No response? I remember talking with you and Cro in county about your idea, i also remember talking to Cheeky Tigress about it one battle when you were offline. She said she was gonna talk to you, perhaps she forgot. The Project would be willing to lay aside GGs at small ( & perhaps med) forts if Coalition does the same. Also we would be open to discussing not ranking tanks for small battles. We would need to come to an agreement on exactly what a tank is first (how much hp).
Are you the leader of the project to be able to make decisions?
if so why are you having a public discussion with vic rather than sort things out in private?
if not why claim a load of BS u know half of your people wont want.
it is clear to me project has no objective apart from individual fame without a care about what will happen to w10. and as such a leader is needed from your side.
Honestly idk if all of the Project would agree to 4k as a limit. I have had 5-6 k for a long time (even before the Project started), and i am by no means specced pure health. As i stated before, perhaps we could come to an agreement on small forts re: tanks.
get a leader then and sort it out
That may have been the case sometimes, but there were times (like you have now) when GC/FFU was clearly outnumbered, or outhealthed. Yes, MC was (is) a great group, and had great teamwork. They also clearly had the advantage over GC/FFU in regards to active forters (imho).
bold city was the main mc fort machine as you know. Eclipse and Lake tahoe the main FFU. put them together and there is no more opposition...
we contest only in numbers, which leads to the certainty that MC can now only win when MC outnumber. ie more battles tht last 20-30 rounds, and the feeling that the only way to keep forts is to multibattle. i would be curious to see the outcome of a w9 style multi vendetta, just to see how many forts the project manage to keep.
Shadow Walkers did leave - not to be 'buddy buddy' with the Project (Tanks R Us, i have heard them called) or with the MG's w12 alliance reborn on w10 (as some have said), but to try and help with more even battles. We had gone back to Coalition as we felt there was an uneven amount of active forters in the Project. However (imho) that changed with the addition of the majority of the FFU/GC towns to Coalition. Y'all clearly have the numbers advantage, and as the battle today proves, the Project has difficulty filling a large fort.
cf previously, again, to balance a world it is imperative you have same kind of sides, ie both sides have same amount of GGs, tanks, actives, and offliner noobs. it is clear that a million non fb orientated players vs a handfull of tanked up experienced GG fighters is no match at all, for either side. if u want fair fights, make fair sides. as we have always endeavoured to do (vic and miss b have have done a very good job keeping w10 alive) and is the reason why w10 is still better than w1-w9.
Are you saying that those forts were owned by towns that did not deserve them? Towns that played no part in their capture? Towns that did not dig the forts, or show for their battles?
yes, MC has always dished out forts to those who arent that involved, to give them incentive to become part of fort fighting. this is also a serious factor in keeping w10 alive. GC didnt do this and is one of the reasons of their downfall. when you are given forts that were won by others in this sense, it shows a lack of respect and honor to change sides and take those forts along... like vic say, w/e.
Yes, Vic you are definitely fair & moral. When you give your word on something there is no-one i know of that doubts you. You are one of those ppl that say what they mean, and mean what they say. Also - is it slightly possible that as an alliance Coalition has been used to winning battles easily for so long that having to work at them (as the Project has to, or GC/FFU had to) seems unreasonable? You proved today you can max a large defense, and you have maxed most of your battles of late (not all, but most).
it took a lot of time and effort to achieve MC standards of fort battling, as you know Vic and MC took fort battling to new levels, strategies were made and put into effect. you cannot achieve anything without hard work and serious involvement. how you can question MCs efforts is beyond me, Vic and MC have put in so much work to keep w10 alive it will take you a year and a half to achieve what MC achieved, but Im sure if we leave this to the project, W10 will be dead in a couple of months.
I know MC cares, and believe it or not so does the Project. Perhaps we should arrange a chat some time, and discuss some of these issues? I'll msg you, Cro, etc ingame & go from there....
project needs a leader who can be taken seriously by MC so that mediation can make sense
Well, seems someone has to step forward & make the first move, if we are going to get anywhere on W10. I really don't concider myself a leader there, but i reckon if no one else will set things in motion then i will give it a try. Vic, i know you keep your word when given, and you have done alot for this world. None of us are trying to wreck that, or take it over. We were trying to help, and yes it was done too hastily and without enough planning. However it is done now, lets concentrate on the present & the future - not the past.
that is our only concern, and always has been.
No talking to us? Have you tried? I have heard nothing from you, Cro or other leaders have said nothing about you contacting them. Perhaps you are waiting for us to make the first move....
of course there has been a lot of talk, but as you havent got anyone who can make decisions nothing has been done.