| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Laccy 
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 56 |
 Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 15:09 |
|
Personally speaking, I am inclined to agree with you HM, and in absence of any challenging viewpoints may I be the first to publicly offer congratulations to H? on their leadership in the matter.
I also could not have chosen a better turn of phrase than "strung along". I'm not sure who to feel more sorry for, Black, or White. Nevertheless, we shall see what becomes of Black in time.
Edited by Laccy - 09 Sep 2010 at 15:19
|
 |
Shrapnel
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180 |
Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 15:59 |
HM, again, I consider the source and am just relaying what he told me, but Diablito singled you out in particular and claimed he somehow tracked your online activity here and that you didn't log off for several days straight. You must never sleep.
Anyway, since WHITE and maybe to some extent BLACK seems to be in shatters, anyone in those alliances that are still around, I invite you to join FDU. It may not be the warmongering alliance you are used to but you may find satisfaction in being protectors for newbies and other parts of the game like trade (T2 is coming soon).
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 |
Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 16:59 |
|
For a long time there wasn't a real communication between White and Black. Today it's still the same and, as Black, we can only make suppositions on what happens...
Actually Black is not full of active members. Im wondering what will be the future for the active members of Black. First we must see who is active and see who want to change leadership, to make a new alliance, or join one.
Personnally im not sure we have enough active members who will join a fresh new alliance. So we may all join an existing alliance.
If we don't make a new alliance, ill think about your proposition to join FDU Shrapnel. Dont want to join H?, they have already enough members :p
Edited by Mandarins31 - 09 Sep 2010 at 17:06
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650 |
Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 22:56 |
|
Diablito had his alt in our alliance (Johannes, whom we kept as an initiate and occasionally used as a leak for misinformation) who would have seen my in-game online activity almost from the beginning. I and many others intentionally stayed logged in 24/7 since we had no desire to advertise our absence, nor any other truly verifiable/accurate intel.
My favorite ploy utilizing Johannes was the time I sent away my "main" army to defend a newbie and (unlike normally) did
not tick "covert," drawing out Diablito's siege army to slaughter. The intent was to time the debut arrival of my new army at Istan for just before his siege. Though I goofed on the timing and sustained one round of attack, he launched again and was destroyed soundly. I believe the destruction of his capital followed shortly...either that or the siege we failed; I don't recall which for sure.
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295 |
Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 01:15 |
|
Fairly easy to stay in logged on 24/7 if you only play from one computer that you never/rarely reboot/turn off.
|
|
Shrapnel
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 180 |
Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 18:01 |
 My favorite ploy utilizing Johannes was the time I sent away my "main" army to defend a newbie and (unlike normally) did not tick "covert," drawing out Diablito's siege army to slaughter. The intent was to time the debut arrival of my new army at Istan for just before his siege. Though I goofed on the timing and sustained one round of attack, he launched again and was destroyed soundly. I believe the destruction of his capital followed shortly...either that or the siege we failed; I don't recall which for sure. |
|
|
Laccy
Greenhorn
Joined: 26 Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 56 |
Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 19:47 |
|
I think the real issue with 24/7 play is the one where you get sieged during your downtime. Even with a 12 hour set up, and account sitting, a well organised siege can massacre one's town during the sleep/work period. Against an alliance that is without the resources to counter it, a protracted downtime strategy will gradually wear one down. I do not know that this is what happened to White, I do not claim that this is the reason for White's diminishment, but I do believe it is a potential gameplay issue.
|
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 21:14 |
|
First off - there is no-one who plays 24/7 - to even suggest it is pretty silly. I'm not even aware of anyone who has deliberately interrupted their sleep to hit a send time for an army (something common in other games like Eve).
Some do not work and can check the game regularly during the day, but even then that doesn't mean they are actually playing 16 hours a day, just that they can check the game every hour or so to see what's happening.
That being said - with the speed at which siege engines travel I'm pretty sure White saw every single siege before it even landed until they threw their toys out of the pram, gave up and went inactive. I also saw plenty of activity at all kinds of strange hours on their side too.
Laccy - The solution to your issue is pretty straight forward - spend 60 seconds checking your cities for incoming between the time you wake up and the time you go to work. That way there is never more than 8-10 hours (maybe 12 if you work a long shift or have a crappy commute) where someone can sneak up on you. It's no different to checking your email or reading the news and constitutes about the same level of "dedication"....
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 11 Sep 2010 at 04:11 |
HonoredMule wrote:
We do play a fairly serious game, but many of us are mature adults, so that's the attitude and set of sensibilities we bring to the table. |
That's sort of contradicting. If you're a mature adult, shouldn't you realize it's just a game and not take it so seriously?
HonoredMule wrote:
I for one wouldn't enjoy just screwing around any more than I would rolling newbies like a juvenile high-school bully. |
The whole point of a game is to screw around have fun you know.
HonoredMule wrote:
I don't think White's leadership ever had realistic expectations of what they'd get out of a browser-based game, or especially what it would take to run a large/prominent alliance. |
Realistic expectations? Again, this is a game. What on earth can you get out of a browser based game besides fun?
HonoredMule wrote:
MMO's are different in that you never really do either of those things. You just fool around with other people who happen to do the same thing as you at the same time, and maybe play at a little office politics. There's far less need for original/real organizational, political, and ethical structure--even internally, let alone political structures at an inter-organizational level.
|
...
Wut?
|
|
-hypocritical-
Greenhorn
Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 81 |
Posted: 11 Sep 2010 at 10:16 |
Brids17 wrote:
HonoredMule wrote:
We do play a fairly serious game, but many of us are mature adults, so that's the attitude and set of sensibilities we bring to the table. |
That's sort of contradicting. If you're a mature adult, shouldn't you realize it's just a game and not take it so seriously?
|
mature adults wont just feck out and do it half arsed, they will use common sense and be slightly serious, not goofy
Brids17 wrote:
HonoredMule wrote:
I for one wouldn't enjoy just screwing around any more than I would rolling newbies like a juvenile high-school bully. |
The whole point of a game is to screw around have fun you know.
|
you can have fun through serious playing(achieving your goals) just because it's serious doesn't mean it's fun(sports, ateletes are serious about their sport, but they still like playing it)
|
|
Tweet
White stopped playing ?