Batten (GB1) said:

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.  "

• Odins Fury are currently following the UK server 'Code of Conduct' rules
• Odins Fury have a series of wars with most of the top ten alliances (this is drawn out over a period of about 6 months at the end of 2018 - so some of this is after the next points - Key names of alliances Odins have warred: Gondor, Steel Elite, DMH, The Roundtable (maybe PraetorianGuard - can't remember)
• Odins Fury finish a war with an alliance (I think THE ROUNDTABLE)
• Odins Fury declare that they are leaving the Code of Conduct rules in favour of their own rules (around a week after war finishes with TRT)
• Odins Fury and Crimson Guard have far too many players who can't decide whether they are CG or Odins players - so jump between far too much (in the end players get told to stay in CG - at least most of them)

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:

• Odins Fury and Crimson Guard have far too many players who can't decide whether they are CG or Odins players - so jump between far too much (in the end players get told to stay in CG - at least most of them) Still existing issue as some players jumping around in the run up and during CG vs Prae war in 2017/18.

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.  

christian4 (GB1) said:

How come we got to the days where CG speaks of fair play? 

How ironic and funny! 

C4 ~ 

gazz65 (GB1) said:

Who said what to who and who started this WAR.
which ones are telling lies and which ones are telling truth.
my head is spinning around don't have clue whose who anymore in this game.

But I know one thing way things are going gge time is running out before most decent players leave the game.

gazz65 (GB1) said:

christian4 (GB1) said:

How come we got to the days where CG speaks of fair play? 

How ironic and funny! 

C4 ~ 

cg always play by the rules

dandelion1958 (GB1) said:

gazz65 (GB1) said:

christian4 (GB1) said:

How come we got to the days where CG speaks of fair play? 

How ironic and funny! 

C4 ~ 

cg always play by the rules

Having been in an alliance (now deceased) that was massed BY CG i refute that statement - our player had the temerity to return an attack - which he won - and they declared screaming fairplay as was an undeveloped castle - - since when is a lvl 6 watchtower undeveloped ? - that's history - and glad to see praets and CG hitting each other - looks like GGS getting a big easter bonus based on the number of troops bought and lost

PS I have played in the same alliances in the past as batten ultra and lots of the protagonists on both sides -and think the only winner in this EGO trip will be GGS

ScorpionBK (GB1) said:

Fairplay rules say that war is only fair if it is agreed or if an alliance is responding to a breach in the fairplay rules. 

samasensei (US1) said:

This is rich, CG stand for fairplay and decided to help those being bullied? So, why did CG, during TRTs war with Wraith( a fair 1v1), decide to declare on TRT making it a 2v1 ? CG sent some hits over to TRTs way and after no real reason for declaring , CG gave peace after hits landed and act as if nothing happened, no apology at all and broke fairplay rules. This was very recent as well. You cant pick and choose when you want to be advocates of fairplay.

msantos29 (GB1) said:

ScorpionBK (GB1) said:

Fairplay rules say that war is only fair if it is agreed or if an alliance is responding to a breach in the fairplay rules. 

  

samasensei (US1) said:

This is rich, CG stand for fairplay and decided to help those being bullied? So, why did CG, during TRTs war with Wraith( a fair 1v1), decide to declare on TRT making it a 2v1 ? CG sent some hits over to TRTs way and after no real reason for declaring , CG gave peace after hits landed and act as if nothing happened, no apology at all and broke fairplay rules. This was very recent as well. You cant pick and choose when you want to be advocates of fairplay.

Sorry, i honestly don't have any recollection of this. Could be the case i wasn't on CG...
i can try to shed some light on the subject if you can provide me with some battle report or some other thing - anything.

UltraFlavoured (GB1) said:

@ScorpionBK (GB1) Your part of the war?

Technically have brought you into the war. I did something that in the grand scheme of things was an incorrect move but if the situation came again. I would have to do the same thing due to what happened to us.

~Ultra

Spirit Bear (AU1) said:

CG didn't do nothing worng (sike)
CG didn't multi account (sike) multi central
Odins and CG didn't start and RV war (sike)
CG didn't knock caps from players they aren't even in the war (sike)
CG Odins and others won't fall (LOL)

UltraFlavoured (GB1) said:

Spirit Bear (AU1) said:

CG didn't do nothing worng (sike)
CG didn't multi account (sike) multi central
Odins and CG didn't start and RV war (sike)
CG didn't knock caps from players they aren't even in the war (sike)
CG Odins and others won't fall (LOL)

Your not boring. (Sike)

~Ultra


your not ex BSK fighting for CG oh wait