Re: HC v TMP
#11bla bla bla,, pointless to do def bashes. real unmature but play it as u like karl i (we) DONT MIND
Re: HC v TMP
#12I don't generally go for defence bashing....I don't have or feel the need to be in top attack rankings like u every week by smashing noob defences up....not just you tbf...a few in your alliances (LSD and TMP) do this....btw did u mean immature as opposed to unmature? Also, if u lot don't mind anyway then what is the problem??? Contradiction much??? 
Re: HC v TMP
#14Seems your leader doesn't want to have fun....just wants an easy server to raid daily without fear of anyone getting attacked.......good to hear you are up for it though....we will see what we can do to accomodate youNautilus<>Zero wrote:I have no idea what's going on but yah!!
Lets have some fun!!!
Re: HC v TMP
#15Perhaps I'm missing something in the previous posts on this subject. Who is the leader of the alliance the war is being waged against? It is for them to officially announce their surrender.
Now, if that has been done and I have indeed missed that, apologies. But nothing seems overly clear from that alliance.
Now, if the alliance waging that war now continues to hit those targets, no more than 5 times for each world in a 24 hour period, individual to individual, no infraction of the rules has taken place. War or no war.
A war only serves to take that rule out of the equation. Whether you see that as bashing or not, it's not against the rules.
Perhaps another way to make the server more exciting can be found but, a war does make competition more intensive.
I would ask though, why surrender so quickly? Have you no faith in your abilities. Perhaps seize the moment, take the fight to your aggressor? It could be interesting, fun, it does spice things up a bit as the original poster has stated.
Now, if that has been done and I have indeed missed that, apologies. But nothing seems overly clear from that alliance.
Now, if the alliance waging that war now continues to hit those targets, no more than 5 times for each world in a 24 hour period, individual to individual, no infraction of the rules has taken place. War or no war.
A war only serves to take that rule out of the equation. Whether you see that as bashing or not, it's not against the rules.
Perhaps another way to make the server more exciting can be found but, a war does make competition more intensive.
I would ask though, why surrender so quickly? Have you no faith in your abilities. Perhaps seize the moment, take the fight to your aggressor? It could be interesting, fun, it does spice things up a bit as the original poster has stated.
Re: HC v TMP
#16Basically one alliance has a total of 2 mill fleet max, other has around 15-16 mill.
The small alliance have nothing to gain from a war with the bigger alliance
The small alliance have nothing to gain from a war with the bigger alliance
Re: HC v TMP
#17The small alliance has everything to gain. Redress the balance, try to even that discrepancy in fleetsize a little.
But to surrender at the first hint of a war, pointless. They can still be attacked that 5 times in a 24 hour period.
Also, it would be nice to know who is the leader of that small alliance.
But to surrender at the first hint of a war, pointless. They can still be attacked that 5 times in a 24 hour period.
Also, it would be nice to know who is the leader of that small alliance.
Re: HC v TMP
#18We only have 3 active players ....not sure how many you have as lots ran into vmode as soon as they got hit....you even vmoded after hitting one of my players lol...you said in a previous post to have some fun so why run? .....Btw, the leader of TMP is Noob ...aka Whoisit from LSD in X......hence the surrender againNautilus<>Zero wrote:Basically one alliance has a total of 2 mill fleet max, other has around 15-16 mill.
The small alliance have nothing to gain from a war with the bigger alliance
Re: HC v TMP
#19AS Whoisit has stated, as leader, a capitulation. The war, the removal of the bashing rule etc, has all now ceased.
As for Zartz, it is not his place to issue a surrender, any statement of such by him is irrelevant. In future, if no word is heard from the leader there, then any war would, should continue.
However, as I have stated, this war is now finished via the words from Whoisit.
The continuation of "Bashing", "brake rules". Breaking the rules, there would be no breaking of rules as long as the attacking Individual hits no world more than 5 times in a 24 hour period. Whether the player being attacked sees this as defence bashing then quite frankly that is tough. But it is not bashing. Evidence would have to be supplied to the admins supporting any rule infraction. Hopefully this will not happen, I am sure it won't. Sprog seems to understand these rules, I hope any defending player would realise this to.
Perhaps some points could be put forward to the admins, the declaration of war, the 24 hour period between the announcement and the beginning of hostilities is fine. The ultimate capitulation and surrender within a minute of any war starting is quite frankly ridiculous. Perhaps a 24 hour period of war could continue from the time and date of the announcement of the surrender. As with v mode, then after that point, a period of several days could pass before any new war could be declared between the previously warring factions?
Just an idea, I will put this forward in the suggestions.
Having a war declared, a surrender takes place, all within minutes of a start of war, if not even before. That is quite frankly a problem with the rules. Otherwise, what is the point in a declaration of a war?
As for Zartz, it is not his place to issue a surrender, any statement of such by him is irrelevant. In future, if no word is heard from the leader there, then any war would, should continue.
However, as I have stated, this war is now finished via the words from Whoisit.
The continuation of "Bashing", "brake rules". Breaking the rules, there would be no breaking of rules as long as the attacking Individual hits no world more than 5 times in a 24 hour period. Whether the player being attacked sees this as defence bashing then quite frankly that is tough. But it is not bashing. Evidence would have to be supplied to the admins supporting any rule infraction. Hopefully this will not happen, I am sure it won't. Sprog seems to understand these rules, I hope any defending player would realise this to.
Perhaps some points could be put forward to the admins, the declaration of war, the 24 hour period between the announcement and the beginning of hostilities is fine. The ultimate capitulation and surrender within a minute of any war starting is quite frankly ridiculous. Perhaps a 24 hour period of war could continue from the time and date of the announcement of the surrender. As with v mode, then after that point, a period of several days could pass before any new war could be declared between the previously warring factions?
Just an idea, I will put this forward in the suggestions.
Having a war declared, a surrender takes place, all within minutes of a start of war, if not even before. That is quite frankly a problem with the rules. Otherwise, what is the point in a declaration of a war?
Re: HC v TMP
#20We have no need to bash players unless they are being crude and insulting....and that's exactly what they have been today......one reported already and the rest as far as I am concerned will all be targetted....no room in this game for personal insults and crude language....so regardless of their surrender we will continue to target TMP players....least they will have something to moan about for once....game on!