#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
pretty much this
people seem to not know about #1 and focus on #2 when wanting to put someone up as a KT
Pretty much what i thought, and you wouldnt count planet type bonuses in that.
the anti turtle would probably count their PT + SL bonus while the people wanting to KT or hit them probably wouldn't. In the end it should be included.
Flazer was a good example of a kingdom built this round revolving around having SL bonus + terraform researches when calculating safe defence.
An AT is technically classified as 'free land' because the KD is in a constant state of suicide. Therefore it means he has 33% or less defense. Yes they get KT'd but usually the grabs start because if you are suicided your alliance can't protect you. After KDs start grabbing they get worried about the ATs offense so they get their ALs to post the AT as a KT, which isn't right... they should be only posted as free land. Free Land and KTs are different classifications. Its not against the rules to be AT, you just open yourself up to any number of grabs per alliance per day. There isn't bash rules nor gangbang rules on Free Land KDs. ALs who post ATs as KTs as a stand alone (no war) and not for infractions are retarded... imo.
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
I would disagree in an academic sense but this is the case in most examples
however with a top top player who perhaps could build a kd that could break itself many times over but if said KD can not be broken by another KD then said KD is not an anti-turtle....it has the required defense and any more is simply not efficient
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
I would disagree in an academic sense but this is the case in most examples
however with a top top player who perhaps could build a kd that could break itself many times over but if said KD can not be broken by another KD then said KD is not an anti-turtle....it has the required defense and any more is simply not efficient
u said u disagree. then u repeated what i said. lol
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
I would disagree in an academic sense but this is the case in most examples
however with a top top player who perhaps could build a kd that could break itself many times over but if said KD can not be broken by another KD then said KD is not an anti-turtle....it has the required defense and any more is simply not efficient
u said u disagree. then u repeated what i said. lol
well i don't think so but if i did oops...my point was u said #2 makes someone an AT if they can break themselves with just offensive units...and i am saying that does NOT always make them an AT...because if they can break themselves with just offensive units BUT noone else can then they are fine
OK, so a true AT regardless if they can defend against any attack... is able to break itself twice. 33% defense. So I am saying idc how big you are, you are AT if you have 33% defense. yes, you may be able to defend yourself against all grabs, but it doesnt change the fact you are AT. ATs should ONLY be declared FREE LAND and not KTs, unless AT warrants a Kt etc... A KD with 33k goons and 11k Troopers can defend against a KD with only 5k goons, does that mean hes not AT? nope. hes AT, just better defense than the guy trying to hit him.
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily #2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
I would disagree in an academic sense but this is the case in most examples
however with a top top player who perhaps could build a kd that could break itself many times over but if said KD can not be broken by another KD then said KD is not an anti-turtle....it has the required defense and any more is simply not efficient
u said u disagree. then u repeated what i said. lol
well i don't think so but if i did oops...my point was u said #2 makes someone an AT if they can break themselves with just offensive units...and i am saying that does NOT always make them an AT...because if they can break themselves with just offensive units BUT noone else can then they are fine
yes. if u read, i said both conditions have to be met to be an anti-turtle, lol... :P
and pie, sure ur definition works too, but ur definition has no purpose. like we give the label to an 'anti-turtle' because it defines a kingdom who is going to be grabbed repeatedly and once defined as an antiturtle, should not be defended because of that assignment.
by declaring someone with safe defense an anti-turtle, serves no purpose, because u won't be grabbing him repeatedly anyways. so the reason we don't call people who have safe defense an 'anti-turtle' is because there is no point in giving them the label, so we don't bother with it at all.
the reason we have labels such as 'multi', 'AT', 'suicider' etc. because then we can correspond with in a sense the rules following those definitions that were written by the playerbase of old, in the annals of sk history.
alll ye new players that challenge the laws set by previous rounds bring dishonor to the sk ancestral heritage! U hath brought dishonor to our family.
Pie, you know as well as I do that most of them are players capable if building proper kds. They go AT with the express purpose of rolling certain people... freeland will let them hit you for like a week before you can outgrow their capacity to train goons.
KT is just the natural solution, only way to kill the goons. Attacking a kingdom should kill their offense imo
So we are defining AT, not what the AT can defend. An AT is a suicider, though a suicider is not AT. To be an AT, when all your defense is home... you only have 33% or less of your total military in defense. A suicider who is someone who sends out too much offense (tanks) and only leave 33% of total military at home for defense. The difference is the suicider will get defense back with each WL.
Yes Zeal, freeland will ALLOW them to hit you so much... but at that point they have turned agressor and we all know what happens to KDs who hit in one alliance, against kds with defense/offense ratio of standard proportions.. they get KT. Its the ALs who upon first seeing an AT that post them as KTs, without any aggression towards their alliance, that I'm saying are just plain fucking retarded.
I know of only 1 instance where any KD should be instant KT by an alliance if that KD does not show aggression towards that alliance (ip+interaction). Even R/R. Aggression or War (besides multi/ip+interaction) should be the only reason for KTs.
Comments
#1 does not have safe defense from the universe, aka can be broken by 1 or more people easily
#2 who can break himself with just offensive units, tanks don't count.
when #1 and #2 are true, u have yourself an antiturtle.
people seem to not know about #1 and focus on #2 when wanting to put someone up as a KT
Flazer was a good example of a kingdom built this round revolving around having SL bonus + terraform researches when calculating safe defence.
You wouldnt count DW% bonus in that or they'd have to build extra 30% more def to not get kt'd (hopefully i explained that clear enough.)
I didnt personally see flazers kd this round but it sounds like he was doing it rite. who was he?
however with a top top player who perhaps could build a kd that could break itself many times over but if said KD can not be broken by another KD then said KD is not an anti-turtle....it has the required defense and any more is simply not efficient
then u repeated what i said. lol
and pie, sure ur definition works too, but ur definition has no purpose.
like we give the label to an 'anti-turtle' because it defines a kingdom who is going to be grabbed repeatedly and once defined as an antiturtle, should not be defended because of that assignment.
by declaring someone with safe defense an anti-turtle, serves no purpose, because u won't be grabbing him repeatedly anyways. so the reason we don't call people who have safe defense an 'anti-turtle' is because there is no point in giving them the label, so we don't bother with it at all.
the reason we have labels such as 'multi', 'AT', 'suicider' etc. because then we can correspond with in a sense the rules following those definitions that were written by the playerbase of old, in the annals of sk history.
alll ye new players that challenge the laws set by previous rounds bring dishonor to the sk ancestral heritage! U hath brought dishonor to our family.
Pie, you know as well as I do that most of them are players capable if building proper kds. They go AT with the express purpose of rolling certain people... freeland will let them hit you for like a week before you can outgrow their capacity to train goons.
KT is just the natural solution, only way to kill the goons. Attacking a kingdom should kill their offense imo
Yes Zeal, freeland will ALLOW them to hit you so much... but at that point they have turned agressor and we all know what happens to KDs who hit in one alliance, against kds with defense/offense ratio of standard proportions.. they get KT. Its the ALs who upon first seeing an AT that post them as KTs, without any aggression towards their alliance, that I'm saying are just plain fucking retarded.
I know of only 1 instance where any KD should be instant KT by an alliance if that KD does not show aggression towards that alliance (ip+interaction). Even R/R. Aggression or War (besides multi/ip+interaction) should be the only reason for KTs.