which bit?
Printable View
G i agree with you totaly and would like to see a positive reaction and i would like to see a United ss28 rather than killing the same ppl again and again due to trucing and holiday tacts.
BigChef i play a game and tbh i dont know if i even hit your VH i dont hit persons and i dont know who is who i hit red cities which are free game in a war game when a guy truce and the time for me is not suitable i stay and wait for him to go from truce to holiday or transport whatever remains in his city and npc it. if time is suitable i port again and again and again thats my MO i play a war game and farm reds when in war zone call it whatever you want this is the game and personally i have no problems, i dont mind and dont even think about it if any one quit the game becuase he lost a city or a hero becuase i zeroed him or targted him.
Cos and LC well said.
The time has come for a real discussion not the whinning and crying of a kid losing his candy bar.
i am returning back to my hub to level my heros until the server decides what option they are following.
I Wasnt Slating you...i was just raising a point that you have chased this person to almost extinction...
and cos...you can see your side that holidaying and trucing is cheating...now see it from our side...
u really want players to quit due to losing cities?
getting constantly beaten down?
then thats your choice...this is a discussion to prevent that so hear us all out!
I am happy to see people bring their ideas to the plate. I would like to hear from some of the other indies, Cerberus, Renatus, Romans, Ancients and Ragnarak and from some other UBA Hosts, Kasu, Goddess, Link, MacCallum. We should all be having discussions in our alliances so that hopefully we can all meet and bring about fruitful discussions on this server's future. Can this really happen? I for one am the eternal optimistic.
Im liking the direction of the talks, i would only add as another view that the states be divided up amoung the alliances, leaving 3 or 4 states "neutral zones" where anything goes, if you are in UBA and in one of these neutral zones then you are fair game without the worry of war being declared and your home state invaded. that way those that want to war can go to these neutral zones , and leave when they need to rebuild without worrying about their hubs. Cities could be capped and npcd within this zone and no complaints. and if you are foolish enough to leave your top hero in this no mans land then its your bad. This set up would protect the younger players and sister alliances while giving those that complain the most about blues an option to stretch their legs a bit.
I know, you stated things that happened and I gave reasons for it happening is all.
I've not known any of our players sit beside a players last city they can't take with the sole intention of keeping it 0'd till they quit? I'd like to think that's not what's happening
I've no issue with holidaying or trucing either, I certainly don't see it as cheating! Quite simply sometimes the timing sucks and you just can't deal with an enemy on the doorstep so that option is there to use. The holiday option is certainly abused in some cases, but each to their own I guess.
My point is really, if people are wanted to show some honour and compassion in attacking, then people need to show honour in defending too. If someone fights, sends attacks back, varies troops left in cities for defence then if i do clear the troops, I know full well I can't get a city from an online player, the troops are gone, I move on and leave them be (very often with a nod of respect to them in a mail or whisper and occasionally an invite to swap sides if they get bored of where they are and proved themselves to be worth having) Respect is earnt I guess, and yes, that works both ways
When CERBERUS was started we claimed we would take over North March, Wrath disbanded and joined either Dinc, or CERB, but as our host/VH had cities in Bohemia, UBA was allowed to stay in NM. Most of my members are in NM except the few stubborn ones who wont leave their hubs. also the members that leftus to join UBA are still here. Dinc mainly as I know are in Tuscany and NM. I think there have been many great ideas brought up in the forums over the past few hours, and to be honest I would love for each to have thier own states, if someone feels like going to play they port and be pummeled, or they wipe the state of the poorly defended cities. Almost every host on this server has skype. so add me if you dont cloudymind82 and maybe we can get a discussion going there. I love to see members opinions about this as well in forums, because their voices are worth just as much to be heard
I fully agree with you that some people abuse the truce, i truce when i dont have time due to Uni work or work.
The thing i have a real problem with is when several players hit the same city for days and days.
Stormace lost a city..Had archer and others hitting it for near on two whole days just lifting the res from it making heroes flee etc...
This in my eyes is wrong..sitting camped outside a city thats been truced and just emptying everything over and over again.
Thats not a victory nor how the game should be played
this is so funny and finally after running so many ppl off the game/server does UBA try to do something right. yall whine about what UBA is doing but they are just doing the same thing chilisteve and FEAR started. FEAR started the rule the server coalition crap on 86 and some of the former FEAR alliances are the ones whining about what UBA is doing. FEAR and UBA have run alot of good future players off this server or out of the game because they wouldnt let them grow and play. both FEAR and UBA did/do their join or die crap and if you dont then 18 frigging alliances declare on a 10 to 60 member alliance and hit them till the players either join them or quit the server. i am a member of one of those little alliances that got that crap from UBA but im still here and the alliance is still here but have lost alot of good future players cause of the constant hits,etc. then when the merge comes its supposed to be all of SS28 against the other server. well that story worked on the first merge but it isnt happening again.
Let's not let this last post get us off track. He has a right to his opinion and obviously has been sorely treated on this server. Let's keep up the discussion and hear from other players in a constructive way.
Thanks LC, you put it much more politely than I would have. :bunny:
as far as I'm aware, Guim has every UBA host's skype's details, and all the UBA hosts are obviously in touch as it is, so the way forward is for the indie alliance hosts to get together on skype and sort their proposal, then drag Gium in there who can bring in the rest of the relevant people to hear out the plans
I do not see this as UBA vs Indie's Cos. I think that many UBA players are equally unhappy with the current state of the server. I appreciate your thoughtful dialogue here and look forward to working things out with you, but believe that it is not a matter of the Indie's petitioning UBA's approval for the future of the server because you have "won." We all agree you have.
I think the future of the game on this server needs to be hammered out with the alliances in mutual respect and agreement after open discussion. Let me hear how others feel about this.
yes LC i needed to vent and to tell the truth so maybe the crap from the last merge doesnt happen again. i would love to see this server be fun to play again like old 86 was.
exactly, it's not about anyone vs anyone, the hosts getting together was because they can voice the opinions / wishes / concerns of their players in their alliance in a more controlled way than forums can and often do deteriorate into. The matter in hand is how to structure the server and how we play within that structure if the way we're currently doing it isn't working out too well and a merge to provide the solution for us is totally out of our hands
the reason for me saying that the indies need to get together first, is simply because if they can't agree on anything then that's going to make things hard from the outset (DeathsKiss said you have serious trust issues with each other)
I don't think it's the bullying side of things, I think it's more the gloating, I have seen a lot of that. I agree also, I can't see others standing along side the UBA if a merge happens so I guess the UBA are in a no win situation here.....
Agreed.....
My personal opinions are that if a player leaves just because they get 0'd a few times then the game isn't for them.
It's the hero thing isn't it?.... I think if people loose a high lvl hero, it's just devastating to start leveling up another hero, Yeah I know they should have more than one high level hero but mindset tells us to concentrate on that one hero to level up....
But what gets me and I have mentioned it before on here is the level of personal abuse that goes on, only today there was some idiot smack talking in WC, yeah smack talk is fine we can all handle that and fun to watch at times, it's when it starts to get personal, it can be so destructive and the wonder of the internet and being able to hide behind it anonymously is a powerful thing...
Thanks for letting me have my little say ;)
I do want to appologize for the member bareass and some of the comments he had to say.. I too am one who can get into a heated convo fast, but that is not how I want CERB represented. Yes we are the beating lil step child, but we shouldnt all be blamed for his actions, and I solely will accept all challengers to my doorstep who feel CERB needs to pay for a alts words, he is no longer in the allaince which was hard for me to let him go, but he was not gunna stop even after my request :(
Ok #1 y only 2 states? When there is at least 5 that have indys in them, I think the idea of forcing them to have only 2? Preposterous..... 3 minimum. Why not lend some of our more experienced players to the opposition so they can all know how to hit and defend like we do?
I'm so sick and tired of this being a 1 sided war! I know a lot of people feel the same way..
LC I agree I'd also like to hear from the other hosts on the topic at hand.....
And as I recall.... The last time we were told to let reds build..... There city counts and pres were rising to much so we decided to put an end to all of that.
Why not try the new approach of NO HERO NOR CITY TAKING. We all teach each other by having real battles?
Because let's be honest we hate sitting back and watching reds build.... But no one on the red side has official taken the stand to say *white flag* this game isn't fun can we work something else out? Its always been give us 7 days to build back up yadda yadda.......
Who remembers the jus recent and not long return of WRATH ? Soon as the made all plans for cease fire with the UBA, Battleax swarmed in and put an end to it. Not long after the Host holidays for RL the rest of the UBA decides WRATH had long enough to build... (What was it 5 days)
Point is this shouldn't be a ok we recall u re build we come back..... More like a " what should we do next?"
I say war simulations can always be fun......
Giving the indys 3 states to reform, talk and rebuild could be fun, if there un interrupted, which let's face it..... The minute 1 dum *** says something in WC its hell .......
#2 why does there need to be a middle man for all the communications?
Why can't all the Hosts and Vice Host on the server get together in a Skype room and alll talk it out like civil human grown ups?
I personally think we have become a new type of racist in the server....... Instead if hating real races, we hate on a race we made up, called Red.....
And the sickness is getting worse and worse..........
Where's the fun?
What if thgere is no merge?
Dinc and CERB had made deals with the leaders of the UBA, but some actions made UBA decide to declare again. I dont want this pattern to keep happening.
No matter what rules get made, someone is gunna not understand them fully and do something they werent suppose to and we start at square one again
2 instead of 3 is simple... you all 'should' be able to confidently defend 2 states the same way we defend our homelands which means you can all build in safety.
3 states means you'll be more spread out and more vunerable, but more importantly, not in any hurry to spread out into a 4th, so UBA sit twiddling thumbs and get bored, players break the agreements not to port in and it all falls apart and UBA are the subject of yet more hate and I'm tired hearing it, if i wasn't, I wouldn't be trying to offer assistance and solutions on a forum to those i should be building troops to attack instead
Okay .... I'm well aware that everyone who sees this post will flame it and post it and try to mangle it all up but won't change what I've got to say.
for one ... UBA is my home, I've always and likely always will be UBA biased. I won't put a pretty butterfly on it, it is what is it.
second... I gotta say out of the 1800 uba players we have ... its a fact theres not nearly that.. that actually fight and an even smaller amount who go to another state to fight people who are red to us or seeking out a personal vendetta{Which I'm known for lol}. Numbers of fighters about 300 ... those that are willing and do go out and fight ---- about 130-150. Its not a heard of elephants that go stomping in.
third I like Gs first idea best out of his three ... would show some unified work and show how strong our server as a whole can be .. AGAIN we were once a wrecking machine ... we can/could do it again.
Fourth ... the state idea is okay ... it appeals to me also as it would just be hero leveling up as what G said we could fly into a state and beat around on eachother testing more exercises... what works better then this ... possibilities are endless IF WE WANT THEM
lastly ... maybe instead of pointing fingers at UBA ... perhaps you can make changes in your alliances yourself ... merge with another alliance better yourselves become sisters with eachother work together ... not saying that you have to do this or that... just saying dont hold and point fingers at us just because we "won" in the words of LC.
LOL Milly u dont see it do you??
Whats merging one hurt alliance with another going to do? merges and teamwork doesnt happen overnight, same as UBA didnt happen overnight..
CIA was too rushed in my opinion, no real goals or objectives set within the group, no real leadership shown.
so you telling us to merge is a crazy idea mid war because no one has had the time to work and cooperate together :)
i think the issue of no city taking or hero taking is flawed from the get go. what constitutes too much sacking? one hit from 100k trans wipes out your gold and your hero bails anyhow. I think with too many rules and stipulations, things get overly complicated and it will crumble. with one or two states that are deemed neutral for all to port into and fight, losing a city or a hero under those terms are expected. if we all agree to honor the agreement not to invade each alliances home states and have a middle ground where all can come, friend and foe alike you would give all members of uba a chance to fight one another in a controlled setting, one where as long as home hubs were not attacked, then we all could learn and grow as a server. the younger ones can do battle with the great ones and we lose a city/hero in this thunderdome of a state, i can bet it wont be our main cities or heros, just a couple states full of grays that one could search out like sized armies and play. if you get dusted in these free states, retreat home lick your wounds, rebuild and jump in when you are ready. the server gray still works as it would be UBA's responsibility to police and inforce the rules. as long as all are held accountable to respect the borders, then there would be no reason that we all cant have a good time and fight when we feel ready without the fear of losing our prized stallions (heros). How would the big guns of Friesland feel with the oppertunity to to battle against TiBattle in a friendly setting not unlike the Areana idea, with one difference, a whole state is the areana and if you are there you are there to fight, doesnt matter who your host is. Sounds like fun to me, and UBA stays true to its mandate by ensuring the survival of this server. Id sign on with that. And if border disputes arise, then its a declaration of war by the UBA as a whole to punish the offender. We all get a chance to play stress free for awhile and we get to learn from some of the great ones. My armies wouldnt last long against you big guns, but that doesnt mean i wouldnt like the chance to play with you guys. There used to be a time when sacking a castle brought props from the people you played with and occasionally props from the guy you were sacking, as of late its all gotten way too personal. Theres no reason why we cant have fun losing our cities, as long as its controlled and of our own design. And being able to retreat to our own states without being followed would go a long way to ease the sting of defeat.
Like I said I knew what I said would get flamed and mangled up. Did you read what I said ... or read what you wanted to see? Merging an alliance clearly betters 2 alliances to make 1 better one... clearly you have players that need rebuilding or alts or whatever going on for you guys to not be able to stand against a few of us porting in every week ... so move the alts and wearker players to a sister or part 2 and have a few players stay there to let them rebuild as I said at the bottom it was just suggestions ... why is it I post here and everyone takes what I say turns it into something more then what I wrote? Everyones able to say their opinions I didnt comment on yours and butcher it ... don't do it to mine.
PS that was one of many things I said
I don't think there is a question that people need to build up, its if they have the opportunity to. I also have seen the most positive conversation in this forum since page 200, literally ( yes im a dork a read it all )
I also don't find this conversation as so much anti UBA as it is anti dead boring server. (although there have been negative comments, it seems to be steering in the whole what can we do direction)
Lets keep up with happy thoughts.. PeterPan or whatever your name is, come sprinkle some dust or liquor or something
I feel as Ohio does and think it is simply an alternative idea building on what you wrote Milly. I like the idea of not having to worry about being wiped out when off line and spending a month to get back to where I fought to be in the first place. Also the idea of "sovern home states" is very enticing, (i.e. clear rules of engagement) any intruders would be dealt with accordingly. A chance to set up camp and engage some of the bigger players would be a great way for SS28 to dominate when a merger ever comes. In the eventuality of a merger we will all be fighting shoulder to shoulder and a move like this may ease some tensions so that some tenative alliances can form to kick butt as a server....AXON!
Now thats funny crap!!! you got owned by the moderater!!!! HAHAHAHAHA! i thought they were really actually nice in how they told you to stop being an annoying Sh!tbird!! HAHAHA Props to the moderater!!!!
That is all
acer isn't like other moderators haha
i like the idea of 2 safe zones, where they could rebuild in peace.But that will be a tough one, if we give them a chance to rebuild in peace and they then port into bohemia, friesland etc. How are we supose to send them a message not to f k with us.
Usually before we would chase them home and hunt them down.. so now with safe zones what next?
I agree, that idea is awesome, but there should be some kind of a limit 2 how many hostile cities are aloud in the homelands state, because the UBA players would just go into the homelands and over run those most likely.
and the less enemies in your home state, the more freedom you feel 2 port into the hostile zones, this would lead 2 more heavy fighting between war cities in the kill zone states, which would be more enjoyable.
and to reply tiBattles comment, I think Bohemia and a few other UBA states would also be safe zones for us.
if they get em, so should we, even if we dont really need them haha
My comments:
While the each to his own state sounds great, it will never work. Plus two states is NOT enough, and that means all the UBA need to get out of those states that are chosen, also not going to happen.
I don't want to push this the negative way. I'm impressed with at least the idea UBA is trying to find a solution. Just realize for this to work, UBA will need to GIVE some. That has been my big complaint about UBA all along- the impression is that you go UBA's way or die.
That said, I, as one of the listed evil ones, am very willing to work with you to find a solution. And working together, I think we can find one. But it will require give and take on all sides.
So are you willing?