note to sebulba: sorry for my false alarm... but i still expect something to be done about the other reports

As to the NAP that is pretty hard too prove unless those elders of those alliances was too say that they are not attacking a certain alliance because they have an agreement


~ L&O Sebulba (#2)

Sorry V, it looks like LnO has the opinion that only if the ELDERS say they have a NAP (so if they plead guilty of their own accord), they are punished. In short, our system of justice is conveniently made for violation. You can NAP, and don't tell the elder. Or you can tell the elder, and have him lie.

so for all intent and purpose, co-op is legal

no, the above is about NAP, because I know you can't prove co-op unless by pms. NAP on the other hand is imo practicing a co-op with mutual silent understanding.

EDIT: yes, the case being that if tribes from 6 alliances hunt you where they could have taken advantage of each other as well, and do so for three consecutive days, I find it practicing a NAP. Unfortunately the CoC applies to alliances and not individual tribes, plus post-war, so the CoC is hopelessly outdated because it practically allows anyone to team up against you.

simple

#27 have been the best targets for land recently as they have all attackers and sometimes have less amount of defense at home then any other alliances attackers

Are you saying bolle thats NAP because i am finding attacking #27 vikings is easier than attacking another alliances attacker who has more defense at home

why should i attack someone else in another alliance if a #27 viking has low defense

and if that is NAP then that is a stupid rule

Doh

How to kill #17? By getting massive firepower.

OH NOES, says Orkfia, #27 has power. Quick, we must slaughter them before they can succeed...

and I am saying it is more a NAP to massively eat #27 than to not eat #27.

Excuse me for assuming brains in empty heads...

but if i remember rightly you were not killing #17 but destroying there armies and while you were attacking you were leaving low amount of defense at home making easy land targets

and then you started attacking other alliances and destroying there armies and from what i can see one particular alliance did not like that and got revenge and killed a few tribes

what brain?

mine left my head ages ago

Wrong.

We were attacking #17 and from the moment we started fools were feeding on us. This can be defined as co-op or simply grabbing acres.

At any rate, after two days we got sick of it and turned on those who grabbed us. Orkfia gave it an extra spurt and grabbed us more, then #45 started killing us for no reason.

well those fools got easy land and it can't really be co-op as attacking for land is a main part in the game for attackers

well from what i saw on a old FO

you mass razed and grabbed one of the MH in #45 so i don't think them killing you is for no reason

I know, I think I'll just scorn at all the elders in-game. Can't blame players for seeking individual gain.

@45: well since they stole 4k of our acres first while we were nobly fighting #17... I think we had more than enough justification.

yeah i guess you did

#45 are lame though

i see thay warred #36
#36 surrendered but they still went and killed another member of them even though they surrendered

just a dirty way of playing

The only time people tend to think a second extra before grabbing is when grabbing into wars, and even then it still happens quite alot.

The #17 vs #27 was just a grabwar without any declaration, if other tribes outside those alliances found that tribes were kinda semisuiciding on eachother then they for sure would step in and take some acres.

We had a tribe that grabbed you aprox 3 times due to you guys semisuiciding, dunno who you guys think you are but no one gets away with suiciding if there is other attackers online, no alliance nor situation is exluded from that.

When you guys went to retal our tribe that grabbed you 3 times you retaled with 3 razes and 4 grabs, which was gonna be a kill if it hadnt been for him being lucky enough to get a doubleupdate.

Your intention was to kill him thats for sure, at the same time almost none of you were running tm def and trying to run massive yards, wth you recon you can get away with that?

Hell no, we moved in and killed two tribes.

Then we moved on to declaring on #36, killing of a tribe the same tick, unfortunatly they surrendered right away.

We then decided to kill one more from #36, a DE that was in full uber warmode, only running homes, farms, guilds and acads. This to prevent any sudden retalation.

Conclusion.

Semisuiciding all the time combined with 0 tm def and trying to retal 3 grabs with a kill attempt equal death.

It wasn't a grabwar. It was a very effective removal of military. Barely grabs.

You had Drunk Race Driver who grabbed us three times, and your dear elder who did so 4 times.

Our intention is always to kill. But we were happy with him losing 40% of his military.

And i am not defending our gameplay, I am berating you all for making the wrong in-game choices. Have fun enduring another boring 6 weeks under #17s reign.

oh 4 times by our dear elder aswell.

Would you agree with me that having an alliance full of attackers where semisuiciding persistently been a part of the strategy makes people from outside the alli watching you might start looking for easy targets in your alli more frequent then in other alliances?

This is ofc wrong in-game choices in the eyes of #27, fortunatly for most of us we are not playing in #27^^

Sure I understand that, that's why I scorn the elders and not the individual players, for allowing their players to grab them BEFORE #17 has been sufficiently disposed of. Right now, they just got away nice and easy.

if you semi suicide it is no one else's fault that you get mass grabbed by other alliances

you should take blame for making wrong in games choices for all going vikings and semi suiciding all the time

it is the fault of the elders for not having mastered politics -.-

WarGeneral, I know you know this but it's worth repeating: Law & Order exists to enforce the Code of Conduct in a fair and consistent way.

Co-op may not be possible for LnO to prove in all cases. But it is equally hard to find proof of the opposite, that co-op didn't take place.

With this in mind I find it important to believe that everyone plays according to the rules, and never assume otherwise.

I agree with Bolle on the political part, that if I would find someone ready to persistently start a war with #17 for several days, I would surely encourage him to go on with pms instead of invading his tribe to diminish his survival chances, and I would also talk with alliance members that would use the situation for their petty profits since it would endanger the nice warsituation between the fighting parties, so I would try to explain them that if two foes are fighting eachother the third party is 'growing' even in a static state relatively :p

But I think it's offtopic actually. I also think topics like this are useless in the world forum but I do enjoy reading them now and then. Keeps the game alive :P

Yea, no one is cooping on #27. Its not Alliances at War's fault their vikings leave less than 1.5 mill def at home at 8k acres o_o And out of curiousity, is 12 attackers really a good play when only 3-4 of your players are actually good enough to play an attacker effectively? A 4 vik / 8 tm strat would seem more logical and deadly.

they're KP. they don't play to win, they play to have fun and look good =D

Well, fun they have! Looking good on the other hand... I guess if you put lipstick on Bolle he'd be bangable o_O

Now now EMber..

What? It's a complement, I think Bolle is sexy o_o