Moderator: Community Team
You're already premium so you don't need it.Iron Butterfly wrote:Did you remember to put money in their G strings? Stripers play nicer when you do that.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.

Actually...it sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it.State409c wrote:but I've found most lower ranked players simply don't get it
It's really annoying to have to reply to comments like these when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.Bad attempted stripper joke aside....
Because you have *cough* rank that gives you the right to dictate gameplay?
They should listen to you because your coming across as a control freak??
Your post could just as easily been titled "Instant asshole... just add sense of entitlement"
Holy shit. You don't say. Maybe my strategy could be....to not play stripers? Gawd damn, you're a genius man. A genius.They do it to play the game as they see fit...however they see fit. If someone has fun relying on dumb luck...I don't see the harm in that. Maybe you should adjust your strategy to account for people who like playing the game that way?
seems like a better strategy than bitching in the forums when someone doesn't play the way you want.State409c wrote:Holy shit. You don't say. Maybe my strategy could be....to not play stripers? Gawd damn, you're a genius man. A genius.They do it to play the game as they see fit...however they see fit. If someone has fun relying on dumb luck...I don't see the harm in that. Maybe you should adjust your strategy to account for people who like playing the game that way?
However I do. This is a game about strategy, where every move affects everybody in the game. If it's obvious someone slamming their armies into you will gift the game to another player, all the time you spent on that game is ruined, the fun gone. It takes away from the enjoyment factor most people get from the game, whether or not you want to spew the BS that you had fun in the process (which for 90% of the players, it is fun up until the point that you get suicided on, or have the game thrown).mightyleemoon wrote:Actually...it sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it.State409c wrote:but I've found most lower ranked players simply don't get it
Nobody joins up a game to make you happy. They do it to play the game as they see fit...however they see fit. If someone has fun relying on dumb luck...I don't see the harm in that. Maybe you should adjust your strategy to account for people who like playing the game that way? Or maybe you should just play private games?
Just trying to help you out here.
You're correct. Up until now, I had specifically selected opponents similar in rank to me and really haven't had many problems with diplomacy and predictable and enjoyable game play. But over time, I've found less and less middle ranked players playing the games I like (freestyle escalating) so I figured I'd try my hand at some stripers and have had the same experience that other folks have had playing them.seems like a better strategy than bitching in the forums when someone doesn't play the way you want.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
Maybe there should be some kind of evaluation exam...and if someone doesn't use a required strategy....or lack the ability to grasp said strategy....they shouldn't be allowed to join this site.FabledIntegral wrote:However I do. This is a game about strategy, where every move affects everybody in the game. If it's obvious someone slamming their armies into you will gift the game to another player, all the time you spent on that game is ruined, the fun gone. It takes away from the enjoyment factor most people get from the game, whether or not you want to spew the BS that you had fun in the process (which for 90% of the players, it is fun up until the point that you get suicided on, or have the game thrown).mightyleemoon wrote:Actually...it sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it.State409c wrote:but I've found most lower ranked players simply don't get it
Nobody joins up a game to make you happy. They do it to play the game as they see fit...however they see fit. If someone has fun relying on dumb luck...I don't see the harm in that. Maybe you should adjust your strategy to account for people who like playing the game that way? Or maybe you should just play private games?
Just trying to help you out here.
Ditto.RiskTycoon wrote:I just might follow your lead Anark!
We are not here to serve you mr. officer, sir.State409c wrote:I used to roll my eyes when I saw the higher ranks referring to them in a derogatory way, but after playing about 3 games with them recently, I understand.
I also used to be on the "high ranked players aren't that good" bandwagon because they don't play stripers, but I've flip flopped on that now. They are completely unpredictable.
In game 2545757, I asked pink to play a role early in the game, and blue decided to take offense to it and just randomly started plowing over me, not really caring whether he wins the game or not.
There really isn't much strategy that can overcome this. These guys just suck.


I was thinking the same thing. He's only a couple hundred points above me (and a couple hundred more games) and would have been the rank I currently am a short time ago. All of the sudden...now he's too good for our kind.daydream wrote:i love how shortly ago you would have been a striper yourself, its the "free rank upgrade" that makes you only one rank better...

Nice eh? What a freaking dork.daydream wrote:i love how shortly ago you would have been a striper yourself, its the "free rank upgrade" that makes you only one rank better...
