Dispensation of Justice

[Firetooth]

Finally, Volk you are a real hypocrite. You had troubles controlling Sevah last round, but now you turn around and blame me.

Uh Firetooth, that was a FORCED CLAN ROUND. I had no choice. If it had been my clan to start and run, and I had chosen to let Sevah in, he would have listened to me or been booted. Completely different situation.

And I have discplined my members. My point is, it's self-righteous to say "control your members of we'll control them for you." Butt out in future.

I have a different time scale to people here. I'd been out all day. I had to gather both sides of the stories when the time was 9PM. My life isn't this game, I do actually need to sleep. Honestly, you're a bunch of hypocrites. You condemn kills in war, but kills on an innocent warlord are 100% fine. Where is the outcry on how this is unjust? If I was Holby, or Winfy or somebody there would be an outcry on how I had been wronged, but none of you care simply because I had a clan that's only goal was to net.

Firetooth, you seem to be missing the part where they tried to kill me first. Remember how I reacted when Peace killed me in reg? Same deal, only this time I have allies who aren't secretly passing info to the enemy.

As has been said, it was not a kill run but, from what I gather, a series of sacks. That said, you are welcome to post the attack reports.

But only after BA started spamming suicides on us. Taking out 200 mil networth in suicides justified any response we gave. We would very easily have had blue eyes set up as emperor if you didn't violently take him out.

They weren't troop suicides, they were attacks for land. Indies don't have the luxury of spying the other guy and seeing what troops he has, they just hit them with their strongest troop. A suicide is when you are attacking someone, but not breaking, over and over again.

The notice clearly said USE SKIFFS and neo knew (I think? he does now) we had a hole in skiffs. Either way, it;s common sense to try an attack with every troop type if they have no notice, or to read there notice for troop holes.

[Neobaron]

We were not aware of any holes until our conversation.

I must go back to the vet thing - in the RWL I 'grew up' in, there were no holes. We didnt just let people have our land.

We fought for every acre.

And that is still how we see troop losses on land grabs. They are to be expected.

So no, it is not fair to suggest that everyone prescribe to this notion that land is a fluid resource.

[Firetooth]

Yet in the old days, sacks were fair game, no? Are you saying because in old RWL X went, it's fine for you to do it now? Because your clan didn't like it when certain members of my clan sacked them, did they?

I'd consider killing troops when holes are available agressive. More so then sacks, even.

Things change. This is still an aggressive game, but people have realized it's not worth the bother to themselves and to others to keep troops in all types. Both people lose out on net.

[The Lady Shael]

GLaDOS clan, you have to realize these players came from a time where we didn't even HAVE warlord notices. It's not second nature to them to check it for friendly reminders before attacking.

Of course the opposite can be said for the BA clan. Times have changed. Generally warlord ethics dictates that you either check warlord notices, espy, or message the player to find their troop hole.

Miscommunication and generation gap, guys. I can see everything behind the scenes and even though I haven't been reading it thoroughly, I don't see either side as right or wrong. You guys can keep arguing forever, but I don't see either side convincing the other is right.

Of course I realize there is more than one issue here, but I feel this covers the heart of the conflict.

[Gen. Volkov]

9) Volkov replies telling me that he forgives me for the sacks.

I do forgive you for the sacks. It was the low land that I am pissed about.

From Art of War (#25) (?)

sorry about the sacks, I ran out of cash in the middle of my run because someone onlined me so I needed some fast cash.. normally I would not have sacked.

To which I did respond: "S'ok" Though at the time, I didn't realize you were also the person who had taken me to extremely low land. You changed your name, so I actually sent that to someone I thought was extraneous to the whole situation. When I log in to find all my rats dead, and my land total under 2k, I view that as a kill attempt. You didn't say anything about trying to kill me or not in that first message. The second message I only just now read.

[The Purple Dragon]

The message to Volkov was sent after King Cobra and Revelation thwarted the run on Holby Alliance.

To me, that was an indication that they were caught in the act and tried to rationalize attacking a warlord with only 3k land several dozen times.

There is no good reason to attack a warlord with only 3k land several dozen times unless you are attempting to kill them.

I also found it interesting that about the same time the message was sent, both TPD and Blue eyes shipped off all of their net, and had their names changed.  

Given the proximity of their actions to the conversation we had, BAº and it's allies had no other choice to assume the worst - the worst being that you were complicit in (or at least gave approval to) their actions.

One does not try to disappear unless one is trying to hide from something. They were trying to kill Volkov, and both of them logged on dozens of times in tandem, only to see that we were all still standing watch.

you're pulling at straws, when I attacked him, Holby Alliance had 5.8k land, note that I was sacking him, which takes LESS LAND...

I don't even know what Cobra and Revelation did to "Thwart this conspiracy"... I attacked him several times sacking and Blue Eyes captured him a few times because he had a large amount of leaders. I stopped of my own accord when I had the amount of resources needed to regain my footing after being onlined by you.

Purp

[Firetooth]

^ There is truth in that statement, but I don't believe coming from an older period is an excuse. Things change-for good reason. Killing 3 people over sacks may have gone in the old days, but now any kills are frowned on, once again, for good reason. B. A needs to adapt if they wish to play competitively. They don't stand for much as a clan of judge's and peace bringers. Let's look at how they treated my clan:

1) Murdered our net
2) Willingly killed a great deal of our main troop type
3) Backstabbed me and killed our three main members over sacks and a (supposed) kill run I wasn't even a part of
4) Now it appears they have spied on us, to boot.

Does anybody here honestly think B.A still stand for their slogan?

Prosperity through Peace
Peace through Power

9) Volkov replies telling me that he forgives me for the sacks.

I do forgive you for the sacks. It was the low land that I am pissed about.

From Art of War (#25) (?)

sorry about the sacks, I ran out of cash in the middle of my run because someone onlined me so I needed some fast cash.. normally I would not have sacked.

To which I did respond: "S'ok" Though at the time, I didn't realize you were also the person who had taken me to extremely low land. You changed your name, so I actually sent that to someone I thought was extraneous to the whole situation. When I log in to find all my rats dead, and my land total under 2k, I view that as a kill attempt. You didn't say anything about trying to kill me or not in that first message. The second message I only just now read.

Ah, so basically you killed 3 of us based on a misinterpretation, or am I misinterpreting this myself?

[The Purple Dragon]

Volkov, you can't honestly think I would try to kill you by sacking and fail by 2,000 acres... Let's face it, if we had wanted to kill you we would have. I know you can see the logic in that.

The reason you had low land was because you just didn't bother to run for like 2 days and you just so happened to have the most cash/food/leaders in the game... you were a prime target especially after that dirty online attack.

Your rats were taken out by someone else, I hold no responsibility for killing them off, I attacked you with about 1.5 million rats because you had next to none so I thought it was your troop hole.

We are going in circles here. Talk on msn please.

Purp

[The Lady Shael]

^ There is truth in that statement, but I don't believe coming from an older period is an excuse. Things change-for good reason. Killing 3 people over sacks may have gone in the old days, but now any kills are frowned on, once again, for good reason. B. A needs to adapt if they wish to play competitively.

Firetooth, haven't you been reading the topics lately? Every player here who has played both then and now agree that the old days were better. We've actually been trying to move the game in that direction again. It was RWL's Golden Age. Most oldbies agree that the playerbase as a whole has gone soft, and the "troop hole" warlord notices is evidence of this. I just think it's silly when people complain about their net and all their hard work being destroyed. It's a war game. Did you think they WANT you to win? Of course not. Only one player can be in the top spot, and of course everyone will be fighting to get it.

Kills are discouraging, but no one can deny that's when the game is most interesting.

RELEVANT

[Gen. Volkov]

Volkov, you can't honestly think I would try to kill you by sacking and fail by 2,000 acres... Let's face it, if we had wanted to kill you we would have. I know you can see the logic in that.

Unless of course one of my clan mates logs on in the middle of it, and onlines you.

The reason you had low land was because you just didn't bother to run for like 2 days and you just so happened to have the most cash/food/leaders in the game... you were a prime target especially after that dirty online attack.

I run every day TPD. There are bunch of sacks from you on my warlord attack page. It looks to me like you wanted to kill me, but didn't want all the resources to go to waste. Then, after all your sacks, Blue Eyes captures me a bunch of times.

Your rats were taken out by someone else, I hold no responsibility for killing them off, I attacked you with about 1.5 million rats because you had next to none so I thought it was your troop hole.

That is probably partly true, since I was on 5k land before you attacked.

We are going in circles here. Talk on msn please.

I've been on MSN for the last hour.

And I have discplined my members. My point is, it's self-righteous to say "control your members of we'll control them for you." Butt out in future.

Firetooth, when your members stop trying to kill me, I'll "butt out".

As has been said, it was not a kill run but, from what I gather, a series of sacks. That said, you are welcome to post the attack reports.

Sacks and captures that took me to ridiculously low land.

The notice clearly said USE SKIFFS and neo knew (I think? he does now) we had a hole in skiffs. Either way, it;s common sense to try an attack with every troop type if they have no notice, or to read there notice for troop holes.

Given that I've tried to hit Glados members in skiffs, and failed, I think your warlord notices are in error.

[Firetooth]

^ There is truth in that statement, but I don't believe coming from an older period is an excuse. Things change-for good reason. Killing 3 people over sacks may have gone in the old days, but now any kills are frowned on, once again, for good reason. B. A needs to adapt if they wish to play competitively.

Firetooth, haven't you been reading the topics lately? Every player here who has played both then and now agree that the old days were better. We've actually been trying to move the game in that direction again. It was RWL's Golden Age. Most oldbies agree that the playerbase as a whole has gone soft, and the "troop hole" warlord notices is evidence of this. I just think it's silly when people complain about their net and all their hard work being destroyed. It's a war game. Did you think they WANT you to win? Of course not. Only one player can be in the top spot, and of course everyone will be fighting to get it.

Kills are discouraging, but no one can deny that's when the game is most interesting.

Eh, I won't play if the game descends to kills, land grabs are evil, don't attack ally clans etc. That's just me, but they're generally pretty boring. The redwall base is important, but I don't want to play a promi site where I can't attack somebody without being killed in retal. I'm not trying to sound like I want the game tailored to me, but I came here based off the books and I disagree that the old way is the way to go. War is good, but not being able to go a day without losing your net is dull. Part the reason the games etiquette changed is probably because ability improved and people have matured. (not calling anybody who likes the books immature, I still read 'em sometimes)

The best rounds are ones related to the books closely, because both sides are happy.

I agree the war element is key, but wars are boring when they are common. Also, leaving troop holes isn't "soft," it benefits both sides. It may not be very "ah he stole 2 acres clan kill him!" but it means players gets higher nets, more net to fight over and lose less net getting the land they need.

I have no more time to post now, but I think that some of the changes from making the game more like would not be as beneficial as everybody thinks.

A very tired two cents.

P.S Finally, my point is(was) we weren't in war, infact B.A is a "peacekeeping" clan. They said we were fine to net in peace, which we did.

[Firetooth]

A) Volk, they didn't try to kill you. Already resolved
B) How many skiffs did you use?

[The Lady Shael]

You young'uns just don't understand how it was. Kills were only marginally more common then than they are now. Of course you wouldn't kill someone just for attacking you. But back then kills were accepted as a normal part of the game. They still sucked. People still complained (a lot less than they do now). You can't dismiss the old way of life if you never experienced it.

To me it's just more boring to see everyone sitting around, "Yo, can I take your land" "Yeah man, just don't attack my weasels" "Thanks bro". In the original Era, people took what they wanted without asking, and they were respected for still handling themselves diplomatically and with great skill (or what was regarded as skill back then).

[windhound]

I never check the warlord info before attacking now.
In the past I've obeyed the "IM WEAK IN WEASELS, ATTACK WITH THOSE PLZ" notices and its been a pot shot.  50/50, because people forget they put that there then switch to weasels. 
In short, if I have 10 million rats on hand and I plan to have zero by the end of my land grab so I can run leaders, I'm going to attack with rats. 
I'm sorry if you have 19 million and I'm going to kill off 5.  Really, I am.  But that's the way the game works, you should have had 21 million and I wouldn't break.
I'm not going to waste time in my run to go out and buy a troop that I don't have to spare you a little in losses if there's a really good chance it wont work anyways.  The way turbo is with its attack limit there's a good chance that, should I fail, that's one less attack I get to make.  Less land for me, damages my usually excellent offensive ratio, and is overall not worth it when I'm 95% sure my rats are going to break you anyways.

Kills sucked worst in the old version because the insta-respawn hadn't been added.  That makes it easier to get back up and going.  It still sucks, just less so.

[The Purple Dragon]

Volk, none of your members onlined me during the attack, it was actually before I even decided to sack you that they onlined me, therefore they were not trying to save you, but rather just be a prick.

Shael, its great that you and all your hardcore buddies want to have a chaotic round with absolutely no point to it, but I have been around for just as long as anyone here and I prefer the fact that there is an amount of diplomacy and respect for other players. It keeps things interesting and even provides more obstacles to overcome. You can go back to the pointless "Golden Age of RWL" and beat the hell out of each other round after round and have fun, but then you will just reach a point (again) where everyone will get bored of fighting, doing the same thing over and over, and come back to this "Platinum Age of RWL".

You want to change the game? Be a mentor for new players, and let them bring to the game what they have... don't revert to old ways that proved senseless, look to the future and learn from the mistakes of the past. You're attempting to pull off the most classic mistake of every revolution to ever exist. Let's revert to the past and not look to the future at all! Yeaaahhh!!!!!!!

I will not be a part of it, if this game is descending into a random jumble of  grizzly old veterans then there is no point to argue or play against or even alongside such stubborn hardheadedness.

I kind of feel like Firetooth and I are the equivalent of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis and you grizzly old veterans are trying to push us to unleash nuclear war, as it were. I will not take part in another Bay of Pigs, so to speak.

Purple Dragon