Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [75239] Strange
[1378057]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 19, 2012, 10:11 p.m.
[1378061]
Dun Gon (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 19, 2012, 10:35 p.m.
U know what I find ironic, the maker of this thread is the general of the TDR union. It has 3 alliances. And I know that the second best alliance in international 2 do fight other alliances.
[1378070]
Duralatus2 [None]
:: Aug. 19, 2012, 11:39 p.m.
For most of those large alliances that are allied and pacted, the option to attack each other isn't even there.
Boring for them, so they look for an excuse to attack weaker non-pacted alliances.
Boring for them, so they look for an excuse to attack weaker non-pacted alliances.
[1378071]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 19, 2012, 11:46 p.m.
The way you put it, it sounds like we are bullies. Like I said, we are NOT bullies. We just try to gain honor and glory.
It is nothing personal. The whole object of a WAR game is to attack, defend, win (or lose), have a great castle, et cetera.
Do you understand this?
By the way even if we were bullies, ever heard of "survival of the fittest"?
It is nothing personal. The whole object of a WAR game is to attack, defend, win (or lose), have a great castle, et cetera.
Do you understand this?
By the way even if we were bullies, ever heard of "survival of the fittest"?
[1378073]
Duralatus2 [None]
:: Aug. 19, 2012, 11:51 p.m.
I only speak the truth, deal with it.
I didn't imply any of the things you're raging about. Read the post again, I'm responding to the original poster and lending support to some of his arguament.
I too move for some game restructuring.
I didn't imply any of the things you're raging about. Read the post again, I'm responding to the original poster and lending support to some of his arguament.
I too move for some game restructuring.
[1378074]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 20, 2012, 12:05 a.m.
Well, the strongest must work together. We do not look for excuses to attack. We just... do. We know we would win if we attack the slightly weaker players.
By the way, there is no need for that tone "...deal with it.."
I ask for respect like a real human.
By the way, there is no need for that tone "...deal with it.."
I ask for respect like a real human.
[1378077]
Duralatus2 [None]
:: Aug. 20, 2012, 12:40 a.m.
There is no need for that tone: 'Do you understand this' etc.
And, I stand by what I said, those things can and do happen. I could recount here my own experiences, but I think most of us here have had that 'badazz alliance on your case' experience.
And, I stand by what I said, those things can and do happen. I could recount here my own experiences, but I think most of us here have had that 'badazz alliance on your case' experience.
[1378079]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 20, 2012, 1:01 a.m.
I did not mean the "do you understand this" that way. I was just asking if you understood what I meant.
[1378080]
Duralatus2 [None]
:: Aug. 20, 2012, 1:23 a.m.
Avalon, would you be opposed to some game restructuring? That is what I see this thread being about.
Since they are touting it as beta, there could be room for some changes.
Putting aside the whole pacted guild/alliance domination thing for the moment. I'm thinking along the lines of encouraging fairer combat over assets, especially where similar players are vying for assets local to them. Much of the game is essencially a struggle for assets, and it is often the case that a player will bring the entire weight of his alliance to bear against a solo opponent in order to win that asset. No matter how dishonourable or unfair that may seem, it is often done.
Perhaps a limit to the number of opposing alliance players that can attack a player below, say, level 20 or something like that.
Since they are touting it as beta, there could be room for some changes.
Putting aside the whole pacted guild/alliance domination thing for the moment. I'm thinking along the lines of encouraging fairer combat over assets, especially where similar players are vying for assets local to them. Much of the game is essencially a struggle for assets, and it is often the case that a player will bring the entire weight of his alliance to bear against a solo opponent in order to win that asset. No matter how dishonourable or unfair that may seem, it is often done.
Perhaps a limit to the number of opposing alliance players that can attack a player below, say, level 20 or something like that.
[1378516]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 20, 2012, 10:24 p.m.
Duralatus2 wrote: »Avalon, would you be opposed to some game restructuring? That is what I see this thread being about.
Since they are touting it as beta, there could be room for some changes.
Putting aside the whole pacted guild/alliance domination thing for the moment. I'm thinking along the lines of encouraging fairer combat over assets, especially where similar players are vying for assets local to them. Much of the game is essencially a struggle for assets, and it is often the case that a player will bring the entire weight of his alliance to bear against a solo opponent in order to win that asset. No matter how dishonourable or unfair that may seem, it is often done.
Perhaps a limit to the number of opposing alliance players that can attack a player below, say, level 20 or something like that.
Well I must admit it can get a little bad with some chain alliances. No matter what it is there is always room for improvement. So yes I do agree there can be some changes to be made.
(As long as bugs are taken care of immediately if there are any bugs involved).
[1378846]
Dun Gon (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 21, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
I think that the bigger alliances r probably afraid of the other big alliances.
[1378861]
Luke Fierysword [None]
:: Aug. 21, 2012, 5:45 p.m.
I think that the bigger alliances r probably afraid of the other big alliances.
No they are all united
[1378876]
Dun Gon (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 21, 2012, 6:24 p.m.
Luke Fierysword wrote: »No they are all united
Yeah, I know. But what happens if they r not united, and one alliance declares war on another?
[1379000]
FriedrichEngels (DE1) [None]
:: Aug. 22, 2012, 12:41 a.m.
Yeah, I know. But what happens if they r not united, and one alliance declares war on another?
Didn't that just recently happen? From what I heard Team BSK and Death Riders were at war. They have different allies according to their descriptions...
[1379172]
Empire_Lord [None]
:: Aug. 22, 2012, 12:32 p.m.
Yeah, I know. But what happens if they r not united, and one alliance declares war on another?
War is part of game...
[1379338]
Dun Gon (INT2) [None]
:: Aug. 22, 2012, 6:32 p.m.
Starting Line wrote: »Didn't that just recently happen? From what I heard Team BSK and Death Riders were at war. They have different allies according to their descriptions...
Yeah, I heard that too, the want to know whoes top dog.
quote: War is part of the game...
I know that too, but alot of these members in this alliance join for protection, what happens if bad boys declares war on steel or sparta, or if they get overthrown ( royalty) these large alliances r probably scared of that, thats why they r united, to protect themselves, and to show if another large alliance comes in or a bunch of small alliances unite against them, the top alliances will want to join to dispose of there enemies, in a way, they r scared.
[1379367]
Belga2 [None]
:: Aug. 22, 2012, 7:17 p.m.
I keep on having troops disappearing and reappearing hours later on....what's up with that?
[1379397]
King Avalon 2 [None]
:: Aug. 22, 2012, 8:38 p.m.
I keep on having troops disappearing and reappearing hours later on....what's up with that?
Make a thread asking that, this is not the place for that topic. Please stay on topic. Thanks u
Best regards to u