We are once again looking for some awesome new moderators to help us out with keeping
the forum running and playing a crucial part in our Empire community! If
this is something you think might be of interest to you, HERE

hmm

ThornedroseThornedrose Posts: 26
edited 23.12.2014 in Alliance News & Diplomacy
Reading through these forums is actually very interesting, and quite entertaining.

1. you realize many of these folks are friends and have played together for many years

2. you realize that while they write things on the forums to 'appear' they are angry or upset
about things..all the while knowing they are at the same time probably on skype chatting it up
and laughing with each other. (that's what friends do)

3. I've often thought some of these conversations should be in the "entertainment" section of the board--because they are entertaining.:D

4. The only way for an independent alliance to remain independent is to not choose sides (even when others in game send messages 'highly suggesting' you pick a side or so and so and such and such will rule the server). I actually laughed out loud at the message--as I seen the irony of someone trying to 'suggest' how I personally play the game and letting me know which 'side' I should pick..while at the same time telling me someone else desires to 'rule' the server.

5. Logic dictates if/when you pick aside (no matter which one) if you are a lower level alliance or player you will begin spending more time repairing the pixel damage than playing the game--because it takes the focus off the larger players who are now spending more time repairing the pixel damage done to their own castles, and gives them more time to recruit and send attacks while you sit there and burn from all the attacks you personally receive from picking a side to begin with.

6. During the 6 months or so I've been playing the game I have found out first hand which alliances send mass attacks against a person or an entire alliance for trying to play the game and which one's merely send a message and say.."hey, this player sent an attack..is it just for glory/shady/whatever mission or goal happens to be up at the moment, or do you want a war?" with no automatic retaliation of mass attacks. I also know which ones who when sent messages letting them know they came up on a shady mission to be hit will outright tell you "if they send that attack against that player your entire alliance will burn"--thus preventing other players from earning awards for completing so many shady missions and moving forward in their own game--without spending rubies to change the target.


Just some of my own observations, as a relatively new player (compared to many) as I continue to learn the ins and outs of the game and read the forums..
Thornedrose @ usa 1
Post edited by Thornedrose on

Comments

  • TannerM. (US1)TannerM. (US1) Posts: 2,694US1
    edited 13.11.2014
    Thanks for giving everyone your views but much like GGS with customer feedback, I did not read much past the first sentence. Cliffs?
    nHIylr9gif = The battle plan

    The Ningdom now and forever - Serry 

    Hion has a small dink
  • ThornedroseThornedrose Posts: 26
    edited 13.11.2014
    just personal observations..no need for cliff notes..
    Thornedrose @ usa 1
  • millwall97 (GB1)millwall97 (GB1) Posts: 2,507GB1
    edited 14.11.2014
    just personal observations..no need for cliff notes..
    cliffs please
    millwall97 @ Somalia1

    tCp90gif

    Don't click: https://goo.gl/IC6U01
  • crobins1 (US1)crobins1 (US1) Posts: 600US1
    edited 14.11.2014
    your views are if you want to remain an independent alliance do not help either side. well at a small level this may work out for you but if you ever want to grow to be a mid sized alliance these views will be clouded to the point they will no longer be valid. if you or any other independent alliance chooses to sit back and let this war happen no matter if you are a level 1 alliance or a level 50 alliance and think that after this is over kon will not be knocking on your door either to remove your better players or to have targets you are mistaken. remember we were kon affiliated who were we allowed to hit the independents. who is all the other allies of kon allowed to hit the independents. this is due to the policing of the server.
  • ThornedroseThornedrose Posts: 26
    edited 15.11.2014
    And sir, no disrespect, but even now I'm sure your alliance hits non-affiliated alliances--not because KoN dictates that, but because it's an individual decision. If I were to hit someone in The Misc, I would be mass attacked by others in that alliance, if I were to attack someone in TFT, or DT--I know to expect the same..a mass attack from ALL said alliances--IT IS NO different than if I were to hit a KoN Member..it's the same response from ALL the large alliances. It's not a 1 hit to 1 hit in return..it's a 1 hit to 5 hits in return from ALL the large alliances. So really no matter what happens with KoN, that won't change UNTIL or Unless the leaders of those alliances..decide "hey, if they hit you once..then hit them back once--not 5 people hitting that one person." So in that those things are done at all..KoN does not carry all the burden--It is carried equally by all larger alliances.

    I have personally been mass attacked by alliances other than KoN--so are we to say "because KoN might do that we need to do that too??" "Or it's all KoN's fault that this alliance mass attacked, when 1 they are not and were not affiliated with KoN?" KoN did not dictate that mass attack..that alliance did..

    Just as when mass attacked by members of KoN, should I then say it's the other alliances fault because they are Larger and would mass attack KoN in return? NO, By no means..I can't blame one alliance for the misdeeds of mass attacks of another. Those mass attacks are not dictated by KoN--Unless the attacks come from KoN.

    If the GK is hit by someone, and they decide to mass attack said player..that is THEIR decision, not the decision of another alliance.

    Now, when a large alliance decides to mass attack someone--and all their friends and allies get involved and start attacking..that also is THEIR decision..sure they may have been asked by their friends to join them in the attacking of that smaller alliance..but ultimately it's still their decision. They could also make the decision to say "Eh, you know they are small, and we know your fully capable of handling that on your own, so No, we're not going to join in the mass attack of that smaller alliance." (and they might do that, I really don't know, as I am not privy to those conversations).

    Would they be shunned and removed from their allies friends DNA list if they said No? I highly doubt it, they are friends after all.

    Would I, as a small Independent alliance rather be mass attacked by KoN or The Misc, or GK, or whomever? Eh, a Mass attack from KoN is the same as a mass attack from any other large alliance, be it a 50 player attack from one or a 50 player attack from another..we either defend at least against one attack and then we spend days and weeks repairing..so either way, it's the same result.

    So really, for an independent alliance does it matter if they "pick a side in this war"? either way, the larger alliances will in fact do mass attacks against them--if they even attempt to attack..So what is the point on picking sides--those mass attacks against the smaller alliances won't change until the leadership of those alliances start making those changes from within...and KoN can't dictate that to your alliance, just as your alliance or someone elses can't dictate their rules of engagement to them.

    "we don't like to be mass attacked by KoN for a glory hit or a shady or hitting someone in ruins, so therefore we won't mass attack this other alliance for a glory hit, shady, or because they hit a member in ruins."

    Then if you or someone in your alliance attacks someone and are mass attacked in return because of that one hit..then by all means..mass attack them back if you feel the need--but picking a side in this war..isn't going to stop that..nor will it free the server from it from happening. Will it?? Will all the large alliances choose to stop mass attacks for one hit against them?? I personally, do not think so.
    Thornedrose @ usa 1
  • shedlite (US1)shedlite (US1) Posts: 64
    edited 23.12.2014
    Mass attacks are how the power structure is maintained on the game. The larger alliances do this so they won't be attacked. Its the greatest strength of being in a large alliance. Add to that being able to send support troops to another member(or receive them)during an attack.
    power corrupts....absolute power corrupts absolutely. The bigger an alliance, get the more they try and dictate how game is played. This is why outposts and RV's are considered cowardly attacks. They didn't want to waste the resources protecting them, now they can house their standing attack army without worry (and a shiny food outpost can hold a whole lot of powerful attack troops) and use main as a defensive stronghold. RV's they will keep 1 weak troop, thereby freeing food for large number of 2way troops at main.
    As for them being friends.....some are most aren't. I would guess 1 player might have 4 or 5 friends who play this game with them the rest are strangers who have a similar goal in mind and chose large alliances for protection.
    The choosing sides is a mute point. the leader of alliance chooses a side the rest of alliance follows or they can leave (maybe get kicked out). And yes they will kick out players who do not do as they are told and then attack them in mass as a warning to others. right or wrong doesn't matter, deserved or undeserved doesn't matter.
    shedlite @ usa 1
Sign In to comment.