Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
Well how do you end wars then? You cant just walk off and assume that the other side will lose interest.
Of course we did (or at least the ones to do with ult - did not anticipate app turning on us). Yes ult wins, but we knew that was going to happen even if the war continued. If the question is about the size of the win then why does that matter to p3n/ct/nd? If we were the ones going to suffer to slow down that win then I would rather gamble on the domination conundrum.
|
Well if you wanted the round to end, why not just say that this was what you were aiming for with taking a Ult NAP.
I personaly think you did a move that ensured the round was gonna end at that instance, you might not seen any other option that would be good for your agenda, wich im fine with.
That app/bows/whatever would turn of you is a result of your actions. If you think NAPing Ult would make your round better, im sure people that didnt NAP Ult would try make you regret this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
As much as ND agreeing with norse might be annoying was not your annoyance over the FAnG thing partially for the same reason; you had an agreement (some kind of fort avoid) with them so could not join in fully. Yes the decision over hitting them was made quite late but ultimately as it was done to help the block I dont see the problem with it. There were several things you could have done to help out including hitting individual FAnG's or gals with individual FAnGs in which you chose not to do. Perhaps it could have been done more sensitively; 2 allies hit FAnG, 2 keep ult occupied perhaps? To avoid it being unfair this could have been reversed the next day. You could have proposed such a constructive course rather than storming out.
|
We had more or less agreed on what we were doing, and hitting FAnG wasnt even discussed.
So of course we would be furious with ND/CT/p3ng having their own little plan for what was going to happend without including us.
Sure we had a an agreement with FAnG wich meant we couldnt hit 4 of their gals, and yes ofc we couldve just ptargetted the rest if we wanted to take advantage of FAnGs position that day.
But what pissed us off was that you decided this 30 minute before we normaly had TP after we had agreed on something completely diffrent earlier in the day, and you zerged all the targets and then asked us to go ptarget FAnG wich we had no intention or wished to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
This is certainly true. But that is not really the problem. We believe that you wont get to the point of having those big tags as ppl wont join it. Instead you will legitimise Ult's outsized tag and put nothing there to stop it. In order for the tag to be filled some old allies would need to disband or merge, is this likely to happen?
|
People will join those tags that can keep them safe/make them have more fun.
Ofc tags will disband if they cant sustain their memberbase cus they are falling behind on the competition to other tags willing to take the risk on less active players.
Live together, or die alone used to be what this game was all about, its about working together with other players that should make you succeed.
Most of the active DCs/BCs/HCs are people that mightve been having a hard time cooporating with other people, as it would most of the time crash with their own personal agenda.
Norse/Faceless is a perfect example, put some of the most active people together in one tag and watch them burn and kill each other for one round, the next round they will realize they can keep up their own alliance better by staying small instead trying to adapt to others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by booji
Um eh? Londo simply stated the reason why we went after FAnG. This was made public knowledge in munkee's mails. We usually explain why we are targeting an alliance to our members by mail, or through a vote.
|
Again as i said, munkee wasnt in the channels, he dont know what was said there by anyone most likely.