Hi, I am the leader of USA Dankness. There are some things in this thread, and in others, that deserve some attention:
1) We did not adopt our current strategy for the purpose of "manipulating the leaderboard," or anything that resembles this. We have been using this strategy since approximately January 9th, before which we had completed sixteen wars (14-2).
2) The aim of any warlike alliance should be to win wars within the parameters of game rules. Period. This is accomplished by optimizing both rosters and attack strategy in a manner which increases an alliance's probability of victory. While the alliances at the top of our former leaderboard were selling their souls for medal scores between November 2015 and early July 2016, we were winning wars. When USA Dankness landed atop the "unofficial war leaderboard" in this forum and cleared the entire field by five wins before mid-March, nobody cared...nor should they have. [see https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...l-leaderboard].
3) Our roster is not composed of accounts that are created and abandoned for the purpose of giving us weak bases. All of the bases being referred to constantly in these threads are of legitimate players who have arrived at our alliance just as they might arrive at yours; this is in stark contrast, of course, to the unnamed alliance whose members have been especially critical of our strategy but who have now also mysteriously rostered three very weak players named "Eeny," "Meeny," and "Miny." In fact, any of you could create a new account and show up on our doorstep, and you'll find yourself at war within 48 hours, just like the rest have. Give it a try, we could always use more of these players.
4) The weak players we employ in wars are PLAYERS, just like any other, and should not be precluded from participating in wars solely because much stronger players comprise the alliance roster they are joining. It's not as if we are able to go send invites to these people; they come to us organically and are fair game for inclusion in wars, no matter how loudly many of you object.
Hi, I am the leader of USA Dankness. There are some things in this thread, and in others, that deserve some attention:
1) We did not adopt our current strategy for the purpose of "manipulating the leaderboard," or anything that resembles this. We have been using this strategy since approximately January 9th, before which we had completed sixteen wars (14-2).
2) The aim of any warlike alliance should be to win wars within the parameters of game rules. Period. This is accomplished by optimizing both rosters and attack strategy in a manner which increases an alliance's probability of victory. While the alliances at the top of our former leaderboard were selling their souls for medal scores between November 2015 and early July 2016, we were winning wars. When USA Dankness landed atop the "unofficial war leaderboard" in this forum and cleared the entire field by five wins before mid-March, nobody cared...nor should they have. [see https://forum.nexonm.com/forum/nexon...l-leaderboard].
3) Our roster is not composed of accounts that are created and abandoned for the purpose of giving us weak bases. All of the bases being referred to constantly in these threads are of legitimate players who have arrived at our alliance just as they might arrive at yours; this is in stark contrast, of course, to the unnamed alliance whose members have been especially critical of our strategy but who have now also mysteriously rostered three very weak players named "Eeny," "Meeny," and "Miny." In fact, any of you could create a new account and show up on our doorstep, and you'll find yourself at war within 48 hours, just like the rest have. Give it a try, we could always use more of these players.
4) The weak players we employ in wars are PLAYERS, just like any other, and should not be precluded from participating in wars solely because much stronger players comprise the alliance roster they are joining. It's not as if we are able to go send invites to these people; they come to us organically and are fair game for inclusion in wars, no matter how loudly many of you object.
Honestly.... I have no issues with USA Dankness employing this technic in wars. As long as it is within the legal premise of the game, why not.
Are they the best alliance out there? That's open for debate.
Do they have every right to use this technic? Yes they do. So does every single alliance out there.
Like I have already mentioned before.... the Glory league is no clear indication that you are the best of the best of the best.
Actually, there is no legal premise in wars. There isn't a checklist of rules you need to tick off other than names, and you just have to press the start search button! Like there isn't a wording on the pie, "Don't eat me!" You just stuff it into your mouth, yummy! Who cares if it belongs to others or not... and mummy didn't say anything either, why bother?
It's up to the Dominations community to decide if it should be condone or not, or walk down the path of other similar games like CoC. We can't stop these alliances have many iron age loving players actively collecting ciders for the best pies for months but can't be bothered with free food and gold, while their big brothers hungrily chomp down the pie of the little kid down the street.
Keep up the good work then!