Discussion in 'World Olous (en96)' started by charlie39clues, Jan 5, 2017.
It shall be fun and interesting. See you on the battlefield.
You guys act like this is a war game or something. Can't we all just get along?
But you guys made the first play, you pulled the trigger, so what comes after is on you. Win or lose, this will be fun, you guys are great players and most of you are a lot of fun to play with or against.
Will I make it to the end of this world?
You must feel more comfortable with Tod gone huh... Unpleasant Cowards
Some Wars of all alliances (Of old and of new, I'm on the rim so if I get something wrong don't get your knickers in a knot)
Got bored so did this little list
Open Source v Jesters
Open Source v Bunnies
Open Source v Phoenix Rising
Simmerville v Open Source
War Stories v Alliance X
War Stories v Legio XIII Gemina
Bunnies v Stay Cool
OV v The Last Order
OV v "Alliance went AWOL lol"
Winners v Stay Cool
Euphoria v Goats of War
8? That seems a bit much. Doubt we lost 4 to the 3 alliances combined, and if you combine them, you'll likely get more than 27 conquests vs them
OSG4LIFE v Simmerville
OSGVanguard v Simmerville
Open Source Government v Simmerville
Therefore Open Source v Simmerville
I stand corrected, dunno what was going through my head at the time!
Check your stats, Orphaeon. It is 4 lost to the 3 OSG alliances. Kannerak's score might not be right, but your claim isn't either.
Edit: I see that Kannerak posted at the same time as me.
2nd Edit: I wonder how your pacts are faring, on the other hand? The Legion of Jesters / Black Sails / Family of Jesters group aren't doing very well. (I wouldn't bother denying the pacts, if you were intending to do so, as your alliance members are attacking a siege on a member of Family of Jesters, and have also helped in sieges against members of Legion of Jesters).
Umm, which part is not right? from 27-8 it turned to 51-4, so like I said, combine the three and you get less cities lost, more cities conquered. Am I missing something?
L.E. Oh, lol, you're referring to the fact that I said "I doubt we lost 4" and we actually lost 4... facepalm...
Yep. If you aren't counting it right, I am going to pick it up. I'd pick up on another thing, but we can't discuss that here, due to this item on the list of forum rules.
"Threads which suggest, or allege, any cheating/botting/multi-accounting/etc... are prohibited on the Forums."
Seriously? The fact that we broke OSG sieges makes you think we're pacted with them? That would be a negatory, no pacts between us and any of the mentioned there. However, if we do get tipped about poorly defended OSG sieges, there's no way we'll pass on that.
As for the other thing, feel free to mention it anywhere, I'm confident none of us need cheating to have the upper hand vs OSG, think that's been made pretty clear by now. 51-4, damn, that's embarrassing.
The fact that you keep attacking OSG sieges on their players would imply a pact in the eyes of anyone, especially as those cities aren't near your core.
I won't mention it on the forums directly, but as a leader, you would have seen what I am referring to. No way you can't know, unless you weren't paying attention for 5 days in a row. If you (or anyone else) would like to know what I am referring to, you can message me in-game.
Cheers man, I have enough s**t to deal with without you regurgitating bulls**t in my ears. Anyways, good fight! (not really)
Given that your player admitted the rule-breaking incident, and was disciplined for it (as your alliance members know), I don't think it counts as any sort of fib. Maybe you shouldn't call something a lie when your own player admits it, Orphaeon.
Anna,.....u continue to hurt me
Im curious this cheat that you keep mentioning which was sorted with the grepo mods ect so obviously was not that serious lets face it. He had a what 5 day attack able ban as i recall it? and you guys managed to take.... 1. 1 city from a guy who could not log on to defend himself
And we don't have pacts we used to be pacted with we got your friend but now they have joined us. If someone does say hey there is an OSG segie over here could you help us break it then we will. I mean when else are we going to use our flyers its not you attack us regularly enough for them to be of much use
It's still the point that you keep a known multi-accounter in your alliance. And it was a non-attackable ban, so it was impossible to take a city off of him in that time. That was pretty annoying. Free 5 days of VM as a 'punishment' for cheating. Breaking the rules is always serious, and you are happy to keep a known cheat in your alliance. And while we did get a city off of him, it was not during his ban.
So you have a bunch of 'friends' that you are happy to go break sieges for, but they aren't pacts? You may as well pact if you are going to be helping each other break sieges, especially when some of those sieges aren't even in your territory. You had to go out of your way to get them. You're getting friendly with basically anyone in the North who will fight us.
You got way too much free time, considering you insist expanding on very thin arguments that basically nobody gives a crap about, only God knows why.
1) Yes, one of our players stepped out of bounds, and yes he was punished for it - can we move on from it? I was also banned like 4 years ago for the same stupid mistake, only ban I ever had, only ban I will have ever had. Everyone can have a brainfart moment, they pay for it, and move on with their lives, he paid, he's moved on. Only you seem to be clinging to it for whatever reason.
2) Yes, we break sieges for fun, we've been doing that ever since it was only me and Ian in Simmerville vs. a red ocean. BP is BP wherever we can get it from, and we've always been aggressive towards every alliance around (the only exception being WGUF, as Ian mentioned, who we groomed to later join us - which they have). We do make a point out of breaking OSG sieges as you've overstretched like crazy and have employed a bunch of literally useless players, as the past 50+ sieges have proven. In an area where you have the point monopoly, of course we'll focus on kicking your a** before anyone else's, it only makes sense and it's much easier than any of us have anticipated.
3) No, they are not pacts, we keep the freedom to attack anyone at any point in time, which we pretty much do.
Now can you stop being butt-hurt because you lost more than 10 times more cities than you gained vs. us and just move on? We'll work on that ratio and it'll hurt more, so better get used to dealing with pain and public shame for being part of an MRA that has a maximum of 20% useful players.
1) I notice that you avoided the point that Ianmiyster got it completely wrong (or lied) about the nature of the ban. Nice dodge on that.
2) Not crazily aggressive towards every alliance around. For example, some of your players actively avoiding hitting members of Timber Wolves for a while, even when perfectly positioned to do so. (I've seen the evidence of one of your players saying as much). And what about Killer Bunnies...
3) Maybe you didn't pact with them, but you're certainly not keeping them as enemies, and you have at least one big pact, according to the other group.
It's more just pointing out that you can brag all you like, but you're fighting one enemy basically, while we are fighting a lot more and doing pretty well against most of them. (You guys and Tripartite are our only weaker points, in my opinion). You lot are good, but maybe you shouldn't try and mock alliances when you aren't such knights in shining armour yourselves. (A lot of alliances would kick a player if they were legitimately banned, from what I've seen).
If you're that prejudiced against any alliance with more than 1 branch, I'd be interested to see a Top 12 from you, to see how you think this is going to play out. Always nice to have a new opinion.