pupairo12 wrote:Really Gozar? Come on, grow up. You don't have to take everything personally.

As to the matter at hand, (even though it's not my place to say) I actually don't like the idea DR. In my honest opinion, it all boils down to three things: dishonesty, greed, and anger. That's how this drama was caused.

The following spoiler is only an example and isn't necessary to be read.

Spoiler:

Whether or not Gozar actually wanted to put GWD on top of the hit list to keep his name around, or that RJ was drifting away, he still got their fleets, i.e profit, i.e. greed.

The phrase coined by top fleeters, "You have what I want...", is basically what I mean. Build a fleet that your leader wants, and they'll take it from you, well some of them. MOST players have the camaraderie that comes with an alliance, and this doesn't happen.

In the end, we're all in a civil war. Playerbase vs. playerbase, right vs. wrong. Everyone has their own point of view, and we need to respect that.

I am surprised at this heading seeing as I have been informed you are still at school..? In reality by the rules of the game you were not legally old enough to play this game when it first started nearly 3 yrs ago. ( not saying now) Where I have Grandchildren nearly your age..lol secondly seeing how this post is aimed at me how else can it not be personal..

Hopefully after reading this the whole matter will die. First off this post was created to prevent any future "drama" following an action that as yet has not been fully understood.
I will attempt to show the why and wherefores, the relevance to the original post is thus explained.

Looking through all the suggestions and good intentions stated.. I will try to explain that none of them will work or would have prevented the attacking on RJ.

All have stated the comradery that is in an alliance, the bonding of players who after time build up trust and friendships.. This I totally agree with and what makes an alliance great. For over 12 months this was IB with some players coming and going.. What has not been understood is RJ changed his allegiance to his friends and alliance.. I would state at anytime during the previous 12 months I would and still would give my entire fleet in protection of any ally including RJ before his change of kinship... RJ's change was the potential threat to IB and my true friends I took action to protect IB and my friends.. If this rule was in force at the time and punishment is to be band as a player..I would have still done it exactly the same way.. or not even kicked him 1st. Knowing then my alliance and my true friends would be safe.. in effect any rule implemented would be pointless.

Seeing PK request to put all ex members into VM. I have already mentioned before.. If this was implemented there would be no more fleet crashes ever again.. Because any player could then rely on his alliance to kick him if he failed to log in when his fleet was down.. Thus protecting his fleet.. This would change the game completely. As is and always has been the responsibility of the player to be on line when their fleet is down.
If this option is implemented you may as well add the option that when you launch an attack a player receives a 24hr notification of the event..


In conclusion I did what I did to protect my true friends and alliance.. no rule would prevent me doing so again.. having said that I do not believe it would ever happen again.. Why else do you think Torgard Dene Loko Kuddlez and Thorr are still in ~A~ all knew what was happening in house and stayed. Exclude the new boys they where not in alliance at the time.

you did not explain GWD

Geezuz, I'm gone for a few days and the topic heated up. Skimmed through the thread, lot of good points and ideas

Yes, but I wasn't around three years ago, Gozar. I apologize for aiming my post at you, but it was the only example I could think of. Also, I don't think you quite understand the concept. This would only extend to alliances, not to every player out there (I think.) Fleets could still be crashed, just not by current or recent allies.

Matter of fact, I actually agree with the opposing party, it DOES severely limit freedom. The drama was caused by people picking sides, not the actual event. We, the community, blew it up. It could've been a simple cloak and dagger operation, but it wasn't, in the end.

To conclude, I didn't mean any flaming, I just wish people would look at the bigger picture sometimes.

well i tried to shift through all this crap and...well i just couldnt...what i saw was the same arguments both ways for the first couple of pages...


so in my opinion i would be fine with the 24 hour limit...now trust in an alliance is key...but is trust earned not given? as a leader of an alliance i would just say that even i dont trust all my members...for the simple reason i dont know all of them that well...this whole issue could be simply solved by turning off the option to see when someones been online...in this way you can set it so just you and your officers see the online time...that way you can build up the trust between allies without much worry of betrayal...anyways i feel like ive been rambling and not making much sense so...i hope that made sense at least

I am pleased with the last 2 replies both you 2 guys show maturity for your age.. With regards to SPY's last post..Simply If GWD replies on the forum that he was not multi accounting with the "Res" account I will give a full explanation. Alliance agreements are no concern of anyone else.

Once again what rules and regulations are in any alliance is alliance business.. I personally (at the time) did not agree with PK's attack on his member. However they have an internal policy set, none of us therefore have any say in this (regardless if we agree or not).

Looking at the possibility of scripting this protocol, it would be far to difficult to set a no attack script from alliance members from all other players, I have also tried to explain that all the attacker would need to do is also drop the alliance tag to be eligible to attack the ex member.. The option therefore would only be an enforced VM, again this would just be used to protect all off line members with fleet down.. ending the game structure it was originally designed for.

What needs to be realised is that any player who joins and commits to an alliance should do exactly that (this excludes spies, they just get whats coming to them). If you feel that after a period of time that you no longer wish to be in that alliance then just leave. Do not stab your m8's in the back do not betray them, if you do so then you should expect and accept any repercussions. It is unfortunate that like life this game has its share of lairs and cheats. "If you live by the sword then you die by the sword" (this also includes me)

I do not bully players I do not crush every fleet in the game, I play the game as it was intended, I attack for profit for my own development from players who for what ever reason leave their fleet down or make themselves profitable.. I hear every day why don't I pick on players my own size..simple there are no player my size.. I have as much right to develop as all players.. Should I be penalized for being good at this game. OK most of the big fleets are in this game because they are either in the top alliance and by proxy have protection, or are my friends and contrary to belief I don't attack my friends. Some players have good abilities and have rightfully evaded attacks. (kudos to these players) everyone has this potential by simply learning how. This "drama" has come about mostly due to politics and personalities. It's a game, play the game follow the rules set and have fun, then none of the events from the past will be repeated.

The above was a pretty clear cut explanation. All you needed to do was give a straight forwards explanation rather say you dont care then keep coming round and round.

I am happy that finally this has been settled. I accept what you said up there. If you see it as you see it and the alliance backs it up by the manifesto then its all good. I agree on the alliance loyalty issue that u mentioned. You chose to find good loyal players and give them chance to grow and show their worth within your alliance.

Now let me voice my concern here on the thread topic. It is easy for you to say that you like the freedom and flexibility of the game, and that this rule will constrict player freedom or possible scope for taking advantage. That is because you are not being challenged by a fellow alliance member or any kind. We have always been voicing our concern for the players from smaller pool of points and players who can lose alot just by trusting a player. There are many alliance leaders who are not the biggest fleeter in those alliances. and the inclusion of one bad apple fleeter can raise nightmare to the rest of the alliance in just 1 night. They are simply are not safe. Here is why we want this to be implemented. Again your example was drawn as simply a pilot case of the problem. It does not matter if your intentions were noble or not. It matters is that it can be done.

I will say the vmode idea is just wont work as you said its a major loop hole to be abused massively. The attack restrictions can be easily used as pk mentioned with the temporary alliance tag that will not let them join any camp not before 24 hours period. its a simple script IMO. all it takes a secondary player ID<>alliance tag cross check.

It is not really as difficult as you think it is. unless the dev team raises any farther concerns.

SPY wrote: The attack restrictions can be easily used as pk mentioned with the temporary alliance tag that will not let them join any camp not before 24 hours period. its a simple script IMO. all it takes a secondary player ID<>alliance tag cross check.

It is not really as difficult as you think it is. unless the dev team raises any farther concerns.

To cover this base in a bit more detail, there is the issue of players joining a threatening alliance then dropping so that they cannot be attacked by that alliance for a day. Rather than the temporary tag, perhaps the devs could place a minimum 24 hour requirement before the block can take effect.

And as to the source of the drama, yes I do agree that it was mostly caused by players taking sides and so on. The reason behind the original idea I posted in this thread is I was looking back at the issues that arose from the drama. and a lot of people, if i recall right, mentioned the lack of fair chance as a big reason for speaking against Gozar. I figured maybe putting in preventive measures so a repeat is avoided would save the administration and moderators having to deal with masive complaints and accusations being flung left and right.

Desert_Reaper wrote:...there is the issue of players joining a threatening alliance then dropping so that they cannot be attacked by that alliance for a day. Rather than the temporary tag, perhaps the devs could place a minimum 24 hour requirement before the block can take effect.

This would still leave a player open to the reverse exploit however...an alliance could accept a target so his online status can be seen and then kick him within 24hrs so they can attack him. Which is possible now of course, but the whole point of this thread is trying to prevent such things.

when u have 24 hours at your hand.... after getting kicked or someone leaving alliance you actually have time to prepare... there is no surprise attacks. we just want who ever wants to go after someone with a situation like this have a fair chance from both sides.