Legitimate 1v1

[DeletedUser4687]

Lol, what on earth is a troopwhore? A player who stalls his growth in order to have a better troop to point ratio? Sounds noobish.

I don't think anyone dilleraberaly stalls growth to get a better ratio...that's just stupid. Pretty sure he was referring to someone who builds up army related instruments (Barracks, stables, farm ect) as oppose to mines. For instance my mines are 9/1/3 and I have 123 lc (though I know that I'm getting pwned by several people, including you ). Technically though barracks in term of time to produce and rez spent to build is the best way to increase points.

And there's always the one idiot dummy who thinks it's cool to inturrupt a 1v1.

I would interrupt a 1v1 without hesitation. Not so much that I think its cool, but because I need to score some more villages. Its a multi-player game...deal with it.

 

[DeletedUser679]

I don't think anyone dilleraberaly stalls growth to get a better ratio...that's just stupid. Pretty sure he was referring to someone who builds up army related instruments (Barracks, stables, farm ect) as oppose to mines. For instance my mines are 9/1/3 and I have 123 lc (though I know that I'm getting pwned by several people, including you ). Technically though barracks in term of time to produce and rez spent to build is the best way to increase points.

That's not a troopwhore, that's a decent player, a troopwhore is exactly what i just described above, that's the reason you don't find anyone in the 'upper class' claiming to be a troopwhore.

I would interrupt a 1v1 without hesitation. Not so much that I think its cool, but because I need to score some more villages. Its a multi-player game...deal with it.

If he says that he would, then i say that i will. :icon_twisted:

 

[DeletedUser]

This is a war game. If some one spots/knows about a 1vs1 and they are not breeching any tribe NAPs etc then if they can take advantage of this 1 vs 1 then why not ? It may not be best sporting etc but this is a war game with SPYing etc so why not. in fact you would be quite silly not too. If you knew 2 players were knocking the heck out of each other and you could come along and mop up the spoils why not ?

 

[DeletedUser]

That's not a troopwhore, that's a decent player, a troopwhore is exactly what i just described above, that's the reason you don't find anyone in the 'upper class' claiming to be a troopwhore.


If he says that he would, then i say that i will. :icon_twisted:

Apologies, I was referring to Kotone's definition of a "decent player" when I used the term troopwhore. However, an extreme troopwhore will not a wise move obviously. :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

The main problem with a 1vs1, is that it wasn't intended for Tribalwars. Only way you could have a legitimate 1vs1 is by having the compliance of everyone else on the world, in which case still really isn't fun IMO. There are console and other browser games you could get your 1 on 1 dominance fix on though.

[la]To be honest, dealing with everyone else is part of TW, and both players would have to put up with it: As long as the 1v1 was silent there wouldn't be any more or less intervention than normal. It would be best on the rim to have a better chance that neither player ends up near a more skilled starter and unbalances the challenge. But other than that, dealing with others farming, or building their walls and hiding places up, is what makes TW challenging.[/la]

 

[DeletedUser]

They could both join a large tribe in existence and then wait for a bit until they are both at the same level and then start it.

 

[DeletedUser]

[la]To be honest, dealing with everyone else is part of TW, and both players would have to put up with it: As long as the 1v1 was silent there wouldn't be any more or less intervention than normal. It would be best on the rim to have a better chance that neither player ends up near a more skilled starter and unbalances the challenge. But other than that, dealing with others farming, or building their walls and hiding places up, is what makes TW challenging.[/la]

Well obviously that part of the game would be in a 1 vs 1, otherwise it wouldn't be TW, but was in no way what I was implying when I said the compliance of everyone else on the world. Although, now that you mention it, that alone is really a big reason why a legitimate 1 vs 1 in TW wouldn't work, because you kind of have to rely on others to even play (farming/nobling). Which brings us back to having the compliance of others to let the 1 on 1 happen...I doubt players/tribes would just allow you to farm them and not retaliate due to someone's 1 vs 1 fix. The closest you'll get to a 1 vs 1 is a 1 vs 1 tribe war. Even then, anyone who has played TW for any length of time knows that even having a 1 on 1 tribal war is usually rare, there are always allies/nap's/friends that hop in uninvited

 

[Nauzhror]

They could both join a large tribe in existence and then wait for a bit until they are both at the same level and then start it.

Right...because no one targets players in the top tribes. :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Just to rid a near crowd of players from interfering maybe. Could just settle it in rock paper sissors