HHAYD Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1304894958' post='2708738'] It's that damn GOON tech! [/quote] Don't forget IRON's and Fark's beer. Everyone knows how competent SDIs are when they are operated by drunken striking workers. Edited May 8, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304892349' post='2708715'] "[i]Taking part in WPE contest shows that all things that you post are wrong![/i]" [/quote] That's not what he said at all. He was actually pretty straightforward in using your success in the tournament to illustrate that many of us are, indeed, aware of your subpar posting abilities. You're doing a great job of reinforcing this belief, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SADeki Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304892349' post='2708715'] "[i]Taking part in WPE contest shows that all things that you post are wrong![/i]" [/quote] You're not a bad poster because you were in WPE, you were in WPE because you are a bad poster. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1304863043' post='2708530'] I think his progression through the WPE competition shows that we all know what he is and what he does, but some people are stupid enough to believe what he writes so there has to be some kind of defense against that rubbish. [/quote] I think you are allowing the style of how he posts to override the substance of what he posts. A lot of the time, while his posts are brash, blunt, and often unpleasant, he does raise a good point and make an argument, if in a less-than-desirable way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Mergerberger II' timestamp='1304903325' post='2708794'] I think you are allowing the style of how he posts to override the substance of what he posts. A lot of the time, while his posts are brash, blunt, and often unpleasant, he does raise a good point and make an argument, if in a less-than-desirable way. [/quote] While that may be true, this particular argument didn't raise any [i]good[/i] points for the basis of it entirely revolves around the notion that a lack of casualties are indicative of cowardice while also implying that it's an indicator of skill. This argument alone is a failed one as it applies equally to his (and yours) alliance as well as Umbrella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1304903690' post='2708801'] While that may be true, this particular argument didn't raise any [i]good[/i] points for the basis of it entirely revolves around the notion that a lack of casualties are indicative of cowardice while also implying that it's an indicator of skill. This argument alone is a failed one as it applies equally to his (and yours) alliance as well as Umbrella. [/quote] Indeed, that seems to be the case here. Anyway, this is tremendously off-topic, so let's return to the substance of what is being argued in this thread. Oh wait, that was nothing but D34th's posting style and off-topic posts. Well, I guess we can only forget it and move on with our lives. Good luck to both parties in this fight. I hope Pacifica will still fight as strongly as they are reputed to, and that Doomhouse will continue to make things interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1L1O Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Congrats NPO, please build up your muscles once again, and i secretly hope that i could join your side on next major war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1304903065' post='2708792'] You're not a bad poster because you were in WPE, you were in WPE because you are a bad poster. Hope this helps. [/quote] I think Merger covered it very well, my posts can be in fact considered really horrible, I don't care, but when you use WPE as excuse to discredit what I say you are just being a fool SADeki. Posts can be bad and still be true. [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1304903690' post='2708801'] While that may be true, this particular argument didn't raise any [i]good[/i] points for the basis of it entirely revolves around the notion that a lack of casualties are indicative of cowardice while also implying that it's an indicator of skill. This argument alone is a failed one as it applies equally to his (and yours) alliance as well as Umbrella. [/quote] What I said is well know for everyone: elite alliances have big nations not because they have activity or a special nation bulding capability, even if this factors contributes for the result, the main factor that make Umbrella so feared for having big nations is that your alliance successfully avoided wars for a long time resulting in nation who never fought a real war. I never raised the point that a lack of casualties are indicative of cowardice of an alliance(because for sure they are an indicative of the cowardice of the nation ruler, unless you have other name for people who never fought), an brave alliance can have cowards on it, this is perfectly normal. You are reading too much in my posters, what I said is too many people worship Umbrella as fearsome fighters because they big nations when the truth is that they have big nations because never fought and that is really amusing. My argument, who is nothing more than a fact, of course applies to any alliance who has big nations, said nations are big because they successfully or cowardly avoided wars to preserve their infra/tech, normally the later. Now just compare how many big nations we have(4 above 80k who represents 1,26% of the alliance ) to how many big nations Umbrella have(65 above 80k who represents 65% of the alliance). Now say again, why my argument failed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1304903065' post='2708792'] You're not a bad poster because you were in WPE, you were in WPE because you are a bad poster. Hope this helps. [/quote] We can't all have the same flash and flair that you have. Oh wait..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304909225' post='2708862'] What I said is well know for everyone: elite alliances have big nations not because they have activity or a special nation bulding capability, even if this factors contributes for the result, the main factor that make Umbrella so feared for having big nations is that your alliance successfully avoided wars for a long time resulting in nation who never fought a real war. I never raised the point that a lack of casualties are indicative of cowardice of an alliance(because for sure they are an indicative of the cowardice of the nation ruler, unless you have other name for people who never fought), an brave alliance can have cowards on it, this is perfectly normal. You are reading too much in my posters, what I said is too many people worship Umbrella as fearsome fighters because they big nations when the truth is that they have big nations because never fought and that is really amusing. My argument, who is nothing more than a fact, of course applies to any alliance who has big nations, said nations are big because they successfully or cowardly avoided wars to preserve their infra/tech, normally the later. Now just compare how many big nations we have(4 above 80k who represents 1,26% of the alliance ) to how many big nations Umbrella have(65 above 80k who represents 65% of the alliance). Now say again, why my argument failed? [/quote] I'm over 80k NS, I have the following casualties. [font="Arial"][size="2"]1,022,959 Attacking + 2,249,190 Defending = 3,272,149 Casualties. I've got a large enough nation to met your benchmark, and I've fought in every major war since GWIII. So your entire argument is once more discredited by the fact that not every large nation becomes that way through avoiding war as my nation is proof against that assertion by your standards.[/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Hence your argument fails. [/size][/font][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1304910302' post='2708878'] I'm over 80k NS, I have the following casualties. [font="Arial"][size="2"]1,022,959 Attacking + 2,249,190 Defending = 3,272,149 Casualties. I've got a large enough nation to met your benchmark, and I've fought in every major war since GWIII. So your entire argument is once more discredited by the fact that not every large nation becomes that way through avoiding war as my nation is proof against that assertion by your standards.[/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Hence your argument fails. [/size][/font][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img] [/quote] [quote]Now just compare how many big nations we have(4 above 80k who represents 1,26% of the alliance ) to how many big nations Umbrella have(65 above 80k who represents 65% of the alliance). Now say again, why my argument failed?[/quote] I think your having some trouble with understanding his argument. Really I don't care either way, just thought I should point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1304910302' post='2708878'] I'm over 80k NS, I have the following casualties. [font="Arial"][size="2"]1,022,959 Attacking + 2,249,190 Defending = 3,272,149 Casualties. I've got a large enough nation to met your benchmark, and I've fought in every major war since GWIII. So your entire argument is once more discredited by the fact that not every large nation becomes that way through avoiding war as my nation is proof against that assertion by your standards.[/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="2"]Hence your argument fails. [/size][/font][img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/lol1.gif[/img] [/quote] I think you missed the point, also tell me, how many nations have you fought in this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304911922' post='2708886'] [/quote] Which wars have we avoided? I don't really remember. You'll have to remind me. Most of the people we've fought have acknowledged we're not terrible at it. If you think not fighting on its own will produce a good level of big nations, you're wrong anyway. If not losing is the same never fighting, then make that clear, but I didn't know you needed to be curbstomped in order to be thought having "fought." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304909225' post='2708862'] My argument, who is nothing more than a fact, of course applies to any alliance who has big nations, said nations are big because they successfully or cowardly avoided wars to preserve their infra/tech, normally the later. Now just compare how many big nations we have(4 above 80k who represents 1,26% of the alliance ) to how many big nations Umbrella have(65 above 80k who represents 65% of the alliance). Now say again, why my argument failed? [/quote] You're dense as lead, which is why I'll try to explain it until your dumb self realizes what you did wrong. You set an arbitrary value (your casualty numbers nonetheless!) and based a whole evaluation on it. Which is inherently wrong first because you're not the standard for the definition of war seasoned nation and second because, even if you were, there are a load of geopolitical situations to consider when evaluating how much a nation avoided war or not. A similar manipulation of the numbers would be saying that out of Umbrella's 65 above 80k NS nations, there are only 8 that are under 1,5 million casualties. When looking at Polar's 4 nations over 80k NS we see that only one is over that mark (by 39k soldiers I might add). And what does this prove? Nothing. You can't build a faithful statistical model to evaluate how seasoned in war someone is because the geopolitical situations change from alliance to alliance. You can't build a faithful statistical model to evaluate how seasoned in war someone is because different stages of nation building contribute with different numbers of casualties, and fighting more with a smaller nation does not mean you know less how to fight. Even disregarding both previous points, you can't build a faithful statistical model to evaluate how seasoned in war someone is because the average casualties number is unknown to you and you used yourself as reference. But even if you could, even if all your experience was concentrated on the 1,5 million casualties you have in advance from the ~90% of the 66% of my alliance that is above 80k NS (I realize that being dense as you are this sentence might be a bit complicated, feel free to ask someone else to help you out reading it), it would be utterly irrelevant because from the top of your 35k NS and all your experience, you can't touch any of that 66%. So here's a cookie: [center][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5ua3Z_4xbfA/TY9RUY7rMUI/AAAAAAAAHd0/45xOA0Fah3U/s1600/cookie1.jpg[/img][/center] I hope it's clear now how much of a failure was concentrated in your post. For all that's sacred D34th, please understand you're dumb, accept it, embrace it and shut up. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Casualties don't equal skill, but nation size certainly equals casualties. Drai wouldn't have 12 million casualties if he was only 30k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Paul Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='Biff Webster' timestamp='1304891572' post='2708712'] Looks like the SDI's on both sides are working really well. [/quote] All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUh4kwtKdTU]Y5.T2.1a - My SDI[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 If more people are doing what HeroofTime claims to have been doing (losing on purpose just to increase casualty count), casualty count is even more worthless a stat than is already being discussed. Actually, you could have a huge casualty count just by being terrible at war and being GAed and nuked repeatedly. Or you could dominate all your opponents while everyone is turtling and have a low casualty count. I don't see how casualties directly relate to skill; if anything there's just as much evidence for it to be the opposite. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL9.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1304915331' post='2708908'] If more people are doing what HeroofTime claims to have been doing (losing on purpose just to increase casualty count), casualty count is even more worthless a stat than is already being discussed. Actually, you could have a huge casualty count just by being terrible at war and being GAed and nuked repeatedly. Or you could dominate all your opponents while everyone is turtling and have a low casualty count. I don't see how casualties directly relate to skill; if anything there's just as much evidence for it to be the opposite. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL9.jpg[/img] [/quote] If anything casualty count is the only stat that really matters imo, since it cannot be altered by purchases. It also shows that you have actually stood up to something, and are not just an infra hugger. While I understand that some people are not here for war and follow other paths, those that claim to be warriors while having very low casualties really should just tape it shut imo. Also, nukes don't count to casualties. Edited May 9, 2011 by William Bonney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Casualties are often arbitrary. As for losing being better than winning when it comes to casualties, I disagree with that in most circumstances. I've always gotten more casualties in a winning war vs. a losing war, assuming you can find a decent number of wars when on the winning side. Especially involving nukes when all my soldiers get nuked frequently, like in Karma near the end the constant nukings, while losing little else, added a lot of defensive casualties against often turtling opponents. And in this war, I've been able to rebuild my nation to 1-2K infra with aid after every round of war, and so I've been able to keep casualties coming for the length of it, vs. opponents who haven't gotten the aid to rebuild every round. I have 1.16 million casualties on a 137 day old nation and I haven't passed 2300 infra. Obviously in different circumstances, this might be reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastermind Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Yay. Woot. Yay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1304912794' post='2708892'] snip [/quote] You resorting to insults and "shut up" to argue with me are just funny also is funny that you embraced your angry side after you joined Umbrella. Your angry post changes nothing, the causalities show that many nations in your alliance fought none or very few and easy wars where the numbers were in your side, is very easy to build a big nation in that conditions. That was my point and it is based on a solid fact: Nations like the #1 and many others of your alliance are big nations not because they are geniuses of the nation building but because and only because they successfully/cowardly had avoided many wars, there are no other possible explanation for nations with high infra levels and small causality count. Your anger towards me will not change this because isn't my fault that your alliance has so many nations in this conditions. [quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1304915331' post='2708908'] If more people are doing what HeroofTime claims to have been doing (losing on purpose just to increase casualty count), casualty count is even more worthless a stat than is already being discussed. Actually, you could have a huge casualty count just by being terrible at war and being GAed and nuked repeatedly. Or you could dominate all your opponents while everyone is turtling and have a low casualty count. I don't see how casualties directly relate to skill; if anything there's just as much evidence for it to be the opposite. [/quote] I'm never claimed that causalities reflects fighting abilities. Causalities just show who fought real wars(and per real I'm mean fight someone who actually fights back) and who didn't. Edited May 9, 2011 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304915763' post='2708912'] If anything casualty count is the only stat that really matters imo, since it cannot be altered by purchases. It also shows that you have actually stood up to something, and are not just an infra hugger. While I understand that some people are not here for war and follow other paths, those that claim to be warriors while having very low casualties really should just tape it shut imo. Also, nukes don't count to casualties. [/quote] I'm pretty sure nukes count for defensive casualties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304916676' post='2708918'] I'm never claimed that causalities reflects fighting abilities. Causalities just show who fought real wars(and per real I'm mean fight someone who actually fights back) and who didn't. [/quote] That would seem to fall as much on the opponent as on the alliance with low casualty counts. History is replete with major wars that fizzled because somebody realized they'd lose and conceded whatever was in controversy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304915763' post='2708912'] If anything casualty count is the only stat that really matters imo, since it cannot be altered by purchases. It also shows that you have actually stood up to something, and are not just an infra hugger. While I understand that some people are not here for war and follow other paths, those that claim to be warriors while having very low casualties really should just tape it shut imo. Also, nukes don't count to casualties. [/quote] The only correct statement in this entire post is that having a casualty count at all indicates you fought at some point rather than hug infra. Casualty count by itself does not indicate how often you fought or how good you are/were at it. It's also possible to have fought a huge number of wars and have a "low" casualty count, simply because your nation never got very large (possibly entirely because you fight so much). That would be a gross misrepresentation to assert that such a person doesn't know anything about fighting just because they never hit 1m casualties -- even if they've fought a lot more than you. [img]http://meru.xfury.net/images/aeris/aerisdisL3.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1304916676' post='2708918'] You resorting to insults and "shut up" to argue with me are just funny also is funny that you embraced your angry side after you joined Umbrella. Your angry post changes nothing, the causalities show that many nations in your alliance fought none or very few and easy wars where the numbers were in your side, is very easy to build a big nation in that conditions. That was my point and it is based on a solid fact: Nations like the #1 and many others of your alliance are big nations not because they are geniuses of the nation building but because and only because they successfully/cowardly had avoided many wars, there are no other possible explanation for nations with high infra levels and small causality count. Your anger towards me will not change this because isn't my fault that your alliance has so many nations in this conditions. [/quote] Both wars and skill are a factor. Umbrella wouldn't be where it is without skill. There are plenty of alliances like Legion that don't fight very hard but don't have nations like Umbrella does because of their incompetence. The nature of the wars they have fought may account for most of the difference between say, Umbrella and MK or TOP, but not Umbrella and most alliances. Also not being in losing wars is not necessarily a sign of cowardice, but luck and good planning. Edited May 9, 2011 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.