I totally disagree with this. There are two things that are faults in here from the neutral stand point, one is that this drama wasn't caused by the attack necessarily, it was caused by people choosing sides jumping in and trying to fight. Now it seems as if Anti ~A~ (you guys know who you are) has lost some legs to stand on and now they are calling it draw (Note im not on either side for I'm not a fan of RAWK nor ~A~) Now the other reason I don't like this suggestion is due to the fact its a war game. Betrayal is a nice portion of it. Now if you feel as if you cant trust your friends leave and if they give you a swift kick when your not looking, once again a nice hefty portion of the game. Oh yea and one last thing, mind your business wont be a problem.

Warning no flaming/trolling. LS

I think this is a good idea. But really I believe that there should be some what sportsman ship in an Alliance. Like if the people I know well. I would give them a go a head if you see my fleet sitting and I havent been online in a few hours then take my fleet and give me the DF. I remember talking to people back in the day with this idea. Most people that I know well Know how to get a hold of me off game so this has never came up.

But still if someone is in your alliance. You should have trust in them. Like friends like family. Thats why I like small alliances you get to know who your playing with. Why would you attack them just to attack them. Now if they ask you to then its alright or if they say hey there is a chance I will not be online...if that happens take out my fleet for me so no one else will get it. So with that being said. This more than likely will not happen you guys But Josh its a great idea. I believe even if this wasnt a rule .... That Leaders of alliances should post on their Alliance page that this is a RULE for their members . IT shows respect.

I can deal with the rule and all but making it a game rule will just make this game less freedom. Freedom in making their own choices rather than have to follow a rule

But you have to think would you want to be the person with the fleet you worked hard on then your leader of the alliance your in kick you and attack you or leave and attack you..knowing ur fleet is there and ur offline????

RejectRagDoll wrote:But you have to think would you want to be the person with the fleet you worked hard on then your leader of the alliance your in kick you and attack you or leave and attack you..knowing ur fleet is there and ur offline????

And that is where choosing your alliances carefully comes in. Do you see how many squirmed to get into ~A~ when they let em??? Its sad. Yet you cant give them no pity because its like the commercial "Show me the car fax" and they have been given the car fax but they still join.

SilverTB wrote:I can deal with the rule and all but making it a game rule will just make this game less freedom. Freedom in making their own choices rather than have to follow a rule

The entire concept of creating an alliance and playing in one has a complete freedom from players. when u are in an alliance you choose not to hit ur fellow mates. The game do not enforce you. It is the trust that guides you.

You may ask where does this trust come from?

Simple when you agree in a common term (the reason why alliances exist). People believing in a common way of playing. Now the moment that do not exist a player might quit alliance/the alliance might kick the player.

Just so you know why do they have 24 hour restriction on bashing rule taking off? I do not see you complaining about that SD. The principal stays same on this one as well. If you are in an alliance and then decide to leave or the leader kicks you out... you are no longer an ally. If on an war engagement you getto give 24 hours head start or time to prepare or the period so that the players are informed then i see no reason why this rule cannot be implemented. In war thread the only reason that 24 hour bashing rule restriction is left intact is to prevent any unfair taking advantage and to put both side in the same ground and give them a fair chance..... that my friend is enforcement from the game so players get fair chance.

If you are objecting this rule please raise your voice to object on war bashing rule as well. And if you do not then i suggest you find a different suggestion or a different angel to oppose this idea.

Thanks SD and get ur donkey *** in game... whats this talk about you quitting?

I might not agree with this and i might depending on what the finalized rule would be, after all this is a MUD based strategy game based on profit from the attacker or ninja'ing defender. i will agree to it when it comes along and its something i think would work but just like a business the ceo can fire his VP's and take everything the have worked for, so the question is if you want more protection for people exiting alliances you should make the rule more in the lines of a agreement between the parties involved say maybe the leader who does kick the player has to tell the player who is kicked and maybe make it two days im not to sure about the rule yet id have to hear further about what it intaled.

HELL NO!
If he was kicked or left willing, there was a reason behind it! To make this a game rule would only cause more drama! In the end I can promise that if this is made into a rule I would hold no player to this. My alliance will not follow this crap even if it is made into an actual game rule. Yes I understand how you could be trying to help all players but this would take more freedom away from the game. I enjoy this game because it is mostly free, stop and think about it. Would every player out there want to be fair and equal or do you want to get ahead of the other players, and actually kick some ***!! Life is not fair folks, why does it seem the someone wants to make everything else fair!
Five days, twenty four hours, five minutes, giving a player a window to prepare for an attack that is bond to come is pointless. Why don't you just give all the players in the game a five day warning about an attacks and missile launches while your at it?
I'm not trying to be mean but I will not trade my freedom for protection.

i am still arguing on that war agreement that everyone is fairly supporting in the game rules. This rule and the bashing rule removal rule has principally same impact. The bashing rule exists for fair play so why this cannot be?

How can u ensure fairplay without this rule? The point is not because if a player was kicked or he or she has left the alliance. the objective of this rule suggestion is that to take out anyone the chance of taking advantage of the alliance features.

If it is a regular quit or kick it wont be an issue ... but what if someone is actually taking advantage of this? going in a target alliance then when all of the alliance mates are sleeping stab them hard. just to make it valid kick them out while they are offline and take their fleet.

i see anything goes in a war game is your point but then why there are rules about war in game? and btw this is actually a game not an actually war. mind it games do have rules and sportsmanship.

Opposed to the Rule. When has fair ever come into a war game? If we go and make rules to make the game fair then you have to up the protection for players big time. One player who has been playing for 12 months attacking another who has only been playing for 30 days is hardly fair but happens all the time, I don’t see any complaints about that and when you think about it that’s a lot more unfair. Choosing your allies carefully should be part and parcel with the game period.

Oh and so its clear I personally don’t agree with stabbing your so called allies in the back but hey it’s a war game.