.Quick questions for you... Do you deny that this stuff went on and was considered 'acceptable' by the top kingdoms? If so then what the hell are you arguing with me for? A hard on? Really?
Pretty damn good kingdoms dont get tripple hostiles and dont get GB by alliances either, pretty good damn kds even with 20 provs knows how to handle themselves and should at least have pretty good diplomats.Even at the end of our run as a kingdom we were still a pretty damn good kingdom
Thats kinda weird attitude dont you think, that l imits you in every way, you cant say that artist sucks cause you aint artist yourself, you cant claim that politician is worthless cause you aint one yourself. You cant say that football team sux even if they did perform a lousy game cause you dont play football yourself etc etc.What I'm saying is, unless you're doing the same thing, then you have no right to cast judgment about other people's skills.
All we did was claim that you cheated and all we got i respond was rude remarks, you see, you cant prove that any of us cheated as much as that you cant prove that you didnt cheat.What I did was post in a ego filled post about how they broke the rules to become these great kingdoms of the past.
You consider my not being in the top as being a failure, but I don't. I had(and still having) a ton of fun and enjoyed learning about this game and how to play it. There's more to the game than finishing #1, or in the Top 10, or top 50, or whatever bar you'd like to employ. I really hope you haven't lost sight of that with all of your playing.
Well shucks...*blushes*
Where did I say anything like that? I haven't said anything about charting being a requirement to be considered a great kd. As obvious an example of a straw man that I've ever seen.
Either way, your view is extremely narrow minded. What stops the #1 kd from doing what other kd's are doing? The only difference between them and you is that they were able to get #1 too, and you were not. It's like if you play guitar and only know how to play 2 chords and still claim that you're no less of a failure than someone who can play everything. Obviously the other guy can play those 2 chords too, and probably just as well or even better than you.
This thread isn't about how happy people are with their experience in the game, it's about which kd is the "best", meaning we need to try to find objective ways of comparing different kd's. Which kd had the most fun can never qualify as something measurable and objective. Even with measurable things such as chart placements, it's hard to compare different kd's as they played in different times, and which chart is worth more? The greatest kd would be the kd that can beat any other kd that ever existed in a war, and that were also able to win any chart they wanted to. But we'll never know that, and can just speculate. What we do know is that they could do everything you have done, and what made them better than you is that they could do more than that too.
It's ridiculous how people think that placing outside top 50 is somehow an accomplishment because you "had fun and learned a lot". Why the hell would we still be playing this game if we weren't having fun and actually getting better at the game? The difference between you and me is that I don't try to claim that just because I think my kd didn't cheat, that somehow makes the kd better. I've played in kd's that didn't trade (while it was illegal), and most, if not all, of them didn't trade simply because they had no one to trade in. Even if they had been trading, they would've still sucked. As I said earlier, trading is not a guaranteed success. Remove trading completely and some kd's would still be a lot better than the others. Playing on a low level for your whole utopian career will never impress me at all, no matter how much you say you loved it. Dissing something you've never tried is just lame.
Oh, and before you pull the "you're an elitist" argument on me: I've never played in any of the kd's I'd consider to put on a "best" list. I'm not defending something because I was a part of it, because I wasn't.
Last edited by Luc; 20-10-2010 at 20:00.
Chill dudes, chill.
∙ Shadowlight ∙ A Mothers Advice ∙ Force ∙ Pansies .
Kingdom Crown Winner with Pansies, Brute Force, Sonata, Dreams
Province Crown Winner with Brute Force
∙ Brute Force ∙ Playboys ∙. Sonata ∙ Dreams ∙ Retired .
Well there is a difference, the #1 kd did actually cheat to get there if we are strict with the rules while Palem claims he dont cheat. Its possible that the #1 would been able to do it the hard way as well but they took a short cut.The only difference between them and you is that they were able to get #1 too, and you were not.
Well, depending on how things look like it can be quite an achievment. If you just start out with you being the only active person and slowly train the kd and weed out bad players etc is quite hard work.It's ridiculous how people think that placing outside top 50 is somehow an accomplishment because you "had fun and learned a lot".
Anyway, too tired to respond really, nn.
Top kds naturally chart. They're better and whether they intend to make the charts or not, they typically end up there, especially with today's game with such limited kds.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. You mean in terms of enjoying the game or the actual playing of the game? If you mean in terms of actually playing the game, then the thing that stops the #1 kd from doing what I'm doing is the fact that they want to win. I'm not nearly active enough to be in a kd that's contending for the nw/land crowns, but these seem like stupid/obvious points so I'm guessing you ment in terms of enjoying the game.
Quick question though. How does "I'm not a failure because I enjoy the game" translate to "Top kds don't enjoy the game."? That seems to be what you're getting at and it's not all what I said so you can go around throwing out accusations of straw men all you'd like, but you just did it yourself there.
That's a terrible example. I don't even play the guitar.
The thread started out like that yes, but it soon turned into a big fuss about not-top kds and trading and such. But sure, let's get back on point...
^I agree with all of this.
The whole purpose of the game is to be as enjoyable of an experience to the user as possible. Beyond that, the game offers up no universal achievements as far as I'm concerned. The only achievements left to gain are what makes you proud of your kd, which really boils down to 2 things: Improvement and Sustainability.
If a kd of 7 core members 12 barely-actives that typically ends the age ~150th or so ends up ranked 80th, that's a hell of an achievement for them and they should be proud of themselves. If the same kd ends up ~80th again, they can still be proud of themselves because they kept up their mark of they set for themselves last age. Where the line ends is when improvement ends. If they constantly just end up at 80th again, it's no longer an accomplishment to rank there.
Yes, a kd like this will never be considered a legendary kd and yes, their achievements aren't as glorified as being #1 in the world, but just because it doesn't stack up to the top kds achievements doesn't mean they were a failure.
That's like calling a child a failure because he got an A in math, but he's not taking college level math, so he's still just a big failure.
Lots of people play this game after it's no longer fun for them and has become much of a job than an escape. It's not uncommon for people to be playing the game but still not find it fun anymore. They don't quit because of habit and/or feelings of obligations towards their kd.
Please show me where I said anything even remotely close to that. Please do. The closest thing I've said that could even be remotely misconstrued as perhaps saying that was when I said something like
But even that is quite a stretch to say that I think my kd was better than top kds.
You're usually one of the better posters on these boards Luc but you're starting to get ridiculous here.
No one is saying trading is a sure road to victory. All I'm saying (I can't speak for Fates) is that trading provided a definite advantage over kds that did not trade.
That quote right there is lame. Things I can't diss:
Murdering people
Doing hardcore drugs
Throwing kittens/puppies into wood chippers
Raping old people
Pissing in a babies mouth when it cries.
That list can continue for quite some time. The point being, you can discuss anything as long as you do in fact have some idea of what you're talking about.
YOU'S AN ELITIST!
But really, I think we should hug this out...
*offers huggles*
Yes, but as long as it was a short cut, it only saved them time. If it only saved them time, you should only exclude longevity from their accomplishments.
Yes, of course it's hard work, I've tried it myself. Hard work isn't an accomplishment in itself though. Some people work hard their whole lives, but never really get anywhere. You can admire the effort, but you wouldn't really call them great. In the end what I was trying to say is that this whole focus on trading vs non trading is irrelevant, because the kd's that deserve being labeled great are the kd's that accomplished something through their skill and dedication. It is valid to point out that their longevity is not as much of an accomplishment if it came through heavy reliance on trading, but it doesn't take anything away from their skill. I'd argue that in most cases, those great kd's were great because of a handful people, and that those handful people could've done great without having the exact players they did have, although it might've required more work on their part. They were great because they had people with considerable skill in the areas of leadership, diplomacy, organization and strategy.Well, depending on how things look like it can be quite an achievment. If you just start out with you being the only active person and slowly train the kd and weed out bad players etc is quite hard work.
Anyway, too tired to respond really, nn.
Depends on how you define top kd's. I'd be inclined to highly value skill at warring when trying to rank kd's. Some of the kd's that have really impressed me through the ages have been really good at warring, but couldn't be bothered to bore their way to a top position on the charts. Not because they wouldn't be able to do it, because they chose not to.
Seeing as how the thread is about the "best" kd's, using the "i'm having fun and enjoying myself" argument means you are in fact a failure, because we're judging you based on objective measurements meant to gauge who is the greatest. There's a difference in being a failure in the race for greatest kd ever, and being a failure in realizing your personal goals. I never claimed you were a failure in the latter definition, and I never would, because it's not my place to judge that.I'm not sure what you mean by this. You mean in terms of enjoying the game or the actual playing of the game? If you mean in terms of actually playing the game, then the thing that stops the #1 kd from doing what I'm doing is the fact that they want to win. I'm not nearly active enough to be in a kd that's contending for the nw/land crowns, but these seem like stupid/obvious points so I'm guessing you ment in terms of enjoying the game.
Quick question though. How does "I'm not a failure because I enjoy the game" translate to "Top kds don't enjoy the game."? That seems to be what you're getting at and it's not all what I said so you can go around throwing out accusations of straw men all you'd like, but you just did it yourself there.
Is it terrible because you don't play the guitar?That's a terrible example. I don't even play the guitar.
The purpose of the game is what you make of it. It differs between different people. There are universal achievements in the form of charts, and comparing yourself against other kd's by warring them. Some people don't value things that require them to compete, and so they turn to doing the best of they have instead. Whatever floats your boat, really.The whole purpose of the game is to be as enjoyable of an experience to the user as possible. Beyond that, the game offers up no universal achievements as far as I'm concerned. The only achievements left to gain are what makes you proud of your kd, which really boils down to 2 things: Improvement and Sustainability.
Again, back to the original topic of this thread. If we're trying to rank the best mathematicians in the world, a kid that managed to get an A in high school has not accomplished something that would make him an obvious choice for the greatest mathematician, right? It can still be a great achievement for him personally, but...If a kd of 7 core members 12 barely-actives that typically ends the age ~150th or so ends up ranked 80th, that's a hell of an achievement for them and they should be proud of themselves. If the same kd ends up ~80th again, they can still be proud of themselves because they kept up their mark of they set for themselves last age. Where the line ends is when improvement ends. If they constantly just end up at 80th again, it's no longer an accomplishment to rank there.
Yes, a kd like this will never be considered a legendary kd and yes, their achievements aren't as glorified as being #1 in the world, but just because it doesn't stack up to the top kds achievements doesn't mean they were a failure.
That's like calling a child a failure because he got an A in math, but he's not taking college level math, so he's still just a big failure.
But you know it's BS to make any claims about having more fun than anyone else.Lots of people play this game after it's no longer fun for them and has become much of a job than an escape. It's not uncommon for people to be playing the game but still not find it fun anymore. They don't quit because of habit and/or feelings of obligations towards their kd.
Fine, that was actually more directed toward Fates Warning, but I should've indicated that.Please show me where I said anything even remotely close to that. Please do. The closest thing I've said that could even be remotely misconstrued as perhaps saying that was when I said something like
But even that is quite a stretch to say that I think my kd was better than top kds.
You're usually one of the better posters on these boards Luc but you're starting to get ridiculous here.
And, again, the question is whether that advantage only saved them time, or actually was what made them great. Fates Warning makes it very clear that anyone who traded can never be seen as great, and I really disagree and think that's a ridiculous opinion.No one is saying trading is a sure road to victory. All I'm saying (I can't speak for Fates) is that trading provided a definite advantage over kds that did not trade.
Exactly, as long as you have some idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you actually know what it's like to play in a really serious kd (and even less lead such a kd), so you shouldn't be judging people who have. And this once again goes back to the "i'm having more fun than you" argument. I see people (read: Fates Warning) make it without having a clue what people in top kd's get from their experience. I see people ridicule top players and calling them no-lifers, clearly thinking what they're doing is ridiculous, and that it's not nearly as "fun". All of that is just BS.That quote right there is lame. Things I can't diss:
Murdering people
Doing hardcore drugs
Throwing kittens/puppies into wood chippers
Raping old people
Pissing in a babies mouth when it cries.
That list can continue for quite some time. The point being, you can discuss anything as long as you do in fact have some idea of what you're talking about.
If you're offering a hot girl to deliver the hug, I'll accept.YOU'S AN ELITIST!
But really, I think we should hug this out...
*offers huggles*
I'm more inclined to value warring ability too since it's what I play this game for and can relate with more easily than netting. However, the best warring kds, if they are truly the best, compete with the best competition, and that's generally found on the charts. Again, better kds always manage to find themselves higher on the charts even if they aren't bothering actually trying to net, at least most of the time. I'm not saying the best kd will always be top 5 or anything like that, but they should be somewhere on the charts. Otherwise they're competing with people below their skill and that's simply not worthy of greatness.
I was making a joke. Apparently it missed =[. Should have used !'s lol
That was essentially what I'm saying. Outside of simple enjoyment (the purpose of every game), this game has no actual purpose/goals aside from what makes you proud to be a part of your kd. At least that's how I see it.
I'm certainly not saying that getting an A in a high school math class puts you in the running as a great mathematician (or even a mathematician for that matter). What I'm saying is, I don't think he deserves the title of failure just because he doesn't stack up to people like Newton.
Getting out of the example, I just don't like the idea of calling everyone who isn't the best a failure. I just see that as a very negative view of things and that's not a line of thinking that I accept. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully ok with the distinction of the very best because they certainly deserve it for their accomplishments, but I'd much rather see it as 'The Best' and 'Everyone else'; not 'The One winner' and 'All of the other failures'.
That's all me though.
I wasn't trying to say that I have more fun than others as like a general attempt at trying to be 'better' than a top kd at something, was just saying that some people play this game even after they stop having fun with it and more often than not, playing the game at a higher level tends to drain the fun out of you a quicker than casual playing.
Understandable then.
I think that's a bit more of a complicated question than you're giving it credit for, as far as if trading was just a time-saver. I'd rather not give a response to that without really thinking that out.
As far as Fate's point, while I don't agree fully, he does have a slight point. I certainly would never say that kds like Pansies or Brute Force weren't great. Strictly looking at their play on a kd-level, you would be a complete moron to say that they weren't great kds. However, if you're a purist like me, a kd was supposed to be a randomly collected assortment of people working together for a common goal and those great kds were not random. However, your point of whether or not trading was just a time-saver is worthy of note.
If it was just a time saver, then issue be like Micheal Phelps smoking pot. Yea, he was smoking pot, but it had nothing to do with how awesome of a swimmer he is.
If it wasn't a time saver, then the issue is more like Lance Armstrong's steroids scandal. Yea, he was a great cyclist, but his accomplishments are really soiled by his steroid use.
While I admittedly have never played in the top, I don't think my assumption on how top kds work is too inaccurate, but then again that's prolly because I still see top players as people, whereas lots of other, lower players seem to think they're just mindless robots that simply follow commands. I have no reason to believe that top kds don't run similarly to how every kd I've been in has run, only with everyone caring so much more, and much more knowledge floating around.
As far as how much fun they have, hell, if we break into the top 40 I feel pretty damn good about me and my kd. I can only imagine the joy that a kd gets from being in the very top or how much joy they feel from winning a crown, especially if it's their first. I have no problem admitting that they have fun, but again, go back to my point of people still playing after the fun has subsided and you can see a nice picture of a top vet who's won more crowns then they can count on a hand just sticking around because he wants to stick with his kd rather than play the game. I just don't know if winning your n'th crown brings just as much enjoyment as winning the first. That's something that comes with the experience so I can't say.
If you close your eyes I could be the hottest girl you can imagine...
Last edited by Palem; 20-10-2010 at 22:38.
winning crowns is always fun because while the method is tried and true, circumstances are different every age
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote