Little Creatures is the name of an Aussie brewery. I recommend the pale or bright ale, or the White Rabbit (also Australian and owned by Little Creatures) dark ale and white ale. All win beer.
Kickboxing fs? I'm down with that :D
Also, in regard to op, I use the steelseries mmo mouse for wow and earth and everything else I play as a matter of fact, and I habe the merc stealth keyboard as well. I can select different profiles with different keybindings for different games, and the mouse comes with 15 bindable buttons. Win all round. Unless you are using it for a few different games, its not worth it though
Otherwise the clan itself could be involved in a big brouhaha, if say for arguments sake, 12 hours after country a from laf gets detagged, sof starts a kr on it and the paradigm player joins in without checking or talking to us. Suddenly we would have an fa sit to sort. Worse, imagine if country a was still tagged.
All tan has done is man up. A member of our clan did the wrong thing, which reflects on us as a whole. As such we as a clam have a responsibility to do the right thing. I don't neccessarily reps would be that, but an apology is fine.
Sof, I like you guys, but you do need to see this from, and respect, our position.
our member was at fault for not at least talking to a leader first. If he had come to us and said "guys, my mates at sof where I normally play are killing someone they suspect of preparing to suicide on them" we'd have said "yeah sure, now worries". we have a responsibility to our tag, just as sof have a responsibility to theirs.
locket: I think you will find pretty much every clan has 2 stepping in their pacts. Problem is, no one else wants to recognise it when one of the countries is an untag.
as I said, at the end of the day, if someone else ends up with the land, fine, I just feel very cheap when it's almost as if the person 2 stepping off the untag has been specifically waiting for that untag to hit.
Matt: please, rather than be a fluff, how about let our FA's do thier job? in short it all boils back to a simple misunderstanding. rather than have an attitude and put us offside from the outset (which, to be perfectly honest, it seems you want to do to everyone matt), working with us will usually bring a positive result.
thanks for keeping us in the loop chevs. I am sure detmertard will get back to you when he can.
but when wars stopped being about legitimate in-game reasons and more about political out-maneuvering, the pact system was bound to move in that direction.
now we have a combination of alliances being completely pacted out and unable to do ANYTHING (even help allies) or they're basically a sitting duck to be hit if the wheel of misfortune lands on their alliance that round.
the natural order has broken down and I'm still waiting for it to be properly re-established. It's been a year and a half and we're still on the same path that led us here.
i think everyone can agree that this server's community is not as healthy as it should be, and realistically it hasn't been since around the time EC started.
those are criticisms across the board, and I definitely bear my share of the responsibility for that -- I was one of the advocates of ridiculous pacting and political maneuvering for years :p
but it's those sort of short-term decisions that have created long-term structural problems in the Alliance style of gaming. And that's unfortunate because the Alliance style is my favourite style, and I know a lot of other folks feel the same way :p
agreed on this 100%.
it's not so much someone else grabbing the land so to speak, its the fact that generally (and I don't refer just to LaF here) the hits go by the following pattern:
untag a hits country b from tag c
country d from tag e hits untag a 5 to 10 times within 1 minute of untag a's hits, enuring that country b cannot even try to get his land back.
doesn't seem unreasonable to think "well give the tag a few minutes to get the land."
impossible to wall? bullcrap.
I can still wall successfully, from my phone no less, so long as I get at least a text. proved it when we got smacked by RD. I was walling just fine until my phone's battery died :P
dumb laws is not 100% accurate. looking through the ones for australia, the law about sex is incorrect. the law is that it's 16 regardless, however homosexuals are not allowed to have sex until 18.
now now pang. we've made a genuine effort to set our issues aside with LaF this set. so far as I know, apart from one guy who's right on the border of being booted because he keeps grabbing allies through refusing to check the embassy, we've had no dramas with LaF at al this set, and we'd like to keep it that way.
There is a buttload of farming going on in primary slagpit. If you are under about 3 mil nw after the first couple of weeks for whatever reason, you may as well give up, as you are going to be a land fluff for the rest of the set.
So why is it, that if early in the set I participate in a kill run on a suicider, for the good of me AND my clanmates and potentially other clans also, that I get punished by not being able to join gdi at the end of the set? I could entirely understand and agree with the 72 hour gdi rule as it used to be, but this is just silly. Y it strikes me as being a rule designed solely to bemefot large clans through the fact that they have the numbers to sacrifice a few dor the whole, but a smaller clan must use a larger portion of its membership to participate.
As for gdi in primary, someone lands 60 grabs and 10 missiles on me, so I throw 1 missile back, once again no gdi for entire set. Punisemt doesnt fit crime imo
Locket: nice post.
It's odd that tAN is being called atrocious and intractable though, given that in the past he was constantly referred to as too soft...
what I am seeing is erveryone saying "PDM: yopu are bad people for defending and following your policy! On;y we are allowed to enforce our policies!"
blah blah blah.
you guys sijmply don't want to land trade, and wish to stagnate this game further happily getting more and more inbred. anything that marks even a slight change, and if embraced en masse would make a benefit to the game overall, is thrown out.
also of course we are all under 5k acres... we've all been killed dumbass.
before we were attacked by RD, I'd reasonably say I was one of PDM's fatter countries, I waws hitting bigger countries than me acres wise, and yet the retals were getting their land back plus bonus GA's. I think my point stands.
as with Palli: RL takes precedence over earth. I came out of retirement to try and make a change for Paradigm's overall good. unfortunately I don't know if this will happen.
as for the examp[le given: you can stock and still have a reasonable level of defence, rather than runnigng no def. on 35k acres I would expect at least a minimum of 2 mil turrets, and preferably more, but that's just me.
I also disagree with the current definition of topfeeding, which is what used to be midfeeding. everyone in this game now seems to be hung up on the concept of "you can only grab someone smaller in acres than you". silly idea. firstly, fi they are smaller, they are probably also less able to retal, second, you get less land, whilst making sure they will most likely profit off their retal, meaning people don't want to grab in the first place, thirdly, if you are grabbing someone who is within say x% of a size difference larger, you ensure that when they retal they will probably get same acres back. Our policy is not designed simply to benefit PDM members, if you hit us in the same manner, tghen we will abide by our own retal rules in gettig the land back also (yes that means, if you are say 20% smaller in acres than me, and take a single tap, I will respond witha single tap most likely, or at most a double if I am getting my land back. our aim was to encourage land trading and use of ghost acres, bnot hear people whine and complain that we are topfeeding rthem.
now you will have to excuse my typing and spelling as I have been drinking.
Martian: that we did :P
Silver: unwillingness to accept c:c or 1:1 retals was what I was told was the issue, because it supposedly means that you have to quote "entirely change the way you play the game". Crap. General opinion on this particular piece of policy seems to be that it is brilliant.
if you are running specific retaller countries, there is NO reason as to why they can't get the land back in 1 shot. and if the original country wants the land back, he/she is free to take as many hits as they need to get it back. seems simple and not massively "game altering" as you guys like to claim.
Personally I would be happy to sign a CF, but I must also abide by what my fellow leaders wish to do.
Drow
PDM Senate.
