Moderator: Moderator
You understand wrong. I was asking what your defenition was of winning or losing a war. Coz when you guy's have the upper hand all you can do is brag about how big you are winning the war with big sab and raid numbers etc.
Good post. But I do have to slightly disagree.MadGeorge wrote: ↑5 years ago You are completely missing Aggie's point, although it is actually a point that many are raising and have been for the past few years.
So we will use Sweet Revenge as the subject of this, as lets be honest everyone else is.
Apart from perhaps two Ages/Eras, Sweet Revenge have been involved in some type of war.
This has been from 1v1 wars, chain vs chain wars.. and then there were the attempts at everyone vs Sweet Revenge wars.
In most of these instances they have either been age-long wars or there have been a "truce" where the leaders from both sides essentially agree that it is getting boring and there are perhaps better targets to go after.
Truces are cool, but they are an agreement that nobody actually won.. So, who wins the war? Nobody??
There are also times when there are a whole load of posts on here bragging that an alliance / chain 's sole goal for the age is to ensure another alliance doesnt win. Yes, you heard it, rather than a set of goals for the alliance and the members, they advertise that all they care about is ensuring another alliance doesnt get #1.
So in these scenarios, are the winners actually winners or are they losers? And did they actually lose because someone didnt win, or does that make them winners? If you are confused, imagine how the rest of us feel when we hear "We won because you didnt"
There needs to be some way of trying to create a win scenario for a war because otherwise one side (or both) get bored.
It could be something like "The first side to lose 65% of their overall value" or "The first to have x% of their chain surrender" or something along similar lines or even different.
Regarding this war, has it been won because most of the value is now in two accounts with very little activity from anyone else, or is it still going because Bravo is raiding people, Cheese is sabbing once or twice per week, and Dank is still fighting (for now) to stay afloat?
No disrespect to my buddies but please don't mistake me for GLADS Mr Mad because you know very well that SR only approved me 3 days ago.MadGeorge wrote: ↑5 years ago Regarding this war, has it been won because most of the value is now in two accounts with very little activity from anyone else, or is it still going because Bravo is raiding people, Cheese is sabbing once or twice per week, and Dank is still fighting (for now) to stay afloat?
You were approved because you thought it was funny to raid me over a recon.
No after your kind crying for ages they made Raiding tame yes, there's still free noob sabbing though.
Thank you for your response! It is a tough balancing scale between war and peace. Some players are now making the decision whether they want to invest that time into the game. We also have these players complaining about era's being boring when its just banking and ranking though so where is the line drawn? Some have mentioned limiting alliance sizes etc.VibrioWolf wrote: ↑5 years ago Such a well written and reasoned post deserves a reply from me (what an honour, I'm sure).
....
Thats a good point.
I wasn't implying rules, but more a case of being able to set win conditions for a war.chrisl7605 wrote: ↑5 years agoNo rules need to be implemented imo. if you want to war certain chains you deal with the repercussions.
Cant have a war game without war as they all say... whilst wanting to bank and rank?
You sold into their chain, funding the war. You have openly sided with them on here and other platforms.
An extra person to sab? Other than that, nothing much if I am honest
