Don't ally or join Dark Knight

[DeletedUser30636]

Well the whole thing is somebody your attacking can easily run to an alliance. You never used to accept them, now days people do. A person who is being attacked and fleeing for safety is called a refugee, plain and simple. The term goes for real life and on the game.

That guy started two days before me, so it's not like I had a head start, I just grew faster and knew how to play the game better. It's a war game, not farmville, get over it.

a good refuge policy is 48 hours, its ridiculous to say, "i started attacking this guy 3 days ago, if you help him, that means war!" your basically saying that anyone who gets put in a bad situation isn't allowed to play anymore. If he can hold his own for 48 hours, you bet your keester im gonna support him, especially if hes outnumbered. You don't get to put a reserve on a player for the rest of the the world. thats ridiculous. 48 hours and any finishing sieges/revolts. If an alliance cant take out 1 player without support in 48 hours. either that player is good, and ill want him. Or your alliance sucks, and taking your cities should be a breeze.

 

[DeletedUser]

dont exactly like ur alliance either tho lol dont like them either

 

[Ryann16]

a good refuge policy is 48 hours, its ridiculous to say, "i started attacking this guy 3 days ago, if you help him, that means war!" your basically saying that anyone who gets put in a bad situation isn't allowed to play anymore. If he can hold his own for 48 hours, you bet your keester im gonna support him, especially if hes outnumbered. You don't get to put a reserve on a player for the rest of the the world. thats ridiculous. 48 hours and any finishing sieges/revolts. If an alliance cant take out 1 player without support in 48 hours. either that player is good, and ill want him. Or your alliance sucks, and taking your cities should be a breeze.

Couldnt say it better ST. Almost every refugee policy I've seen has been 48 hours, only for the cities that have been revolted. Declaring war on someone for an unusual refugee policy is a bad decision in my book. I would have talked out a deal first.

 

[DeletedUser27128]

Honestly, who follows the supposed "refugee policy" these days...

 

[Ryann16]

Honestly, who follows the supposed "refugee policy" these days...

Not many lol. Occasionally you come across some old guys that know whats "right"...

 

[DeletedUser]

a good refuge policy is 48 hours, its ridiculous to say, "i started attacking this guy 3 days ago, if you help him, that means war!" your basically saying that anyone who gets put in a bad situation isn't allowed to play anymore. If he can hold his own for 48 hours, you bet your keester im gonna support him, especially if hes outnumbered. You don't get to put a reserve on a player for the rest of the the world. thats ridiculous. 48 hours and any finishing sieges/revolts. If an alliance cant take out 1 player without support in 48 hours. either that player is good, and ill want him. Or your alliance sucks, and taking your cities should be a breeze.

Couldnt say it better ST. Almost every refugee policy I've seen has been 48 hours, only for the cities that have been revolted. Declaring war on someone for an unusual refugee policy is a bad decision in my book. I would have talked out a deal first.

No, if you want to get technical this 48 hour refugee policy came into place because people want points. That's all it is. If a player can't even hold their own, or shows no skill and just runs to an alliance I don't give jack about a 48 hour refugee policy. Also the 48 hour refugee policy could be because what if the player doesn't have a slot open? They could also be a favor farm, or a BP farm.

This is my policy on refugees:
It doesn't matter if it's 48 hours, 72 hours, 3 weeks, or 6 months. They're were a refugee. Either I'm willing to go to war to protect them and help them or I'm not. It's that simple.

That 48 hour rule is only so alliances can get more members and stack the points, that's all it is. If you think otherwise then you're foolish.

 

[DeletedUser49210]

Lame!

 

[Ryann16]

That 48 hour rule is only so alliances can get more members and stack the points, that's all it is. If you think otherwise then you're foolish.

Sooo... What you're saying is that...
If i am playing the game "honorably" by holding the refugee rule, and letting other players get what they deserve, and because I think that it is right, I am foolish? Because I am entitled to my own opinion and my own way of playing that I am foolish? Because it is how most people play the game, I am foolish? Hmm.

If you would declare war over a refugee that hasn't been in your alliance for more than 48 hours, I would say that you are the foolish one..

 

[DeletedUser12512]

I quite liked the 48 hour rule. It gave both alliances time to reach an understanding of the consequences of their actions going forward, time to set an op on the player that is now a refugee, time to search for support from said refugee to stop any incoming attacks. In my opinion its not cowardly to survive, its foolish to not use what resources are at your disposal to ensure you do.

I have not personally been a refugee, however I have been on the chasing end and been forestalled by an alliance that my alliance didn't want to butt heads with. There are other ways to accomplish your objectives when your hearts set on it

 

[DeletedUser30636]

No, if you want to get technical this 48 hour refugee policy came into place because people want points. That's all it is. If a player can't even hold their own, or shows no skill and just runs to an alliance I don't give jack about a 48 hour refugee policy. Also the 48 hour refugee policy could be because what if the player doesn't have a slot open? They could also be a favor farm, or a BP farm.

This is my policy on refugees:
It doesn't matter if it's 48 hours, 72 hours, 3 weeks, or 6 months. They're were a refugee. Either I'm willing to go to war to protect them and help them or I'm not. It's that simple.

That 48 hour rule is only so alliances can get more members and stack the points, that's all it is. If you think otherwise then you're foolish.

thats so ignorant, basically what your saying is that, you can only join one alliance. Even if the alliance Imploded and this player were to be left completely on their own. because you attacked them once, you now own the rights to them? get out of here man.

alliances dont use the 48 hour rule to get points, that doesnt even make sense. if it was about points, id make it a 10 hour rule. The 48 rule is giving players who we're put in a bad spot a fighting chance. If you cant take a player that has no support within 48 hours, then to bad. maybe you should be better at the game, thats not my fault, and its not he players fault.

Grow up, your not entitled to someone's city because you farmed them a few times, and then they found a home. Your just being ridiculous. Be respectful towards others if you expect the same treatment

 

[DeletedUser]

I suppose i have to clarify my position here, i would be a bit more old school but obviously every case is different. The real question is how do you police it fairly(exactly why the 48 hr thing came along in the first place as i recall). If i have been hitting someone for weeks to break them, they are on the verge of collapsing and run to an alliance they would never of joined to escape and i have every right to keep hammering them, in that case i would talk to the alliances diplomat and probably go to war if need be.

However, no one in this game has the right to indefinitely 'Own' a player just because they farmed him or hit him a few times, in a lot of ways the refugee rule 48 hrs makes sense, when attacking a player if you are not farming you must have a strategic goal in mind , be it a city or trying to draw support..you have a slot ready or you get your ABP from the op. If you want to own a player from the first moment you attack til the time wonder 7 is built all you are doing is putting noobs off the game, so after you rim them and they rebuild would they still be your rfugeee..i mean i get what you are saying but relax there are a lot of targets out there, if you are getting what you consider unfair treatment any reasonable alliance will at least hear you out but if you can't achieve mission objectives 48 hrs after you have broken a player you really are not that good at the game.'Tag i hit you, you belong to me forever' no, get real. If that were the case no one would stick out grep at all it would just be the same old players.

 

[DeletedUser30636]

I suppose i have to clarify my position here, i would be a bit more old school but obviously every case is different. The real question is how do you police it fairly(exactly why the 48 hr thing came along in the first place as i recall). If i have been hitting someone for weeks to break them, they are on the verge of collapsing and run to an alliance they would never of joined to escape and i have every right to keep hammering them, in that case i would talk to the alliances diplomat and probably go to war if need be.

However, no one in this game has the right to indefinitely 'Own' a player just because they farmed him or hit him a few times, in a lot of ways the refugee rule 48 hrs makes sense, when attacking a player if you are not farming you must have a strategic goal in mind , be it a city or trying to draw support..you have a slot ready or you get your ABP from the op. If you want to own a player from the first moment you attack til the time wonder 7 is built all you are doing is putting noobs off the game, so after you rim them and they rebuild would they still be your rfugeee..i mean i get what you are saying but relax there are a lot of targets out there, if you are getting what you consider unfair treatment any reasonable alliance will at least hear you out but if you can't achieve mission objectives 48 hrs after you have broken a player you really are not that good at the game.'Tag i hit you, you belong to me forever' no, get real. If that were the case no one would stick out grep at all it would just be the same old players.

well yes of course, it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, there may be an exception to an increase it, but it also goes both ways, if i feel like the situation is unfair, i might make it a 24 hour rule.

The point is the universal rule should be 48 hours. And under certain circumstances two alliances can work something out privately

 

[DeletedUser49210]

I cant believe this is still being discussed. Sounds to me that people want a free handout. So what if you have been farming them, or had a CS inbound, or have some sort of "master strategy" to justify your means... when it comes down to it you're being lazy! If they joined another alliance and that alliance protects them then quit crying and build up your army and take the city from them anyways. Anyone who follows this refugee rule is a sucker, plan and simple. All is fair in love and war... So if someone agrees to not protecting member for 48hrs (whatever the circumstances) then good job on conning them

ro:

 

[DeletedUser]

erm and i thought i was mental..what if you are ranked 30th and your target joins the no.1 (non mra) alliance..yeah we just declare war cos we are that good. No mate. You either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the discussion is or you are so dense that light bends around you.

 

[DeletedUser49210]

...and what IF the earth was gay and the moon was selling cupcakes? "IF" is meaningless and only holds you back from accomplishing something. You can CQ any turtle, any player and any city... just need to build and prepare for it.

 

[DeletedUser30636]

...and what IF the earth was gay and the moon was selling cupcakes? "IF" is meaningless and only holds you back from accomplishing something. You can CQ any turtle, any player and any city... just need to build and prepare for it.

thats not the point, he was giving an example. are you really prepared to start a war over what may be a few cities? especially a war that your not ready for?

 

[DeletedUser49210]

yeah, i would. But first i prepare for the war and then attack. Because if we are using that as a scenario, then im sure that #1 alliance is planning on attacking us soon anyways. Might as well strike first before they are ready to come at us.

The only way a refugee is justifiable would be if that player ran to a pact alliance. Then it would makes a little different

 

[DeletedUser30636]

yeah, i would. But first i prepare for the war and then attack. Because if we are using that as a scenario, then im sure that #1 alliance is planning on attacking us soon anyways. Might as well strike first before they are ready to come at us.

The only way a refugee is justifiable would be if that player ran to a pact alliance. Then it would makes a little different

the refugee policy doesnt need justification. Its fair, and it gives both the player attacking, a fair chance to finish his conquest. and it gives the refugee a chance to show everyone hes not running. If he can defend himself, why would he run to an alliance?

 

[DeletedUser49210]

I dont know, I never in or allowed myself to be put into that "refugee" situation before.

~have to find a refugee and ask them why they ran

 

[DeletedUser]

The only refugee policy there has ever been is the one you can enforce with a CS. That was true in Alpha and it's true now - in fact arguments over refugees were probably the single biggest cause of wars in Alpha. If you're not willing to fight the receiving alliance over a refugee then you get whatever scraps they're willing to throw you.