DeletedUser6227
Im all for helping to stop this spread of multi's all over the world to work together with like minded people would be great
- Status
DeletedUser2217
JLMENT -
You've said v2 are guilty of multi attacks, but Jakkals series the other day aside, I can't remember any. I wouldn't have attended those attacks, personally, but they were called off in any case. Any call for them within the v2 forum has been quashed. You cannot deny that WWPA has taken advantage of its fluid relationships - admittedly to little actual gain. It's not just the No Limits thing - I agree the level 17 guy may well not have been a stooge, but it resembled a ploy used before - recruitment of small and/or seemingly independent towns to actually initiate as a way around the treaty. Resentment of EC/WWPA/NBA even -RR- behaviour had been building for some time.
Regarding the disbandment of Viva - I can understand your displeasure at the apparent abrupt nature of it, but even I knew Desi had mentioned his hostility towards multi tactics many times. And had indicated his willingness to remove Hoof Hearted from the alliance if that route was followed. And if his town is the founder of the alliance... It can't have been that much of a surprise. Desi has simply stood his moral ground and acted on his previous warnings, as far as I can see.
You've said v2 are guilty of multi attacks, but Jakkals series the other day aside, I can't remember any. I wouldn't have attended those attacks, personally, but they were called off in any case. Any call for them within the v2 forum has been quashed. You cannot deny that WWPA has taken advantage of its fluid relationships - admittedly to little actual gain. It's not just the No Limits thing - I agree the level 17 guy may well not have been a stooge, but it resembled a ploy used before - recruitment of small and/or seemingly independent towns to actually initiate as a way around the treaty. Resentment of EC/WWPA/NBA even -RR- behaviour had been building for some time.
Regarding the disbandment of Viva - I can understand your displeasure at the apparent abrupt nature of it, but even I knew Desi had mentioned his hostility towards multi tactics many times. And had indicated his willingness to remove Hoof Hearted from the alliance if that route was followed. And if his town is the founder of the alliance... It can't have been that much of a surprise. Desi has simply stood his moral ground and acted on his previous warnings, as far as I can see.
DeletedUser7321
You mean you've seen that tactic just like V2 used it the other day in their multi?
Just because some play dirty doesn't mean that all do. I would not support such a tactic and I said so when the claimed multi at No Limits was taking place. I told the leaders I was discussing with that if anyone really had asked that guy to initiate that we needed to know it and not attend the attack then. We could find no one that had even heard of the guy.
"You cannot deny that WWPA has taken advantage of its fluid relationships" Not quite sure what you mean by that, but I am not leadership in WWPA either so maybe I am missing something. I was not part of the split, I came along after that.
DeletedUser14006
I think when Fossils asked the question he was hoping for some evidence, you have a lot to say but nothing to back it up with
DeletedUser1651
Multi battles suck and I won't support any. I will defend my alliances forts but if ANYONE from my alliance launches, I will not participate. People are saying that there is no chance for a small alliance to win a fair battle which is totally wrong. I guarantee you that if you start a battle against V2 or HH, you will be supported by people from the opposite side as long as there are no other battles going on. That can be overcome by e-mailing friendly town or enemies to the people you are attacking.
The only way to win is not by using cheap tactics. Be creative and put a little effort into it. Don't just take the easiest way and complain that it is the only tactic you know. We stand against multi-battles because they take the fun out of the battle and the game. We work hard to win our battles, as do our opponents, and anyone looking to take a fort should earn it, not just whine that multi battles are the only way for a small alliance to take one.
The only way to win is not by using cheap tactics. Be creative and put a little effort into it. Don't just take the easiest way and complain that it is the only tactic you know. We stand against multi-battles because they take the fun out of the battle and the game. We work hard to win our battles, as do our opponents, and anyone looking to take a fort should earn it, not just whine that multi battles are the only way for a small alliance to take one.
DeletedUser2217
All I said was that's what it looked like. Easier for you to find that out than us...
DeletedUser20685
JLMEMT if you had attended more that 18 battles you would know that a small alliance or even a 2 man town can win a fort battle. With a 1-1 battle I will give a few examples.
1. Mathsisbest had signed into one of my battles by mistake and I was going to rank him a traitor since his record showed that he had always supported the VLR/EC/RR. He asked if I would rank him and he would fight not just run and hide, He didn't want to waste the time he had spent at the fort. I agreed and tried to recruit him but he declined and continued to support our enemy. He had dug a number of battles against V2 and had little support from VLR/EC/RR. We had stayed in contact during this time and he asked if he attacked an independent fort if I would help. I agreed. He won the battle and later became a member of V2 say we were the only ones that showed him any support.
2.When Vanishing Point took Vertigo they were a 2 Person town. They also remained out side the V2 alliance until I convinced them to join because of the benefits of the forts.
3.When I took my first fort I was not a member of any alliance. That fort was lost in a multi attack.
Most of the people speaking out against Multi attack have Hundreds of fort to there credit.
1. Mathsisbest had signed into one of my battles by mistake and I was going to rank him a traitor since his record showed that he had always supported the VLR/EC/RR. He asked if I would rank him and he would fight not just run and hide, He didn't want to waste the time he had spent at the fort. I agreed and tried to recruit him but he declined and continued to support our enemy. He had dug a number of battles against V2 and had little support from VLR/EC/RR. We had stayed in contact during this time and he asked if he attacked an independent fort if I would help. I agreed. He won the battle and later became a member of V2 say we were the only ones that showed him any support.
2.When Vanishing Point took Vertigo they were a 2 Person town. They also remained out side the V2 alliance until I convinced them to join because of the benefits of the forts.
3.When I took my first fort I was not a member of any alliance. That fort was lost in a multi attack.
Most of the people speaking out against Multi attack have Hundreds of fort to there credit.
DeletedUser7321
I think when Fossils asked the question he was hoping for some evidence, you have a lot to say but nothing to back it up with
I have seen it and heard plenty of grumbling about it for a long time. Sorry that I don't take this game seriously enough to have taken screen shots for you.
There are many here who have seen what I have seen. That is enough for me.How about all of the direct questions that you refuse to answer?
DeletedUser20685
I have seen it and heard plenty of grumbling about it for a long time. Sorry that I don't take this game seriously enough to have taken screen shots for you.
How about all of the direct questions that you refuse to answer?
Do you even know what the Treaty says.
DeletedUser
This is unbelievable
Once again alliance V2 are using their "superior power" to begin to enforce a pact which many disagree with, and also c'mon who signs a treaty with a enemy except a ceasefire?? these are called fort "battles" for a reason, to battle using whatever tactics and means possible.
Also i see desi working somewhat with the enemy? what's going on here, i think we know who the spy was then clearly. in your first post you say "if some find multi s fun then that's fine" then go one to say the game is played because we are here to have fun, i absolutely agree but you say you don't like the multis which contradicts what you state in your first post, and then this comes back to you now working with the enemy
V2 dont want multis for a single reason, they loose at them. im sure we can remember the multi wars, forts being claimed left right and centre of Alliance v2. then this pact appeared and that was that, no frequent exchange of forts was happening any more.
just my opinion
And i have noticed that your blaming NBA and ATW mainly, + my alliance but not as much, you see things change, and people fear change, this pact stopped change in world 1 and now its broken, world 1 has a new light. the old alliances will loose their grip if they dont accept change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNn6IlPtIs
Just a glimpse of world 1
Once again alliance V2 are using their "superior power" to begin to enforce a pact which many disagree with, and also c'mon who signs a treaty with a enemy except a ceasefire?? these are called fort "battles" for a reason, to battle using whatever tactics and means possible.
Also i see desi working somewhat with the enemy? what's going on here, i think we know who the spy was then clearly. in your first post you say "if some find multi s fun then that's fine" then go one to say the game is played because we are here to have fun, i absolutely agree but you say you don't like the multis which contradicts what you state in your first post, and then this comes back to you now working with the enemy
V2 dont want multis for a single reason, they loose at them. im sure we can remember the multi wars, forts being claimed left right and centre of Alliance v2. then this pact appeared and that was that, no frequent exchange of forts was happening any more.
just my opinion
And i have noticed that your blaming NBA and ATW mainly, + my alliance but not as much, you see things change, and people fear change, this pact stopped change in world 1 and now its broken, world 1 has a new light. the old alliances will loose their grip if they dont accept change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNn6IlPtIs
Just a glimpse of world 1
DeletedUser14006
Tom, it is not about who owns what forts and how many and rankings!
It is about having decent, fun fort fights!
You can carry on with comments such as "c'mon who signs a treaty with a enemy except a ceasefire?? these are called fort "battles" for a reason, to battle using whatever tactics and means possible."
This is rediculous, we all want straight up fort fights as that is why we waste our whole day travelling to and signing up to battles, for a fun time, XP gain and to talk crap to one another as we pop off the enemy.
Stop being such a drama queen Tom, facts are facts and multi battles do not work, they just waste peoples time and are detrimental to worlds.
It is about having decent, fun fort fights!
You can carry on with comments such as "c'mon who signs a treaty with a enemy except a ceasefire?? these are called fort "battles" for a reason, to battle using whatever tactics and means possible."
This is rediculous, we all want straight up fort fights as that is why we waste our whole day travelling to and signing up to battles, for a fun time, XP gain and to talk crap to one another as we pop off the enemy.
Stop being such a drama queen Tom, facts are facts and multi battles do not work, they just waste peoples time and are detrimental to worlds.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser6227
I for one cant take this point of view seriously tom...you were activley signed up before you broke the agreement as for calling desi a spy i can assure you he just wants to create a balance to achieve good honest battles not the subterfuge and deciet that you seem to deal in these days....
DeletedUser
If you've been playing since 2008 and haven't noticed more multis, you weren't paying much attention, not to w1 and definitely not to other worlds. I'm not defending multis at all, and I hate them no matter who digs them. I'm just pointing out that you must be blind or have a very short memory.
Edit: nm, THL explained it.
I knew I didn't remember ever shooting at you in my 350 something battles on w1, but I didn't bother looking you up on Westforts. So basically you're just arguing about something you know nothing about?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser1121
Tom, you are just acting paranoid here. You have been seeing spies all over the place for a while and at first i thought it was just funny, now it became hilarious.
You should read more carefully. I am not contradicting myself. Multis <> fun imho
DeletedUser1651
@ Tom: Wow, that's one of the biggest loads I've seen outside of the elephant house in the zoo! ROFL! So much huffing and puffing. Yeah it was so much "fun" to be constantly running from one battle to the next for 4:5 or 10:6. WOOO HOOO I got 4 xp! THIS IS THE GREATEST THING EVER!!!
@ in general: TW alliance ran a huge multi battle againse miestas in response to their tactics. We won a 6-7 forts that day but we agreed that the tactic sucks because of the fact that it takes the fun out of the game. "WOW, great victory in the 20:4 battle! You really showed off your fort battle skills there! It was over in 3 rounds." This is a game, at least play it with a little honor."
Forts do not change hands very often but when they do it's because the people that took it fought hard to take it and they deserve to have it. V2 looses their fair share of battles from both sides so don't make it sound like we are some evil overlord dominating all fort battles. Our opponents are just as good as we are and you are taking a dump on their heads by saying that they cannot take forts without multi battles. Taking a fort is a tough job yet we still don't approve of the use of this tactic. Would it make it easier for us to take ALL of the forts on this world...yes, but we don't need to or want to. We'll take them in a clean fight. Do you really want V2 to start using multi battles to take forts?
@ Tom: The real world signs treaties all the time that are not cease fires. Things like the Geneva convention that set the "rules of war". What is acceptable and what is not.
@ in general: TW alliance ran a huge multi battle againse miestas in response to their tactics. We won a 6-7 forts that day but we agreed that the tactic sucks because of the fact that it takes the fun out of the game. "WOW, great victory in the 20:4 battle! You really showed off your fort battle skills there! It was over in 3 rounds." This is a game, at least play it with a little honor."
Forts do not change hands very often but when they do it's because the people that took it fought hard to take it and they deserve to have it. V2 looses their fair share of battles from both sides so don't make it sound like we are some evil overlord dominating all fort battles. Our opponents are just as good as we are and you are taking a dump on their heads by saying that they cannot take forts without multi battles. Taking a fort is a tough job yet we still don't approve of the use of this tactic. Would it make it easier for us to take ALL of the forts on this world...yes, but we don't need to or want to. We'll take them in a clean fight. Do you really want V2 to start using multi battles to take forts?
@ Tom: The real world signs treaties all the time that are not cease fires. Things like the Geneva convention that set the "rules of war". What is acceptable and what is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser14006
Just to clarify though, we will not be lol, we are here trying to figure a way forward.
Desi, Bearman and a few others and most leaders here at V2 are familiar with the treaty, that is still being used.
I am hoping what will change after today is not a plan to prevent multi battles but a plan of what we should do if/when they do occur.
I have suggested earlier and will do again here if anyone launches a multi battle then nobody from either side attend the offense but quite the opposite being folk from both sides rally up to the defense to send a clear message to would be multi battle initiaters.
World one does not want multi battles!
DeletedUser
Neither v2 nor any other alliance have enough players to win against multis. That's why I think that we can't allow to have them. I don't want to contend who and in witch way in the past took forts. If we start multis again most of players just stop attending to battles and this will kill all the fun we have from fort battling. There will be passing forts from hand to hand every day. This is not what I called fun. I want to have a good filled battles and I don't really care if I loose or win. In w1 it's hard to have a full big fort fight . I don't even want to say about onliners in this battles because you all know how it looks like.
. I don't even want to say about onliners in this battles because you all know how it looks like.DeletedUser9470
"judge a man by his questions, not by his answers." ~ Voltaire
What is more fun?
One full battle where everyone gets >500XP and boxes regardless of who wins...? or a multi?
can we not all help to make this world more fun?
are the sides similar in terms of fb power? or are they lopsided?
is it not possible to make things a bit more equal?
it is easy for a winning side to say that the enemy has to do better.
put yourself in the losing side's shoes for a moment and tell me what you would do?
recruit?
ask your players to be more active?
ask your players to focus on getting GGs?
ask your players to focus on becoming HP tanks?
call one battle/day and have fun getting slaughtered?
call a multi where there is hope of getting one up?
I know very well the answers to all of these questions.
Its up to everyone to come together and make w1 more enjoyable and encourage activity.
Start by making the sides/factions a lot more equal in terms of activity and strength.
the rest will follow on its own.
until this is done i dont see how anyone is allowed to come here and complain about anything.
If you all still want to keep wasting your time at empty fort battles, then keep things as they are.
What is more fun?
One full battle where everyone gets >500XP and boxes regardless of who wins...? or a multi?
can we not all help to make this world more fun?
are the sides similar in terms of fb power? or are they lopsided?
is it not possible to make things a bit more equal?
it is easy for a winning side to say that the enemy has to do better.
put yourself in the losing side's shoes for a moment and tell me what you would do?
recruit?
ask your players to be more active?
ask your players to focus on getting GGs?
ask your players to focus on becoming HP tanks?
call one battle/day and have fun getting slaughtered?
call a multi where there is hope of getting one up?
I know very well the answers to all of these questions.
Its up to everyone to come together and make w1 more enjoyable and encourage activity.
Start by making the sides/factions a lot more equal in terms of activity and strength.
the rest will follow on its own.
until this is done i dont see how anyone is allowed to come here and complain about anything.
If you all still want to keep wasting your time at empty fort battles, then keep things as they are.
DeletedUser
Neither v2 nor any other alliance have enough players to win against multis. That's why I think that we can't allow to have them. I don't want to contend who and in witch way in the past took forts. If we start multis again most of players just stop attending to battles and this will kill all the fun we have from fort battling. There will be passing forts from hand to hand every day. This is not what I called fun. I want to have a good filled battles and I don't really care if I loose or win. In w1 it's hard to have a full big fort fight
very well said, i would rather fight 2-3 big maxed battles per week than having to run around TRYING to get into a battle every 18-24 hours and get NO, zero, nadda exp or anything from a battle that has 30-40 on one side and 5 on the other. its just stupid and makes me want to just do quests and duel. yeah thats fun, but fort battle are MORE fun. so yeah, lets stop this stupid multi battle stuff and make W1 the most active and fun world in the west
DeletedUser
its damn good to know i have such a impact
im seeing here no facts and figures just opinion. So a quick few questions @ Alliance V2
1. if i start a multi would you retaliate
2. will you ever do a multi yourselves
3. if i attack 1 fort, and it wasn't a multi would you retaliate
These are serious questions that i need answering
im seeing here no facts and figures just opinion. So a quick few questions @ Alliance V2
1. if i start a multi would you retaliate
2. will you ever do a multi yourselves
3. if i attack 1 fort, and it wasn't a multi would you retaliate
These are serious questions that i need answering
- Status