Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » Archived Forums » Renegade Global Community Tournament » {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 )
{Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 08:01 Go to next message
MoMo is currently offline  MoMo
Messages: 29
Registered: July 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
Recruit
it were good games, thanks for playing.

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2906/momo21.jpg

[Updated on: Sun, 04 October 2009 08:01]

Report message to a moderator

Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405244 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 08:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
-SoQ-Warlock is currently offline  -SoQ-Warlock
Messages: 61
Registered: May 2007
Location: Netherlands
Karma: 0
Recruit
it were sure gg's.
very close on our ref, second game.

congratz and GL in next round.


http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3995/warlock46cu.jpg
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405246 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RadioactiveHell is currently offline  RadioactiveHell
Messages: 175
Registered: August 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Karma: 0
Recruit
gg's, looked very close, and from what I hear both teams played very well.

Unfortunate that we had to drop 5 ppl, but for the sake of the tourney, we had to play the match.

gl next round. Smile


http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/2740/radioactivehellsignatur.gif
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405250 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 10:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
liquidv2 is currently offline  liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
why couldn't you just play with all of your people? it's not your fault they didn't have 10 right Razz

liquidv2
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405255 is a reply to message #405250] Sun, 04 October 2009 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
-SoQ-Warlock is currently offline  -SoQ-Warlock
Messages: 61
Registered: May 2007
Location: Netherlands
Karma: 0
Recruit
because we want to play in the spirit of the tourney.
10vs4 is just stupid to do. I would shame myself if I would suggest that.

I really hope you arent serious.


http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3995/warlock46cu.jpg
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405257 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
liquidv2 is currently offline  liquidv2
Messages: 3407
Registered: February 2007
Karma: 0
General (3 Stars)
it's like they took their 4 best players and only used them so you were forced to play them with your 4 best and it worked out for them because of it

it's a legit strategy; cw.cc could just send h20 in to play and have them 2v2 every community and win if that's how you look at it

if that's what it comes down to then by all means play empty handed, it just makes the whole 10v10 thing seem pointless

i look forward to playing OS, and have no idea which 4 players we will use Razz


liquidv2
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405278 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 12:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tiesto is currently offline  Tiesto
Messages: 600
Registered: June 2006
Karma: 0
Colonel
Thats shit. There should be a minimum limit of players.

Out of a roster of 15 you could only manage 4?


Exodus Senior Moderator
For a commwar against Exodus, pm me.
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405279 is a reply to message #405257] Sun, 04 October 2009 12:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hitman is currently offline  Hitman
Messages: 878
Registered: November 2005
Location: Belgium
Karma: 0
Colonel
liquidv2 wrote on Sun, 04 October 2009 13:03

it's like they took their 4 best players and only used them so you were forced to play them with your 4 best and it worked out for them because of it

it's a legit strategy; cw.cc could just send h20 in to play and have them 2v2 every community and win if that's how you look at it

if that's what it comes down to then by all means play empty handed, it just makes the whole 10v10 thing seem pointless

i look forward to playing OS, and have no idea which 4 players we will use Razz


dont mention h2o, just say kill lol... h2o would NEVER be that great of a clan if it wasnt for kill
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405286 is a reply to message #405242] Sun, 04 October 2009 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jakerz is currently offline  jakerz
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2009
Location: Leeds
Karma: 0
Recruit
It was no tactic to have only 4 playing, We play these wars for fun, not for victory. Both SoQ and {Os} Had problems with the date to be played on. On fridays and saturdays, They had more players available, where has we had the majority on saturdays. We then agreed to play on Sunday, And only 2 of us turned up at first, There was a confusion with the time the war was too be played at. However we did get 2 more members, sadly, it was still a small match. However I think both teams enjooyed the matches, ANd very nicely played SoQ.
Re: {Os} Vs. SoQ (Round 2 ) [message #405427 is a reply to message #405242] Mon, 05 October 2009 12:18 Go to previous message
MoMo is currently offline  MoMo
Messages: 29
Registered: July 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
Recruit
aiight ill clear a bit, well Saterday was our best Day, the normal day which should be played on, on saturdays we mannage/mannaged to get 8+ people but as for Friday and Sunday are our worst days due Work/Going out/Sports, so Their best days were our worst, and our best day was their worst day.

also for the 4v4 was at 3 GMT and i said at 5 GMT we would have more peopel to play like 7+ and at 5 GMT they could not mannage that ammount , at that time they could just mannage 3-4 so it would be basicly be a 4v4 anyhow no matter that day.


http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2906/momo21.jpg
Previous Topic: Clanwars vs. Atomix (round 2)
Next Topic: RGCT Round 2/3 & Updates
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Dec 18 04:20:46 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01092 seconds