Start up vs Late game

[DeletedUser1511]

Lol, your arrogance is amazing. Get off your high horse you blinded talking ego. What are you, some overinflated balloon that's just begging to be pricked by a pin?

Now hear this!

You do NOT understand.

You do not have the intelligence to state the entire forum as being so misguided. You do not have the authority of the position for your opinion to hold any value at all. The minute you devalue everyone's opinion, everyone will devalue your own. Stop being such an insensitive noob, and respect other people for once. I sincerely hope your attitude in real life is different to what it is here. More than likely, it probably is. Most people on TW are like that. :icon_wink:

iHate later renamed and became Bi! and to this day, everyone will agree that Bi! was the strongest tribe to ever set foot on UK4. The strongest player (in terms of raw skill, not just stats) still playing on UK4 is a player by the name of "BattleAxe" who is ex-Bi!. While I won't say Bi! was perfect, they were an excellent tribe. Who on earth are you to say iHate were rubbish? Were you even IN the tribe to make such a deluded statement?

I was baron and then co-duke of iHate from startup till 1.8mil. I think my opinion on whether Bi! was a good tribe or not holds more weight than a deluded insufferable ego who has never been in the tribe, never played on UK4, probably doesn't know what an army camp is or how to use one, and is just sitting here, prattling on about how awesome he is and how the rest of the forum are noobs.

Let me past a simple message to you.

Ego. Curb. It. :icon_rolleyes:

On another note, can we get back to the debate of startup vs late-game, not a flame fest based on a trivial matter.

Strongest tribe on uk4. Really????????
Since when does that amount to anything...
Smack held rank 1 while they were here
Rumble and Ra, held all the top 20 spots when they played.
Leon, i think like at least 9-10/15 players were top 20. Granted it wasnt a sustainable tribe, nor would i even call it a good tribe. But it is easy to dominate the rankings here. Since when does that make it good. You were a duke in iHate. And you yourself have stated how you had members who hadn't build d. Does any more really need to be said about whether or not you were a good tribe ?

Why would i not know what an army camp is. you know they are on .net as well. that said you bore me. You now admit that good those who know how to play startup build D, and yet you were blasting on about how you know startup "elites" who dont build D. Sighhhh

also i probably dont teach people. Heck i even joined that tw skype chat for teaching newer players.But i guess you know me better than i know myself
Danke <3

 

[DeletedUser]

Explain then rather than questioning how I play TW. It was my understanding that ODA is calculated by the number of troops you have defeated (with varying weights to different types of troop).

However, if I am incorrect, please say so, rather than suggesting I can't play TW. I think you'll find there are many who would disagree.

Learn to not be rude Pervie.

The very nature of your comments, assuming the intention behind them is genuine, suggests the most limited and narrow understanding of the game possible. But to move on to explaining this comment:

High ODA = Good attacker as it shows he's killed the most troops in the world. ODA is measured by the number of ENEMY troops killed. Your own losses are NOT counted.

This horse has been beaten to death before. OD*A counts troops killed but to attain a high OD*A there is always (almost) a sacrifice of one's own troops involved.

Repeated discussions and analysis of the matter in many threads, some of which I thought were in UK as well, does show that a pure barb and inactive farmer who conserves troops religiously, always has a significantly larger army at nobling AND a greater resource hauled (subsequently proved repeatedly since the award system came into effect) than players who seek to farm active players (which requires repeatedly clearing the farm) and much much more so than the generic OD*A whores who think its an achievement in itself to have a high OD*A (bragging about early game OD*A on forums would place one firmly in that category).


In addition to the above explanation, it strikes me a laughable hypocrisy that you ask for people to not be rude on forums, I've witnessed your jackassery in W30 forums while my tribe, BD, stomped yours, DN - and in other places. Spiteful little forum trolls should not attempt the moral high ground. And you are a prime example of such.

Beyond that the achievements that you seem to parade here in your posts regarding Bi! and iHate are far from impressive, they are barely material. Among the people you mention in that tribe, at least Lisa has absolutely nothing good to say about you, very much the opposite.

You can stand here and make a wild, worthless assumption that I do not help my tribemates or help players learn (this I derive from the "wouldn't help their grandmothers" part, but reality would laugh at you, simply because your claim is contradicted by the very large group of some of the finest in tw in all stages between 1 and 400-500 villas who repeatedly gravitate back to me in order to be in same tribe under my leadership. It wouldn't be such if I was either self serving or unhelpful. There should also be at least a double figure of who are now serial top 10 players who have and would again acknowledge a role by me in their development and experience in tw, in some ways, the same Purple Predator you mention has had his forays in tw, intertwined with mine in that manner.

Your posts are pretty foolish because you repeatedly, on assumption, accuse people of flaws that you very evidently have yourself and show as much in your posts. Your either an intentional troll, or a very persistent, very ignorant one.

 

[DeletedUser]

[clt]Thanks for the kind words mate, as we are discussing UK4... just for the record, i was rank 2nd from the start, until i had to leave for other reasons and handed over to Bchomp and the lads. The only reason i wasnt 1st was because Grant, Miggy and Namaz were dominating on the Smile? account. No-one hears of my achievements because i simply never talk about them[/clt]



[clt]Cant remember playing alongside you.. unless u mean PPs invasion squad on .de... but dont really think you can count that.[/clt]

I apologise then. Sorry.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's not an alias in anyway to hide, it's the only account I've actually played on .co.uk. Plus who I am has no effect on the matter at hand.

My apologies. I thought you were an alias.

If Lisa isn't playing by definition she can not have built defence on that world - good argument, if she wasn't there she can't have built D. Anyway without twisting your words: Lisa being inactive means the account wasn't played like she usually would, her account has built D on the last 5+ worlds I played with her. I also never said she was a poor player.

No, as in she didn't try hard, but that doesn't stop her from being a great startup player. And she did have defence. I don't think either of us are contesting whether Lisa is good or not, so we can both agree.

Grant/Namaz/Miggy, where did I say they were poor? I said I had heard they were selfish, as in only out for themselves.

Yeah, I heard that too, they did do quite the opposite on UK4... at least at startup anyway, I won't go into Grant's fiasco after I left :icon_rolleyes:

Nauzhror I've probably played with more times than you, he builds defence - again nowhere did I say he was a poor player.

Yes, as has been stated several times, nor was it a point I questioned.

I have seen CLT play, just not for a while. He might have improved, but he didn't amount to much back then. If he does now then I'll admit I'm wrong.

People get better with more experience. I learnt more which each new world I played. I still have much more to learn imo.

HeftySmurf is the only player I can question you about? Yet you only replied with regards to my issues regarding CLT and Tender Touch, who I stated I knew nothing about. Throughout what you said you seem to enjoy putting words into my mouth.

My apologies if it seemed like I did that.

Your only example is iHate, which I'll admit I know nothing about, but you keep repeating it - out of interest is it your only experience of a top tribe at start up? If so I don't think you are informed enough to argue about it well.

Well, I was baron of W1N on UK1 too, and quite notorious there, perhaps not for all the right reasons, but nevertheless... and I did duke Oubliette on w30 which rose to rank 3, but it was my first time as a duke, so it was very good learning for me. W14, baron and arguably held an entire continent by myself... that was not fun.

I've been in quite a few tribes at startup... but loads of them fail. UK1, -TnT- was a mass-recruiting joke. UK2, Ninjas just collapsed before it even got started (I had to pick up the pieces and merge into Thargoran's tribe).

I don't know, but it was brought up so I commented on it.

Not blaming you for it



You seem to be agreeing with me here? :/

I am!

Heh, wardy is a bit of a fool. Pervis is nice behind the ego, can be very welcoming to new players once you get to know him, plus I wouldn't call him a start up player at least in the same way Nauzhror would be a startup player.

Would love to see this side of Pervis, but he has yet to show it. He harbours old hatred just because of my young carefree act on w30 about two years ago when I was duking Oubliette. While I never really traded insults with him, he can't seem to understand that people mature and change in the game. :icon_rolleyes:

Anyway the argument seems to have got distorted somewhere along the lines, whether it was me, wardy or you - I don't care. As I don't think I shared my opinion:

I appreciate late game isn't as simple as many people argue it is, but the risk factor and planning at start up makes it tougher in my opinion, simply based on the sheer idea of as things get bigger mistakes matter less.As I haven't played late game in 2 years-ish, I don't think I can comment more thoroughly on it with an informed view point thus I won't.

Fair enough. I would argue that the risk of startup is counteractted by the sheer overwhelming firepower one can receive late-game which requires permenant activity (such as a well executed OP). The strain involved is greater than startup imo. Ofc, I emphasise, that's MY opinion. Clearly its not liked by some. Others may agree.

Hence, welcome to the forums.

Red.

[clt]Thanks for the kind words mate, as we are discussing UK4... just for the record, i was rank 2nd from the start, until i had to leave for other reasons and handed over to Bchomp and the lads. The only reason i wasnt 1st was because Grant, Miggy and Namaz were dominating on the Smile? account. No-one hears of my achievements because i simply never talk about them[/clt]



[clt]Cant remember playing alongside you.. unless u mean PPs invasion squad on .de... but dont really think you can count that.[/clt]

As stated before, I give credit where its due CLT, and you did an amicable job on UK4, and tbh, being 2nd best to the Grant/Namaz/Miggy trio is nothing to be ashamed about, its still quite an achievement to be on their tails.

Strongest tribe on uk4. Really????????

Yah, really. :icon_rolleyes:

Since when does that amount to anything...

Err... I could ask the same question to you: since when has your opinion amounted to anything? See? Its not very nice when I dismiss your opinion in much the same way as you dismiss everyone elses.

Smack held rank 1 while they were here

Congratulations. How long did they keep rank 1 for?

Rumble and Ra, held all the top 20 spots when they played.

Lol, that's easy if u have a planned premade with ppl like Nauz jamm etc all in one tribe, total domination of the top 20 isn't that difficult.

Leon, i think like at least 9-10/15 players were top 20. Granted it wasnt a sustainable tribe, nor would i even call it a good tribe. But it is easy to dominate the rankings here. Since when does that make it good. You were a duke in iHate. And you yourself have stated how you had members who hadn't build d. Does any more really need to be said about whether or not you were a good tribe ?

Lol, here's the bullet to shoot down your argument.

How long did Leon! last?
And how long did iHate/Bi! last?

Kthxbai. I think we know which tribe is better. iHate may not have been better at startup, but TribalWars is all about surviving and dominating. I think iHate/Bi! wins there.

Why would i not know what an army camp is. you know they are on .net as well. that said you bore me. You now admit that good those who know how to play startup build D, and yet you were blasting on about how you know startup "elites" who dont build D. Sighhhh

A misguided perception, and vain attempts to get a high rank, need to some top-20 startup players trying to go pure offensive. This however means they are at a weakness if anyone realises they are pure O.

I never said EVERY startup elite is like this. Clearly not. :icon_rolleyes:

also i probably dont teach people. Heck i even joined that tw skype chat for teaching newer players.But i guess you know me better than i know myself
Danke <3

Lol, I never joined that, not sure what happened to it. If that's true, congratulations; but did u actually do anything in that chat? :icon_wink:

Red.

The very nature of your comments, assuming the intention behind them is genuine, suggests the most limited and narrow understanding of the game possible. But to move on to explaining this comment:

Well, I just wanted to discuss startup vs lategame, but we seem to divert so oh well... that's all the "intention" I have.

This horse has been beaten to death before. OD*A counts troops killed but to attain a high OD*A there is always (almost) a sacrifice of one's own troops involved.

I disagree. I was rank 1 ODA on UK4, and I never sacrified my own troops, I ensured all my troops were used in a correct fashion. At no point did I suicide troops, or simply throw nukes for the fun of it.

Repeated discussions and analysis of the matter in many threads, some of which I thought were in UK as well, does show that a pure barb and inactive farmer who conserves troops religiously, always has a significantly larger army at nobling AND a greater resource hauled (subsequently proved repeatedly since the award system came into effect) than players who seek to farm active players (which requires repeatedly clearing the farm) and much much more so than the generic OD*A whores who think its an achievement in itself to have a high OD*A (bragging about early game OD*A on forums would place one firmly in that category).

This is again disproven by myself, where I defeated such players. Granted, it took an insane amount of effort, farming, attacking, defending etc, but it can be done. But it involves being very sad, and farming almost constantly throughout the day. However, I did make the extra effort of attacking anyone who attempted to conserve troops and barb noble and internal all the time, so perhaps I forced players to abandon the standard methods of getting rank 1 by simply crushing them to pieces beforehand. That remains a possibility.

In addition to the above explanation, it strikes me a laughable hypocrisy that you ask for people to not be rude on forums, I've witnessed your jackassery in W30 forums while my tribe, BD, stomped yours, DN - and in other places. Spiteful little forum trolls should not attempt the moral high ground. And you are a prime example of such.

Oh come on, cheap shot? I was 17 when I played on w30. You really are petty if you hold THAT against me. People mature Pervis.

Beyond that the achievements that you seem to parade here in your posts regarding Bi! and iHate are far from impressive, they are barely material. Among the people you mention in that tribe, at least Lisa has absolutely nothing good to say about you, very much the opposite.

Ofc, I am partially infamous, there are many who dislike me, do you really think *I* am popular? I have my friends, I have those who dislike me. There is a general consensus that I am secretly a completely useless player. I don't make an effort to challenge that consensus. I may have been brash and horrible at times with regards to players who show disloyality and abandon their tribes, but then, that's my opinion, and its my right to say it.

If you don't like it, please feel free to leave/block me etc etc...

You can stand here and make a wild, worthless assumption that I do not help my tribemates or help players learn (this I derive from the "wouldn't help their grandmothers" part, but reality would laugh at you, simply because your claim is contradicted by the very large group of some of the finest in tw in all stages between 1 and 400-500 villas who repeatedly gravitate back to me in order to be in same tribe under my leadership. It wouldn't be such if I was either self serving or unhelpful. There should also be at least a double figure of who are now serial top 10 players who have and would again acknowledge a role by me in their development and experience in tw, in some ways, the same Purple Predator you mention has had his forays in tw, intertwined with mine in that manner.

Heh, I can only judge you based on what you display infront of me, I don't know what all your achievement. You probably think I'm a jumped up kid who runs his mouth far too much and has no substance behind him. An accurate summary of your opinion of me, persay?

In much the same way, all you've shown me is an insufferable ego, and a brash and unfriendly attitude. Yes, I'm VERY curious to see the "nice" side of Pervis, and I do believe you have one... you just aren't showing it to me. Its ok... don't be shy. I won't bite if you do show it.

Your posts are pretty foolish because you repeatedly, on assumption, accuse people of flaws that you very evidently have yourself and show as much in your posts. Your either an intentional troll, or a very persistent, very ignorant one.

I don't know, there seem to be quite a few people in this forum agreeing with my points. And its not like my points are wholly illogical, or you wouldn't have to go to so much effort to try and destabilise my argument.

Red.

 

[DeletedUser]

What is your definition? Just being average? Or being the best? My definition of doing well, is being the best. I have high standards, sorry if yours do not match.

This game is called Tribal Wars. If I make my tribe the best, then I am doing very well indeed.

Enjoy being rank 1 as a player, I'll just elevate my tribe to that spot.

 

[DeletedUser]

This game is called Tribal Wars. If I make my tribe the best, then I am doing very well indeed.

Enjoy being rank 1 as a player, I'll just elevate my tribe to that spot.

Lol, on the world where I was rank 1 points, ODA and ODD, I was also duke of the rank 1 tribe, which had the highest average points per player.

I just had it both ways. Both for myself, and for my tribe. :icon_rolleyes:

I said Leon wasnt a good tribe and that it wasnt sustainable. Quick question, do you suffer from any problems. Since i myself state that Leon was a rubbish tribe......

Lol, here's the bullet to shoot down your argument.

How long did Leon! last?
And how long did iHate/Bi! last?

Kthxbai. I think we know which tribe is better. iHate may not have been better at startup, but TribalWars is all about surviving and dominating. I think iHate/Bi! wins there.
I myself stated that Leon was a rubbish tribe, i myself stated that Leon was not sustainable. Why would you use that for an example to show how good iHate was.

Ok, I take it back then. ^_^

I simply said Leon was able to have the top ranks for the start up of startup despite building D, and not abusing acitivity because .uk does not have much competition.
Where you get off on comparing iHate to leon i dont know.

You stated iHate as being substandard because of a few weaknesses I stated previously, so I countered by reminding people that while Leon! were arguably better at startup, they failed to deliver and last beyond that, whereas iHate adapted and "evolved" to become Bi!, and grow till about 20 or so mil points (albeit, with an "all style no substance" player as leader).

Do you even bother reading what people post. iHate sounds like it wasnt a good tribe because of what you yourself have posted. Bad tribes can still go do well...

That's BS. Bad tribes can't do well. Bad tribes can only "survive". Bi! was rank 1 ODA & ODD from startup till when it disbanded. And we never held rank 1 in any continent until a week before Bi! disbanded anyway.

I don't know about you, but a bad tribe couldn't do THAT well. Bi! matured into a very good tribe, that's all that need be said. I'm not saying that to be bias, just to give due credit.

Heck many worlds have rank 1 players who cant play the game "properly" to save their life.

Agreed.

Red.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm sure it does happen.
However, I really doubt it comes from players who exclusively play .co.uk.

I disagree.
Ive known plenty of decent .uk players in my time, and some have the ability, drive and determination to make them as good as any .net veteran.
Ive also known many .net players who are so incompetent that they literally cant noble an inactive or noble a barb, let alone snipe/send sub-100ms trains.

The general opinion that: ".net players own .uk players" is kinda of unfair.
Judging how long the .net servers have been here compared to the .uk servers, theres some real raw talent on .uk that in time i think would be equals to their .net counterparts.

Ahh okay, but your not understanding what I said, because that is not what I said, not even close to what I said. In fact that is damn near the opposite of what I said.

Theres alot of this going on here, lol.
Maybe give up and start a new subject?

Might be the way forward. :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

The general opinion that: ".net players own .uk players" is kinda of unfair.
Judging how long the .net servers have been here compared to the .uk servers, theres some real raw talent on .uk that in time i think would be equals to their .net counterparts.

When .net started, it had to build up its player base almost exclusively because Germans Ips were not allowed to join (and later .ds players never showed a large scale interest in playing .net). It had to build up its player base with people who had never played tribalwars (any version) before and a very large percentage who hadn't played any browser based game before.


Now .co.uk had a huge advantage because when it started, it already had a player base ready, that of .net, TW players from .net just had to be convinced to play in the UK servers instead of .net.

Are there a lot of people who started playing tw altogether with .co.uk ? (This is a genuine question btw, I don't know if there are, but I don't think its a big number). Almost all the players I seem to come across in uk are current or former .net players who migrated here.

My point is you cannot realistically say :

Judging how long the .net servers have been here compared to the .uk servers,

In terms of the amount of talent .co.uk has in comparison to amount of talent .net had back when it was as young as .co.uk is now.


I wonder if its feasible to have a .net vs .co.uk showdown sorta in an HP server

 

[DeletedUser]

Are there a lot of people who started playing tw altogether with .co.uk ? (This is a genuine question btw, I don't know if there are, but I don't think its a big number). Almost all the players I seem to come across in uk are current or former .net players who migrated here.

I think you'll be surprised how many started on UK1 and UK2 and who migrated to .net.
Be nice to see a poll on it, see what the results are.

But, i do agree, the majority of the 'main' and more well known players are from .net.
Im sure in a few years though a whole load of .uk guys will emerge as respected players in their own right.

I wonder if its feasible to have a .net vs .co.uk showdown sorta in an HP server

That'll be fun.
As im basically an exclusive .uk player.
I did start on .net and i was gonna join your tribe on w39 before i migrated here, but i learned my trade on UK2.


.net vs .uk would be fun.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok...

To add a different perspective on things.
What about Start-up tribes vs Late game tribes?
Instead of players.

• Are they more important in start-up or late game?
• Is team work more important in start-up or late game?
• Are tribes stronger in start-up or late game?
• Is political and diplomatic influence more important in start-up or late game?

My views are that in start-up tribes/teamwork and diplomacy as well as tactical recruiting is far more important then late game.
Late game, alot of players dont really even need to be in a tribe to survive, they do it out of friendships and loyalty mostly i think and tribes rely less and less on their 'allies' who towards the end of a world, start to act more and more in their interests then anything else.

Betrayal and self-service is rife in late game, even more so then start-up, imo.


Anyone wanna give their views?

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok...

To add a different perspective on things.
What about Start-up tribes vs Late game tribes?
Instead of players.

• Are they more important in start-up or late game?
• Is team work more important in start-up or late game?
• Are tribes stronger in start-up or late game?
• Is political and diplomatic influence more important in start-up or late game?

My views are that in start-up tribes/teamwork and diplomacy as well as tactical recruiting is far more important then late game.
Late game, alot of players dont really even need to be in a tribe to survive, they do it out of friendships and loyalty mostly i think and tribes rely less and less on their 'allies' who towards the end of a world, start to act more and more in their interests then anything else.

Betrayal and self-service is rife in late game, even more so then start-up, imo.


Anyone wanna give their views?

This is actually a really interesting topic.
Diplomacy matters late game, not so much early game, as early game you don't really need to have large scale relationships.
But, tribes are much more important early game, as tribal stacking matters much more early game then late game (this goes back to the rim me late game, yarite discussion).
As I said, stacking matters more early game, but attacking is simpler early, simply because people cannot stack. Since you need teamwork to rim a competent player mid-game, and still need teamwork to stack, defend, and renoble in some cases, so this goes to late game.
Tribes are much stronger late game.
political influence is more important late game.

So, tribes>late game than early game.

 

[DeletedUser]

Aggressive attitudes are not as effective late-game as they will just provoke a group of tribes to "gangbang" you.

I only hope i get that much action on my other world, lol.
Im so bored im gonna start nuking and nobling myself to keep my "w1ck4d sk1llz" honed. :icon_razz:


Seriously, as much as im a late game player and i love just throwing nukes at people for the fun of it, im really enjoying start-up again.
UK6 might convert me into a start-up player. :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

O wow adellion , still gnawing away at that old bone .
Start up is much more competitive than late game , the sheer numbers in comparison mean there is more competition , it is far easier to survive later game than early game . This discussion gets exhaustive and repetitive , a bit like the ihate one
Adellion you like talking about me , most of the posts on uk with my name in are from you :icon_redface:

@ Hefty you meant start up is more skilled . Agree with me , that is not optional . :icon_wink:

<3

 

[Nauzhror]

Teamwork is only important at startup for taking out a large player (e.g. High Till I Die), or when defending against an assault (movement of small amounts of defence to one target to create a stack). Other than that, startup is very much farming-orientated.

I suspect the lack of teamwork in your startup explains the lack of success in your startup. It should be a lot more team-based than most people make it out to be.

Some truly excellent players on UK4 that I fought with and against. Nothing less than an honour to play with all of them.

Much like children look up to and idolize their fathers, mediocre players tend to think players that are in reality slightly better than average are excellent. And yes, that does mean there's probably less than 20 players total that I feel deserve the title of being excellent.

Example: If as player can't be top 20 on any world, in any area, with any settings, no matter how competitive, I will never class them as excellent.

 

[DeletedUser]

Though the thinking from a tribal perspective is much more important in late game, constant communication and and teamwork is essential at early game wars.

There are some who think early game wars are pointless, those people are foolish and narrow minded. The most entertaining wars I've personally been involved in have been early game timing wars (and contrary to the beliefs of many, early game wars don't all end up in cat wars - usually the main objective is to rim your enemies while they only have one village or so, or just kill their offense).

In wars like this, Random vs ID en39, Muppet vs IQ en34, Rumble vs RA uk3, constant communication, teamwork, cotraining good players to prevent possibility of sniping, backtiming the offenses of enemies attacking your tribemates, chain backtimes (when backtimes get backtimed themselves - i've seen as many as 6 links in such a chain), even prenobling your tribemates village in a Kamikazi defense, all these things need a lot of cooperation and whenever and early game war has been won, its been the tribe showing these traits more clearly that have emerged the victor.

 

[DeletedUser8385]

O wow adellion , still gnawing away at that old bone .
Start up is much more competitive than late game , the sheer numbers in comparison mean there is more competition , it is far easier to survive later game than early game . This discussion gets exhaustive and repetitive , a bit like the ihate one
Adellion you like talking about me , most of the posts on uk with my name in are from you :icon_redface:

@ Hefty you meant start up is more skilled . Agree with me , that is not optional . :icon_wink:

<3

only if you look at competition as getting sent to the rim easier after a few mistakes. i rather think its a competition when it takes weeks or months and hundreds of villages. people can get lucky/unlucky when the world is young, but when people are more established it really seperates people as a mistake will set you back but you wont go to the rim, whereas i have seen multi million point players reduced to a hundred k in a matter of weeks just because they were continuously outplayed.

in startup you will people say the only reason you beat me is because i did this... theres no real excuse when your dealing in hundreds of villages.

 

[DeletedUser]

in startup you will people say the only reason you beat me is because i did this... theres no real excuse when your dealing in hundreds of villages.

[clt]This is a very good point, but i think that in early start-up you are testing opponent's ability to think quickly and make sound judgements under pressure. Late game you are more testing long term strategy and general activity. As someones account is slowly erroded away, that person 'should' have plenty of time to make the changes needed to survive. Not always the case though i suspect[/clt]

 

[DeletedUser]

O wow adellion , still gnawing away at that old bone .
Start up is much more competitive than late game , the sheer numbers in comparison mean there is more competition , it is far easier to survive later game than early game . This discussion gets exhaustive and repetitive , a bit like the ihate one
Adellion you like talking about me , most of the posts on uk with my name in are from you :icon_redface:

@ Hefty you meant start up is more skilled . Agree with me , that is not optional . :icon_wink:

<3

Rubbish, no startup player in the right minds would come close to matching even a top-20 late-game player, but many late-game players can also play startup to a competent level too. As proven by UK6 examples such as Abdo and mrlucaboy. Abdo is ofc, rank 1 on UK1, and isn't doing too badly here.

Name me one startup player who could even hold a candle to players like myself or Abdo late-game. Answer : None.

Go back to your confused ideology that startup is harder than late-game. The mere fact that fewer players can handle late-game compared to startup, merely wipes your argument.

I'm not saying startup is any easier, but it is in no way harder. My opinion is NOT going to change. That's how it is.

[clt]This is a very good point, but i think that in early start-up you are testing opponent's ability to think quickly and make sound judgements under pressure. Late game you are more testing long term strategy and general activity. As someones account is slowly erroded away, that person 'should' have plenty of time to make the changes needed to survive. Not always the case though i suspect[/clt]

This is true, however late-game players can generate more pressure than startup players due to size, hence if you compare being attacked at startup, to being OPed late-game (with no tribal support, I might add), then you'll find its much more stressful to deal with a late-game OP. Even if the attackers make a few mistakes in that said OP.

Certainly, thinking fast is very crucial at startup, late-game you can afford to take a little bit of time to plan attacks and defences. This is countered by the sheer size of the said offensives and defences you have to think up. Which one is more effort? Late-game for sure, because of the larger amount of thinking one has to do.

I suspect the lack of teamwork in your startup explains the lack of success in your startup. It should be a lot more team-based than most people make it out to be.



Much like children look up to and idolize their fathers, mediocre players tend to think players that are in reality slightly better than average are excellent. And yes, that does mean there's probably less than 20 players total that I feel deserve the title of being excellent.

Example: If as player can't be top 20 on any world, in any area, with any settings, no matter how competitive, I will never class them as excellent.

I'm not responsible for the teamwork of my tribe unless I am leading it. So far I've only led two tribes. Both tribes survived well beyond startup, so I don't think I failed on teamwork. Most likely I'm just too lazy a farmer at startup, but idk... but I made it plain I'm not great at startup, only after it. Something I hope to change perhaps, but that time is not now because of RL.

And to address your point regarding children; while that logic may be true, it should not delude people from respecting a "slightly better than average" player, who does something that one could consider excellent. I think many players, especially those who advocate startup, do not have this ability.

 

[DeletedUser]

Rubbish, no startup player in the right minds would come close to matching even a top-20 late-game player, but many late-game players can also play startup to a competent level too. As proven by UK6 examples such as Abdo and mrlucaboy. Abdo is ofc, rank 1 on UK1, and isn't doing too badly here.

Name me one startup player who could even hold a candle to players like myself or Abdo late-game. Answer : None.

Go back to your confused ideology that startup is harder than late-game. The mere fact that fewer players can handle late-game compared to startup, merely wipes your argument.

I'm not saying startup is any easier, but it is in no way harder. My opinion is NOT going to change. That's how it is.

Unfortunately this is one of the rare times I will have to agree with you Ade.

A truly great player is one who is good at start up, middle game and late game. Simply put, a consistent player. Late game and Start up are so different that is seems like almost completely different games.

If you're not very good at startup, then you need luck on your side while you get up to the middle game. On the other hand if you're no good at late game, I really can't see you lasting long as people would exploit that fact.

Uk4 is a great example of a select few start-up and late game pros. Players that have been in the top 20 from the start, whilst not necessarily being 1st have kept their position consistent, survived many wars and ops and thrived because of it. Whereas a lot of the start-up players dwindled and fell away along the way the late-gamers survived and that just backs up my point that in the end the true "winning" of the game is in late game, the battle is not fought and lost in start-up. It is fought and lost in middle/late game.

 

[DeletedUser]

A truly great player is one who is good at start up, middle game and late game. Simply put, a consistent player. Late game and Start up are so different that is seems like almost completely different games.

This i do agree with.
Its a good answer.

If you're not very good at startup, then you need luck on your side while you get up to the middle game. On the other hand if you're no good at late game, I really can't see you lasting long as people would exploit that fact.

But... i do feel that you need luck in every part of your game.
Even the very best players need luck.

Luck imo is one of the deciding factors to a successful player or tribe along with activity, skill and dedication.