Planetarion Forums - View Single Post

Krypton · 4 Sep 2015, 22:56

Ah, you speak of things you know nothing of. Classic Butcher.

I would happily run an alliance of 30 members, as previously stated. If tag sizes were reduced significantly/split in half, I would happily run one using the in game tools. It's all you need to be competitive. And it wouldn't be a "troll tag", which is not what Rogues was nor what I signed up for.

Yes there were certain members and HC's who enjoyed sk'ing people to the hills, but at the end of the day Rogues was no better or stronger than Rainbows really.

I don't know why you're singling me out on this, when as previously mentioned I had no say in how it was run or the decisions. I came up with ship strategies which were changed mid round, I was asked to talk to alliances, then the HCs decided to hit the alliances (e.g. BF at round end) which made me look stupid.

It got to the point where I was so sick of the way Rogues was being run that I actually just started to talk to other alliance HC's off my own back to improve relations because there seemed to be little or no dialogue with other alliances once Reaper stepped down as politics man. You can ask Tommy about this if you don't believe me, because I did actually speak to him in pm and my intentions were quite genuine. I'm pretty straight with people

Your post makes no real sense. How am I deterring people from trying to run them? They need to change the limits to enable new tags to survive in the first place or at least give them the recovery time after being hit by these blocks. You cant do that without political flexibility.

4 Sep 2015, 22:56	#35
Krypton KK Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 662	Re: Alliance size Ah, you speak of things you know nothing of. Classic Butcher. I would happily run an alliance of 30 members, as previously stated. If tag sizes were reduced significantly/split in half, I would happily run one using the in game tools. It's all you need to be competitive. And it wouldn't be a "troll tag", which is not what Rogues was nor what I signed up for. Yes there were certain members and HC's who enjoyed sk'ing people to the hills, but at the end of the day Rogues was no better or stronger than Rainbows really. I don't know why you're singling me out on this, when as previously mentioned I had no say in how it was run or the decisions. I came up with ship strategies which were changed mid round, I was asked to talk to alliances, then the HCs decided to hit the alliances (e.g. BF at round end) which made me look stupid. It got to the point where I was so sick of the way Rogues was being run that I actually just started to talk to other alliance HC's off my own back to improve relations because there seemed to be little or no dialogue with other alliances once Reaper stepped down as politics man. You can ask Tommy about this if you don't believe me, because I did actually speak to him in pm and my intentions were quite genuine. I'm pretty straight with people Your post makes no real sense. How am I deterring people from trying to run them? They need to change the limits to enable new tags to survive in the first place or at least give them the recovery time after being hit by these blocks. You cant do that without political flexibility.