The Mega Meta Zerg

1qaz wrote:

1)Saying you should not start a game if you will retire in the middle, its fine, i can agree to that.

But its doesn't change the fact you attacked and did well when most of the serve less active, and with less ambition. Doing same ops on day 90-100 would be completely different. You know it, and that's the reason you didn't do them. Otherwise what did stop you ?

2)About the numbers of capitals demolish, you catch me on small mistakes etc. everyone can do that and catch you on something small.

To my opinion our op was more successful, you can agree or disagree, but saying "you did not count right" its petty.

3)about the catas number the zerg number 2 lost, well, if you insinst on going into the numbers - so be it.

Cosmo: 24 waves of 300 cata each = 7200

you did try another 3 chiefs. each one 800 catas = 2400

Gunners catgut with 5k catas at home (WWK) = 5000

+ all GUNNERS catas splat, I will be generous with you and will say = 4000

Together it 18400.

Its the same amount of the catas number we lost, even slightly more.

Show All

So you're basicly saying you were wrong on everything you said before and it's just petty and stupid to point that out ?

Factchecking some more;

1) I won't and don't want to go into our strategical decisions since the server is still on-going and we are heavily outnumbered as 193 accounts vs. basicly the whole server.
But wouldn't you hit when it's the most beneficial for you or rather wait until you get hit and struggle ?

3) Cosmo wasn't 300 catas each wave so the amount there is not significantly but little less than 7200.
Also to point out the catas were from multiple ops hammers so makes losing ~1000 catas per hammer pretty insignificant.
+ Gunner's losing catas ain't our problem nor has anything to do with us

Feeling filthy after reading this forum, gotta catch a shower.

All I will say is that not since playing under the TR! banner (NE CONJUGARE NOBISCUM) in the venerable 3.1 era...

have I met such a cohesive band of woldwide players. And yes a stupendous HQs that somehow attracts a roster of xtremely capable leaders who voluteer for such a demanding gig.

Past greats include ,Orphen, Quazor, etc.!

Mature also... mainly!

LukeHaines_COM wrote:

...than I will ever be... skilled enough...

As for the rank & file in the trenches... well what can I say that has not been said before?

Okey, even though we might from time to time squable hardy. In the end we seem to be able to agree to disagree.

As the good'ol gringo saying goes:

"Opinions are as *_holes... everyone's got one"!

Loffe wrote:

Since you count gunners lost catas, shouldnt you include the 12k catas WWK DND lost?
Or does that not fit you narrative?

i don't mind you add it to the list. Didn't know about this one. DND lost the only WWK they had ? ? ?

Saravan wrote:

Op 60 days ago from 3 alliances attacking together resulting in 20-ish caps being hit of which the majority were techs is definietly more successful than losing 2 WWKs, 3 hammer vills and ~50 GoW caps you delusional clown.

And then you go on to compare cata numbers where you conveniently include anything Gunners lost and apply it to us but simultanouesly leave out anything your zerg allies lose. You either compare both or you don't at all, but of course then it would be obvious you can't do basic math. But that's not even the thing of importance here, there is a huge difference between 1 player losing 11k catas and 5 players losing 11k catas combined. I'm not even going to bother explaining why because you are too low skilled to understand the difference anyways.

One member of Duat is saying 35 caps, then you say 50 caps. first compare the numbers with your friends, then come to here with them.

That's you say you are right doesn't mean you are. Saying whole numbers like 50, 35 etc just show you are bluffing and not serious.

Unlike me which i said 7 caps last op, this is a real number, i didn't say 5, 10, 15, 20. Stop the bluff!!

I like to see you understood I'm right like you said we both lost same amount +-. Now, we can agree or disagree if losing this amount of catas in one account or the lose divide to 5 accounts its the same.

1qaz wrote:

i don't mind you add it to the list. Didn't know about this one. DND lost the only WWK they had ? ? ?

One member of Duat is saying 35 caps, then you say 50 caps. first compare the numbers with your friends, then come to here with them.

That's you say you are right doesn't mean you are. Saying whole numbers like 50, 35 etc just show you are bluffing and not serious.

Unlike me which i said 7 caps last op, this is a real number, i didn't say 5, 10, 15, 20. Stop the bluff!!

I like to see you understood I'm right like you said we both lost same amount +-. Now, we can agree or disagree if losing this amount of catas in one account or the lose divide to 5 accounts its the same.

Go back to school and learn some basic reading comprehension before you immediately hit that reply button.

Verschwunden wrote:

35 capitals properly destroyed - to be a bit more merciful to you, I ignored the capitals that were hit in the sneaky sweep ops and did get damaged but not as significantly.

I don't agree at all with your 1+1=3 math of counting catas, I was talking about the difference between holding catas for 1 player and several players and just used a figure as an example. My mistake however, I assumed I was talking with someone with more than two braincells.

I don't even know what your point is to come here and write fiction it's not going to change the reality of your situation in game anyways.

Rextugenos_FI wrote:

So you're basicly saying you were wrong on everything you said before and it's just petty and stupid to point that out ?

Factchecking some more;

1) I won't and don't want to go into our strategical decisions since the server is still on-going and we are heavily outnumbered as 193 accounts vs. basicly the whole server.
But wouldn't you hit when it's the most beneficial for you or rather wait until you get hit and struggle ?

3) Cosmo wasn't 300 catas each wave so the amount there is not significantly but little less than 7200.
Also to point out the catas were from multiple ops hammers so makes losing ~1000 catas per hammer pretty insignificant.
+ Gunner's losing catas ain't our problem nor has anything to do with us

Feeling filthy after reading this forum, gotta catch a shower.

Show All

I don't want to get a shower, so think i won't bother to replay to such a dirty message

And for the little penguin, breath deep before you hitting the replay button.

1qaz wrote:

And for the little penguin, breath deep before you hitting the replay button.

LukeHaines_COM  1qaz

Loffe wrote:

Since you count gunners lost catas, shouldnt you include the 12k catas WWK DND lost?
Or does that not fit you narrative?

I was not aware we even had a WWK. If we would have had a serious one we sure would have given that account trainer at some point during the last 1,5 months

Verschwunden wrote:

I, for one, do think GUNNERS have deserved the attention they have received from you all through their actions, plants and other borderline shady plays included. Do I see that as a justification for you to partake into a 600 account meta that not only attacks them together but also shares artifacts and defense beyond alliance borders? No. Even if the allies involved would split up for the endgame and go for their own victory, the currently ongoing scheme can well be described as a zerg. [...]

Saravan wrote:

Yeah no zerg, just accidentally timed attacks from 4 alliances on every op since artis were released. Players just accidentally jumping into other alliances everytime one of the 4 metas gets attacked. Artis just accidentally being transferred with no resistance between 4 alliances. Motivations may be individual, playstyle is definietly not. I understand you may be embarrassed over the whole ordeal, especially if you are still struggling with these increadiable advantages. Now please reply to this and cry zerg because we defended Gunners once, it's not close to the size, server duration and the level of cooperation of what you guys are doing.

I think, if we were all being completely honest (a tall order around here, I know), it would be somewhat disingenuous to say that these views are false.

Clearly, they are both with merit, and perfectly valid perspectives.

There is one very strongly formed and large zerg on one side, and a mismatched, significantly smaller group of embattled alliances who cooperated on one occasion on the other. That, surely, is indesputable fact.

I would pick up only on one word - no, Saravan, I don't think many are feeling embarrassed. Gunners were totally asking for it, and deserve everything they get. And you, with your Finnish friends, are too good. Take it as a compliment, and get on with showing why you deserve so much attention.

LukeHaines_COM wrote:

You know that everyone is attacking Gunners because your diplocamcy sucks and made everyone hate you right? There is no zerg we are just attacking you for our own individual reasons. And you are right I'm really stupid and I guess you are also a much better player than I will ever be since you were skilled enough to be invited to Gunners. In fact me pointing out that your OP-hammers are not that great (overall) considering your many techs is just me being jealous.

LukeHaines_COM wrote:

I was not aware we even had a WWK. If we would have had a serious one we sure would have given that account trainer at some point during the last 1,5 months

Kek