Yeah,

But let's be honest, how many people who play EE can honestly say they've never cheated (either here, or back on old earth2025)?

I'm mean I never cheated, but I also was never a big name and I only found EE because I went searching for earth one day.

Netgain

Lies, lies I say.

Havoc lives inside a cage at the zoo.

You're going to stop posting non-stop in the forums?

Thank you Qzjul, this alone makes the change worth it.



{quote poster=silverbeet]It means I got another start I could use for my demo=techer. It's all about the start and how much land I can get early on. Anything that improves gains is worth considering. [/quote] But if you're talking about gaining land to start then you're still better off with a Rep or Tyr.

They were caught once, mainly in FFA, and the Devs dealt with the situation.

Let's just let it go. If they get caught again; then we can talk, but for now let's just let it go.

....

How does it help your demo techer in any way?

Which is a horrible policy, and why nobody agrees on warring each other anymore.

Set 1 - Remember when I said I was part of the team of recruits this set? Yeah, I wasn't here for set 1. And I don't care that they got stomped, remember.

Set 2 - Really? From what I've heard here on the forums they tried to enforce the policy early on too.
Either way though, it means they hid from the FS, then boasted that they did so well despite being FS'd.

Set 3 - Yes, we did last more than the 48 hours, and yes, they did do better than us.
Of course having fewer numbers, less organization (being many new members), and as you said having some of us killed pre-fs.
Not sure your point.

Yes, we find a policy to be garbage and stand up to it, despite overwhelming odds.
But apparently you think we should let it go. Imagine if the founding fathers had thought that way.

Wow, what a sexiest remark.

So you admit you're Gregg?

About time, I was expecting some rant about how you're not Gregg.

He went looking for a tag that was going to fight RD. That could have meant anything, he didn't know, he just wanted to annoy RD, and that could have been achieved fighting 5 on 5.

Once again, lol at not realizing the difference between the words don't and shouldn't.

Set 1 - Yes, garbage policy, that RD would never accept being done on them.

Set 2 - Yes, they did hide, then they tried to enforce their policy on hits against their hidden countries, posted their tags two weeks later, then claimed they hadn't hid.

Set 3 - If you mean this set then no, definitely had original countries longer than 48 hours.

And yet no one said it was their fault, nor did we say they shouldn't war us after our FS, nor many of the other strawmen you guys keep creating.

I didn't say they don't, quite clearly I said they do. I'm saying they shouldn't.

Attacking someone first is one thing, but when they post that they want to war you next set, and look for a single tag to war you with, you shouldn't turn around and use 5 or 6 tags to kill that one country the rest of the set.

What I'm not going to do is get 30 guys to help me beat the hell out of you, then show up at the hospital every day to keep beating on you, then track you down after you join a witness protection program and continue to beat you down.
If you challenge me to a fight tomorrow I'd either say no, or say alright, and get some friends to make sure he doesn't have help, I' not going to get friends, then follow him home and beat him with those 30 friends.

No, RD claims they only have that policy to stop the cross retals, but they refuse to get rid of it if the cross retalling is stopped.

Repeat yourself all you want, it doesn't matter. I don't care that they're "RD".
If I cared about such things I;d be trying to war NA in alliance and LAE in FFA every set just because of what happened awhile ago now. I really don't care about who they are, I just think they're 1:kill policy is garbage.

He wanted to join a tag that was going to kill RD in the next set. RD would already be attacked by that team, he just wanted to join them. That's very different than threatening to declare all out war on them.

Fact is you shouldn't kill someone for wanting to war you next set (especially since that's warning you as opposed to surprising you with a random FS), and you shouldn't continue to kill countries the next set when they haven't done anything yet, nor should your ror.


But you're right, they haven't agreed to get rid of the 1:kill policy, though they will pretend it only exists because we don't stick to 5 man tags.

Fact is they shouldn't kill people for saying things on the boards, and certainly isn't an excuse for killing people who want to war them in a future set, or attacked them in a previous one.

They're not saying they'll play by team server rules.

One said his team would stick to 5 man tags next set, but refused to speak for the others in RD. The others, meanwhile, have said they'll do it, but only when everyone else does, stops talking smack, and accepts their 1:kill policy.

While that may happen, the truth is there's a good chance RD would continue to cross-kill and cross-retal for at least a set, claiming they wanted proof that no one was going to just change their mind or trick them with an FS.
In addition to that, others (I believe Mr. Silver) have said they find that boring and don't want to play that way.

It was Warlorde, who was looking for a tag to join that was already planning to war RD.
RD killed his country that set, then after that messaged BRated and told the that they would continue to kill Warlorde's restarts, and that if they interferred that RD would kill them as well.
BRated responded to RD, saying they couldn't accept that just as RD never would, and rather than try and work things out diplomatically, RD killed them all.

RD cross killed them (something RD claims they're against and only use on lots of tags allied together), and said it was their fault for being allied with tags, when they were never allied with other tags and did not join them in attacking RD.

Fun fact: RD (whom members here have claimed are always up for sticking to their 5 an tags) rejected the challenge saying it was boring and worthless.

They also cross set killed people, killing countries for having attacked the in previous sets, as well as having killed countries for attacking after RD ror'd.

No, I remember more than one person. In fact I remember someone talking about possibly waring RD in the next set, so RD killed them during that one.

As I recall RD attacked a tag during a KR that hadn't hit them (BRated) simply because they had offered a 1tag on 1tag battle in the next set.

Oh, I was in the new tag made of recruits.

But they have killed people for it.
In fact, didn't they kill people last set for talking on the boards? Yeah, I remember that.

No, I don't.

RD can and will hit and farm people (Could have taken a quote a few retals myself before the FS, but didn't want to take the chance of blowing it).

The only response to such things is to attack them back, but that gets you killed.

So leaving them alone and never touching them (which is what happens when you don't have people fighting the policy) is letting RD farm you.

Again, what whining?

This thread was started by RD because we hadn't said anything all set. Then, when you started talking about killing us, and that we should learn, we admitted that we know we're going to lose and keep losing. We know we have fewer numbers, and that while RD won't be attacked by others we will be. We know it's a losing battle, but we keep fighting it.

The only one's whining are RD members like Mr. Lime.

So what you're saying is that everybody should just leave RD alone, and let RD farm everyone.

Hmmm... I'm going to have to say no on that one.

That's because you're just trying to trick people.

You want us to stick to our 5 man tags, and you'll stick to yours. Oh, but you only stick for your team, so when the rest of RD whom you don't speak for then jump in to help you kill us, that's still playing fair because you never said you could speak for them.

Ahh...

Well in general I'd say I'm not too fond of that reasoning. I mean it sucks to have an alliance just tag killing small guys for the fun of it cause they're bored...

But considering everything I know about CTU, and considering the whole Farming KIWI issue, I can't say I'm all that sad or disappointed.
I just don't want to see tags like what KIWI was getting killed simply for existing.

After the KIWI thread, are you really allowed to complain?
Also, let's stop with the LAE cheat stuff. The mods dealt with it, it's over.


So why'd you kill him then?

That's because a Dictatorship is not a netting strat. It's meant for war, pure and simple.

Does it need tweaking? Yes, spies either need to be enhanced (especially damage for some ops), or it needs to have something else in place of it's spy bonus.

That said, it's still a good strat. It's simply not meant for netting, and shouldn't be. Leave it a pure military strat.

Yes, we realize that a group with far superior numbers that has instilled fear in the rest of the server is going to do better than a group with fewer numbers that gets grabbed a fair bit.



That's because they're afraid of you guys.


So the 1:kill policy is a lie? Or is it that you were inthe middle of a war at that point and felt it was better to do a kill run on your actually enemies?


Yes, because they're afraid of you. They don't want to get into a big fight so they let you kill their countries.


What whining? You keep saying we're whining, but we've already admitted we're going to lose, and keep fighting anyways.
We're not whining about losing, we're calling your 1:kill policy garbage. Are you telling me you're not man enough to take a little criticism?


Good for that reset. I wasn't here then, but didn't you guys stat that war over cross retalling?

Really? Let's see here...


That's more like it. What you're really saying is that it all could have been worked out, but then you guys got more numbers so you didn't feel like it.
Well, that or you're saying you're really so sensitive as to actually care that people online talked trash.


Ended where? With you killing them?


Wow, you seem awfully sensitive to the words of a few people online. I would hate to see you in the real world, though I imagine it would involve breaking down in tears which would be pretty funny.


Small hint, there's a difference between hiding in unknown tags, and recruiting people into new tags. I believe it's the recruitment part.


Where have you been? We haven't really said anything this set. In fact it was Charcoal who had to start this thread and start talking. Nas then started talking about us, and saying we should smarten up next set and leave RD alone, at which point we came out and said that we still think the 1:kill policy is garbage, and that even if we lose every set we will continue to fight it.
That's not talking fluff, that's confirming that we will be here set after set with the same goals.



Again, you miss the point where none of us said anything this set until you guys did, and where we haven't complained about dying, but rather admitted that it's a losing battle, but one we'll continue to fight.


Wow, you're really that sensitive to what is (or in this case is not) said online?
Seriously, this is not real life, there is a whole world beyond your computer, check it out, you might like it.

Kill the top country of a random clan? How do you get random? Draw box?

*Stuffs draw box with LaE cards*

It's a shot at an admin.

It may be intended as a personal shot, or a shot at EVO, but he's doing it at an Admin.

I'm saying his best bet is to thank the admins for their hard work and then ask for help with the stock.

Insulting an admin (even if it's just a personal thing and not at all the admins) is just not going to help.

He called Slag a moron and said Slag was only taking the stance he did to screw LaF and help EVO.

Hey, LT;

Just some friendly advice here, but in the future I'd suggest thanking the admins for their hard work on the game and politely asking if something can be done about the lost stock. I mean insulting them and accusing them of manipulating the game after all the hard work they put in really doesn't seem like the best approach.

Just some friendly advice though.

So you just ignore the hypocrisy that you enforce a 1:kill policy but would not accept the same being done to your countries?

Gotcha.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
...
...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I just thought that was hilarious.

I mean you guys implement a 1:kill policy, then attack various countries at random for land, kill those who retal that land, and you're calling someone else a hypocrite.

?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't war or that AoDT is crippled;
I'm just asking if they're really a threat.

If NBK wants to war AoDT again then they should; the last war wasn't even when it started so it's not like they have any obligation to make this war even,

I'm just curious as to whether AoDT is actually a threat anymore.


That said, it is the beginning of the set still, so their numbers could rise. I'd be interested to see how many people from AoDT are still to tag up, and how many just left the clan.

Are they a threat though?

I mean last set (and correct me if I'm wrong here), didn't they require an FS and starting off with something like 100 more countries than NBK?

I might be wrong, if so sorry, but I thought it was something like that, and right now they have like half the amount of countries as NBK so they wouldn't really be a threat would they?

Aww...

I'm worthy of my own thread. I feel so happy.

Close it.

The issue was dealt with and won't surface again (hopefully), and it never really had a purpose anyways (since Stalker is still here).

Which he did.

Mad posted in here telling everyone that Zeus is sick. AFTER that, Despero posted saying that to his knowledge Zues left for other reasons and that to his knowledge someone else is sick, not Zeus.
That's doubting. Otherwise he would have just said it doesn't really matter. Posting that someone left for non-health reasons after being told hey left for health reasons is doubting.

Pointing out that to your knowledge he's fine and left for other reasons is doubting his health situation, otherwise you wouldn't have said anything.

What about that guy that doubted his health...



Yeah, that one.

Why?

Ultimately AoDT won the war.

NBK may have been catching up, and AoDT may have lost a lot of countries, but they still had more NW; more hits, and more kills.

NBK may have been able to win the war if it had gone on longer, but unfortunately for NBK it didn't, so AoDT was handed the win.

Does your dad know that I was the one who gave your mom herpes?

Because it wouldn't work. It would just end up like team server, where you'd have like 4 or 5 different tags for clans.

Like LAE1, LAE2, LAE3, etc.

What about splitting it?

Like reducing this server down to 8 countries per person, and creating anouther server with 8 countries per person where the maximum tag membership is 8.

Or 16 in both, that way those who want more countries and the ability to be an effective one man tag get it, while those who like the game as is don't have to worry about the server dieing.

Wow, it looks awesome.

Was odd to get to the site and see it all changed up after years of it looking the same, and especially since I had no idea you guys were working on a new look, but it certainly looks great.

No, I got you before.

By which you mean you didn't bother to check with your leadership, but attacked anyways, and aren't man enough to admit you screwed up.

Gotcha.

Yeah. In Alliance the landtrading is harder to impliment because you have two different people involved so you need to co-ordinate, but it's definately possible.

And sorry qzjul, but I just had to say it.
Everytime you guys impliment a change people say it's against war strats, so somebody had to say it this time.

Hmm... It's still not working on my IE.

I downloaded firefox and I can see my news and log into my alliance account from there, so I can run my account like normal, but it still won't work on my IE. Maybe it's an interaction problem with that.

I just use Internet Explorer.

What?

That's horrible. That's obviously intended to be an anti-warring policy, making our attacks less effective during a LG KR.


Heh, sorry, I just had to.
Seriously, I approve of this, it seems like a good attempt to prevent the million acre countries in FFA.