IoF im just copying you when you hated on my alliance 9 rounds ago.
I've just read the two threads from then and it's funny how you're saying what i was saying and im saying what you are. How times will change.
Vaguely on subject, I further added to the tooltip that pops up in the new alliance vs alliance combat stats, a "% of involvement".
So load up an alliance page, hover over one of their enemies, and you can see a "% of involvement" for land, kills, and bribes - compare that to "% of involvement" for other large allies around their range, and you will get a very good idea of how much "activity" there has been between them - ie is it a minor amount of privately agreed activity designed to try and avoid the new rules (because 0 activity would have been too obvious), or are they fighting like any two other alliances that have been near eachother all round have been?
The % is a % of the grand total - eg if an alliance has lost & gained a total of 500,000 land against other allies... and only 10,000 of it lost/stolen was from alliance X... then their % of land involvement with alliance X will be 2%.
I'm making no comments about any specific examples, merely informing people of a new tool available in-game and one way that information may or may not be helpful.
MoDakka havnt touched Charades all round? In land or a single kill? Or atleast its minor?
Charades have had 0.89% land involvement and 1.66% kill involvement?
Yeah real involvement, lol.
For me this is really helpful in showing just how little this apparent involvement is.
And it's the reason Azzer put it in.
And Davs, im not ignoring you i answered you along with everyone else.
Nobody has said there is a mutual agreement and ive posted
several times to people to stop basing their arguement around the fact they are being accused of having a conversation to leave each other alone. Nobody is saying that.
But we now saying that we can use 'lazyness' as an excuse not to even touch your closest alliance for over half a round?
Is that now an acceptable thing?
You can both spout "cba hitting the other alliance but we aint mutually agreed it" and then you're now good to go?
Doesn't sound right to me.