So you're sayng toolraking attacks are acceptable?SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I didn't do the small attacks until after the so called 'ceasefire' fell through, then and only then did I do small attacks.
However I find this all ridiculous that you are getting all upset about it as like you have been saying this is a war game. tool-raking attacks are just part of the game. Man up and get over yourself. You aren't all that great of a player anyway.
Prepare yourself.
Anyone in Invictus, Immortals, or Royal Alliance who has a problem with my toolburning attacks can take it up with Swan.
Capping Mets are part of the game. So are capping RVs.
I dare you to cap a RV from me.
So you say took-raking is part of the game..... that means capping rv's is part of the game too.... so why don;t we cap other people's rv's?......SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I didn't do the small attacks until after the so called 'ceasefire' fell through, then and only then did I do small attacks.
However I find this all ridiculous that you are getting all upset about it as like you have been saying this is a war game. tool-raking attacks are just part of the game. Man up and get over yourself. You aren't all that great of a player anyway.
We don't capture rv's from other players, or tool rake because it is very foul play....
P.s Invictus leader always has a habbit of sticking there noise in other groups business when it does not go there way and when it's not wanted.
Time to get some popcorn and sit back and watch lol
would just like to point out that in the 18 months ive played this game, i have sent less than $30PowerfullyNix (AU1) said:the choice is there to OPEN gates, why not when you guys r sending ridiculous battles full of horrors n ruby tools, have you guys been spending a bit of money, see shame that's another unfair play, most of us in INVITES, play the game as it, no additional purchases hence it is futile to battle.Perryl (AU1) said:Just want to point out that you kind of do that to yourself with opening gates every time.PowerfullyNix (AU1) said:Yeah we are on different alliances, doesn't mean you have to bully me, u have hit me like 8+times, you and bobbingo hit me twice that day, one mass attack, what your problem. Like what i say the other day pleanty of other players to spread your battles to.
Why you lie so much, you said 3 lies the other day, that we had to bring to your attention.
xoxoxo Nix xoxoxo
Are you expecting fire protection, in war, when you open gates too?
What's next? Capping RVs with our eyes?
your making the RV suggestions, we don't do that stealing/thieving RV's is not allowed, most if not ALL alliances know/state that.
xoxoxo Nix xoxoxo
i am not a ruby player, but if your alliance does well in events, you win a load of free tools, plus you can loot rubies if your active and focused.
To all others involved.Perryl (AU1) said:So you're sayng toolraking attacks are acceptable?SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I didn't do the small attacks until after the so called 'ceasefire' fell through, then and only then did I do small attacks.
However I find this all ridiculous that you are getting all upset about it as like you have been saying this is a war game. tool-raking attacks are just part of the game. Man up and get over yourself. You aren't all that great of a player anyway.
Prepare yourself.
Anyone in Invictus, Immortals, or Royal Alliance who has a problem with my toolburning attacks can take it up with Swan.
Capping Mets are part of the game. So are capping RVs.
I dare you to cap a RV from me.
Please dont go capping an RV. Its war deal with it but you escalate to that and then it happens back. @Perryl (AU1) I know what you will do when they do cap RV's off you. Give them some slack they are not used to this. Not their fault they are patatos....
EVERYONE ELSE. As soon as you cap an RV off him you open them up to doing the same. You want to calm it down. Then sit the fk back and work on it at your end. Who cares if you burn for another 2-3 hours while talking between yoruselves. Its pixels and better to find a resolution prior to escalating here.
@Perryl (AU1) So far im 99.9% with you up until that last comment, baiting patatos is like fun and all but calm it down some son
JJ
P.S.
MACEMENS!@#~@!@~
Being sterile will do that to ya.JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:To all others involved.Perryl (AU1) said:So you're sayng toolraking attacks are acceptable?SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I didn't do the small attacks until after the so called 'ceasefire' fell through, then and only then did I do small attacks.
However I find this all ridiculous that you are getting all upset about it as like you have been saying this is a war game. tool-raking attacks are just part of the game. Man up and get over yourself. You aren't all that great of a player anyway.
Prepare yourself.
Anyone in Invictus, Immortals, or Royal Alliance who has a problem with my toolburning attacks can take it up with Swan.
Capping Mets are part of the game. So are capping RVs.
I dare you to cap a RV from me.
Please dont go capping an RV. Its war deal with it but you escalate to that and then it happens back. @Perryl (AU1) I know what you will do when they do cap RV's off you. Give them some slack they are not used to this. Not their fault they are patatos....
EVERYONE ELSE. As soon as you cap an RV off him you open them up to doing the same. You want to calm it down. Then sit the fk back and work on it at your end. Who cares if you burn for another 2-3 hours while talking between yoruselves. Its pixels and better to find a resolution prior to escalating here.
@Perryl (AU1) So far im 99.9% with you up until that last comment, baiting patatos is like fun and all but calm it down some son
JJ
P.S.
MACEMENS!@#~@!@~
What can I say. I'm sick.
Sittign back with pop corn and mork and me finally FINALLY been distracted from the windows..... Goat has sat down and is enjoying this as well BTW..... BLEET BLEET
Got my views but ill be silent here...
JJ.
Sure it is a dirty tactic, but it isn't like your alliance hasn't been using your own dirty tactics. What goes around comes around. feel free to tool rake me. it doesn't bother me I can just produce more.
The reasons for this war to have been declared by alchemists were stupid and this war was not something that should have happened. Get over yourselves. If we want to come to the aid of our fellow pact mates then that is our business. Who says we can't help our allies? Are you our bosses? NO YOU AREN'T so stop trying to dictate who we can and can't support or help out.
Peryl,
I commend you on your forethought and organisational ability. To spend the time
recording, documenting and then promulgating conversations that the other party
probably thought was confidential showed a great deal of initiative. I wish, I,
and others had done the same.
Throughout this thread there is a common theme that you suggest in various
posts....you do not like the player made rules on the Australian server. Lets
look at them first. Bear in mind those rules were not thought up by me, but by
many others that came before, and are followed by almost all players on this
server who recognise their benefit for the future of the game. Australia has a
comparatively small population, hence the server will always be very limited.
We cannot afford for players to leave, it’s a very limited market.
No attacking burning castles. This gives a player a chance to rebuild
the castle and recruit troops again without losing all their resources and
troops. If continuously attacked they will never recover, so why play on? I
would rather have a fair battle, then a week or two later give them the chance
of reply, rather than just drive them into the ground.
Only attack within ten levels higher or lower than yourself. This keeps
battles on a fairly level playing field. It prevents a higher level bullying a
lower level who has no chance of winning. It also prevents a lower level
attacking a higher level who, if following the rules, has no chance of
recourse. All in all, it keeps battles reasonably fair. Of course the Hall of
Legends has put an end to that, the five and six wave attacks show no fairness,
and as always, GGE updates favour and encourage the attacker with the hope of
more ruby sales. Perhaps we do need to consider a player made rule limiting
attacks to within say 100 levels of the hall? No need to answer that, I know your
response.
No mass attacks. A mass attack is when several players attack one
player. Effectively ganging up on them. I think even you can see the unfairness
of that, whether or not you choose to agree (you don't) is another thing. How
can a player fairly recover in a reasonable period of time if all castles are
burnt, all resources looted, and all troops destroyed? Or have a remote chance
of winning battles if continuous attacks are sent on the same castle. Again,
may as well just quit and find another game.
No attacking, or attacking from RV's. This recognises the very limited
amount of RV's available on this server, as you yourself agree to, and that the
player who initially captures it, owns it. It also limits the tactical
advantage that comes from a short notice attack that can occur from an RV. What
also follows is the practice in Storm, where the first person to capture an
island, owns it. If islands were to continuously change hands, they would never
mature, and nobody would gain anything.
No bullying. For this, I will copy an excerpt from our Alliance Rules
and Code of Conduct:
BULLYING: Bullying behaviour will not be tolerated by our own members or
other alliances. Bullying is constant attacks or harassment on a single player,
not allowing time for recovery, constant attacks on weaker players by stronger
members, constant sabotaging without reason, or attacking outside the accepted
rules. In the event of external bullying of our members, their leader is to be
advised and coordinated reprisals conducted within attack rules.
These “player made rules”, and probably some others, but these are the main
ones, lead to a reasonably level playing field that allows players to build, be
the subject of an attack (it’s a war game), but recover and rebuild in a
reasonable amount of time, and thus continue in the game, regardless of ruby
purchases. Alternatively, if players were constantly attacked and harassed, why
stay? Never any chance of getting ahead. You have questioned why we can’t
follow the GGE rules of the game. Because those rules favour the purchase of
rubies for GGE, and there are so many more non ruby players in the game, but
the game is there to be enjoyed by all. If GGE had their way, the whole game
would be anarchy. Throughout your private messages and this thread you have
made several comments along the lines of “You follow your rules, and we’ll follow
ours”. I am interested to know what yours are, as I have yet to see any. Even
in war, we follow our attack rules, unless they are broken against us, which is
what occurred here. I will pose the question you, what are your rules? How far
will you permit your players to go?
I also thank you for your sensible offer to negotiate peace on a public forum. It’s a good idea. There can be no dispute about what is being said, and everything is open and accountable for all to see. As Invictus, Immortals and Royal are not overly aggressive alliances, this is not a war we wanted or asked for. However we will stand by each other, as we gave each other this undertaking when we formed those pacts. We bargain as one unit, and our request is simple. We would prefer peace, but also your undertaking that your alliance will continue to follow the Australian server player made rules. We will not permit any arranged attacks on our members. I understand you bargain from a position of strength and power. You have demonstrated that through your attacks on these alliances. But we bargain from a position of principle, and a fair go for all.
You're not a ranking member so there is no further discussion to be had with you. Your side of the war condones your actions by keeping you on their side. Clearly, you guys only consider (dirty)tactics acceptable when you're the ones using them. We have provided plenty of evidence. We are being transparent. You're lying to the entire server to try and instigate a server war because you can't handle fights that you start.SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I wouldn't steal an RV. Tool-rakes are needed sometimes when at war to draw away the attention so that when you send a big attack it wont be expected.
Sure it is a dirty tactic, but it isn't like your alliance hasn't been using your own dirty tactics. What goes around comes around. feel free to tool rake me. it doesn't bother me I can just produce more.
The reasons for this war to have been declared by alchemists were stupid and this war was not something that should have happened. Get over yourselves. If we want to come to the aid of our fellow pact mates then that is our business. Who says we can't help our allies? Are you our bosses? NO YOU AREN'T so stop trying to dictate who we can and can't support or help out.
There is a reason why these things are frowned on. Yet your alliance only frowns on it if it's done to them. If they do it it's a valid and acceptable tactic. If you want to tell people what they can and cannot do then you shouldn't be surprised when they get upset when you do the things you tell us not to do. We're not your bosses, we are adversaries. You can support and help out whoever you want. We can declare on whoever we want. This is a war game. If we want to declare war on you just because it would be fun, that's acceptable. Get over yourselves. You're the ones trying to dictate peace terms. We're openly trying to negotiate.
Anyways, we've cluttered up this thread enough arguing with irrelevant people. We'll sort it out in-game. We have said all that needs to be said in this thread. Everyone can see what the truth is now. They can see lalana refuses to negotiate peace. They can see you guys only follow your rules when it suits you. We've already won this war in every way.
The ball is in your court. Negotiation is being delayed by your side, not ours. Every hit that comes at you guys now is only coming because you guys refuse to mind your own business. Clearly, that is an unacceptable term.
Like I said before. If you won't accept my terms (or negotiate new ones). Accept my troops.
SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:I wouldn't steal an RV. Tool-rakes are needed sometimes when at war to draw away the attention so that when you send a big attack it wont be expected.
Sure it is a dirty tactic, but it isn't like your alliance hasn't been using your own dirty tactics. What goes around comes around. feel free to tool rake me. it doesn't bother me I can just produce more.
The reasons for this war to have been declared by alchemists were stupid and this war was not something that should have happened. Get over yourselves. If we want to come to the aid of our fellow pact mates then that is our business. Who says we can't help our allies? Are you our bosses? NO YOU AREN'T so stop trying to dictate who we can and can't support or help out.
this makes me giggle more popcorn needed @JJJJJJSK (AU1)
Please don't give us stuff about fair play rules when you don't follow them yourself.BigPete (AU1) said:Peryl,
I commend you on your forethought and organisational ability. To spend the time recording, documenting and then promulgating conversations that the other party probably thought was confidential showed a great deal of initiative. I wish, I, and others had done the same.
Throughout this thread there is a common theme that you suggest in various posts....you do not like the player made rules on the Australian server. Lets look at them first. Bear in mind those rules were not thought up by me, but by many others that came before, and are followed by almost all players on this server who recognise their benefit for the future of the game. Australia has a comparatively small population, hence the server will always be very limited. We cannot afford for players to leave, it’s a very limited market.
No attacking burning castles. This gives a player a chance to rebuild the castle and recruit troops again without losing all their resources and troops. If continuously attacked they will never recover, so why play on? I would rather have a fair battle, then a week or two later give them the chance of reply, rather than just drive them into the ground.
Only attack within ten levels higher or lower than yourself. This keeps battles on a fairly level playing field. It prevents a higher level bullying a lower level who has no chance of winning. It also prevents a lower level attacking a higher level who, if following the rules, has no chance of recourse. All in all, it keeps battles reasonably fair. Of course the Hall of Legends has put an end to that, the five and six wave attacks show no fairness, and as always, GGE updates favour and encourage the attacker with the hope of more ruby sales. Perhaps we do need to consider a player made rule limiting attacks to within say 100 levels of the hall? No need to answer that, I know your response.
No mass attacks. A mass attack is when several players attack one player. Effectively ganging up on them. I think even you can see the unfairness of that, whether or not you choose to agree (you don't) is another thing. How can a player fairly recover in a reasonable period of time if all castles are burnt, all resources looted, and all troops destroyed? Or have a remote chance of winning battles if continuous attacks are sent on the same castle. Again, may as well just quit and find another game.
No attacking, or attacking from RV's. This recognises the very limited amount of RV's available on this server, as you yourself agree to, and that the player who initially captures it, owns it. It also limits the tactical advantage that comes from a short notice attack that can occur from an RV. What also follows is the practice in Storm, where the first person to capture an island, owns it. If islands were to continuously change hands, they would never mature, and nobody would gain anything.
No bullying. For this, I will copy an excerpt from our Alliance Rules and Code of Conduct:
BULLYING: Bullying behaviour will not be tolerated by our own members or other alliances. Bullying is constant attacks or harassment on a single player, not allowing time for recovery, constant attacks on weaker players by stronger members, constant sabotaging without reason, or attacking outside the accepted rules. In the event of external bullying of our members, their leader is to be advised and coordinated reprisals conducted within attack rules.
These “player made rules”, and probably some others, but these are the main ones, lead to a reasonably level playing field that allows players to build, be the subject of an attack (it’s a war game), but recover and rebuild in a reasonable amount of time, and thus continue in the game, regardless of ruby purchases. Alternatively, if players were constantly attacked and harassed, why stay? Never any chance of getting ahead. You have questioned why we can’t follow the GGE rules of the game. Because those rules favour the purchase of rubies for GGE, and there are so many more non ruby players in the game, but the game is there to be enjoyed by all. If GGE had their way, the whole game would be anarchy. Throughout your private messages and this thread you have made several comments along the lines of “You follow your rules, and we’ll follow ours”. I am interested to know what yours are, as I have yet to see any. Even in war, we follow our attack rules, unless they are broken against us, which is what occurred here. I will pose the question you, what are your rules? How far will you permit your players to go?I also thank you for your sensible offer to negotiate peace on a public forum. It’s a good idea. There can be no dispute about what is being said, and everything is open and accountable for all to see. As Invictus, Immortals and Royal are not overly aggressive alliances, this is not a war we wanted or asked for. However we will stand by each other, as we gave each other this undertaking when we formed those pacts. We bargain as one unit, and our request is simple. We would prefer peace, but also your undertaking that your alliance will continue to follow the Australian server player made rules. We will not permit any arranged attacks on our members. I understand you bargain from a position of strength and power. You have demonstrated that through your attacks on these alliances. But we bargain from a position of principle, and a fair go for all.
I only documented the one convo, and it was after Lesky had did one. Since it's all copy/paste I could have made it all up. I didn't, but that's just to illustrate why I didn't log earlier convos. Otherwise, there was many more comments that would have proven our side is being completely truthful, and that we were provoked.BigPete (AU1) said:Peryl,
I commend you on your forethought and organisational ability. To spend the time recording, documenting and then promulgating conversations that the other party probably thought was confidential showed a great deal of initiative. I wish, I, and others had done the same.
If you make a claim about something I said, and I truly said it, I'll be the first to admit it. You don't know me, but that's just part of who I am.
You're partially correct. I don't like the player-made rules on USA even more. In fact, I dislike player-made rules in general. As an administrator and developer of an online game, I make the rules for my users, and I expect GGE to do the same. GGE made it so if you attacked more than 15 levels below you then you are punished. Why did players change it to 10?BigPete (AU1) said:Throughout this thread there is a common theme that you suggest in various posts....you do not like the player made rules on the Australian server. Lets look at them first. Bear in mind those rules were not thought up by me, but by many others that came before, and are followed by almost all players on this server who recognise their benefit for the future of the game. Australia has a comparatively small population, hence the server will always be very limited. We cannot afford for players to leave, it’s a very limited market.
Even though I don't like the rules, I do still follow and enforce them. The only one we don't follow is burning castles during shady, and during war. As you know, most strong hitters won't put out fires and will hit from burning castles. I will do this. I won't complain if you hit my burning castle during war games.
I agree, we do not want players to leave the game either. However, if you're going to impose rules then I expect you to follow and enforce them.
Outside of war this is understandable. Inside of war, giving someone the ability to mount a retaliation is not how a war is fought. Shady is not our fault, GGE needs to make adjustments to the event, and the only way that will happen is if people complain. Players who are upset about being hit during Shady can ask for help. Such as with resources, or even with one(or more) of us visiting their alliance to assist them with earning skips and other alliance rewards.BigPete (AU1) said:No attacking burning castles. This gives a player a chance to rebuild the castle and recruit troops again without losing all their resources and troops. If continuously attacked they will never recover, so why play on? I would rather have a fair battle, then a week or two later give them the chance of reply, rather than just drive them into the ground.
The attacks for 10 levels lower is not even a rule for every alliance. many consider 15 acceptable once you hit 70. Probably because of the 4th wave? I guess. Actually, you're right, GGE does unfairly skew the results to the attackers side. I do agree with you, and it is possible that these rules need to be revisited. I believe, that is where this disconnect lays. These rules are archaic when considering the way the game has evolved since they were put in place.BigPete (AU1) said:Only attack within ten levels higher or lower than yourself. This keeps battles on a fairly level playing field. It prevents a higher level bullying a lower level who has no chance of winning. It also prevents a lower level attacking a higher level who, if following the rules, has no chance of recourse. All in all, it keeps battles reasonably fair. Of course the Hall of Legends has put an end to that, the five and six wave attacks show no fairness, and as always, GGE updates favour and encourage the attacker with the hope of more ruby sales. Perhaps we do need to consider a player made rule limiting attacks to within say 100 levels of the hall? No need to answer that, I know your response.
I don't think, during war especially, that I am going to look at every level 70 I go for and see if they have a hall over level 20, that being said, I actually do agree that it's a bit unfair for a 6 wave hitter to bang on 4 wavers. Unfortunately, to use your earlier point, it’s a very limited market. Choices are limited, and a rule like that would greatly reduce the amount of people these people can hit. Which is unfair to them.
You shouldn't assume you know my opinions on things. I'm far more reasonable than you have been told.
Agreed, mass attacking is bullying. During war bullying is going to happen. Mass attacks are an acceptable tactic, during war. I do see it as unfair, but war isn't meant to be fair. Starving people who hide all offense in a protected castle is a good example of this. Again, war is about winning, not fairness. Furthermore, when you start trying to get the whole server to gang up on us that kind of makes it difficult to respect any rules that are imposed. As certainly, that is against these so-called fair-play rules.BigPete (AU1) said:No mass attacks. A mass attack is when several players attack one player. Effectively ganging up on them. I think even you can see the unfairness of that, whether or not you choose to agree (you don't) is another thing. How can a player fairly recover in a reasonable period of time if all castles are burnt, all resources looted, and all troops destroyed? Or have a remote chance of winning battles if continuous attacks are sent on the same castle. Again, may as well just quit and find another game.
Right. Although we think it would be very fun for all alliances to agree to a different set of Storm rules that are more in-line with how the developers intended it to be played. By refusing to hit eachother we are technically exploiting the event by not running it the way the developers intended.BigPete (AU1) said:No attacking, or attacking from RV's. This recognises the very limited amount of RV's available on this server, as you yourself agree to, and that the player who initially captures it, owns it. It also limits the tactical advantage that comes from a short notice attack that can occur from an RV. What also follows is the practice in Storm, where the first person to capture an island, owns it. If islands were to continuously change hands, they would never mature, and nobody would gain anything.
Attacking from RVs is a valid tactic in war on USA1. So it's something I'm quite familiar with. This is why RV caps are considered acceptable in a war there. I haven't attacked anyone from a RV, even though I very well could have by now, because I prefer to be defended against.
That's fine too. Nobody is required to follow your rules, but if they don't I assume you declare on them. Surely, you do not consider it acceptable for your pacts to jump to alliances you're at war with to attack you. It's not bullying, but it's surely a dirty tactic. Attempting to assemble a coalition to start a server war is equally dirty. Kind of makes it hard for us to take your "no bullying" rule serious.BigPete (AU1) said:No bullying. For this, I will copy an excerpt from our Alliance Rules and Code of Conduct:BULLYING: Bullying behaviour will not be tolerated by our own members or other alliances. Bullying is constant attacks or harassment on a single player, not allowing time for recovery, constant attacks on weaker players by stronger members, constant sabotaging without reason, or attacking outside the accepted rules. In the event of external bullying of our members, their leader is to be advised and coordinated reprisals conducted within attack rules.
As I had explained in a thread that conveniently got deleted by GGE...BigPete (AU1) said:These “player made rules”, and probably some others, but these are the main ones, lead to a reasonably level playing field that allows players to build, be the subject of an attack (it’s a war game), but recover and rebuild in a reasonable amount of time, and thus continue in the game, regardless of ruby purchases. Alternatively, if players were constantly attacked and harassed, why stay? Never any chance of getting ahead. You have questioned why we can’t follow the GGE rules of the game. Because those rules favour the purchase of rubies for GGE, and there are so many more non ruby players in the game, but the game is there to be enjoyed by all. If GGE had their way, the whole game would be anarchy. Throughout your private messages and this thread you have made several comments along the lines of “You follow your rules, and we’ll follow ours”. I am interested to know what yours are, as I have yet to see any. Even in war, we follow our attack rules, unless they are broken against us, which is what occurred here. I will pose the question you, what are your rules? How far will you permit your players to go?
We do not have fair-play rules. We have "acts of war". Your question is what would we declare war over.
Stealing our islands. - Excluding those that are obvious mistakes. Surely you know what I mean.
No stealing RVs - Pretty standard rule.
No attempted OP caps. - Shouldn't need explanation.
No knocking off our OP caps. - Doubt this needs explanation.
No attacking more than 10 - 15 levels below you. - Depending on your level, and depending on if they hit you first. Obviously, a level 70 can hit a level 28 if that 28 hit the 70 first.
No attacking pacts or NAAs. - Something that shouldn't need explanation, but maybe JP needs a rundown.
uhh I guess no attacking burning castles? I don't know, none of us have this issue because we don't rake tools usually. We defend, and win. So, rarely burning, but yeah, since everyone else sees this as a rule we would declare over it.
I figure the above rules cover no bullying so we don't have a rule specific to that, but we do expect people not to hit the same location. Like, during a mass Lesky and I both went for Bushido at main. Lesky's fault - he hid attack, so I had no idea. There is no point in me sending at someone Lesky is hitting, lol. I would have picked an OP had I known. I don't see anything wrong with 1 person hitting each location on a person, during war, but out of war we would probably consider it an act of war and declare. Depends on who's online and how bored we are I guess. We've had minor altercations with alliances, but if we started it somehow we won't declare on their retaliation.
Sometimes we might just declare war because it's a war game and that's part of the game, because we're bored, because red is a pretty color, etc. It is still a war game. We're not going to cry if someone declares on us. lol
I'm certainly forgetting something, but you get the idea.
We went public with this for two reasons. Messaging every leader on the server is not our style, and because clearly there was some disconnect between what we were actually saying and what lalana and/or JP claim we say.BigPete (AU1) said:I also thank you for your sensible offer to negotiate peace on a public forum. It’s a good idea. There can be no dispute about what is being said, and everything is open and accountable for all to see. As Invictus, Immortals and Royal are not overly aggressive alliances, this is not a war we wanted or asked for. However we will stand by each other, as we gave each other this undertaking when we formed those pacts. We bargain as one unit, and our request is simple. We would prefer peace, but also your undertaking that your alliance will continue to follow the Australian server player made rules. We will not permit any arranged attacks on our members. I understand you bargain from a position of strength and power. You have demonstrated that through your attacks on these alliances. But we bargain from a position of principle, and a fair go for all.
Immortals did ask for this war. You were our ally, so by sending members to an alliance we're at war with you broke our agreement. This is absolutely an act of war. Surely, you wouldn't like us helping your enemies against you. I realize it was the actions of one deputy that caused it, but you guys put him in that position. Not us. He represents your alliance, and surely, should know that attacking an alliance you have an agreement with would nullify that agreement.
We have requested that you mind your own business, as part of our terms, and your response is to demand we offer a multi-alliance agreement. This is not going to happen. You inserted yourselves in this war while still an ally to us, you had no right to do so, and collective bargaining is you trying to force our hand. If anyone is guilty of bullying it is your alliance. We have not asked for any help. You have attempted (and failed) to turn the whole server against us. We tried to give you guys peace so we could focus on Invictus, which we would then have given peace after a mass or something, but instead you guys declared on us for Invictus.
This is why I say Immortals asked for it. As an ally of ours you shouldn't have involved yourself in our war, at all, like we never would have in yours. We don't fight our allies, but you provoked us by attacking us from another alliance to bypass the pact we had.
Thanks for well-written and thought-out response. I do appreciate you taking the time to speak about this and I look forward to your response.
Edit: My mistake. For some reason I thought you were Immortals. Invictus told us it was not ok for us to mass FMJ because FMJ is much smaller than we are, and then massed Lawless. That's why we declared, and we consider it a justified reason.
If you're going to tell us that it's not ok for us to mass an alliance we feel we have an acceptable reason to mass then you shouldn't be doing it yourselves. The declaration was over your alliance not following rules you were attempting to impose on us.
Nothing personal, but I don't know anybody in either alliance, I just assumed you were from Immortals because, well, I think I confused you with Big Mike. Sorry about that.
Edit #2. Sorry, one question I have to ask. As a deputy of Invictus.
Do you condone toolburning or toolraking whatever you prefer to call it? Swan seems to think this is condoned by your alliance. Could you clarify for me if your alliance considers this acceptable?
Your alliance is opposed to toolburning on paper. Something you have said is an acceptable tactic. You're only a sarge, so you have no decision making power, and your comments are just hurting your alliance. If I was your leader? I would have already kicked you. No questions asked. Boot + loot.SwanQueener98 (AU1) said:So what if I am only a sergeant. that makes zero difference to the points being made. we broke no rules of engagement.
Perryl, I have been reading with interest and some amusement I must confess, your desperate efforts to use me as the "escape goat" in this matter since you first started posting on this thread, and present me as the unrelenting, non-responding, non-negotiating persona.
Since you have so conveniently kept and maintained a record of every single one of our conversations, might I suggest you also post here my first msgs to Lesky right after he declared war on Royal and Invictus for all to see? Should be very informative. Oh, but of course, you can’t, can you? Cause they don’t serve your purpose and the image of me you are trying to portray here.
You also attempt to present me as “meddling” you call it and uncompromising. Well, Perryl, I can understand now how unfamiliar this is to you. You see, unlike you, we honour and defend our pacts and your attempts to break us up have failed. You on the other hand as we all witnessed, have no issue declaring war on your allies.
You also keep accusing our members of not sticking to the “rules” we uphold and protect.
Well we did, Perryl, up until some players got fed up with your continuous mass attacks on the same players and the continuous attacks on our burning castles, by Stu and Bald and mostly by Benjames and “Nathan”… just mentioning the above examples to remind you as you seem to conveniently forget.
And no one can blame those players for getting fed up with this kind of bullying attitude and poor game manners and replying back in kind. Would you prefer them to leave the game instead? Just cause they don't/can't buy rubies as much as you do?
I have already said multiple times I do not have records of every conversation. Your original messages to Lesky, especially. The doc between you and Lesky only exists because he made it. I couldn't possibly provide you proof of a conversation you had with somebody else, that's something you'd have to ask Lesky for.lalana (AU1) said:Perryl, I have been reading with interest and some amusement I must confess, your desperate efforts to use me as the "escape goat" in this matter since you first started posting on this thread, and present me as the unrelenting, non-responding, non-negotiating persona.
Since you have so conveniently kept and maintained a record of every single one of our conversations, might I suggest you also post here my first msgs to Lesky right after he declared war on Royal and Invictus for all to see? Should be very informative. Oh, but of course, you can’t, can you? Cause they don’t serve your purpose and the image of me you are trying to portray here.
You also attempt to present me as “meddling” you call it and uncompromising. Well, Perryl, I can understand now how unfamiliar this is to you. You see, unlike you, we honour and defend our pacts and your attempts to break us up have failed. You on the other hand as we all witnessed, have no issue declaring war on your allies.
You also keep accusing our members of not sticking to the “rules” we uphold and protect.
Well we did, Perryl, up until some players got fed up with your continuous mass attacks on the same players and the continuous attacks on our burning castles, by Stu and Bald and mostly by Benjames and “Nathan”… just mentioning the above examples to remind you as you seem to conveniently forget.
And no one can blame those players for getting fed up with this kind of bullying attitude and poor game manners and replying back in kind. Would you prefer them to leave the game instead? Just cause they don't/can't buy rubies as much as you do?
I think you mean scapegoat, but anyways. You are the leader of your alliance. You are the scapegoat whether you like it or not.
I don't remember saying meddling. So I don't know why you're using quotations, in fact, I don't think I've used that word in years. I do say you're uncompromising. I've also provided proof of that. I even asked you, publicly, about negotiations. Which you have still ignored.
We're not trying to break you up. You're trying to start a server war, and you've failed. People have refused to join you. You're already losing players. You already have leadership admitting that you will lose, but will do it anyways.
We also honor and defend our pacts, until those pacts attack us. Immortals attacked us. Not the other way around. Attacking an alliance that you have an agreement with is certainly an act of war. Your alliance meddled (there, I used it, happy?)in our affairs just a few weeks before. Then expected us to sit by while you guys go around and gang up on smaller alliances. Yeah, right. You want to talk about fair, lol. That's the issue. Fairness is only fair when it suits you. We have a problem with that.
Then you guys think that you can gang up on us and we're going to crumble. When that fails you try and put together as many alliances as you can across the server. You think we care about what you consider bullying now? Get real.
No, we'd prefer they left your alliance. We can find them a suitable home. Maybe we could make a sub-alliance for all your members that would rather be on the winning side.
To not have records of those convos would be crazy. I've been called all kinds of names etc and I can PROVE that, ive got printscreens of TB attacking from burning etc etc. Printscreens of the tool rakers. Yet the one thing I dont have a printscreen of and they were able to prove easily, they made a choice not to, from that I am tellign fibs because I didnt have proof?? I havent got one printscreen from them yet. I trust printscreens not peoples words. Especially when they are so adept at playing the victim and have a total lack of personal accountability. I'm also happy to say that in a public forum because I have those printscreens.
As to no multiple people attackign one person. Seriously,? If an alliance has a whale its ok for that whale to attack people at multiple castles all over the place when they buy demons. As an alliance that isnt made up of whales so to speak, you find it unfair when we work together as a team and people everywhere in return ??
Tool raking isnt a valid stratery lol, its the play of an inept fool, once you do this and break those fair play rules or guidelines so to speak you are open to getting it in return.
As to Chemists telling you when you can and cannot click war. Your choice lol, just like it is their choice. Sounds like your all tellign them not to click war on yoru allies tho, or dictating that for peace with you you need peace with everyone else ?? You are seperate entities, either merge and become one or accept you cant negotiate for someone else.
I really gotta sit back, were pact/NAA with you all and ill just keep munching on the pop corn.
JJ
Not saying when anyone can or cannot click war, just saying what we will click war over.JJJJJJSK (AU1) said:
As to Chemists telling you when you can and cannot click war.
JJ
My bad @perryl was meant to be "as to tellign chemists when they can and cant click war". Typing of a burnt out individual got the order of words mixed up.Perryl (AU1) said:Not saying when anyone can or cannot click war, just saying what we will click war over.
@mork (AU1)
Its like the kiwi farmer trying to justify dumping his wife for a sheep..... Will go on and on but at the end of the day its just not done lol. Que Niall here with the bruv & cuz group lol.