at war... what a shock.

now you are mad that they wont stop hitting?

sounds very stupid to me.

why dont you try to out netgain them next set.

seems to me that nowadays its only vets left playing this game, i doubt that we can even classify any alliances as netting or warring

im sure that all those LaF members playing for more then 10 years have been in a war or two....

GLORY TO SOL!!!

We can certainly classify alliances by war or netting focuses. The game being vets or not has no bearing on that at all.

I would love to have a netting challenge vs SoL...
I brought that idea up a few years ago in general on AT, but it never really went anywhere.

netting and warring alliances are merely the excuses of people when they perform poorly in one area.

e.g. "Imag is a warring alliance" an excuse for no high finishes.

etc.


You bet i'm gonna trot it out at the end of this set for rage considering we will have no high finishes:p

pang i guess you can in the context of what an alliance prefers to do but LaF in my eyes is just as qualified to wage war as the next alliance....especially SOL:P

lol :p

I don't think it's about what you suck at, but more about what you are focused on. Plenty of alliances can do both... one reset does not overshadow a history of other netting/fighting sets for other alliances.

That being said, RAGE is a fighting alliance, and that should be the main takeaway from this thread <3 :p

crazyserb: would you expect SoL to do equally as well as LaF netting next set, should both net?

yeah i am going to say no to that one but i am sure if they really tried the numbers would not be very far off

well, then that kind of proves my point... alliances have things they excel at and things they don't. It's a choice they make as to where they put their focus.

Even if they have the ability to go to a higher competitive level in a given category, I don't think any alliance does both often at a consistently high state.

To kind of restart the discussion, I would say the best two at being netters/fighters today (over 10 members) are likely LaF and NA, despite having the occasional set that they get blindsided or have an unfortunate war. TIE was one of the best of EC, probably the absolute best two-way alliance for quite a while. There have been quite a few alliances that can fight when required but can net at a very competitive level... and, I'm sorry, but I think it can be unanimously said that SoL is not one of those alliances. Great fighters, but not so much with the netting.

I think its down to the player base, last time we netted, i almost quit.

Ya, there are also some people who just really prefer playing one way compared to another... like Praetor :p

as long as everyone has a good time that's all that really matters in the end

Pang, you must not have watched NA's last couple netting sets. They are on the way up but they arent anywhere close yet. Best 2 at combo of war/net imo would be warpreppred omega and laf

LCN has to be considered. And a lot of changes have gone on in NA so we haven't seen what they are capable of since their restructure.

iMagNum is the only alliance in the history of the game to haa swept the top 10 in every reset where we've netgained.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Pang you are extremely thin skinned.

How about you swallow a concrete tablet and harden up?

PS. Good to see an Ovation appearance! Good times...

forgive me foog, i didn't mean to demean imag.

I decided that choosing an alliance that is most reknowned for entertaining warring action for the comment would be best:p

And you're a stalker Dagga :) He wasnt even attacking anyone or defending anything in this thread. Your comment is just idiotic.

I thought iMag's excuse for their poor netting results was that they are almost all dead (several times over) by the end of any given set?

sanct is awesome at both

un-biased opinion of course

I have no problem with it... though I'm not sure we're the best example of an alliance that uses "we're a warring alliance" to justify poor netting for the simple reason that we don't take the time to justify it. We don't expect any other result, and no one expects a different result from us. There has to be some level of expectation for justification to be necessary.

I do, however, stick by my long standing assertion that iMagNum could netgain just fine if it wanted to. We've still got a handful of players who've managed top 10 finishes during their careers and could probably do so again on their own merit. Those of us in that group could coach the others if we had to. It might mean running the alliance in the same way as Beltz ran Berserk a few years back... but, of course, we still have Beltz around to help us do that.

Paladin's explanation for why we can't netgain does have merit, though.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

u mad?

LaF was beyond terrible this set in their war. I think that one must have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to it and dethrone them as the assumed "best alliance" on server for now. That title IMO is wide open for the taking right now between a few different clans...

meh...every alliance has a bad set. Every alliance is prone to getting blindsided, and no alliance has the ability to control when they get hit all the time.

I do expect a rematch next set, being this particular war appears to be over some grabbing/retal policy or another that I don't remember anything about. And, as everyone here knows, LaF loves fighting over policies they enact.

I am going to keep attacking SoL until the reset ends.

Anyway, LaF is great. I don't know why you give us so much hate.I've learnt so much this set. Its been great.

Also, everyone on LaF knows that we as a whole under performed this set. For various reasons. It will not happen again.

Actually, the war was over SoL's policies, which don't align with anyone else's on the server, not LaF's policies.

SoL just tried to spin it that way... :p

In the end, this is land:land vs escalating (and, based on the other policies on the server, backward) group retal systems, not the changes in LaF policy to 48hr retal windows (which actually haven't had any political consequences, minus Ely rejecting our pact because of it and then being obliterated)

dance dagga dance spin spin spin!

As a SoLer, i expect to war. I am not very good at netting myself but i would not say that SoL is devoid of netting skill, we just don't use it. I would like to net one day when i am older and have warred myself out, but not yet.

Too many warmongers to hug trees.

mmm
actually, if you look at SoL's recent history, anubis, when was the last time that SoL fought a "fighting" alliance?

I can't remember them doing anything but fighting netters since EE opened its doors.

"too many warmongers" is completely inaccurate, because I don't believe that SoL is making any attempt to fight warmongers, they are attacking netters -- often with the attempt to blindside them.

lol would not know i tend to hit who ever is listed as the enemy. I figure when we get ours we deserve it and when we hand it out its all good too.

and i dont keep up with who is what kind of alliance i just play by the rules of the one i am in.

If i ever leave SOL i will have to go to one these netting alliances so i will know the difference.

We kill anyone we want! If you are a warring alliance with a grudge, or a netting alliance that we randomly wanted to hit because we know we can't beat anyone who is prepared for us, it is all the same to us!

LaF is pathetic trolls!

you're calling us pathetic trolls, when you just went to every single anti-LaF thread (all but one created by SoL trolls in the first place) and posted LaF bashing posts?

Looks like someone is a hungry, hungry hypocrite!

Is SoL literally an alliance full of trolls, despite claiming not to be? :p

or maybe just one with multiple personalities ? lol

Like RD?

no, more like stewy and angy

hmmm stewy and angy .... what memories that brings back

I'm fairly certain Collab has nearly identical retal policies. And we don't accept L:L either. You add ghost acres to the game to encourage LG'ing, but enforce L:L which discourages it. Now that is what I would call backwards.

We don't enforce land:land on ghost acres, that is factually inaccurate.

Please properly understand our retal policy before attempting to take cracks at it.
Land:land or 1:1 escalating, whichever is more, is the basic policy LaF has used for years. The only change we had this set was 48hr retal window for non-pacted alliances. That was NOT the issue which caused the SoL war, it was SoL's policies that did.

The policy SoL has, which I don't agree with, is that an entire tag can only be hit once per 72h and receive minimum retals. THAT is much worse for the land situation than what you inaccurately claim about LaF's retal policy anyways -- that doesn't promote the growth of new acres at all, it promotes no grabbing, thus, no new land. So you may want to actually take a look at some of these retal policies, Thomas, before you start jumping into a debate about it.

but anyways, let's talk a little more about stewy and angy :p
do any SoL members around still remember those times? when your whole alliance was being run by a known multi runner from IX, who had leadership's blessing to do so while still leading IX? I think Praetor and Maki were both around in leadership for that.

I personally enforce fluff:fluff

Pang has a good point :P at least with laf's 48 hour land:land you and a friend could grab them and at most expect to lose your land and the extra theyd take cause we are awesome :P

If you both hit Sol then the 2nd guy gets hit 2 times according to theirs(or 3?). Thats a worse policy right there.



And Thomas, I was fairly certain your policy was more akin to Laf's.

We don't agree with the 1 hit on the tag per 72 hours, no.

But we also don't agree with L:L or 1:1 whichever is more. You want your land back on 1 hit? Then you can follow this steps:

- Get some defense
- Buy up to within their NW range
- Have Military Strat & Weapons

We only do 1:1. That goes for when we retal and when the tag we grabbed retals. Allowing 1:1 or L:L, whichever is more, is basically enabling people to run landfat, low defense countries with no landgrabbing techs. If they don't get their land back, no problem, they'll just hit again.

Not a fan of L:L. And we don't accept it. Just saying...


Edit: We have some similarities to SoL's policy and some to LaF's policy (such as 48 hours). I had forgotten about SoL's 1 hit on the tag per 72 hours.

L:L is bad for the game.

90% of the time for a single tap, 1 retal will get back land:land. LaF accepts these policies back on us as well, so if we hit you, we expect land:land or 1:1 escalating. I also want to state that people who say "get more defense" when discussing a grabbing debate are the most clueless people I have seen play this game. This is an observation I have made over the last decade. Welcome to that group :p

and like I said, that's all for UNPACTED alliances, which both SoL and Collab made the conscious decision to become. :p
We feel that if you sign a pact with LaF, there should be no hits going back and forth regardless, so any policy will not be executed.

and Thomas, that one piece of SoL's policy you don't agree with was the reason why LaF and SoL fought, according to SoL. We didn't accept that policy and they hit us over it.

So you're basically saying you support LaF in the war against SoL then, as this is an grabbing policy war, according to SoL?

Then why carry the L:L clause in your policy? For that other 10% ;)

We dont accept L:L , and we fought you over it as early as the summer of 2004. The above mentioned alliance-wise escalating retals is not something we enforce on every grab on us, but i/we will not hesitate to use it against alliance i/we feel are trying to take advantage of SOL.

As for Stewy, his name will always be that in SOL.
He joined SOL as a member under a different alias(as many others in other alliances)
We belive in second chances, Stewy did not run a country in IX during his stay in SOL, and he had an advisor roll there, as many other influential leaders, if you Pang, would go to another alliance, LaFs and "insert alliance name"`s relations would improve, and i assume that you would be allowed to have an account in LaF still, and your voice would be heard on mathers that affected the alliance.

As for running SOL, that is a misconseption, SOL is a triumvirate with 3 heads, one for each dept, each dept has a 2nd in command, the commander, these 6 people make up the SOL HQ, but the excecutive powers rests in the Heads.

Stewy worked his way up the FR dept like anyone else, from retal mod, JR FR Officer, FR Officer then Snr FR Officer and finaly with NycEden`s retirement, he got a chance at FR Commander
Thunderbird was Head of FR at the time.
Head of War was Dragon, He was flying solo at the time with no commander, until Dalyx was trained for the job.
Head of IA was Allied Spirits, i belive Angel and Crystal was the runners up here in IA
Sigma was Force Commander, a posistion that had more pull back then than now so its gets an honorable mention, so how he ran SOL, without ever beeing a red, im not sure pang, and i know, because me and stewy pretty much ran FR together.
Makinso bounced around from War to FR whereever we needed him, so :P

is that answer enough for you, if not, please ask questions

LOL good point Requiem.

And Pangea - We support our allies. Whether or not I personally approve of their policy doesn't matter. Collab and SoL are friends, which takes precedent over personal opinions.

I give credit where credit is due. SoL did an excellent job of "shaking things up" on this server this set.

of course... since it encapsulates the normal situation. Like I said in my last post, if people wanted to sign pacts, it wouldn't be an issue. No hits should be exchanged between pacted alliances on purpose, and those that do happen should be worked out in the spirit of cooperation.

It's unfortunate that some other alliances just try to force war over such small issues. It's part of the culture of this game where everyone feels that it's not OK to be grabbed, and the sky is falling if you get hit.

L:L is acceptable between pacted alliances. But if you aren't pacted, you run the risk of losing your land and not being able to get it all back when you retal. That's why we play the game.

L:L encourages everybody to just run all explore strats. This is a text based game so it's not all that exciting to begin with. L:L becoming standard hurt this game, whether or not you choose to believe so, that's up to you.

I've never been a fan of L:L that won't change. My guess is that others feel the same way. So live with your choices.

The reason I don't like L:L is because I feel as if it makes the retaling alliance lazy. I can understand L:L between allies as you would never want to take advantage of an "ally" however it kills the game from grabs between to un-allied alliances.