A Quick Guide to Combat Damage

Introduction

Okay recently, I had to work on a math project. The instruction were to find an equation in real life, and develop a formula or theory on how this particular thing works. I choose Evony battle meachanics.
I started to input numbers into different various formulas and started testing them. Here is what I found, and I am pretty shocked at the end results.

To this day, we have been wondering about certain damage points, etc etc. Here I will explain all. So just sit back, and read.

Before I get into examples, I will give you the stats for a the units I will be using. So, Unit A has a defense of 50, and a life of 100. So you could say it's total life is 150. For these purposes, unit A will not be attacking back.
Unit B has an attack of 10.

Ex. 1- Okay Unit A is stationary, or too far away from the ranged unit B. So Unit B attacks Unit A. Unit B deals 10 points of damage to Unit A's defense. Since unit B cannot break Unit A's defense, no matter how many rounds there are(since defense regenerates every round), it will become a tie, or unit A wins.
Idea here- Defense regenerates every round, and is different from life, which will stay the same.

Ex. 2- unit A is being attacked by 10 unit B's. Now remember that attacking units attack as a group. So together unit B deals 100 damage to unit A. Crushing unit A's defense, and dealing 50 damage to unit A's life.
Next round- The 10 Unit B's attack again this round. They deal 100 damage again. Crushing the defense, and hitting unit A's life again for 50 points. This kills unit A, and the 10 unit B's win.

Idea here- This shows what happens when the attack is greater then the defense. Also shows that high defense is CRITICAL, as that regenerates every round, unlike Life points.

Ex. 3- There are 10 unit A's that are being attacked by 100 unit B's. The combined attack for unit B is 1,000. Unit B attacks unit A. Since killing one unit A would have to have an attack of 150 or up, the unit B's kills 6 unit A's, and deals 100 damage to another(leaving it with 50 health). In the next round, the unit B's finish off the remaining unit A's.

Idea here- Shows how groups attack and defend. Very orderly, and easy to predict.

Ex. 4- This is the last example, and this is where it becomes a bit complicated. Now let's say unit A and unit B have the same speed and range. Since they meet at the same point, they will clash at the same time. Let's say for these purposes, that unit A has an attack of 50. Again we will use 10 unit A's and 100 unit B's. As in before the unit B's attack with the same amount of damage. Killing 6 unit A's and damaging another. But at the same time, those 10 unit A's attack the 100 unit B's. So if the unit B's defense is 10, as well as it's life, the 10 unit A's kill off 25 unit B's evenly.
Next round- What remains are; 3 unharmed unit A's, and one injured one, and 75 unit B's. Combat again happens like before. The 4 unit A's deal 200 damage to the group of unit B's, killing off 10 unit B's, and the 75 unit B's kill the remaining unit A's.

Idea here- This shows what happens when both sides interact.


Some notes- Since every battle isn't as nearly as straighforward as this, you need to add a lot of factors. One variable has been what does heroes attack have to do with this all, and the answer is every 4 levels of hero attack, equals 1% increase of your troops attack(this is an approximation).


Well I hope this helps, and please tell me if I am blatantly wrong, even thought I'm sure I am right. Any testing of this theory would be greatly appreciated.

Wait wait wait.

So you just came up with a theory saying defense is an additive factor to life even though the most common representation of damage is stating it's a multiplicative factor. To add to that, you don't have a single shred of evidence other than saying "I'm sure I am right" and even asks other people to test your theory for you.

Read Darkbrady's guide again please before continuing this thought process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neokarasu

Wait wait wait.

So you just came up with a theory saying defense is an additive factor to life even though the most common representation of damage is stating it's a multiplicative factor. To add to that, you don't have a single shred of evidence other than saying "I'm sure I am right" and even asks other people to test your theory for you.

Read Darkbrady's guide again please before continuing this thought process.

---

Sigh, okay here we go.

First, put the numbers in, and test it out for yourself. You'll see it works perfectly fine.

Second, whats your fax number, I will personally fax my notes from my notebook to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

Sigh, okay here we go.

First, put the numbers in, and test it out for yourself. You'll see it works perfectly fine.

Second, whats your fax number, I will personally fax my notes from my notebook to you.

---

I don't need your notes.

I just want to see one report and a breakdown of that report.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neokarasu

I don't need your notes.

I just want to see one report and a breakdown of that report.

---

You want a report, test it yourself. As for me, I can't post the link, because battle reports don't show after 3 days. All I have is what I wrote down on my note sheet.

so your formula would be:
casualty = (number of attackers * attack bonus modifier * (unit base attack + (hero attack * .0025) + (base attack * Miliary Tradition * .05)) / (mod life + mod defence)?

attacker:
hero attack 119
MT 10
IW 10
Med 10
100k warriors

defender:
hero attack 42 (hero was captured)
lvl10 hill, so theoretically tech should be 10
33670 warriors

fight lasted 1 round


your formula: 8619 attacker casualties
other formula: 9966 attacker casualties
real attacker casualties: 10246


i've yet to find a formula that can get exact results with real data

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

...every 4 levels of hero attack equals 1% increase of your troops attack (this is an approximation).

---

Nice, thanks. :D How accurate is that approximation? Could it be 5 level equals 1% increase?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCJerboa

Nice, thanks. :D How accurate is that approximation? Could it be 5 level equals 1% increase?

---

It's is accurate as you can get while rounding to a whole number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sataria

so your formula would be:
casualty = (number of attackers * attack bonus modifier * (unit base attack + (hero attack * .0025) + (base attack * Miliary Tradition * .05)) / (mod life + mod defence)?

attacker:
hero attack 119
MT 10
IW 10
Med 10
100k warriors

defender:
hero attack 42 (hero was captured)
lvl10 hill, so theoretically tech should be 10
33670 warriors

fight lasted 1 round


your formula: 8619 attacker casualties
other formula: 9966 attacker casualties
real attacker casualties: 10246


i've yet to find a formula that can get exact results with real data

---

No, that's not it. Read it again, and think before you say it's wrong.

It's number of attackers*total attack- Defense = how much damage you will do. But remember that this doesn't include range.

Your theory doesn't even pass the Exercise test, if it doesn't work under 'laboratory conditions' it's not going to work in the real world. Your example uses units values that match workers for A (50 def, despite what tool tip says, and 100 life) and transports match B (10 attack). So 100 Bs would do 1000 damage which should kill 6 workers but actually kill 9.

When you say you can't post the link, does that mean your entire theory is based upon a single battle?

Just to make sure it's not me who's misinterpreting, is below how your theory works?

(Attack x Number of attackers) / (Def + Life) so AN/(D+L) = kills

example: 12500 warriors attacking cavalry

(50 x 12500) / (180 + 500) = 919 dead cavalry

Exercise result = 1025.

I've made my own calculator that incorporates tech & hero values, when these are set to zero the results match the results in the Exercise, they don't quite match real battles (for now!) but any theory has to agree with the Exercise otherwise it'll have no hope of working outside of the lab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

No, that's not it. Read it again, and think before you say it's wrong.

It's number of attackers*total attack- Defense = how much damage you will do. But remember that this doesn't include range.

---

So by what you said,
Damage = (#Attacker * Total Attack) - Defense
and by ex.2,
Casualty = Damage / Life

It's consistent so far by ex.2 you provided
(10 * 10) - 50 = 50 damage
50 / 100 = 0.5 (i.e. takes 2 rounds to kill 1)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

Ex. 2- unit A is being attacked by 10 unit B's. Now remember that attacking units attack as a group. So together unit B deals 100 damage to unit A. Crushing unit A's defense, and dealing 50 damage to unit A's life.
Next round- The 10 Unit B's attack again this round. They deal 100 damage again. Crushing the defense, and hitting unit A's life again for 50 points. This kills unit A, and the 10 unit B's win.

Idea here- This shows what happens when the attack is greater then the defense. Also shows that high defense is CRITICAL, as that regenerates every round, unlike Life points.

Ex. 3- There are 10 unit A's that are being attacked by 100 unit B's. The combined attack for unit B is 1,000. Unit B attacks unit A. Since killing one unit A would have to have an attack of 150 or up, the unit B's kills 6 unit A's, and deals 100 damage to another(leaving it with 50 health). In the next round, the unit B's finish off the remaining unit A's.

Idea here- Shows how groups attack and defend. Very orderly, and easy to predict.

---

However in ex.3, your calculation for casualty is:
Casualty = (#Attacker * Total Attack) / (Life + Defense)
(100 * 10) / (100 + 50) = 6.67

But by your ex.2,
Casualty = [(#Attacker * Total Attack) - Defense] / Life

Which is not the same as the formula derived from ex.3.
So until you have consistency within your own statements, it's not going to prove anything.

Never relised defence was regenerated each round, it explains so much. Like how 1 warr cant kill 1 other warr in exersise. Never got why that happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neokarasu

So by what you said,
Damage = (#Attacker * Total Attack) - Defense
and by ex.2,
Casualty = Damage / Life

It's consistent so far by ex.2 you provided
(10 * 10) - 50 = 50 damage
50 / 100 = 0.5 (i.e. takes 2 rounds to kill 1)



However in ex.3, your calculation for casualty is:
Casualty = (#Attacker * Total Attack) / (Life + Defense)
(100 * 10) / (100 + 50) = 6.67

But by your ex.2,
Casualty = [(#Attacker * Total Attack) - Defense] / Life

Which is not the same as the formula derived from ex.3.
So until you have consistency within your own statements, it's not going to prove anything.

---

Okay, the reason why I put 150 on the other example, is because that's the total amount of attack you would need to overwhelm a unit A in 1 round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mankarn

Never relised defence was regenerated each round, it explains so much. Like how 1 warr cant kill 1 other warr in exersise. Never got why that happened.

---

One warrior can't kill one warrior because melee damage is rounded down.
50 def is a 5% damage reduction, which means in the excercise the warriors will do 47 damage to each other.
The damage doesn't cumulate or stack, so it's rounded down to 0. They can never deal 200 damage in a single round, thus they never deal enough to kill the other unit.
Use larger numbers of warriors to see this effect increase; they'll combined do enough damage to hurt units, but not many. 100 warriors on each side will take 100 rounds, but only kill 96 each. 1k will only kill 996 each; they can't ever deal enough damage in enough time to kill the entire unit base.

If satan's additive defence theory was correct them 1k warriors would cause no casualties on 1k warriors because the def=atk...the damage would bounce off of each other regardless of how many there are. Increasin' the numbers shows a definite increase in death rates, while explainin' why single warriors can't kill each other. Defence is a multiplactive defence reduction, and was proven to be a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

One warrior can't kill one warrior because melee damage is rounded down.
50 def is a 5% damage reduction, which means in the excercise the warriors will do 47 damage to each other.
The damage doesn't cumulate or stack, so it's rounded down to 0. They can never deal 200 damage in a single round, thus they never deal enough to kill the other unit.
Use larger numbers of warriors to see this effect increase; they'll combined do enough damage to hurt units, but not many. 100 warriors on each side will take 100 rounds, but only kill 96 each. 1k will only kill 996 each; they can't ever deal enough damage in enough time to kill the entire unit base.

If satan's additive defence theory was correct them 1k warriors would cause no casualties on 1k warriors because the def=atk...the damage would bounce off of each other regardless of how many there are. Increasin' the numbers shows a definite increase in death rates, while explainin' why single warriors can't kill each other. Defence is a multiplactive defence reduction, and was proven to be a long time ago.

---

Well you got my theory a bit messed up. My theory is that the 1k warriors would target each other 1-by-1.

As for the melee units, I don't really understand what your saying there.

Oh and by the way, your quote from me is so out of context, I'd assume your from TMZ:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

Well you got my theory a bit messed up. My theory is that the 1k warriors would target each other 1-by-1.

As for the melee units, I don't really understand what your saying there.

Oh and by the way, your quote from me is so out of context, I'd assume your from TMZ:eek:

---

If your theory saysthat warriors target each other 1-by-1 then 1k warriors versus 1k warriors would deal no casualties on either side. Since they kill 996 that completely debunks that theory along with the additive defence.
I'm not jus' arguin' for the sake of arguin' your theory. This isn't my formula I came up with; it was cracked a long time ago by people far smarter than myself, and was proven highly accurate then and maintains highly accurate to this day. Your theory seems random, based on little, if anythin' and can very easily be proven wrong.

And it's not much out of context; we were talkin' about startin' a new server and you sayin' you couldn't because you were 4 days behind and wouldn't be top100, therefore not able to defend yourself. It's in context enough and still makes me smile. And TMZ? No idea what that even is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

If your theory saysthat warriors target each other 1-by-1 then 1k warriors versus 1k warriors would deal no casualties on either side. Since they kill 996 that completely debunks that theory along with the additive defence.
I'm not jus' arguin' for the sake of arguin' your theory. This isn't my formula I came up with; it was cracked a long time ago by people far smarter than myself, and was proven highly accurate then and maintains highly accurate to this day. Your theory seems random, based on little, if anythin' and can very easily be proven wrong.

And it's not much out of context; we were talkin' about startin' a new server and you sayin' you couldn't because you were 4 days behind and wouldn't be top100, therefore not able to defend yourself. It's in context enough and still makes me smile. And TMZ? No idea what that even is.

---

You must not be american then, lol. And no I said, i don't have the time to play. I said the only way I would be able to play well, as well as defend myself, is if I got a very good start.
I always play in the state in Romagna, and if I started out 5 days late, as well as only be able to play 4 hours at the most per day... I'd be plundered to living hell(no pun attended).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

You must not be american then, lol. And no I said, i don't have the time to play. I said the only way I would be able to play well, as well as defend myself, is if I got a very good start.
I always play in the state in Romagna, and if I started out 5 days late, as well as only be able to play 4 hours at the most per day... I'd be plundered to living hell(no pun attended).

---

You're possibly the only sentient bein' who's ever said I could possibly be american. Well done. Not totally sure where that came from, what relevance it had or what made you think such a stupid thing, but hey...w/e you wanna think.

It's still not out of context, because time to play is not related. You can play 1 hour a day or 19 hours a day and thinkin' that the top 100 is the place to be safe is a pretty ridiculous thing to think, I assure you. Besides, your "late start" is 4 days....still merits a "wtflol".
Am I soundin' too harsh? I don't care much anymore...you've got your panties all bunched up at me, flamin' me, postin' and PMin' about me all because you said that to me and I disgareed that it was the words of an experienced player and I was even ready to drop it and you're still runnin' around givin' me crap about it, so aye; it's in my sig, it's not wrong, out of context, incorrect or innacurate. Only reason you don't like it is because it makes you look noob.

As for not de-railin' any further, this should definitely not be in the guides section until somethin' has been clarified, especially since your theory has already been in much dispute. Guides are not a thread for things to be discussed on whether the given information is correct or not; that's a discussion. Take this to another thread to sort out before postin' guides about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

You're possibly the only sentient bein' who's ever said I could possibly be american. Well done. Not totally sure where that came from, what relevance it had or what made you think such a stupid thing, but hey...w/e you wanna think.

It's still not out of context, because time to play is not related. You can play 1 hour a day or 19 hours a day and thinkin' that the top 100 is the place to be safe is a pretty ridiculous thing to think, I assure you. Besides, your "late start" is 4 days....still merits a "wtflol".
Am I soundin' too harsh? I don't care much anymore...you've got your panties all bunched up at me, flamin' me, postin' and PMin' about me all because you said that to me and I disgareed that it was the words of an experienced player and I was even ready to drop it and you're still runnin' around givin' me crap about it, so aye; it's in my sig, it's not wrong, out of context, incorrect or innacurate. Only reason you don't like it is because it makes you look noob.

As for not de-railin' any further, this should definitely not be in the guides section until somethin' has been clarified, especially since your theory has already been in much dispute. Guides are not a thread for things to be discussed on whether the given information is correct or not; that's a discussion. Take this to another thread to sort out before postin' guides about it.

---

I seriously laughed out loud at your post. When have I flammed you? I'm pretty sure your the one who kept asking me to join Epitome, and then when I gave you my reason, you kept counter-acting it. When have I been running around giving you crap about it? Wasn't this the first time? Did you pass 1st grade math? And it is COMPLETELY out of context.

Flammed?
You mean...flamed, right? What was that about first grade?

And I never asked you to join; others did. I only asked if you would be actually doin' it or not, since I was told you might show up but never did. Counter-actin' is one word...but when I ask if you're comin' and you say "Far too late to start now, no ponit" when the server had been open for less than 70 hours I considered it a pretty idiotic thing to say.
If you'd had jus' said to me "dn't have time" I'd have been like "fair enough, have fun" and never thought about it again (I feel I've already said this to you...) but you decided to insist that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" to keep up with the rest of the server with a 4 day late start and that you couldn't possibly defend yourself. You could only hope to get in the top 100 if you started straight away, and god forbid if you were rank101 or less you'd be perpetually farmed....if I turn around and say "Where didyou get the reputation of bein' experienced with an attitude like that?" then that's not counter-actin' it, that's jus' me bein' gobsmacked at your naivety.

And I've been shown PMs and posts you've made about me; whether you recognise it or not, it's flamin'.

...And no, it's still not out of context, because it fits into the situation it was said in. You're arguin' that yo only said it because of time constraints, but even then if you only said it assumin' that you could only play 4 hours a day, even then it would still be an idiotic thing to say, which puts it right back into the context of "omgwow".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

Flammed?
You mean...flamed, right? What was that about first grade?

And I never asked you to join; others did. I only asked if you would be actually doin' it or not, since I was told you might show up but never did. Counter-actin' is one word...but when I ask if you're comin' and you say "Far too late to start now, no ponit" when the server had been open for less than 70 hours I considered it a pretty idiotic thing to say.
If you'd had jus' said to me "dn't have time" I'd have been like "fair enough, have fun" and never thought about it again (I feel I've already said this to you...) but you decided to insist that it was "IMPOSSIBLE" to keep up with the rest of the server with a 4 day late start and that you couldn't possibly defend yourself. You could only hope to get in the top 100 if you started straight away, and god forbid if you were rank101 or less you'd be perpetually farmed....if I turn around and say "Where didyou get the reputation of bein' experienced with an attitude like that?" then that's not counter-actin' it, that's jus' me bein' gobsmacked at your naivety.

And I've been shown PMs and posts you've made about me; whether you recognise it or not, it's flamin'.

...And no, it's still not out of context, because it fits into the situation it was said in. You're arguin' that yo only said it because of time constraints, but even then if you only said it assumin' that you could only play 4 hours a day, even then it would still be an idiotic thing to say, which puts it right back into the context of "omgwow".

---

I made all the words you spelled wrong in boldface. Pretty funny actually. When I said rank 100, it was a saying of speech. Just like we saw 1million when we mean a lot. Maybe you haven't gotten that far in grammar. In fact, start s108 Sunday, and play in the state of Romagna. You will be farmed endlessly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

I made all the words you spelled wrong in boldface. Pretty funny actually. When I said rank 100, it was a saying of speech. Just like we saw 1million when we mean a lot. Maybe you haven't gotten that far in grammar. In fact, start s108 Sunday, and play in the state of Romagna. You will be farmed endlessly.

---

You picked out typos? You must feel like a pro...or are you jus' runnin' out of things to say when faced with logic? Although, jus' to play along, how about I fix your English, eh? Gotta love when people decide to look at some slang or typos and decide to comment on grammar when they clearly have no understandin' of it themselves.

And for the record, what you said still applies to make you look like an idiot. Even the best players on the server are gettin' torn down by everyone else. The best players (irrespective or their prestige rank) are gettin' attacked, cities capped and farmed already, no matter how huge their army is.
And even as far as the biggest ones who get hit less often, it still doesn't mean jack when you imply that the only way to become a mega is to start on the first few hours. Some of the scariest guys on this server didnt start within the first week.

edit: why did you embolden "recognise"? That's spelt correctly. Did you jus' want make me really have to emphasise the irony in you commentin' on my grammar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

I highlighted all the words you have spelt wrong in boldface. It's pretty funny actually. When I said rank 100, it was a figure of speech. Just like when we say one million when we mean a lot. Maybe you haven't got that far in your comprehension of correct grammar. In fact, start s108 on Sunday [no comma] and play in the state of Romagna. You will be farmed endlessly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

edit: why did you embolden "recognise"? That's spelt correctly. Did you jus' want make me really have to emphasise the irony in you commentin' on my grammar?

---

Because he's one of them, and he spells it as recognize. Silly Yanks. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

You picked out typos? You must feel like a pro...or are you jus' runnin' out of things to say when faced with logic? Although, jus' to play along, how about I fix your English, eh? Gotta love when people decide to look at some slang or typos and decide to comment on grammar when they clearly have no understandin' of it themselves.

And for the record, what you said still applies to make you look like an idiot. Even the best players on the server are gettin' torn down by everyone else. The best players (irrespective or their prestige rank) are gettin' attacked, cities capped and farmed already, no matter how huge their army is.
And even as far as the biggest ones who get hit less often, it still doesn't mean jack when you imply that the only way to become a mega is to start on the first few hours. Some of the scariest guys on this server didnt start within the first week.

edit: why did you embolden "recognise"? That's spelt correctly. Did you jus' want make me really have to emphasise the irony in you commentin' on my grammar?

---

You still haven't gotten my point yet, and quite frankly, I'm going to stop trying. You will never see it from my point of view.
Second, everything you made in bold was spelled correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

You still haven't got my point yet [no comma] and quite frankly [no comma] I'm going to stop trying. You will never see it from my point of view.
Furthermore, everything you highlighted in bold was spelt correctly.

---

You're ignorin' fact and logic here. It's common knowledge that no matter how good you are, how strong you are, how much prestige you have, what rank you are, how well known you are, or how tactically awesome you are; you will never be safe based on that fact alone.
Thinkin' that you have to be the best/top in any category of anythin' to be safe is absurd.

Everythin' that was spelt incorrectly I changed. As for the words that I replaced...well you commented on my grammar, not my spellin'. There's a vast difference between the two. Your spellin' of certain words may have been accurate, but the grammar was nonsense and needed fixin'.
As for words like "spelled", "gotten" and "realize"...they're all deformed and americanised words, but the original correct spellin's are "spelt", "got" and "realise".

Don't bring up someone's grammar as a troll against them when you clearly can't continue it beyond "you're wrong"...especially when you choose to use americanisations and then say that the UK version is wrong.
But hey! Not to worry; you at least got one sentence right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

You're ignorin' fact and logic here. It's common knowledge that no matter how good you are, how strong you are, how much prestige you have, what rank you are, how well known you are, or how tactically awesome you are; you will never be safe based on that fact alone.
Thinkin' that you have to be the best/top in any category of anythin' to be safe is absurd.

Everythin' that was spelt incorrectly I changed. As for the words that I replaced...well you commented on my grammar, not my spellin'. There's a vast difference between the two. Your spellin' of certain words may have been accurate, but the grammar was nonsense and needed fixin'.
As for words like "spelled", "gotten" and "realize"...they're all deformed and americanised words, but the original correct spellin's are "spelt", "got" and "realise".

Don't bring up someone's grammar as a troll against them when you clearly can't continue it beyond "you're wrong"...especially when you choose to use americanisations and then say that the UK version is wrong.
But hey! Not to worry; you at least got one sentence right there.

---

Sigh, here we go with this one.

1. To the more civilized discussion, I wasn't saying I was safe, more like much more protected. Not so much as just intimidation, but just being able to open my gates, coupled with my Archer Towers, and no one will ever attack me. When your ranked.. let's say 10,000th, By the time your out of BP, you will be destroyed. Now the one way to counter that is to be online most of the day. Then, you will be able to teleport, or truce.

2. To the spelling issue, I don't know what country you are from, but what Americans speak and what let's say Sweetish people speak are just different dialects. Again, UK and the USA, are just different dialects. Your words were "spelt" completely wrong. It wasn't grammar, but just poor spelling.


Anyways, this is the last time I am responding to this foolishness. This thread has been derailed too far already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

et's say Sweetish people speak are just different dialects.

---

It's Swedish.. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Satan

Sigh, here we go with this one.

1. To the more civilized discussion, I wasn't saying I was safe, more like much more protected. Not so much as just intimidation, but just being able to open my gates, coupled with my Archer Towers, and no one will ever attack me. When your ranked.. let's say 10,000th, By the time your out of BP, you will be destroyed. Now the one way to counter that is to be online most of the day. Then, you will be able to teleport, or truce.

2. To the spelling issue, I don't know what country you are from, but what Americans speak and what let's say Sweetish people speak are just different dialects. Again, UK and the USA, are just different dialects. Your words were "spelt" completely wrong. It wasn't grammar, but just poor spelling.


Anyways, this is the last time I am responding to this foolishness. This thread has been derailed too far already.

---

1/ When I started s5 I was rank 45k or somethin'. Funny story...I didn't get ganked when I came out of BP.
'Fact is, your claim that high rank and all this is still absurd...you can do all of that whether you're the best or not. And it won't protect you more; bein' the top players tends to make you a target more than anythin' else, you might have noticed.

2/ I read that about five times and cannae make any sense of it at all. Honestly, it's jus' nonsense.
Sweetish? What in the blue hell is that? I'm not Sweetish or Swedish. I'm Scottish. Get your facts straight before you humiliate yourself further.
"what americans speak" is wrong, even in america.
My words aren't spelt wrong. Fact. Next time you decide to talk about spellin', think about what language you speak. You might notice that there's an "English" in it, which means that the "language" was derived from England, therefore the English dictionary's decision on what is correct and what is gibberish tells us that the words I use are technically correct. Your words are americanisations. Where you come from, your spellin' choice is accepted. Everywhere else in the world, my spellin' choice is correct.
And I thought I made it clear that grammar includes more than jus' spellin'...maybe you're not aware of that? Well now you are...hopefully...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkbrady

1/ When I started s5 I was rank 45k or somethin'. Funny story...I didn't get ganked when I came out of BP.
'Fact is, your claim that high rank and all this is still absurd...you can do all of that whether you're the best or not. And it won't protect you more; bein' the top players tends to make you a target more than anythin' else, you might have noticed.

2/ I read that about five times and cannae make any sense of it at all. Honestly, it's jus' nonsense.
Sweetish? What in the blue hell is that? I'm not Sweetish or Swedish. I'm Scottish. Get your facts straight before you humiliate yourself further.
"what americans speak" is wrong, even in america.
My words aren't spelt wrong. Fact. Next time you decide to talk about spellin', think about what language you speak. You might notice that there's an "English" in it, which means that the "language" was derived from England, therefore the English dictionary's decision on what is correct and what is gibberish tells us that the words I use are technically correct. Your words are americanisations. Where you come from, your spellin' choice is accepted. Everywhere else in the world, my spellin' choice is correct.
And I thought I made it clear that grammar includes more than jus' spellin'...maybe you're not aware of that? Well now you are...hopefully...

---

Do you understand that not putting the "g" after words is wrong? You say what we speak is wrong, but does that mean that what all of latin american's speak is wrong as well, because they do not speak exactly the same as the people in Spain? I don't think you understand dialects. Languages are NEVER wrong, because it's people's own creation. Understand that, before you start going off on Americans.

It's colloquial, and I accept that it's wrong. I do it by my own decision because I choose to type as I speak, but I won't look at you when you say "getting" and go "omg you added a g, that's wrong". I don't say correct things are wrong, and I don't say I'm right because I do it.

Do as I say, not as I do.

And...languages are never wrong? Wow...if ever you wanted to show an absence of understandin' of linguistics, that's how you'd do it.
You realise you're changin' the subject, right? Dialects are things like "realise". I might remind you that you were the one that brought that up, not me.
I commented on your actual grammar, not americanised spellin'. Grammar in america is the same as in England, Scotland and any other country in the entire world that speaks any variation of English. Grammar does not change or fluctuate; dialects come with pronounciations, word-choice and spellin'.
I understand dialects perfectly...you still don't seem to ken what grammar is though.

edit: I think by this point, this thread pretty much deserves a rename and move. It's been derailed onto grammar for some obscure reason and it never belonged in Guides anyways...

Wow, thanks for wasting 15 minutes of my life with this bickering. I can't believe I expected something of value. How about you 2 stop acting like children and keep the thread on topic, that'd be wonderful. Satan let it go, you'll never persuade Darkbrady in any way because he/she is already on the defensive and you're both just making personal attacks. I almost beg to say that you two are enjoying the banter, in which case I'll look elsewhere for content.