|
|
9 Jul 2007, 11:38
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
To VGN, CT and Jenova
How about dropping your out of tag members aeh?
Try to compete on a fair basis and prove your actual able to be top3 without cheating.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 11:48
|
#2
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
If you have a problem with it then get some other alliances to help you stop them. If you can't (because you are an obnoxious, smelly ****) or won't (because you are shit at Planetarion) then you have no-one to blame but yourself.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 11:54
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Ohh so asking people to follow the actual rules of a game you play is all silly or what?
Seems to me half you lot aint much different then those teenagers playing counterstrike or diablo cheating and exploiting thier way ahead as best they can.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 11:56
|
#4
|
Mildly Amused
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 105
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Why play with us then? Go run your massive WoW guild or something.
__________________
R4-R9.5 ETY | ViruS | Retalion | Other...
Inactive R13 and a couple of later rounds.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:01
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Considered a PA without cheating and exploiting might be more fun in the long run?
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:04
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Report to MH then. I'm sure they will close the planets that are cheating.
This is not helping you.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:10
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Why is a general plea to the top alliances to upheld the 70 members limit not helping?
Or are you saying its ok to cheat and exploit as long as it doesnt get caught?
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:18
|
#8
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Because most people don't want arbitrary and useless limits placed on the size of their ingame communities? I can't believe you don't get this yet. For many people this game is about more than the pointless accumulation of score for a Tag. For those for whom tag score is important they are prepared to put additional effort into arranging structures that will allow them to be successful, which in a competitive environment may take them over the 70. They are also prepared to participate in politics as a means to achieve their goals, perhaps recognising that PA has the potential to be a lot more than a spreadsheet extravaganza.
You don't see it because you are stupid and your insignificant intelligence is still stuck on the micromanaging of some shitty guild in WoW. Please return to that world of anal-retentive detail obsession and leave the grown up games alone until you "get" them.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:20
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 161
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
Why is a general plea to the top alliances to upheld the 70 members limit not helping?
Or are you saying its ok to cheat and exploit as long as it doesnt get caught?
|
No. It's not ok, but have you got any evidence that someone isn't playing by the rules?
If you have, then report to MH.
edit: and what Achilles said
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:26
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Because most people don't want arbitrary and useless limits placed on the size of their ingame communities?... (exessive meaningsless spam cut out)
|
Its still the rules that the alliance limit is 70 members, not higher.
In taking part in any game, what so ever game it would be, its vital to play by the rules to allow for a equal playingfield.
If you disagree suggest a rule change - but do not abuse, exploit or cheat to go around it.
Look on the current top14 alliances - Notice how 10 members from rank 13 to 14 is a huge difference in capabiliy.
10 members or as in one alliances case 18 members out of tag playing support is 30 or in that case 54 additional fleets they can use, its just not fair.
Besides that the alliance limit rule can add a whole new perspective to PA if its upheld you would be needing to recruit members based on thier race or role in alliance alot more then you do now.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:26
|
#11
|
Hi there ...
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 481
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
Why is a general plea to the top alliances to upheld the 70 members limit not helping?
Or are you saying its ok to cheat and exploit as long as it doesnt get caught?
|
Because they if what you say is true they do it to win and know that what they are doing is probably against the rules. Why should 1 of them admit anything - they have nothing to gain from it.
And besides that probably it doesnt help because you are asking for it
__________________
#Reunion
[Ascendancy] - While you were trying, we were sleeping
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 12:58
|
#12
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
Its still the rules that the alliance limit is 70 members, not higher.
|
Can you paste the relevant section of the rules please? I have read them comprehensively and I have never seen this written down anywhere.
Quote:
If you disagree suggest a rule change - but do not abuse, exploit or cheat to go around it.
|
You are saying this to me of all people? Loltastic. I'm virtually on crusade right now, but thank you for your helpful, if not very observant, advice.
Quote:
Look on the current top14 alliances - Notice how 10 members from rank 13 to 14 is a huge difference in capabiliy.
|
Then these alliances can co-operate together to achieve their aims. We call this politics. We like to think it's a huge part of the game. You don't but then you are very stupid so that's ok.
Quote:
Besides that the alliance limit rule can add a whole new perspective to PA if its upheld you would be needing to recruit members based on thier race or role in alliance alot more then you do now.
|
You clearly have absolutely no idea, at all, about how Top Tier alliances are run. Seriously, none.
Quote:
(exessive meaningsless spam cut out)
|
It was neither excessive, being of 1 paragraph in length (unless you need to run your finger under the words to follow them like toddlers do?), nor meaningless. I pointed out that politics is and should remain an integral part of the game. You dismissed this because it doesn't suit your argument and you have no counter point.
Essentially you want to play a game where it's teams of 70 facing off vs one another. Planetarion has never been about this and it's a bad move for it to be heading in this direction. All the game has left is the community created by the few people still interested enough to bother. And these people are being cut off at the knees every time they attempt to show innovation. I can't see a way to kill a game faster.
|
|
|
9 Jul 2007, 13:07
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Essentially you want to play a game where it's teams of 70 facing off vs one another.
|
(yet again cutting out all the trolling spam).
No i am not saying it should be a 70 vs 70 game and just that.
I am saying the alliances are whats beeing meassured in rankings - not blocks or the politics and cooperation between alliances. So for that to be fair each alliance has to operate within equal settings.
Then there is ofcause the possibility of serveral alliances working together to beat a stronger or other alliances, that might also work together and thats fine to me. But no single alliance should be allowed over the member limit.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 11:46
|
#14
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
Its still the rules that the alliance limit is 70 members, not higher.
|
Listen you ****ing moron. There is nothing in the rules about 70 members. Nothing. Not a word about it in the EULA at all. Go and read the damn thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb
Err, what does cservice have to do with this? They are a part of NetGamers, not Planetarion.
|
At a guess, he wants cservice to reveal how many people are added to the private channels of the alliances in question (to see if it's over 70).
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 12:25
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Listen you ****ing moron. There is nothing in the rules about 70 members. Nothing. Not a word about it in the EULA at all. Go and read the damn thing!
|
Actually it says max alliance size is 70 members in the manual.
And MH has stated its beeing upheld as a rule.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 12:52
|
#16
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manual
The member limit is 70, but the last ten members need to be half the score/value average of the top 10 alliances.
|
Given that even the second half of that line isn't true I'm sure we'll be forgiven if we put no faith in that particular heap of shit.
In any case, no one signs the manual. You sign the EULA, a legal agreement between the player and Jolt. It's this agreement that was put in place to outline the game rules and nowhere in that document does it say anything about alliance sizes or even anything remotely related to that.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:16
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
In any case, no one signs the manual. You sign the EULA, a legal agreement between the player and Jolt. It's this agreement that was put in place to outline the game rules and nowhere in that document does it say anything about alliance sizes or even anything remotely related to that.
|
And then we are back to finding loopholes and exploits.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:22
|
#18
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
And then we are back to finding loopholes and exploits.
|
No, we are still at playing the game within the limits set by the rules and game mechanics. Multiple alliances cooperating is not banned anywhere, unless some multihunter considers it as unfair.
Which leads exactly back to Rob's original question: What is 'unfair' in Planetarion?
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:30
|
#19
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Multiple alliances cooperating is not banned anywhere
|
No but 1 alliance faking as 2 tags to circumvent the rules is.
And thats unfair.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:35
|
#20
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
And then we are back to finding loopholes and exploits.
|
Then these need to be clearly outlined in the rules you retard. You are beyond ignorant to the point where the resulting stupidity you spew forth is starting to offend my delicate sensibilities. The fact remains that we are policed by a corrupt agency in a game where the only rule of law is "What we say goes."
This is not right man, but you can't see that. You would rather slander people and make posts with no basis in fact. How do you ever expect to achieve what you want to when you spend all your time alienating the people you are supposedly trying to convince? Or perhaps you are even stupid enough to truly believe that you can annoy people into doing what you want.
Last edited by Achilles; 10 Jul 2007 at 13:42.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:40
|
#21
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
No but 1 alliance faking as 2 tags to circumvent the rules is.
And thats unfair.
|
Where is the difference between 2 tags cooperating and 2 tags cooperating? Mind you, per game mechanics and rules each tag is defined as a seperate alliance inside the game.
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:55
|
#22
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Further to the previous few posts, it is not an alliance limit. The 70 member limit is a limit on the number of members who may be in the alliance tag.
The alliance member limit is irrelevant to the support planet rule, since it can apply whether or not an alliance's tag is full.
Quote:
18 (2) (f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.
|
This is the joke of a rule that the multihunters are haphazardly enforcing in an attempt to enforce the tag limit upon alliances. I will say again: there is no limit on the size of alliances per se, only upon their in-game tags. The support planet rule is being wrongly applied, in a manner that it was never intended for.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 13:57
|
#23
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
This is the joke of a rule that the multihunters are haphazardly enforcing in an attempt to enforce the tag limit upon alliances. I will say again: there is no limit on the size of alliances per se, only upon their in-game tags. The support planet rule is being wrongly applied, in a manner that it was never intended for.
|
I guess a few of the viper planets round 15 would have been inside the tag at a point, too. Another example of inside the tag support planets is 1up from round 17.
Is this what you are after, or what? Edit. In either case, tagged or untagged, the same or different tag, it's up to MH judgement - a planet that's in other tag than another planet can still consist as dedicated to repeating actions that cause unfair benefit (be it whatever ingame activity). What fulfills the criteria, is all up to the multihunters.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 14:04
|
#24
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Oh, in logical consequence we should also declare "planet naps" as violating the support planet rule
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 14:12
|
#25
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
I think you misunderstood me, Keizari. The support planet rule is separate from the tag limit, and I am not completely opposed to the presence of a support planet rule. It was correctly used against the viper planets of Round 15. However, I had no problem with the 1up tactics of Round 17. I don't want to get into a huge debate about this though.
My simple belief is that if we're going to have a tag limit to limit the size of alliances in-game, a support planet rule should only exist to counteract planets that spend almost all of the round outside of the tag and are devoted to furthering the interests of that tag. If an alliance sets up two tags, it's welcome to in my eyes.
Leaving everything up to the multihunters brings with it its own problems. There is no record of cases for people to consult to see if their actions contravene rules laid down by the multihunters - unlike in almost every common law system in the world. In fact, it's impossible to find out any information directly from the multihunters about closures of other planets. This makes the closure of planets a complete lottery, as we've seen recently.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
10 Jul 2007, 14:26
|
#26
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
It was correctly used against the viper planets of Round 15. However, I had no problem with the 1up tactics of Round 17. I don't want to get into a huge debate about this though.
|
This would be the exact core of the problem of the support rule. On one hand, you'd like to judge planets dedicated (given in-tag planets) to fleet movement, on other hand you're perfectly okay with planets dedicated to resource donations. What speaks for my perspective, is, that the actions 1up made during round 17 resulted in hardcoding the game so that repeating similar actions will be impossible, and that I was personally told by the current chief multihunter that I'm not allowed to recruit idle people to sit in the tag and donate resources as it'd be an infridgement of the support planet rule. (see below about hardcoded limits).
The similar kind of lack of logic applies to the current multihunter squad interpreting the very vague and probably, at least as agreed by a loud part of the community, more counterproductive than beneficial 18.2f.
Quote:
a support planet rule should only exist to counteract planets that spend almost all of the round outside of the tag and are devoted to furthering the interests of that tag. If an alliance sets up two tags, it's welcome to in my eyes.
|
I think it was when it was two weeks down to the end of round 17 when 1up tagged - this again fills your criteria, however you turn it. But as said, it's probably a vain debate as you're again interpreting a very vague rule on how you feel is fit, and that's the exact thing the current multihunters are doing - interpreting a very vague rule how they feel is fit.
As Jester mentioned on the other thread, the EULA should only govern things that can't be offset with hardcoded limits (given examples multiple planets and account sharing). The rest should really either be accounted to with hardcoded limits or be left with. I tend to also agree with JBG that the current ridiculous rules enforcement is really making it's mark by sending negative vibes and causing people to actually quit because of it, which is definately something nobody wants, as it's still a game the community has feelings towards, and while the future is a little bit of dark, there's little reason to stomp it down more with further ridiculousness.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 01:44
|
#27
|
xVx Peon
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Coventry
Posts: 268
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
And then we are back to finding loopholes and exploits.
|
Indeed. Posters from certain alliances can read and quote the eula all they want to, but they cant get away from the fact they have done all they possibly could to bypass the 70 person alliance limit this round. I just dont understand why the ingame limit is so difficult to follow..? If there is a consensus that the ingame limit is too stringent, then why is there no adult discussion about it? All I see now are childish insults aimed at those who feel that Asc's actions have been somewhat suspect, which I agree with given how out of tag planets did Asc's dirty work for them with regards to VisioN amps (our scanners and cov opers actually reside in the tag...). At worst this is blatant disregard of how the 70 man limit was meant to impact on the game, and at best can be considered a grey area.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 02:11
|
#28
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
when did vision become such whiners
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 02:43
|
#29
|
Old User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 81
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Discussions about the finer points of the rules aside, I'm still trying to see where the evidence of these alliances having out of tag members is, is there any or is this just a guess based on the them being the top 3 and who ever is in the top 3 is obviously cheating, someone has to be there, there is always going to be a top 3.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:02
|
#30
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
I have seen cservice records which are relatively convincing on this front. ie more than 70 members in private channels and such. Although to be honest I only came upon that information when I was running down other stuff about my own particular closure. Amazing what you can find out when you dig deep enough.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:14
|
#31
|
I see you!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I have seen cservice records which are relatively convincing on this front. ie more than 70 members in private channels and such. Although to be honest I only came upon that information when I was running down other stuff about my own particular closure. Amazing what you can find out when you dig deep enough.
|
To be honest, alliances can have as many people in their alliance channel as they want to. Last time I checked, Jolt didn't own Netgamers and thank god for that.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:27
|
#32
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
I have seen cservice records which are relatively convincing on this front. ie more than 70 members in private channels and such. Although to be honest I only came upon that information when I was running down other stuff about my own particular closure. Amazing what you can find out when you dig deep enough.
|
I'm not sure, but didn't Jester just state that private channels mean nothing? I'm sure this only goes for Ascendancy, right? It's not like there wouldn't be hangarounds in any other alliance's private channel. At least we had ours at Angels last round (frankly, I'm expecting one of you to come up with the LOL BUT THATS ANGELS, so I'll do it for you first).
BUT LOL THAT'S ANGELS!
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:36
|
#33
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Like I said, it was incidental information and not on the path I was pursuing. Of course alliances can have as many members as they like in their channels but having more than 70 at any one time, especially late at night, would indicate substantially more than 70 total, active members. I especially wouldn't expect Jenova to have too many hangers on for instance, as they are a first round alliance.
Obviously I don't think there is anything wrong with this but I know that there are those who do. I was closed by one of them myself in an act of total hypocrisy.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:40
|
#34
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
I'm pretty sure what he wrote is fair comment based on solid evidence. I mean, we're all thinking it...
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:44
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
No your not all thinking it - a bunch of people belonging to the same group of people mainly are spamming the boards as a horde trying to get thier will forced trough.
The large silent majority that doesnt take part actually do care about playing fairly.
But heck you been playing so many rounds trying to exploit and push the limits of the rules you dont even get it anymore.
Aint much difference between wallhacks and headshot script kiddies in CS and what you lot pushing ahead for is there.
I am raising a completely valid point and if everyone followed the limitations of the game i am sure it would be even more fun, but then again the goal (winning) obvisously means more then the means (how you do it) for alot of you. Wheres your sense of honor and selfpride?
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:45
|
#36
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Red-, this might not be AD but don't call for mods to take action. Ever.
Just use the report post button like normal people do.
EDIT: and I'll say again - I'm not Ascendancy and never have been.
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:54
|
#37
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
I am raising a completely valid point and if everyone followed the limitations of the game i am sure it would be even more fun, but then again the goal (winning) obvisously means more then the means (how you do it) for alot of you. Wheres your sense of honor and selfpride?
|
Go **** yourself. Without meaning to sound like a dickhead, I could play in pretty much any alliance I wanted to. If I wanted to play to win I would be in Jenova or Conspiracy. If I wanted to play to win I wouldn't be a scanner. If I wanted to play to win I wouldn't be closed right now.
The fact is I didn't play for me this round and if you ask anyone who has played with me I have never played just for myself. I have given more back to PA alliances I have been part of than you will ever know, ignorant wanker that you are.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 12:56
|
#38
|
Mildly Amused
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 105
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
No your not all thinking it - a bunch of people belonging to the same group of people mainly are spamming the boards as a horde trying to get thier will forced trough.
|
Actually, that's exactly what you are doing. Continuous spamming of the same "arguments" over and over with complete disregard to the actual debate, and what other people are saying.
You're saying the exact same things you were saying a week ago, even if at least 10 people explained in detail why those arguments fail, yet you still ignore it. Please pay attention to what other people say and come up with something new to support your views, or stop trolling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by furball
EDIT: and I'll say again - I'm not Ascendancy and never have been.
|
Same, actually.
__________________
R4-R9.5 ETY | ViruS | Retalion | Other...
Inactive R13 and a couple of later rounds.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:01
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talin
even if at least 10 people explained in detail why those arguments fail, yet you still ignore it. Please pay attention to what other people say and come up with something new to support your views, or stop trolling.
|
My arguments do not fail, at all.
Me and others simply see the game and whats fair differently then you lot do.
"Competiting" with 20 members out of tag or a backup alliance for scanners and covoppers etc. just isnt fair and it shoulndt be that hard to understand that.
But ofcause lets play 15 vs 11 players in next football season i am sure it will be exiciting too see who wil win...
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:12
|
#40
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
(read it on the bottom of the first page)
|
I'm sure you were on the frontier when 1up had more than it's share round 17. I'm sure you were on the frontier when Wolfpack had more than it's share round 21. It happens. We're all living with it. Sometimes people get closed for it, more so if it's a bad weather in where Remy lives, sometimes they don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
But ofcause lets play 15 vs 11 players in next football season i am sure it will be exiciting too see who wil win...
|
OMG OMG OMG why is Manchester United allowed to buy more expensive players OMG OMG OMG why does Manchester United have more non-playing staff than Halifax town OMG OMG OMG let's limit it OMG OMG OMG.
This isn't football, dude.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:15
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
OMG OMG OMG why is Manchester United allowed to buy more expensive players OMG OMG OMG why does Manchester United have more non-playing staff than Halifax town OMG OMG OMG let's limit it OMG OMG OMG.
This isn't football, dude.
|
Some alliances has smarter, better and more experienced players then others, but if all played with an equal maximum amount of members then it would be those factors deciding the outcome of the round along with politics and not just who had most out of tag members.
There is a difference in quantity and quality - what i am saying is let quality decide the outcome of the rounds, not the quantity.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:17
|
#42
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
return of the spongebob
|
But ManUtd has more out of squad players than Halifax.
Can't we at least strive to correct that?
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:25
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Still only 11 players are allowed in the field at any given time for each team.
Its ok if you got 90 people wanting to join but only 70 can do it for a round, then you can replace some if some go idle/afk/on holiday etc but untill you kick another you cant use more of them.
Same goes for Man utd.
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:29
|
#44
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
Still only 11 players are allowed in the field at any given time for each team.
Its ok if you got 90 people wanting to join but only 70 can do it for a round, then you can replace some if some go idle/afk/on holiday etc but untill you kick another you cant use more of them.
Same goes for Man utd.
|
Nobody says Man Utd. doesn't have a second squad, though
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:32
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 204
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
They got a second squad, but the second squad aint allowed to play on the same level (league) as thier first squad to make share there is no unfair advantages...
__________________
Back from the unknown
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:36
|
#46
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
I think that having out of tag planets is a little unfair, it's the same as having them in a different tag and them therefore being 2 alliances, so alliances that don't have out of tag members can just team up and galraid or whatever it is you do to win at PA nowadays
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:40
|
#47
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red-
They got a second squad, but the second squad aint allowed to play on the same level (league) as thier first squad to make share there is no unfair advantages...
|
Too bad that PA has only one league then.
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:45
|
#48
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Stop arguing over an analogy that doesn't even fit in the first place. :|
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 13:55
|
#49
|
7th Malazan Army
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 68
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Can we just settle for the options...
a) the guy is a retard, in that case its not only useless but also heartless to bang him.
b) the guy is a troll, who nobody likes to waste his time with.
...and leave him be happy?
__________________
» I wonder what was going through Custer's mind when he realized that he'd led his men into a slaughter? «
» Sir, Custer was a pussy. You ain't. «
|
|
|
11 Jul 2007, 14:09
|
#50
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: To VGN, CT and Jenova
Can we all at least try to discuss this in a civil manner please? While i disagree with the entire premise of this thread personally just wantonly flaming someone is not acceptable.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:51.
| |