Biggwall problems.

This debate is so autistic, clearly logic and reason aren't good enough to change somebody's opinion.
I expected more from goblin, makes a proper argument and arrives to a completely wrong conclusion.

Napisano od Permamuted, 25.10.2014 at 10:09

Napisano od Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 08:32

Napisano od THE_Militia, 25.10.2014 at 08:06

Yea it can be broken easily.If first wall units move to second wall...

Then make a bigger wall if you think it might happen or risk with this one... i could have done a better one with the same amount of units. This one i made in 10 seconds

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 25.10.2014 at 08:08

3. So if this double wll of yours is still unfuckable then why you accept it?WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!WHY MOTHERFUCKER!I WANT TO KNOW WHY!I CANT CALM DOWN UNTIL I KNOW THIS!WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!please answer me

^^

WHY!!!!???? WHY WONT YOU ANSWER US FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, 12 PAGES IN AND YOU STILL WONT ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION AND HAVE THE BALLS TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF FALLACIES WHEN YOU CONTRADICT YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT BY CLAIMING DOUBLE WALLING IS ACCEPTABLE.

ALSO USING FUCKING SWEARING TENDS TO ENCOURAGE FUCKING HOSTILE AND AGRESSIVE RESPONSES FROM OTHERS SO LEARN TO FUCKING EXPRESS YOURSELF IN FUCKING CIVIL LANGUAGE OK?

ALSO LEARN WHAT AN AD HHOMINEM IS BECAUSE I HAVENT USED A SINGLE ONE ON YOU IN THIS THREAD. YOU MADE A POINT OF HIGHLIGHTING HOW UNFAIR IT IS YOUR OPPONENT HAVING YOUR CAP WALLED TURN 3 IS. SO HOW IS MY COMMENT A FUCKING AD HOMINEM.

FUCKING FUCK FUCK.

Rage score: 9/10

Plz do a face-flood or 100 times face palm and I will give 10/10

This post is so funny lol is like if they are killing each others <3 Now I know why desu let this open

I support waffel in his so big , topic with every single word in it !! Go waffel <3 <3 !!

Napisano od YazanTheSexy, 28.10.2014 at 08:54

I support waffel in his so big , topic with every single word in it !! Go waffel <3 <3 !!

Biggwall problems in rl,no one debate

Napisano od Tundy, 28.10.2014 at 08:34

This debate is so autistic, clearly logic and reason aren't good enough to change somebody's opinion.

Napisano od Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 07:03

Done with a retard like you ...i thought since you are a good player you might have some smart in you, but your just a egoistical fuckin kid.

It took you 398 comments in this thread to realise this? :p

Wasnt on this topic in the last few days ...but wow.

Laochra screaming like a moron ...about me not answering his question?

Big wall rewall - unfair advantage
Double wall - fair fuckin advantage

I posted the same shit 100 times and he admited he didnt respond to my CALM FUCKIN POSTS ON PURPOSE.

And thats insulting and disrespectful and you he was geting me because of this ...so little bitch when you slap someone in the face dont go crying when you get slaped back.

Napisano od Goblin, 28.10.2014 at 19:00

Wasnt on this topic in the last few days ...but wow.

Laochra screaming like a moron ...about me not answering his question?

Big wall rewall - unfair advantage
Double wall - fair fuckin advantage

I posted the same shit 100 times and he admited he didnt respond to my CALM FUCKIN POSTS ON PURPOSE.

And thats insulting and disrespectful and you he was geting me because of this ...so little bitch when you slap someone in the face dont go crying when you get slaped back.

meh i made that post as a joke, little on this game could make me truly rage, perhaps fucking fuck fuck at the end of the post wasnt a hint.

Napisano od Goblin, 28.10.2014 at 19:00

Big wall rewall - unfair advantage
Double wall - fair fuckin advantage

You made several posts explaining why bigwalling is unfair then you said this ^^. Absolutely no logic whatsoever. And you still havent answered why when they are the exact same thing and serve the exact same purpose.

I attempted to reason with you and waffel, you just spent the thread namecalling, swearing, committing fallacies and making accusations. Don't bother with the patronising dismissive nonsense calling me an egotistical kid, moron and whatever else. If this is how you handle someone disagreeing with you then i wont bother in the future.

well at least we've established you wont go around first turn wf'ing those who double wall.

Citat:

Napisano od Permamuted, 29.10.2014 at 09:08

Big wall rewall - unfair advantage
Double wall - fair fuckin advantage

You made several posts explaining why bigwalling is unfair then you said this ^^. Absolutely no logic whatsoever. And you still havent answered why when they are the exact same thing and serve the exact same purpose.

I attempted to reason with you and waffel, you just spent the thread namecalling, swearing, committing fallacies and making accusations. Don't bother with the patronising nonsense calling me an egotistical kid, moron and whatever else. If this is how you handle someone disagreeing with you then i wont bother in the future.

You answered yourself Laochra when you said you need to use at least +11 troops to make a decent double wall.

I entered this discussion by posting my ideas which were ignored ...you admited yourself you ignored me on purpose. - thats why i shouldnt bother with you ever again

When i posted my ideas i said "any thoughts, suggestions?" - then i got gangbanged by khal, thunder and clovis who accused me of things i didnt say.

You joined up with them and mocked me, commiting fallacies yourself ...main one being fallacy of numbers, your constant "argumment" in every discusion.

And for the hundred damn time ...i posted my idea to try to compromise two opposing sides, put my self in the place of an arbiter, but you keept forcing on me the discussion about rewalling etc. ...i said DONT just answer my IDEA. - you didnt, therefore the namecalling and rage.

And im not the only one who described you by "egoistic" and "lack of argumments" ...but does players are smart enough to stay away from retarded forum discussions.

...yea im sure you will respond with "well plenty of people think this or that about you Goblin" - i dont give a crap.

Napisano od Goblin, 29.10.2014 at 09:31

You answered yourself Laochra when you said you need to use at least +11 troops to make a decent double wall.

I entered this discussion by posting my ideas which were ignored ...you admited yourself you ignored me on purpose. - thats why i shouldnt bother with you ever again

When i posted my ideas i said "any thoughts, suggestions?" - then i got gangbanged by khal, thunder and clovis who accused me of things i didnt say.

You joined up with them and mocked me, commiting fallacies yourself ...main one being fallacy of numbers, your constant "argumment" in every discusion.

And for the hundred damn time ...i posted my idea to try to compromise two opposing sides, put my self in the place of an arbiter, but you keept forcing on me the discussion about rewalling etc. ...i said DONT just answer my IDEA. - you didnt, therefore the namecalling and rage.

And im not the only one who described you by "egoistic" and "lack of argumments" ...but does players are smart enough to stay away from retarded forum discussions.

...yea im sure you will respond with "well plenty of people think this or that about you Goblin" - i dont give a crap.

you used 11 units in your wall, if you can make it 10 without both walls being breakable in 1 turn then great, but this is an extremely small difference to base an argument of whats fair or unfair on.

i never based my entire argument on fallacy of numbers, i merely brought it up how you guys were in the minority on this, it is highly relevant.

Your compromise was addressed by both me and tunder recently in the thread. but since desu stated no rules will be enforced its a waste of time. If everyone doesnt agree with them then it is pointless.

I dont care what your clanmates said about me on IRC, however i think i'll be taking a leaf(no pun intended) out of desus book regarding retarded forum arguments. This was never about ego, i came to this thread mainly to deal with waffels constant drama from this thread spilling over everywhere else, so i addressed each of his points. However i have learned that this is a waste of time. As tunder said apparently logic and reason aren't enough to change some peoples' minds. Waffel basically said fuck logic a while back. I shouldve stopped responding then. I will stop responding now.

Yea i have nothing to say to you anymore.

Napisano od Goblin, 29.10.2014 at 09:31

When i posted my ideas i said "any thoughts, suggestions?" - then i got gangbanged by khal, thunder and clovis who accused me of things i didnt say.

But you say you confused the word " entering" with "crossing"..... and it was your error... Remember you say somenthing like

Citat:

Of couse is not. Jesus. ok ok I'l charge it "leaving units on enemy territory turn 1". I had one word wrong against clovis and you guys are eating me? Against clovis...

Maybe the problem here is that we do not express correctly. And since this, people are taking oneself's word at their own.

What if we resolve this by questions? A direct Yes/No question is the best solution.

My Yes/No question are:

Are you against big walls with inside wall (double wall) ? (Yes/ No)
Are you against big wall without inside wall (big wall) ? (Yes/ No)

Now let say someone wallfuck your outer wall.

In chase there is a inside wall (double wall), it is correct to break it? (Yes/ No)
In chase there is no inner wall (big wall), it is correct to wallfuck the city? (Yes/ No)

And now my argument consist: Regardless if there is a inner wall or not, the players would still break or wallfuck the inner wall.

Why make inner wall if it will be breaken anyway? ( Dont answer).

As it was say, Stalins Martians respect big wall which incluides an inner wall (double wall). So, if you guys accidentally wallfuck someone's big wall, and there is a inner wall:

Should we expect whole SM to respect the inner wall? (Yes / No)

And yes, because of theses players that dont respect big walls regardless if there is or not an inner wall, your suggestions can help in part to solve it. And I support them.

My conclusion is this one: is pointless to make inner wall unless you are playing against SM. Because the other players would still break the double wall if they accidentally or intentionally wallfuck the outer wall.

Yea first of all i answered all of the above questions already and fuck me if im goin to indulge you and answer them again.

Secondly, since you heavily edited that second quote of mine for idk what purpose ...mockery probably. I dont have anything to say to you either.

I for one agree with goblin, if u make a big wall take in account that it may be broken by mistake and dont expect the players to respect ur cap not being walled.
its only common sense to make a double wall and dont bitch about ur big wall being broken by mistake, i for one will att your cap turn 2 if u made a big wall in mind of rewalling turn 2.

Napisano od 1GodofWar1, 29.10.2014 at 14:36

I for one agree with goblin, if u make a big wall take in account that it may be broken by mistake and dont expect the players to respect ur cap not being walled.
its only common sense to make a double wall and dont bitch about ur big wall being broken by mistake, i for one will att your cap turn 2 if u made a big wall in mind of rewalling turn 2.

This is why lao argument is right, because people like you would just attack cap turn 2 regardless of what type of double wall you made, therefore there is no reason to use double layer walls when we could obtain the same result with a big wall while using less units.

Napisano od Goblin, 29.10.2014 at 12:45

Yea first of all i answered all of the above questions already and fuck me if im goin to indulge you and answer them again.

Secondly, since you heavily edited that second quote of mine for idk what purpose ...mockery probably. I dont have anything to say to you either.

You never addressed the issue, of why double layer walls are acceptable. Big walls and double layer walls, if done properly result in the same.

Napisano od Tundy, 28.10.2014 at 08:34

This debate is so autistic, clearly logic and reason aren't good enough to change somebody's opinion.
I expected more from goblin, makes a proper argument and arrives to a completely wrong conclusion.

Autism should not be used as an offence. But The Kingmaker is correct, please use logical arguments and stop insulting each other. Keep it civilized, this is a forum. Don't be "butthurt" if you are wrong (not saying anyone here is wrong since I haven't read the whole thing) just accept and if you still believe in it find another argument. I don't like flame wars, I like civilised debates.

Yours, Cute Panda

(PS: What is a "biggwall"?)

Napisano od Professor Panda, 29.10.2014 at 18:03

Napisano od Tundy, 28.10.2014 at 08:34

This debate is so autistic, clearly logic and reason aren't good enough to change somebody's opinion.
I expected more from goblin, makes a proper argument and arrives to a completely wrong conclusion.

Autism should not be used as an offence. But The Kingmaker is correct, please use logical arguments and stop insulting each other. Keep it civilized, this is a forum. Don't be "butthurt" if you are wrong (not saying anyone here is wrong since I haven't read the whole thing) just accept and if you still believe in it find another argument. I don't like flame wars, I like civilised debates.

Yours, Cute Panda

(PS: What is a "biggwall"?)

You would know if you read bits of the thread.

Napisano od Guest, 30.10.2014 at 03:47

Napisano od Professor Panda, 29.10.2014 at 18:03

Napisano od Tundy, 28.10.2014 at 08:34

This debate is so autistic, clearly logic and reason aren't good enough to change somebody's opinion.
I expected more from goblin, makes a proper argument and arrives to a completely wrong conclusion.

Autism should not be used as an offence. But The Kingmaker is correct, please use logical arguments and stop insulting each other. Keep it civilized, this is a forum. Don't be "butthurt" if you are wrong (not saying anyone here is wrong since I haven't read the whole thing) just accept and if you still believe in it find another argument. I don't like flame wars, I like civilised debates.

Yours, Cute Panda

(PS: What is a "biggwall"?)

You would know if you read bits of the thread.

It seems to be the same as a "double wall" but I was slightly confused. Are they synonyms?

Napisano od Professor Panda, 30.10.2014 at 04:47

It seems to be the same as a "double wall" but I was slightly confused. Are they synonyms?

Double wall is to make two layers of walls. Probably 11 outer units + 3 inside units.

Big wall is to make 11 outer units and in the next turn you make the inner wall with 3 units.

Some players consider big wall as rewall, and try to intentionally wallfuck those who do it. This is the posicion of waffel , goblin ,whole SM and the players who dont support big wall.

And in the other hand, even if you have an inside wall, the other players would still break your inner wall if they wallfuck your outer wall, accidentally or intentionally. Therefore, is pointless to make an inner wall if it will be breaked on turn 2. This is the posicion of Laochra, The Kingmarker, me, and those who support big walls.

Goblin give some solution to this problem, but unless they get implemented, there need to be an option about respect it or not.


And of couse, when I made my double wall with both outer wall and inner wall, there was a player that wallfucked accidentally my outer wall and still breaked my inner wall, sayding " Double wall is unfair". So I assume there is a third group that does not support double wall on any of his forms.

---

Goblin stop evading, give a direct YES or NO so we can know what you think. I dont want to read forums and use your own words on my own since I dont want to misunderstand them.

Please say a direct YES o NO so we can know what you are trying to say.

Napisano od Professor Panda, 30.10.2014 at 04:47

you are so qute

Napisano od Tundy, 29.10.2014 at 17:53

Napisano od Goblin, 29.10.2014 at 12:45

Yea first of all i answered all of the above questions already and fuck me if im goin to indulge you and answer them again.

Secondly, since you heavily edited that second quote of mine for idk what purpose ...mockery probably. I dont have anything to say to you either.

You never addressed the issue, of why double layer walls are acceptable. Big walls and double layer walls, if done properly result in the same.

Result is the same, but not the capital invested. Laochra said that himself.

@Clovis ...i dont give a fuck if you didnt read what i wrote before and that you now demand my answers.

Napisano od Goblin, 30.10.2014 at 09:16

Result is the same, but not the capital invested. Laochra said that himself.

@Clovis ...i dont give a fuck if you didnt read what i wrote before and that you now demand my answers.

I told you. I dont want to misunderstand your words. Better answer the question or else everybody will be, in other's opinion, wrong.

Napisano od clovis1122, 30.10.2014 at 07:20

Please say a direct YES o NO so we can know what you are trying to say.

Napisano od clovis1122, 30.10.2014 at 09:40

I told you. I dont want to misunderstand your words. Better answer the question or else everybody will be, in other's opinion, wrong.

Fine.

Are you against big walls with inside wall (double wall) ? (Yes/ No) -----------------> NO
Are you against big wall without inside wall (big wall) ? (Yes/ No) -------------------> YES

Now let say someone wallfuck your outer wall.

In chase there is a inside wall (double wall), it is correct to break it? (Yes/ No) --------------------> NO
In chase there is no inner wall (big wall), it is correct to wallfuck the city? (Yes/ No) ----------------> YES

Napisano od Goblin, 30.10.2014 at 09:51

Fine.

You are aware that there are players that dont respect either double wall or big wall. If they wallfuck your outer wall, they will break the inner wall or wallfuck it, if there is no wall.

Based on this, you purpose some suggestions that can help against it, for example, no attack capital till turn 3. Is this information correct? (Yes/ No)

And now, I support your suggestions. However, until they get implemented, Do you still suggest to do double wall, even though the other players would still break the inner wall, if they get the chance? (Yes / No)

---

Until your suggestions get implemented, What do you think we should do? (Answer)

Napisano od clovis1122, 30.10.2014 at 10:38

Based on this, you purpose some suggestions that can help against it, for example, no attack capital till turn 3. Is this information correct? (Yes/ No) ------ YES

Do you still suggest to do double wall, even though the other players would still break the inner wall, if they get the chance? (Yes / No) -------- YES

Until your suggestions get implemented, What do you think we should do? (Answer) ------ ARGUE LIKE MORONS (JK)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its impossible to remove wall fucks first turn, so its impossible to remove this by good game mechanics (we had no wall fuck 1. turn at one point - DISASTER)

1. Either players stick to the "dont break your opponent walls in his territory and if you do, dont abuse it" - RULES without punishement other then shame on the clan
or
2. Make capitals non-attackable until turn 3 by game mechanic and allow not only wall fucks, but going into enemy territory turn 1 - NO RULES


But, if players are to follow number 1. then opponents should not abuse this by protecting themself for 2 turns with 1 wall - big wall.


EDIT: just wanted to add that im more in favor of the number 2. and "no rules" if this would even be possible to implement. Game starts from turn 1, not turn 2 ...so everything should be allowed from the start.

And imo this would make the game more interesting ...if just capitals couldnt be attacked at turn 2.

That is all i think.

Napisano od Goblin, 30.10.2014 at 12:15

Its impossible to remove wall fucks first turn, so its impossible to remove this by good game mechanics (we had no wall fuck 1. turn at one point - DISASTER)

1. Either players stick to the "dont break your opponent walls in his territory and if you do, dont abuse it" - RULES without punishement other then shame on the clan

That is all i think.

Until #2 get implemented ( which I dunno because most AW dont even care about this threat) I support number 1.

So, if someone big wall with no inside units in turn 1 I will just rewall and serbian wall at him for balance stuff ( no joking).

Same if someone breaks my outside and in turn 2 break my inside I will rewall/serbian wall/ bugs at him.

There you go, evoL

Napisano od clovis1122, 30.10.2014 at 12:34

Until #2 get implemented ( which I dunno because most AW dont even care about this threat) I support number 1.

So, if someone big wall with no inside units in turn 1 I will just rewall and serbian wall at him for balance stuff ( no joking).

Same if someone breaks my outside and in turn 2 break my inside I will rewall/serbian wall/ bugs at him.

There you go, evoL

Sure, im not against serbian rewalls.

As a matter a fact im thinkin "GREAT SERBIAN rewalls" on the big wall xD

But seriously, only reason wall fuck rule exist is because we dont want our capitals to be attacked at turn 2 ...so why not implement a game mechanic to replace the rule?

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 30.10.2014 at 08:51

Napisano od Professor Panda, 30.10.2014 at 04:47

you are so qute

Thanx!

Napisano od Goblin, 30.10.2014 at 12:41

Napisano od clovis1122, 30.10.2014 at 12:34

Until #2 get implemented ( which I dunno because most AW dont even care about this threat) I support number 1.

So, if someone big wall with no inside units in turn 1 I will just rewall and serbian wall at him for balance stuff ( no joking).

Same if someone breaks my outside and in turn 2 break my inside I will rewall/serbian wall/ bugs at him.

There you go, evoL

Sure, im not against serbian rewalls.

As a matter a fact im thinkin "GREAT SERBIAN rewalls" on the big wall xD

But seriously, only reason wall fuck rule exist is because we dont want our capitals to be attacked at turn 2 ...so why not implement a game mechanic to replace the rule?

The problem with this, is that implementing more game mechanics won't fix bad sportsmanship, and eventually this new mechanics will be abused or used as justification to cheat.