Most pathetic alliance thus far!!!

[fRe3kiLL]

hands down, IMO, BARCODE!!!!!

WHY?
for the simple fact that they have repeatedly, and annoyingly tried to progress either best bud, or their little brother's from gaining land or getting a nice portal spot for stealer, by letting that poor person, which is between 1 - 15% of my score....join 2 of their alliance member, usually both between 200% - 300% of my score (I'm solo, without a hope of hell of getting gov def) in their (so far) failed efforts on zeroing me.

Thus far i've managed by some very awesome strategic efforts on my part to block them from landing, or even doing major damage.

But for HOW LONG do I keep this up, cause once again they are back trying their luck. And they might succeed eventually.

NOW your all gonna say, "but this is a war game...take it like a man"
I would if you could call these pathetic attempts WAR!!!
To me, i've always seen that it is so much more fun, attacking at your 75%+ range, creating some interesting battle reports, and actually putting your men to the test in battle...

so let us see.....at present, 2 guys (224% and 225% of my score) sending lethals(MORE than enough to kill the small amount of troops that i presently have) and there little baby brother (15% of my score...god bless his soul, they grow up so fast, don't they?) are inbound on my company in search of EASY land...

HONESTLY, this is the reason why so many people LEAVE, or QUIT after a single round. NO BEGINNER would ever enjoy this game if this constantly happened to him/her.

I've been playing for many years now, and as I'm very active and always online trying my best, i've learned a lot, and done pretty damn well for myself. But THIS is just childish in the extreme


BARCODE====YOU SUCKETH IN THE EXTREME

/end gripe
/no need to reply, or defend your pathetic attempts at uhmm.. "war"?

 

[fRe3kiLL]

and as for particular reasons for these type of attacks...

anyone saying, "but I'm being attacked by people over 300% my score all the time"

just because someone else out there is a total FAILURE at warring, doesn't mean you have to be as well. If people 300% my size attack me constantly, so be it, BUT I won't do it unto others

 

[Dimitar]

lol.

 

[TaO]

/continue gripe

and as for particular reasons for these type of attacks...

anyone saying, "but I'm being attacked by people over 300% my score all the time"

just because someone else out there is a total FAILURE at warring, doesn't mean you have to be as well. If people 300% my size attack me constantly, so be it, BUT I won't do it unto others

/end gripe

!GO BARCODES GO!
Barcodes are sad idd, but thats only coz none of them is in my range

 

[fRe3kiLL]

lol.

I'm glad this entertained you
my work here is done....

on a sidenote:
....can we please get some more life into forums now?

 

[timtadams]

I kinda agree some people are pretty lame.

I am extremely inactive. So inactive i couldve started strikers like a week ago, but havnt been able to plant for the 5 min ive been on every now and then.

Anyway, i had all my lets killed. The very few that i had, as though it was necessary :roll:
So i thought ef it, they can have my land. Ill just buy some more. Anyway, I had a few people continuously resend at me, and i would log on after one day to 40 news and less land.

But ok they land raped me, but ONE guy thought he would continuously resend at me with seed theives. And it wasnt enough that i had zero LETs/hip/yob, no, he would resend every day, with let, just to kill all my harvesters and gardeners.

Now that is stupid. If i stop getting seeds, how is he going to steal as much as possible? Anyway, i have a stupid percentage of grass land, so seed stealing isnt an issue.

Now all in all, i couldnt give a ****, but what about beginners? Now thats the thing that pisses me off. The fact that there are dipshits like that that are just going give other people the *****, and want to quit.

 

[CFalcon]

In my opinion, if you've made yourself an attractive/land fat/easy target and you can't hold on to your land, then really you can't complain when you get repeatedly attacked. I'm not saying it's honourable, but if we all agreed to only attack each other once then we might as well not bother with troops, developments or tactics.

Sending LETs to hit someone who only has INNs, at least outside FTW play, is really low though. You don't even gain anything from it, you're just being vindictive.

 

[tobapopalos]

Sending LETs to hit someone who only has INNs, at least outside FTW play, is really low though. You don't even gain anything from it, you're just being vindictive.

I remember a few rounds ago me and Hobbezak were chilling in my two-man public alliance with practically no land or troops. We were just messing about for the round. One night Tree sent at both of us about ten times with a +2 mod with pure sorcs to kill our harvesters and gardeners (that was all we had). It was so utterly unnecessary, and although we weren't playing properly at the time we did wonder why on earth she did it. You don't get any bounty for it, you don't get any eff for it, and killing INNs isn't exactly going to make you renowned as the most fearsome cat in town.

Basically it was the most pathetic thing I've ever witnessed ingame.

 

[Alcibiades]

Sending LETs to hit someone who only has INNs, at least outside FTW play, is really low though. You don't even gain anything from it, you're just being vindictive.

I remember a few rounds ago me and Hobbezak were chilling in my two-man public alliance with practically no land or troops. We were just messing about for the round. One night Tree sent at both of us about ten times with a +2 mod with pure sorcs to kill our harvesters and gardeners (that was all we had). It was so utterly unnecessary, and although we weren't playing properly at the time we did wonder why on earth she did it. You don't get any bounty for it, you don't get any eff for it, and killing INNs isn't exactly going to make you renowned as the most fearsome cat in town.

Basically it was the most pathetic thing I've ever witnessed ingame.

lol i remember that. Hilarious.

 

[dafe]

+1(or 2 most of the time) to barcodes, havent seen them hit me without mods

 

[Max]

I can completely understand and agree with you freekill. The problem is that there is no longer any incentive for players to attack at above 70%, and no punishment for attacking at 30%. This is why I am campaigning for the return of L/F or something similar, so that we can return to a more fair system

If L/F doesn't work out, then I would suggest an alternative approach whereby instead of land capping at 10% minimum (which isn't enough of an incentive to attack bigger targets) it should simply drop to 0% land at minimum range, so that there's no land to gain and only kills. Obviously, I'd rather have no land cap and an L/F system in place instead, but there should be SOME system to deter attacking at 30% other than an eta modifier.

 

[Changer]

I can completely understand and agree with you freekill. The problem is that there is no longer any incentive for players to attack at above 70%, and no punishment for attacking at 30%. This is why I am campaigning for the return of L/F or something similar, so that we can return to a more fair system

If L/F doesn't work out, then I would suggest an alternative approach whereby instead of land capping at 10% minimum (which isn't enough of an incentive to attack bigger targets) it should simply drop to 0% land at minimum range, so that there's no land to gain and only kills. Obviously, I'd rather have no land cap and an L/F system in place instead, but there should be SOME system to deter attacking at 30% other than an eta modifier.

There was meant to be some sort of fairness calculator being introduced. But i guess that will never happen tbh.

 

[Amused]

Hi my name is Garrett, I couldn't resist creating another forum account "secretly" to spout more encouragement and hatred for the creator of the game that I seem physically incapable of leaving even after being banned from communicating.

 

[Davs]

I could have sworn Azzer mentioned the return of l/f...

But tbh, easy land is in no way good enough to justify having to wait an extra 1 or 2 ticks for an attack to go through. Not to mention the fact that easy land is boring, whereas messy fights are quite entertaining (imo) and sometimes fairly educational.

 

[Changer]

Mon 19th Oct, 2009
Apologies for my extended absence, mostly down to some horrible illness but I'm no longer infectious and other than a bit more resting up, I'm good to go and start cracking on with work again now - you'll be seeing me around more and more again over the next few weeks and I'll crack on with code changes for the round after this one (L/F will be coming in for then, with the new FC new landcap steal rules etc. - that's my priority code change atm). Some code changes (not mechanic ones) may appear mid-round - interface related etc. - also expect the return of the old style manual in the coming weeks (intending to integrate it with the wiki database to allow for quicker/easier updates of the manual).

But I still dont think its happening tbh. An update would be nice.

 

[Cheese]

I can completely understand and agree with you freekill. The problem is that there is no longer any incentive for players to attack at above 70%, and no punishment for attacking at 30%. This is why I am campaigning for the return of L/F or something similar, so that we can return to a more fair system

If L/F doesn't work out, then I would suggest an alternative approach whereby instead of land capping at 10% minimum (which isn't enough of an incentive to attack bigger targets) it should simply drop to 0% land at minimum range, so that there's no land to gain and only kills. Obviously, I'd rather have no land cap and an L/F system in place instead, but there should be SOME system to deter attacking at 30% other than an eta modifier.

Back rounds ago you used to be able to hit at 17.5% of your range, not many complained about being raped because it was all about the land back then not the troops.
Reducing the land further so you can only kill at the bottom of your range is pure stupidity, it's a war game the idea is to get the most land get the most troops and kick arse not worry about whether you are being a little bit unfair. Don't you think most wars are unfair? And further more your suggestion would make it more about troops than land when that isn't the way this game was designed to be played.

Land > troops

 

[Godsend9701]

I can completely understand and agree with you freekill. The problem is that there is no longer any incentive for players to attack at above 70%, and no punishment for attacking at 30%. This is why I am campaigning for the return of L/F or something similar, so that we can return to a more fair system

If L/F doesn't work out, then I would suggest an alternative approach whereby instead of land capping at 10% minimum (which isn't enough of an incentive to attack bigger targets) it should simply drop to 0% land at minimum range, so that there's no land to gain and only kills. Obviously, I'd rather have no land cap and an L/F system in place instead, but there should be SOME system to deter attacking at 30% other than an eta modifier.

Back rounds ago you used to be able to hit at 17.5% of your range, not many complained about being raped because it was all about the land back then not the troops.
Reducing the land further so you can only kill at the bottom of your range is pure stupidity, it's a war game the idea is to get the most land get the most troops and kick arse not worry about whether you are being a little bit unfair. Don't you think most wars are unfair? And further more your suggestion would make it more about troops than land when that isn't the way this game was designed to be played.

Land > troops

you fail noob cheese you need troops to keep your land, troops > land any day

 

[Dark_Angel]

Depends whether you're in a good alliance. I've seen plenty of people sit on 40k acres with nothing but flak

 

[Iamsmart]

it's a war game the idea is to get the most land get the most troops and kick arse not worry about whether you are being a little bit unfair. Don't you think most wars are unfair?

This is a game. Good games are balanced.

 

[marvin]

You'll never be TBA Iamsmart.