Forum: empire-en
Board: [818] General Discussion
Topic: [306070] Burning Castles
[4389155]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 12:09 p.m.
sorry jjj, thought this was meant to be a discussion about how we can come to an agreement on what constitutes a burning castle, not to go back over past history. Yes, i saw the screen shots, and it should not have happened and will not in the future.
So, in the interests of moving on, may i suggest that what happened in the past, just stays in the past. It is how we deal with the future that should be of concern.
Jenny has clearly stated to our alliance that attacking from burning castles will not be tolerated and is drafting a MM regarding your concerns about sabs.
I will keep copies of those on file. Now can we move on please and discuss the matter at hand like rational people??
So, in the interests of moving on, may i suggest that what happened in the past, just stays in the past. It is how we deal with the future that should be of concern.
Jenny has clearly stated to our alliance that attacking from burning castles will not be tolerated and is drafting a MM regarding your concerns about sabs.
I will keep copies of those on file. Now can we move on please and discuss the matter at hand like rational people??
[4389215]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 1:30 p.m.
@makale (AU1)makale (AU1) said:sorry jjj, thought this was meant to be a discussion about how we can come to an agreement on what constitutes a burning castle, not to go back over past history. Yes, i saw the screen shots, and it should not have happened and will not in the future.
So, in the interests of moving on, may i suggest that what happened in the past, just stays in the past. It is how we deal with the future that should be of concern.
Jenny has clearly stated to our alliance that attacking from burning castles will not be tolerated and is drafting a MM regarding your concerns about sabs.
I will keep copies of those on file. Now can we move on please and discuss the matter at hand like rational people??
Let the past be the past then. Until it happens again....
You got robdog sending on burning OP's and withdrawing half way still to split support etc etc. Its same story of concentrate on the future and a solution where we wont agree to anything and will play victim. Prove me wrong....
Anyways....
Five fires on watchtowers work's when people use it for rebuilding, people get given the time to rebuild when they have rebuilt they are fair game. Pretty simple, incentive to get back into the game with food production.
ATM people are leaving fire fires up only like it gives them some wonderful thing to cry when somebody attacks them. A way forward for something that a player does (whilst rebuilding) to demonstrate that they are rebuilding and at the same time someone wanting to attack has the capacity to still do it if they are not using the fires rule for its intended purpouse. Only thing is how do you display it when rebuilding and how do you measure it when attacking, those are the two things.
Jenny said making a redcross sign was something she wouldnt do, said putting fires on food production out last was a no go zone. Realistically here as rational people, what is in place doesnt work we have to acknowledge that.
Seps will leave people alone with fires on food production, unless they attack out of it. For Seps moving forward we are happy to tell our people this is the measure of fire protection, repair your graneries last otherwise you dont complain about attacks. Same goes for our own.
I have to add here, if you want this in place, you need to get the other alliances on board. We dont have these issues with the other alliances for the most part as they dont abuse the rule. So once their is a general framework that is agreed upon they need to be approached as well otherwise we are two alliances dictating to everyone else what we will and wont accept, they deserve just as much input if not more because we are two they are many.
Main one for us is the name calling stops, this would go a way to acheiving that.
JJ
[4389351]
BedeGiles (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 4:36 p.m.
http://prntscr.com/avvrx9
lol..whoa there bigfeet. Apparently attacks at 300 distance are weak as ..well..see above lol. @jennyj (AU1) @makale (AU1) @cecipleb (AU1) @CM Arcanine
lol..whoa there bigfeet. Apparently attacks at 300 distance are weak as ..well..see above lol. @jennyj (AU1) @makale (AU1) @cecipleb (AU1) @CM Arcanine
[4389364]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 4:46 p.m.
@jennyj (AU1) @makale (AU1)
http://prntscr.com/avvu31
http://prntscr.com/avvt1r
http://prntscr.com/avvtco
"The main one for us is the name calling stops"
Appreciate your input.
JJ.
http://prntscr.com/avvu31
http://prntscr.com/avvt1r
http://prntscr.com/avvtco
"The main one for us is the name calling stops"
Appreciate your input.
JJ.
[4389544]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 6:48 p.m.
@makale (AU1)
latest bits of brilliance....
http://prnt.sc/avwgxv
http://prnt.sc/avwkiv
As I said, if you find this acceptable from your players so be it.
JJ.
latest bits of brilliance....
http://prnt.sc/avwgxv
http://prnt.sc/avwkiv
As I said, if you find this acceptable from your players so be it.
JJ.
[4389793]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: April 23, 2016, 11:56 p.m.
hi jjjjj,
Well as far as i can tell, bigfeet is in the UTs, so i cant really do much about his puerile behavior !! But i will have a word (not that it might do any good)
Well as far as i can tell, bigfeet is in the UTs, so i cant really do much about his puerile behavior !! But i will have a word (not that it might do any good)
[4389874]
craigus (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 3:18 a.m.
Mak: The angry folks running bigfeet/kirk are in your alliance, lol.Undertaker level70 vice dukes with legendary level1-5 send 25 tool cleaners out, and n the middle of them gachh or robdog hits, lol. Coincidence? Sure.makale (AU1) said:hi jjjjj,
Well as far as i can tell, bigfeet is in the UTs, so i cant really do much about his puerile behavior !! But i will have a word (not that it might do any good)
[4389893]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 4:08 a.m.
Nemhain,
Are you saying that bigfeet and kirk are multis?? i do not understand what you mean by The angry folks are running
Are you saying that bigfeet and kirk are multis?? i do not understand what you mean by The angry folks are running
[4389904]
craigus (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 4:19 a.m.
Would be my guess as they both send angry mails, with the same disgusting diatribe. As they're allies with you guys, you've never seen it, and you'll probably never believe it, but if you think about it, it's pretty easy to find the dead accounts people leave around now. Low legendary levels, fires that burn forever, Vice Duke or Acolyte, etc titles are all very good indicators. Hell, they even had one of their multis taken back by the actual player. Look up Wild Thing. He was in UT up until a month or so ago, lol. His alliance description says it all.
Edit: I do agree though, not much you in the basterds can do about it. But as it looks like ya'll have merged, they're bringing their dirty play reputation over there. And while you're trying to keep it on the up and up, they're over there on dead accounts launching tool cleaners and hate mails. Hell, robdogs been hiding behind the same fires for months now, then UT tears up whenever we hit the horrors he's stashing there. those same horrors hiding behind fires got launched 2-3 minute horns all day today.
Edit: I do agree though, not much you in the basterds can do about it. But as it looks like ya'll have merged, they're bringing their dirty play reputation over there. And while you're trying to keep it on the up and up, they're over there on dead accounts launching tool cleaners and hate mails. Hell, robdogs been hiding behind the same fires for months now, then UT tears up whenever we hit the horrors he's stashing there. those same horrors hiding behind fires got launched 2-3 minute horns all day today.
[4390161]
CliveA (GB1) [GB1]
:: April 24, 2016, 5:21 a.m.
My Alliance has a rule that states if a player attacks from a burning castle then he can be attacked. There can be no question of a player hiding behind a burning castle and attacking other players with impunity.
[4390899]
eibbed62 (AU1) [AU1]
:: April 24, 2016, 6:31 a.m.
I agree. If a player launches attacks from a burning castle, they deserve whatever they get.
In regard to the name calling, why haven't you blocked messages from the foulmouthed one? People get bored calling out abuse if no one is listening to them and appreciating their "wit"
My personal rule about burning castles is "DON'T"
I don't attack a burning castle at all, unless I can be reasonably certain the the player has left the game. To that end, I watch for any signs that they are still playing,
- I message and wait,
- I spy to see if they are rebuilding troops,
- I watch to see if they are repairing buildings or building new ones,
- I look for levelling up, and
- I check their other castles as well.
- And if they are still in an alliance, I will message their leader or diplomat to ask if they are still in the game.
I can only take responsibility for me, though. So if I see someone else attacking a burning castle I will ask them to stop.
If it happens to be one of my team doing the attacking, they will get a reprimand as it is against our rules too. And if they continue to do it I will boot them.
If it is someone from another alliance, attacking one of my team's burning castles, I will message them asking "what gives?" If they continue to do it I will report them to their team management and expect their management to deal with them appropriately.
Perhaps it is just naivity to expect fairplay from others. But I figure I can hardly expect it, if I don't do it myself. And if after all is said and done, someone continues to flout the rules, I remind myself that this is just a game, and they will get what they deserve. Maybe from me, maybe from somewhere else.
Debbie
In regard to the name calling, why haven't you blocked messages from the foulmouthed one? People get bored calling out abuse if no one is listening to them and appreciating their "wit"
My personal rule about burning castles is "DON'T"
I don't attack a burning castle at all, unless I can be reasonably certain the the player has left the game. To that end, I watch for any signs that they are still playing,
- I message and wait,
- I spy to see if they are rebuilding troops,
- I watch to see if they are repairing buildings or building new ones,
- I look for levelling up, and
- I check their other castles as well.
- And if they are still in an alliance, I will message their leader or diplomat to ask if they are still in the game.
I can only take responsibility for me, though. So if I see someone else attacking a burning castle I will ask them to stop.
If it happens to be one of my team doing the attacking, they will get a reprimand as it is against our rules too. And if they continue to do it I will boot them.
If it is someone from another alliance, attacking one of my team's burning castles, I will message them asking "what gives?" If they continue to do it I will report them to their team management and expect their management to deal with them appropriately.
Perhaps it is just naivity to expect fairplay from others. But I figure I can hardly expect it, if I don't do it myself. And if after all is said and done, someone continues to flout the rules, I remind myself that this is just a game, and they will get what they deserve. Maybe from me, maybe from somewhere else.
Debbie
[4392933]
perryl (US1) [US1]
:: April 24, 2016, 9:01 a.m.
Don't care for the burning rule tbh. There is no way to really manage this. Player-made rules are unmanageable in general.
If you have a problem with something an alliance did, cry to their diplomat. That's what the system is for.
If it's not against the GGS ToS then there is no rule against it. You can make whatever rules you want, but nobody has to follow them. Create your own definition of what makes you sad and post it. If people do something and it makes you mad, turn 'em red.
Wtf... you need to be taught how to play the game?
Alchemists are not supposed to hit burning castles, with some exceptions. Shady was developed badly, and that's up to GGE to figure out. Don't expect people to spend a bunch of rubies to skip castles. Some people want the achievement. You can always ask for res, or ask them for help with something. I've offered a small alliance to visit them during Nomads to help them earn skips. I will probably do it next Nomads. I am doing it because during Shady Lady I burned many of them without even checking if they were burning or not. Now I am done the achievement so I said that I won't hit them anymore - and I haven't. If you attack from a burning castle then nobody cares about your fires anymore.
Aside from that.. I expect people to use their best judgement. We've all been burned before. We know what it looks like. This doesn't need to be so complicated.
If you have a problem with something an alliance did, cry to their diplomat. That's what the system is for.
If it's not against the GGS ToS then there is no rule against it. You can make whatever rules you want, but nobody has to follow them. Create your own definition of what makes you sad and post it. If people do something and it makes you mad, turn 'em red.
Wtf... you need to be taught how to play the game?
Alchemists are not supposed to hit burning castles, with some exceptions. Shady was developed badly, and that's up to GGE to figure out. Don't expect people to spend a bunch of rubies to skip castles. Some people want the achievement. You can always ask for res, or ask them for help with something. I've offered a small alliance to visit them during Nomads to help them earn skips. I will probably do it next Nomads. I am doing it because during Shady Lady I burned many of them without even checking if they were burning or not. Now I am done the achievement so I said that I won't hit them anymore - and I haven't. If you attack from a burning castle then nobody cares about your fires anymore.
Aside from that.. I expect people to use their best judgement. We've all been burned before. We know what it looks like. This doesn't need to be so complicated.
[4393370]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 2:30 p.m.
@makale (AU1)makale (AU1) said:hi jjjjj,
Well as far as i can tell, bigfeet is in the UTs, so i cant really do much about his puerile behavior !! But i will have a word (not that it might do any good)
99% sure bigfeet was in TB last night, you can provide a printscreen of the logs of people joining and leaving going back 28 odd hours and it will show that I am not mistaken.
You provide a printscreen with that stuff missing or not going back that far then we all have our answer. This proof is easy for you to get as well. I look forward to your response.
JJ.
[4393438]
Nambala (AU1) [AU1]
:: April 24, 2016, 3:24 p.m.
We don't owe you a printscreen of anything. You make the accusation, burden of proof is on you. Bigfeet was not in TBs last night,or yesterday, or the day before. I don't know that bigfeet has ever been in TBs, though I can't be certain of that back to the beginning of time.
And yes, you will probably (while asking for the name calling to stop) reiterate that I am an habitual liar because you think you caught me out in a lie once. Which you couldn't and can't prove, because it wasn't a lie.
Really, a printscreen of everything that has happened in our alliance over 28 hours (you well know there is nothing that can show only members arriving and leaving), just so we can prove to you that someone didn't join? Because you have a right to know who does or doesn't join our alliance? Tell you what - send me print screens of all your alliance business, because, well I'm curious and feel I deserve to know.
And yes, you will probably (while asking for the name calling to stop) reiterate that I am an habitual liar because you think you caught me out in a lie once. Which you couldn't and can't prove, because it wasn't a lie.
Really, a printscreen of everything that has happened in our alliance over 28 hours (you well know there is nothing that can show only members arriving and leaving), just so we can prove to you that someone didn't join? Because you have a right to know who does or doesn't join our alliance? Tell you what - send me print screens of all your alliance business, because, well I'm curious and feel I deserve to know.
[4393511]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 4:18 p.m.
Nambala,
Please find below going back like.... a day and a bit. If you want to come and have a look at the log im happy for you to nominate leader of either Franks or leader of Imperium to come confirm that I havent cut anything out of the log. Ill send them an invite and they can come across to see that I havent missed anything, I am not fabricating it. I can understand if they dont want to get involved but if you dont trust me please go ahead and ask them if they are happy to do this for you, I can assure you nothign is missing here.
http://prnt.sc/aw9fhc
Ive blacked out the diplomacy stuff but the blue boxs show members entering and leaving the alliance. As I said, I'm 99% sure that that muppet who was sendign those abusive messages was in TB the other day. You have a pact with Imperium and Franks I trust Carla and Irinah not to BS us if you need confirmation.
Are you able to provide the same log please.
Also, your 100% correct I have no right. However our members have a right to play without being abused. If the member in question did drop from TB after abusing us from TB and then your saying it never occured its an interesting one wouldnt you think ??
Look forward to your response.
JJ
Please find below going back like.... a day and a bit. If you want to come and have a look at the log im happy for you to nominate leader of either Franks or leader of Imperium to come confirm that I havent cut anything out of the log. Ill send them an invite and they can come across to see that I havent missed anything, I am not fabricating it. I can understand if they dont want to get involved but if you dont trust me please go ahead and ask them if they are happy to do this for you, I can assure you nothign is missing here.
http://prnt.sc/aw9fhc
Ive blacked out the diplomacy stuff but the blue boxs show members entering and leaving the alliance. As I said, I'm 99% sure that that muppet who was sendign those abusive messages was in TB the other day. You have a pact with Imperium and Franks I trust Carla and Irinah not to BS us if you need confirmation.
Are you able to provide the same log please.
Also, your 100% correct I have no right. However our members have a right to play without being abused. If the member in question did drop from TB after abusing us from TB and then your saying it never occured its an interesting one wouldnt you think ??
Look forward to your response.
JJ
[4393550]
Nambala (AU1) [AU1]
:: April 24, 2016, 4:42 p.m.
You have my response. He was not in TBs.
[4393577]
JJJJJJSK (AU1) [None]
:: April 24, 2016, 4:56 p.m.
Like I trust that Nambala hahahahaNambala (AU1) said:You have my response. He was not in TBs.
Your word means nothing, I provided logs, you have that capacity. Straight up your hiding the fact that he was in the alliance while saying another thing, not a hard thing for you to go and do here.
Fkn pathetic. You have lied to me previously and still maintain it wasnt a lie. In the first thread the admins deleted Jenny was changing story as to how events occured to try and not get caught out when the house started to come down.
Unable to provide the logs = he was in the alliance at the time it happened. Thats my view at this point in time and you say anythign else again you have the capacity to prove your not telling fibs here yet CHOOSE not to use that capacity to prove your not tellign fibs.
I get its none of my buisness, however as I stated, the continued abuse we receive and your lax response is what we find concerning. Thankyou for publically CHOOSING to not prove your not a liar.
Heck, Ill go one step further, you want to see our logs, Ill invite you personally to come to seps to check them out. Not edited at all. You want to call me a liar, offer is on the table, look forward to your logs Nambala, or does it hurt when you get caught out in a lie so you just clam up and walk away at this point?
JJ
[4393992]
Nambala (AU1) [AU1]
:: April 24, 2016, 11:52 p.m.
I thought you wanted the name-calling to stop? You make unfounded allegations and then say it's up to us to prove you wrong, and call me a liar if I refuse to do so. This is not the first time, I'm sure it won't be the last.
If you want the name-calling and the insults to stop, then stop throwing around unfounded allegations and insisting on your right to proof that whatever cockamamie story you come up with is false and if I refuse that's proof that I'm a liar. I have not called you any names at all, you can't say the same in return. You have absolutely no evidence that I have ever lied to you, because I have not done so. Bring forawrd evidence of my constant dishonesty, or quit slandering me to all and sundry. And either way, quit the unfounded insults and name-calling.
If you want the name-calling and the insults to stop, then stop throwing around unfounded allegations and insisting on your right to proof that whatever cockamamie story you come up with is false and if I refuse that's proof that I'm a liar. I have not called you any names at all, you can't say the same in return. You have absolutely no evidence that I have ever lied to you, because I have not done so. Bring forawrd evidence of my constant dishonesty, or quit slandering me to all and sundry. And either way, quit the unfounded insults and name-calling.
[4393999]
makale (AU1) [None]
:: April 25, 2016, 12:02 a.m.
jj,
Bigfeet was not a member (or has visited) this alliance for the past 3 days. I have also checked the log. It is as Nam has previously stated.
You can either believe me or not.
Bigfeet was not a member (or has visited) this alliance for the past 3 days. I have also checked the log. It is as Nam has previously stated.
You can either believe me or not.
[4394014]
Wedgy Whacker (AU1) [None]
:: April 25, 2016, 12:49 a.m.
Possible solution: but would require GGE to implement.
After LOSING an attack (not sab) on any of your castles (i.e. castle on fire) you automatically go into protection mode, until your buildings are repaired or for set period of time. There will be a delay before protection mode starts. If you break protection mode yourself by attacking you are fair game.
After LOSING an attack (not sab) on any of your castles (i.e. castle on fire) you automatically go into protection mode, until your buildings are repaired or for set period of time. There will be a delay before protection mode starts. If you break protection mode yourself by attacking you are fair game.