Mhaldor vs Targossas

Veldrin

When you do it though, the only people around are those who doesn't find defending and/or fighting fun and you're forcing them into it by running in, dying, giving sanction and then just going 'f u all' and ragequit. There's a 4-6 hour window in Targossas where there are like maybe one or two around that finds PK fun and the rest would rather just not have to deal with that.

Archaeon

I'm not sorry that I try to defend or duel and I'm not gonna hide on guards all the time because it's fucking boring. Sorry if you all feel opposite but I'm gonna do what I feel is fun in my game and if you don't like it you can always give me an army demotion or a variety of other options lol

Minifie

Then quit your city

Sothantos

Sothantos said:

Archaeon, it's because you run off on your own and die and give sanction, then ragequit instead of defending.

Kaios

Reyson said:

ETA2: Look, I get you don't like getting attacked anytime when not all your PvPers are online. But if we're talking about shitty behaviour, people with bounties sitting on ships/Nirvana, infamous people or soldiers qqing during radiance in sanctions, the constant log-out before sanctions and log-in after the tank is put down are pretty shitty, too.

We're also allowed to play, and try to win, just like you are. And if you're going to force me to hound you all day long to get sanctions because you refuse to gather up to try and defend, I'll use infamy and bounties and anything else I can to score points. There's no rule that says I don't get to try just because you don't like it.

That makes no sense at all, if you wanted a fair fight and it's only me that you are attacking someone could have had it but you chose to start radiance on me as soon as I logged in and then grouped up when you were able to. I have not once run from a bounty situation or any other fair fight and I lack any meaningful methods of escape to do so anyways.

When I ask whether it's appropriate to start radiance on someone the moment they log in, I wasn't talking about if it was technically allowed or not. I would assume you wouldn't want such cheesy tactics being used on yourself, so I don't see why you would do it to others or have any right to complain about it if they reciprocate that behaviour.

Archaeon

Sothantos said:

Sothantos said:

Archaeon, it's because you run off on your own and die and give sanction, then ragequit instead of defending.

somtimes yeah, but you also have to realize that when i'm on that time it's when my kids are up, eating breakfast, and i find dying is usually a good time to qq for a bit.  so don't just assume it's 100% that, or even 25% that.

Iaxus

Minifie said:

could tie it to army rank, 5-6 are open PK to the other war target's military. 1-4 works as per normal, then we can mock the wusses who down rank.

100% chance that every side would just demote all soldiers to below 5 except their best duelists.

Sothantos

Okay. That's fair. It's probably why people aren't looking at it too fondly, though, since they don't have that extra perspective.

Minifie

Iaxus said:

Minifie said:

could tie it to army rank, 5-6 are open PK to the other war target's military. 1-4 works as per normal, then we can mock the wusses who down rank.

100% chance that every side would just demote all soldiers to below 5 except their best duelists.

No, because even as not-Tyrannus I'd be first in line to gut anyone who is AR 5+ and then jumps down to avoid losing. If cities want to push winning THIS hard no city is going to risk bothering with building aggression and warring. 

Sothantos

Minifie said:

Iaxus said:

Minifie said:

could tie it to army rank, 5-6 are open PK to the other war target's military. 1-4 works as per normal, then we can mock the wusses who down rank.

100% chance that every side would just demote all soldiers to below 5 except their best duelists.

No, because even as not-Tyrannus I'd be first in line to gut anyone who is AR 5+ and then jumps down to avoid losing. If cities want to push winning THIS hard no city is going to risk bothering with building aggression and warring. 

Yeah, that would be blatant indefensible metagaming.

I still prefer infamy, though, just because then you can tell who's been actively raiding versus who's a soldier that just logged in once.

Archaeon

Sothantos said:

Okay. That's fair. It's probably why people aren't looking at it too fondly, though, since they don't have that extra perspective.

if ppl have an issue with it, they're more than welcome to talk to me about it but from what i hear a lot of ppl are complaining about the way i do things.  that's fine, ppl are entitled to their opinion but it's definitely more irritating to hear it through the grape vine. 

Tesha

Akri said:

Stheno said:

Here's a thought. Rather than waging war like it's one long game of keep-away, where the objective is to starve the fight of as much oxygen as possible until one or both teams can stomp, maybe you could just... wage war? The points are insane enough without everyone and their mother issuing, breaking character to honk about it, and magically appearing once the tank is down after we have to legally scrape together a sanction.

No one likes chasing your no-fun-havers around the map and ganking them, but when you remove avenues of retribution in infamy and retaliation tanks, what is the expected recourse? Just wait for Targossas to rewrite the rules of engagement? Do the same thing, sit on ships and the Inferno to avoid "high-value bounties"?

You can actually change the culture in your city with a little pressure. It's why Mhaldor always defends, well or not, against overwhelming odds, and will refuse to quit the city if we're occupied, which you've clearly recognised to your advantage.

It's 2:33 am, and I am mad about missing all the big raids.

Not gonna lie, I have more fun getting stomped by Targossas' big numbers than sitting on a tank in a near-empty city waiting for it to charge (or guards being placed). I miss when you could take stupid risks and nobody cared if it failed, it made for a lot more interesting fights. I really, really dislike tanks as a central objective in this. WTB Sevet's cat as our boss area and fight over that instead. Let's do it.

Yup, very much agreed. Being overly punished for risk is boring and encourages boring gameplay.

Sothantos

On a more positive note, I actually think the way the war system is set up is much better at encouraging risk than previous iterations. Defenders are encouraged to defend since they can get a sanction for their own city if they do, and raiders put themselves at risk when they raid.

Astarod

Akri said:

Stheno said:

Here's a thought. Rather than waging war like it's one long game of keep-away, where the objective is to starve the fight of as much oxygen as possible until one or both teams can stomp, maybe you could just... wage war? The points are insane enough without everyone and their mother issuing, breaking character to honk about it, and magically appearing once the tank is down after we have to legally scrape together a sanction.

No one likes chasing your no-fun-havers around the map and ganking them, but when you remove avenues of retribution in infamy and retaliation tanks, what is the expected recourse? Just wait for Targossas to rewrite the rules of engagement? Do the same thing, sit on ships and the Inferno to avoid "high-value bounties"?

You can actually change the culture in your city with a little pressure. It's why Mhaldor always defends, well or not, against overwhelming odds, and will refuse to quit the city if we're occupied, which you've clearly recognised to your advantage.

It's 2:33 am, and I am mad about missing all the big raids.

Not gonna lie, I have more fun getting stomped by Targossas' big numbers than sitting on a tank in a near-empty city waiting for it to charge (or guards being placed). I miss when you could take stupid risks and nobody cared if it failed, it made for a lot more interesting fights. I really, really dislike tanks as a central objective in this. WTB Sevet's cat as our boss area and fight over that instead. Let's do it.

I'm not going to rant at you for doing this, but I feel you. I've had so much fun when you guys actually defend and we -barely- get it off, or you narrowly disarm. Tbh that's the most fun I've had in this war so far, even when you guys disarm. 


LOOK, we all need to agree that the thing missing are Cyrenian/Eleusian protesters standing outside mdor and targ with 'make peace not war' signs, protesting the war. These protesters have to have afros and cactus weed.

Sothantos

I enjoyed the lost Red Square battle for the level two tank a lot. That was wild.

Reyson

@Veldrin, @Kaios, I get that it makes you mad, but y'all triple tanked us yesterday. Am I supposed to not try and even the score because I don't play in American evenings? We're not attacking you because we don't like you, we're attacking you because it's the time I've got, and if you don't want to be a target, don't come tank Mhaldor.  

This isn't out of the blue.

Kog

Astarod said:

Akri said:

Stheno said:

Here's a thought. Rather than waging war like it's one long game of keep-away, where the objective is to starve the fight of as much oxygen as possible until one or both teams can stomp, maybe you could just... wage war? The points are insane enough without everyone and their mother issuing, breaking character to honk about it, and magically appearing once the tank is down after we have to legally scrape together a sanction.

No one likes chasing your no-fun-havers around the map and ganking them, but when you remove avenues of retribution in infamy and retaliation tanks, what is the expected recourse? Just wait for Targossas to rewrite the rules of engagement? Do the same thing, sit on ships and the Inferno to avoid "high-value bounties"?

You can actually change the culture in your city with a little pressure. It's why Mhaldor always defends, well or not, against overwhelming odds, and will refuse to quit the city if we're occupied, which you've clearly recognised to your advantage.

It's 2:33 am, and I am mad about missing all the big raids.

Not gonna lie, I have more fun getting stomped by Targossas' big numbers than sitting on a tank in a near-empty city waiting for it to charge (or guards being placed). I miss when you could take stupid risks and nobody cared if it failed, it made for a lot more interesting fights. I really, really dislike tanks as a central objective in this. WTB Sevet's cat as our boss area and fight over that instead. Let's do it.

I'm not going to rant at you for doing this, but I feel you. I've had so much fun when you guys actually defend and we -barely- get it off, or you narrowly disarm. Tbh that's the most fun I've had in this war so far, even when you guys disarm. 


LOOK, we all need to agree that the thing missing are Cyrenian/Eleusian protesters standing outside mdor and targ with 'make peace not war' signs, protesting the war. These protesters have to have afros and cactus weed.

This has been us, mostly, when it's quiet:

Kaios

Reyson said:

@Veldrin, @Kaios, I get that it makes you mad, but y'all triple tanked us yesterday. Am I supposed to not try and even the score because I don't play in American evenings? We're not attacking you because we don't like you, we're attacking you because it's the time I've got, and if you don't want to be a target, don't come tank Mhaldor.  

This isn't out of the blue.

I wasn't even online for that either but okay

Reyson

I mean, you were infamous through multiple deaths, so.

Sothantos

Yeah, I'd say Kaios is fair game there.

Kaios

Ya still from the first guard bashing which was... a week ago? And the occasional fight here and there since then I guess might have had some effect as well.

It's fine if you want to take advantage of that but don't then also wonder why people with infamy are hiding in safe locations while they are online so that it continues to drain down for them. At least I'm not doing that, but it's pretty obvious why someone would.

Archaeon

I get upset a lot at the game and I find it's best to allow a minute to be angry then you'll feel better. Then you get to die again and start the process over

[Deleted User]

I had to die a LOT to get the infamy from the first round of guard bashing off. I am very glad it was changed.

Reyson

Kaios said:

Ya still from the first guard bashing which was... a week ago? And the occasional fight here and there since then I guess might have had some effect as well.

It's fine if you want to take advantage of that but don't then also wonder why people with infamy are hiding in safe locations while they are online so that it continues to drain down for them. At least I'm not doing that, but it's pretty obvious why someone would.

I accept that, but then don't wonder why we don't take it easy trying to get the bounties/infamous we are after, in turn. 

Kaios

This argument is going in a circle. My point is you're just pushing the people who don't do all the things you complain about in to doing them, whether it's now or later on.

Tahquil

Log in and out at the safe space but don't spend all your online time there? (Unless of course if you are ducking in and out to answer messages or whatever... like 5minute stop ins or whatever.)

Jinos

Astarod said:

LOOK, we all need to agree that the thing missing are Cyrenian/Eleusian protesters standing outside mdor and targ with 'make peace not war' signs, protesting the war. These protesters have to have afros and cactus weed.

This War is pointless. Why can't we all get along?

Also, check out Book 16. Where blood is profit.

Big Papa Jomi

Sothantos said:

I enjoyed the lost Red Square battle for the level two tank a lot. That was wild.

That one was my favorite so far. I enjoyed it, too.



side note yesterday i almost lost my cool calm bad boy dontgiveafuck demeanor with the 3 tanks, so i went and got executed and then qq'd and took a phat big boi nap and then i felt all better and logged back in and died to aegoth like 4 times trying to kill him before he could kill me

you guys should try it, it works

u too @Archaeon u salty dog

  

Iaxus

Minifie said:

Iaxus said:

Minifie said:

could tie it to army rank, 5-6 are open PK to the other war target's military. 1-4 works as per normal, then we can mock the wusses who down rank.

100% chance that every side would just demote all soldiers to below 5 except their best duelists.

No, because even as not-Tyrannus I'd be first in line to gut anyone who is AR 5+ and then jumps down to avoid losing. If cities want to push winning THIS hard no city is going to risk bothering with building aggression and warring. 

I agree with the sentiment and I know it's not 100% but enough people will get salty after a bad loss, demote, do stupid shit and then just take the tongue-lashing because at the end of the day they'd rather die to their citymates for doing shady shit than lose the war. Last Mhaldor/Targ war showed that in spades. The playerbase as a whole is perfectly fine with doing shitty things to win, so why bother giving more avenues to do the shitty things?

Saonji

Kaios said:

This argument is going in a circle. My point is you're just pushing the people who don't do all the things you complain about in to doing them, whether it's now or later on.

My man. You're arguing with the guy who says he doesn't care about other people's fun, because it's not his job to make things fun for others, only himself.

Not the best person to be debating shitty mindsets with.