What's really going on?

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

ah drats

Thought your post would be about why 1up is working together with xVx, Sid...

Shh, that's meant to be a secret.

[Nightwolf]

That you lot even bother reading this.

[Banned]

Originally Posted by Chika

Thats one way to look at it. So you take the little brothere roids, and the big brother takes the roids you took AND some from you. Yeah, thats a sure way to win.

You're assuming I'm worse at defending than the little brother. I'm offended.

[Tesla]

Originally Posted by Scorpio

ah drats

Thought your post would be about why 1up is working together with xVx, Sid...

I thought yours would be about eX cooperating with HR :\

[The_Fish]

The fact HR are banned from defending 1up in gal?

I found that quite amusing tbh...

[Tesla]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The fact HR are banned from defending 1up in gal?

I found that quite amusing tbh...

Well that and the fact that HR HC stated that they are allied with ROCK and eX on tonights membersmeeting

[mens]

whats amusing is that you bother having spies in hr.

[G.K Zhukov]

One doesnt need to have spies in HR in order to gain information from HR.

Im speaking from experience.

[Tesla]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

One doesnt need to have spies in HR in order to gain information from HR.

Im speaking from experience.

What the man says ^^

[qebab]

I see HR are losing members today. Someone not happy by these... rumours?

[`mac^]

Originally Posted by qebab

I see HR are losing members today. Someone not happy by these... rumours?

nah, just cleaning out the inactives

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Banned

You're assuming I'm worse at defending than the little brother. I'm offended.

Nah, thats not the point of the analogy :-)

the way I see it, he means: If your gonna try and take the little brothers money, your gonna have both the little brother taking a bit of his money back, but also have the big brother taking not only the money you stole from his brother, but a chunk of your own.

Thus whilst you might be weakening the little brother a bit, the only one who is gaining is the big brother. and if you focus on the little brother long enough, you wont be in any position to even think about doing anything to big brother. though the chances are, he'd have pounded the **** out of you anyway.


The problem is, people using the same strategies every round. They imidiately think "oh lets attack the weaker alliance, as we can kill them off and then go kill the big one" that used to work, but very rarely does now, due to the playerbase and due to most of the top alliances being very similar in average player abilities. so by the time the weaker one is down, the big one has been hitting you and growing off you. so you cant do as much harm to them if you did attack them.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Morden

Nah, thats not the point of the analogy :-)

the way I see it, he means: If your gonna try and take the little brothers money, your gonna have both the little brother taking a bit of his money back, but also have the big brother taking not only the money you stole from his brother, but a chunk of your own.

Thus whilst you might be weakening the little brother a bit, the only one who is gaining is the big brother. and if you focus on the little brother long enough, you wont be in any position to even think about doing anything to big brother. though the chances are, he'd have pounded the **** out of you anyway.


The problem is, people using the same strategies every round. They imidiately think "oh lets attack the weaker alliance, as we can kill them off and then go kill the big one" that used to work, but very rarely does now, due to the playerbase and due to most of the top alliances being very similar in average player abilities. so by the time the weaker one is down, the big one has been hitting you and growing off you. so you cant do as much harm to them if you did attack them.

Is your alternative better? Hitting the big brother (which is stronger) and let the little brother hit you? Here you'll gain little from big brother, he'll gain loads from you AND little brother gains aswell. The outcome of this is that big brother will become to big AND little brother will become equal brother or even big brother himself ...

Maybe I'm wrong, Morden, but plz describe me an alternative ...

[The_Fish]

Well there are 2 options:

If you manage to beat up the little brother, can you then stop the big brother?

Can you stop big brother at all? If you can, do it before he gets too big, and then you know you can knock the little brother out.


edit: If you cant beat the big brother, why punch him to start with?

[Alki]

Then it would be a round full of ND's and that wouldnt be much fun would it

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

edit: If you cant beat the big brother, why punch him to start with?

Thats loser talk.

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Alki

Then it would be a round full of ND's and that wouldnt be much fun would it

Sounds like a perfect world to me tbh

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

Well there are 2 options:

If you manage to beat up the little brother, can you then stop the big brother?

Can you stop big brother at all? If you can, do it before he gets too big, and then you know you can knock the little brother out.


edit: If you cant beat the big brother, why punch him to start with?

No, you don't get what this is all about then (no offense m8).

you have 2 choices right? Hit the big brother or hit the little brother. On that we can all agree right?

Now, if we hit the big brother then we'll cap little roids, he'll cap MORE roids from us AND little brother caps ALOT of roids from us.

If we hit little brother then we cap ALOT of roids from little brother, he'll cap little from us and big brother will cap ALOT from us.

Now let's compare the end result. In the first example ...

Big Brother: Grows alot !!
Little Brother: Grows alot !!
yourself: loses alot !!

When we look at the 2nd example ...

Big Brother: Grows alot !!
yourself: loses alot !!
Little brother: loses MORE then yourself !!

What's the difference? That in the first example, you'll be smaller then big brother AND smaller then little brother in the end. In the 2nd example you'll stay bigger then little brother.

So, and plz be honnest, which of the 2 alternatives is the best? Or ... could you genuinly provide me with a 3rd alternative (don't say "then don't start a war") using exactly the same situation?

Mind you this is purely hypotetical and does not apply my alliance is in this situation or anything ...

[isildurx]

Alternative 3:

Get Mohammed in the flashy BMW to help you do your dirtywork, thus you gain and both the brothers loose.

[JonnyBGood]

Being incredibly basic (and ignoring the fact that this is supposed to be an analogy for PA) you should ally with little brother and kick the shit out of big brother or get someone else to kick the shit out of little brother and help you with big brother.

[god113]

As I understood it. Together the little brother and big brother were stronger than you. But you are stronger than either on their own. If you fight the little brother, he dies quicker (okay let's hope he doesn't actually die, just get hurt a lot so he gives up), but the big brother could have done a lot of damage in that time.

Or you fight the big brother, meaning he gets weaker, but the little one gets stronger. And when the little brother overtakes the big brother, you switch and attack him. Meaning both remain below you.

Or fight them both at once, and they overpower you.

Or did I just missunderstand it too?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by god113

As I understood it. Together the little brother and big brother were stronger than you. But you are stronger than either on their own. If you fight the little brother, he dies quicker (okay let's hope he doesn't actually die, just get hurt a lot so he gives up), but the big brother could have done a lot of damage in that time.

Or you fight the big brother, meaning he gets weaker, but the little one gets stronger.

Or fight them both at once, and they overpower you.

Or did I just missunderstand it too?

Hereby officially requesting the smiley to also appear for :chika-analogy:


Wait can I request things of myself? Oh :chika-analogy:

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by god113

As I understood it. Together the little brother and big brother were stronger than you. But you are stronger than either on their own. If you fight the little brother, he dies quicker (okay let's hope he doesn't actually die, just get hurt a lot so he gives up), but the big brother could have done a lot of damage in that time.

Or you fight the big brother, meaning he gets weaker, but the little one gets stronger. And when the little brother overtakes the big brother, you switch and attack him. Meaning both remain below you.

Or fight them both at once, and they overpower you.

Or did I just missunderstand it too?

No, you're weaker then the big brother and stronger then the little brother and they BOTH are hitting you. That's the situation, which of the 2 options I gave is the best course of action and is there a 3rd alternative for the same situation (so no seeking allies, stop fighting, ...)

[ReligFree]

i wish i had a brother... sounds like its quite fun!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

No, you're weaker then the big brother and stronger then the little brother and they BOTH are hitting you. That's the situation, which of the 2 options I gave is the best course of action and is there a 3rd alternative for the same situation (so no seeking allies, stop fighting, ...)

Did you just ask whether there are alternative courses of action if there are no alternative courses of action?

[Morden]

been an interresting few days though, with roid losses fluxuating between the alliances on a daily basis.

whether it will be the eND of A1 this round remains to be seen or whether A1 can pull a rabbit out of the hate and climb back to the top. round is far from over.

gl to all sides etc :-)

[Alki]

morden is stoned again