Retal Rule

[Dax]

What's that you realised how stupid that post i just made was?
Cos it's an imitation of your posts. :\
I hope now you see how silly they are when people tell you that a point isnt relevant when it is.

Every single post I made where I claim you are not on-topic, is where you {or a select few others} just decide you can go into a thread and just post something rubbishing another player - And that isn't how forums should be used. Eg, Cheese and Ahead in the "What's going on?" thread. It's deserved. People shouldn't have to read your e-peen rubbing posts with no point nor use to anybody but their own ego.
It's just simple rules of debate; Stay on topic. If you are going to slander somebody, slander somebody using the point of the thread, at least. My slander wasn't aimed at a particular player, it was over many, and a few came forward and started gobbing off, with zero relevance.
Do you see my point?

On the subject of retal; I will re-affirm my opinion that nothing should be done in this game with zero risk. A select couple fighting this argument have made some brilliant and near-irrefutable points to support this reasoning IMO.

 

[Wouter]

yeah lets not make it personal! DaX you suck!
<3

 

[Silence]

What's that you realised how stupid that post i just made was?
Cos it's an imitation of your posts. :\
I hope now you see how silly they are when people tell you that a point isnt relevant when it is.

Every single post I made where I claim you are not on-topic, is where you {or a select few others} just decide you can go into a thread and just post something rubbishing another player - And that isn't how forums should be used. Eg, Cheese and Ahead in the "What's going on?" thread. It's deserved. People shouldn't have to read your e-peen rubbing posts with no point nor use to anybody but their own ego.
It's just simple rules of debate; Stay on topic. If you are going to slander somebody, slander somebody using the point of the thread, at least. My slander wasn't aimed at a particular player, it was over many, and a few came forward and started gobbing off, with zero relevance.
Do you see my point?

On the subject of retal; I will re-affirm my opinion that nothing should be done in this game with zero risk. A select couple fighting this argument have made some brilliant and near-irrefutable points to support this reasoning IMO.

Thats the problem with these 'STAY ON TOPIC' posts. They too are off topic.

Then the poster often tries to justify them by posting what has already been said =P (this isn't a personal attack at Dax, its just ive seen this happen lots before =P )


Oh LOL IM OFF TOPIC TOO

Everyone hug?

(oh almost forgot, gotta justify my post with something already said)

Um yeah, retal rule badddddddd.

Seriously though, I haven't read one argument which is good to say keep it. But like usual even though an argument is won nothing will be done about it

 

[Iamsmart]

And even if it does stay in the game, I don't see why Azzer would add something that nerfs the top players and then gives them something that potentially could benefit them.

 

[timtadams]

NOTHING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FREE.

I disagree

Disagreeing without justification is not an argument. It is arbitrary and useless which makes it redundant.

Or does that highlight that there is no reasonable justification for the disagreeing and you merely are displaying your opinion which is rather silly when you cant justify it.

Nice one.

(for the purpose of this thread im assuming you're disagreeing with the statement on topic, and it's not just a general statement! )

Your right! It wasnt an argument, it was an opinion! Hence no justification. I do not have to justify any opinion, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable, as no demands or suggestions have been made. Thus justification of the opinion would be a pointless waste of time and therefore the absence of justification does not imply that the opinion is silly (as you put it)

First of all it's YOU'RE, not YOUR

Okay cool now moving on.

...or having an opinion without any reasoning for it is just stupid? How can someone make up their mind WITHOUT any reasoning for it. It's just so stupid.

It’s like saying "I don’t like French people" "why?" "I dunno, cause they are French?" Its so useless. Then when you start to THINK about the opinion only then you can see whether it is good or not (hence the REQUIREMENT for your reasoning for your opinion)

Opinions are created objectively when they have thought or reasoning. An opinion WITHOUT thought or reasoning is not an opinion, it is an arbitrary statement. Which IS useless. An opinion WITH reasoning is interesting.

And FYI, an opinion is an argument. You are just blurting useless statements upon whim. See the difference?

When someone gives sufficient reasoning for an idea or opinion only then it is worthy of mentioning. If you cant give sufficient reasoning then the opinion is usually bollocks.

I really hope this is clear as it is an important distinction.

Anyway, just because i dont give you my reasoning, doesnt mean i have none.

Anyway, i cant believe you took my original post with even the slightest seriousness. I mean, come on, two words :roll:

 

[Silence]

Oh yes, I forgot, noone should take ANYTHING that you say seriously.

Because really, its all bollocks anyway.

And nice one understanding - if you dont give a reasoning, clearly there isnt one



Thanks timtardtams

 

[timtadams]

Oh yes, I forgot, noone should take ANYTHING that you say seriously.

Damn straight

 

[IceOfFire]

Oh yes, I forgot, noone should take ANYTHING that you say seriously.

Damn straight

With every word that your mouth produces, it makes you look even more fuc*ing retarded

 

[Silence]

Okay noone should take anything you say seriously, as its all bollocks. Fine

Thanks timtardtams

 

[IceOfFire]

You are a retarded mongoose in fairness timtardams

 

[Asmodeous]

Any more flaming and I'm going to start handing out infraction points to ALL involved.

 

[Silence]

NOTHING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FREE.

I disagree

Disagreeing without justification is not an argument. It is arbitrary and useless which makes it redundant.

Or does that highlight that there is no reasonable justification for the disagreeing and you merely are displaying your opinion which is rather silly when you cant justify it.

Nice one.

(for the purpose of this thread im assuming you're disagreeing with the statement on topic, and it's not just a general statement! )

Your right! It wasnt an argument, it was an opinion! Hence no justification. I do not have to justify any opinion, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable, as no demands or suggestions have been made. Thus justification of the opinion would be a pointless waste of time and therefore the absence of justification does not imply that the opinion is silly (as you put it)

First of all it's YOU'RE, not YOUR

Okay cool now moving on.

...or having an opinion without any reasoning for it is just stupid? How can someone make up their mind WITHOUT any reasoning for it. It's just so stupid.

It’s like saying "I don’t like French people" "why?" "I dunno, cause they are French?" Its so useless. Then when you start to THINK about the opinion only then you can see whether it is good or not (hence the REQUIREMENT for your reasoning for your opinion)

Opinions are created objectively when they have thought or reasoning. An opinion WITHOUT thought or reasoning is not an opinion, it is an arbitrary statement. Which IS useless. An opinion WITH reasoning is interesting.

And FYI, an opinion is an argument. You are just blurting useless statements upon whim. See the difference?

When someone gives sufficient reasoning for an idea or opinion only then it is worthy of mentioning. If you cant give sufficient reasoning then the opinion is usually bollocks.

I really hope this is clear as it is an important distinction.

Anyway, just because i dont give you my reasoning, doesnt mean i have none.

Anyway, i cant believe you took my original post with even the slightest seriousness. I mean, come on, two words :roll:

Then why post in an argument if you don't want it considered seriously?

Atleast you admit that everything you post shouldnt be considered seriously. Ill skip over them like I do with all of willymchilybily's posts

 

[willymchilybily]

Then why post in an argument if you don't want it considered seriously?

Atleast you admit that everything you post shouldnt be considered seriously. Ill skip over them like I do with all of willymchilybily's posts

Love you too sexy,

fyi my point against it was that i feel the current 5% limit is reasonable enough. because i feel reducing this counter limit ultimately doesnt solve the problem imo.

people online send an attack at you, they are after bounty; land may not mean too much to them. the top lands on some one <5% of them getting huge negative honour boosting thier bounty even more. more lowbies have a crack as a result, and being the top probably contactable and active means more incoming that you can retal and more land you can pinch.

I see it as being too abusable/beneficial for the top and defeating the purpose of the original bounty bonuses for rushing.

i Do agree however nothing should be for free, but this imo isnt the ideal solution

 

[Cheese]

Then why post in an argument if you don't want it considered seriously?

Atleast you admit that everything you post shouldnt be considered seriously. Ill skip over them like I do with all of willymchilybily's posts

Love you too sexy,

fyi my point against it was that i feel the current 5% limit is reasonable enough. because i feel reducing this counter limit ultimately doesnt solve the problem imo.

people online send an attack at you, they are after bounty; land may not mean too much to them. the top lands on some one <5% of them getting huge negative honour boosting thier bounty even more. more lowbies have a crack as a result, and being the top probably contactable and active means more incoming that you can retal and more land you can pinch.

I see it as being too abusable/beneficial for the top and defeating the purpose of the original bounty bonuses for rushing.

i Do agree however nothing should be for free, but this imo isnt the ideal solution

Mind explaining why you don't think this is an ideal solution and what you feel would be an ideal solution rather than just disagreeing with it?

 

[willymchilybily]

Mind explaining why you don't think this is an ideal solution and what you feel would be an ideal solution rather than just disagreeing with it?

Well i guess to be honest really thinking about it thoroughly all you would do is stop the really tiny people doing it. if they are sensible. im just worried idiots would still attack you and you would get incredibly easy acres

as it is being more than 20 times thier size(5%), and being able to send out 1/5th of your army to up to 5 targets who you could poitentially be up to 4* larger than(at present 5%) in troops, makes it some easy acres. hence why i considered it small enough.

to make this limit disapprear i would hope make the incoming disappear, my previous assumption is people may still try for the bounty. Virtually giving you something for free as its unliekly they could stop you in general. if some one has to get something for free id rather it be tiny lowbies than the high ranks and/or bashers.

but that said, any one who would hit you must be pretty stupid, so mabe its okay they will learn and things will work themselves out. I'd hate to think though theres even a chance of making there incentive to be dishonourable or top ranks with bounty gaining free acres. But you're right at present your solution to the problem is better perhaps than no solution. Illl get back to you on an alternative if ever think of one.

 

[Dax]

Mind explaining why you don't think this is an ideal solution and what you feel would be an ideal solution rather than just disagreeing with it?

Well i guess to be honest really thinking about it thoroughly all you would do is stop the really tiny people doing it. if they are sensible. im just worried idiots would still attack you and you would get incredibly easy acres

as it is being more than 20 times thier size(5%), and being able to send out 1/5th of your army to up to 5 targets who you could poitentially be up to 4* larger than(at present 5%) in troops, makes it some easy acres. hence why i considered it small enough.

to make this limit disapprear i would hope make the incoming disappear, my previous assumption is people may still try for the bounty. Virtually giving you something for free as its unliekly they could stop you in general. if some one has to get something for free id rather it be tiny lowbies than the high ranks and/or bashers.

but that said, any one who would hit you must be pretty stupid, so mabe its okay they will learn and things will work themselves out. I'd hate to think though theres even a chance of making there incentive to be dishonourable or top ranks with bounty gaining free acres. But you're right at present your solution to the problem is better perhaps than no solution. Illl get back to you on an alternative if ever think of one.

The man speaks a certain degree of sense - There's more in it for rank 1 than there is for the people doing the up-hitting. If you're in rank one, it's likely that you're contactable, and with the incentive of extra free land, you're even more likely to get online ASAP to retal for some of their land. You evade losing any troops, and you gain free acres.
It's a flawed concept on both ends, IMO. I just like the idea of basic range limits, and previous base H/F bounty levels personally. Keep it simple, and eliminate the retal rule as well.

 

[Elevnos]

NOTHING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FREE.

I disagree

Disagreeing without justification is not an argument. It is arbitrary and useless which makes it redundant.

Or does that highlight that there is no reasonable justification for the disagreeing and you merely are displaying your opinion which is rather silly when you cant justify it.

Nice one.

(for the purpose of this thread im assuming you're disagreeing with the statement on topic, and it's not just a general statement! )

Your right! It wasnt an argument, it was an opinion! Hence no justification. I do not have to justify any opinion, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable, as no demands or suggestions have been made. Thus justification of the opinion would be a pointless waste of time and therefore the absence of justification does not imply that the opinion is silly (as you put it)

First of all it's YOU'RE, not YOUR

Okay cool now moving on.

...or having an opinion without any reasoning for it is just stupid? How can someone make up their mind WITHOUT any reasoning for it. It's just so stupid.

It’s like saying "I don’t like French people" "why?" "I dunno, cause they are French?" Its so useless. Then when you start to THINK about the opinion only then you can see whether it is good or not (hence the REQUIREMENT for your reasoning for your opinion)

Opinions are created objectively when they have thought or reasoning. An opinion WITHOUT thought or reasoning is not an opinion, it is an arbitrary statement. Which IS useless. An opinion WITH reasoning is interesting.

And FYI, an opinion is an argument. You are just blurting useless statements upon whim. See the difference?

When someone gives sufficient reasoning for an idea or opinion only then it is worthy of mentioning. If you cant give sufficient reasoning then the opinion is usually bollocks.

I really hope this is clear as it is an important distinction.

Anyway, just because i dont give you my reasoning, doesnt mean i have none.

Anyway, i cant believe you took my original post with even the slightest seriousness. I mean, come on, two words :roll:

Then why post in an argument if you don't want it considered seriously?

Atleast you admit that everything you post shouldnt be considered seriously. Ill skip over them like I do with all of willymchilybily's posts

He's not allowed an opinion?

 

[Cheese]

Mind explaining why you don't think this is an ideal solution and what you feel would be an ideal solution rather than just disagreeing with it?

Well i guess to be honest really thinking about it thoroughly all you would do is stop the really tiny people doing it. if they are sensible. im just worried idiots would still attack you and you would get incredibly easy acres

as it is being more than 20 times thier size(5%), and being able to send out 1/5th of your army to up to 5 targets who you could poitentially be up to 4* larger than(at present 5%) in troops, makes it some easy acres. hence why i considered it small enough.

to make this limit disapprear i would hope make the incoming disappear, my previous assumption is people may still try for the bounty. Virtually giving you something for free as its unliekly they could stop you in general. if some one has to get something for free id rather it be tiny lowbies than the high ranks and/or bashers.

but that said, any one who would hit you must be pretty stupid, so mabe its okay they will learn and things will work themselves out. I'd hate to think though theres even a chance of making there incentive to be dishonourable or top ranks with bounty gaining free acres. But you're right at present your solution to the problem is better perhaps than no solution. Illl get back to you on an alternative if ever think of one.

The man speaks a certain degree of sense - There's more in it for rank 1 than there is for the people doing the up-hitting. If you're in rank one, it's likely that you're contactable, and with the incentive of extra free land, you're even more likely to get online ASAP to retal for some of their land. You evade losing any troops, and you gain free acres.
It's a flawed concept on both ends, IMO. I just like the idea of basic range limits, and previous base H/F bounty levels personally. Keep it simple, and eliminate the retal rule as well.

So you believe something in bushtarion should be so easy to gain money with no risk?

 

[Iamsmart]

You could argue the same thing about an RPG attacking a robo with no pnap's at 40% for free land.

Either the robo's on to last tick, or he's not.

Either the top guy is contactable and sends out, or he doesn't.

Like I said before, I think the whole adrenaline rush bounty thing should be removed. First of all, you shouldn't be able to completely zero yourself and end up with more troops than you had before. Second of all, it only really works for RPG's. Neither make much sense to me. At the very least buffed to something like *1.3 and *1.6, where no route can profit.

I also said this before, if it's not removed/buffed, I highly doubt Azzer is going to remove the retal limit, which would be something that could potentially benefit the top alliance more than it hurts them, which quite obviously was not the point of this change. Make sense?

 

[Dax]

So you believe something in bushtarion should be so easy to gain money with no risk?

It's a flawed concept on both ends, IMO. I just like the idea of basic range limits, and previous base H/F bounty levels personally. Keep it simple, and eliminate the retal rule as well.

:idea: