Author Topic: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence  (Read 4032 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Matey

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1327
  • Infamy: 372
  • cRPG Player
  • A Pirate
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Matey_BRD
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2013, 07:14:46 am »
0
Can we all not just sit down together and hug it out and then agree that Canary is awesome, that Smoothrich should be made an admin again, and that Kesh should be permad again?

U DUM. Go back to EU and turtle up! If NA enjoyed hugging it out we wouldn't be having all these wars.

Offline Zlisch_The_Butcher

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1272
  • Infamy: 971
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Faction: Frisian Church of Mork The Goat God
  • Game nicks: Zlisch
  • IRC nick: IRC nick: Tears
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2013, 09:05:34 am »
0
U DUM. Go back to EU and turtle up! If NA enjoyed hugging it out we wouldn't be having all these wars.
But ain't war like essentially a lot of men camping together with no girls allowed? And in order to get a good stab at whoever you're fighting you gotta get real close to them.
1H stab is the fastest, strongest and longest 1H animation. There's no reason NOT to use it in all instances. I don't know if it's OP, but it's boring. 1H used to be fun because you had a fast (left), long (right) and the most devastating attack (stab) and had to choose the best attack for each occasion.

Offline Matey

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1327
  • Infamy: 372
  • cRPG Player
  • A Pirate
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Matey_BRD
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2013, 09:59:20 am »
+1
But ain't war like essentially a lot of men camping together with no girls allowed? And in order to get a good stab at whoever you're fighting you gotta get real close to them.

never heard of camp followers? plus our armies are equal opportunity... everyone can come die to get xp for the nobles together.

Offline Gmnotutoo

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1387
  • Infamy: 229
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Space Pope of BIRD CLAN
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Unicorns
  • Game nicks: Gmnotutoo
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2013, 05:13:23 pm »
+1
So after taking the 45 minutes to read this whole thread i realized something. that's 45 minutes i will never get back. I earned almost 700k that night in the ~2 hours we fought. sooooooooooo don't know why everyone is railing on an unpaid volunteer admin who couldn't make a call in reality because he was fighting for a side also as I sit here thinking about it isn't there more then just 1 admin in the game???? and yes i think its stupid how everyone is really angry about it. Because in the big picture FCC still got the town and hosp didn't abuse the bug, they were telling there members to get out of the "unreachable" (FCC made it in there a ton) spawn. FCC coulda have asked for a sooner end if they had just capped all the flags instead of leaving them up. Because while those flags are still up hosp could still kill FCC tickets, which they did.

In the end FCC you still got your city so stop whining, canary haters your silly children or adults who have failed at life, and everyone else... well we had fun.

Who are you to tell people to stop complaining about a leader they didn't get to vote for and now don't agree with the way he handled a situation? Although they shouldn't be doing it here but in his forum feedback thread.

Tretter gave a public impression that he and others were going to abuse this exploit out of spite.

Your claim of the FCC making it in there a ton is also skewed. Please find the actual number of people that made it in there, then post the time frame it took to figure out how to get in there, then figure out how much time the battle had left at the point of discovery, and finally list how many people died trying to figure out ways to reach that spot. If you can't, then don't try to manipulate the events to support your opinion.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2013, 06:53:31 pm by Gmnotutoo »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

THIS IS A MANLY CLAN. FOR MANLY MEN. DOING MANLY THINGS.

Offline MrShine

  • Ragdoll Basher
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1156
  • Infamy: 193
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Fear the stache
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: MrShine
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2013, 06:14:04 pm »
0
Your claim of the FCC making it in there a ton is also skewed. Please find the actual number of people that made in there, then post the time frame it took to figure out how to get in there, then figure out how much time the battle had left at the point of discovery, and finally list how many people died trying to figure out ways to reach that spot. If you can't, then don't try to manipulate the events to support your opinion.

That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.
Holy crap I have a youtube gaming channel! https://www.youtube.com/user/MrShine12345

Offline Gmnotutoo

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1387
  • Infamy: 229
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Space Pope of BIRD CLAN
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Unicorns
  • Game nicks: Gmnotutoo
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2013, 06:40:56 pm »
+1
That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.

My argument is a request for facts, Shine. There is nothing wrong with what I requested. Whether it paints the picture in favor or against the FCC, its a request for facts. If someone can't produce the facts to back up their claims, then I wanted to make sure that people realized that his message is opinion-based.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

THIS IS A MANLY CLAN. FOR MANLY MEN. DOING MANLY THINGS.

Offline Matey

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1327
  • Infamy: 372
  • cRPG Player
  • A Pirate
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Matey_BRD
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2013, 07:25:16 pm »
+1
That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.

I brought the issue to admin attention with 60min remaining. Also, we had 5 people dedicated to breaking into that spot since the start of the battle; the idea was to find a way into that spot and cap those flags while few/no enemies spawned there. unfortunately it took us about 70 minutes to actually get anyone into that spot and by that time those were the only enemy flags remaining and it was impossible for the couple of people who could make it in there to cap those flags. I asked early on if capping all other flags would lead to an admin decision and got the response "we will cross that bridge when we get there" which was not a very useful response. The result was that we continued with our original strategy for another 30minutes.

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 Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2013, 08:35:56 pm »
-1
I brought the issue to admin attention with 60min remaining. Also, we had 5 people dedicated to breaking into that spot since the start of the battle; the idea was to find a way into that spot and cap those flags while few/no enemies spawned there. unfortunately it took us about 70 minutes to actually get anyone into that spot and by that time those were the only enemy flags remaining and it was impossible for the couple of people who could make it in there to cap those flags. I asked early on if capping all other flags would lead to an admin decision and got the response "we will cross that bridge when we get there" which was not a very useful response. The result was that we continued with our original strategy for another 30minutes.

Yeah canary was singularly unhelpful in this department.  if we capped flags like "mrshine thought was a smart idea" every single person would be spawning in unreachable zone, we got non-comittal response from devs on that and even after we capped all flags still nothing, only reason at the end was it was obvious even with timer run out we would have won regardless as we lost 3 guys killing a 100 with less than 300 to go.  if we had done mr shine's brilliant strategy we would have had 800 or more tickets left to fight because defenders died a  LOT slower spawning in unreachable zone.  Every flag we put down teleported more and more of them to unreachable zone for us making killing them slower.  With no strong or clear admin decision-maker willing to actually do their job we had no choice but to do our best to kill all the population since that was the only other way to take it without losing an entire shiny 1900 man army to a bug head admin was afraid to make a decision on despite no doubt who had won.

P.S. Half our deaths were tks or falls trying to reach unreachable flag.  And matey called it in the battle - they finally submitted the ichamur fix as soon as we took it.
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 DUKE DICKBUTT

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 138
  • Infamy: 119
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2013, 09:16:59 pm »
+1
So it sounds like the result of Canary's indecisiveness cost us ~300 of population, the loss of some troops and gear, but most importantly "not an hour" but 40 minutes of everyones' time.

If only there were some sort of pre-defined precedence that could remove the tough decision making from a situation like that...  We need better rules, and we need them yesterday.

My argument is a request for facts, Shine. There is nothing wrong with what I requested. Whether it paints the picture in favor or against the FCC, its a request for facts. If someone can't produce the facts to back up their claims, then I wanted to make sure that people realized that his message is opinion-based.

I agree with Gmno.  This is the internet, and we can't prove motive no matter how hard we try.  Unless every boxed copy of M&B Warband comes with a polygraph tester, we should just give up everytime motive is involved.  Even if we did have polygraphs, what's to stop us from hooking up our cats?  Unfortunately, the entire administration for bans is based around motive, which means that admins can punish certain people more severely just because they "believe."  Unfortunately, the head admin decided to remove a new admin who actually defined whic punishments would be doled out ahead of time.  It leaves no room for questions, yet, the head admin did not see this as a good thing.

Anyway, by continuing to post in this thread, MrShine continually digs his viewpoint into the anti-FCC camp.  It's obvious that he is no longer able to make a neutral decision based on facts at this point, and its questionable if he was ever able to in the first place.

Offline MrShine

  • Ragdoll Basher
  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1156
  • Infamy: 193
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Fear the stache
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: MrShine
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #54 on: April 21, 2013, 10:09:32 pm »
0
Yeah canary was singularly unhelpful in this department.  if we capped flags like "mrshine thought was a smart idea" every single person would be spawning in unreachable zone,
Exactly, and if you did this earlier in the battle all the defenders would have all been spawning in the 'unreachable' location with a lot more time to spare, making it more clear that the only reason the defenders were still in the battle was because the spawn prevented people from getting out & in.  I'm saying the waters would have been less muddied, which would have made an admin decision much easier.

Quote
If we had done mr shine's brilliant strategy we would have had 800 or more tickets left to fight because defenders died a  LOT slower spawning in unreachable zone.
The problem is you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You tried to make a contingency (kill all defenders by spawncamping within the timelimit), but at the same time you expected admins to rule the fight in your favor if your contingency didn't work.   Both plans worked against each-other & made things more confusing.

Quote
With no strong or clear admin decision-maker willing to actually do their job we had no choice but to do our best to kill all the population since that was the only other way to take it without losing an entire shiny 1900 man army to a bug head admin was afraid to make a decision on despite no doubt who had won.
It's funny you say that, because the easiest thing we could have done is said  "sorry, strat bug. submit a bug report".  Technically defenders still had a flag up, and time expired.  Technically defenders were still fighting on other flags, and some were able to get out and continue the fight. If you want to get technical about it, you could argue that admins shouldn't be making rulings on bugs like this, because it's really up to the developers to fix bugs & weigh in on these sorts of things. 

Anyways, you got your way in the end.  Hospitallers ceded the fight (which was IMO a very good thing of them to do), and admins forced defenders to leave the battle.  The end result is you have the city, and no defenders survived.  Yes, it took admins longer than you wanted to make a ruling in the bug-riddled abortion of a battle, boo hoo.

Quote

 And matey called it in the battle - they finally submitted the ichamur fix as soon as we took it.
You should view this as a positive thing - a big battle brought a bug front and center, and someone spent time to fix the bug.  Now, when the fix will actually get patched is another issue entirely, but at least now we have precedence for how to handle this sort of situation in the future. 



Anyway, by continuing to post in this thread, MrShine continually digs his viewpoint into the anti-FCC camp.  It's obvious that he is no longer able to make a neutral decision based on facts at this point, and its questionable if he was ever able to in the first place.
I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.
Holy crap I have a youtube gaming channel! https://www.youtube.com/user/MrShine12345

Offline DUKE DICKBUTT

  • Baron
  • ****
  • Renown: 138
  • Infamy: 119
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2013, 11:04:47 pm »
+1
I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.
So it sounds like the result of Canary's indecisiveness cost us ~300 of population, the loss of some troops and gear, but most importantly "not an hour" but 40 minutes of everyones' time.
You can obviously read, so you should be able to see what is actually being argued here, but it is apparent that you are so anti-FCC you can't.  Of course the decision did eventually benefit us.  However, it was still costlier than it needed to be to our faction as well as other's.  Occitan comes to mind.  I am asking you guys to a better job and a better job all around.  If you have checked some of my other posts, I continually ask for the rules to be clarified and expanded.  There will be no decisions that will have to be defended if the rules are clear.  Hell, you don't even have a solid structure for ban sentences, it's just whatever the admin at the time feels like.  I offer suggestions, argue articulately, clearly express my views, and critique the current processes.  But I suppose you write that all off as trolling.

The contingency was the right thing to do.  As stated before, if you are in an unreachable area (whether or not you spawn there), it is your responsibility to exit that area ASAP or leave the game.  That does not change whether it is NA1, NA2, or NA3.

No one is saying that Canary is doing the wrong thing by fixing the map.  The timing is, of course, questionable.  It was not fixed after the first attack on it months ago.  It was not fixed after the first, second, third or fourth attacks in this recent series, even though the improper flag was apparent in every battle.  But it happens ASAP as soon as Canary is forced to make a ruling on it.  Here are the battles to prove it, and it was apparent in every single one of them.  I've also taken the liberty to list the admins who were present.

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=1879 SMOOTHRICH and Desire present
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3253 Canary
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3266 Dach, Canary
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3280 Desire
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3315 Canary, Desire
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3326 MrShine, Dach, Canary, Desire

MrShine, I don't expect you to know everything, but there are certain things you are doing here.  You are arguing for things when you are clearly the least educated one on this matter, yet somehow the most vocal.  The other thing is you are putting words into others' mouths.  You accuse us of arguing for things that we aren't and you defend Canary when he is silent and pleading the Fifth.  Please show us that you have some sort of reading comprehension.  Read what is written, think about it, gather facts, then post a thoughtful reply.  If you read every other word, you can of course, make it seem like anyone is saying anything.  At this point, I would rather hear Smoothrich's opinion in the matter despite the fact that he is not even an admin anymore, because he has at least proven that he is capable for a well written and insightful post.

Offline Gmnotutoo

  • King
  • **********
  • Renown: 1387
  • Infamy: 229
  • cRPG Player A Gentleman and a Scholar
  • Space Pope of BIRD CLAN
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Unicorns
  • Game nicks: Gmnotutoo
Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2013, 11:21:25 pm »
0
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


/thread ended for the benefit of all
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

THIS IS A MANLY CLAN. FOR MANLY MEN. DOING MANLY THINGS.

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 Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2013, 11:24:20 pm »
-1
Exactly, and if you did this earlier in the battle all the defenders would have all been spawning in the 'unreachable' location with a lot more time to spare, making it more clear that the only reason the defenders were still in the battle was because the spawn prevented people from getting out & in.  I'm saying the waters would have been less muddied, which would have made an admin decision much easier.

And based on your decision we would have lost 1900 shiny troops solely to bug.  We were forced to try and kill the entire population exactly because you couldn't make a decision based on what was obviously taking place

The problem is you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You tried to make a contingency (kill all defenders by spawncamping within the timelimit), but at the same time you expected admins to rule the fight in your favor if your contingency didn't work.   Both plans worked against each-other & made things more confusing.

What happens when admins are too afraid and just play noncommittal - forced into having to do something we didn't really want to have to do, had absolutely no choice unless we wanted to lose all the troops and gear to the bug - namely kill the entire population, despite doing 10:1 k/d (minus the intentional tks to get into unreachable zone with horses or getting stuck in spikes trying to get there)

It's funny you say that, because the easiest thing we could have done is said  "sorry, strat bug. submit a bug report".  Technically defenders still had a flag up, and time expired.  Technically defenders were still fighting on other flags, and some were able to get out and continue the fight. If you want to get technical about it, you could argue that admins shouldn't be making rulings on bugs like this, because it's really up to the developers to fix bugs & weigh in on these sorts of things. 

Its funny because yous till didn't have the balls to make a decision, we had won at that point with 300 tickets to go and we were killing 100 and losing only 3 at that point in the chokepoint with full plate against unarmed peasants, so it was inevitable win though it would have delayed the next battle  another hour, which was really the final decision - to stop the strat battle delay not "give" us something we already had in the bag.  We would have lost most likely capping all other flags 20 minutes earlier (they were all capped for the last 20 minutes of the battle except the bugged one) as no admin acted upon the bug issue.

a big battle brought a bug front and center, and someone spent time to fix the bug.  Now, when the fix will actually get patched is another issue entirely, but at least now we have precedence for how to handle this sort of situation in the future. 


You got to be joking - we fought a battle with 3000 troops there 3 months earlier lost due to the bug and that wasn't enough to draw attention to it?  No, it was probably fixed months ago and only submitted as soon as hosp lost the fief.  And precedence for what?  That admins will do absolutely nothing for fear of being judged for doing their job in a bug-riddled game that requires adminning issues to be resolved regarding those bugs?

I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.


I dont think most people would put you on the list of admins that cannot act impartially, we really need some fresh blood and not just chaos people that are buddies with canary, get rid of the cronyism and diversify the adminships.  And the decision didn't benefit FCC - we had already won based on what was happening it was just a question of how long the next 2 battles would be delayed.  A decision that benefitted us based on actual awareness of what was taking place would have been letting it be known in the purple text that once all the flags were capped except the unreachable one that the city would be considered to be taken and kick people then.  Would have given us 2000+ population.  But no decision was ever really made so we won by killing everything, only possible by delaying capping flags by an extra 20-40 minutes.  300 left after timer up and we kill 100 and lose 3 just would have taken 30-60 minutes longer.

http://keshoxford.com/  - Where middle-eastern meets red-hot and spicy!

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