Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
 |
|
As you know I already made few suggestion to make game more interesting f.e. multi server war (no reply from administration about it).
As we know there is always 1 strong clan in BW (now EoD before WoG) that dominate this game and no one is able to defeat it in siege.
Even united force of Underworld wont be able to harm this kind of clan.
Here is my thought about changes that should be made to make war more tactical and making allies more useful than they are now.
1)Clan can make multiple sieges.
This alone would only ruin balance in game EoD could easily take 35 territory daily but if you add:
2)Limit in joining into siege.
There could be limit in joining into sieges f.e. 1/24h; 1/19h; or split this limit into offensive and defensive siege.
3)Starting siege and defending don't count into limit.
| quote: |
Things that will never be added/changed
Following things will never be added to BloodWars:
- Cancelling attacks/espionage actions/quests.
- Accumulating unused quests/attacks above maximum number.
- Direct exchanges of LGO/blood/people between players.
- Leaving sieges.
- Applying building bonuses to sieges.
- Destroying buildings.
- Owning more than one square.
- Number of attack won't be duplicated/moved to main ambush screen
- Cancelling of ambush/quest when second phase of a siege begins.
- Duplication of information from profile to Throne Hall (standing etc.).
- Built-in protection of 'weaker' clans.
- Taxi for quests.
- Clan buildings.
- Possibility of having more than one deputy.
- Exchanging LBO/blood/people for stones.
Following things will not be changed in BloodWars:
- Number of attacks/quests.
- Equpped items included in number of items in armoury.
- Order/cost od absorber's arcana.
- Currency.
- Number of people employed in employment agency.
- Proportion between experience gained through attack and defence.
- Basic chances for dropping items or prefixes/suffixes.
Posts and propositions about any of above will be closed/deleted and their authors will be given warnings. |
Nothing from my thoughts is noted there. I know that it is not perfect but it should work much more better than this system that we have now.
|
|
11-23-2007 13:14 |
|
|
Mortis
Emperor
Registration Date: 05-01-2007
Posts: 1,159
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: BoS exLead
|
|
Quite didn't get whats the limitations on the 'Big Clan' side..
oh and I think this was now implemented
| quote: |
| - Basic chances for dropping items or prefixes/suffixes. |
__________________
"The brightest light is invisible. It shines through your deeds. And warms the universe."
"Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind."
|
|
|
11-23-2007 14:19 |
|
|
Evangelion
The warning machine
Registration Date: 03-01-2007
Posts: 1,131
Location: Poland
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoS
|
|
But it's about propositions from players. This time it was changed because of the imbalance...
__________________
All complaints on all the Moderators should be sent to me via 
PM rules = who is who and what may be reported to whom
"Getting old is mandatory... being mature is optional"
|
|
|
11-23-2007 15:15 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter 
|
|
Use offtopic if you want to talk about stuff like that.
I made suggestion and use this topic to comment it. In my opinion there will be always 1 clan that is much more stronger than united Underworld. I'm in EoD so I don't care if you like how system works now so it is fine for me.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 15:36 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
The idea is ok in theory, but in practice, even with the limitations you suggest it would be only of benefit to the super clans within the game ..... where would the benefit be for BoD, TAI or VEN?
I think this would be a disaster to implement, as the lower clans could basically be decimated multiple times in a single day by a clan that can muster over 15 - 20X their points score ...... in some cases a force of 3 or 4 players could take out an entire smaller clan for resources.
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 16:25 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
This is true
(Hey someone mentioned my clan yay)
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 16:28 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
Gendibal you are totally wrong. This change would make game more tactical instead of this situation that we have now (more points = certain victory).
I will explain it on few situations.
1)You can join only once into siege.
Clan that is stronger 15-20x will siege for resources but weaker clan can use allies so they will attack this stronger clan and force some of them to defend instead of attacking.
This idea is more tactical.
2)You can join once into offensive and defensive siege.
Defender will have harder to defend but it is possible. Allies will attack and swap players to make balanced clans and attack stronger clan.
Instead of fighting alone even if you have many allies you will lose with stronger clan. My suggestion will change this. Having many allies will add their strength.
Like I told it will make game more tactical. If game is tactical then there is more way of winning war than being stronger.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 18:16 |
|
|
Ranciel
Junior Member
Registration Date: 11-22-2007
Posts: 14
Location: Ruins of old London
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: IMRB
|
|
From what ive seen this game would be better with out Clans it like you have to be in one to get any were. want happion to the lone Dog fighting to the top. You cant join/go on Expedition you cant do a Siege by your self as you get out gun, and what the insentive do you have to be inderpendent?
|
|
|
11-23-2007 20:05 |
|
|
Evangelion
The warning machine
Registration Date: 03-01-2007
Posts: 1,131
Location: Poland
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoS
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
Gendibal you are totally wrong. This change would make game more tactical instead of this situation that we have now (more points = certain victory).
I will explain it on few situations.
1)You can join only once into siege.
Clan that is stronger 15-20x will siege for resources but weaker clan can use allies so they will attack this stronger clan and force some of them to defend instead of attacking.
This idea is more tactical.
2)You can join once into offensive and defensive siege.
Defender will have harder to defend but it is possible. Allies will attack and swap players to make balanced clans and attack stronger clan.
Instead of fighting alone even if you have many allies you will lose with stronger clan. My suggestion will change this. Having many allies will add their strength.
Like I told it will make game more tactical. If game is tactical then there is more way of winning war than being stronger. |
What about PoH sieges? For example there is a PoH siege with an equal clan (a defensive siege). Most of players joined it and then the strongest clan makes a siege to take a territory... There is no way to defend the square...
__________________
All complaints on all the Moderators should be sent to me via
PM rules = who is who and what may be reported to whom
"Getting old is mandatory... being mature is optional"
|
|
|
11-23-2007 20:10 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
Not exactly evangelion.
If you use limit 1/19h then if someone attack you you will be able to defend.
Limit should start not when you join but when siege started. If someone lay siege f.e. 5h later you will be able to join.
This situation will also help to gain PoH. Clans could make multiple sieges so there could be made sieges for certain levels. Person xxx start siege and anyone between level xx-xx join into it other person start another and other level range join into it or certain person.
With 1 siege per clan weaker users can't gain PoH.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 20:31 |
|
|
Hyperborean
Double Ace
Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster
|
|
No, thank you. We'll survive.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 21:10 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
I still say that would be a disaster, I don't think that it would do what you claim. Even with the explanations it only seems to favour the larger clans, and although the current siege and clan systems are flawed (and have been made worse in the last month or two) they are far better than the situation of multiple sieges.
Technically with the way you explained it point by point, I read "3)Starting siege and defending don't count into limit." as meaning that the limit is on attack OR defence ..... which while laudible in theory (and I admit it would mean that any clan could be sieged with a concerted effort by multiple clans), means that in practice (using EoD -3165 vs COTU - 176 as an example, whether the siege would ever take place or not) EoD could launch 10+ sieges on COTU at the same time, in effect decimating a clan in one fell swoop, yet all those players would be available to defend during that time also.
I will restate, this idea would only benefit the top clans, and rather than add tactical balance to the game, would merely give another method in which the unassailable players (and the top 4 or 5 players are now that) become even more powerful.
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 21:16 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
As you wish I think that current system is boring and favor even more stronger clan.
If you think that now COTU have any chance to win with EoD then you are wrong.
You forget 1 thing that not everyone in COTU would be interesting target so there wouldn't be those 10+ sieges. Now it is pointless to make sieges type 0 because enemy avoid them so with those changes they would be more interesting.
I understand that Hyperborean and Gendibal will be against this idea because they like to lose but what about other players?
This game have 0 tactic you don't even have to forge an alliance do you really want this game to evolve this way?
|
|
|
11-23-2007 21:54 |
|
|
DarkOne
Lord
Registration Date: 11-12-2007
Posts: 359
Location: Germany
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: BoS
|
|
i think you have a point elisabeth, there is no tacitical aspect in bloodwars, but still i do not think your idea is a solution to this problem
__________________
The Laws of Darkness are not known to the world
ID necro: 1093
created by Dontmess
|
|
|
11-23-2007 22:05 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
just thinking about the technical aspect, it wont be too hard to interact between servers, but it is more work than there is now
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 22:12 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
The only way to make game more tactical is multi sieges by clans with limit. I understand that some people might not agree with me but it is better than this system that we have now.
Gendibal arguments don't make any sense because now no one can win with EoD and in future there will be other clan much more stronger than others.
We need serious tactical changes and administration don't have any idea what to do.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 22:46 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
As you wish I think that current system is boring and favor even more stronger clan.
If you think that now COTU have any chance to win with EoD then you are wrong.
You forget 1 thing that not everyone in COTU would be interesting target so there wouldn't be those 10+ sieges. Now it is pointless to make sieges type 0 because enemy avoid them so with those changes they would be more interesting.
|
Please note that EoD vs COTU was used as an example, not an absolute ..... in other words I didn't say that it would ever happen, just that it was the sort of situation which would be made possible by this idea. And you were only too willing to play the current system as a going concern before you joined EoD .... and in fact after you joined up .... to the point of shouting down everyone elses attempts to get things moving. Mind you, theres a big difference this time, it's YOU thats making the suggestion, so everyone else is supposed to listen and take it on board with a smile .... Sorry lis, that isn't the way things work.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
I understand that Hyperborean and Gendibal will be against this idea because they like to lose but what about other players?
|
Not quite, I'm against the idea because it is poorly thought out, and again favours the top clans rather than balancing things out. And you can cut out the attempted personal comments as well lis, you don't have the linguistic ability to carry it off.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
This game have 0 tactic you don't even have to forge an alliance do you really want this game to evolve this way? |
Wouldn't it then be beneficial to work on balancing clans rather than suggesting ideas which would be overconvoluted and possibly tricky to implement? You talk about game evolution in one aspect, yet you argue the other side of the coin in others.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
The only way to make game more tactical is multi sieges by clans with limit. I understand that some people might not agree with me but it is better than this system that we have now.
Gendibal arguments don't make any sense because now no one can win with EoD and in future there will be other clan much more stronger than others.
We need serious tactical changes and administration don't have any idea what to do.
|
I assume you have thought through every possible scenario to make such an absolute statement when there are probabally quite a few methods of achieving this end.
From my way of seeing things, my arguments on this point make far more sense than yours, people may not be able to beat EoD at the moment, but at least they can only be steamrollered once per day by them.
As far as the administration not knowing what to do, it seems to me that you only level that accusation when they do not capitulate to something you agree with, or when they implement something which you personally do not like.
__________________
Back for a while.
This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 11-24-2007 06:25.
|
|
|
11-23-2007 23:44 |
|
|
Hyperborean
Double Ace
Registration Date: 05-02-2007
Posts: 145
Race in game: Beastmaster
|
|
I do believe Elisabeth is missing one vital point. Namely, that our characters are vamps. Vamps plot. And this is where the game is played. What we see in reports - all the sieges, and resulting expeditions - is the outcome of the way this game is played. Of talks, plans, talent, and a bit of luck. We shape this game, and it's what we want it to be (with Liz having more influence than my very Hyperbloke, of course).
The one clan's domination exists because vamps want it to be this way, Elisabeth included. It could well change if we all agree to form expedition parties (= small clans) of more less equal power. The changes Elisabeth proposes, as Gendibal has well observed, should only increase the discrepancies between clans allowing for the stronger players to control weaker clans' activity in even more aspects.
The strong clans, as they are made up of strong vamps, shall always be more powerful than the weaker ones. And yall know what? That's the way it's meant to be. What Elisabeth is doing is an attempt at adjusting this game to her personal needs at your expense. Don't get hoaxed.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 01:48 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
You explain current situation.
I'm not planing to adjust anything I just point thing that is wrong in this game.
You can't make stronger clan even stronger. I understand that you can't imagine how Underworld would look after this change but at least don't lie.
I thought about this idea for few months and everything that you write above is totally wrong. Try to think or ask someone who can think how it would work then.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 10:09 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
You explain current situation.
I'm not planing to adjust anything I just point thing that is wrong in this game.
|
As you seem to have a bout of amnesia or a problem with long term memory formulation, I will post a couple of links to former threads that (until we see what the good and bad points of this latest update are to their fullest extent) explain the current situation as quite a few players see it.
http://forum.bloodwars.net/thread.php?threadid=611
http://forum.bloodwars.net/thread.php?threadid=260
And please read both sides of the argument on these, not just the bits that suit you.
As for pointing out what's wrong with the game .... I think you'll find it's more a case of you pointing out what doesn't work to your advantage within the game.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
You can't make stronger clan even stronger. I understand that you can't imagine how Underworld would look after this change but at least don't lie. |
I thought I'd heard it all, but I must admit, from what I've seen so far that is the ultimate stupid (or possibly oversimplistic) comment. You're basically saying that a clan will stay at the same power level relative to everyone else regardless of the relative power of its players ..... think about what you are saying before you type it lis.
And as for your level of claimed understanding, I can see quite clearly that you have an overrated opinion of yourself in that regard, all you look at is its benefits in a selfish way, not for the game as a whole .... as shown in a former post on this thread (I'm in EoD so I don't care if you like how system works now so it is fine for me).
If you're going to accuse me of lying, then tell me IN QUOTES what lie I told, lets see exactly where your warped perceptions have detected this ....... should be amusing.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
I thought about this idea for few months and everything that you write above is totally wrong. Try to think or ask someone who can think how it would work then. |
I didn't question the length of time that you'd thought about this for, I do however call into question the quality and coherence of the thought that you have put into it. As for asking someone who can see how it would work, from this thread they seem to be in a minority of one ..... so go ahead lis, explain it in a way that most people could understand, explain how it would benefit the smaller clans and smaller players, explain exactly how it would curb the 'super clans' and balance the game ..... if you can do so without resorting to fiction.
Up until this post I had tried to keep it civil, but if you're going to start on the overt accusations, then lets bring a few home truths out.
1: You claim that you find the current system boring, well reap what you have sown lis, because this is the result of (in part) you and your little EoD excursion during the DB - BoS war ...... you're one of the players who went and sheltered in EoD, and regardless of what you say to the contrary, the primary one who has crippled war in Underworld. And now you say that you want to bring it back under YOUR terms???
Not happening, at least not in this one sided form.
2: If you're going to tell people to think about what they're saying then at least do them the courtesy of doing the same when you're posting, because you sure as hell haven't thought much about the posts you've put down so far
3: Read the damn posts that other people write, and try to read them as posted and not as you are at the moment, because most of your replies bear no resemblance to the posts before them.
__________________
Back for a while.
This post has been edited 4 time(s), it was last edited by Gendibal: 11-24-2007 11:37.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 11:02 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
I understand your concern but you didn't think about my idea. You just point something that is wrong in it like clan much more stronger can make xx sieges on weaker clan but you forget that it will add tactical sense into game. Now weaker clan can't defeat stronger clan and with my idea it will be possible.
I'm not telling that current system is boring it only favor stronger vampires/clans. Current system don't have any tactic because always stronger clan will win.
Gendibal show me what is wrong with my idea. For sure it don't favor stronger clan. No matter what I do it is not possible to increase stronger clan power with this idea so explain it to me.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 12:22 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
OK, look at it this way ....
You say it is not possible to increase a strong clan's power, and while this may be true as far as a simplistic way of looking at it may go, when you look at the possibility for abuse as far as retarding the growth of other clans go, then the power of the super clan relative to the smaller clans can theoretically grow exponentially. Therefore in real terms, the power of the larger clan has increased.
The abuse aspect will be that it will only add a tactical aspect to the game if players wish to play it in that manner, but we all know that there is a powergaming cadre within the bloodwars playerbase who WILL abuse any system that is left open to it.
The stronger clans will always win now anyway, no matter what is done ..... the admins/devs have left it now too late for any form of handicapping to be of any use without a full server reset, so basically enjoy your top 5 position in the top clan because thats where you're going to be for a long time with very little possibility of being overtaken ..... THAT is why the game is getting boring for you, and THAT is what I've been banging my head against a brick wall for the last 4-5 months trying to get across to you and the admins.
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 12:49 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
Current system don't have any tactic because always stronger clan will win. |
If you are so concerned about the strongest clan always winning why dont you, and some of the other 'superplayers' leave the clan, and maybe even join weaker clans to try and make it more 'tactical' as you wish for it to be?
Its your fault, in part, that the strongest clan will always win because you yourself (and others) make it the strongest clan, and are too full of pride to step away from slot #1 and let someone else have a shot.
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 13:56 |
|
|
Gendibal
Viking
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 561
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
|
I agree Zau, but the EoD/DB situation destroyed war on the server, because of the circumstances behind it ....... all you'll really have now is the sort of friend vs friend war that you described simply because all it takes is one player deciding to go and call in a big clan as was done last time, and BOOM, wheres the fun, tactics and strategy in that ..... big clan wins again
__________________
Back for a while.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 14:48 |
|
|
Zauborin
Triple Ace
Registration Date: 03-01-2007
Posts: 194
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: EoD
|
|
db and eod have equal chance in war, but
when eod lose i say to my comrade to fight they join to sieges we lose it, lose square, lose poh, but we still fight no one want to start acting liek db and not joining to siege, when db start losing ppl star leaving clan and that is why they lose
__________________
from my little fan, which i love:
"i want nothing more than to see EoD rot and Zuborin with it."
thx ;*
|
|
|
11-24-2007 14:58 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
I cant really comment concerning EoD and DB but its important that if you want to think about something like this you consider the clans lower down the scale, instead of just turning it into a EoD vs. DB argument again.
If you look through this thread so far, the only people who have thought this is a good idea, are the two that are in the top clan, the top spaces in the ranking, but its people who are anywhere below the top 50 that will be affected the most by the changes that those in the top 20 or so have suggested.
The clans that arent in excess of 1000 points won't benefit from this kind of change at all, they will simply be victimized more often, and more likely by powerful clans.
By shortening the time between starting a siege, you make it easier for anybody in a clan that threatens to become anywhere near the top 3 (which, as has been stated is nearly impossible) to get sieged constantly, and for anybody who resides within those clans to have extreme lack of resources, which is already a problem for most people in zone 4 and above.
As a result of most of the players that started back in march joining into 2 or 3 clans, those clans will never go down below the top 3 slots, at least not in the forseeable future, and changes like this are just more ways of ensuring that the top clans stay there.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Elisabeth
This change would make game more tactical instead of this situation that we have now (more points = certain victory). |
No, this change would make no difference besides making it even harder for lower ranking clans to do anything - yes I mean anything, because I myself have been victim of almost constant sieging, and I literally cannot afford to go on a far quest sometimes, I often can't recover health fully, and I do not have enough people for expeditions or for building. I'm not complaining about this situation, but your suggestion lis, would make it a lot worse than it is already.
such is the jump of points from my clan to the next is nearly double, and from mine (9th place) to EoD (1st) is times 16.
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 18:21 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
I cant tell, are you proving me wrong or supporting me?
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-24-2007 22:19 |
|
|
Mortis
Emperor
Registration Date: 05-01-2007
Posts: 1,159
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: BoS exLead
|
|
Supporting you 
__________________
"The brightest light is invisible. It shines through your deeds. And warms the universe."
"Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind."
|
|
|
11-24-2007 22:34 |
|
|
DarkOne
Lord
Registration Date: 11-12-2007
Posts: 359
Location: Germany
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: BoS
|
|
supporting you but i can get my agility up to 90 
__________________
The Laws of Darkness are not known to the world
ID necro: 1093
created by Dontmess
|
|
|
11-25-2007 01:43 |
|
|
Hespera
Lord
Registration Date: 05-06-2007
Posts: 266
Location: Canada
Race in game: Absorber
Clan: The Coven
|
|
I don't think this is a good idea. The stronger clans will just use it to keep the smaller clans down and it would take a joint effort of every other clan to mount any kind of significant attack on the top clans, and even still I don't see a clan like EoD being taken out this way.
__________________
Clan Leader of The Coven
|
|
|
11-25-2007 03:14 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
Lis, do you have a response or not?
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-25-2007 10:30 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
Player disagree with this idea so there is no need to comment.
In my opinion it is the only way to rebalance game. I really couldn't find any argument that would change my mind or even more that show mistake of my idea.
|
|
|
11-25-2007 21:55 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
I think that gendibal is actually right there, it would be helpful for an opinion from you Szeszej
I address Szeszej because the other admins are rarely online.
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-25-2007 21:59 |
|
|
draculaisemo
Lord
Registration Date: 10-02-2007
Posts: 431
Location: England
Race in game: Beastmaster
Clan: BoD
|
|
We may disagree lis, but as we have seen before mass disagreement often doesnt affect admin decision at all.
__________________
Bye.
|
|
|
11-25-2007 22:02 |
|
|
Elisabeth
Lord
Registration Date: 03-17-2007
Posts: 440
Thread Starter
|
|
It is not about arrogance it is all about calculation. All your arguments don't make sense in it. In long run stronger clan wont be able to crush weaker clan it is just not possible no matter what I do.
There are few mistakes in my idea but surely not those that is noted above.
|
|
|
11-26-2007 08:29 |
|
|
|
