why, was cowardice acceptable before "late-Bi!"?
If I had said "Bi!" you would've posted a petty response along the lines of "Where is Bi! now?" etc. I think its safe to say that Bi! were clearly the more formidable compared to =FATE=, as proven by the sheer immortality of some of Bi!'s players compared to =FATE=, whom all were targets (*cough*Rev*cough*your finest*cough*).
Not really as Grant is the main reason Bi! aren't here anymore but not the only reason. I think that if you guys had been rank 1 and cruising to world domination I think Grant wouldn't have disbanded and instead just kept on playing and then taken all the credit at the end. But you weren't, and it was clear that eventually you would have been defeated, although it would have taken a very, very long time. As to Bi! being more formidable than =FATE= I think not. Firstly the stats have always been in our favour, and our growth has never been faltering while you guys for a long time weren't really growing as fast as us or not at all at some points as we were slowly but surely eating up your players, and yes you will say "but they were inactive" but is it really possible that every single player we started nobling suddenly became supposedly inactive and was then kicked. Or maybe you just realized you hadn't recruited the best player and thus abandoned him rather than defend him? You had two or three exceptional players but that's it really and eventually it would have been just you 3 left, and some time later still even you 3 would have gone. It's a bit like in football, a couple of world class stars won't make a team. 11 good players who have played together for a long time and know each other well can easily beat a team with no tactics and with 2 or 3 outstanding players who just play on their own.
It was easier, quicker and safer that way rather then choosing just the best and leaving the rest alone to get easily eaten up by Smile? and Battle Axe at least now they are not easy pickings, and although when we founded =FATE= we did decide we would keep the member count on the low side at all times this time we made a little exception as anyway there are many accounts in =FATE= which are being internalled and basically once they are dealt with our member account will be lowered considerably. We tend to focus on our enemies, unlike lots of tribes, even when there are villages which need internalling.
They'll still be easy pickings. I'm sure the level of talent of those players has not grown at all. They are probably still nobling barbs as usual and generally being noobs.
But hey, if you want to be rubbish and recruit noobs, be my guest.
Well now they are slightly less easy pickings. And easier and better to defend them now than have to take them back later off someone somewhat better.
Talon saw in morning star an excellent player, fighter and farmer, who will help us expand and consolidate our position in K54 and wanted him to be in =FATE= ever since Bi! disbanded, so I believe that was before morning star fell out with +PEST-.
*smirk* No, he has points and he gets plunderer all the time that's why you were like "OMG, HE'S AWESOME AND EX-BI! HE MUST BE GOOD IF HE WAS COUNCIL BLAH BLAH".
Let me make things *very* clear to you. I'm sure BattleAxe will confirm what I say.
In Bi!, both myself, Grant and Matt (BattleAxe) knew full well that morning star was a fantastic farmer but nowhere near as good a player. He isn't bad. But certainly a level below the likes of Smile? and BattleAxe etc. BattleAxe and myself had a big discussion about it and one of the issues was morning star putting farming ahead of warfare despite having an abundance of targets due to being surrounded by cannon-fodder Vital. Though Grant may feel the need to disagree with me due to our disagreement, I'm sure if he gave his unbiased opinion, he would agree that MS still had a bit of a way to go compared to say, BattleAxe or Smile?.
Unfortunately it is the farmers that seem to be able to gain rank 1 points in the end, this is a fundamental weakness of the TribalWars ranking system, which is why I come back to my old belief that OD/ODA/ODD(without losses) is a better gauge of player ability. Before any noobs criticise me stating that I held rank 1 points; yes that is true, but I had rank 1 ODA (and rank 1 OD) at the same time, so that is all good.
No we weren't like "omg he has so many awards he must be awesome!" much to your disappointment probably. In the long run it makes sense to have him, and we'll see for ourselves whether he's good or not, currently we are pretty sure he is and I think our opinion will stay like that. As for being below the likes of Smile? and BattleAxe...well...that doesn't mean much to me at least as I still haven't met any of you on the battlefield. Although I do like your point about farmers being very much advantaged by how the game works and agree that OD numbers are a better measure of a player's ability.
and a ceasefire at some point :lol:
