Biggwall problems.

I think players have broadened the definition of "no turn one wf" to fit their needs with their big walling, and rewalling.
When I first started playing atwar competitively, It was explained to me, you shouldn't wf your opponents cap's turn one. I.e, putting a unit next to their cap and stopping their wall. To clarify, thats intentionally entering someones land and stopping their wall at their capital.



Now it seems that when bigwalls come into play, we have altered that meaning and say, even if your "wf" unit isn't in our land, you still have to respect my wall, and allow me to rewall my cap.




Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

I do have a question however, if I am playing as france and I decide to bigwall my cap, and I also decide to link a 3 man belgium wall to my france wall, and both my walls get wf'd, (the wf unit is in belgium) is that a legit wf? or should I leave your wall as it is, and allow you to rewall. If you were to make a wall around 3 countries, one being your own, and 2 neutral; and they get wfd. should we still follow the "no turn one wf" rule? Afterall, these Wf units are in neutral territory.



In conclusion, I see now why many people have left this game.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

When I first started playing atwar competitively, It was explained to me, you shouldn't wf your opponents cap's turn one.

This is so true by the way ...i am playing this game for 3 years and i always thought of a "no wf rule" as a capital wf.

But fuck it ...someone i remember gave an argumment that if you are allowed to put one unit in your opponents territory, why shouldnt you be able to put 2 or 3 or even make walls.

So its either that the rule just sticks to "no cap wf" (and game gaines a new layer actually, widens the tactical options o.O) or consider my compromise ...one side doesnt wf others side territory walls turn 1, other side doesnt exploit this to make unfuckable walls turn 2.

And yay i made up a new term ...unfuckable walls.

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

Jesus christ Laochra are you being an idiot on purpose or what?

can you make a single post without throwing insults?

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

• this topic started with me arguing w4r about his first turn wall fuck on you -- so how em i justifying first turn wf

i am aware how this thread started, but a few pages back you declared me an idiot and resolved to first turn wf me in all future games because i disagreed with you. Waffel is attempting to justify first turn wf. You're simply stating you'll use it.

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

• we never, ever said double walling should be baned -- you are pissing me off for repeating that after i said that already 6 times

your entire argument is based around there being no counter and that its unfair the player keeps their cap walled until turn 4. Im tired of repeating myself. Youre attempting to distinguish between big wall rewalling and double walls, when they both achieve the same goal for the same amount of units and are both uncounterable. So you can say it 7 times that youre not talking about double walling, but theres still no difference between the 2, so you are.

i swear, do you and waffel just not read my posts or deliberately ignore them? i find it ironic and frustrating that you have accused me of the same when i have taken the time to break down your posts point by point. However i am quickly growing tired of doing so.

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

• you are not making double walls get that into your head and stop using something you dont do as an argumment -- you are creating a new unfuckable wall turn after

Its the same thing. you use the same amount of units, they both protect your capital until turn 4, they both cant be countered. So once again i ask you, whats the difference? Explain yourself. How many times do i have to ask before you answer my questions?

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

• i accepted rewalling and serbian rewalling as a legit moves since they are preventable wall moves

Thats nice. i didnt ask you how you felt about these 2 moves.

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

• i even proposed that you just fuckin leave 3 units in your capital when making big wall and still you are not happy and still you continue to spread bullshit about what i said

yes you did, but what difference does this make? The 3 units show intent? Why would you need the 3 units to be in the capital. If someone bigwalls they obviously intend to keep their cap protected an extra turn. to make I can quite happily do this, but waffel will still first turn wf me, and this doesnt solve our problem.

Kirjutas Goblin, 24.10.2014 at 13:43

Do what you want, i wont stop you i wont wall fuck you i never would ...this is a fuckin game, but it seems you would rather die then compromise on something.

I have compromised on rewalling and serb walling, i dont use them because some people feel theyre cheap. i have compromised on the stalins martians picking order method, illyria acquiesce to this even tho we dont agree with it. But this is where i draw the line. I am not compromising with a handful of players who wf me turn 1 in cws.

Go find yourselves more support and better arguments and i might consider a compromise, until then i will just simply avoid playing you guys.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I think players have broadened the definition of "no turn one wf" to fit their needs with their big walling, and rewalling.
When I first started playing atwar competitively, It was explained to me, you shouldn't wf your opponents cap's turn one. I.e, putting a unit next to their cap and stopping their wall. To clarify, thats intentionally entering someones land and stopping their wall at their capital.

thats fine, clarification was going to be needed on the original agreement as atwar evolved. It was explained to me that you shouldnt wf your opponents territory or invade their land turn 1. I took this to mean any walls on an opponents territory. Since nothing was clarified it was left open to interpretation.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Now it seems that when bigwalls come into play, we have altered that meaning and say, even if your "wf" unit isn't in our land, you still have to respect my wall, and allow me to rewall my cap.

Nobodys altered any meaning, this is where your own interpretation of good sportsmanship comes into play, this is where we differ.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory. Khal explained this already. Its a loopwhole in the no territory invasion turn 1 rule that people are exploiting to their advantage. Again, this depends on your sense of good sportsmanship.

Nobody is trying to stifle creativity, like i said to bonker, if your idea of creativity is trying to figure out how to wf people turn 1 without putting units on their land then you should just give up right now.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I do have a question however, if I am playing as france and I decide to bigwall my cap, and I also decide to link a 3 man belgium wall to my france wall, and both my walls get wf'd, (the wf unit is in belgium) is that a legit wf? or should I leave your wall as it is, and allow you to rewall. If you were to make a wall around 3 countries, one being your own, and 2 neutral; and they get wfd. should we still follow the "no turn one wf" rule? Afterall, these Wf units are in neutral territory.

In conclusion, I see now why many people have left this game.

that answer should be obvious if you apply basic logic to the no first turn wf and no turn 1 territory invasion rules. belgium is not on your territory so if the wall is opened its perfectly ok to attack it.

Many people have left this game for many reasons. You probably should, the less liars and first turn wf'ers playing this game the better. If this argument causes you to leave, then at least these threads will have accomplished something.

And yes waffel, i did just personally attack w4r.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

This is pure gold, you should be a comedian.

>legitimate way to stop this without entering their land turn one

Yeah, but when somebody does it to you, like true indian, you and mou take it as a responsibility to moan about it in the forums. Top kek

Kirjutas Tundy, 24.10.2014 at 14:42

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

This is pure gold, you should be a comedian.

>legitimate way to stop this without entering their land turn one

Yeah, but when somebody does it to you, like true indian, you and mou take it as a responsibility to moan about it in the forums. Top kek

Go back and read, did I complain in that forum or game? No.. I won the cw.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 14:24

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I think players have broadened the definition of "no turn one wf" to fit their needs with their big walling, and rewalling.
When I first started playing atwar competitively, It was explained to me, you shouldn't wf your opponents cap's turn one. I.e, putting a unit next to their cap and stopping their wall. To clarify, thats intentionally entering someones land and stopping their wall at their capital.

thats fine, clarification was going to be needed on the original agreement as atwar evolved. It was explained to me that you shouldnt wf your opponents territory or invade their land turn 1. I took this to mean any walls on an opponents territory. Since nothing was clarified it was left open to interpretation.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Now it seems that when bigwalls come into play, we have altered that meaning and say, even if your "wf" unit isn't in our land, you still have to respect my wall, and allow me to rewall my cap.

Nobodys altered any meaning, this is where your own interpretation of good sportsmanship comes into play, this is where we differ.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory. Khal explained this already. Its a loopwhole in the no territory invasion turn 1 rule that people are exploiting to their advantage. Again, this depends on your sense of good sportsmanship.

Nobody is trying to stifle creativity, like i said to bonker, if your idea of creativity is trying to figure out how to wf people turn 1 without putting units on their land then you should just give up right now.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I do have a question however, if I am playing as france and I decide to bigwall my cap, and I also decide to link a 3 man belgium wall to my france wall, and both my walls get wf'd, (the wf unit is in belgium) is that a legit wf? or should I leave your wall as it is, and allow you to rewall. If you were to make a wall around 3 countries, one being your own, and 2 neutral; and they get wfd. should we still follow the "no turn one wf" rule? Afterall, these Wf units are in neutral territory.

In conclusion, I see now why many people have left this game.

that answer should be obvious if you apply basic logic to the no first turn wf and no turn 1 territory invasion rules. belgium is not on your territory so if the wall is opened its perfectly ok to attack it.

Many people have left this game for many reasons. You probably should, the less liars and first turn wf'ers playing this game the better. If this argument causes you to leave, then at least these threads will have accomplished something.

And yes waffel, i did just personally attack w4r.

"nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory." Contradictory statement. try again please.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 14:46

"nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory." Contradictory statement. try again please.

sigh so what youre going to take a big post, pick out an apparent contradiction and thats your reply? Thats me shown? You know what i meant. You send units to all the other neutral territory you want, but if you do so to deliberately open my walls on my territory, then theres a problem.

i dont have to explain this to you. This reply is almost as pathetic as that attempt you made at convincing people this unit wasnt on french territory.



And largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. But if you're going to go over my words with a fine comb, then i will watch my words when arguing with you in future.

I remember

One day I saw waffel mad

He had a tourney match in 5k

He tried to wall both his capital vienna, and a neutral country slovakia on turn 1.

But his opponent wallfucked hungary, meaning his capital wall got also broken

And turn 2 that player cap waffel , arguing about " You tried to wall two countries. I wont respect that kind of wall"

And yes waffel went to forum for cry about.

And everybody say waffel was wrong.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 14:07

I have compromised on rewalling and serb walling, i dont use them because some people feel theyre cheap.

Go find yourselves more support and better arguments and i might consider a compromise, until then i will just simply avoid playing you guys.

Oh this is precious.

You compromised on rewalling and serb rewalling ...but you rewall with a big wall?

So let me repeat this ...you compromised on using something people can prevent by using something they cant?

Argumments? ...do i need one after this. And your argumments have never been nothing more then a fallacy by numbers nothing else ...and even that you cant prove.

Difference between big wall and double wall is the amount of units used and the amount of turns to do this.


And still you cant understand that i put my self in a neutral position and tried to find a solution for a mutual compromise, not between me and you, but between does who would wall fuck does who would use a big wall rewalling.

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

Difference between big wall and double wall is the amount of units used and the amount of turns to do this.

i really dont get that.Seriously what is the difference between double wall and big wall rewall?Since we established that double wall cant be broken in one turn, im under the impression its exactly the same.If anything double wall might require less units.Big wall rewall needs what, 8 units outside and to leave 3 reinf in your cap to wall next turn.Double wall uses the same 3 reinf in cap, only difference is you buy them 1 turn earlier and i think you can do it with 6 units outside, so 2 less.So whats the difference there, i honestly dont get it.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 14:46

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 14:24

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I think players have broadened the definition of "no turn one wf" to fit their needs with their big walling, and rewalling.
When I first started playing atwar competitively, It was explained to me, you shouldn't wf your opponents cap's turn one. I.e, putting a unit next to their cap and stopping their wall. To clarify, thats intentionally entering someones land and stopping their wall at their capital.

thats fine, clarification was going to be needed on the original agreement as atwar evolved. It was explained to me that you shouldnt wf your opponents territory or invade their land turn 1. I took this to mean any walls on an opponents territory. Since nothing was clarified it was left open to interpretation.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Now it seems that when bigwalls come into play, we have altered that meaning and say, even if your "wf" unit isn't in our land, you still have to respect my wall, and allow me to rewall my cap.

Nobodys altered any meaning, this is where your own interpretation of good sportsmanship comes into play, this is where we differ.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

Players are now trying to limit where we can go on neutral territory. We have to stick to the script, and get rid of any strategy and creativity we may have. A problem surfaces where an opponent will have an advantage of having his cap walled for 3 or so turns. If we happen to find a legitimate way to stop this, without entering their land turn one, it instantly becomes taboo, and frowned upon by those who do the rewalling.

nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory. Khal explained this already. Its a loopwhole in the no territory invasion turn 1 rule that people are exploiting to their advantage. Again, this depends on your sense of good sportsmanship.

Nobody is trying to stifle creativity, like i said to bonker, if your idea of creativity is trying to figure out how to wf people turn 1 without putting units on their land then you should just give up right now.

Kirjutas W4R_MaChINE, 24.10.2014 at 13:49

I do have a question however, if I am playing as france and I decide to bigwall my cap, and I also decide to link a 3 man belgium wall to my france wall, and both my walls get wf'd, (the wf unit is in belgium) is that a legit wf? or should I leave your wall as it is, and allow you to rewall. If you were to make a wall around 3 countries, one being your own, and 2 neutral; and they get wfd. should we still follow the "no turn one wf" rule? Afterall, these Wf units are in neutral territory.

In conclusion, I see now why many people have left this game.

that answer should be obvious if you apply basic logic to the no first turn wf and no turn 1 territory invasion rules. belgium is not on your territory so if the wall is opened its perfectly ok to attack it.

Many people have left this game for many reasons. You probably should, the less liars and first turn wf'ers playing this game the better. If this argument causes you to leave, then at least these threads will have accomplished something.

And yes waffel, i did just personally attack w4r.

"nobody is telling you where you cant go on neutral territory, the problem is when i player places units right outside your boarders to open walls on your territory." Contradictory statement. try again please.

It is actually NOT contradictory at all.What the hell are you talking about.The second part is just the exception, in the first part, which we can take as a rule of thumb.Not accepting the exception, would be fallacious in itself.Try again please.

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

Oh this is precious.

You compromised on rewalling and serb rewalling ...but you rewall with a big wall?

So let me repeat this ...you compromised on using something people can prevent by using something they cant?

most people dont complain about the big wall, perhaps since they know what theyre getting. But for whatever reason you seem to be fixaated on it being unpreventable as if that ever was a good argument. Nothing i say will change that.

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

Argumments? ...do i need one after this. And your argumments have never been nothing more then a fallacy by numbers nothing else ...and even that you cant prove.

my argument was never based on fallacy by numbers, i used numbers to highlight how i wont agree to these compromises for such an unpopular and discredited change. I provided clear reasoning as to why double walls can be advantageous and disadvantageous. It seems to me you base your gameplay around turn 3 cap pressure, nothing i can do about that. You are the one notching up the fallacies, ad hominem primarily among them.

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

Difference between big wall and double wall is the amount of units used and the amount of turns to do this.

that you would say this shows me how little you know, and how little an effort you're making in this argument. It is the same amount of units, any double wall with < 11 units will be ineffective.

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

And still you cant understand that i put my self in a neutral position and tried to find a solution for a mutual compromise, not between me and you, but between does who would wall fuck does who would use a big wall rewalling.

ive nothing more to say to you or waffel on this topic, everything has been exhausted, but waffel kindly stop responding to me in every thread with bitchey comments. I am still waiting to hear how exactly i have been exploiting rules for years.

Kirjutas Khal.eesi, 25.10.2014 at 06:31

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 05:34

Difference between big wall and double wall is the amount of units used and the amount of turns to do this.

i really dont get that.Seriously what is the difference between double wall and big wall rewall?Since we established that double wall cant be broken in one turn, im under the impression its exactly the same.If anything double wall might require less units.Big wall rewall needs what, 8 units outside and to leave 3 reinf in your cap to wall next turn.Double wall uses the same 3 reinf in cap, only difference is you buy them 1 turn earlier and i think you can do it with 6 units outside, so 2 less.So whats the difference there, i honestly dont get it.

double walls need to be very carefully formed so they cant be opened using the zoom feature, it takes at least 11 units.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 25.10.2014 at 06:56

most people dont complain about the big wall, perhaps since they know what theyre getting.

It seems to me you base your gameplay around turn 3 cap pressure, nothing i can do about that. You are the one notching up the fallacies, ad hominem primarily among them.

any double wall with < 11 units will be ineffective.

We didnt complain ...you have done this to us in CW's and i didnt complain.

You were the ones who started crying when people wf your big wall ...so bitch pls.

My gameplay is based on turn 3 pressure? ...wow you dare mention fallacy ad hominem, but say this sentence. ...btw. thats a lie.

I tried to create a rule that would stop wall fucks turn 1 and unfuckable walls turn 2 ...you forcing discussion about rewalling on me is geting annoying.

And double wall with less then 11 units would be ineffective ---.THATS THE FUCKIN POINT AND THE MAIN DIFFERENCE YOU IDIOT FUCK SO WHY DO YOU CLAIM THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!!!???????!

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.

My language doesnt matter and is not an argumment against me i beg your pardon dear sir btw. since it would be AD HOMINEM.

Double fuckin wall with 11 units that cant be broken and its easily done ...learn how to wall noobs.

Done.

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

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 07:11

Double fuckin wall with 11 units that cant be broken and its easily done ...learn how to wall noobs.

Done.

1. ‡syrian force : clam down
2. clovis666 : dont insurt
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

Kirjutas 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

Kirjutas clovis1122, 24.10.2014 at 19:07

I remember

One day I saw waffel mad

He had a tourney match in 5k

He tried to wall both his capital vienna, and a neutral country slovakia on turn 1.

But his opponent wallfucked hungary, meaning his capital wall got also broken

And turn 2 that player cap waffel , arguing about " You tried to wall two countries. I wont respect that kind of wall"

And yes waffel went to forum for cry about.

And everybody say waffel was wrong.

Lol? I have never played a 5k Tourney match? The only 5k tourney i played was the 1 min one from death, and I lost in round 1 and that was vs laochra. Ask him if you want.
This is what I mean, you make lies about something that never happened just to make me look bad? What is your problem man? Like really? I am trying actually come up with an solution and you come here and tell things which never happened? I never were forum-active until recently? Can you please give me the link of the ''cry forum''?

Clovis really what is your problem? Get out of this discussion if you have something usefull to add. Because you cant take it you have nothing to say, you come here and say fake stuff? -.-

Kirjutas Goblin, 25.10.2014 at 08:32

Kirjutas 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

Kirjutas 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.

Oh my God the RAAAAAAAAAAAGE level here is over 9000!!!

Waffel, what hav eyou done Jesus Christ!

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

Lol? I have never played a 5k Tourney match? The only 5k tourney i played was the 1 min one from death, and I lost in round 1 and that was vs laochra. Ask him if you want.

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

This is what I mean, you make lies about something that never happened just to make me look bad? What is your problem man? Like really? I am trying actually come up with an solution and you come here and tell things which never happened? I never were forum-active until recently? Can you please give me the link of the ''cry forum''?

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

Clovis really what is your problem? Get out of this discussion if you have something usefull to add. Because you cant take it you have nothing to say, you come here and say fake stuff? -.-

Link to the tourney: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=8445


Screenshot:



Well after this we can only assume you are a liar. A very bad one.

Dont expect me to reply after this. Not to you. <3

Kirjutas clovis1122, 25.10.2014 at 19:14

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

Lol? I have never played a 5k Tourney match? The only 5k tourney i played was the 1 min one from death, and I lost in round 1 and that was vs laochra. Ask him if you want.

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

This is what I mean, you make lies about something that never happened just to make me look bad? What is your problem man? Like really? I am trying actually come up with an solution and you come here and tell things which never happened? I never were forum-active until recently? Can you please give me the link of the ''cry forum''?

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

Clovis really what is your problem? Get out of this discussion if you have something usefull to add. Because you cant take it you have nothing to say, you come here and say fake stuff? -.-

Link to the tourney: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=8445


Screenshot:



Well after this we can only assume you are a liar. A very bad one.

Dont expect me to reply after this. Not to you. <3

Lmao never know I participated more than 1 time on a 1v1 tourney. I apologize in that factor.
Anyways, You also said I made cry forum about it? Where is that one pls?
And for the love of sake, have you ever heard of Sarcasm? If not, you should really try to meet him he will make your life a bit funner

Also its funny you use things from almost 2 years ago to actually call me a liar?
At this time I didn;t know 50% of the shit and strategies/game plays I know now. So please. Stop going off-topic with this annoying crap you doing, tunder tried the same.
You add seriously 0.00% to this whole subject clovis. I find it a relieve you will stop anwsering.

Tsiteeri:

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

What do you call it then besides exploiting the rules? You guys use something that will 100% effects people gameplay, the only counter to it is using WF turn 1. I also explained this million times to you, i seriously wonder why you still dont get it?

why would you call it anything other than double walling? theres no rules or inter-player agreements regarding this to exploit. There is no logical reason to have a problem with it. You're vaguely grasping at reasons to ban it, but there are none. Just because theres no legal counter is not a reason to ban it. Some countries benefit from a double wall, others do not, some need it if using a strat with weak defense(gw/blitz). Its a strategic move that has been used since atwar began. You and goblin may hate it, and youve every right to do so, but it does not give you the right to first turn wf, or enforce your opinions on others.

Thats all there is to "get" on this. So i dont get why you keep posting it. I am not going to start agreeing with you just because you repeat yourself.

Well just like madara said, if there is a move which only counter is to break a rule, doesnt that already show you what kind of move it is? And do you know the meaning of exploiting? Because as I learnt english exploiting means in my eyes, using something(in this case the no WF turn 1 rule) to get a profit when there is no way to stop it(or in this case, only way to stop it is the turn 1 wf)
Just because there is no legal counter, is the perfect reason to ban it. And also, don't say some other countries dont take a benefit from it thats bullshit, you choose to make a biggerwall with units, don't give the others an disadvantage because of that, thats lame and cheap. And for the record, GW ukraine can play without that biggwall turn 1, so can GW turkey, GW germany, GW france. Blitz doesn't need it at all... And you say, it has been used since the atwar began.

i'll show you my quote on that excuse.

Kirjutas Waffel, 25.10.2014 at 09:57

And the double walls were existed forever yes, but people didnt use them for EVERY CW THEY PLAY, people didnt BASE THEIR EXPANSION ON IT. and most of all, people didnt use them on turn 1 to gain an advantage of not losing capital wall turn 2. Most of those ''double wall biggwall from old days'' were made mid game, at turn 4/5+ etc. Not from the beginning, like I also stated in my subject, my whole thread + opinions + arguements were reffered to the biggwall turn 1 and 2.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

You are the one who keeps mentioning rules, everything i posted is 100% true. Illyria isnt doing anything wrong, you however are breaking the one rule/etiquette that we have on aw. Attempting again and again to justify why wont change this.

This is the problem, you come here talk about how the old players also used to do this, you come here telling your opinions with your so called ''facts'' and u call everything u say the truth. U called goblin and me liars eventhough we did the EXACT same thing as you.....

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

i never said that you did, i already responded to this, i assume you didnt comprehend what i said since you felt the need to repeat yourself.

However you did accuse me of exploiting rules, this is a completely false accusation, i read everything you said in the atwar recordbook yet it is still a completely false accusation. Explain yourself please.

Look at my first quote. You'll find your anwser there.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

HOW am i exploiting the rules using this wall. Would you stop repeating yourself and answer my questions please. There are no known rules regarding double walling to exploit. It is a legit move so yes you should stop crying. This isnt selfish its simply a fact. Please quote this rule that you keep mentioning im exploting if it exists.

Again u start with the ''its a legit move'' how can you even call it legit, when the ONLY counter is wf turn 1 .... Why dont you get this in your mind? Like seriously?

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

i did not forget bonker, bonker has a slightly different opinion to you and goblin. You would understand this if youd read his posts.

Do not attempt to discredit what i am saying by accusing me of an agenda. Everyone who did agree with me in this thread was quoted and in some cases subsequently attacked by you for their opinion. You goblin syrian mou and w4r, nobody else as of yet has supported you.

I know what bonker is talking about, and I have read his posts. And yes his opinions might be slightly different then ours, but they are kinda compared with the things we are saying...
And for the 029348239042834th time laochra, even if I WAS MY ONLY SUPPORTER. THIS ISNT AN ARGUMENT YOU CAN USE to justify what you are doing!

Here is my quote (again)

Kirjutas Waffel, 07.10.2014 at 03:53

Seriiously you complain about this? ....
Since illyria is made, all you guys do (mostly you) is complaining about the things what happen to you.
You guys expect us to be fine with the rewall,bugg,glitches,now the inner 2 turn wal..
I am going to WF the people who use this inner 2 turn wall. The no WF is meant for turn 1. By doing this wf I am making sure you are not able to inner wall turn 2. If I wf the bigger wall, you cant wall your capital turn 2 without getting wf'ed or getting harmed. My wf is only meant for the bigger walls, and will put my unit far enough so it wont wf a normal triangle wall. Like it or not, but you guys (mostly from illyria) are pushing the people who play against/with you to play lame. I don't like to lower my self to this kind of lame strategy.

Dont quote me again with: nice personal and attacking again. Because I am not.

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

It doesn't matter what they play, theyre entitled to their opinions, just like you are, and you should stop attempting to discredit them.

You are discrediting me and goblin, you say our opinions basically doesnt matter because we dont have the support? Like wow?
Basically me and goblin need to shut up because you have tunder, who spams about offtopic crap, clovis who comes here with SS's of something completely irrelevant, minusseven didnt really ad something what you already had said, so did jared. I can ask 100 people just to repeat what I say to get ''the support we need'' But I wont, because that wouldn't change a slightly thing in your ''opinion'' since you are kinda stubborn. You ask for a legal source to actuall believe it. Thats ridiculous, and shows disrespect towards the players. In this case (goblin/me and anyone who supported us, and also if you had read desu's last quote in that other thread, he also said he kinda supported this.)

Kirjutas Permamuted, 24.10.2014 at 10:49

This is wrong, i read and accepted what desu said, even if i didnt agree with all of it, i also had to accept what bonker said. You and goblin are simply horrible at attempting to apply reason and logic. Why should i attempt to find a solution to a problem you have created? Why should i have to change the way i play because you dislike double walls and suddenly feel its ok to wf me to prevent them? I am not going to bend over backwards trying to please you. Ive played 100s of games vs you goblin w4r mou and syrian yet now you guys suddenly trying to force made up rules down my throat because you cant handle a double wall. and are going to break the 1 rule we do have to prevent them.

I can simply choose to not play you guys, which is what i am doing. I hardly play aw these days, in the games i do play i dont want to be first turn wf'd then laughed at.

You accepted what desu said? LOL, you said ''it wouldn't make any difference to the situation to put 3 units in capital turn 1.
Also we didn't create this problem, we simply just brought it up, its you guys exploiting it, like I said. Its you guys coming with cheap and low things to win a cw on that cheapish way. Idk how much a CW means to any of you guys in realllife, but you guys are skilled enough to win a game without al those cheap things, and if you simply think fck it i want to play the way I want to, dont just think everybody will agree on that, because if thats so, I will also say fck it I want to play the way I want to too and WF everybody. In those 100s games you didnt use this wall at all, so dont come up with this excuse that we suddenly try to put it down your throat..
Action leads to reaction laochra.

Kirjutas V-dog115, 24.10.2014 at 14:47

Kirjutas minusSeven, 26.10.2014 at 09:45

Kirjutas V-dog115, 24.10.2014 at 14:47

Kirjutas Waffel, 26.10.2014 at 06:56

oh my god, i am not responding to this now, i got so pissed off while reading your post, mainly because of previous time wasted responding to points which you regurgitated again to throw in my face even though id already responded to them. and you twisted things i had already said.

I am not going over the past 12 pages of this thread to repost those quotes/answers which you obviously had previously ignored for the benefit of sticking it to me.

Kirjutas Waffel, 26.10.2014 at 06:56

Action leads to reaction laochra.

then you finished your post with this little proactive encouragement, it was like an extra slap in the face.

i dont know if its because of poor english, not comprehending my posts, trolling or just plain ignorance, whatever the cause, i might make a proper response to this post in a few days when i find the will/boredom to do so.

HHi

Kirjutas Permamuted, 26.10.2014 at 15:25

Kirjutas Waffel, 26.10.2014 at 06:56

oh my god, i am not responding to this now, i got so pissed off while reading your post, mainly because of previous time wasted responding to points which you regurgitated again to throw in my face even though id already responded to them. and you twisted things i had already said.

I am not going over the past 12 pages of this thread to repost those quotes/answers which you obviously had previously ignored for the benefit of sticking it to me.

Kirjutas Waffel, 26.10.2014 at 06:56

Action leads to reaction laochra.

then you finished your post with this little proactive encouragement, it was like an extra slap in the face.

i dont know if its because of poor english, not comprehending my posts, trolling or just plain ignorance, whatever the cause, i might make a proper response to this post in a few days when i find the will/boredom to do so.

Im waiting ;p haha i did the same, thats why it took some days to actually respond to u.