Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - H? sieging small players nowhere near thier cities
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedH? sieging small players nowhere near thier cities

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 13>
Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 2 Votes, Average 3.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Kilotov of DokGthung View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct 2011 at 23:00
Originally posted by SunStorm SunStorm wrote:

  • I must say, I agree with all of Rill's observations as well.
  • And I would be less likely to believe a one sided argument based on what Zork and Jude post without hearing the side of Harmless.
  • I will also be watching with Kurdruk to see what develops, and to see the reason for these sieges.
  • I will say, however, that I have yet to see any H? member siege another for absolutely no reason...whatever that reason may be.
(P.S. Kilo, you must learn to master the colors.  It doesn't come natural for some...)


that was a rainbow. kinda dual message. one written, and one visual.

P.S
we know the whole drama... its so trite it hurts.
H? doesn't have to justify his action against ICON.
more than posting treads like those, has the zork&jude&Co. even thought of posting apologizes for
 their actions and rudeness?  i highly doubt this eventuality never ever crossed their minds.
sadly for them, a nice community doesn't mean a community that will forgive that kind of attitude...
..so jude.. using conspiracy theory like statements, talking about " wannabe whitehats" and that
 
kind of stuff really doesn't help your cause....
ignoring that the cause of their hostile attitude towards could be caused by your weary own
actions, is a grave mistake.
whit this i salute you.

Edited by Kilotov of DokGthung - 30 Oct 2011 at 02:39
Back to Top
LordOfTheSwamp View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Location: Swamp of Fyrgis
Status: Offline
Points: 481
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 00:37
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

 I am somewhat disappointed that you feel I am untrustworthy.  I challenge you to think of an instance in which I have acted contrary to my word.

Rill - I recall that when you and I first exchanged comments, you were very keen to, shall we say, "articulate the dominant ideology" ;-) 

However, I felt I had nothing to lose by trusting you, so I decided to do so. And from that point on, I saw that you were level headed, constructive, pragmatic, tactful and (as far as I could tell) completely honest.

StJ has not yet had the benefit of my experience. So he might well see you, as I initially did, as being somewhat biased.

(That is in no way meant to sound patronizing, by the way - I'm just attempting to be tactful!)
"A boy is building sandcastles on a beach. You go and kick down his castle. You could say that it only reflects how you play with sandcastles. Others may think it reflects who you are." - Ander.
Back to Top
Zork2012 View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 04:13
Actually Rill, the camps arrived well before the first siege was sent, the order of events is exactly as I said it was. So go laugh your butt off, it happened.
Back to Top
StJude View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 568
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 05:06
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

I am somewhat disappointed that you feel I am untrustworthy.  I challenge you to think of an instance in which I have acted contrary to my word.

It's your obvious pandering to the "self appointed" vets and bias against me that leads me to this conclusion. Sorry, you may not like it, but I doubt your sincerity at times.

Anyway, if AB gets some help as a result, It will go a long way with me.
Back to Top
Celebcalen View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 288
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 10:18
I really don't see what point or kudos the mighty Harmless? Corporation want to gain from harassing the player AB. Sure he is a member of ICON but he hasn't said or done anything out of place as far as I am aware.

Kudruk or what ever his name is keeps going on about morality. Well why don't H? exercise some morality and leave AB alone unless he deliberately provokes them.
Back to Top
Gemley View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Location: Ralidor
Status: Offline
Points: 586
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 12:21
If I have read this thread right these players are either alts or new players being attacked or whatever by Harmless. I dont understand the big deal about this because the way I see it anyone who joins StJude's alliance cant really be surpised that they are being seiged from another alliance StJude has pissed off or declared war on.There is no if,ands or buts about it if your in an alliance at war no matter how small you are you are going to get attacked by someone at somepoint(Harmless is at war with ICON right, or is this one player from Harmless that decided to attack ICON?). I think that Harmless hasnt done anything wrong yet and this player has got to have known when he/she joined ICON that StJude is known for starting wars and getting people angry(no offense StJude) and so the player should have known just by joinning StJude's alliance that there was a high chance she/he would be attacked by another alliance.
�I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend� - J.R.R. Tolkien
Back to Top
Southern Dwarf View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 13:01
That does not stop it being ridiculous because Icon is in no way a threat to H?.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 14:37
Tbh I don't really know about this situation - and I haven't been invovled at all and I don't really live in the area.

But if I had to paint the picture from the perspective of those involved: Put yourself in their shoes. A notorious forum troll and massively anti-your alliance player tries to move himself into your backyard with his alt and his alliance. Not only that but doing it into an unseigeable location - allowing him free reign to do whatever diplo/magic attacks he likes in the future free from major repercussions (or greatly limited).

No matter how ICON tries to spin it - this is not just a poor weak alliance trying for the quiet island life - being picked on by a bigger alliance. ICON had the entire map to chose from when settling - but they picked unseigable locations on H? doorstep. Coincidence? I think not.

TBH I fully symathise with these people. I wouldn't like it if LH or AtH or whatever other notorious  loudmouths we've had set up on my doorstep.
Back to Top
Starry View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2010
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 605
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 15:20
lol, nice try guys but this is a complete failure.  H? does not siege small players unless they are involved in hostile actions against H?.  There are plenty of small players in H? heavy areas that not only live in peace but receive help from H? members.    StJude, Borg and others deliberately started down this path with hostile actions (moving your cities into an H? heavily populated area very near an H? member).

You dared us to respond with action and we did.    As for small players being sieged, you left out one very important fact; the small player accounts are alts of ICON players that were used to occupy those island locations.    You exploited the new player protection/Tenaril's move by suspending one alt, creating another account (which, of course, put it under new player protection) and moving that new player's city to the exact location of a Borg city that was under attack.   Btw, thank you to SC and other Devs that changed the rule so that new players under protection cannot use this option to move; you can thank ICON's abuse of this feature for this action. 

You reap what you sow, you started this, we will finish it.

DEVS:  I really wish there were a way to prevent players from suspending their accounts and creating a new one immediately as some are already abusing this feature.   All it takes is a few abusing features in this game to ruin it for legitimate players.


Edited by Starry - 30 Oct 2011 at 15:20
CEO, Harmless?
Founder of Toothless?

"Truth never dies."
-HonoredMule

Back to Top
Kurfist View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2011 at 15:26
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:



TBH I fully symathise with these people. I wouldn't like it if LH or AtH or whatever other notorious  loudmouths we've had set up on my doorstep.


hehe im mentioned.

I'm in the wastes by the way, almost no one there.
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.