Goodgame Studios forum archives
Forum: empire-en
Board: [817] War Updates
Topic: [346353] GB1 Server War
[4903861] msantos29 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 23, 2018, 11:24 p.m.
ScorpionBK (GB1) said:
PG Tips is allowed in the war. It is a wing of Prae @msantos29 (GB1) so your point remains invalid there. You declared on Prae, so you declared on their whole family knowing what you were up against. As for SE and Gondor, two alliances for two alliances is more than a fair deal. Whoever brought Defiance into the war did that to themselves, to their own demise.

You declared on two more alliances. They were swapping players, but I am not mistaken to be under the impression that you too decided to swap players at the start of the war? What was that, 'Every action is met with a reaction'?

This war thread is getting boring. Less bickering, more fighting. Let's see more reports!!!
  
ScorpionBK (GB1) No mate, you got it all wrong.

This is a thread about the server war, not about the war between CG and Praets.

CG is at war with Praets, thats one thing.
but then, in a strange coincidence, 4 teams ganged up on another team from our server (Odins).

what i was saying was if TRT and Gondor want to gang up on Odins, they could have picked stronger allies than PG and SE..

thats what i meant.

Wraith and Rev-X, who stand for Fair play, decided to support the team being targeted by that group of baddies. And CG also decided to support the victim of such gang up, despite being involved in a 1v1. As i think it would happen if any other team in our server was being ganged up uppon. In fact it has happened in the past.

i hope i have made that clear now.

because if you want to talk about the 1v1 between Praets and CG, there is a thread dedicated to that.
and believe me, its all the same if we're fighting Praets or Praets and PG.


[4903862] razor69 (GB1) [None] :: Jan. 23, 2018, 11:25 p.m.
Karem GK (GB1) said:
@UltraFlavoured (GB1)  Who said we asked anyone to join the war lol 
 
Shame on us ? really ? we didn't ask from anyone to join in ! Proof ? no you can't lol

Good they still know the truth and want to fight and glad they still stick to it . 

How about Wraith and Rev X , Brought them into  a war they could of avoided ;) 
WOOOOOOOOOO , where are they ? surrendered ? Oh , nice allies CG got  :D
? i think u might be mixing us up with real steel, they declared on us and they surrendered after 4 hours
[4903869] marc58 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 23, 2018, 11:47 p.m.
msantos29 (GB1) said:
ScorpionBK (GB1) said:
PG Tips is allowed in the war. It is a wing of Prae @msantos29 (GB1) so your point remains invalid there. You declared on Prae, so you declared on their whole family knowing what you were up against. As for SE and Gondor, two alliances for two alliances is more than a fair deal. Whoever brought Defiance into the war did that to themselves, to their own demise.

You declared on two more alliances. They were swapping players, but I am not mistaken to be under the impression that you too decided to swap players at the start of the war? What was that, 'Every action is met with a reaction'?

This war thread is getting boring. Less bickering, more fighting. Let's see more reports!!!
  
ScorpionBK (GB1) No mate, you got it all wrong.

This is a thread about the server war, not about the war between CG and Praets.

CG is at war with Praets, thats one thing.
but then, in a strange coincidence, 4 teams ganged up on another team from our server (Odins).

what i was saying was if TRT and Gondor want to gang up on Odins, they could have picked stronger allies than PG and SE..

thats what i meant.

Wraith and Rev-X, who stand for Fair play, decided to support the team being targeted by that group of baddies. And CG also decided to support the victim of such gang up, despite being involved in a 1v1. As i think it would happen if any other team in our server was being ganged up uppon. In fact it has happened in the past.

i hope i have made that clear now.

because if you want to talk about the 1v1 between Praets and CG, there is a thread dedicated to that.
and believe me, its all the same if we're fighting Praets or Praets and PG.



great post ;-)
[4903883] msantos29 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, midnight
Makes you wonder why Batten, a fair play enthusiast, is taking part in such a gang up.

Also strange why Praetorians declared on Rev-X and Wraith, teams who were only trying to dissuade the baddies team (TRT, Gondor, PG and SE)...

its as if the Praetorians are supporting the gang up - not in line with the whole fair play initiative they seem so enthusiast about...

(and before anyone starts talking about how some of the fair play guidelines may have been put aside after these events happened, please remember that once FP is put aside in the first place, then the general guidelines kinda have a tendency to get dropped)
[4903901] samasensei (ASIA1) [ASIA1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 12:46 a.m.
....
[4903908] msantos29 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 12:56 a.m.
samasensei (US1) said:
....
Also left me without words, when i saw it. Still can't believe it  :p
[4903960] -CJ- (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 8:32 a.m.
Very wrong again @UltimateJhon (GB1). In order to have a fair 1v1, both alliances must formally agree. Prae was surprised, therefore, they had a right to include their family. If you declare on a family, without first 'manning' up and agreeing the terms of the war, then that is your problem to deal with. You did it to score an advantage, hence no warning and no terms. Therefore, Prae had the right to balance itself or gain an advantage for itself, and the fact is, you knew you would be up against their family, so you were also warned.

@msantos29 (GB1) I notice the war isn't just about Prae and CG, hence I included other names. The way they came into the war is disputable. As far as I see it, it was all a fair server war until your own alliance started bringing others in i.e The Wanderers and RK (Who is now out again). You tipped the scales against yourselves. Don't moan that that you're outnumbered because you have put that on yourselves. However you want to look at it, though, the war is based around the two main players, these being CG and Prae. It's like the Cold War with the USSR and the USA, there are two very big sides fighting eachother. Considering the different connections between who is fighting who i.e it was SE against CG, and TRT is against CG they are connected even though they do not war all of the same alliances; the same applies to the other 'side', that defines the sides playing against eachother.

Now please put some more war reps on!
[4903967] msantos29 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 8:45 a.m.
This forum business gets very confusing.... moaning? Lol. The more the better.

Praetorians are part of a family?? But it says in the description they are an independant alliance!!! 

Manning up to withstand PG? Gimme 2 seconds.... ok. Ready for PG.

The wanderers??? Wait are they in the war too? Must have missed that

You're right better pass on to the reports..  im confused as it is...
[4903968] -CJ- (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 8:46 a.m.
Well that's what I heard, feel free to correct if I'm wrong. My point still stands, regardless.

You're definitely right on one thing. You're not moaning, you're attention seeking for the sake of propaganda!

Now can we please see some more reps!?
[4904004] UltraFlavoured (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 11:34 a.m.
ScorpionBK (GB1) said:
You're definitely right on one thing. You're not moaning, you're attention seeking for the sake of propaganda!
Lol - Oh the Irony if that statement 

I have currently posted most reps , yet I get most abuse it’s not an incentive lol 

~Ultra


[4904015] christian4 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 12:16 p.m.
How come we got to the days where CG speaks of fair play? 

How ironic and funny! 

C4 ~ 
[4904016] -CJ- (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 12:20 p.m.
UltraFlavoured (GB1) said:
ScorpionBK (GB1) said:
You're definitely right on one thing. You're not moaning, you're attention seeking for the sake of propaganda!
Lol - Oh the Irony if that statement 

I have currently posted most reps , yet I get most abuse it’s not an incentive lol 

~Ultra


Irony? I see none. I never 'abused' you. You, quite frankly, abused me. Perhaps others have abused you, but again, why is the irony on my statement?

Hmm, unless you mean past wars, which I may add without contradiction of my previous sayings, we could 'moan' all we wanted as CG broke their own rules, and the server held us to the rules and blamed US for not following them in retaliation to CG. There is no irony. As stated, you can only moan if you have a reason such as this, a contradiction in the opposing teams actions. You can't moan or attention seek about being outnumbered if you have knowingly put yourself in that situation...

My teammates had a reason, that being CG broke their own rules, and when they reacted back in identical retaliation to CG, as msantos has kindly provided us with the quote 'an action is always met with a reaction' , that was fine, we couldn't moan. I accept that. However, when the server condemns you for doing something some-one else has done to you first, and they did us, then you can moan without contradiction. No irony mate. None at all. And to be honest, I can't call it moaning, I call it being strong-minded, whereby the players were trying to fix the problem. It is just classified as 'moaning' so as to stifle those that need to be heard when they are in fact, by definition, not moaning at all. They were just pointing out facts really. When you point out the obvious, but blame it on the wrong party, then that is moaning, because you generally tend to resort to this when you 'can't have it your own way', so to speak. When it is law, or the fairplay rules, every-one should have played by them; and the people upholding them certainly should not have contradicted their words in them rules. We were playing by the rules, including the one msantos pointed out about a reaction to broken rules. There was a rightful blame, there was fact. There was no moaning my dear sir.

If you have posted the most reps, then congratulations. Your audience still wants more, though... same goes for every-one in the war haha. Get em' going!!!
[4904040] msantos29 (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 1:01 p.m.
christian4 (GB1) said:
How come we got to the days where CG speaks of fair play? 

How ironic and funny! 

C4 ~ 
Hi mate.

its my impression that there is a lot of misconception these days, on our server.

Many alliances, when getting an incoming from CG, immediately call CG bullies. just because they were the recipients of one simple attack that in no way contradicts the general code of conduct that some teams decided to follow, for the well being of all.

There are people in CG that put a lot of effort in making sure the players stick to that code of conduct. Of course that sometimes things fail, usually because someone forgot to log an attack... also when someone drinks a bit more than they should...  im not gonna lie about any of that. If you can provide with an example of "foul play" we can talk about it more in detail, perhaps via in-game PMs, to stay on topic.

We use the attack app in CG. And on that App, designed by Fuji, you have the code of conduct.
This server war started because Odins were the recipients of a lot of hits from 4 different alliances. some declared, some didn't (at least its what i have gathered). but no need to be naive... even if you don't declare, its the same as if you did, when you send a mass - or at least many teams interpret it that way.

These Odins guys are not a team without a code of conduct. I never asked them, but on that same attack app there is something about Odins "rules". Im gonna post a capture from that below, for everyone to check, in case they dont have the app.

https://prnt.sc/i4wld5

You may find that these Viking fukkas have more fair play in their 8 simple rules than the rest of the server in their 13 directives. If not, check Odins rule nr.8 - we have no such thing on "our" rules.

Oh, and btw, check the two bits i underlined... those are the bits that prompted some teams to intervene - or at least its what motivated me.

So no, its not a matter of propaganda as someone wrote. its about establishing things in a clear way for all the interested to analyse and draw their own conclusions - im not trying to sell my point of view to anyone. i couldn't care less if people agree with me or not  :)
[4904043] UltraFlavoured (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 1:05 p.m.
Nothing about moaning in your statement. 
However your not involved in the war and expressing a player who is is searching for attention 

the statement about myself was purely to say 
Why should I waste my time to post reports when my words are being twisted. 
Nothing more and not directly aimed at anyone 

~Ultra 


[4904081] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 2:44 p.m.
msantos29 (GB1) said:
Makes you wonder why Batten, a fair play enthusiast, is taking part in such a gang up.

Also strange why Praetorians declared on Rev-X and Wraith, teams who were only trying to dissuade the baddies team (TRT, Gondor, PG and SE)...

its as if the Praetorians are supporting the gang up - not in line with the whole fair play initiative they seem so enthusiast about...

(and before anyone starts talking about how some of the fair play guidelines may have been put aside after these events happened, please remember that once FP is put aside in the first place, then the general guidelines kinda have a tendency to get dropped)
I tend to start from the simple principle of one player one account.  When I set up the Syndicate Guild which had multiple alliance members and a shared forum it was done on a principle of shared development and mutual protection between smaller and less strong alliances keen to protect their independence and integrity.  An attack on one member was an attack on all members, players jumped primarily for defence and only when an alliance was clearly outmatched.  So I am a strong believer in the pact system and it's importance for protection of smaller alliances. 

I have no issue with pacted partners working together in the same way many of us have done in the past against what they consider to be a stronger opponent.  One of the major issues is in determining Odins actual strength which frankly fluctuates widely from one end of the spectrum to the other.  I haven't faced Odins before but I think their placing at three at the start of this might have been slightly high given where they appear to have been at player wise but to be honest given Ang's confidence in his original message given he wasn't worried about it, I'm not going to worry about it.  The message said clearly bring it on we are confident and we will beat you all so really that allayed any concerns for me and I'm sure for a lot of other players.   

For me there are two distinctions.  Legal play - play within the terms and conditions and fairplay - adherence to an accepted set of rules mutually agreed between alliances to create a positive playing environment. 

To quote Ang 2018.  "
Here at Odins we love war and so we relish the opportunity which this has presented for us - were going to enjoy exploring the full extent of the gameplay mechanics to make sure that we make this a fair fight.

This is NOT going to be a short war, we intend to draw this out, and make sure that anyone in the 4 alliances above burns repeatedly - I hope you understand that no rules will apply to you in the near future while youre in one of these alliances, as it would be unfair for you not to be aware of this fact."

So in terms of fairplay Odins Fury voluntarily left the system of fairplay rules agreed between the top 20 alliances. They have yet to publish a clear set of rules by which they play so hard to assess or honour those rules for other alliances playing against them.  Ang says very clearly at the very beginning "no rules will apply to you" and at that point which was day one I think he intentionally or unintentionally put his alliances and it's players outside the scope of any rules.  Basically he communicated clearly to all players on the opposing side by mass mail that they could use any tactic within the game mechanism against any Odins or allied player.  Reasonably RevX and Wraith who are both signatories to the agreement and haven't left to my knowledge would I guess have some recourse through the rules if they felt they were not being applied if they have followed Odins out of the agreement then they reasonably couldn't expect continue protection.  Ang's declaration would appear to create a clear contradiction for both alliances which is really for them to communicate how they resolve.  So unless a player is outside the legal rules of the game Odins players have no grounds for complaint a position they themselves chose.     

Fairplay rules are only applicable to alliances that are signatories to the fairplay agreement or as many small alliances are alliances who are recognised by top twenty as protected by the specific terms of the agreement.  Odins as the third ranked alliance at commencement of the war would not qualify for that protection.  Odins made a conscious decision to leave and therefore gave up the protections they would previously have enjoyed. 

I have never been clear on CG's position with regard to the fairplay rules as I have never seen it explicitly stated anywhere what their rules are if you have any but if you are offering to clearly clarify it that would be helpful if that position is consistent with Odins as stated by Ang then fair enough.  You would of course then only have grounds for complaint if players stepped outside of the terms and conditions which I have as yet not seen anyone in TRT do.  I cannot speak to other alliances.    

The fairplay rules, at least the set I saw that Odins, Wraith and RevX would have agreed to state this: 
  
15. It is up to an alliance to decide how to respond to breaches of the codes of conduct, but it is assumed that diplomatic resolution will be the first course of action, and further responses will be expected to be proportionate

My view is that initial breach of code of conduct by Odins was this as stated by Ang and confirmed by Praetorians:
Those are the words of a spokesman for Odins Fury not my words.  And consequently any idea of a 1 v 1 was out of the window at that point Cg Prae became a 2 v 1 war.  That would seem to me at least to be the first problem.  Or possibly was an issue further back in previous Odins war.  Also once Odins left the fairplay rules system voluntarily they no longer could ask for 1 v 1 as defined below.  

14. Wars should be kept to single alliance vs single alliance fights where possible, with further escalation only if one side tries to surrender and the other continues the action.  

So as far as I can see the invention of the other alliances was to ensure a fair 1 v 1 war could take place between CG and Prae without intervention of Odins which seems may have irritated some CG players as much as it did Praetorians players.  CG are unlikely to need help from any other alliance based on what I've seen and the story the rankings show.  

1 v 1 is a courtesy, not a given, which alliances can negotiate at the start of a conflict when agreeing rules of engagement through diplomats or via a third party.  If you are outside of the recognised system then really you are playing under the pact system which allows for pacted partners to work together to remove a threat.  Odins have described themselves as a threat, they have attacked pacted alliances individually making good on that threat, so not perhaps surprising that pacted alliances discuss and decide to attack back to lessen that threat and reach a new understanding.  If all parties want and can find a way towards allowing for 1 v1 wars to occur which doesn't involved destruction of alliances, loss of players accounts and players from the game then clearly I personally would support that.  

During the three wars I fought against the BSK tool sweeps, feints, multiple hits on one player were commonplace largely only on the strongest players by weaker players to try and even the advantage.  In general terms that was restricted to one or two waves timed before the main attacks hit.  Now it seems to be a tactic used against weaker players and I've seen as many as ten waves of sweeping attacks sent.  Personally I haven't sent those attacks or taken RV's I think maybe Dermy had a similar stance initially but I can see given the weakness of the last two of four attacks I sent on the captured op they could have been mistaken as such bit harsh to point that out lol given they were full six waves with supers.  I couldn't withdraw them otherwise I would have saved them an inglorious end.   

If CG and Odins wish to clearly publish the rules under which they wish to play I'm sure it would help and be welcomed.  Hard to know what your rules are if you don't communicate them but certainly space for you to clarify and move forward.  A clear commitment to one player one account which is my main area of interest would also be welcome.   In general terms defining what the aims of your war are may help to achieve them.  Wraith and RevX honoured their agreements with pacted partners despite the challenges they faced in doing so and Gondor, Steel Elite, Real Steel, TRT, Praetorian Guard and Defiance are simply doing the same welcome to the wonderful world of pacts and alliances.  All those alliances are simply honouring their commitments and I personally respect that.  



[4904084] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 2:51 p.m.
Shortened version:

Crimson Guard / Odins Fury operate based on Force de Majere everyone else pretty much operates under agreed set of fairplay rules.  
[4904085] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 2:54 p.m.
Clearly for Force de Majere to work you have to be stronger than everyone else so essentially if CG and Odins are stronger than everybody else then there are no issues and the rules we all play under in the future will be the rules the impose by force.  Obviously knowing what those rules would be is of interest to everybody else.  
[4904086] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 2:56 p.m.
The irony being of course you can win the war then lose the peace that you haven't prepared for.  Brexit being an Exhibit A in that stable.  
[4904088] Batten (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 2:59 p.m.
Alternatively you could view it as a loose networks of powerful players against a loose network of  powerful alliances.  
[4904091] -CJ- (GB1) [GB1] :: Jan. 24, 2018, 3:10 p.m.
@UltraFlavoured (GB1) I haven't twisted any of your words.

I have wrote by all definitions and have taken all of your quotes. That's not twisted. That is fact. Also, I have as much right as you to talk about this war as you did hit my captures. Need I say more?

@msantos29 (GB1) You can say my name you know, but again, you know my refutation stands unchanged and unchallenged by your latest message on the forums. You would notice that the rules also say 'wherever possible', there is no extra wording to define what that means. That is up to the players to decide. As far as I'm concerned, that enabled Prae to have their family on their side when they were provoked without fair warning, or agreement, as a fair 1v1 would be, as it has always been in the past!

More reps pls!

Actually, just to clarify. A war is 'legally' started by a reaction to an action that goes against YOUR fairplay rules. This includes the following:

Tool knocking
RV stealing
Other asset stealing
Mass attacks outside of war

etc.. etc..

It also includes declaring war on an alliance for none of the above reasons or other unsaid reasons. Prae broke no rules, you declared to get an advantage. Because it was against fairplay, Prae was allowed their family. If it had been agreed to be a 1v1, then that's another story, but it was not.

I rest my case.