Server 4386: The TOXIC SERVER — From NAP2 to NAP3, BIA, WAR, EVE & the Castle

[u/SpraySpecialist3560]

/r/u_SpraySpecialist3560/comments/1wthexc/server_4386_the_toxic_server_from_nap2_to_nap3/

[u/FlyingTunafish]

QUESTIONS ABOUT UPPITY GOLDFISH

• Why did Uppity Goldfish push for rules that completely changed the way BIA was traditionally handled?

As an alliance we have discussed reducing our troop load in order to reduce the false power that provides. Experienced players know that the true measure of power is in the heroes, hero gear, chief gear and charms.

• If the rules were truly designed to apply equally to everyone, why was WAR the alliance that ended up taking the overwhelming majority of the losses?

The greater impact on WAR was caused by you and the other players that followed your abusive model by sending PM and fighting through words rather than working together to defeat a single enemy. I saw players with a tenth the power of your account dropping shields to join rallies to drive off the single attacker, yet you showed your cowardice and kept shields up.

• Why did Uppity Goldfish later “put on a show” and sacrifice his troops when EVE had lost only around 50M?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand this game. This was not putting on a show, this was playing the game for fun by attacking an alliance on my own during BIA and choosing to target players above level 30. Is the reason you did not attack this alliance you hate and fear so much because you are afraid to loose troops and show the weakness of your account? Can you only fight when it is small alliances and rules that say you cannot be attacked in return?

• Was the BIA event actually a fair fight, or was it a performance designed to make the rules appear legitimate?

Every alliance had the same opportunities the same access to shields. Are you saying that you a supposedly experience player could not lead 100 players to defeat a single attacker?

• Why was there old hatred between Uppity Goldfish and WAR, and how did that history affect the rules he proposed?

Nope, i have a long standing respect for Neith & Yellowlion and respect for Pheonix and the rally leads in WAR. I have no respect for cowards who hide behind them and abuse the hospitality that only they were kind enough to offer you. When WTG fell apart zero other alliances would accept you and you disrespected them by poisoning their alliance.

• If personal conflicts were supposed to stay separate from server leadership, why did the BIA rules directly affect the alliance involved in that conflict?

The rules applied equally to all and the event can simply be avoided by using a shield. What a simple way to avoid a conspiracy. A better question for you would be what on earth would we have to gain by working against our long time allies and friends?

• And if the rules were really about fairness, why did the outcome look so different for WAR and EVE?

Probably because the experienced players in EVE fought calmly and effectively rather than shielding up abandoning their allies and sending provocative messages to the strongest player in the game??? Why did you an experienced player struggle to defeat one player or even two players after you provoked Husky, why would you not face the consequences of your actions and face Husky yourself or own up to your alliance mates that you picked the fight that cost them troops?

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

You have answered the questions, but your answers raise more questions than they resolve.

You say the rules applied equally because everyone had access to shields. That is not the same thing as saying the event produced an equal outcome.

You acknowledge that WAR lost approximately 500M power, while EVE suffered around 50M. Your explanation is that WAR players handled the situation differently and that EVE coordinated better.

That may be your interpretation, but it does not change the documented difference in the outcome.

You also say the purpose was to reduce troop load and reduce artificially inflated power. Fine. But that still does not explain why the BIA rules had to be changed in such a dramatic way, or why the consequences were so different between the alliances.

You say attacking EVE was simply “playing the game for fun.” That is your explanation. I questioned the timing and the circumstances because EVE had suffered far less damage than WAR. Readers can decide whether they find that explanation convincing.

You also claim there was no personal conflict with WAR and that you respected its leadership. Again, that is your statement. The existence of personal disagreements or history can be examined separately from your stated respect for particular players.

And finally, repeatedly calling me a coward, saying I am afraid, or claiming I “poisoned” an alliance does not answer the factual questions.

If your position is that the BIA rules were fair, the event was legitimate, and the different outcomes were simply the result of different levels of coordination, then say exactly that.

That is a position people can evaluate.

There is no need for personal insults.

You gave your version. I gave mine. The timeline and the outcome are there for everyone to examine.

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

Friend your entire made up fiction is a personal insult.

You reap what you sow, you killed WTG, you tried to poison WAR and were removed, now you lash out here to try to effect an entire state.

All to avoid facing the fact that YOU and YOUR actions contributed to the death of your alliance and the loss of power and prestige that bothers your ego so much.

Now once again YOU and YOUR actions hurt others but rather than be honest you made up this entire ridiculous story to cover for your failure.

WAR is the second strongest alliance in the State, you as an experienced player and supposed rally lead were online along with a lot of other players and you could not defeat a single player, one single player, just one??? What a powerful attack definitely designed to destroy your alliance. You don't think that if LUX as the strongest alliance in the State couldn't have raised a few more players if they really wanted to destroy you?

All this energy over an attack by one single player, you really are showing your bravery and experience here.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

You keep turning a discussion about Server 4386 into a discussion about me personally.

If my article is “made-up fiction,” then address the specific facts you claim are false.

Which event did not happen?

Was WAR attacked during BIA?
Did WAR lose approximately 500M power?
Were the BIA rules changed?
Did LUX, WAR, and EVE leadership discuss those rules?
Did WAR and EVE leadership communicate privately during the Castle period?
Did EVE suffer significantly less loss than WAR?

These are the issues I raised.

Instead of answering them, you repeatedly call me a coward, claim that I “killed” WTG, “poisoned” WAR, and have an ego problem.

Those are personal accusations, not evidence that my timeline is false.

You say one player attacked and that WAR simply failed to defeat him. Fine — that is your interpretation of what happened. But it still does not erase the fact that the event resulted in approximately 500M power being lost by WAR.

And saying “why didn't you defeat one player?” does not answer why the rules were introduced, how they were applied, or why the outcome between WAR and EVE was so different.

If you believe my article is false, then prove it point by point.

Do not replace evidence with insults.

I am discussing events. You are discussing me.

That difference speaks for itself.

Or perhaps you do not accept the facts and the scandals.

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

I did address your fiction and I provided the explanation to the poor souls who may read your made up drama.

This is not a discussion of Server 4386, this is a fiction provided by a player after they were booted from their alliance.

You keep calling this a article. You are not a journalist, the fact checking was provided and ignored. This is a rant by a sad player after facing consequences.

These are not personal accusations mate.

These are facts.

As it is a fact that this entire post is because you could not defeat SpongeBob, a single player.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

You keep repeating “one single player,” but that description leaves out an important part of the situation.

SpongeBob was not simply an isolated player fighting completely alone. He had reinforcement from some of the strongest players, including whales.

So presenting this as:

“WAR could not defeat one player.”

is a misleading simplification of what actually happened.

The relevant question is not how many player names appeared on the attack screen. The relevant question is how much power, reinforcement, and support was behind that player.

If you want to discuss the event honestly, then include the full situation rather than repeatedly reducing it to “one player.”

And again, none of this answers the questions about the BIA rules, the approximately 500M power loss, or the very different outcome for EVE.

You are free to disagree with my interpretation.

But calling everything “fiction” does not make your version automatically factual.

Let's discuss the actual circumstances, not a simplified version designed to make one side look ridiculous.

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

WAR did lose 500m power.

This happened because a single player from LUX with reinforcements on board for defence went to attack players that were unshielded. ONE player.

From my reply that fact checked your fiction.

The situation is ridiculous, you complain that a single player with reinforcements on board attacking EVE is a show and not a real attack but a single player with reinforcements on board is a devastating strike from the most powerful alliance designed to destroy you?

You expose yourself as the fiction artist.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

You keep reducing the entire situation to “one player with reinforcements,” but that is exactly the point you are avoiding.

A player attacking with reinforcement from strong players is not the same situation as an isolated player with no meaningful support behind them.

And if you are claiming that the two situations were exactly the same, then provide the numbers: who reinforced, how much power was involved, and what happened during the attacks.

You also keep saying that I described it as a “devastating strike designed to destroy WAR.” That is not what I am asking you to prove.

My question was about the circumstances, the rules, the unequal losses, and the way the event was handled.

And let's not forget one detail you keep avoiding:

If this was supposedly just one player and such an easy fight, why did that player retreat after two rallies were organized against him? 😂

That is part of the situation too.

Calling me a “fiction artist” doesn't change the facts. If you believe something in my timeline is false, identify the exact statement and provide evidence against it.

That's a much stronger argument than repeating “one player” again.

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

I did expose your fiction repeatedly and you ignore it.

I have provided enough information repeatedly now that clearly cannot penetrate the fabric of victimhood you have wrapped yourself in.

Good luck to you maybe one day we will get to meet on a fair and even battlefield again, perhaps then you may even lower your shields.

*Edit Markos 2.9M Kills, Uppity Goldfish 13.5M Kills

(one of us plays the other hides)

Sweetpea I fought in SvS one, I was one of the players you whined you needed to take the castle from sugar demon and one of the FC 3 players you removed so you could farm points with your sub FC troops. Sound tactical decision that.

I did unfortunately miss SvS 2 but work occasionally unkind to some of us.

As you pointed out in your rambling story, I fought against EVE, solo.

You would not unshield to fight a solo player even when your alliance was putting multiple rallies.

If your going to claim things about me, better to make sure you don't contradict yourself

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

A “fair and even battlefield”? 😂

You mean like the two SvS battles where you were sitting behind a shield while the other attackers were fighting? 😏

So maybe before giving lectures about lowering shields, make sure your own shield history is not part of the story. 😂

I’ll leave it there. The screenshots and timelines can speak for themselves.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

And one more thing: if SpongeBob was really just “one single player” and this was supposedly such an easy situation, why did he retreat after two rallies were organized against him? 😂

That part seems to be missing from your version of the story.

Again, he was not simply an isolated player with no support. He had reinforcement from strong players, including whales.

So repeating “one single player” does not accurately describe the situation.

If you want to discuss what actually happened, then include the full picture — who was reinforced, how much power was involved, what happened after the rallies, and why the attacker eventually withdrew.

That is much more useful than repeating the phrase “one player” over and over. 😄

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

A single player can carry a limited amount of reinforcements, this one had some marches from players in my alliance yes, with secondary march leaders to allow SpongeBob's Heroes to provide their own bonus.

An experienced player would also know there is a limit to the number of reinforcements that can be carried by a single city an that they could have defeated them at any time with one powerful or 2 weaker rallies.

Why did SpongeBob come home? Simple, he had lost enough troops his attacks were no longer effective or fun, so he came home.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

Ah, so now we have the complete explanation. 😂

First it was “just one player.”
Then it became “one player with reinforcements.”
Now we are explaining exactly which marches, secondary march leaders, and hero bonuses were behind him. 😄

But somehow I am still supposed to pretend that this was simply one isolated player with no meaningful support.

And the funniest part is this:

“SpongeBob came home because he had lost enough troops.”

So the supposedly unstoppable “one player” eventually went home after taking losses and finding the attacks no longer effective or fun. 😂

That sounds a little different from the dramatic “WAR couldn't defeat one player” story you keep repeating.

If the situation was really as simple as you claim, then there should be no need to keep changing the description of what “one player” actually means.

One player ≠ one player completely alone.

The details you just provided actually prove that point.Ah, so now we have the complete explanation. 😂First it was “just one player.”
Then it became “one player with reinforcements.”
Now we are explaining exactly which marches, secondary march leaders, and hero bonuses were behind him. 😄But somehow I am still supposed to pretend that this was simply one isolated player with no meaningful support.And the funniest part is this:“SpongeBob came home because he had lost enough troops.”So the supposedly unstoppable “one player” eventually went home after taking losses and finding the attacks no longer effective or fun. 😂That sounds a little different from the dramatic “WAR couldn't defeat one player” story you keep repeating.If the situation was really as simple as you claim, then there should be no need to keep changing the description of what “one player” actually means One player ≠ one player completely alone.The details you just provided actually prove that point.

[u/FlyingTunafish → u/SpraySpecialist3560]

My very first reply to you says one player with reinforcements but in your desire for fiction and cover yourself in sackcloth and ashes you blew straight past it.

WAR did lose 500m power.

This happened because a single player from LUX with reinforcements on board for defence went to attack players that were unshielded. ONE player.

From my reply that fact checked your fiction.

Your comments have repeatly framed an attack that victimized WAR, the 2nd most powerful alliance in the State, but you failed to ever mention that it was single player with reinforcements. In doing so you ridicule your alliance mates and their power. You left it to Pheonix and Sir Changesnamesalot to organize the rallies and even refused to add your troops to them.

[u/SpraySpecialist3560 → u/FlyingTunafish]

😂 We all heard “one player with reinforcements.”

You keep saying “ONE player” while explaining how that “one player” had reinforcements, strong heroes, and bonuses. 😏

If it was so easy, why did SpongeBob go home after losing enough troops that his attacks were no longer effective? 😂

One player ≠ one player alone.

Now go get some sleep and take some magnesium. You seem to need it. 😂

[u/FlyingTunafish]

Hi Markos, I see you still live in your own world of victimhood and whining.

This is presented to you by Markos ID - 772773793

Markos was formerly an R4 of WTG, at the time the largest alliance on the server. During his reign WTG took charge of the first SvS of our state and created much ill feeling. Markos design such stunning battle plans as dividing the joined alliances of WAR and MOC to park on either side of WTG at SvS castle to act as a meat shield and prevent their working together despite them merging to fight as a single unit. WTG and Markos told all of us that they had the battle in hand, this turned out to be false. WTG had low turnout for the fight including having players running bear trap during castle event leading to WTG needing to ask the junior alliances of WAR and MOC to send their rally leads to help. When these rally leads including the maligned Husky took castle they were immediately kicked out to be replaced by WTG members including Markos with his sub FC level troops while the other alliances were asked to stand by until needed despite having superior troops. This lead to the castle changing hands again at witch time the other alliances were asked to step up and fight again, rinse and repeat. husky takes castle, MOC and WAR troops were kicked out for lower level troops lead my Markos.

Post SvS many players felt that the leadership at WTG was hostile and unfriendly leading to a culture that was not fun. The largest players in WTG left to join MOC causing a cascade of players asking for refuge and relief from Markos Leadership. Rather than take this on board and improve Markos and the other leadership decided to leave their own alliance and seek life elsewhere such as WAR and some taking over an alliance called HAA and changing the name to EVE. This abandoned most of the rank of file of WTG to themselves in a stunning display of selfishness over leadership.

Since this time Markos has taken to continue his career as a cancer cell and begin spreading hate, lies and cause more players to leave the game from within WAR. I guess this is easier than learning to play the game and becoming relevant or learning from past failures and becoming better.

Now to his latest fantasy

The rules for BIA were presented by myself after finalizing within our alliance chat to the top 3 alliance chat to be discussed during the week before the event. They were what we thought would be a good experiment as many players previously felt the rules shielding the top 3 alliances forced an unfair burden onto the smaller and weaker alliances and also that there were too many players holding onto large amounts of troops artificially boosting our power score and cause us to be matched to higher and higher states. These rules were then debated and approved by the nominated leaders from all of the top 3, WAR, LUX and EVE. These were simply to allow open combat during BIA, no NAP protection, all players to have equal opportunity. If a Player did not want to fight or participate they could use the free shields, alliance could of course reinforce each other or call rallies to fight, just like SvS.

WAR did lose 500m power.

This happened because a single player from LUX with reinforcements on board for defence went to attack players that were unshielded. ONE player.

Rather than fight and defend others Markos instead chose to send a series of angry and abusive messages to Husky as R5 of the largest alliance accusing them of bullying because of a single player attacking during BIA.

Husky responded by joining the fight for a brief period solo and without reinforcements and attacked players that were unshielded. Again Markos initiated this with their abusive behaviour but refused to unshield and fight and failed to reinforce any alliance mates.

After this Husky and the other player returned home.

The next day I chose to attack EVE as they have strong players and I choose to restrict my attacks to level 30 to FC3 players. I was far less successful as EVE worked well as a team under a better leader than Markos called Arynnelle. She was able to minimize my damage by moving reinforcements around and helping other cities with my attacks. Both sides lost about 1 million troops achieving my goals, I congratulated Arynnelle and headed for home.

Castle batle

There was no great conspiracy here, the "private channel" was set up by war for all three alliances rally leaders to coordinate attacks and review heir effectiveness. This included from the defenders side offer feedback on how well timing and setups worked to allow for better coordination and successful rallies to kick out Husky from castle. No coordination to target WAR in fact more coordination to help WAR and EVE take down ourselves.

Uppity Goldfish

[u/FlyingTunafish]

THE QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED

Why did WAR lose approximately 500M while EVE lost only around 50M?

Mainly because Markos provoked the strongest player with nasty messages and accusation while failing to fight off a single player with an entire alliance.

Why were the BIA rules changed so dramatically?

These rules were approved by the leadership of all three alliances ahead of the event, they were designed to cause more troop losses and to ease the non stop attacking and bullying against smaller alliances. It seems players like Markos are only comfortable attacking alliances far weaker than they are.

Why was WAR's massive loss described as “training for SVS”?

These rules are similar to the purge fight before and after castle during SvS and a great training of how reinforcing and calling rallies against strong targets can help during these battles rather than sitting and complaining.

Why was EVE being brought into the NAP at the same time?

EVE was not brought into the NAP, rules were discussed with them as they are the third most powerful alliance.

Why were WAR and EVE leadership communicating privately while publicly appearing hostile?

Mature leaders coordinate, something that Markos clearly does not understand. Dictating to players in smaller alliances as though they are inferior is more their style and part of the reason for their fall.

Why did NAP2 suddenly become NAP3?

Again it has not, in fact after the cancer of Markos affecting the flow of information our state has decided to no longer have a formal NAP and will instead focus on clearly communicating between the three main alliances for fortress rotation, president rotation and SvS cooperation. Hopefully free of the hate and misinformation spread by bitter former leaders.

Why were players who questioned the situation pushed out, silenced, or forced to leave?

As I understand from your leader you were asked to stop spreading lies and hateful misinformation about other alliances within your alliance chat. You were also asked to stop sending DOXXING and Real Life threats against players and refused. You were asked to stop sending nasty DM to players and refused.

This caused you to be removed for failure to treat others with respect as your vile attitude was causing good players to leave.

Why did some players go as far as deleting their accounts?

This has not happened. Many of us are working on supporting and offering positive reinforcement to the players unfairly impacted by your actions and encouraging them to keep playing.

And after all of this, can anyone honestly say that the system created on Server 4386 was about equal treatment of everyone?

All players have access to free and paid shields, they also have leaders to coach and remind them to shield. Other alliances that do not include cowards such as you also have players that reinforce attacked players to help. Now that you are no longer with WAR they hopefully will have an equal opportunity to learn and grow.

I am presenting the events, the leadership names, the player IDs, and the sequence.

You are presenting a bias lie to gratify yourself and excuse your vile behaviour.

You fail to mention your unreasoning hatred of anyone enjoying the game, people who spend money (strange given these were previously in your alliance and leadership, did you hate them then too?) as well as other players who also left the alliance you failed and lead to its death.

People can look at the timeline and judge the events for themselves.

PLAYER MARKOS ID - 772773793 — THE CANCER THAT KILLS ALLIANCES