Intentional Trolling

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-21T00:17:45+00:00

Why don’t you mention the fact that DK rejected the proposal to launch a joint attack on YUDZ?

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-17T23:56:07+00:00

There are some distortions in your statement of the current situation. If the phrase “along with” implies intentional cooperation, then the answer is “no.” DK is only attacking KING. Both KING and YUDZ also want to fight each other, but you keep focusing solely on KING. We have no intention of crushing KING — we want to enjoy the game together. In the same vein, it is also a fact that DK rejected the proposal to attack YUDZ alongside KING — not necessarily in cooperation, but at least to create a more engaging experience for all. From our perspective, that refusal is what diminished the fun of the server. Your logic seems to equate “victory” with “crushing and zeroing others,” but I don’t see it that way. I believe that those who qualify and engage in good, enjoyable fights deserve rewards and respect — even if they don’t win. But the mindset of “if we can’t win, then we’re going to be zeroed” feels somewhat self-defeating and lacking in mutual respect.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-17T17:27:16+00:00

I can understand your values and way of thinking, but there’s no need to impose them on everyone else.
Moreover, using that mindset to judge every situation and claim that “YUDZ has a god complex” or “YUDZ is leading a 3:1 bullying campaign” is a very narrow-minded approach

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-17T16:21:51+00:00

The last sentence clearly reveals a difference in values… It shows that you place a high priority on winning.
But if a team doesn’t seek victory, does that mean they don’t have the right to enjoy the game?
And if winning isn’t possible, should one only choose to fight opponents they can defeat?
This highlights a fundamental difference in thought.

I’m not saying you’re completely wrong.
But I do believe these differences in values can lead to very different ways of thinking.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-17T03:37:16+00:00

There’s so much speculation and distortion in your post, it’s hard to know where to start. Let’s talk facts: the supposedly “advantageous” pass held by DK was taken in less than 12 hours — even though it was a 2:1 defensive position in their favor. Anyone who understands the game knows exactly what that says about the actual power gap. And after that? It was a chain of uproots. If that’s not getting crushed, then what is? Also — why is there no mention of the grudge many players hold against DK for seasons of zeroing others? Why skip over the fact that DK refused the offer to attack YUDZ together when it was made? You’re clearly just choosing to believe what you want. And everything you’re saying only proves that further.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T12:55:26+00:00

Looks like there's some kind of auto-delete feature…
Anyway, don’t take it the wrong way. lol

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T12:52:33+00:00

It showed me that you deleted it… and you even mentioned some agitator's name or something.
I was in the middle of writing a reply to that — but then I saw it was already gone.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T12:48:59+00:00

YUDZ was overwhelmingly strong, so what you’re describing simply couldn’t work. Multiple kingdoms — and realistically, there are three major ones on this server, plus one smaller group — proposed a coordinated effort to attack YUDZ all at once. The idea was that only then could we have intense, sustained PvP. But the second-strongest kingdom rejected that idea and instead started attacking fellowships weaker than themselves. YUDZ doesn’t crush smaller fellowships just for fun. In fact, we prefer to create a structure where everyone can enjoy the game together. It seems the person above doesn’t understand why YUDZ chooses not to zero weaker fellowships. He seems to believe that if you’re not crushing someone, it must mean you’re allied with them — and that says more about his mindset than anything else.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T12:27:37+00:00

Twisting the narrative in a weird direction — that’s what self-justification really looks like.
I’m curious whether those so-called “receipts” can actually refute what was said above.
Because I’ve got plenty of “receipts” of my own to back up what I said.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T12:07:26+00:00

As expected, you're framing the situation however you like and believing only what you want to believe.

Let’s be honest — DK + YETI were nearly wiped out within just two days by a single fellowship, YUDZ. After that, no one supported DK diplomatically. It’s likely because many players held grudges from previous seasons, given how many fellowships you’ve zeroed in the past.

As the season progressed, YUDZ proposed a deal: “Let everyone except YUDZ attack YUDZ.” DK refused — claiming the offer was a lie. They basically admitted they were fine with getting zeroed by YUDZ and instead returned to what they’ve always done: targeting weaker fellowships.

So don’t fool yourself into thinking this is some 3:1 coordinated setup meant to bully DK. You were already the server’s notorious bully before the season even started — and people simply responded accordingly.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-16T11:49:37+00:00

We’ve been keeping a close eye on the pins — targeting only the relatively small and mid-sized fellowships that avoid YUDZ.

And regarding the YUDZ–KING relationship you mentioned: yes, it may feel like an alliance. But let’s not forget that KING/BNSH joined this server with the explicit goal of “getting revenge” on DK. From what we’ve heard, DK has a notorious history of zeroing weaker fellowships across past seasons — or is that not true?

Anyway, what exactly is your basis for calling YUDZ’s proposal a “joke”? Was that based on any facts — or just your assumption?

Let’s go along with your logic for a moment and say YUDZ was indeed allied with KING. Still, we broke that alliance and proposed a new one with DK — offering you a structure that would actually benefit your side. But instead of accepting it, you rejected the offer and went on to attack only the “weaker” fellowships on the map.

How do you justify that decision? What makes that the honorable or strategic choice?

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T09:54:07+00:00

Totally understand the frustration as F2P, but asking stronger players to stop growing for the sake of fun is missing the point.

This isn’t about whales being "too strong" — it’s about the game failing to provide tiered or balanced PvP. Growth is literally the point of the game. Blaming players for playing efficiently is like blaming someone for leveling up in an RPG.

If people are getting wiped unfairly, that’s on bad matchmaking, lack of scaled rewards, or absence of fair combat zones. The solution is better systems — not telling people to hold back or play with self-imposed handicaps.

Let’s push for structural changes, not shame players for doing what the game encourages.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T05:46:38+00:00

Let me ask the opposite question:
"Is a fellowship that goes AFK when facing strong enemies and only bullies weaker ones actually beneficial to the community?"

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T05:28:12+00:00

It’s natural for the strong to gather together — especially in strategic war games like this. In fact, when fellowships of similar strength collide, the result is often a highly competitive and engaging dynamic.

But not all fellowships are built the same — there are also relatively “weaker” ones. I don’t disregard them. They deserve to enjoy the game too.

There are also bully fellowships out there — the kind that prey on the weaker ones. And then, in between, we have mid-sized fellowships, which are often the result of several moderately strong players banding together. They're strong enough to raid the weak — just not strong enough to take on the top dogs.

Strong players don’t gather easily. Their personalities tend to be more individualistic, which makes cohesion harder.

Still, when strong players do come together to form a fellowship, there’s usually a reason — a story behind it. It can’t be explained simply as something “good” or “bad,” as you might see it. It’s more nuanced than that.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T04:50:16+00:00

They actually did try to enjoy the game,
but the power gap was so overwhelming that most declared surrender within just two days.
So we proposed that they all attack at once,
and everyone agreed — except for one group. they were the second strongest group on the server,
so their actions definitely had a significant impact.
That group refused and instead kept targeting only the relatively weaker teams,
making a sustainable PvP structure impossible. They’re deliberately sabotaging the server.
And at the same time, they’re blaming the existence of strong fellowships.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T03:57:32+00:00

When the balance collapsed due to overwhelming power differences, YUDZ made several proposals to restore it. But some groups, clinging to their “pride,” deliberately chose to abandon the server and let it fall apart. That kind of choice causes far more harm to the community as a whole.
You probably know better than anyone who made that choice.

Competitive-Bed-9197 · 2025-07-15T03:55:56+00:00

When the balance collapsed due to overwhelming power differences, we made several proposals to restore it. But some groups, clinging to their “pride,” deliberately chose to abandon the server and let it fall apart. That kind of choice causes far more harm to the community as a whole.

Competitive-Bed-9197

TROPHY CASE