assume your per member means the other clans members, not your own? interesting thought.

I wasn't referring specifically to EEVIL here, I understand EEVIL's point of view and in the future we're going to be a bit stricter about hitting much smaller clans. Except for EEVIL, because they seem keen to harbour RD fluffwits who take out their own mistakes on us.* We're happy to keep grabbing them, in fact I'm kind of tempted to make an exception to our 72 hour rule for them.

I'm talking about some alliances with between 15-25 members, all of whom we grabbed less than 10 times this set. One I was particularly surprised about because we had no retalling disputes with them, they retalled everything and got their land back on every hit...

* Mr Charcoal - grabbed us, got fluff returns because he doesn't know how to grab, gets retalled and then grabs us 3 times as we get FSed. After getting retalled, he goes for another quad tap which we retal, only to get FSed by EEVIL
Mr Lime - multi-taps us, gets retalled in hits authorised by his clan leaders, gets mad about not knowing his clans policies and suicides us

But I bring those up but this is not about EEVIL, this is about mid-sized clans. If you're playing in a clan with more than 15 members, do you think our grabbing policy is fair?

I thought I'd make a post here since apparently, more than just EEVIL have accused Fist of "farming" them. I think we probably have the strictest grabbing policies in the game, so I just thought I'd ask for your guys opinions on our policies.

1. No more than 1 hit per Fist member on any established alliance within a 72 hour period (and unlike some clans, we actually enforce policies internally)
2. We'll give you a DNH if we've grabbed you over 10 times (15 for larger clans) and you ask for one (this is provided you aren't grabbing as equally as much or doing something else to piss us off)
3. If we have more than our "normal" amount of grabbing members (ie. between 4 and 6) we'll tighten our policies
4. We accept 72 hours retal windows (provided you let us do the same) and land:land (once again, if you give us the same courtesy) and have a simple and easy-to-understand set of retal policies
5. Unlike some clans, we do not allow grabbing alliances at war even when we had advance knowledge of the FS as well as not-so-great relations with these clans

Obviously we have some exceptions to these policies, such as allowing double taps and farming of people who regularly multi-tap us or have decided to take advantage of us while we go to war, but this applies to approximately 3 people on the server atm.

So, my question to you is: How is it possible for an alliance to be "farmed" by Fist?

With no multi-taps, 72h grabbing windows per alliance and very few grabbers, how is it that alliances with far more lenient grabbing rules (or rules that go unenforced) manage to complain about being farmed by us? Why is it that people who GDI farm untaggeds off the server throw such a hissy fit when they get grabbed once? With ghost acres, why is it that people still think that grabbing can not be mutually beneficial? It just takes some brains, such as a very basic understanding of how networth affects grabbing returns.

It's too bad that with your history as head of Sof, with crap like naturals, noons gives a fluff about what you think is the right way to play the game, Ivan. If clans stopped constantly retalling retals, fist might not gs retallers

I´m on vacation but I just had to come back for this...

Are you serious? RAGE grab Fist, lose land on retals and then retal the retals. PDM and iMag seem to enjoy losing land to us too, not sure if that´s a coincidence. Maybe they´ll decide they don´t accept retals anymore soon as well, isn´t that what your coalition is about?

Or is it about pissing off as many clans as possible before Collab kills you all? Kind of ironic that you decide to "initiate land grabbing" with smaller clans instead of say... SOL or LCN after you pitched this to us as a "coalition of small clans" last set.

*back to vacation*
*not an official Fist person this set. my country is tagged elsewhere*

And since spawn and toma haven´t responded, this probably isn´t the official party line.

I'm just going to repost this and leave

lol@Soviet claiming victory.

lololololol


worst alliance leader ever :D

Seriously I have no idea why you insist you're at war with SOL.

It just makes you look even more retarded.

#201

iMag fail #1,000,000

What I think is more pathetic is that you actually came into this expecting to win, as shown by SOL's declaration on both iMag and LCN (now you're doing kill runs together)

So Soviet, are you planning on getting any other clans killed this set?

Right but you're making it seem like LCN wasn't affected by their war (iMag is not much smaller than LCN) and you're ignoring the fact that SOL had a clean FS on LCN (which, no offense to SOL because they're a very good alliance, was very weak)

It's definitely not a case of "LCN and Omega are so much bigger"

Yeah Soviet Lover you dumbass, can't you see all those hits iMag and SOL are trading?

Seriously iMag guys, I would probably just have let this thread die.

During our wars with iMag and SOL

Bit rich coming from SoF don't you think?

Wow, it took you a day to start using your war against us an excuse for being pathetic?

I was thinking "wow iMag actually picked a challenging war - though they'll probably lose" and then I realized they weren't warring the entire other side but just RAGE.

Typical iMag pathetic.

Someone actually cares about SoF pacts?

Thanks for showing everyone how much you suck, iMag.

Don't run a tag when it's nothing but spam

Stop whining.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


NO YOU PROVED HOW GAY YOU ARE







aaahahahahahaha

lol plausible iMag vs. LaF - win
if you can call LaF, LCN + TIE, SOL, LCN, IX + SOL wins then I can call ours a win. I mean, we proved how mediocre iMag is... it's probably a better justification for the "win" than what you will ahve for LCN+TIE

im fairly sure you lost the Fist war so its more like you win 0% of hte time

Look, I know your idea is to have fun. That's every clan's idea.

Some people have fun by trying to be the best netters. Others have fun by fighting wars. Some people have fun because they're playing with the same group of people as 8 years ago. (ie. Fist)

It's just that most people also think your idea of fun is quite pathetic and that you're a mediocre alliance who can't win even wars, and seems to avoid them for this reason, choosing either to get massacred by larger clans or to win against smaller clans.

Hope this clears up your understanding. ;)

So you cite a coalition war where "your side" outnumbered the enemy something like 3:2, a war which you lost, FSing two netting clans (losing), another war which you lost, another war which you lost until we finally get to the MD war.

Basically the TIE and LCN war is understandable, if you did that every set people might consider you a serious clan. MD war is the last even war you actually won (I think you did anyway but not sure). So your member's idea of fun is to build their countries all set, then lose in a day or two to LaF/SOL or build their countries all set and then steamroll over a netting alliance or in a coalitiion war.

Wow man, your examples sure make you seem LESS pathetic!

Let's ignore the other crap you posted because you obviously ignored the question there and are putting way more effort into this than I am and focus on the essentials:

You pretty much admitted that iMag hasn't won an even war in recent history. Nice.

Oh yeah and only iMag members seem to think one country sending FA is an act of war, because no one else has really agreed with you there (or commented on the issue, save for a few people ridiculing you on the first page, but you're used to being a joke I guess)

And being mediocre has kept you guys in business for 8 years - rolling over and dying may well guarantee longetivity

Ofc we haven't won anything. Last set was our first set back and we have Rogue for fluffs sake.

iMag on the other hand has existed for 8 year straight now without achieving anything. When was the last time you won an even war? Basically you've stooped down to the level of declaring war on netting clans smaller than you for ridiculous reasons to justify your loss in whatever retarded war you pick next. And you will lose - like in the LaF war, you somehow still have countries with fluff defence levels and no SDI. Your phone list has been called average at best, which for a clan that wars every set is quite pathetic. You've got decent activity but your killrun leaders are still fluff (seriously, go to an Evo warchat run by Slagpit to see how it's done) You'll lose to any clan around your size with a warring setup, but hey, at least now you have an excuse for sending all your missiles.

And hey, why would we be ashamed of losing to you? You're significantly bigger than us, we were netting and to be honest, it's our second set back - we haven't got anything set up.

So to reiterate what dagga said:

"Are imaginary numbers important enough an alliance to be allowed to post a war dec? Should be a separate board for them"

Scode, are you serious? One player FAing one player is an FA issue, not an act of war. And we would have cut if off if we had been told.

Stop being stupid.


Soviet: Glad you're so proud to suck :) I mean dying every set would be understandable if you actually did something worthwhile while alive (see SOL during the big IX block vs. SOL block wars) but when you constantly get outclassed it just seems pointless. Why even play?

And I know you guys take pride in being mediocre, but when that real war does come along, I would probably tell your countries to buy enough defense so that a 3 day old restart isn't able to BR 100 jets offchat.

Not that we're really having warchats anyway.

Soviet, I thought you already gave up on that excuse?

I mean when you think about it, it's quite pathetic. One country FAed TIE, as Snarf and Spawn have said if we'd been told we probably would have done something about it.

Looking forward to laughing at you after you lose the next one, unless you decide that another small netting clan has somehow "wronged" you in the past

Ok, Soviet - FSing a netting clan 77% of your size changes everything. I take back everything I said about iMag wanting an easy war so they have an excuse to lose the next one.

Phew, glad we cleared that one up!

Though to be honest, this was probably calculated on iMag's part:
They beat Fist up, they go on to fight someone their own size, they lose, now they have an excuse to justify their existence. :P

btw Scode, I do seem to remember you being better than this... ;)

funny how quickly iMag's reason became:
"Well they're a netting clan so we might as well war them"

Good job iMag for warring a netting clan with 55% of your members, and all of them in a netting setup anyway. Well done indeed.

one of us FAed TIE.

(and would have stopped if iMag had asked)

oh well, enjoy the challenge iMag. if you can't beat alliances you're own size there will always be SMALLER netting alliances, right?

hahaha... Ivan is such a pathetic whiner, glad most of AT sees that