Re: Aderan's Alliances - balance, strategies etc...

by Vesper Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:30 am

Sandwalker wrote:Dibs on the next guy that joins tie. My squad is the smallest ... you ... bastards!

quit your whining. you should be happy you have the smallest squad. Do you have any idea how hard i have to work to avoid being made a squad leader? Everytime someone messes up ian tries to talk me into it. Sad

by Hai-Shulud Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:09 pm

Firstly - TIE forums are like a shrine to SPAM! Seriously there are some real gems in there like - Ians "attempts" at counting from 1 to 20 and then the saying the alphabet on MSN when shall we say...... ummmm......completely plastered? Razz

(Im willing to release that to the public for a small auction. Starting bid is 1mil UU Cool

)

Secondly - Can we stop all tooting out own trumpet as such? Razz

I mean we all know TIE is our beloved home but do we really have to shout it out across the rooftops?....or forums for that matter? Razz

Thirdly - I hate how most things come on 3's so this point is just to extend it by one

Finally Fourth - Vesper you lazy sod, i just got a bollocking from Ian last night coz ive been slacking with my squad Embarassed

And Dune - HELL NO! I already shotgunned next one! I only got a total of 5 people in my squad!

by Kenzu Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:07 pm

doxakk wrote:I agree with Ian that someone would be hopelessly naive if he can think he would be able to survive a determined attack by TIE no matter how high his defense is. But you can still protect yourself from everyone else who doesn't have the firepower or the resources of TIE.
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

I completely agree with you in this one.

-----

I think its pretty obvious that in every war, where one side has much stronger economy than the other side, the side with the stronger economy will win. If one side has much stronger economy AND military, then there isn't much to be discussed. It should be obvious that the stronger one will win.

There is no reason to be proud of winning a war against someone who is economically and militarily weaker than you.

There is one thing one could be proud of however. If you are on the side of the weaker one, and you win, then you truly should be proud. Afterall, defeating someone who is stronger than you is not easy.

And I don't relate this to Aderan Wars, this can be applied everywhere in the world.
Just look at all major wars which have happened in the history. I can't think of any conventional war, which has been won by a country which had much weaker economy and military than a different country.

(And I don't talk about Guerilla wars, I talk about regular wars between 2 countries or more countries.)

If you have a weaker economy, you might win a war if you deploy a stronger military force early enough, but the longer you wait, the longer the war drags on, the more likely that the country with the strong economy will win.

Example: Axis vs Allies in WWII. Axis had more military but much weaker economy and much smaller population than allies. In the beginning they could take over land and were winning, but the problem was that the Allies were building tanks and other military equipment much faster than Axis which eventually led to their downfall.

Axis lost 4.000.000 civilians and 8.000.000 soldiers
Allies lost 45.000.000 civilians and 16.000.000 soldiers, but it was the Allies who won the war, because they had much more people, much more resources and much higher production.

Aderan Wars doesn't give a possibility of fighting guerilla or resistance wars, all wars are fought conventionally, it's impossible for a small player to defeat a big player alone, and thus the economically stronger side will always win (unless they have no clue how to use their military). Assuming that everyone balances their forces, even if there is a big group of small players who unite to take down 1 big player, they will need to have a stronger military to win a battle, but if they want to win the war, they will need to have a stronger economy.

by ian Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:14 pm

I can think of a fairly large amount of wars where a weaker country has beat a stronger country. But for now i ll just list a couple of them:

Russia vs. France - Naploeanic wars
Britain vs. France - Trafalgar, waterloo... basically the Naploeanic wars
Britain vs. France - The war involving Agincourt. Numerous wars between each other before and after then.
Normandy vs. Anglo-saxons (William the Conqueror vs. Harold).
Parliamentary forces vs. Royal Forces - English Civil war.
Rome vs. the Gauls
Rome vs. most of the known world
Greek city states (Alexander The Great) vs. Persian Empire

As for your "axis vs. Allies" example - absolutely terrible example. Germany & her allies war-machine was vastly superior to Britain & France's in terms of technology, doctrine, training etc... - hence why they steamrolled Western Europe in about 6 weeks.

Don't forget Russia was also a ally of Germany for the first 2 years (joint invasion of Poland which almost resulted in Britain declaring war against them) and only fought them when they got backstabbed and invaded.

Between 1940 and late 1941 it was Britain &The Commonwealth/ British Empire vs. Germany and the axis power's. I think its fair to say the axis powers had a superior economy between them and definately military superiority... about the only thing the empire had going for it was the Royal Navy.... which was utterly stretched thin fighting in multiple theatres across the globe, keeping Britain supplied as well as trying to keep the German, Italian, bits of the French Vichy navy etc... in check - yet despite all of this the war had ground to a stalemate (before the USA even got significantly (i.e. a significant amount of troops into the combat zone) involved the British Eighth army halted the German Advance at El Alamein and then proceeded to start driving it back - and the battle of the Atlantic and Battle of Britain was generally already won by then... not to mention Russia's victort at Stalingrad at roughly the same time).

Its also mid/late 1940 where the lend-lease program between the USA & the other allies was finally arranged - before that it was cash for arm's deal (so using up Britains wealth/ economic strength - as oppossed to the USA giving out freely).

Though... your example is kinda right that without Hitler's inspired idea to go do a Naploean and get his army wiped out in Russia, not to mention the Japanese going and poking a sleeping dragon - then victory would have certainly been uncertain without the allies *eventual* economic and military superiority (eventual because they only gained that in the last 3 or 4 years of the war i.e. the 2nd half with the involvement of the USSR and the USA - before then the allies were definately outgunned, and when France was knocked out of the war The British Empire was certainly outclassed economically and militarily by the combined might of the axis forces).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: As for your "There is no reason to be proud of winning a war against someone who is economically and militarily weaker than you"
- i m sorry thats a load of BS.

The ONLY reason The Imperium has a superior economy and military over other's is because *our* member's have put the effort and activity in needed to get that far - coupled with effective policies and constant motivation from the alliance to progress and reach their full potential.

I remember not so long ago you mocked The Commonwealth over our economic and military capacity - yet despite being a lot younger than many of the other alliance's on Aderan War's we progressed to become AW's 2nd superpower.... and then merged with The Company forming The Imperium. The Company worked their own asses off to be AW's 1st superpower as well - and since the merger The Imperium's worked hard and remained focus to remain as powerful as we are.

If a vastly superior military and economy capability crushes the enemy in war... then that is *definately* something to be proud off - because thats EXACTLY why so much effort goes into reaching our full potential - so we can slaughter the enemy at will.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for any alliance or player's that winge they can't match the economy or military capacity of another alliance - if they want to match it... they have to work for it. Proper discipline and policies always yield positive results... it just takes motivation on the part of the alliance leadership and members, and a constant focus on the goals required.

by Vesper Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:26 pm

Kenzu wrote:
There is no reason to be proud of winning a war against someone who is economically and militarily weaker than you.

There is one thing one could be proud of however. If you are on the side of the weaker one, and you win, then you truly should be proud. Afterall, defeating someone who is stronger than you is not easy.

Aderan Wars doesn't give a possibility of fighting guerilla or resistance wars, all wars are fought conventionally, it's impossible for a small player to defeat a big player alone, and thus the economically stronger side will always win (unless they have no clue how to use their military). Assuming that everyone balances their forces, even if there is a big group of small players who unite to take down 1 big player, they will need to have a stronger military to win a battle, but if they want to win the war, they will need to have a stronger economy.

A war is a war. If the smaller person is involved in instigating the war why should people not feel happy that they have achieved what they wanted?

Yeah been there, done that. Feels sorta the same honestly. When your on the larger side your happy the war is over because you can go back to growth. When your on the smaller side your happy that you made it out alive and were able to make a statement. Same story different chapter. A win is a win no matter who you are competing against. I few people as equals. Any day a small player can do something amazing and unexpected. You should not underestimate an enemy because you have no idea what they can do. View yourself as the underdog in every situation to avoid careless mistakes.

I completely disagree, well organized people can easily take down a larger account. Take yourself as an example, in that first war you were much larger than any of the people attacking you in your first massing. Ian was equal to your size but i do not believe he was involved in any of the actual hits. then we had several people around half your size bring you down cost efficiently. When you talk about economy i also find that totally a waste. A couple smaller players can easily overtake a larger players eco. Mainly because of AE. On any given day a well driven group of individuals can take out anybody on the server. Everybody has power, its just how is that power used that makes the difference.

by Kenzu Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:23 pm

ian wrote:I remember not so long ago you mocked The Commonwealth over our economic and military capacity

When?

I don't remember saying anything remotely similiar to that.

Can you show me?

ian wrote:I have absolutely zero sympathy for any alliance or player's that winge they can't match the economy or military capacity of another alliance - if they want to match it... they have to work for it. Proper discipline and policies always yield positive results... it just takes motivation on the part of the alliance leadership and members, and a constant focus on the goals required.

Not everyone is willing to spend half an hour on Aderan Wars every day, or wake up at night to fight.

In fact, most people like to to play only a couple minutes per day.

by Sandwalker Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:39 pm

With a couple of minutes per day you'll never amount to anything.

by Lord Ishurue Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:44 pm

Sandwalker wrote:With a couple of minutes per day you'll never amount to anything.

Agreed . No sense in having members who are not Active and Ambitious .

by Universe Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:58 pm

It's a game. People spend as much time as they want. So some people spend hours playing, and others spend minutes.

You don't see monopoly players complain about how people suck at monopoly if they don't play that for hours a day.. and what is this game other than an advanced and complicated form of monopoly.

Being online for 4, sometimes even more hours a day doesn't make you a better player. Apparently you have a lot of free time, nothing else to do but play a game. Nothing wrong with that, if people want to play for hours on end, then that's their prerogative. But if your success in the game depends on how long you can stand to sit behind your pc per day.. then that should be advertised.
Play the game any way you want. If you want to be average, be average. If you want to be pro, be pro. If you just want to log in and bank, well.. just log in and bank. It is of no consequence.
Comments like "you'll never amount to anything".. I grin about those. If they have fun, what do they need to "amount to"? Your standards? *chuckle* They'll say "screw your standards" and have fun regardless.

I do agree that if such 1-minute-a-day players complain they cannot compete with the top, then yes.. no sympathy there. Anyone can compete. Just not all styles of play are as effective. As long as they have fun.. what does it matter anyway?

by Lord Ishurue Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:11 pm

Kenzu wrote:
doxakk wrote:
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

I completely agree with you in this one.

I disagree .
saying things like TIE is so strong because of them playing MMORPGs for years is just an excuse for one to be happy with there short comings .

by Universe Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:20 pm

Ishurue wrote:I disagree .
saying things like TIE is so strong because of them playing MMORPGs for years is just an excuse for one to be happy with there short comings .

Yup. Because having experience with both the type of game and your teammates counts for nothing. At all. Wow! Why do we even bother to try and learn something? After all.. having experience doesn't count if you can't be as obsessed with the game and carefree with your time as your neighbour. Sad

TIE's experience and their willingness to spend more than just a crapload of time on a game makes them good. (By spending a crapload of time, I mean -among other things- figuring out policies etcetera.) The actual active core (the ones that actually adhere to those policies and time-requirements) of all alliances is barely above 10% of their total force.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:16 am

Universe wrote:
Ishurue wrote:I disagree .
saying things like TIE is so strong because of them playing MMORPGs for years is just an excuse for one to be happy with there short comings .

Yup. Because having experience with both the type of game and your teammates counts for nothing. At all. Wow! Why do we even bother to try and learn something? After all.. having experience doesn't count if you can't be as obsessed with the game and carefree with your time as your neighbour.

TIE's experience and their willingness to spend more than just a crapload of time on a game makes them good. (By spending a crapload of time, I mean -among other things- figuring out policies etcetera.) The actual active core (the ones that actually adhere to those policies and time-requirements) of all alliances is barely above 10% of their total force.

it was nothing negative . When i saw Kenzu's replies the below post came to mind .
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f1/world-republic-bigger-than-all-top-10-alliances-combined-t790-15.htm

___

Kenzu wrote: That's probably because we don't have so many players who played other MMORPG games like you have.

ian wrote:
Then again, many/ virtually all your players have been playing the game for many months now (many of them having more than 4months head start over myself and other commonwealth members), and have failed to make any serious progress forwards at all. Ignorance of how to grow and play is simply not a excuse i m afraid once players are 2 weeks or older and part of an alliance - failing to grow is merely a reflection of that alliance's failure at communicating appropriate methods of growth onto the new players.

Many of the commonwealth were once upon a time very small players who invested ridiculous amounts of resources into stats, and never achieved any significant growth at all. Its mainly through a large part of the strategies myself and other HC members forced on the members, coupled with the members dedication and enthuisiasm to learn - which has resulted in many of the commonwealth being very capable and very strong players in their own right.

There are a significant portion of world republic players who started long before The Commonwealth's members, and yet are now woefully inferior to The Commonwealth's average member. Other world republic members have built their account based around military strength - nothing short of building your house out of a deck of cards.... you only need a little bit of wind and the whole lot will come crashing down leaving them with nothing.

Being a capable player, and alliance - and more importantly being a successfull alliance and player - is more than just power on the alliance rankings, or rankings on the battlefield - its about building an account and a alliance which can prosper and grow strongly under as many different conditions (good or bad) as possible - its about flexibility, and the ability to continue to develop effectively to compete against rivals and threats. Right now unless World Republic adjusts its strategy, and its memberbases start growing effectively - then honestly, the next month could well be the last month that World Republic can be deemed a major power - since after that you ll have dropped so far behind economically and militarily you couldn't really be placed in the major power's league.

I hope for the game's sake you guys decide to become a effective alliance capable of significant growth .. but i doubt it Sad

by Hai-Shulud Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:24 am

LOL - on more than one occasion as I am about to go to bed and check my msn and bank everything for the last time Ian or Vesper will send me a message along the lines of - "get your ass online, we are striking now" and i doubt ive refused many times (altough i general principle personal needs take priority but its not like i do a lot at 2 in the morning after a night out drinking and clubbing in town Razz

). I guess i enjoy it but also its the few times when i do actually play! I mean i spend tops 30 minutes a day on each online game ( i only play 2 ). In all honesty i rather have a nice war then go to my oscillations and waves lecture at 9am! So having the excuse to be online more is great!

Give me 5 average army size people and i can wage war and seriously damage ANY alliance on this game including TIE. What makes a good alliance isnt one particular thing! You cant say its how much time they spend online or how long they have known each other or how big they are or how loyal they are or any one thing for that matter. Its the right combination.

Given the correct tools you can construct anything. TIE is what it is because we are individuals with experience in different areas working together towards the same goal - to construct the greatest alliance we possibly can.

by Sandwalker Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:28 am

Universe wrote:
Comments like "you'll never amount to anything".. I grin about those. If they have fun, what do they need to "amount to"? Your standards? *chuckle* They'll say "screw your standards" and have fun regardless.

I generally tend to think of games as things that are there to be won. I can't have fun if I'm not competing for the first places. That's what games are, that's why competitions exist and trophies are given to the winners. At the end of a football match there's losers and winners and guess who had more fun. At the end of a World Cup final when the losing team cries on the field, those aren't tears of joy and it wasn't fun.

Yes, people play games to have fun. But the fun part is winning, not just participating. That's the kind of thing losers say: "it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's that you have fun playing". I never had fun losing or being mediocre.

Be it a browser-based game, chess or a pug basketball game in the park, you're playing to win and that's what makes it fun.

by Hai-Shulud Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:36 am

Sandwalker wrote:I generally tend to think of games as things that are there to be won. I can't have fun if I'm not competing for the first places. That's what games are, that's why competitions exist and trophies are given to the winners. At the end of a football match there's losers and winners and guess who had more fun. At the end of a World Cup final when the losing team cries on the field, those aren't tears of joy and it wasn't fun.

Yes, people play games to have fun. But the fun part is winning, not just participating. That's the kind of thing losers say: "it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's that you have fun playing". I never had fun losing or being mediocre.

Be it a browser-based game, chess or a pug basketball game in the park, you're playing to win and that's what makes it fun.

AMEN brother!

Think about it - second place is just the first loser.

by Sandwalker Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:40 am

or the biggest loser.

by Admin Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:43 am

Sandwalker wrote:But the fun part is winning, not just participating. That's the kind of thing losers say: "it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's that you have fun playing". I never had fun losing or being mediocre.

Be it a browser-based game, chess or a pug basketball game in the park, you're playing to win and that's what makes it fun.

Actually the only people I know who play to win is those who have some sort of deficiency in life and have never/rarely won in anything so they have to keep trying to achieve that feeling.

Winning or losing is merely the resulting average of the sum of consecutive events. But it never tells you how interesting or exciting these events were.
I'm not saying losing is fun (even though sometimes it is Very Happy

), but I'm definitely saying whether or not something is interesting and was worth the time has no correlation with the resulting win/loss evaluation.

Sure you could take away candy from a kid and say you won.
But I'd just reply, "you fail".

by Vesper Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:20 am

Okay i am going to point this out. What in the world can a person that spends hours a day on AW do? Seriously you cant farm, you cant raid (ST restricts that) This is a game that is purely based on what you do with the limited resources you have. This is a game of skill and not just activity.

You get 96 ST a day (48 farm attacks). Unless you have some strange problem then you should be able to hit at least 3 people a minute. So it would only take you 16 minutes to use all your STs for the day. Then that is ALL you can do. The better the hits you made the better off your account will be. Now how many people take 16 minutes and use a full 48 attacks a day? Hell i don't even thing anyone in TIE does a full 48 attacks a day.

Anybody can do a couple of hits a day (even just 10 hits) and you will be better off then most. If you wonder why some people have a much faster growth then others it is because they use their ST and farm people. I wonder when the last time kenzu farmed someone was. I know he did a couple of hits in the crusade but since then he hasn't attacked anyone i know of.

by Sandwalker Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:24 am

Admin wrote:1 but I'm definitely saying whether or not something is interesting and was worth the time has no correlation with the resulting win/loss evaluation.

2 Sure you could take away candy from a kid and say you won.
But I'd just reply, "you fail".

1. there are cases when it's more rewarding to lose and I've done it a few times. But there's a difference between choosing to lose and not caring. The only people I've met that didn't care about winning were pathological losers that just resigned with the status quo and started playing "for fun".

2. I don't see how anything in that makes sense or applies.

I'll concede that sometimes things can be fun either way, win or lose. But winning gives that extra bit of fun. And why would anyone play a competitive game with a scoring system if they don't want to win? Isn't that the definition of a game? You play against an opponent in order to win. What I find most important to the fun factor in sports games is the balance. The closer the game was, the more fun I had in the process. If my team gets steamrolled or we win 11-0 it's a general "meh." feeling. So no, winning without an opposition isn't very fun.

To go back to the initial derailing, you tell me how someone can have fun in this game by spending no more than 2 minutes daily on it. That must be a very easy to please human being.

by Sandwalker Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:41 am

Vesper wrote:16 minutes and use a full 48 attacks a day

banking/training/trading/spying/raiding/farming/massing/randomfunwithsabsandassassinations/checking forums/posting/chatting with alliance mates about the game.

It's not just 16 minutes of farming. (and I think you'd have to be pretty hardcore to find 48 good farms every day)

by Alex Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:18 am

I'm not going to quote anything specific, just respond the the new post as a whole:

Just because someone doesn't get the rank 1 spot, or 'wins the game' according to whatever the game uses as a scoring system doesn't mean they dont 'win'. They might set themsleves a goal such as 'get 500k army size in 3 days' or similar and have alot of fun straining to get that (Just an example, not saying if it is hard or easy or whatever to do that exact thing.) and then 'win' when they acheive it.

Some people have fun by logging in, chatting with mates, doing some allaince work, helping out some friends accounts and they will have alot of fun doing it even though they dont strive to be the #1 player. Winning is not the only reason people play games, especially games like this one that have no set end or 'winner'. People play them to socialize or to 'get away from everything' etc. Winning isn't everthing.
Having said that, some people have alot of fun by trying to win and be #1, and that is just as valid.

Also how does one 'lose' in this game? There is no real 'win' here either. No-one will ever be declared 'the winner' because the game never ends.

And there are a ton of things to do on this game if you spend hours a day playing it, if you can't think of any, read Sandwalkers post above mine Very Happy

-Alex

by doxakk Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:46 am

Ishurue wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
doxakk wrote:
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

I completely agree with you in this one.

I disagree .
saying things like TIE is so strong because of them playing MMORPGs for years is just an excuse for one to be happy with there short comings .

To what do you disagree Ish? I never said that TIE is so strong because they play MMORPGs for years and its an excuse for me to be happy with my shortcomings Smile

Allow me to explain again. A group of people that know and trust each other and have good communication channels will be a lot more successful if they move together in a new game than an individual that joins other people that he doesn't know or know him. In aderan wars this is more so because of the limited player base. This is a statement of opinion, not an accusation or excuse and with no hidden meanings.
The most successful game I have played was tribal wars where me and 6-7 of my coworkers joined together and dominated our little corner of the map. Meetings of our guilds high council were during coffee breaks Smile

by Kenzu Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:40 pm

Ishurue wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
doxakk wrote:
We talk about alliances but I believe there is only one alliance in this game right now, the others are just groups of independent players. This is because TIE has a core of players that have played together for years in other games and moved here as a group and their numbers were sufficient enough to make a difference due to the limited player base.

I completely agree with you in this one.

I disagree .
saying things like TIE is so strong because of them playing MMORPGs for years is just an excuse for one to be happy with there short comings .

Not really. We play less, because we choose to do so. It is not a shortcomming, it is a different playing style.
I wouldn't have against playing a game, where your success doesn't depend so much on how much time you spend on it.

Sandwalker wrote:
Universe wrote:
Comments like "you'll never amount to anything".. I grin about those. If they have fun, what do they need to "amount to"? Your standards? *chuckle* They'll say "screw your standards" and have fun regardless.

I generally tend to think of games as things that are there to be won. I can't have fun if I'm not competing for the first places. That's what games are, that's why competitions exist and trophies are given to the winners. At the end of a football match there's losers and winners and guess who had more fun. At the end of a World Cup final when the losing team cries on the field, those aren't tears of joy and it wasn't fun.

Yes, people play games to have fun. But the fun part is winning, not just participating. That's the kind of thing losers say: "it doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's that you have fun playing". I never had fun losing or being mediocre.

Be it a browser-based game, chess or a pug basketball game in the park, you're playing to win and that's what makes it fun.

Do you define winning as being much stronger than anyone?

Do I want to be successful? Yes!
Do I want to be much stronger than everyone? NO!

Because if this would be the goal of everyone, then everyone would simply join the strongest alliance, or become an ally of the strongest alliance. That would be lame.

I play to improve the gaming experience of Aderan players. And eveyone should!

Of course it's great to see oneself winning, but it shouldn't be the main reason why you play the game.
Your main goal should be to make sure as many players enjoy playing it as possible.

Afterall what would it help you that you "won", became stronger than everyone and defeated everyone so badly they would leave the game. You without doubt would win the game, but at what price? There would be no one left to see what you achieved.

Isn't it better to play in a way that you encourage competition and encourage more sides and more balanced game, so that even though you are at higher risk of not staying the best, you and everyone else will enjoy the game even in the future, because it will remain balanced.

Play to be slightly better than everyone, but don't play to dominate everyone.

If one alliance, no matter which one, would ever become so strong that all the others wouldn't be able to defeat her no matter how long they would fight, then this would not be a victory for the strongest alliance, it would be a defeat for every single player of Aderan Wars.

doxakk wrote:
The most successful game I have played was tribal wars where me and 6-7 of my coworkers joined together and dominated our little corner of the map. Meetings of our guilds high council were during coffee breaks

This must have made the communication very easy! Very Happy

by Hai-Shulud Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:55 pm

Hmm everyone has their own opinions and own beliefs, however this does not mean your not wrong (opinions can be wrong).

So the way ive always approached it is from a purely logical view -

I want to achieve objective X
I can achieve or fail.
There are many paths i can take - A, B, C ect
Some paths will fail and some will succeed
There are other people also trying to achieve objective X
Some will have mutual interest and some will be your rivals
THE best way to achieve objective X is to work WITH the people who have mutual interest and AGAINST your rivals.
Therefore you attempt to take the right path while forcing your rivals to take the wrong path ( or get there quicker or whatever you get the message )
THIS is competition, it applies here, it applies in life it, applies in EVERYTHING we do.
We aim for something, then we go about achieving it with a level of motivation and drive dictated by the strength of desire to achieve our goal.

Now people have various levels of "drive" to achieve their goals. So for example - Kenzu - he doesnt care if hes the best or to be top dog here coz its just a game. On the other hand take me - i want to be the best at EVERYTHING i do, be it just an online game or a sport or a casual game of FIFA10 on the PS3 or my degree. I'm not satisfied with anything less than achieving the very best i can. I believe its called being extremely competitive.

I do believe the most successful people in this world are the people with the most "drive". So if anything its one of my strenghts. Sadly a competitive personality comes with various problems such as arrogance, over confidence, ego-mania and insensitivity to others. But thats life, you get some good eggs and some bad eggs in your basket. You just gotta use the good ones to make the best omelette you can and hope the bad ones dont ruin it.

by Kenzu Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:17 pm

I didn't say that I don't care if I am the best.
Of course I want to be the best, but that doesn't mean that I will do it at any cost.

If becomming the best would mean that 10 players will leave the game, then I rather stay 2nd best than force these 10 players to leave.

by Sponsored content