I been trying to figure out when I joined NA, and I'm pretty sure it was late 07. I know it was in the middle of the slit wars, and wiki seems to be down

so anyont know exactly when the sets of the SLIT wars was?

Oh, and with es crashing a few months ago, na lost all it's archived fluff, I'm talking about about 150 forums and thousands of threads, not to mention pms, it's why I'm having this problem

That was right around the time (or shortly after) when most 1a alliances moved over to the 'new' EC server.

Our historical archives don't have much data on this period. It was a rather chaotic time, and I've made multiple attempts to get some data on what happened during the entire year of 2007 from members who may have this info, but with no success.

LaF made the move in very early 2007, we were hit our first half set on EC by ZT and Rage, and our involvement helped win the first real "slit" war.

The MAJOR war was the 2nd set LaF was in EC, which was sometime around Feb-Mar-April 2007. The set after that, both NA and LaF pacted out. LaF would be hit the following reset by Rival, and after that I don't remember what NA did at all because I was busy :p

Hopefully that helps your timeline!

Pang, I know what NA did after!

They ran market buy outs and 'some' members ran multis to achieve 'record' finishes!

april 07

http://web.archive.org/...erally/Apr07/cmembers.htm

uuhhmmm SLIT as a recognized group popped up earlier then that. The SLIT movenent went down twice.

The first real coalition war where SOL/LaF/TIE/IX Banded together was during the reset of April - May 2006

In the reset of Jan/Feb 2007 the move to EC started up it is there that SOL gets FSed by ZT, Ragnarok, PDM, Rage and MD. Which resparked SLIT as a coalition. In that set NA was massivly deleted.

The set after that set a massive ANTI-SLIT movement starts which beats down SLIT.

Set after that SLIT strikes back but does so in seperate non co-aligned wars and the winning streak from that point on starts for SLIT.

This streak holds up till the set of March/April 2008 where SLIT breaks up and war breaks out between SOL/IX/SX and TIE/PDM/LCN.


So somewhere there ?

that sounded like a fun war to be in :)

Wasnt that the reset when rage oop AB'd laf and ix? one of diety's master plans heh.

i got deleted in that "massive NA deletions" not for mulit's, but because they deemed my country name inapporpriate, despite the fact i had used it several times over several years. yeah patti i'm still pissed about that.

Those were good times. i10, weeeeee! :-)

Don't forget though, at the end it became SNILT, when NBK jumped in with their 10'ish countries

I got deleted for the country name C U Next Tuesday Snilt during that war :-D

I just checked my logs (and your date is correct) of a meeting that i had with floyd, Dalyx and myself where they where talking about quiting the relationship between TIE, SoL and IX. Floyd (mostly) and Dalyx wanted to drop this coalition because it was ruining the game (that's what they where talking about in that meeting).

Sadly for floyd I had for years admin access to their GT site, Wich was given by an old IX head :) That's why i knew their stupid plan to back stab TIE.

I had allot of fun to ruin a 4 month plan that floyd had within 24h =)

Taken from our historical archive:

"Mar 1st - Apr 30th, 2008 -- Blah blah, something about building a website blah blah...

The SLIT coalition broke up. IX FSed TIE, and alliances of the respective sides of the coalition came together against each other. Beforetime, IX had been the de facto top alliance in the game, but this set would see the first crack in the IX war machine. After a month and a half of attrition, TIE emerged the victor."

Despite having fought in most of those wars I recall very little from them. Goes to show that real wars require some kind of personal stake in them if you are really going to have a blast.

SLIT wars was fun, perhaps the last fun war since then felt like people stopped caring after that and everyone just quit

fluff

true.

Very true Shinigami. Thats why the ICN/SancT war and the second RIVAL/SOF war stick out the most in my mind. I also remember IX warchats... but not who were fighting at the time, lol.

my memory fails me, probably for the better :)

huh? second rival/sof war? i can only remember there being one of them

i think that was 2 resets after rage did that record FS on Sanct, then IX + SancT retaliated and pwned rage, then they knew ix was gunning for them again so they ab fs'd ix, I think LaF helped the reset after with killing but dun remember.. either way that helped chase rage off the server to ec a set or two later when EC was opened.

those SLIT wars were by far the most fun wars I've ever been in. The activity we had within TIE was ridiculous...everyone was like hyped up to go against the backstabbers from IX + SoL lol. There was probably no less than 40 active people in our warroom at all times. (Of course we were like 120-160 members at that time though lol)

I miss those days =(

Rage left 1a for Ec mainly due to the Bots run on us in revenge for us pwning sanct hardcore. + the other multie issues across a wide range of clans meant it made sense for us to follow pdm across to EC in the hope that EC would provide a more clean environment for play!

The irony of the whole NA in slit wars thing is that they bailed at the first possible opportunity:p

and yeah mrford, i could give you a hell of a lot of slit wars info from rage's perspective.... if es hadn't crashed...

Don't forget that Evolution was involved in helping Sanctuary against Rage's FS...sadly, Rage was far better prepared. We ended that particular reset with the lowest ANW in Evo's history. Back then, we felt that helping an ally was far more important than our ANW standing...but we felt that, since we weren't pacted to Rage, they would have come for us eventually.

Of course, we all know what happened next reset...Evolution had wanted to stay out of the coalition wars, but Rage's actions had forced us to IX and co's side of the conflict. We wanted blood for what happened last reset, and we got it. Rage offered us a pact every reset afterwards.

I had hoped you guys wouldn't do that actually, but you did make good targets.

Umm... sorry about that I guess.

november 2007 ? :)

Set after that SLIT strikes back but does so in seperate non co-aligned wars and the winning streak from that point on starts for SLIT.

that was the set AFTER actually.
before that, Rage, PDM and someone else (I forget who) hit ix and smashed them silly, whilst tie took on sof, and I believe were just starting to get beaten down by sof when rage and pdm jumped into that also. (wasn't pdm's best moment :/) LaF had pacted out, and I THINK SoL went after RIVAL.

after that ix systematically raped rage for a couple of sets, smashing them to a shadow of their former selves, then jumped PDM at 120 v 80 after that. the set ix jumped pdm was the set that sol ix and LaF turned their backs on tie. ix asked PDM for a cf so they could FS ti, because they believed tie was going to fs them. the following set was the first tie/pdm v sol/ix war.

also pang, you forgot about tie's involvement in the first slit war under the guise of enigma. PDM actually FS'd enigma whilst RAGE FS'd sol, as sol had planned on jumping PDM, and had asked rage to join them. enigma then grew out of tag with their restarts, before jumping en masse back into their tag and smashing PDM and rage horribly with solidly built countries that had escaped the ravages of war, whilst everyone else's countries were spent, on both sides.

LaF didnt turn their backs on tie, Upon the break up of slit, LaF remained neutral to all parties, neither siding with sol, ix nor tie.

And as far as the second part, your saying that growing out of tag is what changed that war? seriously? slit were outnumbered and outmanouvered in that war, the reason slit won was simply they had more fight in them, and rage were stupid enough to fs LaF when laf wasnt going to be involved in the slit wars anymore, leaving a large number of huge breakers to tag laf from the tags they had been playing in from the start of the set, forcing laf back with slit, and providing slit with the extra numbers/breakers needed to turn that war before the end of the set. Meanwhile anti-slit thought they had won and their walling/restart rates fell apart.

That whole reset was just an illustration of why anti slit couldnt win against slit in the long term. It wasnt that the alliances wernt good enough, or the members wernt hardcore enough, it was that their leadership was so stupid it hurt.

A-Rod, I would be too. :( I was on your side!

To be fair, TIS turned their backs on LaF after the first FULL SLIT war in EC.
After that point, LaF's involvement in SLIT was tangential and our efforts were focused on a 1v1 war with Rival, which was green lighted by all of TIS despite Rival having pacted us.

I personally always felt that the decision not to get involved in fighting with IX/SoL or TIE as SLIT broke up was more of us saying "you guys both screwed us, we don't want to help either of you." We had just spent 5 months fighting a guerrilla war... why would we jump back into bed with any of the alliances who were cool with us being driven from the game?

But that was just my personal opinion... The opinion of LaF may differ :p

But that is one of the things that pisses me off the most about SLIT... the goal for some of the people who lead the alliances in SLIT was not just to win the war, it was to obliterate and humiliate the enemy, driving away their membership so that SLIT would "win the game." This was put into practice moreso later with the "pactless" strategies and perpetual war against people who don't want to fight.

LaF never subscribed to that theory, but it's a theory that has dominated server wars for the last several years.

Its wierd how ppl remember things that never happend heh

Well this simple thread got really interesting.

I swam to remember my first welcome message from mommy morwen sometime in September 07, but I'm not sure

*Nods at Pang*

That attitude - and some of the anti-SLIT people were just as guilty of it - is exactly why I left and would never had returned if E2025 hadn't died and EE rose up from the ashes to take its place. I use to joke that I made most of my friends in Earth by fighting them first, but you can't have that when your war the goal to drive your enemy right out of the game.

This is why some people stresses on issue based Wars, not because a person in leadership dislikes someone and decide to declare them DEATH.


It's unavoidable that sometimes a good ass kicking would mean that one or two people leaves the game, but like the warmongers say, this isn't a tree hugging game, half the game is based on warfare.

However, I do like to hug trees and netgain, but if you try and hurt my netgaining, I will shove my boot so far up your ass that you would be shining my shoes coming out of your mouth with your hands.

ya...

remember the TIL wars and stuff? Even when you were on the side that was losing, you weren't overly concerned about being driven from the game... it was just back to the drawing board about how to regroup internally for the next challenges

the entire era from the start of SLIT to the present has been marked with the attitude of driving people from the game/ruining playing experiences, rather than improving your own internal growth.

I think part of that came about with the evolution of warfare, and the total war nature of it all. E.g. total 24hr commitment which led to total victory only being achieved with complete domination. Alot driven by IX/Rage/SOL/SoF/WoG, these alliances that warred either against multies or consistently for a long period of time, and didn't know what else to do.

Just a possible thought.

Sort of irrelevant now though since the people behind it don't really play anymore that i know of:p

DL for a big part you're right lol

I've never netted a complete set. That backs up Dlance's theory.

netting *shivers* :S

Check http://www.arrowproject.net's archive

would you not also argue though pang, that LaF's also has a win at all costs outlook on netgaining rather than warfare?

not entirely, DL....

if we did, we'd actively look to hurt others, rather than just looking at improving ourselves.

we do grab a lot of stuff, but that's a risk we take and it sometimes leads to war.

I would say LaF is at the farthest end of that spectrum, but that spectrum is not comparable to that of the war alliances :p

Can you see however how other people would perceive the general actions that LaF take in trying to improve themselves, as being targeted to destroy others?

Especially since you believe that the great war alliances of the past continual push for self-improvement in skills and ability to mete out destruction was in fact a drive to dominate and control all to "win" the game.

I think there is little difference between the actions of someone such as LaF, and the actions of SIT (i'm sure you agree that LaF was not fully committed to the levels of destruction that SIT were lol) and anti-SLIT in their continual push for self-improvement?

Whilst i have no real issue with LaF doing this. I just think that you (LaF) guys need to have a little understanding of where some of the smaller clan opinions, and war clan opinions are coming from.

Successful War and Net clans are pretty much identical, just geared towards different end goals with slightly different structures.

just some thoughts anyway.

Not meant to be divisive, merely interesting:p

Ah the SLIT wars. Those were the good old days gentlemen.

Sounds like the start of the fluff days to me.

Sure was better than the clusterfluff we have now, lol