SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

- 8/17/19

Moderator: Moderator

Locked
Aggie
Player
Posts: 55
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by Aggie » 1 month ago

bravo wrote:
1 month ago
From what I understand it looks like you're fishing for it to end by talking about winning a war or something?
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.
But now you can only brag with (a few) raid numbers and you still think you're winning?

On topic:

My War Sabs on RLRB
24 Hours 13,456,600,000 gold (413 missions)
Total 467,577,710,000 gold (7,910 missions)
Destroyed: 655,484 weapons/tools

User avatar
MadGeorge
Player
Posts: 122
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by MadGeorge » 1 month 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?? :o
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?
MadGeorge-SR
Sweet Revenge Advisor & BF Mod

The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails
—William Arthur Ward

User avatar
VibrioWolf
Player
Posts: 21
Joined: 6 months ago
Contact:

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by VibrioWolf » 1 month ago

Such a well written and reasoned post deserves a reply from me (what an honour, I'm sure).

Who indeed ever wins a koc war? And who loses? We all no doubt have our opinion on that. Lot of people hold true to the idea that one side surrenders, and by that definition this war rages on, though with a huge difference in activity save for a few honourable mentions.

As for my two pence... More than anything, wars like this are immensely time consuming. So much of your armoury gets sabbed daily. Yes, it can be slayed back, yes you can sab back. But when the list is 150+ players long it requires some serious time, effort and motivation. Personally, I believe that's not really what koc is about (or bon should charge AAA game prices to play xD). As a result, overall activity is down ultimately leading to very low raid numbers indeed. Does this mean one side wins? As I said, most are of the opinion that it isn't over until the very last person stops. What I find telling is that many people would rather quit the game altogether than surrender to SR, perhaps in the knowledge that the status quo won't change.

Anyway, I doff my hat to all those who have warred hard.

chrisl7605
Player
Posts: 48
Joined: 6 months ago
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by chrisl7605 » 1 month ago

MadGeorge wrote:
1 month 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?? :o
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?
Good post. But I do have to slightly disagree.

I have gotten a ton of surrenders over my time of playing KOC. Many when I was with DEMK and a few with Glads. Including one as early as February with a chain the was 3x our value.

I even heard some would have given a surrender during this war.

No rules need to be implemented imo. if you want to war certain chains you deal with the repercussions.

Total sabbed 24: chris7605 13,662,600,000

That will be higher by the end of the day. Need to take this 200 person list in waves :P
Last edited by chrisl7605 1 month ago, edited 1 time in total.

Krieper
Player
Posts: 4
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by Krieper » 1 month ago

Krieper's log, 29th of July, 2019.

After a long break from KoC, I'm taking a quick look on GUA to see what's going on in the lands of chaos.
Wait, KoC GUA is no more... there is a whole new forum. Kudos bon and others, it looks quite nice.

Lets click towards the alliance section. Oh, seems there is war going on. Looks like the good old rankers vs rogues war is still going strong. Lets read some posts.

*FLASHBACK TO 2015*

Good to see some things never change lol.

Enjoy your war!

User avatar
bravo
Player
Posts: 78
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by bravo » 1 month ago

MadGeorge wrote:
1 month 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?
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.
I'm not fighting your war I'm just defending myself for a couple of weeks till the end of Era and then there's a reset of the game, and that's likely the only kind of truce you can get from me.

In this BF-case scenario, SR isn't winning at all but losing more stuff and men because some noob had to sab me for a couple of million.
Keeping in mind that I sold off my Low TFF account about 4 weeks previous and there was nothing to get from the start, especially after a few Conscriptions and an upgrade.

Now, I wonder what did you or SR actually really gained from my approval, my come back on the new forums? :lol:

User avatar
Kaya
Player
Posts: 260
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by Kaya » 1 month ago

yes you keep it well active lmaoo
Image

Aggie
Player
Posts: 55
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by Aggie » 1 month ago

bravo wrote:
1 month ago

In this BF-case scenario, SR isn't winning at all but losing more stuff and men because some noob had to sab me for a couple of million.
You were approved because you thought it was funny to raid me over a recon.
And I approved you myself for that. Again, the few raids you can do each day are not sufficient.

User avatar
bravo
Player
Posts: 78
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by bravo » 1 month ago

Aggie wrote:
1 month ago
bravo wrote:
1 month ago

In this BF-case scenario, SR isn't winning at all but losing more stuff and men because some noob had to sab me for a couple of million.
You were approved because you thought it was funny to raid me over a recon.
And I approved you myself for that. Again, the few raids you can do each day are not sufficient.
No after your kind crying for ages they made Raiding tame yes, there's still free noob sabbing though. :lol:

On topic.
Raids 73
Enemy Losses 18,165 :lol:
Your Loses 318

Sab-round in about an hour.
SabTotal: 18,930,019,000 Gold [1488 missions]

User avatar
MadGeorge
Player
Posts: 122
Joined: 6 months ago
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SR/DEMK/NSG/FFLOP/LaCN vs RL/RB/GLD/NWO

Post by MadGeorge » 1 month ago

VibrioWolf wrote:
1 month ago
Such a well written and reasoned post deserves a reply from me (what an honour, I'm sure).
....
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.
chrisl7605 wrote:
1 month ago
Good post. But I do have to slightly disagree.
...
Thats a good point.
I have rarely seen surrenders happening though as pride kicks in and neither side want to admit defeat (not just in this one, but in many previously)

As far as this war goes, many will likely just want to stick it out because its SR. It would be pointless stopping against the others if its still vs SR so I think that's why some are just carrying on now.
You guys are welcome to surrender to the might of George Love? :lol:
chrisl7605 wrote:
1 month ago
No rules need to be implemented imo. if you want to war certain chains you deal with the repercussions.
I wasn't implying rules, but more a case of being able to set win conditions for a war.
Obviously if the win conditions were "age long" or "no surrender" etc then so be it and its a good slog to the end.
It was a thought based off talking to different people from different chains over the years *shrugs*

Krieper wrote:
1 month ago
Lets click towards the alliance section. Oh, seems there is war going on. Looks like the good old rankers vs rogues war is still going strong.
Cant have a war game without war as they all say... whilst wanting to bank and rank? :lol:
bravo wrote:
1 month ago
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.
You sold into their chain, funding the war. You have openly sided with them on here and other platforms.
You acted based upon a RECON, which I will only assume was to try and provoke after the "two week approval" idea went out the window on me? :lol:
Whether you admit it or not, you've been sat on the sidelines of this waiting for a chance, so you got it ;-)
bravo wrote:
1 month ago
Now, I wonder what did you or SR actually really gained from my approval, my come back on the new forums? :lol:
An extra person to sab? Other than that, nothing much if I am honest :lol:
Actually no, I get some private messages with declarations of love which I couldn't do without!!!


Anyway.. thanks to those who have given some opinions!!

Lido - I still love your pink shirt!!! Your secret identity is safe with me!!!
MadGeorge-SR
Sweet Revenge Advisor & BF Mod

The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails
—William Arthur Ward

Locked