Jump to content

Official apologies from HIL


Lucy Heartfilia
 Share

Recommended Posts

"They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon Subin, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon Tye."- Revelation 9:11

 

I am now convinced the leaders of HIL are one in the same, the great destroyer so foretold to descend upon the world of Orbis, in different forms but in the same purpose. 

 

Come on guys, how does this keep getting restarted :/

Edited by CMDR Adama

rsz_1g7q_ak91409798280.jpg

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll.

There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon Subin, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon Tye."- Revelation 9:11

 

I am now convinced the leaders of HIL are one in the same, the great destroyer so foretold to descend upon the world of Orbis, in different forms but in the same purpose. 

 

Come on guys, how does this keep getting restarted :/

 

We might need to remove the cancerous parts.

Edited by Longshadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't log in the entire weekend, and wow, this drama is still on going when I log on today. So how long will this drama be dragging on, First HIL accuse EE of stealing their money or etc, then TAC confronts them for attacking their protectorate EE, then HIL starts attacking TAC, hmmm now the drama shifted to someone letting Tye in and then kicking him out only to see him join Red Guards? . Haven't we been giving to much attention on a particular group of people when there are 1300 other nations in the game ( assuming there isn't any multis and other !@#$ty stuff in that 1300 )

Edited by vincentsum8
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's even more amusing than the continued ineptitude of HIL is the people keep giving them chance after chance after chance. I mean shit people, at some point it becomes obvious that they're incapable of getting their shit together. (That point was a while back btw).

  • Upvote 1
wF9Bjre.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any new wars declared on members of the HIL by members of the Socialist International... send me a PM and we'll work it out. I told them to stop declaring new wars as of yesterday, so there shouldn't be any stragglers, but if there are, that's not your fault and I'll make sure you get the pound of flesh you're due.

 

Well I guess that's that. Here's to rebuilding. Good luck in the future... Atlas have given you a second chance; don't waste it.

http://politicsandwar.com/inbox/message/id=184589

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to offer you some advice, SI. I know most people have been pointing out the faults in HIL, which are obvious and numerous from what I've seen, but SI has it's own issues as well. Inactives. SI as of the time of this post has the following members/applicants activity list:

 

  • 14 who've not logged in in the last 7 days (Just under 26%)
  • 3 who've last logged in between 3-7 days (5.5%)
  • 6 who've logged in in the last 3 days (11%)

Keep your house clean and raiders will be less likely to target you. You'll spend less time dealing with raiders attacking your nations who've stopped playing already. I mean nearly a third of your alliance has not logged in within at least the last 3 days. From my experience as a raider, your alliance would be one of the first targets on my list of who to raid. Do yourself a favor and clean your inactives. It will save you on your headaches. I speak from experience.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to offer you some advice, SI. I know most people have been pointing out the faults in HIL, which are obvious and numerous from what I've seen, but SI has it's own issues as well. Inactives. SI as of the time of this post has the following members/applicants activity list:

  • 14 who've not logged in in the last 7 days (Just under 26%)
  • 3 who've last logged in between 3-7 days (5.5%)
  • 6 who've logged in in the last 3 days (11%)
Keep your house clean and raiders will be less likely to target you. You'll spend less time dealing with raiders attacking your nations who've stopped playing already. I mean nearly a third of your alliance has not logged in within at least the last 3 days. From my experience as a raider, your alliance would be one of the first targets on my list of who to raid. Do yourself a favor and clean your inactives. It will save you on your headaches. I speak from experience.

 

Now break it down by NS composition. No, you won't do that, because then you'd have to admit that most of our inactives are sitting at under 10 score and aren't the ones being raided. 0/10, and it's a shame that such garbage is coming from the leader of the self-proclaimed "elite" alliance. I guess there's no room in Guardian for people who spend a whole day away from P&W.

Edited by Hereno
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now break it down by NS composition. No, you won't do that, because then you'd have to admit that most of our inactives are sitting at under 10 score and aren't the ones being raided. 0/10, and it's a shame that such garbage is coming from the leader of the self-proclaimed "elite" alliance. I guess there's no room in Guardian for people who spend a whole day away from P&W.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6169&display=war Inactive, was raided.

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5962&display=war Inactive, was raided.

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5999&display=war Inactive, IS being raided.

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=5941&display=war Inactive, was raided.

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=3575&display=war Inactive, was raided.

 

5/6 of the first 6 I checked have been raided, one of which is in a current war.

 

8 Of your inactives are sitting below 10, yes, but why are they there then? Remove them from your alliance. As I stated, when I was a raider, and I looked at which alliances to target those who sat around with a ton of inactives in their alliance were at the top of my to raid list. The reason for that is because when you see all active members you see the likelihood of a counter attack as a greater prospect, someone will notice your attack more quickly, and someone might attack you back. Not that desirable of a situation for a raider. Now looking at an alliance with a smattering of inactives, things appear more disorganized, your raid might go more unnoticed, and being members are inactive the likelihood of a counter is less, and if it does happen will likely be less potent. 

 

This is based on appearance, and my experience as a raider in this game. I offered you advice on how to possibly help your problems with raiders, and in return you reply like this? No where did I speak down towards you, try to insult you, nothing. That's what you should expect from an elite alliance. Not a childish response to someone attempting to help. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allow me to offer you some advice, SI. I know most people have been pointing out the faults in HIL, which are obvious and numerous from what I've seen, but SI has it's own issues as well. Inactives. SI as of the time of this post has the following members/applicants activity list:

 

  • 14 who've not logged in in the last 7 days (Just under 26%)
  • 3 who've last logged in between 3-7 days (5.5%)
  • 6 who've logged in in the last 3 days (11%)

Keep your house clean and raiders will be less likely to target you. You'll spend less time dealing with raiders attacking your nations who've stopped playing already. I mean nearly a third of your alliance has not logged in within at least the last 3 days. From my experience as a raider, your alliance would be one of the first targets on my list of who to raid. Do yourself a favor and clean your inactives. It will save you on your headaches. I speak from experience.

 

 

Now break it down by NS composition. No, you won't do that, because then you'd have to admit that most of our inactives are sitting at under 10 score and aren't the ones being raided. 0/10, and it's a shame that such garbage is coming from the leader of the self-proclaimed "elite" alliance. I guess there's no room in Guardian for people who spend a whole day away from P&W.

 

Just to put some hard numbers out there, since all debates are better with hard numbers.

 

--- Of the SI nations that haven't logged in in over a week.

  • 1 is over 30 score
  • 2 is between 20-30 score
  • 3 are between 10-20 score.
  • The rest (didn't count how many) are under 10 score.
  • That means of SI nations, 13% of those over 10 score and 6.5% of those over 20 score are over 7 days inactive.

---Of those nations that last logged in between 3-7 days ago

  • 1 is over 70 score
  • 1 is between 60-70 score
  • 2 are between 20-30 score
  • 4 are between 10-20 score
  • The rest (didn't count how many) are under 10 score.
  • That means of SI nations, 17% of those over 10 score and 8.5% of those over 20 score are between 3-7 days inactive.

--So total, about 30% of the SI nations over 10 score, and 15% of those over 20 score are 3 or more days inactive.

 

As far as raids go, the stats are as follows.

  • There are 4 currently active raids against SI
  • 1 of those is against a nation over 7 days inactive
  • 1 of those is against a nation between 3-7 days inactive
  • So 50% of current raids are against a nation over 3 days inactive, 25% against those over 7 days inactive.

 

  • There are 14 raids against SI that ended in the last 4 days (I couldn't be !@#$ed to go further back)
  • 4 of those were against a nation over 7 days inactive (currently, they could have been less inactive when they started, didn't check)
  • 1 of those was against a nation between 3-7 days inactive (currently, they could have been less inactive when they started, didn't check)
  • So 36% of recently ended raids were against a nation over 3 days inactive, 28.5% against those over 7 days inactive)

 

 

And like I said, I couldn't be bothered to find out inactivity for those nations when the raids started, so those numbers could be even lower. What it breaks down to is, imo, Hereno having a pretty good point; the majority of the raids are against nations that have been active within the last 3 days, and a huge majority are against nations that have been active within the last week.

 

That being said I do agree with Pre that I don't understand why you'd leave inactive nations sitting on your AA.

 

EDIT: *Disclaimer, it as always possible I !@#$ed up my count, though I don't think I did.

Edited by Tenages
wF9Bjre.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's even more amusing than the continued ineptitude of HIL is the people keep giving them chance after chance after chance. I mean !@#$ people, at some point it becomes obvious that they're incapable of getting their !@#$ together. (That point was a while back btw).

Austria was involved in 2 world wars, after the second got a third chance. We should give HIL another chance ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like my ex-alliance is the tending topic these days?
Don't you guys have something better to talk about, wait a sec we don't, the forums seem a bit inactive these days, expect for the threads realated to HIL, i feel like a superstar lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry if your getting bored, we will keep giving you stuff to talk about. Somebody has to keep the people busy right? <3

U wanna attack me?  ^_^ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no, what gave you that idea? lol

this :D

 

Don't worry if your getting bored, we will keep giving you stuff to talk about. Somebody has to keep the people busy right? <3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of this public thread, your statistics, Prefontaine, along with your post, were saying that these raids are somehow our fault because we have inactives sitting at the bottom of our nation count. It was basically a massive callout and you cherry-picked some bad data to back it up. If you want to know why we have inactives in our alliance, or if you want to give me some advice leader-to-leader, that's one thing. But the only reason I've been talking to Lucy et al. on these forums is because after dozens of PMs back and forth between them, I realized that it wasn't worth the bother anymore. Talking to them publicly and refusing to send them PMs is more or less me saying that without the pressure of looking stupid to the rest of the world, I don't trust these people to get anything done amicably. But we have forums and are reasonable and can be worked with. And you and I have a currently ongoing PM conversation. If you were genuinely interested in being nice, there were ways you could have gone about it apart from this and you and I both know you know that. This wasn't being nice, and I'm not interested in debating here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of this public thread, your statistics, Prefontaine, along with your post, were saying that these raids are somehow our fault because we have inactives sitting at the bottom of our nation count. It was basically a massive callout and you cherry-picked some bad data to back it up. If you want to know why we have inactives in our alliance, or if you want to give me some advice leader-to-leader, that's one thing. But the only reason I've been talking to Lucy et al. on these forums is because after dozens of PMs back and forth between them, I realized that it wasn't worth the bother anymore. Talking to them publicly and refusing to send them PMs is more or less me saying that without the pressure of looking stupid to the rest of the world, I don't trust these people to get anything done amicably. But we have forums and are reasonable and can be worked with. And you and I have a currently ongoing PM conversation. If you were genuinely interested in being nice, there were ways you could have gone about it apart from this and you and I both know you know that. This wasn't being nice, and I'm not interested in debating here.

 

I know better than anyone how my suggestion was meant to be received. I wrote it. It was intended to be advice, friendly advice. There was no malice in it. Perhaps try re-reading it in a manner in which your assuming I was speaking to you as a friend, and trying to help. Because you obviously read it in a manner to where I was calling your alliance shit. If I was going to call your alliance shit, I would say that. Your hostile reply definitely caught me off guard. 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austria was involved in 2 world wars, after the second got a third chance. We should give HIL another chance ;D

Except we didn't. We completely dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Empire and to add insult to injury the peace terms we forced upon them prevented them from uniting with their brothers in Germany. After WW2 we treated the Austrians as a nation forcibly annexed against their will.

 

I'm surprised that HIL still exists after all the trouble they've caused.

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.