Inactives

[DeletedUser]

These are the recent G.F conquers of Virtus's inactive players:
(Who unluckily enough, we're close to G.F).

Spoiler: Virtus's INACTIVES vs G.F (Last month).

Side 1:
Tribes:
Players: JASEYPOO Ravenseye garyredmonds gawasch Aikaramba 2.0

Side 2:
Tribes: G.F
Players:

Timeframe: Last month

Total conquers:

Side 1: 30
Side 2: 732
Difference: 702

Total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 4
Side 2: 136
Difference: 132

Points value of total conquers:

Side 1: 182,596
Side 2: 4,142,221
Difference: 3,959,625

Points value of total conquers against opposite side:

Side 1: 36,745
Side 2: 1,202,902
Difference: 1,166,157

155 conquers - 136 Inactives = 19.

Virtus active G.F conquers: 23.
G.F active Virtus conquers: 19. :icon_rolleyes:

Thats from a tribe with twice/thrice the members and Virtus are desperately trying to noble these inactives also, whilst fighting a war...

So you guys tell me whos winning and whos losing...?

i'll still say G.F is winning....and that too handsomely....if you are at war with a tribe, and that tribe has inactives (by any definition as there seem to be many around here)...and the tribe goes for the inactives...its only smart tactics nothing else....give me an example where a warring tribe has left oppositions inactives for internal nobling and instead went for more active players...either tribes kick their inactives or eat them in time or else respect the fact that villages nobled from inactives do count in the stats....however much you cry over it...what i can understand from this post is that virtus have a grave inactives problem....which is being solved by G.F at the moment :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser]

just to clear things up, i have not said team are losing because dogs take our inactives, i have never used inactives as an excuse , darth just made a thread about dogs tactics because he doesnt like them.

so you are admitting that TEAM just wrote that thread to goad DOGS into a flame war??

 

[DeletedUser]

so you are admitting that TEAM just wrote that thread to goad DOGS into a flame war??

isn't it against the rules to incite flaming?

 

[Nauzhror]

isn't it against the rules to incite flaming?

No. Excerpt from the rules below.

You may use tactics to provoke your opponents in terms of ‘Politics & Propaganda’ as long as it stays game-based.

 

[DeletedUser3227]

so you are admitting that TEAM just wrote that thread to goad DOGS into a flame war??

1 of my players started a thread to express his disgust in dogs tactics, now a player we have booted somes up what dogs are about imo, when team do post a thread it will have teams opinions clearly stated, if 1 player makes a thread its his own opinions unless otherwise stated. as for the against the rules part nobbler i expected nothing less from you, quick report another thread/post hahahaha. that is ur trademark isnt it?

 

[DeletedUser]

1 of my players started a thread to express his disgust in dogs tactics

eazy az isnt one of your players, its a UK4 account last time i checked.

unless your saying its a team player behind the eazy az account?

i didnt understand the rest of the post.

"now a player we have booted somes up what dogs are about imo" you lost me. do u mean me? because ive never been booted from team. LOL:icon_rolleyes:

calling the men in white coats for max.

 

[DeletedUser3227]

im not saying anything, but it doesnt take a genius to figure it out does it? well we havent been gifted vills, but seems some 1 has. and no i did not mean you that got booted.