Now this is not attack on some players.. that i will be naming in here. But when i read back on forums all i see is stuff like this.




can i ask why you can really say this if kong has only been around like 4-5 years?

i mean its a little miss leading when it comes too this.. now i'm very unsure what some people views are too this but pls say what you have too say.

KD sorry had too use this from what i saw was just miss leading to all of us, and again this is discussion/debate, now you forums what is your take on this.

OK first of all Kong is so lame... you look at it on a ten by ten inch screen... the admins are so slack i.e Garry that you could super farm and get away with it... Kong players a mostly cheats... I have not met a good Kong player who could face me toe to toe on any battle field..

its funny no one form .com talks about Kong... but Kong players who come here to .com where the party is at... and start Kong and .com beef... this isn't rap we anit no Tupac or Biggie... stop making the hate.. dont make me start quoting hit em up...

I would destroy anyone who talks bad about .com... only I can..

.com best of the best would stomp its tanks of Kongs foreheads...

Well I'll address Platinum first as I see quite a few flaws in his reasoning. You mention Garry but do you have any idea how long he has not been on kong? Second, you met and played kong players that not only stood up to you toe to toe but had you scared when they were just messing around for some blues (myself included in this). Also Milan beat you in the champions era did he not? Next you say that no one from .com talks about kong that I find extremely funny, I cannot tell you the number of teams from .com that go to kong to "kill the noobs" nor can I tell you how completely decimated those teams were when they faced the kong players that I played with. Both sides defend their place of origin, I've given my reasons why I believe it is easier and defended them frequently.
Now to Greeny, I fail to see how the time kong has been around has any bearing whatsoever? That argument has been used even against myself countless times, I am a relatively new player by most standards and yet I still have long time pros asking me questions or wanting my advice. Time played or time in existence in no way matters. As for something being misleading I fail to see any part of my statement that would fall into that category. .com really is easier for me because of the reasons I mentioned in that post as well as other reasons. I did not say it was easier for everyone but for me and players like me it is.

I will say you shouldn't mention Milan since in CE it was more of a Kong player playing with .com'ers. Also, not noticing Garry's absence doesn't affect his argument in any way it's just stating that when Garry was there things weren't that great and even now even if things are well monitored the player base doesn't compare to what it was.

As for both sides, honestly only I can only recall one good team that's come from kong KD and that's Milans friends. Other than you guys I don't recall anyone. And in the end honestly the side who's had more players is more likely to have had the best team that's ever played. So I'm going to say com is better off here. Also KD, you say you haven't been around that long but a lot of the players who have played 6+ years probably haven't been so active in the community as you've been in the last 2. So in some cases its experience and just natural talent.

In your assault on greeny I feel no need to defend him.

If Milan's only success was limited to the CE I could see validity in your point Slinky. However he dominated that M1 era, killed and controlled a large area messing around solo on an Earth round, and was with us when we had Sage absolutely scared to face us while we were messing around. My only reasoning for mentioning the CE is that it was a recent and easily remembered era where a "good kong player stood toe to toe on the battlefield" with Platinum. As for your second comment stating that him not noticing Garry's absence doesn't affect his argument, I'd say that is completely wrong given the time Garry has been gone from kong. When your only knowledge and one of your main points against something is years old what strength does that lend the rest of the argument? Many other good teams have come from kong in the past and in recent times but most of the time they tend to not broadcast it. Even when our team came we did not go around telling anyone, talking any trash, or bashing .com in anyway. Now for your final point, overall I'd say .com had more good players than kong. As for the top tier however I still believe it would contain more kong players than .com merely because the environment in which we learned on kong. We abhorred subs, learned to thrive with 0 boosting, were insanely competitive/obsessive, had unparalleled activity, and most importantly we were a stronger community. I remember when I first started and some kong players came to .com, the entire community was rooting and cheering for them. There was no division nor any animosity, we were all there to have fun and compete with each other that is one of the biggest things I strive for here.

^ just HUGE text... well, also you must recall How many Allies, ohh better say Subs were with DoC (VND) ?

that was just not like subs cz they were playing as main alliance (actively)... SAGE landed with 1 helping alliance, while VND, with Countless, so it was more like Number game

Since I'm being mentioned rather a bit in this thread I guess I'll reply.

The era Korupt was talking about with you (not sure if it was you though) being scared was an E3 era where Platinum Sage played with TLG.. I believe that was what they were called. It was when the new spy system was just introduced and we were having lots and lots of fun with it, despite barely having units.

As far as us on E6 having a lot of helper alliances, yes we did. However when we got to war with SAGE and their empire, who were fighting? If I remember correctly, which I know I do as I still have the screenshots, it was us + some of LOST vs SAGE + CA + SOTF + TLA + TLAs + ICG. Later on, BEER came over, Fear was there, CBop joined in, HINI etc.. But really, number-wise the SAGE side actually had more. When the war started we were actually so outnumbered we thought we'd have to fall back a LOT, but SAGE never pushed.

Anyway, I don't think this is about the Champions Era or about who had subs and who didn't. It's about Kong and .com. I am a Kong player and proud of it.. The way I always see it is like this. When I came to M1, which was my first era on .com, it was just what I'd always been waiting for on Kong. On Kong you have to jump at every conquer or OP, because there are always very little. Wrecks are few as well, because the tick speeds are higher so per tick there are less wrecks. I come to M1, the world is just absolutely littered with OPs, and there's a wreck every tick. I just keep playing like on Kong, jump at every OP, and well, that lead to a record.

The difference that I think of when I compare Kong and .com is just ease of playing. On Kong, when we played, there were no subs so you did not have people to hide behind. There were no era-long allies, so you would just have to keep fighting the entire time. There was no boosting, there were no mass boosts. There weren't many resources to take, so everytime something came up you'd jump at it. You didn't get to build many squads because resources were scarce, so you were always VERY careful not to lose squads.

From the .com rounds I've played, I just don't see that mentality in many .com players. Granted, there are some that come close, but there just aren't many. So when I brought the Kong lot to .com for the E1 era, I think we played pretty much insanely well. Despite not boosting we were in the top ranks even after 200 ticks, despite having to fight a war from tick 1. It's a shame it had to end in such a disappointing way, but no Kong player was to blame for that.

Of course this is all a moot discussion, as there are many good .com and many good Kong players. But just saying, after having played with a lot of nowadays' top flight here and winning the champions era with .commers, in a team of 12 I would still only put about 2 .commers if I could pick any player. Just because in my opinion, the Kong players I used to play with are the better players activity-wise, skill-wise and mentality-wise.

Biased opinions on both sides lol. To be honest I haven't seen many great "Kongers"

I've killed a couple of Kong teams also lol. A few eras ago on E3 me, Game, and a few others killed a kong team named KONG that we're boosting for the win. They were rank 3 for 170 ticks(until we killed them). They were so inactive that we were somehow able to lock and spy everyone of them.

Cut the crap people, I don't think it matters where the player actually comes from. It's the person, not the place of origin.

had to give my response. i think I've visited kong once so im not qualified to speak on kong players. however milan does give a valid point. in tht regard i understand very well why they are tht good without boosting. im used to boosting so much tht right now im having a difficult time on m3 cuz i decided not to boost. however when it comes on to skill i fail to see how kong would provide an advantage, apart from the fact they are careful with squads and so on. if i have members as active as myself worlds would be a breeze to me as well. bcuz of this i have to say tht i dont believe playing on kong made kong players as good as they are. the fact that they are active is wat i believe is key. .com players are no less wary of every op and conquer they can get as soon as they see them. but due to not being as active they may miss an opportunity and it goes to another player who was able to see it before.
however milan's arguments seemed to be based off 1 tick worlds like E1 and M1, worlds with lots of players and where ticks are slow so it gives time for opportunity as well as an extended strategy. for 1 tick worlds he does have a valid point, for other worlds not so much.

I think we can all agree BG > all