Defender's Revolution

[Shadow]

I notice a lot more people keeping an active defense this round, and it really pays off, especially with the half land setup. Now, as Oblit and I noticed, I seem to get very little land taken from me when I am broken at this point. 21 attacks takes 60% of your land usually, but it only takes about 40% of mine. Have we uncoverered some obscure forgotten bit of code that reduces land loss if your defense is good?

Either way, I'm glad to see people starting to come around to the defensive way of thinking. It really pays off, and it reall yis how the game shoudl be played.

Well done to all who are trying.

[windhound]

No Shadow.

The attack system in in the process of being looked over, some modifications have been made
Its a bug.  No more no less.

Remaining clanless while scooping 150k+ acres per run is bad for the game.  You can attack everyone else in the game up to 21x, but only receive 21 hits in retal...  usually less because a few people bounce off your defences.

With the bugged attack system returning minimal land you usually dont go below 60k while everyone else is somewhere around 25.  You're at 102k right now, maxxed per normal...  maxxed with the highest amount of land in the game.
Given if you sit still long enough people will get you down to 40 just through time unmaxxing, but you usually dont.

I'll put it bluntly, I dont like the way you play.
You use strategies that -only- benefit yourself.  If it was for the good of a clan I wouldnt care.  But you're selfish.

If you want to prove your defences join a clan.  Make a clan.  I dont care.  Let people actually attack you rather than remaining maxxed 90% of the time.

Your success in keeping land this game has more to do with the lack of your clan than your defences,  which are: 943 (9%).  Far from superb.

I like to see people trying to hold a defence, it makes it more interesting.  But do not attribute your current success to your 9% defence.

[Shadow]

Sure I am playing selfishly, it's a war game. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. I made a defensive clan earlier, and it did nothing to benefit anybody, including myself. For the record though, I don't even plan to place in the immort. I am going to give away all my net at the end, imply because I don't care about finishing, I just care about perfecting a defensive strat. Next round will be a new challenge because half land makes defense a lot easier.

Also, I remember you saying in a thread about Ereptor that a few thousand land is plenty to play around with and that landlock does no harm at all. What I am doing isn't even land lock. I am not trying to lock land. My entire strat revolves around the idea that my land is there to be taken, provided you do some work to get it. And it has been working well. As you say, the flip side of holding a lot of land is that your opponents don't get much, and you say that like it's a badn thing.

If you'll look on scores though, you'll notice that space and oblit are stacking to keep me broken, and they managed 145k land even while I sit on 90k.

My successful percantage isn't great, but really, that's not the point. Would be nice to have 20%, but I think I was being overly optimistic when I thought up that number. To get that high people have to fail repeatedly, which generally only happens with leader suicides. Although, I never attributed anything to my defense - if you notice in my first post, you'll see that I am asking whether or not my low land losses are due to defense or not. You answered that they aren't, and that's all I wanted to know.

[windhound]

It is indeed a war game.
-edit-  I'll be nice.

Its untrue that your clan did not benefit others though, that's moronic.  You Are Max'd Shadow!
This means people are attacking you, and 9 times out of 10 breaking you.
It did not benefit -yourself- to have a clan
Which is a fine reason for dropping it, all in all, but do not claim "it did nothing to benefit anybody"

Oblit and others are able to break you, sure.  But they can only do it 21x at most.
There is a large amount of land floating around the game, I'm not debating this.  I am pointing out that you are maxxed with the largest chunk of land around.

You claim to not be land locking, but that's exactly whats happening.  You try and leave zero holes in your defence and are able to be maxed.  By all standard definitions you are attempting to lock land...  whether its a byproduct of your defensive strat or not, it is what it is.

TBH, its not your strat that irks me Shadow.  Its the way you go about being evil pretending to be "the good guy."
Ereptor is a great bad guy, and his strategies go along with his character.  I got no problem with that.
Its the inconsistencies in your reasoning that I try to point out. 

[Shadow]

It did not benefit the poeple in the clan in the way they wanted. I was hoping for a lot of interest in the defensive clan idea, and I though I would get more from the earlier topic I posted, but when it turned out that I didn't, I decided that myself and oblit and riddick would be better able to defend solo. I was right. Had there been more interest, I would have kept the clan because the shared forces would have added up a lot. My hope was the the added defense would mitigate the fact that you couldn't get maxxed. With only three people in the clan, this is not the case, so I dropped the idea. Hopefully it will come back up down the road when there is more interest. That's not moronic, that's logical.

Now, if you guys are testing an attack system and as a byproduct people aren't able to get much land from me, how is that my fault? I set out to defend, and it is working. If you don't like the results of your tests (or is it a bug?) then change it. Don't make me out as a bad guy because I happen to be able to hold land because of something in the code that you changed.

If you are going to split hairs about the definition of land lock I am not going to bother arguing with you, beyond saying that if I wanted to lock land, I would be doing this in a team, like on reg. I want to defend, and to perfect the strategy of defense with indy now, and with leaders once I am happy with this one.

I don't pretend to be a good guy to do evil. I am fully aware that being maxxed means that other people get less land. But if you think about it, what you say applies to everyone - they can all max everyone, and they can alll get only 21 attacks on them in return, unless they are clanned, in which case they should be aware of hte limitations of that position. I am playing solo this round. That makes everyone my opponent. If my keeping land gives my opponent less to work with, I say I am doing well.

If you don't like my style of play, don't use it. I fail to see what the point of this argument is, though.

[Sharptooh]

  I disagree with playing defensive, leaving troop holes imho is the best thing to do, look at it this way, a land lock (intended or not) means greater reprecussions, including most people will have less land that usuall, meaning they are easier targets to kill, this creates the potential for a kill fest, especially amongst lower ranked players, I know a lot of my clan members are worried about getting land, so worried they may kill because of it.

TBH, its not your strat that irks me Shadow.  Its the way you go about being evil pretending to be "the good guy."
Ereptor is a great bad guy, and his strategies go along with his character.  I got no problem with that.
Its the inconsistencies in your reasoning that I try to point out. 

  I agree

I am playing solo this round. That makes everyone my opponent. If my keeping land gives my opponent less to work with, I say I am doing well.

  You could look at it that way, or you could look at it in the way that locking land makes a lot more enemies for you.

[Juska]

They are going to kill because they need land lol?

More likely they drop clan so that they can find land, when 1/4 of the players are in one clan things can get tough.

Shadow is not trying to lock land, he is just making it hard for people (honestly though the fact that desertions are so big is a bigger deterrent than actually having defenses) to get his.

If he was trying to lock land he would build GT's.

[Shadow]

Thank you...

Nobody is going to kill people because they are land starved, sharp. Killing generally gets you very little land compared to general scraping over a large number of people.

As Juska said, I am not trying to lock land, I am simply not allowing people to take it without a bit of work. If you don't like my strat... too bad, you're going to have to deal with it. I happen to find leaving troop holes a pretty weak way to play.

[kell]

well your strat is working somewhat this round but i doubt it can last with 100% huts. and you know right well a low ranker is gonna sped all his turns murdering you away for the fun of it *takes up position in the low ranks

[Shadow]

This round someone would have trouble murdering me successfully, my ratio is pretty solid. Next round I am sure I'll get the bejeesus murderd out of me on a regular basis. Next round I think I will try to run a defense strat with a leader race though :)

[Firetooth]

This round someone would have trouble murdering me successfully, my ratio is pretty solid. Next round I am sure I'll get the bejeesus murderd out of me on a regular basis. Next round I think I will try to run a defense strat with a leader race though :)

well, whoever NANOBOTZ is managed to murder you, although it saved you from losing land so it probarbly actually benefited you

[Sharptooh]

They are going to kill because they need land lol?

  Actually yes, I tried to make an alliance with another clan, but didn't set them to ally because they had a fair few members and it would mean my clan members couldn't take land from them, they misunderstood and thought that I meant not attack, after a while we came to an agreement however most of my other clan members disagreed because there is little land in the game and wanted war with Sith because they wanted us to not attack them, so far I think 2 are dead.

I happen to find leaving troop holes a pretty weak way to play.

  Most of the land you got was probably from people who leave troop holes.

[Shadow]

Exactly, and they are getting owned :) Therefore my way is more effective. If they had made it harder for me to take their land, they would probably have made it a lot harder for me to scrape up.

[windhound]

Now, if you guys are testing an attack system...

Shadow
Shadow's Catchy Title
Global Moderator

You, dearest Shadow, are Staff as well.  Technically the same position as I, all you have to do is take an interest and you would know what changes are made

btw, if you want to play with semantics, you are exploiting a game glitch
land locking is land locking
You have attached a sentimental meaning to it that does not exist
you agree that your strat makes it difficult for people to get land off you
thus, you are locking land..  aka, land locking.

And lol.  Not exactly getting owned Shadow... 
Owned implies you are winning by a large margin...  that aint the case.  Infact, you arnt even winning.  lol.

[Shadow]

I was exaggerating, I am well aware that I won't win this round. And I do take interest, it's just that generally changes happen when Shael has time, and she rarely sees a need to consult me when she is doing it. If you guys want help testing stuff, all you need to do is ask. And technicaly same position, sure, but you have coding experience that I do not, and so I am less useful on that end of things. Balancing ideas, sure, but actual changes and testing, not my strong point.