The Losers of Lordaeron

[Dubayoo]

Yes, getting somewhere takes time and effort. That's natural in game. I fail to see why should inactive player's resouces be recycled. How would they be? What would the parameter be? Given to the poorest/smallest nations? If that was the case, it'd be an easily exploitable mechanic as people would have 0 infra 1 city nations hoarding those resources for themselves or for their AA.

 

Plus, how do you know that Lord allows or forbids VM'ing?

 

 

The amount of time and effort in a game is relative since effort is simulated. This isn't real life.  Recycling should be done according to whichever players play the fastest.  Players don't play games to have their time wasted.  They leave games when they believe they're taking too long to get going.

 

I know about Lord forbidding VMing because of insiders within the alliance.  There are many players within who believe Kastor is an idiot to put it lightly, and this is one of the reasons.  Loyalty is fraying from his lack of effective leadership.

 

 

VM is there if you got stuff to deal with and you don't quite want to VM, but you don't want to do anything with the game in a bit.

 

Huh?

 

 

 

Or maybe they go inactive after getting into Lord? People losing interest in the game can happen regardles of where they are. It's a matter of how each AA wants to handle their members, if they do.

 

Perhaps, but I didn't want to be so cynical as to believe Lord is discouraging its own members to become inactive.

 

 

It's up to each AA's leadership to handle raiders diplomatically or not. You are in a raider alliance, so you expecting to be asked to stop is wishful thinking at best, and delusional at worst. You should expect to be met with a sword when raiding other Alliances.

 

That's true, but there are still rational and irrational ways to handle things.  If their style is irrational, that makes them losers.

 

 

Is this going by your personal experience or you're just making this up?

 

The right question to ask is, "When has it been demonstrated that Lordaeron knows how to use its words?"

 

 

 

It's up to each alliance how they handle raiders. So long the method is effective at driving them away, how apparently harsh it is doesn't matter.

 

Again, yes, irrational styles exist.  There are priorities aside from driving raiders away.  If an alliance drives raiders away to the point that raiders won't raid others, then the alliance has set itself back.  It ends up being the only alliance that's raided, and the effort committed to driving raiders away is distracted from other efforts.

 

 

Refer to the post above. Plus:

 

1) Maximizing the damage the enemy receives and minimizing your own is a very basic of warfare. I don't really understand why you're complaining about getting slotfilled.

 

2) No, it's not cowardly. And even if it was, you complaining that it is is an exercise of hypocrisy. Raiding is about maximizing profit at the least possible risk. This means hitting nations that hold bank and that are unlikely to react, and if they can react, be unable to topple you. Wouldn't that be cowardly since you're hitting people that can't/won't defend themselves?

 

3) This is about the only somewhat reasonable point you made. However, in a context of an alliance that left an Orbis-wide war not too long ago, experience isn't something that their low tier lacks at the moment.

 

4) I frankly doubt that they care about a random raider hating them. As long as such raider doesn't hit again they couldn't care less. And if said raider does hit again he'll get shat on like the first time around. It's a non issue for Lord.

 

Yes, it is basic.  That's the problem with Lord.  It fails to grasp the advanced concepts.  This isn't about me getting slotfilled.  This is about how by destroying raiders, those raiders don't damage other alliances.  Lord becomes the only alliance damaged by those who raid it.  It bites the bullet for the rest of the world's relative benefit. 

 

Cowardice is about how your alliance appears to other alliances.  Downdeclaring suggests you're incompetent to fight your peers and you're not training and supporting your subordinates.  I'm not sure why you're talking about me here either.  I will say, however, that raiding isn't a permanent strategy.  There comes a point where you switch gears.  Recycling inactives simply accelerates your development so you can actually play on a more important level.  If anything, that's not cowardly because it suggests you're trying to shorten the amount of time before you actually encounter the real game.  (A coward would sit back and let time pass by to avoid danger.)  This is a more advanced concept that I really didn't plan on touching here though - the relationship between letting raiders go, and later recruiting those raiders once they become strong enough.

 

I don't buy the lower-tier being experienced either.  Just because you go through something doesn't mean you've learned from what you've gone through.

 

As for random raiders hating them, it really depends on the raider.  The point, however, is it increases the chance of long-term animosity which is an irrational losing strategy.

 

 

No. If you're going through the lengths of countering him, might as well !@#$ him up throughoutly.

 

Again, priorities.  This is a mass multiplayer game, not a 1v1.

 

 

Go back to the whole 'How AA's handle the raiders threat' part. Plus, no. This isn't Age of Empires. This isn't Company of Heroes. Leadership doesn't have total control of their members. So, a member/couple of going gung-ho doesn't necessarily mean that the leadership is disorganized. Members countering raiders is not something that any alliance would put behind a seal of approval.

 

Command and control, rules of engagement, and chain of command always matter.

 

 

Wait. You're expecting to be compensated for 'excessive damage'? After attacking *them* for easy profit? And you expect your denounce to be worth anything?

 

I'd suggest you to drop your Rum.

 

And no, beige isn't a magical mirror that can't be removed earlier. You can, quite literally, click on a nation and declare war. It will simply kick you out from beige automatically. As for the animosity thing, it was already cleared.

 

Again, this is a game, not real life.  Decency is irrelevant.  You compensate the raider because you realize excess damage inhibits the raider from carrying on to one's next target.  You're ignoring the implications of beige as well.  Totally destroying a raider means it will take even longer for the raider to reach one's next target.

 

 

I don't know, all I see is a guy that got butthurt because he attacked *two* members from one alliance and expected to go scot-free. And when things didn't go his way, he made a petty thesis on why an alliance that countered him sucks.

 

Well if that's your outlook, then you're just as irrational as Lord.

This entire post comes off as you being a crybaby, Dub, and extends towards making your alliance seem like crybabies - the latter of which I know to be untrue. Arrgh! are no crybabies.

 

At the end, you're simply taking the moral high-ground, and talking about how it was cowardly for Lordaeron to do what they did. I shit on Kas as much as the next Orbisian, but this makes little to no sense. You, as a raider, a pirate at that, should know that if you raid someone in a competent alliance it's pretty much a KOS warrant. Lordaeron countered, they countered hard, and countered fast. Kudos to them for making you this butthurt, that you need to come on the OWF to complain about countering.

 

Mate, when did I ever talk about morals here?  Did you even read the OP?

 

"We need to understand that PnW is a mass multiplayer strategic competition.  This isn't a simulation of real life with justice and morals.  This isn't a 1v1 situation where you want to prevent a solitary opponent from engaging you in the future."

Edited May 29, 2017 by Argotitan

[Ryleh]

Ok i have to admit it must have taken you a while to 1. make the opening post 2. make the last one

But nothing excuses making us side with Kastor. NOTHING. 

[Lord Frostsword]

this whole thread gave me a good laugh for 30 mins or so,

 

good show I say,  even if you made me want to take Kastor side 

[Prefonteen]

If someone hits you or your allies and you decide to retalliate;

 

 

 

Better bring a bloody sledgehammer.

 

 

As a raider, you should anticipate no less from any alliance you hit: It's the worst-case scenario for you, and thus the risk you take when you engage in raiding. Moreso.... the defending party has every damn right to defend its members as it sees fit. If this means obliterating the aggressor, then go for it. They do not owe you any courtesy, though they may choose to grant it.

 

tl;dr- Lordaeron is not at fault here, and they don't look like losers for using their top guys to speed up the destruction of a raider. Anything is fair game as long as its within the mechanics of the game.

[hadesflames]

Get !@#$ed Arrgh scum.

[Dubayoo]

If someone hits you or your allies and you decide to retalliate;

 

 

 

Better bring a bloody sledgehammer.

 

 

As a raider, you should anticipate no less from any alliance you hit: It's the worst-case scenario for you, and thus the risk you take when you engage in raiding. Moreso.... the defending party has every damn right to defend its members as it sees fit. If this means obliterating the aggressor, then go for it. They do not owe you any courtesy, though they may choose to grant it.

 

tl;dr- Lordaeron is not at fault here, and they don't look like losers for using their top guys to speed up the destruction of a raider. Anything is fair game as long as its within the mechanics of the game.

 

Mate, you should really be ashamed of yourself.

 

Of everyone who should understand the difference between rationality and decency, I'd expect it to be you.

 

The question at hand isn't about rights.  It's about good strategy.  This game is not real life.  

[Dubayoo]

Get !@#$ed Arrgh scum.

 

Please.  You're just spiteful because you declared war on one of our senior members and you lost the war that you declared.  On top of that, my score was above yours after playing the game for merely a month after you kicked me for literally no reason before Lord countered to the point of overcommitting.

 

Grow up.  

[LongSilver]

Argotitan everyone knows lordaeron can't war, they just wine around countering just to show they are serious which they are not..in fact lordaeron loots gave me money for my missile project ... Raid those guys forever.

[Thalmor]

Yes, it is basic.  That's the problem with Lord.  It fails to grasp the advanced concepts.  This isn't about me getting slotfilled.  This is about how by destroying raiders, those raiders don't damage other alliances.  Lord becomes the only alliance damaged by those who raid it. It bites the bullet for the rest of the world's relative benefit.

 

You're completely wrong. You counter raiders so that those raiders learn not to attack you. Back before the way started, some of KT's lower tier raided some Lordaeron applicants. Quickly afterward, Lordaeron launched 2-3 wars against each attacker. We worked things out and everyone got peaced out in the end, but Lordaeron was never attacked again by any member of KT.

 

It's easily observable that countering raiders works. You can theorize any kind of philosophical nonsense or theories all your want, but you're just wrong.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

The amount of time and effort in a game is relative since effort is simulated. This isn't real life.  Recycling should be done according to whichever players play the fastest.  Players don't play games to have their time wasted.  They leave games when they believe they're taking too long to get going.

 

I know about Lord forbidding VMing because of insiders within the alliance.  There are many players within who believe Kastor is an idiot to put it lightly, and this is one of the reasons.  Loyalty is fraying from his lack of effective leadership.

 

People pick up games, try it out, and either keep playing if they think it's worth it, and drop it if they think it isn't worth it.

 

Oh? Insiders you say? Got some juicy screenshot to confirm? If not, I'm afraid that your insider is imaginary.

 

 

 

That's true, but there are still rational and irrational ways to handle things.  If their style is irrational, that makes them losers.

 

There's nothing irrational about how they behaved in this particular instance. Some alliances would have only sent a guy or two to counter you. Sending three doesn't make them irrational and therefore losers though.

 

 

 

The right question to ask is, "When has it been demonstrated that Lordaeron knows how to use its words?"

 

So you're just ranting without a basis. Good to know.

 

 

 

Again, yes, irrational styles exist.  There are priorities aside from driving raiders away.  If an alliance drives raiders away to the point that raiders won't raid others, then the alliance has set itself back.  It ends up being the only alliance that's raided, and the effort committed to driving raiders away is distracted from other efforts.

 

A single raider constantly attacking an allianze the size of Lordaeron is not something they'll sweat. If you *really* become an annoyance, they will just set up a perma-ZI on you.

 

 

Yes, it is basic.  That's the problem with Lord.  It fails to grasp the advanced concepts.  This isn't about me getting slotfilled.  This is about how by destroying raiders, those raiders don't damage other alliances.  Lord becomes the only alliance damaged by those who raid it.  It bites the bullet for the rest of the world's relative benefit. 

 

Cowardice is about how your alliance appears to other alliances.  Downdeclaring suggests you're incompetent to fight your peers and you're not training and supporting your subordinates.  I'm not sure why you're talking about me here either.  I will say, however, that raiding isn't a permanent strategy.  There comes a point where you switch gears.  Recycling inactives simply accelerates your development so you can actually play on a more important level.  If anything, that's not cowardly because it suggests you're trying to shorten the amount of time before you actually encounter the real game.  (A coward would sit back and let time pass by to avoid danger.)  This is a more advanced concept that I really didn't plan on touching here though - the relationship between letting raiders go, and later recruiting those raiders once they become strong enough.

 

I don't buy the lower-tier being experienced either.  Just because you go through something doesn't mean you've learned from what you've gone through.

 

As for random raiders hating them, it really depends on the raider.  The point, however, is it increases the chance of long-term animosity which is an irrational losing strategy.

 

No, they're not biting the bullet by making your life miserable. They're doing a service to themselves directly (which is what matters), and to others indirectly.

 

No. Downdeclaring means that they decided to bring in bigger guns to shut you down. The reasoning behind bringing bigger guns to shut you down is one of utilizing the maximum firepower available to them to minimize their own losses, by neutralizing you faster. It's smart play, not coward play...

 

...are you trying to school me on raiding? Son, I raided months before you even knew about this game. I used raiding to grow from city 3 to city 8 and to fund my ID. I stopped at 8 cities, which is when targets were lacking. Raiding is obviously a temporary (albeit huge if done right) source of income until commerce really kicks in later on. I'll let you know that there was only one instance where my raiding backfired. In that case I hit a guy that had nukes on him (and I had p high infra back then), something I didn't notice at first. He came back, I offered peace and held back from any attacks (as anyone that only raids inactives does), but I got the rough end of the stick and got nuked once. It was my fault though, for not realizing that he had nukes on him. I didn't make a post on OWF about how someone 'overreacted' by nuking a raider (it was the only thing he could do to be fair), and I certainly didn't get ZM'd for it.

 

It's true that going through something doesn't exactly mean that they'll learn it 100%. I think that this is a good case, with you ranting about how Lord didn't show you leniency and how irrational they were, instead of being like 'Hmmm, I hit two of their members. Maybe that's why they countered me full force, and why I shouldn't do this kind of stuff again in the future.'.

 

And no, I don't think that these AA's would be interested in recruiting raiders of all things. You mention a lot of novel stuff that doesn't actually happen in game. And I'm still inherently opposed to having people get free stuff just because. It's a lazy game concept.

 

 

 

Again, priorities.  This is a mass multiplayer game, not a 1v1.

 

These ways of dealing raiders are probably standard for them, and not specifically tailored for each case.

 

 

 

Command and control, rules of engagement, and chain of command always matter.

 

It matters in wars. It doesn't matter when dealing with raiders. The only thing that is worth a damn when dealing with raiders-by-profession (so to speak) is military might.

 

 

 

Again, this is a game, not real life.  Decency is irrelevant.  You compensate the raider because you realize excess damage inhibits the raider from carrying on to one's next target.  You're ignoring the implications of beige as well.  Totally destroying a raider means it will take even longer for the raider to reach one's next target.

 

No, the alliance you attacked doesn't owe you anything for going 'overboard' in a counter.

 

You see, they don't care about whether you can carry on to another target or not. They don't have to.Just like how you didn't care that you were looting their bank by hitting their members.

 

The only thing that should concern them is to neutralize a hostile force. Nothing else.

 

 

Well if that's your outlook, then you're just as irrational as Lord.

 

Nah. You're expecting to be treated nicely when you're attacking someone else. It's within their right to either be lenient on you or to !@#$ your shit up throughoutly. You aggressed them, not the other way around. Suck it up.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Dubayoo]

You're completely wrong. You counter raiders so that those raiders learn not to attack you. Back before the way started, some of KT's lower tier raided some Lordaeron applicants. Quickly afterward, Lordaeron launched 2-3 wars against each attacker. We worked things out and everyone got peaced out in the end, but Lordaeron was never attacked again by any member of KT.

 

It's easily observable that countering raiders works. You can theorize any kind of philosophical nonsense or theories all your want, but you're just wrong.

 

...so in other words, you're just sucking up to Lord here.  You're totally biased in your judgment and have no clarity at all.

 

Got ya.

[Thalmor]

...so in other words, you're just sucking up to Lord here.  You're totally biased in your judgment and have no clarity at all.

 

Got ya.

 

Shit! My Lordaeron shilling has been seen through! Abort! Abort!

[Prefonteen]

Mate, you should really be ashamed of yourself.

 

Of everyone who should understand the difference between rationality and decency, I'd expect it to be you.

 

The question at hand isn't about rights.  It's about good strategy.  This game is not real life.  

 

I do understand the difference between rationality and decency- and even if we look at this from a rational POV, your thesis is somewhat flawed.

 

While yes, providing incentive for raiders to hit third parties instead of your alliance can be good practice, there are drawbacks to that approach. From experience: We can make the generalization (with one or two exceptions) that raiders are normally economically rational actors. They operate on the premise that their loot needs to outweigh any received damage and counters in the long run. That loot is in essence the risk premium for the prospective gains they make. Raiders will try to minimize their risk through selective targeting:

 

- Those who look vulnerable mechanically (inactives and/or low military)

- Those who likely hold larger amounts of loot (higher premium --> payoff for higher risk)

- Those alliances which have a weak military (or FA) reputation (a disorganized opponent allows you to minimize your damages)

 

Alliances which fit one or multiple of these (and other) criteria are going to be systematically targeted. For these alliances, a structural approach must be taken to safeguard their assets long-term. This means that:

 

A) the alliance must beef up its military across the board as a deterrent (which is a structural expense)

the alliance must change the makeup of its member base (i.e. purges etc.)- this may be effective but is similarly costly in terms of both lost revenue and potential internal dissent. It also may go against ideological views which the alliance may see as a cornerstone to its identity (just a side point I suppose. Who am I to tell people how to run their alliance! hehe)

C) the alliance must spend capital and/or cash to broker a "pay-off" with raiding parties. This tends to be a very costly affair, and similarly reflects badly in the long run as it displays a lack of capacity and may be viewed as cowardice.

D) the alliance must improve its military reputation as and decrease its perceived vulnerability among raiders

 

These options can naturally be combined as well, for maximum effect.

 

Let's assume that Lordaeron (which generally fits the required criteria for systematic raiding) has taken option D. They are now faced with raids on your part. It's a rather rational move to begin fencing off your alliance as a "no-raid" zone by setting a clear example of the first (or first few) raiders to target your vulnerable nations. The fact that you have taken note and are complaining actually woks in their favor: You are spreading the message they intent to send: Raiders will be counters as hard as possible, without room for negotiation.

 

By doing this a few times, an alliance can effectively erode the incentive which raiders may have to hit them. You may argue that this might discourage raiders to raid others too: That would be an assumption of irrationality on the raiders part. We are working with the hypothesis that raiders too, are rational actors who understand the risks they take, and who believe that those risks are offset by their gains. If that was not the case, they would not raid. Profits made from succesful raids will offset their losses in raids gone wrong. With that in mind: We can reasonably assume that the raider will just look for another target.

 

Hitting with 3 nations and ideally downdeclaring as much as possible is both sensible military strategy and cost mitigation: The raider is demolished at a more rapid speed, allowing the hit nations to recover (and thus prevent beiges). Fewer resources are spent and lower damage is taken across the board. The psychological impact of the quick kills is maximized (as is evident in your case).

 

Now, I understand that it sucks for you as raider and that you may hold a grudge over it. But your animosity as an individual raider (or even 5 people like you for example) is honestly marginal to the bigger picture. You're still spreading their message, and not every disgruntled raider will make a counter a personal vendetta. Let's be generous and assume 1 in 5 does (which is far too high a percentage tbh). So, lordaeron takes out the first 5 raiders to knock. Their point is made, you go on a vendetta and 4 others decide not to bother.

 

That's worth it for them, as systematic raiding decreases as a result. 

 

No matter what way I look at it, Lordaeron is acting rationally here.

[Dubayoo]

People pick up games, try it out, and either keep playing if they think it's worth it, and drop it if they think it isn't worth it.

 

Oh? Insiders you say? Got some juicy screenshot to confirm? If not, I'm afraid that your insider is imaginary.

 

That's one reason.  There are more reasons than that.

 

You don't seriously expect me to give up evidence for nothing, do you?

 

 

 

There's nothing irrational about how they behaved in this particular instance. Some alliances would have only sent a guy or two to counter you. Sending three doesn't make them irrational and therefore losers though.

 

Yea, you're very simple-minded here instead of looking at the big picture.

 

 

So you're just ranting without a basis. Good to know.

 

I'd ask you to stop being obsessed with me except you probably can't help yourself.

 

 

 

A single raider constantly attacking an allianze the size of Lordaeron is not something they'll sweat. If you *really* become an annoyance, they will just set up a perma-ZI on you.

 

Did you even read what I said?

 

 

No, they're not biting the bullet by making your life miserable. They're doing a service to themselves directly (which is what matters), and to others indirectly.

 

No. Downdeclaring means that they decided to bring in bigger guns to shut you down. The reasoning behind bringing bigger guns to shut you down is one of utilizing the maximum firepower available to them to minimize their own losses, by neutralizing you faster. It's smart play, not coward play...

 

...are you trying to school me on raiding? Son, I raided months before you even knew about this game. I used raiding to grow from city 3 to city 8 and to fund my MLP. I stopped at 8 cities, which is when targets were lacking. Raiding is obviously a temporary (albeit huge if done right) source of income until commerce really kicks in later on. I'll let you know that there was only one instance where my raiding backfired. In that case I hit a guy that had nukes on him (and I had p high infra back then), something I didn't notice at first. He came back, I offered peace and held back from any attacks (as anyone that only raids inactives does), but I got the rough end of the stick and got nuked once. It was my fault though, for not realizing that he had nukes on him. I didn't make a post on OWF about how someone 'overreacted' by nuking a raider (it was the only thing he could do to be fair), and I certainly didn't get ZM'd for it.

 

It's true that going through something doesn't exactly mean that they'll learn it 100%. I think that this is a good case, with you ranting about how Lord didn't show you leniency and how irrational they were, instead of being like 'Hmmm, I hit two of their members. Maybe that's why they countered me full force, and why I shouldn't do this kind of stuff again in the future.'.

 

And no, I don't think that these AA's would be interested in recruiting raiders of all things. You mention a lot of novel stuff that doesn't actually happen in game. And I'm still inherently opposed to having people get free stuff just because. It's a lazy game concept.

 

There are so many personal references here I don't even know why I'd want to bother to respond.

 

 

 

It matters in wars. It doesn't matter when dealing with raiders. The only thing that is worth a damn when dealing with raiders-by-profession (so to speak) is military might.

 

Sounds like you just hate raiders.  No wonder why you're irrational in your judgment here.

 

 

 

 

No, the alliance you attacked doesn't owe you anything for going 'overboard' in a counter.

 

You see, they don't care about whether you can carry on to another target or not. They don't have to.Just like how you didn't care that you were looting their bank by hitting their members.

 

The only thing that should concern them is to neutralize a hostile force. Nothing else.

 

Nah. You're expecting to be treated nicely when you're attacking someone else. It's within their right to either be lenient on you or to !@#$ your shit up throughoutly. You aggressed them, not the other way around. Suck up to it.

 

Yea, there's no reason to continue talking with you.  I thought you were rational before, but you're clearly just twisting this into something else.

[Prefonteen]

To build on the previous post:

 

Once the examples have been made and the alliance has established that it will counter raids, it becomes easier to explore a less black-and-white stance towards raiding: Reputation provides leverage in backchannel negotiations. Especially when it comes to organized raiders (think of arrgh), this is paramount to success. The knowledge that you will/won't counter and the knowledge that you will/won't generally back up your threats influences how raiding parties approach you/react when your approach them.

 

At *this* point, you can start working on incentivizing raiders to look for their targets elsewhere by (re)building amicable relations. And yes, rational raiding organizations will be responsive to this.

 

The above is *essentially* how I approached Arrgh in the early phases of tS, before we had strongly established our reputation. I had a highly active strike squad which covered all our ranges militarized at all times and authorized to counter any war on any tS member immediately. They were greenlighted to go all-out until told otherwise.

 

It did not take long until:

 

A) the individual raiders would approach our raid squad about peace; they would forward them to me and I would grant them the choice between taking one round of beatdown and go their merry way, or paying reps

the raiders' alliance leader(s) would pre-emptively approach me in backchannels about a raiding member to flesh out a deal. In this case, I would generally be more lenient as the marginal monetary gains were offset by a gain of political capital for tS (Oh they were cool about it!).

 

In order to get to that point however, we had to set a few examples ourselves. There were some of them who would return as you describe, and it was an annoyance. But after the third rolling, they would generally give up as well.

 

Notable for example was a raider called "Marco Polo".  (https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=8645)

 

He was a persistent raider who received the treatment, and would come back every few weeks/months to try and raid us. Our anti-raid guys eventually tired and asked for greenlight to go full HAM.

 

We had 2 of them declare on Marco upon his latest raid, and drop a nuke on every city he had at the time. The third counter took care of his military. At the time, nukes were far more scarce (our guys was one of the first few with an NRF) and imposing.

 

To this day, the following is still featured in Macro's bio:

 

 

 

in memorial of citizens that killed by nukes by two syndicates as their test field.

 

-

 

To illustrate my point, I guess. The raids stopped.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I support Lordaeron applying counter-measures to Piracy.

We could attempt as a community to legitimize the reasoning behind this mindset but why waste the time?

In the end it boils down to "why not?"

If you raid, expect to be countered. End of discussion.

Thinking otherwise is simply asinine.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

 

 

You don't seriously expect me to give up evidence for nothing, do you?

 

You're not expecting me to believe that you have insiders, do you? You don't have a reputation or anything else to back it up, so without evidence, your word is worthless around here.

 

 

 

Yea, you're very simple-minded here instead of looking at the big picture.

 

I'm fairly sure that your rationale is the one that's flawed here. I'm quite sure that the rest agrees as well.

 

 

 

I'd ask you to stop being obsessed with me except you probably can't help yourself.

 

Obsessed is an interesting word. This thread is pretty entertaining, hence why I'm here. Responding extends it's length so why would I not seek to keep my entertainment going for as long as possible?

 

 

 

There are so many personal references here I don't even know why I'd want to bother to respond.

 

That's a pretty weird way to word 'I can't really counter your points because you're right, so I won't bother.' if you ask me, because you could have answered the first part, and the last two sentences just fine.

 

 

 

Sounds like you just hate raiders.  No wonder why you're irrational in your judgment here.

 

No. I respect raiders that own up to the good and bad parts of being a raider. I certainly respect Rangarok, even though he was *very* annoying. However, he was annoying because he was !@#$ing good at what he did. Unlike you.

 

 

 

Yea, there's no reason to continue talking with you.  I thought you were rational before, but you're clearly just twisting this into something else.

 

Son, I think that you are the one twisting this into something else.

 

You raided. You got rekt. You !@#$ed about it in OWF. People shat on you because you're being stupid.

 

Everyone in this thread said essentially the same thing as I did. The only difference was the wording.

[Dubayoo]

I'm discussing this on Discord.  Those involved know who they are.

[LongSilver]

Arrgh!!!

[Amaryllis]

Dude really? You want to argue this? I always do say if you're going to raid know the risks and be prepared for worst case scenarios when you get countered and I'll assume there's a lot of worst case scenarios when countered. And honestly if it means you leave their members alone, then why should they care what you think is rationale or even what you think in general. If you honestly did leave them alone after this, its a success to them. If you haven't learned your lesson well have fun relearning.

[Alpha Pig]

The problem with Lordaeron is it doesn't know how to use words.  Its members counterattack without warning even after another member warns and the attacker stops, even after the attacker saves MAPs instead of attacking as much as one could...

 

Dude, you and your friends already wrecked the military of one of our alliance members simply for not logging in for a week and another one who had logged in hours before you declared who you still haven't given a good reason for attacking. We're simply doing to you what you did to them, and since you didn't give them time to prepare, I don't know why we should have done the same thing for you. If you're gonna post your warchest to the forums and declare on active members of a top 20 alliance, you should expect to get attacked and prepare accordingly. The fact that you didn't is on you. You messed up, and you're getting punished for it.

[Ripper]

Young pirates and young Lordies. Seeing the youth playing around is so encouraging for the future of the game.

 

I wish both sides learn a lot from this experience.  

[Theodosius]

Young pirates and young Lordies. Seeing the youth playing around is so encouraging for the future of the game.

 

I wish both sides learn a lot from this experience.  

Oh the mighty Lord of P&W balls, when will you bless us with your balls? New PW comics, that is.

 

 

OP related, when you raid a member of an alliance, expect counters. It's always a risk. Lordaeron did nothing wrong. It's their prerogative how they choose to handle raids on their members and in what capacity.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Colonelicus

[Ripper]

Oh the mighty Lord of P&W balls, when will you bless us with your balls? New PW comics, that is.

 

 

OP related, when you raid a member of an alliance, expect counters. It's always a risk. Lordaeron did nothing wrong. It's their prerogative how they choose to handle raids on their members and in what capacity.

 

Ripper tries to find new content and fails...

Decides to either go with a filler or a recap...

Ends up using just scenes from Episode 2 of the comics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Senry]

Glad I skipped to page 3.