Originally posted by spawn:
if you dont have problems like that then dont post here ;)
That's idiotic. He posted here asking for people's opinions, I decided to offer mine. If he doesn't want the opinions of people who "don't have problems like that" then he'll only get negative opinions because by definition anyone who does see themselves as having this problem will view it as unfair.
Originally posted by spawn:
check our news, if you're lucky you'll find out which clan Smikke means :)
He came here looking for an opinion, it doesn't matter to me if he gets good ones or not. I asked for the information I need to fulfill his request for a proper opinion. I'm not going to go out of my way to wade through all of Fist's news for this reset and figure out who he's talking about though. It doesn't matter that much to me if his query gets addressed properly.
Originally posted by dustfp:
fair land grabbing, regardless of how "aggressive" it is, should never be considered farming
that said, though, if a clan can't retal, even one hit will upset them
That's the opposite of what's true. There's no such thing as "unfair" landgrabbing because we all start every reset on equal footing. If someone has an advantage, it's because they played better than you. To use an advantage you've earned isn't unfair in any way.
Therefore farming is always "fair"... but it's still farming.
The policies that Fist has in effect do not effect "fairness". They're simply self-imposed limits that Fist hopes will prevent anyone from being pushed far enough that they think it's worth going to war. But the fact is, if you're taking a lot of land from one alliance, it doesn't matter if it's done by 3 attacks every day or 1 attack every 3 days. The damage is the same, and if you push someone too far they'll complain and fight back.
I don't think "farming" is an inaccurate label just because you guys had guidelines for how often you could hit.
-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.
