Author Topic: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle  (Read 5369 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline BaleOhay

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 789
  • Infamy: 229
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BS
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #75 on: March 03, 2013, 09:49:31 pm »
+6
Kesh plays on Busty's account nearly 24/7, Busty has probably played no more then half a dozzen hours of cRPG in her life even if her account is the second most active Strategus army/Strategus merc for FCC, he's a rampant account sharer, and many people in FCC were encouraged for the past 2-3 Strategus's to multiaccount, account share, and so forth on a very large scale.  These are all facts.  If you knew why Kesh was unbanned you'd probably laugh because he's so blatantly guilty still, but I'm not gonna talk about The Truth in ways that can compromise things.

The fact is I'm sure Kesh would've stayed banned if it was done by Meow or Tomas and he was in UIF.  Almost all "investigations" for multiaccounting were just deferred to biased admins who only "investigated" flagged accounts who were russians because "its more likely lol."  I bet dozens of them were multiaccount banned with much flimsier evidence, because they are all treated like shit by devs and admins and that's really the main point of the thread.  The insane amounts of bias by a small insular circle jerk community that made sure half the groups don't have admins and get blanket banned in whimsical ways.

I'm not biased against individuals or people in clans, but by observing (or trying to change) some of the admin bureaucracy in the game it becomes really obvious that most people involved are more or less racists who jerk it to banning people they don't like with flimsy evidence, and will treat people with more condemning evidence they do like with lenience.  Then some people try to be impartial and fair and they're the ones who look bad in comparison.

Obviously that's how most institutions end up being run I suppose.  Still pretty funny to watch how shitty it is and how pervasive for years those negative stereotypes and senses of entitlement can be.

Smooth you are so completely full of shit that I can literally smell you over the internet.


So you are saying the devs unbanned Kesh because they like him? That would be news.
Leader of BS

Offline Keshian

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1176
  • Infamy: 992
  • cRPG Player
  • Diggity diggity
    • View Profile
  • Faction: FCC (Bridgeburner, Unicorn, Cavalieres, Narwhal)
  • Game nicks: Red-haired bitch from hell
  • IRC nick: Bitch, pleasssse.
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2013, 10:38:13 pm »
-3
many people in FCC were encouraged for the past 2-3 Strategus's to multiaccount, account share, and so forth on a very large scale.  These are all facts. shit smoothrich makes up in his head to justify his abuse of admin powers and feel justified and persecuted like a martyr while being the most biased admin ex-admin in the game.

Also, you and thax the racist deserve it each other - make up a bunch of shit until you actually start believing it.  There is not a single person in my faction that multi-accounts or has been encouraged to multi-account but you have a hard on for FCC.  Sure just ignore the fact that not one FCC member has been banned for multi-accounting until you did it to me without evidence when you were losing your city on strategus.

I'm not biased against individuals or people in clans, but by observing (or trying to change) some of the admin bureaucracy in the game it becomes really obvious that most people involved are more or less racists who jerk it to banning people they don't like with flimsy evidence, and will treat people with more condemning evidence they do like with lenience.  Then some people try to be impartial and fair and they're the ones who look bad in comparison.

Do you really believe the pure stupidity that you spout?  Everyone knows how biased you are - just look at the admin chat logs where you abused your admin powers to ban me without evidence because you were losing your city until of course you cheated and had a clanmate attack it to prevent us attacking it and just did a fief trasnfer in the middle of our waves of atatcks.  if you were truly unbiased you would ban yourself.
http://keshoxford.com/  - Where middle-eastern meets red-hot and spicy!

"[Strat 5]... war game my ass, tis more like a popularity contest"  Plumbo

Offline Segd

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 845
  • Infamy: 88
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #77 on: March 03, 2013, 11:09:16 pm »
0
Too much drama. I think we all just need to wait for next anti-uif counter-attack :)
Btw, attacker's last stand on the field battle should be punishable as well.

Offline Rikthor

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 432
  • Infamy: 53
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: BOARD Clan
  • Game nicks: Historian_Rikthorrr
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #78 on: March 03, 2013, 11:24:57 pm »
+7
Quote from: chadz
No matter how long you guys cry - I will not give in to dumbing strategus down because some people just want battles. If all you want are battles, then play cRPG, not strat. There are other people who like advanced gameplay.

Trolololololol

Offline jtobiasm

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 567
  • Infamy: 328
  • cRPG Player Sir White Knight
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Fallen Brigade
  • Game nicks: Tobi
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #79 on: March 04, 2013, 02:14:19 am »
-2
From the first 2 pages....cba to quote

So you're saying, byz or greys or drz have never ever ever camped in a tower when they are attacking and they have 0 tickets left?
Didn't think soooo. So pipe down.

Offline Vovka

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1174
  • Infamy: 240
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Druzhina
  • Game nicks: Druzhina_Vovka
  • IRC nick: Vovka
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #80 on: March 04, 2013, 07:16:53 am »
+3
I would strongly recommend for anti-UIF to start using heir heads and not ban hammer, at least in order to catch their comrades falling from the walls, if u don't know of a better use for it :P
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 07:27:53 am by Vovka »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Vovka

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1174
  • Infamy: 240
  • cRPG Player Sir White Bishop A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Druzhina
  • Game nicks: Druzhina_Vovka
  • IRC nick: Vovka
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #81 on: March 04, 2013, 07:25:26 am »
+3
 :cry:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Vibe

  • Vibrator
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 2528
  • Infamy: 615
  • cRPG Player Madam White Queen A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #82 on: March 04, 2013, 11:42:22 am »
+26
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline Harpag

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 914
  • Infamy: 263
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • jebać merców
    • View Profile
  • Faction: UIF
  • Game nicks: Harpag_the_Grey
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #83 on: March 04, 2013, 12:58:43 pm »
+7
(click to show/hide)

You don't need to convince me. I know very well, that their methods are incorrect, or what is worse, they are biased hypocrites. In our clan, they punished innocent people, and those who have something on their conscience, they left untouched. Fake and scam.

I know what I'm saying, because for total certainty, we kept our armies and caravans only on completely safe and reliable people. We lost everything. Just lol.

I'll give you a good example. This fucker Harpag have 100 CD keys and no ban.
How is this possible?

PS. A little sense of humor can't kill you, so chill out angry bitches hahaha

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Offline kinngrimm

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1026
  • Infamy: 320
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
    • The Betrayer of Nations
  • Faction: Wolves of Fenris
  • Game nicks: kinngrimm, Karma
  • IRC nick: kinngrimm
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #84 on: March 04, 2013, 02:04:49 pm »
0
i remember there was a DRZ admin erm also diplomat erm, for not for me to tell reasons he decided to quit the admin job. So there had been at least 1 UIF admin i know of. Also i would see Khorin and Thomek in terms of earlier strategus affiliations to UIF as at least impartial. Then again also mentoiend in several threads, a faction on its own hasn't got a right to have an admin, but everyone who is interested in the job is free to apply for it.

Overall i would give the admins the benefit of the doubt and see them as impartial. As already stated with this castle there came some not expected setbacks.

As it was normal in other sieges i witnessed and also not complained about, attackers did a last stand in several places even in tough to reach places incide of those castles/towns. Which at least for me never came to mind there may bea rulebraking with that included. So best thing to do from now i guess play it strictly by the rules, whoever attacker who is not still trying to conquer that place at hand after the timer runs out or before, gets kicked or banned if done repeatedly.
learn from the past, live the moment, dream of the future

Offline Butan

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1713
  • Infamy: 214
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Best tincan EU
    • View Profile
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #85 on: March 04, 2013, 02:30:51 pm »
+3
Every attackers should die from heart attack (through the head) when the timer runs out. Fixed.


This or deal with last man standing tactic but in an other way than admin intervention...
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 02:40:24 pm by Butan »

Offline Canary

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 826
  • Infamy: 202
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
  • Faction: CHAOS
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #86 on: March 04, 2013, 06:10:17 pm »
+4
(click to show/hide)
:wink: innocence
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.

...

It's not floating and there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, with 'unrealistic' being a very vague definition anyway, but I guess that is why there are no rules about it.   



1.3) Siege-equipment on ladders is not allowed. This includes using siege shields, other ladders and everything you can make with a construction-site.

Ladders are siege equipment. Do not place ladders while standing on another ladder. The ladder targeted in the screenshot is indeed in breach of the rules. Rule has now been updated for clarity.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 06:18:46 pm by Canary »

Offline Rhekimos

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 672
  • Infamy: 78
  • cRPG Player
  • ふふふふふ
    • View Profile
    • Forbiddena
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Rhekimos
  • IRC nick: Rhekimos
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #87 on: March 04, 2013, 06:28:44 pm »
-1
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.

...

It's not floating and there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, with 'unrealistic' being a very vague definition anyway, but I guess that is why there are no rules about it.   




Ladders are siege equipment. Do not place ladders while standing on another ladder. The ladder targeted in the screenshot is indeed in breach of the rules.

That rule could have clearer language. "Siege equipment" is never defined in the rules, leaving the term ambiguous. Someone in good faith could interpret it to mean siege shields and constructables.

A simple and clear rule would be: 1.3) Do not place anything on ladders.
Minimal room for misinterpretation.

Edit: On the edit on the rules: That works better.

Offline Segd

  • Marshall
  • ********
  • Renown: 845
  • Infamy: 88
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
    • View Profile
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #88 on: March 04, 2013, 06:31:33 pm »
+1
That rule could have clearer language. "Siege equipment" is never defined in the rules, leaving the term ambiguous. Someone in good faith could interpret it to mean siege shields and constructables.

A simple and clear rule would be: 1.3) Do not place anything on ladders.
Minimal room for misinterpretation.

Edit: On the edit on the rules: That works better.
Because its true. You cannot place siege shields, ladders, c sites on top of the ladders :) The rule is fine as it is.

Offline Rhekimos

  • Duke
  • *******
  • Renown: 672
  • Infamy: 78
  • cRPG Player
  • ふふふふふ
    • View Profile
    • Forbiddena
  • Game nicks: Fallen_Rhekimos
  • IRC nick: Rhekimos
Re: The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« Reply #89 on: March 04, 2013, 06:34:59 pm »
0
Because its true. You cannot place siege shields, ladders, c sites on top of the ladders :)

I believe you miss my point. If someone interpreted the old rule to mean "siege shields and constructables", that category might not include ladders, making different interpretations of the rule possible.

Now it has been further clarified to explicitly include that ladder on ladder is not allowed.