Transfering garbage to a fief under siege

[Keshian]

As an afterthought; if it isn't against the rules, and doesn't fall into a category of extremely obvious and blatant game/engine exploit, you shouldn't be rude to people about it. Paying good mercs to fight on your side is part of the game; why are people upset about it? Why would you call it pathetic when the currency in question is GOLD IN A VIDEO GAME? Shit, I might do the same thing. Why do I need more looms or upkeep money? I've got more than enough and I've played for less time than plenty of people. You do what you gotta do. Sure, the argument "BUT YOU ARENT EVEN HAVING FUN" or "YOU CARE MORE ABOUT WINNING THAN HAVING FUN" is going to get thrown at me a few times. But comon, a large part of having fun in multiplayer games that are even somewhat competitive in nature is winning! Yeah, you can have fun while losing, and you should. Still, it is almost always more fun to win than lose; the only thing more satisfying in this game than winning a large strat battle in which neither side had an obvious advantage is doing the same thing while joking, talking shit, committing general acts of shenanigans in teamspeak with your fellow internet knights.

Nah, I haven't had issues with them buying mercs - I like the fact they are pissing away millions of crpg gold (LL_Greasy_Sage and Arrowaine) for hiring mercenaries and encourage people o take them up on it.  The game will get reset in the next few months and its better than them spending it on troops and gold - they probably could have bought thousands of troops fully geared with all that crpg gold and so far it hasn't changed the outcome on any of the battles.  Its more something to tease and make fun of them about.

And matey and bale probably said it more reasonably than I did and covered everything - I don't appreciate the supposedly neutral NA head admin insulting me and my faction and calling me a liar.

[Matey]

I don't appreciate the supposedly neutral NA head admin insulting me and my faction and calling me a liar.

I do think this is a pretty important thing to highlight. Canary is our "neutral" head NA admin and since he is the head NA admin his words automatically carry some weight, especially with newer people. I find it pretty offensive that he spends so much of his time on the forums slandering people who oppose him in strat instead of being a more passive and unbiased observer who intervenes when necessary. Most admins have the sense to keep their biases private and I wish the rest would do so as well.

[Lt_Anders]

Matey get the strat scripts you damn pirate scrub

[Matey]

Matey get the strat scripts you damn pirate scrub

the fuck you talkin bout hippy? the one that organizes mah gear nicely? i has that one.

[Lt_Anders]

the fuck you talkin bout hippy? the one that organizes mah gear nicely? i has that one.

And shows you loom levels of stuff in fief after updating it?

[Gristle]

You complained about getting 17 new item types in a fief, a handful of which are ideal for siege defense and as a faction you are literally the reason the item-bombing rule even exists and you guys wonder why people think you're the bad guy? On top of, apparently, denying ever having item-bombed (maybe you just mean before it was a rule and left that qualifier out? Incredibly shady concealment of facts. SPEAKING OF WHICH: Sure, 99 is "less than 100 item types", but you've attacked with exactly that amount before)

Basically, I can't understand how you guys are so surprised to hear shit about it when you bring this issue up.

Concealing the facts? No one's denying it. Hell, I plainly said on page 1 that we have item bombed before. We did it once. It was before people even considered it a possibility. It was about 3 years ago. If you don't like the way we attack (which does not break any rules) go make a thread about in the appropriate forum. We don't need your "FCC is jerks" wall of text in here.

if someone broke the rules it should be addressed... The item-bombing rule is unfortunately extremely vague and hard to enforce (normal admins don't even have access to relevant information needed): what constitutes "a lot" of items? How do you determine the culprit's intent to grief in this fashion, even it it was your enemy who did it? (while it seems very unlikely, a mistake is still a possibility)

This is the only thing in your post that is actually relevant to the original topic. This is the only part where Canary: Top NA Admin was talking, and that's the only Canary I want to hear from on this matter.

[Jack1]

so all that I got from this so far was that somebody put items into a fief, FCC refuses to own up to their purposeful attempts at glitching out the items in feifs and that canary is not allowed to post his opinion.

[Malaclypse]

Canary is only an admin, and can only post from that perspective, it's a known fact.

With how low the amounts of items are, it seems like it could be literally anyone. Someone who thought they were selling stuff, someone who was trying to transfer to a friend, Greatsage intentionally doing it- the point is, we do not know.

It's pretty clear what really needs to be done: fiefs under siege should not be able to be transferred to by non-faction members (and then only within the regular window of time). The ability to do it at all removed = problem removed.

[BaleOhay]

more off topic garbage posting colored by personal hatred and bios.

as the topic says  Re: Transfering garbage to a fief under siege.. Lets stick to relevant stuff

[Gristle]

This is not the Diplomacy forum. I don't think this is the place for opinions. I've always regarded this forum in a similar light as the Ban/Unban forums. You shouldn't be cluttering up the threads if you're not directly involved, or if you're not at least trying to be constructive. It doesn't really matter what you got from this thread, Jack, because it doesn't pertain to you.

FCC refuses to own up to their purposeful attempts at glitching out the items in feifs

An argument for a different thread. Go make it.

canary is not allowed to post his opinion.

He's not involved in this issue. Most of what he said should have gone in its own thread.

It's pretty clear what really needs to be done: fiefs under siege should not be able to be transferred to by non-faction members (and then only within the regular window of time). The ability to do it at all removed = problem removed.

THIS is constructive and to the actual point of the thread.

[Canary]

I do think this is a pretty important thing to highlight. Canary is our "neutral" head NA admin and since he is the head NA admin his words automatically carry some weight, especially with newer people. I find it pretty offensive that he spends so much of his time on the forums slandering people who oppose him in strat instead of being a more passive and unbiased observer who intervenes when necessary. Most admins have the sense to keep their biases private and I wish the rest would do so as well.

If someone is item-bombing, the dev team will have to try and deal with it. I clarified in my post a few times that breaking the rules is not justified even if I disagreed with your approach to strat on a personal level.

(click to show/hide)

I think it's possible you, Kesh, Gristle and Bale misinterpreted the goal of what I was saying (more likely I missed the mark of explaining it very well). I was trying to point out some of the many reasons why people would still treat you badly when you're bringing up a strat issue in a completely reasonable way. If my personal biases against misinformation (Kesh posts), and tactics I find demeaning to the community (who wants to fight someone who can't fight back properly anyway?) were present in the process, it was because I can clearly see the problems people have with you and wanted to get those across so you'd understand better. If my post became irrelevant at times or turned into a tangential anti-FCC rant I apologize.

Concealing the facts? No one's denying it. Hell, I plainly said on page 1 that we have item bombed before. We did it once. It was before people even considered it a possibility. It was about 3 years ago.

Kesh said "We have never transferred gear into a fief after we attacked it to make it item bugged" which sounded to me like he was trying to imply the FCC item-bomb never happened.

YOU SIR ARE A LIAR, you pretentious prick calling me a liar.  I would love screenshots, also 4th wave was our attempt to take it - had our absolute best gear - I know for an absolute fact you are full of it in this statement.  We made sure to have the most ideal gear selection of any battle we had ever had up to that point in that fourth wave in order to take it.

#1  http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=strategusbattlesarchive#!?page=strategusinfobattledetail&id=2462
#2  http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=strategusbattlesarchive#!?page=strategusinfobattledetail&id=2484
#3  http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=strategusbattlesarchive#!?page=strategusinfobattledetail&id=2507
#4  http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=strategusbattlesarchive#!?page=strategusinfobattledetail&id=2524

You'll notice that I'm on the attacking (FCC) side in #4 and the defenders in the other three.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


~Heirloom pack was installed in screenshot.~

Maybe you did bring your best for this fight, but you brought a lot of other stuff, too. (notice the varying qualities of the same item, particularly in the 2h row)

I don't get why you'd throw all the spare shit you got from the end of the battle in your attacking army's inventory, since you attacked with a different player every time, If that's what happened.

Presuming you're going to win isn't a justification for what would wind up being the actual result, but since it's not technically against the rules it's not like we can do anything but complain about it anyway.

Handful - ideal?  wtf are you talking about they were all detrimental negative loomed items in small quantities to item bomb - do you know the item bombers that they tell you some of it was to our benefit?  Lol never attacked with exactly 99 items so 6 months later I could say we always attacked with under 100 item types.

Well, I didn't see the thread mention what quality the items were (someone should've done that probably).  And "all detrimental" is not quite true, one was a helmet!

I know you supported and even were present in ts when the illegal fief transfer in Ahmerrad was being discussed, in your very non-neutral role as head NA admin, so I'm sure this is how you justified supporting it.

You see, this is why I call you a liar. I never supported people doing anything against the rules (such as an illegal fief transfer). If I was in teamspeak with Blackzilla when he was planning his supposed rebellion (which is what they were talking about - not doing something illegal to exploit the benefits) it does not mean that I had a role in it. I wasn't sure until later that it was a ruse just to get around the system - after I personally talked to the parties involved to get a clearer picture for the devs so that they could do something about it, if it turned out to be illicit.

Funny story about stupid accusations like this one - I was too busy in the 4th Ahmerrad battle to take many screenshots because I was listening to you make calls in teamspeak during the battle while you were banned at the time. Suspiciously that other account you were accused of sharing was in spectator. DUN DUN DUN! - you see how petty that shit sounds? A grain of truth does not make for a mound of guilt.

Man, canary i didn't realize how much vehement hatred you had for us until you accused me of lying and made up some bullshit and gave us some pretentious flak - you are nowhere near the unbiased head admin we need in NA for addressing problems like this, its why i sent the pms to eu and not you.

In this case there's literally nothing I could have done to help you (I don't have strat log access) so whether you contacted me or not for this it wouldn't have done much good. If you had contacted me, all I could have done was point you to people who could help.

I would never deny doing my duty because of my personal feelings.


In my opinion, gearing attacking armies with excess items in an attempt to item bug the defending army is a loophole to the item-bombing rule. It can lead to exactly the same result as a direct item-bomb if you attack multiple times, but isn't against the rules (probably because it's even harder to determine guilt in a case like that). It probably won't be fixed until the gear bug itself is done away with, or the transfer system is changed somehow.

[Keshian]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Thank you for bringing this, I actually really appreciate you posting this.  It literally proves what we were saying the whole time about ahmerrad.  We didn't item bomb - we attacked with normal gear (well as much +3 as we could put together by the fourth siege) - the fief owner being absent was the reason the items were bugged.  Thank you for proving our point showing our grand total of 63 item types, which is way way below 100 and is extremely reasonable for any army, even more so with a siege army that needs extra ammo and siege equipment.  Oh and I am sorryw e didn't have enough +3 great mauls and morningstars after crossing the entire map to attack that we had to throw in a couple hundred +1 and +2 morningstars and great mauls from a previous battle so we would have enough pierce and blunt 2hers since they were in full milanese plate every battle.


P.S.  our gear has gotten better since then at least in the types we use - sickles replaced by steel picks, more 4-way polearms, nicer 0-slot 1hers for ranged etc.

[BaleOhay]

I will agree with that... that picture is a siege army... 63 item types is nothing. It was before zero slot weapons so the knife and pick axe were typical for us at the time for ranged defense.

Thank you for proving our point (do you find it a little sad you have been saving up those screen shots for an amazing Gotcha moment... only to have it help us out?)

[Zaren]

lets stop fighting and celebrate that I went 26/6 in the siege today and my computer didn't explode from overheating. k? k

[BaleOhay]

since it was for our side. Good work Zaren!