Biggwall problems.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 06:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

Big wall around the capital, 4 units wall around the capital, triangle wall around the capital or any kind of wall that protects the capital turn 2 is the same in term of his purpose.

And if you make moves to wall that capital one more time despite having any of the walls above ...its a rewall.

Goblin, ive notice that your argument in this topic is not related to 2 layer walls, but rather you are trying to relate it to re-walling.

Do you even have an argument Against me making 2 walls the same turn? There is no re-walling involved.

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 07:16

Napisano od Waffel, 15.10.2014 at 04:05

Napisano od Tundy, 14.10.2014 at 17:08

Napisano od Waffel, 14.10.2014 at 15:46

Napisano od Tundy, 14.10.2014 at 14:16

My blitzkrieg turkey is different than the one used by many rushers, i hardly use it, but when i do it heavily depends on walls, wfing my double capital wall turn 1 literally fucks it up.

Double capital wall has no counter, The only counter for it is to WF turn 1. And since wfing on turn 1 is not legit, this wall shouldn't be legit either since the counter is not legit.

With that logic, Making a wall in your capital (turn 1) is not legit, since the only way to prevent it is by wfing (turn 1) and since wfing (turn 1) is not legit then: walling capital turn 1 shouldn't be legit either, since the counter is not legit.

Ok waffle, Making walls turn 1 is now illgeal, that skill.

Dude I don't know what you are spazzing aboutt
I never said walling capital turn 1 only counter is to WF.
I said only counter to DOUBLE WALL CAPITAL turn 2 only counter is wfing it on turn 1.
Idk if you have reading problems or whatever? But quoting you way in here (like you do in every drama thread) and just trying to pass the subject is not what I or the rest of the people in this arguement are waiting for. So do me a favour and stop turning my words?

I didn't turned your words, you claimed double layer walls are not legit because the counter is not legit, with this logic capital walls turn 1 are also not legit.

GG thanks for participating.

If you have read, the whole forum, as not only me but almost all players have said those rules were made by the ''competitive players'' the no wf turn 1 is a standard rule which is respected by much people, this move is not clared legit or unlegit yet. Therefore the counter of it is unlegit, + it gives an disadvantage for the people on turn 2. Since it cant be opened, Normal triangle walls on turn 1 are legit in that way because they can be broken in turn 2.

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 07:20

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 06:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

Big wall around the capital, 4 units wall around the capital, triangle wall around the capital or any kind of wall that protects the capital turn 2 is the same in term of his purpose.

And if you make moves to wall that capital one more time despite having any of the walls above ...its a rewall.

Goblin, ive notice that your argument in this topic is not related to 2 layer walls, but rather you are trying to relate it to re-walling.

Do you even have an argument Against me making 2 walls the same turn? There is no re-walling involved.

The problem is that Goblin compare two layers of wall with rewalling, where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it and two layers can be to simply put a new wall either outside or inside.

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:39

The problem is that Goblin compare two layers of wall with rewalling, where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it and two layers can be to simply put a new wall either outside or inside.

Where the hell have i said this ?

Dont make me angry clovis ...i specificly told laochra that he should make two layer walls.

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 07:20

Goblin, ive notice that your argument in this topic is not related to 2 layer walls, but rather you are trying to relate it to re-walling.

Do you even have an argument Against me making 2 walls the same turn? There is no re-walling involved.

Of course i dont ...i said it couple of times, but still fuckin clovis comes here and says otherwise about me, BECAUSE THEY DONT READ

Im only against moves that cant be prevented in any way.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 07:42

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:39

The problem is that Goblin compare two layers of wall with rewalling, where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it and two layers can be to simply put a new wall either outside or inside.

Where the hell have i said this ?

Dont make me angry clovis ...i specificly told laochra that he should make two layer walls.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 06:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

Big wall around the capital, 4 units wall around the capital, triangle wall around the capital or any kind of wall that protects the capital turn 2 is the same in term of his purpose.

And if you make moves to wall that capital one more time despite having any of the walls above ...its a rewall.

read my response to this in page 6. The main problem is indeed, the big palace wall. But somehow you ended up comparing the big wall with rewall. lol

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:45

where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it

What?

To rewall you dont have to quit your wall ...you just need to create a second wall, without the need to touch the existing one.

You have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Fuckin troll.

I officially withdraw my self from this oh so meaningfull and interesting argument.Great khaleesi now blesses the mighty righteous knight of freedom, Sir Clovis and his infamous companion Hazardou, with the power of the Khalasar, to continue fighting with the big bad troll and his minions! erm i meant goblin sorry!they are both green and ugly, honest mistake!
and remember, keep calm..and wallglitch!
love,cheers!

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 07:48

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:45

where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it

What?

To rewall you dont have to quit your wall ...you just need to create a second wall, without the need to touch the existing one.

You have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Fuckin troll.

Oh I think is the opposite. If you search in the diccionary, you will find that "Re-do" mean to remake somenthing that was already done. This apply for all "Re- " words. And the word "Re-walling" is not an exeption. It certainly mean to remake a wall. And there is no way( unless superimpose bug) in which you can remake a wall without move the original one.

Nope, you are definitivery refering to make a new wall and not to rewall.

Wherever you are refering to rewall or not, my point still stands. As I said, I think there is a better way than Laochra's to do it (Ex: waling inside too) but they would not have sense if the players still break the inside wall even though they WF'ED the outside wall.

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 15.10.2014 at 08:09

I officially withdraw my self from this oh so meaningfull and interesting argument.Great khaleesi now blesses the mighty righteous knight of freedom, Sir Clovis and his infamous companion Hazardou, with the power of the Khalasar, to continue fighting with the big bad troll and his minions! erm i meant goblin sorry!they are both green and ugly, honest mistake!
and remember, keep calm..and wallglitch!
love,cheers!

Apologise dear Laochra fluffer,

but you cant withdraw from an argumment ...you can withdraw from a discussion how ever, but since you were not even involved in the discussion except your trolling comment to me and waffel ...well

and again you show how you didnt read nothing big bad goblin said, but instead just make false presumptions ...considering i said wallglitching, rewaling and serbian rewalling is fine.

Clovis quotes me with his ridicilous responses, saying i said something i didnt and Laochra rants about things i pleaded him to put aside in this discussion since we would just repeat ourselfs like we did in previous topics.

finaly a thief and a liar that robed Ivan, the militia comes and thinks he can mock me

but whatever ...goblin is the villain

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 08:18

Oh I think is the opposite. If you search in the diccionary, you will find that "Re-do" mean to remake somenthing that was already done. This apply for all "Re- " words. And the word "Re-walling" is not an exeption. It certainly mean to remake a wall. And there is no way( unless superimpose bug) in which you can remake a wall without move the original one.

Nope, you are definitivery refering to make a new wall and not to rewall.

Wherever you are refering to rewall or not, my point still stands.

Please learn to read and talk english a little better. I was nice enough to send you a pm instead of mocking you publicly when i corrected you about "insurts" you used instead "insults", and didnt point out that up till now.

Secondly i didnt create the term re-wall ...we all know what the term means and you are trolling me like a retard here.

I tried discussing this matter here, and what you all do? ...act dumb and troll me.

Fine, you all win ...disrespect me until i get mad. You all must have learned so much from Tito.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 08:32

Secondly i didnt create the term re-wall ...we all know what the term means and you are trolling me like a retard here.

It seems like no, since just here you can see how we have different opinions about what "rewall" mean.

Until now, I was sure that it mean to remove and make a wall in the same place.

But now you say it mean to prevent your enemy from attack your capital ( this, with the exeption of TB)

No goblin, You just made it public that nobody knows what does rewall mean. But for sure what laochra does is not rewall and my argument still stands up regardless of this, since you just choosed one part that was not even in-topic.

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 08:40

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 08:32

Secondly i didnt create the term re-wall ...we all know what the term means and you are trolling me like a retard here.

It seems like no, since just here you can see how we have different opinions about what "rewall" mean.

Until now, I was sure that it mean to remove and make a wall in the same place.

But now you say it mean to prevent your enemy from attack your capital ( this, with the exeption of TB)

No goblin, You just made it public that nobody knows what does rewall mean. But for sure what laochra does is not rewall and my argument still stands up regardless of this, since you just choosed one part that was not even in-topic.

gG clovis wins

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 08:40

Until now, I was sure that it mean to remove and make a wall in the same place.

But now you say it mean to prevent your enemy from attack your capital.

No goblin, You just made it public that nobody knows what does rewall mean. But for sure what laochra does is not rewall and my argument still stands up regardless of this, since you just choosed one part that was not even in-topic.

I said creating a WALL of ANY KIND to prevent your opponent from attacking your capital turn 2 is a wall in a sense of a common triangle wall because it serves the same purpose

Now you go and learn english ...and then come back here and explain to me how did you come to your retarded conclusions and idiotic ranting about what rewalling means from the sentence above.

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 08:45

gG clovis wins

Oh look Clovises fluffer.

Goblin, the topic is about cunts wfucking double walls turn 1, youn went off-topic and started talking about how re-walling is bad and tried to associate it with double layer walls.

Plz make your own topic if you are gonna talk about re-walling

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA @ Acqui post.

I think is time for set an opinion and enter this war...

I support Laochra ( And you should run, because me and laochra are used to fight in almost every post). I dont think that " A wall that cannot be prevented" and " Rewalling" mean the same. Is kinda fun to see some players to re-write the "rewalling" concept. Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

I also support to not put inside wall on second turn. I dont think this should be allowed, but if you take into account:

1) The big wall uses 9 units, and the simply double wall uses 6 + 3 = 9 units.

2) The high ranks players know how to zoom bug the 6 outside + 3 inside wall.And they wont stop zoom bugging.

3) Even if Laochra had walled inside, there are still some players that would break the inside wall. This happened me once while I was CWing evoL ( I walled with 8 units outside and 3 inside, I got wfed 1st turn and he still break my inside wall) and happens to me in almost every scenario when I and someone end up wfing each others in turn 1 - he do like there was no wall and break my inside wall.

How high ranks does not respect the walls is very clearn in this example:

in my tourney match aganist Chess. I told him " Dont attack kuwait. Game didn't walled it"
when the wall was up and there was no wfing unit. This is a common bug. ( And no, the wall was made and next turn it just did not appear up).

Guess what: Chess not only attacked it, but also with half of his stack.#R.I.P my general.

There is just no guarantee, with wall inside or without wall inside, that the other player will act polite and respect it. We where fine with the 6 + 3 wall.... until someone started to break them by zoom bugs. I dunno if there is even a high rank here that would respect a 6 outside + 3 inside wall.

For number 2 and number 3.... I support big wall with no inside units. Though, as I said from the start, A post wont charge this.

I think you dont get the point of this the whole thread, in that case it would be better to not spam with useless things.

1.
I am not talking about rewalling in any way, we are talking about the biggwall turn 1 (no triangle wall around the capital)
Turn 2 the bigg wall is gone, and the triangle wall is around the capital. Not turn 1, 3 troops triangle wall and 6/8 trooops for bigger wall, thatsn ot what I was saying ot stating.
If you actually had read all of it, you would understand it and wouldn't post this.

2.
The 6+3 wall was able to break in turn 2. This new wall used my most of the illyrians (as example, so dont cry about personal attack agian) can't be broken in turn 2..

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 07:44

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 07:20

Goblin, ive notice that your argument in this topic is not related to 2 layer walls, but rather you are trying to relate it to re-walling.

Do you even have an argument Against me making 2 walls the same turn? There is no re-walling involved.

Of course i dont ...i said it couple of times, but still fuckin clovis comes here and says otherwise about me, BECAUSE THEY DONT READ

Im only against moves that cant be prevented in any way.

Ik your feellings, if I have arguement in PR with clovis and i say something, 3 mins later I hear from clovis I never said this, or repeats what I said and when I tell him I just said that, I get ''OMG YOU NEVER SAID THAT'' ..

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:45

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 07:42

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 07:39

The problem is that Goblin compare two layers of wall with rewalling, where rewall is to quit a wall and re-make it and two layers can be to simply put a new wall either outside or inside.

Where the hell have i said this ?

Dont make me angry clovis ...i specificly told laochra that he should make two layer walls.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 06:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

Big wall around the capital, 4 units wall around the capital, triangle wall around the capital or any kind of wall that protects the capital turn 2 is the same in term of his purpose.

And if you make moves to wall that capital one more time despite having any of the walls above ...its a rewall.

read my response to this in page 6. The main problem is indeed, the big palace wall. But somehow you ended up comparing the big wall with rewall. lol

You were the one starting with comparing the biggwall with rewall..

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 15.10.2014 at 08:09

I officially withdraw my self from this oh so meaningfull and interesting argument.Great khaleesi now blesses the mighty righteous knight of freedom, Sir Clovis and his infamous companion Hazardou, with the power of the Khalasar, to continue fighting with the big bad troll and his minions! erm i meant goblin sorry!they are both green and ugly, honest mistake!
and remember, keep calm..and wallglitch!
love,cheers!

....

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 08:40

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 08:32

Secondly i didnt create the term re-wall ...we all know what the term means and you are trolling me like a retard here.

It seems like no, since just here you can see how we have different opinions about what "rewall" mean.

Until now, I was sure that it mean to remove and make a wall in the same place.

But now you say it mean to prevent your enemy from attack your capital ( this, with the exeption of TB)

No goblin, You just made it public that nobody knows what does rewall mean. But for sure what laochra does is not rewall and my argument still stands up regardless of this, since you just choosed one part that was not even in-topic.

Dude WTF are you talking about? Nobody has said what loachra was doing was rewall. We just called it bigger inner rewall, its way shorter than ''Big wall turn 1 and triangle wall turn 2'' Stop with trolling, we didn't ask you nor needed you in this whole discussion so in your previous post saying '' I get the urge to comment here blablabla'' First u spam with ur chill pic '' nice useless thread'' and now u come here and talk about something you have no clue about? Like seriously drop the act and behave.

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 08:51

Goblin, the topic is about cunts wfucking double walls turn 1, youn went off-topic and started talking about how re-walling is bad and tried to associate it with double layer walls.

Plz make your own topic if you are gonna talk about re-walling

Go read again bro... you are coming up with shit goblin never said, you did the same to me, you turn around words and trying to ''win'' an arguement by doing this.
Instead of turning around tables go come with arguements why the wall should exist and how it does not inflict the gameplay at all.

Citat:

Napisano od Tundy, 15.10.2014 at 08:51

Goblin, the topic is about cunts wfucking double walls turn 1, youn went off-topic and started talking about how re-walling is bad and tried to associate it with double layer walls.

Plz make your own topic if you are gonna talk about re-walling

Go read again bro... you are coming up with shit goblin never said, you did the same to me, you turn around words and trying to ''win'' an arguement by doing this.
Instead of turning around tables go come with arguements why the wall should exist and how it does not inflict the gameplay at all.

Hah didnt even see that post.

- this isnt about wall fuckin double walls ...learn how to read
- this is about wall fuckin big wall without inner wall
- wtf ...i was the one that urged people not to engage in discussion about is rewalling good or bad
- you probably read that lie in khalessi post (TITO fuckin tactic - lie about something goblin said - we accept it as the truth even doe we didnt read goblins posts)

- finaly i SPECIFICLY SAID to laochra DOUBLE LAYERS SHOULD BE USED YOU FUCKIN IDIOTS AND CUNTS

I pray that a mod comes and bannes me to save me from you fuckin idiots here.

Napisano od Goblin, 15.10.2014 at 08:27

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 15.10.2014 at 08:09

I officially withdraw my self from this oh so meaningfull and interesting argument.Great khaleesi now blesses the mighty righteous knight of freedom, Sir Clovis and his infamous companion Hazardou, with the power of the Khalasar, to continue fighting with the big bad troll and his minions! erm i meant goblin sorry!they are both green and ugly, honest mistake!
and remember, keep calm..and wallglitch!
love,cheers!

Apologise dear Laochra fluffer,

but you cant withdraw from an argumment ...you can withdraw from a discussion how ever, but since you were not even involved in the discussion except your trolling comment to me and waffel ...well

and again you show how you didnt read nothing big bad goblin said, but instead just make false presumptions ...considering i said wallglitching, rewaling and serbian rewalling is fine.

Clovis quotes me with his ridicilous responses, saying i said something i didnt and Laochra rants about things i pleaded him to put aside in this discussion since we would just repeat ourselfs like we did in previous topics.

finaly a thief and a liar that robed Ivan, the militia comes and thinks he can mock me

but whatever ...goblin is the villain

ok one last response from me, serious one, this time.Even after your trashtalking you deserve that much.After this, im out.
The reason i never took this discussion seriously, is because it never was, in the first place.It was funny as hell and a little retarded and im not saying that in a disrespectfull manner, its the truth.I heard so much bullshit and alot of lies and frankly im inclined to be on the defensive, whenever a thread like this, turns to the bashing of my clan, like always.
Your middle ground proposal, was the only thing worth reading here, but personally im not very keen of accepting it.I will respect it though, if the majority does also.I have alot of reasons, but only the fact , that this would mean, trolls and proven liars, like war and syrian, will win, makes me negative.Also, the case you make, thats it cannot be prevented, thus ban, does not apeal to me.Do i like to play against this?No.But i will find a way and play around it, or die trying, not such a big deal.Only yesterday, i played a cw, as Uk and my opponent had a double wall on berlin.took me 2 turns to break through and he rewalled also.I wasnt expecting it, so i didnt send a wallfuck and that resulted in a berlin forever walled.Was i angry?Yes i was.Did i cry?No.I actually was a little happy inside, cause my opponent prooved to be a good competition and he made me worry alot.Thats what im looking for in cws.I dont like cheap plays.And that wasnt a cheap play in my opinion, it was just smart.And i have to add also, that i didnt loose.You can always find ways to win and play around things that your opponent do.Some times you need luck also, but thats part of the game also.That was just an example to show you, the way i think.And in response to another argument i heard here, that all these things limit innovations firstly and some laughter about rewall and circle walls being new.Thats innovation, in my book and how the meta progresses, we should just accept these new tactics and moove forward.That happens to all competitive online games.If we ban every new tactic, then the games becomes stale, boring and predictable.And i know the rewall debate is old, but the circle wall one, is new.And its the same, with your preferences.You choose to abide by the turk-ukr combo and use ally rewall on almost every game, despite the fact that you condemn self rewall.I never understood that also.Why you and Desu think its ok to ally rewall and at the same time you are against self rewall.But anyway, we protested a little and then accepted it.And i have to tell Bonker here, that his argument, that this always existed is not true.I played alot of cws and have cw'ed for 5 different clans and i never had to play east.Like never, not even once.Not until this summer, when you decided to put that rule, in effect.And i have to thank you guys, really, for this, cause you opened my eyes.Just when game became boring to me i started playing East and i love it.Its interesting again.
Anyway, bottom line is, in my opinion, if i look at it realistically, we as a community, will never reach an agreement about this.In my opinion, deliberately fucking with your opponents walls, is not only illegal and unacceptable, but unsportsmanlike, cheap, cunty, faggy, behaviour that should be condemned, by everybody.The rules the community made state clearly, no wf and no entering enemy territory turn 1.To put your unit on the border to wallfuck an enemy walls turn 1, is like a little "window", like the ones , used by lawyers, to justify criminals.I am wholeheartedly against that.To the people who do it, i would suggest to use their brains, cause this is a game for the mind, to find ways to play around and counter their opponent tactic, in a fair and sportsmanlike manner.Otherwise, whats the point really?Who would like to win, by cheating?I know i dont.Doesnt even make sense to me, to do.Maybe people with social/psychologicall problems and low real life self esteem, will disagree with me, but personally i play for competition and fun and not just to win.If i feel i deserve to win, then yeah im gonna fight for it.
I hope i covered you.Cheers.

Oh and before i forgot.
Guys, keep calm..and wallglitch!

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 15.10.2014 at 09:16

Your middle ground proposal, was the only thing worth reading here, but personally im not very keen of accepting it

This is all i fuckin asked for! ...comment on my fuckin proposal, say do you like it or not, so we can try to find a different solution or propose some other compromise.

But noooooo, lets be fuckin idiots, lets mock, lie, troll, talk about everything except responding to a simple fuckin proposal.

I give up ...do what you want to do, but dont dare to cry if i do what i want to do.

Napisano od Waffel, 15.10.2014 at 08:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA @ Acqui post.

I think is time for set an opinion and enter this war...

I support Laochra ( And you should run, because me and laochra are used to fight in almost every post). I dont think that " A wall that cannot be prevented" and " Rewalling" mean the same. Is kinda fun to see some players to re-write the "rewalling" concept. Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

I also support to not put inside wall on second turn. I dont think this should be allowed, but if you take into account:

1) The big wall uses 9 units, and the simply double wall uses 6 + 3 = 9 units.

2) The high ranks players know how to zoom bug the 6 outside + 3 inside wall.And they wont stop zoom bugging.

3) Even if Laochra had walled inside, there are still some players that would break the inside wall. This happened me once while I was CWing evoL ( I walled with 8 units outside and 3 inside, I got wfed 1st turn and he still break my inside wall) and happens to me in almost every scenario when I and someone end up wfing each others in turn 1 - he do like there was no wall and break my inside wall.

How high ranks does not respect the walls is very clearn in this example:

in my tourney match aganist Chess. I told him " Dont attack kuwait. Game didn't walled it"
when the wall was up and there was no wfing unit. This is a common bug. ( And no, the wall was made and next turn it just did not appear up).

Guess what: Chess not only attacked it, but also with half of his stack.#R.I.P my general.

There is just no guarantee, with wall inside or without wall inside, that the other player will act polite and respect it. We where fine with the 6 + 3 wall.... until someone started to break them by zoom bugs. I dunno if there is even a high rank here that would respect a 6 outside + 3 inside wall.

For number 2 and number 3.... I support big wall with no inside units. Though, as I said from the start, A post wont charge this.

I think you dont get the point of this the whole thread, in that case it would be better to not spam with useless things.

1.
I am not talking about rewalling in any way, we are talking about the biggwall turn 1 (no triangle wall around the capital)
Turn 2 the bigg wall is gone, and the triangle wall is around the capital. Not turn 1, 3 troops triangle wall and 6/8 trooops for bigger wall, thatsn ot what I was saying ot stating.
If you actually had read all of it, you would understand it and wouldn't post this.

2.
The 6+3 wall was able to break in turn 2. This new wall used my most of the illyrians (as example, so dont cry about personal attack agian) can't be broken in turn 2..

I am not going to read the whole post again, but you guys are comparing big wall with no inside wall with rewall. Hence why I say " A wall that cannot be prevented ( the inside wall) and rewalling is not the same." This is what I've read.

And your point 2 lead to why I support this kind of wall. Because the 6 + 3 wall was ok, then people started to use zoom bug and break them in 1 turn. Laochra just was smart and made no wall inside so you cannot break it with zoom bug.

I say, I dont think this is the way to solve it, but I prefer to make my wall on turn 2 rather that get it broked by **** zoom buggers.

As I said in point 3, even if you make an inside wall and your outside wall get wallfucked, there are still some players that would break your inside wall even though they wfed your outside wall. This make double walll pointless.... As easy as wallfuck outside wall and break inside wall on turn 2? hell no. Sorry but until the people stop zoom bugging, I will be supporting lao's wall.

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 09:35

Napisano od Waffel, 15.10.2014 at 08:56

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 06:46

XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA @ Acqui post.

I think is time for set an opinion and enter this war...

I support Laochra ( And you should run, because me and laochra are used to fight in almost every post). I dont think that " A wall that cannot be prevented" and " Rewalling" mean the same. Is kinda fun to see some players to re-write the "rewalling" concept. Re-Wall mean to re-make a wall and nothing more, if there is no wall, then there is no rewall.

I also support to not put inside wall on second turn. I dont think this should be allowed, but if you take into account:

1) The big wall uses 9 units, and the simply double wall uses 6 + 3 = 9 units.

2) The high ranks players know how to zoom bug the 6 outside + 3 inside wall.And they wont stop zoom bugging.

3) Even if Laochra had walled inside, there are still some players that would break the inside wall. This happened me once while I was CWing evoL ( I walled with 8 units outside and 3 inside, I got wfed 1st turn and he still break my inside wall) and happens to me in almost every scenario when I and someone end up wfing each others in turn 1 - he do like there was no wall and break my inside wall.

How high ranks does not respect the walls is very clearn in this example:

in my tourney match aganist Chess. I told him " Dont attack kuwait. Game didn't walled it"
when the wall was up and there was no wfing unit. This is a common bug. ( And no, the wall was made and next turn it just did not appear up).

Guess what: Chess not only attacked it, but also with half of his stack.#R.I.P my general.

There is just no guarantee, with wall inside or without wall inside, that the other player will act polite and respect it. We where fine with the 6 + 3 wall.... until someone started to break them by zoom bugs. I dunno if there is even a high rank here that would respect a 6 outside + 3 inside wall.

For number 2 and number 3.... I support big wall with no inside units. Though, as I said from the start, A post wont charge this.

I think you dont get the point of this the whole thread, in that case it would be better to not spam with useless things.

1.
I am not talking about rewalling in any way, we are talking about the biggwall turn 1 (no triangle wall around the capital)
Turn 2 the bigg wall is gone, and the triangle wall is around the capital. Not turn 1, 3 troops triangle wall and 6/8 trooops for bigger wall, thatsn ot what I was saying ot stating.
If you actually had read all of it, you would understand it and wouldn't post this.

2.
The 6+3 wall was able to break in turn 2. This new wall used my most of the illyrians (as example, so dont cry about personal attack agian) can't be broken in turn 2..

I am not going to read the whole post again, but you guys are comparing big wall with no inside wall with rewall. Hence why I say " A wall that cannot be prevented ( the inside wall) and rewalling is not the same." This is what I've read.

And your point 2 lead to why I support this kind of wall. Because the 6 + 3 wall was ok, then people started to use zoom bug and break them in 1 turn. Laochra just was smart and made no wall inside so you cannot break it with zoom bug.

I say, I dont think this is the way to solve it, but I prefer to make my wall on turn 2 rather that get it broked by **** zoom buggers.

As I said in point 3, even if you make an inside wall and your outside wall get wallfucked, there are still some players that would break your inside wall even though they wfed your outside wall. This make double walll pointless.... As easy as wallfuck outside wall and break inside wall on turn 2? hell no. Sorry but until the people stop zoom bugging, I will be supporting lao's wall.

Zoom bugging what are u talking about? We didn't even mention any of this in this thread, you are totally misreading the whole subject.. before you merge into something please read it first.

Napisano od Waffel, 15.10.2014 at 09:44

Zoom bugging what are u talking about? We didn't even mention any of this in this thread, you are totally misreading the whole subject.. before you merge into something please read it first.

Why the classic doublewall of 6 + 3 troops does not work anymore waffel? Because as laochra say, it can easy be broken by zoom bug. It is pointless to make an inside wall so it get broked by zoom bug. Hence why the big wall is an alternative.

Napisano od Khal.eesi, 15.10.2014 at 09:16

ok one last response from me, serious one, this time.Even after your trashtalking you deserve that much.After this, im out.
The reason i never took this discussion seriously, is because it never was, in the first place.It was funny as hell and a little retarded and im not saying that in a disrespectfull manner, its the truth.I heard so much bullshit and alot of lies and frankly im inclined to be on the defensive, whenever a thread like this, turns to the bashing of my clan, like always.
Your middle ground proposal, was the only thing worth reading here, but personally im not very keen of accepting it.I will respect it though, if the majority does also.I have alot of reasons, but only the fact , that this would mean, trolls and proven liars, like war and syrian, will win, makes me negative.Also, the case you make, thats it cannot be prevented, thus ban, does not apeal to me.Do i like to play against this?No.But i will find a way and play around it, or die trying, not such a big deal.Only yesterday, i played a cw, as Uk and my opponent had a double wall on berlin.took me 2 turns to break through and he rewalled also.I wasnt expecting it, so i didnt send a wallfuck and that resulted in a berlin forever walled.Was i angry?Yes i was.Did i cry?No.I actually was a little happy inside, cause my opponent prooved to be a good competition and he made me worry alot.Thats what im looking for in cws.I dont like cheap plays.And that wasnt a cheap play in my opinion, it was just smart.And i have to add also, that i didnt loose.You can always find ways to win and play around things that your opponent do.Some times you need luck also, but thats part of the game also.That was just an example to show you, the way i think.And in response to another argument i heard here, that all these things limit innovations firstly and some laughter about rewall and circle walls being new.Thats innovation, in my book and how the meta progresses, we should just accept these new tactics and moove forward.That happens to all competitive online games.If we ban every new tactic, then the games becomes stale, boring and predictable.And i know the rewall debate is old, but the circle wall one, is new.And its the same, with your preferences.You choose to abide by the turk-ukr combo and use ally rewall on almost every game, despite the fact that you condemn self rewall.I never understood that also.Why you and Desu think its ok to ally rewall and at the same time you are against self rewall.But anyway, we protested a little and then accepted it.And i have to tell Bonker here, that his argument, that this always existed is not true.I played alot of cws and have cw'ed for 5 different clans and i never had to play east.Like never, not even once.Not until this summer, when you decided to put that rule, in effect.And i have to thank you guys, really, for this, cause you opened my eyes.Just when game became boring to me i started playing East and i love it.Its interesting again.
Anyway, bottom line is, in my opinion, if i look at it realistically, we as a community, will never reach an agreement about this.In my opinion, deliberately fucking with your opponents walls, is not only illegal and unacceptable, but unsportsmanlike, cheap, cunty, faggy, behaviour that should be condemned, by everybody.The rules the community made state clearly, no wf and no entering enemy territory turn 1.To put your unit on the border to wallfuck an enemy walls turn 1, is like a little "window", like the ones , used by lawyers, to justify criminals.I am wholeheartedly against that.To the people who do it, i would suggest to use their brains, cause this is a game for the mind, to find ways to play around and counter their opponent tactic, in a fair and sportsmanlike manner.Otherwise, whats the point really?Who would like to win, by cheating?I know i dont.Doesnt even make sense to me, to do.Maybe people with social/psychologicall problems and low real life self esteem, will disagree with me, but personally i play for competition and fun and not just to win.If i feel i deserve to win, then yeah im gonna fight for it.
I hope i covered you.Cheers.

Oh and before i forgot.
Guys, keep calm..and wallglitch!

First time you said something usefull and meaningfull. I agree with most of what you said. But still, if it was you guys and we would respond like this, i think it would be even worse. Just saying.

Napisano od clovis1122, 15.10.2014 at 09:54

Napisano od Waffel, 15.10.2014 at 09:44

Zoom bugging what are u talking about? We didn't even mention any of this in this thread, you are totally misreading the whole subject.. before you merge into something please read it first.

Why the classic doublewall of 6 + 3 troops does not work anymore waffel? Because as laochra say, it can easy be broken by zoom bug. It is pointless to make an inside wall so it get broked by zoom bug. Hence why the big wall is an alternative.

Yes, but this one has no counter, and since you guys compare everything to strenghts and weaknesses, be reasonable and look at this wall, it has no counter. So its actually not legit.