PDA

View Full Version : BF Policy Discussion



Pages : [1] 2

Cheops
31st January 2010, 01:45 PM
First bf policy is up (TFE (http://tfe.sltproductions.net/index.php?autocom=jlogica_pagemaker&do=show&id=3)). Seems quite decent overall, replaced the 1 hit per 24 hours to 1 per 12 hours and no max a week (?). Thumbs up for that, maybe it livens things up.

One major flaw in it though, 120minute steal policy!? Can I assume its a joke that you guys want a slayer to wait around for 3 hours to have a safe hit? If not; "Welcome back to Age 12, Happy banking."

Lets hope it doesn't make banking the only way to achieve a top rank. Some playing style variety would be nice in the top ranks.

Edited by ThomasA:

You can find the RF policy for Age 13 here (http://forums.relentless.ws/showthread.php?t=15843) :)


tS battlefield policy. Almost exactly the same except we ask for 90 minute steals.

http://www.thesyndicate.freeforums.org/the-syndicate-battlefield-policy-koc-age-13-t370.html

rofl @ counter


Hi,

BF Policy Under Construction is found at : http://www.lordsofperil.org/forums/bf
Finalized BF Policy will be put at the same place.

Regards,
Wulfric


As got summarized by Merv, here's TUE's bf policy:

http://www.theunitedempires.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3103

We don't have a general definition of a "low hit", some accounts can hold 30 minutes of gold, others can hold 5 hours of gold, I do like LoP's percentage, but nobody in TUE complained about low hits yet =P


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Mortal_Kombat_Forums/index.php?showtopic=104

Done, made by Phil.

We the Kombatants of Mortal Kombat, in Order to form a more perfect Tournament, establish Order, provide for the common defense, and secure the Blessings of strength and Glory for ourselves, do establish these Rules of our Battlefield


Article I.

Section 1. No person shall attack a Kombatant of MK for lower then our judges deem prudent. These decisions will be based on DA, Sentry, and past attacks. Anything less is unacceptable and may be avenged by that particular Kombatant alone.

Section 2. No person shall attack Kombatants of MK more then once every 12 hours. Anymore the one attack is punishable by Law.

Section 3. No person shall sabotage a Kombatant of MK without just cause. Any violations are punishable by Law.

Section 4. No person shall Recruit from within the ranks of MK. Any Kombatants that are being recruited by other alliances should contact an Elder and provide logs and messages where available.

Section 5. No person shall disrespect our allies. They are our only Support in the battles to come. If a Kombatant has a problem with an Ally a judge should be contacted to rule on the subject. In most cases Morale will be given. We do not sab our allies, for this is a grievous breach of foreign policy.

Section 6. No person shall disregard the rule of KoC. For these are the guidelines we have been given to have a fair fight. The Elders will deal with anyone knowingly breaking those rules with severe punishment.

-AxE


:']D Bearded Ladies BoyFriend Policy :']D


Sabbing:

Immediate 24hr approval*
The BF-mod (Carlos) will approve the guy and show it to the target.
note: if BF-mod finds out that the BL member is to blame for the sabs, there will be no repercussions.

Farming:

A defended hit DOES NOT COUNT as 1 hit.

hit whenever the target has gold. dont wanna get farmed, go bank or get an AB

Negotiation (blackmail/ 4wks no hitting)
The BF-mod will make the target an offer he can't refuse..
If the target refuses: Approval.

More than 7 hits a day OR more than 42 hits in 1 week

Immediate approval*

Members are not encouraged to send a target a reminder before he gets farmed.

Low Hits:

A Low Hit = Any steal that is lower than 4 gold minus 5% + 434^7 b3-y6 - x7.
(example: :']D)
Due to the crappy KoC-percentages it is a risk of the defender to defend as soon as possible, because if the attacker steals less than gold 4 gold minus 5% + 434^7 b3-y6 - x7 - 5%, the defender is in trouble.
If the target is showing intel-logs on the member holding more than 1 TBG, it will be ignored by the BF-mods.
Though the member may show its kindness by keeping an eye closed, if it doesn't happen often
Member may sab the target on his own, and has to inform the target by pm to not hit for less than 1TBG.
If target sabs back, the member may suck his balls.
If you can't sab the target, you may ask 1 other person to do it for you (preferably your commander). In which case you both need to send the target a pm to explain why he's being sabbed, and how he can prevent it in the future.

Members are encouraged to have a respectable DA to hold that 1 turn.

In-chain Hits / Sabs:

BL allows in-chain Sabs / Hits / Spying.
However, if you really are a moron and rather have your enemies take your gold than your own clanmembers, you may not so.

Online Hits:

Since, nobody can see that you're online, we do not support any retaliation on online hits.
If you are giving / receiving a sell, you can sab back to easen your frustration, and vice versa: if you catch a sell, expect the slow seller to be massed into the ground by us.

AA Messages:

BL supports, enforce, or backup ANY AA messages
A general tip: If you can't enforce your own AA, (for example if you can't sab someone), ask someone else to do it for you. (sabbing for low-hits excluded)

Battlefield Posting

Always keep in mind: What is posted in the member area is just for BL members to read. <-- The Gay Code of Silence !

Evidently you are free to post your logs after the BF Request has been approved.

Battlefield Mods

In alphabetical order:

* Carlos (BF)
* Disturbedteddybear (Treehugger)
* LordCounter (BF) (Emperor)
* Pint (BF)
* Seneca (BF)
* PettyW (BF) (MIA)
* Random person (In Chain Pacificatorii)


A link to LaCN's BF Policy has been posted in this thread:

http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?75663-La-Cosa-Nostra-%28LaCN%29

Direct link: http://www.lacnfamily.com/forum/showpost.php?p=355284&postcount=3


Sabbers League BF Policy can be found here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/SabbersLeague/index.php?showtopic=1045



[DH] doh's hoes Geneva Convention BF Policies Section 32385.12a

Morale Requests:


We do not pay morale for any reason so don't ask. If you ask you will most likely get laughed at, a rude message, and/or sabbed.

Attacks:


Some members may choose to sab everyone in their attack logs, especially if they are bored or don't like the person.

Low hits:


There is no such thing as a low hit. We sab all attacks at our own discretion.

Farming:


We feel that attacking other players 10 times per day is okay, this is what the admins intended.

Unprovoked Sabotage:


If a member gets sabotaged then s/he will likely go "rogue" and chain sab the offender.

Approvals and BF mods:


We don't have approvals because that sounds gay, we just tell our friends on IRC to sab someone if they are being a dick. On the other hand, if your alliance approves a member then they will likely become "rogue" (lame term) and chain sab you.

There is no bfmod or spokesperson for this alliance because bfmods are lame, the chain talks on IRC if we want to war someone and we make a decision as a chain. :thumbsup:

Mudvayne
31st January 2010, 01:50 PM
One major flaw in it though, 120minute steal policy!? Can I assume its a joke that you guys want a slayer to wait around for 3 hours to have a safe hit? If not; "Welcome back to Age 12, Happy banking."

I hope your right about that being a joke. It would be nice to see some people in the top 20 that arn't just bankers.

xjkryex
31st January 2010, 02:41 PM
I think it would be much more reasonable to be "I. Thou shalt not hit one holding less than one hundred and twenty turns, for in six days God created heaven and earth, but he rested the seventh day. Thou shalt not disturb our resting possibilities.

Stealing with % makes that rule quite difficult otherwise

Seneca
31st January 2010, 03:28 PM
First bf policy is up (TFE (http://tfe.sltproductions.net/index.php?autocom=jlogica_pagemaker&do=show&id=3)). Seems quite decent overall, replaced the 1 hit per 24 hours to 1 per 12 hours and no max a week (?). Thumbs up for that, maybe it livens things up.

One major flaw in it though, 120minute steal policy!? Can I assume its a joke that you guys want a slayer to wait around for 3 hours to have a safe hit? If not; "Welcome back to Age 12, Happy banking."

Lets hope it doesn't make banking the only way to achieve a top rank. Some playing style variety would be nice in the top ranks.
I wrote that.

I can confirm there's no weekly limit, and that farming limits are at 1/12 hours.
Let me explain how I came to this policy.
First of all, there are not enough players in this game, and turns come relatively quickly (it's 150 minutes for one attack now I think?, it used to be 180 minutes, and back in the day even 450 minutes). It's faster than what I've ever played. Given that, and the complete lack of players to hit right now, it's just unreasonable to still enforce the 1/24 5/7 policies. They were made in times where there plenty targets to hit, and people couldn't hit nearly as often as they can now. They're outdated. To make slaying possible, this is what I came up with. This will still mean one hit per night of sleep for most people, while rejecting bad farming.

As for the 120 turns. This is the backside. Age 12 most alliances had the 4 turn rule (which is 120 turns now) and for most accounts it was a pretty low standard even. Now people are hitting for 45 minutes of gold, if that. That's too low. I know turns come quickly (see above explanation) but it's unreasonalbe to have bankers bank that often. Also, you get permission to 'farm' up to 14 hits / week, that's the trade.

Of course I understand this won't go over night, and as of now, we're accepting hits under 120 turns as long as they're reasonable. TFE reserves the right to back up any banker that gets hit for under 120 turns if he proves to us that it was a low hit.


I've thought about it quite a bit, and this is what, to me, seemed the best solution. I've been on both sides of the game, slayer and banker, so I know what it's like. It's not hard to find people holding 120 turns (assuming that's the standard other slayers stick to as well), and hitting more than once per 24 hours is a BIG improvement for the slayer.
I realised the part that other slayers have to stick to the same rule is a problem, and that's why we have this interim solution. So be careful when hitting TFE people, don't hit lower than the stats of the player 'deserve', or hit over 120 turns and you won't be in any trouble.

@xjksomething: As you can read in the policy, when there's little difference we tolerate the hits. This is mostly to account for bad percentages and all the crap KoC gives us every day. This doesn't go for defended hits, unless it's >20% difference. If it's under, we advice you to learn to slay.

VII. Thou shalt not 'bitch'. If differences with these rules are small, the TFE member is encouraged to forgive the offender, for Jesus taught us to pray; Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.
In the same way, if any TFE member breaks these commandments by a small margin, but gets sabbed, the victim of the offense will be considered offender.

PS. I spent like 3-4 hours on writing that policy lol, it was a bit longer originally though.

xjkryex
31st January 2010, 03:35 PM
I respect your revamp of rules and I hope it revolutionizes what other alliances do aswell, in fact it is extremely reasonable setting aside the point of backing up low hits.

When SR or whoever started this it was the worst tread in KoC BF policies. Bankers just sit behind their alliances when things should be kept 1v1. But as you stated, this comes with the tradeoff being offered.

Seneca
31st January 2010, 03:38 PM
I respect your revamp of rules and I hope it revolutionizes what other alliances do aswell, in fact it is extremely reasonable setting aside the point of backing up low hits.

When SR or whoever started this it was the worst tread in KoC BF policies. Bankers just sit behind their alliances when things should be kept 1v1. But as you stated, this comes with the tradeoff being offered.

Backing on lowhits is pretty much required, because basically the banker would have to tolerate anything from the slayer.

If no backup:
Slayer lowhits
Banker thinks: If I sab, I'll get sabbed, lose more value than I already did.
Banker doesn't sab.
Slayer does it again the next day.

If backup:
Slayer lowhits
Banker thinks: If I sab, I won't get sabbed back, because the slayer will get owned if he sabs back ->
Banker sabs
Slayer learns and doesn't do it again

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 03:45 PM
I wrote that.

I can confirm there's no weekly limit, and that farming limits are at 1/12 hours.
Let me explain how I came to this policy.
First of all, there are not enough players in this game, and turns come relatively quickly (it's 150 minutes for one attack now I think?, it used to be 180 minutes, and back in the day even 450 minutes). It's faster than what I've ever played. Given that, and the complete lack of players to hit right now, it's just unreasonable to still enforce the 1/24 5/7 policies. They were made in times where there plenty targets to hit, and people couldn't hit nearly as often as they can now. They're outdated. To make slaying possible, this is what I came up with. This will still mean one hit per night of sleep for most people, while rejecting bad farming.

As for the 120 turns. This is the backside. Age 12 most alliances had the 4 turn rule (which is 120 turns now) and for most accounts it was a pretty low standard even. Now people are hitting for 45 minutes of gold, if that. That's too low. I know turns come quickly (see above explanation) but it's unreasonalbe to have bankers bank that often. Also, you get permission to 'farm' up to 14 hits / week, that's the trade.

Of course I understand this won't go over night, and as of now, we're accepting hits under 120 turns as long as they're reasonable. TFE reserves the right to back up any banker that gets hit for under 120 turns if he proves to us that it was a low hit.


I've thought about it quite a bit, and this is what, to me, seemed the best solution. I've been on both sides of the game, slayer and banker, so I know what it's like. It's not hard to find people holding 120 turns (assuming that's the standard other slayers stick to as well), and hitting more than once per 24 hours is a BIG improvement for the slayer.
I realised the part that other slayers have to stick to the same rule is a problem, and that's why we have this interim solution. So be careful when hitting TFE people, don't hit lower than the stats of the player 'deserve', or hit over 120 turns and you won't be in any trouble.

@xjksomething: As you can read in the policy, when there's little difference we tolerate the hits. This is mostly to account for bad percentages and all the crap KoC gives us every day. This doesn't go for defended hits, unless it's >20% difference. If it's under, we advice you to learn to slay.


PS. I spent like 3-4 hours on writing that policy lol, it was a bit longer originally though.

People seem to feel like 45 minutes of gold is a fair amount to hit for. I feel like 45 minutes to hit at seems fair. As for whether that makes it possible for a banker to bank frequently enough not to get attacked should be of no concern to the bf policy or the slayer or the koc community.

I also disagree with number 3 as its impossible to prove, and I disagree with the tail end of number 7. Rules should be clear, and shouldn't be fuzzy.

ZAR
31st January 2010, 03:50 PM
The 120 turn-steal requirement is something I do not agree with - but then, I see there are also reality-checks :)

RF policy is still being worked on, it will probably a bit less harsh than the TFE one.

SleepingDragon
31st January 2010, 04:14 PM
PS. I spent like 3-4 hours on writing that policy lol, it was a bit longer originally though.

Good job, it's concise and consistent. Except for VII (no bitch) and IV (defended)...since the price of defended hits on the banker is not the same as the hitter that loses attack turns and weapons, if eventually sabbed. Further, it could only apply to bankers since slayers mostly gain profit from hitting others, not like much has been lost on them for a defended hit so if they did sab for such a thing it would be because they are bitches. Oh, and III (stalking) sounds like the thought police, and doesn't seem to jive with VI (sell-offs). But other than those issues, it's cool. :)

Oh yea, and the whole micromanaging of time, 120 minutes and 2 hits per 24 hours...sounds like a bit to keep track of, it'd be MUCH easier if other alliances (since TFE took initiative to set an example) just let people hit for whatever they wanted once a day, no weekly limit (a good initiative too!)...since if you're not at a computer or banking from your phone, it's ridiculous to assume your gold has a 2-3 hour insurance policy (although it's a good recruitment incentive, The Bank of TFE ensures its members gold for 2-3 hours). But yea, I guess if people don't like it, they can do something about it, but they must bear in mind that it only helps LaCN to bother TFE. :(


I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of LaCN, out of the house of slavery, the tattoo clan, into the promised land of TFE.:rofl:

PS: I don't think it's harsh, mostly because VII. Someone in the chain of command is bound to say for most issues besides unprovoked sabs and repeated raids "get over it, you'll be okay." Which is why TFE wins in the end!

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 04:20 PM
Good job, it's concise and consistent. Except for VII (no bitch) and IV (defended)...since the price of defended hits on the banker is not the same as the hitter that loses attack turns and weapons, if eventually sabbed. Further, it could only apply to bankers since slayers mostly gain profit from hitting others, not like much has been lost on them for a defended hit so if they did sab for such a thing it would be because they are bitches. Oh, and III (stalking) sounds like the thought police, and doesn't seem to jive with VI (sell-offs). But other than those issues, it's cool. :)

Oh yea, and the whole micromanaging of time, 120 minutes and 2 hits per 24 hours...sounds like a bit to keep track of, it'd be MUCH easier if other alliances (since TFE took initiative to set an example) just let people hit for whatever they wanted once a day, no weekly limit (a good initiative too!)...since if you're not at a computer or banking from your phone, it's ridiculous to assume your gold has a 2-3 hour insurance policy (although it's a good recruitment incentive, The Bank of TFE ensures its members gold for 2-3 hours). But yea, I guess if people don't like it, they can do something about it, but they must bear in mind that it only helps LaCN to bother TFE. :(

:rofl:

PS: I don't think it's harsh, mostly because VII. Someone in the chain of command is bound to say for most issues besides unprovoked sabs and repeated raids "get over it, you'll be okay." Which is why TFE wins in the end!

Um, rule 7 means: we can approve you when you sabbed a member who did violate the rules and be rude about it.

Seneca
31st January 2010, 04:31 PM
I also disagree with number 3 as its impossible to prove, and I disagree with the tail end of number 7. Rules should be clear, and shouldn't be fuzzy.

We'll know when rule number 3 is applicable. Stalking here, is meant like the stalking to steal goldhits off slayers. Not the stalking you do for sells.

VI. No rules apply to selloffs.


and I disagree with the tail end of number 7.We know, lol.


Good job, it's concise and consistent. Except for VII (no bitch) and IV (defended)...since the price of defended hits on the banker is not the same as the hitter that loses attack turns and weapons, if eventually sabbed. Further, it could only apply to bankers since slayers mostly gain profit from hitting others, not like much has been lost on them for a defended hit so if they did sab for such a thing it would be because they are bitches. Oh, and III (stalking) sounds like the thought police, and doesn't seem to jive with VI (sell-offs). But other than those issues, it's cool. :)

PS: I don't think it's harsh, mostly because VII. Someone in the chain of command is bound to say for most issues besides unprovoked sabs and repeated raids "get over it, you'll be okay." Which is why TFE wins in the end!
Thanks! I was happy with the result myself. Two of your concerns is addressed above ^

About the defended hits: Actually you'll find that especially later in the age the slayer loses less than the banker, because repairs on DA are much more than the repairs on SA. Also, it's the attacker that choses to hit, not the banker. That's why the attacker should bear the risk (oh damn I study law too much).

About the time thing. It's easier to find out what's 120 turns for a certain player than to find out what a 'fair hit' would be for any player. I agree the 12 hour limit is harder to prove than the 24 hour limit, but then again, I guess if in doubt no action will be taken (Rule VII)

Um, rule 7 means: we can approve you when you sabbed a member who did violate the rules and be rude about it.
Actually no. Rule VII is the rule to keep things fair. We know our BF policy has harsh aspects, and our members aren't always the nicest people to outsiders, but this is our escape to stay reasonable. Rule VII is what makes us tolerate a lot of actions on us.


Also, in all this, you should realise that, unlike LaCN it seems, TFE members are not often asking for help. For minor issues, or personal issues, no help will typically be asked. A LOT of issues are dealt with by our members themselves.
This also 'softens out' some of the harsh edges to our policy; not every minor offense will immediately lead to approval, we have two filters in place, Rule VII and our 'do it yourself' members

dohh
31st January 2010, 04:37 PM
I think the point of Rule 7 is to give a bit of leeway for an offender -- i.e. if you slip up and hit twice in 12 hours, but there was 20 minutes left until the next 12 hours... it would be fair to let it go. But on the other hand, give the same treatment as the offender is giving the same leniency, and if you aren't going to show the same courtesy well...don't expect it back anymore. I could be wrong, but that's how I recognize it.

I like the 2 hour gold hit as a guideline. 2 hours of gold, at least when I played "back in the day", was always fair game. As rule 7 gives some leniency, I expect there to be little problems with bad steals and such as long as you can provide your recons. Stealing 45 min/less gold isn't exactly reasonable later on in the age. That's my interpretation on it anyways. No one seems to be enforcing any kind of low hit this early on. I know I don't really care all that much myself.

On defended attacks -- it's the attacker that decides to hit. If you aren't confident you can win, don't hit. In my experience, as slaying, if I had significantly more SA then their DA and got dealt a bullshit card, messaging them and showing the different typically always ended it there without retaliation...

PS: To the guy who was trying to "defend" LoP as LaCN's lap dog bitches, I couldn't understand your post... are you tutored by Red in English, perhaps?

you all are mad because you found it very insecure, when the gr8 LOP teamed up with gr8 LaCN to form a gr8 chain...
gud alliances will form good allies and good team, you can be jealous of it..
its natural..:smile:
run along and get back to serving your masters

cry more

<3 doh

edit I forgot to mention:
* Official DH (doh's hoes) BF Policy of Age 13 *
1. fix it yourself, i'm not your fucking mom
2. refer to tfe policy

cy@!

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 06:27 PM
We'll know when rule number 3 is applicable. Stalking here, is meant like the stalking to steal goldhits off slayers. Not the stalking you do for sells.

How will you possibly know if the opposing slayer was stalking or just was flipping pages and saw your guy holding a lot of gold?

I mean, i was flipping through the bf, reconned a guy holding 5 mil. Checked to make sure my SA was above his DA, hit him and stole 7.7 mil. I banked it quickly (seeing as it was more gold than i have held all age) About 30 seconds later, that player steals 37k gold off of me.

Now, was I stalking this player? No. I was flipping through bf pages and was reconning everyone with above X gold. Am I reasonably confident that he was online at the time? Yeah.


So, how can one possibly determine whether a player was getting stalked, or if the attacker simply got lucky with the timing, and your slayer was just getting slow to bank his gold?

Because, there are chumps out there who, when going for an upgrade, find a target, attack, find a second target, attack, find a third target, attack, go to find a 4th target, and get hit. Was whoever hit him stalking him? I doubt it.

So, the rule 3 seems unnecessary. The farming rules should be sufficient to assure that players are not being stalked. And, if a slayer leaves himself hanging open for a while after making a good hit-- its kind of his responsibility to bank it.

HoMiCiD3
31st January 2010, 07:46 PM
First bf policy is up (TFE (http://tfe.sltproductions.net/index.php?autocom=jlogica_pagemaker&do=show&id=3)). Seems quite decent overall, replaced the 1 hit per 24 hours to 1 per 12 hours and no max a week (?). Thumbs up for that, maybe it livens things up.

One major flaw in it though, 120minute steal policy!? Can I assume its a joke that you guys want a slayer to wait around for 3 hours to have a safe hit? If not; "Welcome back to Age 12, Happy banking."

Lets hope it doesn't make banking the only way to achieve a top rank. Some playing style variety would be nice in the top ranks.
120 minute stal policy is not a flaw nor a joke, it is the same as previous ages. Just because turns come every minute doesn't mean we should change our minimums. 4 turns last age was reasonable and now 4 turns has been converted to 120 turns, same amount of time, approximately similar gold, just different increments. Why should this age be any different just because gold is distributed more often? You people need to recognise the differences and similarities between this age and the last before you criticise a very good policy.
Note: By last age i mean age 12 not the stupid beta.)

I respect your revamp of rules and I hope it revolutionizes what other alliances do aswell, in fact it is extremely reasonable setting aside the point of backing up low hits.

When SR or whoever started this it was the worst tread in KoC BF policies. Bankers just sit behind their alliances when things should be kept 1v1. But as you stated, this comes with the tradeoff being offered.
We started it in age 10, and the only people disagreeing with that trend are the people that came to follow it. Just because 2 alliances started doing it doesn't mean you all had to follow. Just some other alliances were too pussy to fight against it. So they became sheep and copied it.

People seem to feel like 45 minutes of gold is a fair amount to hit for. I feel like 45 minutes to hit at seems fair. As for whether that makes it possible for a banker to bank frequently enough not to get attacked should be of no concern to the bf policy or the slayer or the koc community.

I also disagree with number 3 as its impossible to prove, and I disagree with the tail end of number 7. Rules should be clear, and shouldn't be fuzzy.
People are ignorant of the facts. What you feel and what TFE feels as an alliance aren't relevant. You are not a skillful player, you are not an alliance leader, you're just an annoying player that posts on gua with ridiculous opinions and stating the obvious. In conclusion your opinion while perfectly allowed, is not one that anyone cares for or something that will change a perfectly constructed bf policy.

Congratulations to Seneca on being the first to put a decent amount of time into a TFE policy since age 10. I am proud of you my son. :D

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 07:49 PM
120 minute stal policy is not a flaw nor a joke, it is the same as previous ages. Just because turns come every minute doesn't mean we should change our minimums. 4 turns last age was reasonable and now 4 turns has been converted to 120 turns, same amount of time, approximately similar gold, just different increments. Why should this age be any different just because gold is distributed more often? You people need to recognise the differences and similarities between this age and the last before you criticise a very good policy.

Because instead of turns coming once every 3 hours, turns come once every 2 and a half hours. That clearly implies that players will hit for less gold.

HoMiCiD3
31st January 2010, 07:58 PM
oh noes half an hour less per attack turn. Just because turns come more often, doesn't mean the gold isn't the same... Just means they can hit more people per day, and considering TFE allows 2 steals per day i think 2 hour steals is perfectly reasonable. That means that you can hit 4.5 TFE people twice per day assuming you use all your turns and TFE are the only alliance holding gold. Seriously... think before you type.

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 08:03 PM
oh noes half an hour less per attack turn. Just because turns come more often, doesn't mean the gold isn't the same... Just means they can hit more people per day, and considering TFE allows 2 steals per day i think 2 hour steals is perfectly reasonable. That means that you can hit 4.5 TFE people twice per day assuming you use all your turns and TFE are the only alliance holding gold. Seriously... think before you type.

If people are attacking more frequently, that means there is less gold on the bf.

Imagine this: a player spends 5 hours a day offline. In the past, 3 players would attack him in that interval. Now, 4 players attack him in that interval. Does the player have:
a) The same time length of gold stolen from him each attack as previously.
b) Less time length of gold stolen from him each attack than before.
c) More time length of gold stolen from him each attack than before.

xjkryex
31st January 2010, 08:06 PM
A 20% increase in turns/day would be a pretty good reason to drop the 2 hour minimum a bit? Not saying you should be required, just saying it is a reason to do so...

Kuraia
31st January 2010, 08:06 PM
One major flaw in it though, 120minute steal policy!? "

Yeah I saw that. . . .I think thats really cute, I make maybe 1.8mil in 120 turns, so if I see 2mil+ with a DA I can get past with my current low SA, I'm going after it. Sorry, that's 120+ turns worth of gold for me. . . .
Seeing sabs coming in on people who took 4mil+ and hearing the "This is our BF policy, dont hit for less than 120 turns or we auto-sab you, if you retalitate we'll approve you" retort is really just pathetic.

Who's trying to be the BF bully this Age? Because I'm already seeing someone aiming at that #1 spot. . . . .Considering this BF policy pretty much tells all small slayers to f*** off or they'll try to destroy your account for causing them to lose a few million gold. Grow up kids, starting a new Age with this kind of BF policy is just childish. . . boost your stats or live with the way the game is supposed to be played. -.-

HoMiCiD3
31st January 2010, 08:09 PM
I think you'll find that with a 20% decrease in attack turn time has also come a large decrease in attacking players. Therefore the gold on the bf is about the same.

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 08:13 PM
I think you'll find that with a 20% decrease in attack turn time has also come a large decrease in attacking players. Therefore the gold on the bf is about the same.

Care to explain the logic through which you conclude that attack turns coming More frequently would lead to less slayers? Also, would you care to explain why this thing that reduces the number of slayers wouldn't also reduce the number of bankers?

Attack turns coming more frequently= players hit for less gold. Thats all there is to it.

SleepingDragon
31st January 2010, 08:48 PM
Who's trying to be the BF bully this Age? Because I'm already seeing someone aiming at that #1 spot. . . . .Considering this BF policy pretty much tells all small slayers to f*** off or they'll try to destroy your account for causing them to lose a few million gold. Grow up kids, starting a new Age with this kind of BF policy is just childish. . . boost your stats or live with the way the game is supposed to be played. -.-

I don't think anyone is being a BF bully this age, and I doubt anyone will get pinned in a hole for it other than LaCN (but to be fair, I dunno what changes they've made since Age 12). If anything TFE probably has more "take care of it yourself players" than any other big TFF banking chain. It just so happens that usually when they fight as a group, it's FF or someone much weaker...you'll never see TFE go at LaCN alone, but that doesn't mean they will just pick a fight to "teach a lesson". The trick to managing TFE's policy is hitting them when they sleep, which if you have the SA and spy to hit them, you'll also invest time into knowing when they sleep. I'll bet the "12 hour rule" won't be used to approve anyone, since they probably won't stop banking long enough to get hit twice in 1 day, much less by the same person. PLUS, since TFE doesn't have as many members it's not like SR and LACN was previously -- where half the BF is taxed or making threats. You gotta be sharp to hit TFE, but it takes more dedication than most players are willing to invest in this version of koc...and that's exactly the problem! :tongue:

Kuraia
31st January 2010, 09:15 PM
I just think its ridiculous having some of these rules. You can't just scan the bf, find a target with decent gold and a DA you can beat and hit them, no we have to do everything just short of file paperwork asking permission to attack them or else they'll get their little girl panties in a twist that they lost gold and threaten you for morale or just sab you.

If you're getting farmed, I understand BF policies, its part of the reasons to join alliances, so if someone is farming you and wont stop because they can beat you, you can ask for help to "convince" them to stop. But getting hit for what YOU consider low and sabbing someone for this reason and then putting a contract on them because they alone retaliate? That is bullying.

I love seeing contracts get denied when its a 1 on 1 situation. Just because you're in an alliance doesn't mean that you can slack off with your own stats and upgrades just because you think you can run crying to your alliance to "save you" when you lose to someone. Alliances should only be called upon when you're getting massed/sabbed by an alliance chain.

Again, grow up kids and either play the game or quit. So tired of individuals whipping their alliance's e-peen out here on the forums and in people's in-boxes just because they can't handle a single person. Its pathetic.

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 09:18 PM
I just think its ridiculous having some of these rules. You can't just scan the bf, find a target with decent gold and a DA you can beat and hit them, no we have to do everything just short of file paperwork asking permission to attack them or else they'll get their little girl panties in a twist that they lost gold and threaten you for morale or just sab you.

If you're getting farmed, I understand BF policies, its part of the reasons to join alliances, so if someone is farming you and wont stop because they can beat you, you can ask for help to "convince" them to stop. But getting hit for what YOU consider low and sabbing someone for this reason and then putting a contract on them because they alone retaliate? That is bullying.

I love seeing contracts get denied when its a 1 on 1 situation. Just because you're in an alliance doesn't mean that you can slack off with your own stats and upgrades just because you think you can run crying to your alliance to "save you" when you lose to someone. Alliances should only be called upon when you're getting massed/sabbed by an alliance chain.

Again, grow up kids and either play the game or quit. So tired of individuals whipping their alliance's e-peen out here on the forums and in people's in-boxes just because they can't handle a single person. Its pathetic.

Well, what I would find fair is:

show the last 4 attacks on you (one of which is the attack that you consider "low"). The hit is a low hit if its less than two thirds of the other three steals.

That to me sounds fair.

dohh
31st January 2010, 09:20 PM
Yeah I saw that. . . .I think thats really cute, I make maybe 1.8mil in 120 turns, so if I see 2mil+ with a DA I can get past with my current low SA, I'm going after it. Sorry, that's 120+ turns worth of gold for me. . . .
Seeing sabs coming in on people who took 4mil+ and hearing the "This is our BF policy, dont hit for less than 120 turns or we auto-sab you, if you retalitate we'll approve you" retort is really just pathetic.

Who's trying to be the BF bully this Age? Because I'm already seeing someone aiming at that #1 spot. . . . .Considering this BF policy pretty much tells all small slayers to f*** off or they'll try to destroy your account for causing them to lose a few million gold. Grow up kids, starting a new Age with this kind of BF policy is just childish. . . boost your stats or live with the way the game is supposed to be played. -.-

Typical response from someone who is not a slayer, or is a bad slayer. :violin: "my current low SA"

If you're using an attack (150 turns) to steal 120 turns worth of your own TBG you suck, cry more. Also, I haven't really anyone in TFE enforcing low hits really unless they were ridiculous (10 turns), as I already mentioned, because the age just started.

--

This idea on low hitting will be enforced more by players in a few weeks when larger accounts are done training and have had a chance to buy stats to accommodate their size, I reckon. I don't understand why many think 30-60 min steals (essentially one/two turn of gold in the old system -- except I think we make less tbg now then we did before?) is an acceptable steal.

Also, for the record, I've played every playstyle and have always gravitated towards slaying. I'll be slaying again this age shortly. Using your own TBG as a basis for what to steal makes no sense, in A12 I had 4m TBG and would usually aim for steals of 400mil+... over 100 turns of my own TBG per attack.


Well, what I would find fair is:

show the last 4 attacks on you (one of which is the attack that you consider "low"). The hit is a low hit if its less than two thirds of the other three steals.

That to me sounds fair.

(oddly) I agree with fistsofthor on this, I've only sabbed attacks that stand out as "low" compared to all the other attacks on my page.

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 09:30 PM
(oddly) I agree with fistsofthor on this, I've only sabbed attacks that stand out as "low" compared to all the other attacks on my page.

Thank you. It has several nice things about it:
1) It won't let a player sit behind alliance policy with no DA or sentry and a large tbg
2) What is low is clearly low, and not a whole lot of it either: with this policy, less than the bottom 25% of attacks are low, and then only if that bottom quarter is a decent margin lower than reasonable hits.
3) It lets the market deal with it, and no calculations are needed. A player who has never heard of this bf policy is won't be hurt any worse than someone who has heard of it.
4) It removes (for the most part) players having to guess at what steal percentage they will get in order to steal X minutes worth of gold.

So, thats what I think its strong points are.

Kuraia
31st January 2010, 09:34 PM
Not all of us follow the cookie-cutter way of building an account's foundation doh-- :) And this is the first Age I've been here since the start of - soooo, insulting another player's way of playing their account is just showing a weak mind on your behalf. Not everyone is going to play by what you consider "the way of doing things" and not all current "slayers" plan on slaying the entire age either. So get off your high horse hon, you're not any kind of authority in this or any other game.

and I believe Victoryrose sabbed someone for stealing 4.492mil and then threw the TFE BF policy in their face saying they'd get approved if they struck back. I'd call that enforcing the low hit policy. So keep trying to blow smoke up my *** ok? <3

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 09:40 PM
Not all of us follow the cookie-cutter way of building an account's foundation doh-- :) And this is the first Age I've been here since the start of - soooo, insulting another player's way of playing their account is just showing a weak mind on your behalf. Not everyone is going to play by what you consider "the way of doing things" and not all current "slayers" plan on slaying the entire age either. So get off your high horse hon, you're not any kind of authority in this or any other game.

and I believe Victoryrose sabbed someone for stealing 4.492mil and then threw the TFE BF policy in their face saying they'd get approved if they struck back. I'd call that enforcing the low hit policy. So keep trying to blow smoke up my *** ok? <3

Well, I suppose the question is: are you being a slayer, or are you just using your turns so that you can get the technology and economy upgrades you need?

dohh
31st January 2010, 09:54 PM
and I believe Victoryrose sabbed someone for stealing 4.492mil and then threw the TFE BF policy in their face saying they'd get approved if they struck back. I'd call that enforcing the low hit policy. So keep trying to blow smoke up my *** ok? <3

Someone stole less than 45 minutes of gold from a person with top 100 DA and Sentry... and got sabbed?!? Whoa, no way! :deadhorse: This is totally unfair! :1poke: :violin:

I like your avatar if it's what I think it is, but to follow my trolling theme as of lately I must tell you to: cry more

fistsofthor
31st January 2010, 09:57 PM
Someone stole less than 45 minutes of gold from a person with top 100 DA and Sentry... and got sabbed?!? Whoa, no way! :deadhorse: This is totally unfair! :1poke: :violin:

I like your avatar if it's what I think it is, but to follow my trolling theme as of lately I must tell you to: cry more

Still, if its the best hit of the age for that player, it seems a little excessive. I mean, could we see his past couple days worth of logs? (as well as noting which attacks he considered low, and which not so lot)

dohh
31st January 2010, 10:36 PM
Still, if its the best hit of the age for that player, it seems a little excessive. I mean, could we see his past couple days worth of logs? (as well as noting which attacks he considered low, and which not so lot)

Can't answer your question as I don't play that account, but by the above logic is it okay for me to hit someone for 215,741 gold (1 gold higher than "my best (and only) steal of the age)"), and just add 1 gold for each hit I make, thus making every attack I make my steal of the age? :icon10: :heh:

Further, the argument of 'how much is good' is becoming useless as someone will inevitably keep arguing in a circle...

example (exaggerated, but it still happens):
Banker Y will want to be able to hold gold for 12 hours;
Slayer Z thinks hitting for 5 minutes gold is okay because it's good profit for them.

I think the 2 hours gold policy is a nice bridge in between because a dedicated banker can (and people have in the past) wake
up every 2-3 hours to bank their gold (and not die). I know someone will bring up the argument "BUT BANKERS SHOULDNT BE ABLE TO BANK ALL THEIR GOLD!!!!!!!1", but I think if someone is dedicated enough to wake up every 2-3 hours to spend, and has stats to hold such gold, why shouldn't they be able to keep all or most of it? It isn't a good argument against...

I'm a particularly light sleeper myself, and I wake up fairly often. Some nights, [most of the time] I'll bank my account before I fall back asleep because my desk is right next to me. Looking at my logs from last night, I woke up 3 times and spent a few hours apart over an 8-9 hours period but I was still hit for gold 13 times.

The steals on me vary from (in ~minutes of gold):


60mins
45mins
44mins
43mins
42mins
40mins
33mins
32mins
26mins
24mins
22mins
10mins
1min


6 people able to steal 40+min of gold, one stealing an hour of gold, yet still have 7 people stealing less than 30 min... admittedly my stats currently suck for my size since I just spent 200+mil on training soldiers alone, but everyone <30min is getting sabbed, and my stats are up to par I can see 2 hours of gold being very reasonable.

Seneca
31st January 2010, 11:54 PM
* Official DH (doh's hoes) BF Policy of Age 13 *
1. fix it yourself, i'm not your fucking mom
2. refer to tfe policy

Best BF policy ever.


How will you possibly know if the opposing slayer was stalking or just was flipping pages and saw your guy holding a lot of gold?
That won't happen more than once every long time, if a player is stalking, he could catch 2 hits / day.. that's not what we want.
Also about banking fast, good stalkers refresh their opponnent on the turn, if they know he's online, then hit when they see the TFF change... try to bank that.


A 20% increase in turns/day would be a pretty good reason to drop the 2 hour minimum a bit? Not saying you should be required, just saying it is a reason to do so...
That's what the 1/12 is for.


Who's trying to be the BF bully this Age? Because I'm already seeing someone aiming at that #1 spot. . . . .Considering this BF policy pretty much tells all small slayers to f*** off or they'll try to destroy your account for causing them to lose a few million gold. Grow up kids, starting a new Age with this kind of BF policy is just childish. . . boost your stats or live with the way the game is supposed to be played. -.-
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. We don't enforce the rule yet on all occasions, because at the moment it won't always lead to reasonable outcomes. How is that bullying? I call that being nice.
Also, who is the kid? We are the once that get into too many fights according to you, how does that make us kids? The kid thing to do would probably be back away.


you'll never see TFE go at LaCN alone, but that doesn't mean they will just pick a fight to "teach a lesson". The trick to managing TFE's policy is hitting them when they sleep, which if you have the SA and spy to hit them, you'll also invest time into knowing when they sleep. I'll bet the "12 hour rule" won't be used to approve anyone, since they probably won't stop banking long enough to get hit twice in 1 day, much less by the same person. PLUS, since TFE doesn't have as many members it's not like SR and LACN was previously -- where half the BF is taxed or making threats. You gotta be sharp to hit TFE, but it takes more dedication than most players are willing to invest in this version of koc...and that's exactly the problem! :tongue:
First of all: Last age TFE wanted to war LaCN, the others basically joined in, most asked to join. TFE would be happy to war on it's own, but why deny help? We generally don't care enough to not get into stupid wars, we'd probably war even if it's clear we'd lose big time.. it's about the fun, the game!
You're right that we will probably not approve anyone for farming. That's what we have this rule for. It's just meant to protect us from turnfarmers and people like that, not to protect us from being hit often.
You're also right most of our accounts will only be hit during the night, but you can get a pretty decent amount of hits in during those night, since you can hit 7 nights / week, and if you hit late in the night, you can hit early in the next night :)
I dunno if you have to be sharp to hit us.. lol, I'm getting hit like 5-6 times / day, doesn't seem too hard :p

Semper.Fidelis
1st February 2010, 01:36 AM
VictoryRose:
tbg > 115k
Defensive Action 10,973,850
Sentry Rating 88,770,961

So you're saying you should hold 13,8m gold (+ % margin) before being attacked? There are like 200 People with the SA and TFF to slay you and you expect NOT to bank for 2hrs and keep it anyway. Yeah right...

I agree with FoT's idea on low hits though, sounds very reasonable.

X-ago
1st February 2010, 02:32 AM
the 120 minutes rule by TFE its very understandable, people cant be checking their accounts every 5 minutes to bank.

but this brings up one point... i then want to click a lot and get a lot TBG,i just buy spy and SA to find more gold... since my gold is protected by the 120 margin i dont need that much DA or sentry to hold it and if i get hit for less you are sabbed.

my point is: I wanted to prove that it is a good policy, but cant be followed 100% so i would suggest that every time someone is going to be approved for this to be reviewed carefully (just my humble opinion that no one asked for)

other than that i found the TFE to be really good and up to date (and it was fun to read it too :p)

EDIT: forgot to mention this: lol at DH policy haha

Ferrous
1st February 2010, 02:44 AM
Well this age I have been hit for shit a lot
and multiple times when I am asleep
but i did not even PM them back
let alone ask for morale
I dont have the DA and they take my gold
it is as simple as that for
well if u want to keep ur gold
bank or get good DA


I got an 83K TFF as of now.....

Ferrous

xeros
1st February 2010, 02:47 AM
Well... 120 steal?

If I was a slayer with 2k+ turns and a half decent SA, there's no way anyone would hold 2 hours.

2 hours this age = 4 turns last age. Cool, that works, IF the 30min turns were still in play. But they're not, you have one minute turns, meaning people are going to see a lot more gold a lot more often. As a slayer, you're going to take it, as it'sthe only way to keep up with the bankers. Speaking of which, I can't believe you're basing you BF policy on how often your bankers "are able to bank". Seriously??? What sort of crap is that??? This is a war game, I've never heard of an enemy saying "oh wait, they're not quite ready to be attacked yet, so let's wait until they are".

On the plus side, I like the way it's written Seneca, even if it's a little over the top calling TFE the higher being :P It's a nice refreshing change to the same old boring BF policies you read every age :)

Blipje
1st February 2010, 03:27 AM
Well... 120 steal?

If I was a slayer with 2k+ turns and a half decent SA, there's no way anyone would hold 2 hours.

2 hours this age = 4 turns last age. Cool, that works, IF the 30min turns were still in play. But they're not, you have one minute turns, meaning people are going to see a lot more gold a lot more often. As a slayer, you're going to take it, as it'sthe only way to keep up with the bankers. Speaking of which, I can't believe you're basing you BF policy on how often your bankers "are able to bank". Seriously??? What sort of crap is that??? This is a war game, I've never heard of an enemy saying "oh wait, they're not quite ready to be attacked yet, so let's wait until they are".

On the plus side, I like the way it's written Seneca, even if it's a little over the top calling TFE the higher being :P It's a nice refreshing change to the same old boring BF policies you read every age :)

I totally agree with the above.

Adrenalinejunky
1st February 2010, 03:44 AM
i agree with xeros as well, and must also return once again to the same objection i've had the entire time - judging low hits based on how long it took you to get the gold is retarded.

if you wanna hold more gold, buy da/sentry, dont cry about not being able to get on often enough to bank your gold.

Seneca
1st February 2010, 04:46 AM
Well... 120 steal?

If I was a slayer with 2k+ turns and a half decent SA, there's no way anyone would hold 2 hours.

2 hours this age = 4 turns last age. Cool, that works, IF the 30min turns were still in play. But they're not, you have one minute turns, meaning people are going to see a lot more gold a lot more often. As a slayer, you're going to take it, as it'sthe only way to keep up with the bankers. Speaking of which, I can't believe you're basing you BF policy on how often your bankers "are able to bank". Seriously??? What sort of crap is that??? This is a war game, I've never heard of an enemy saying "oh wait, they're not quite ready to be attacked yet, so let's wait until they are".

On the plus side, I like the way it's written Seneca, even if it's a little over the top calling TFE the higher being :P It's a nice refreshing change to the same old boring BF policies you read every age :)

This is a war game, Ive never heard of an enemy saying 'oh let's not take their gold, they'll sabotage our weapons!!!1'

Maz
1st February 2010, 04:59 AM
Agree with Xeros completely. Good I didn't even have to write it myself, someone else did it before me ;)

fistsofthor
1st February 2010, 06:14 AM
In addition to the increased frequency of attacks, I would like to add one more thing:

turns coming once every minute versus once every 30 minutes DOES effect how much gold a player will be holding when they are attacked.

Suppose we have an account that can hold 110 mil with its stats. So, if someone was watching this account, and if it was constantly holding 110 million, no one would hit it (unless they were blind hitting). However, if the player has 111 million gold, everyone who sees him it would hit him.

Q: If the player received 50 million gold every 30 minutes, how much gold will the player be holding when he gets attacked for the first time since logging off after banking?
A: 150 million, because thats the first time that player is has more gold than his stats allow him to hold.

Q: If the player instead receives 2 million gold a minute, how much gold will he be holding when he gets hit?

A: 112 million gold, because thats the first time that player has more gold than his stats allow him to hold.


So, in this example, given stats that allow a player to hold X gold, the turn per minute system causes the player to get hit when holding 25.3 % less gold.




Lets review: there is another thing that adds to the frequency of when a banker gets hit. That is that a banker now gets hit 1 minute (1 turn) after he has the maximum he can hold. In the past, a banker was hit 30 minutes (1 turn) after he had the maximum he could hold.

See how that works?

MarriedToTheMob
1st February 2010, 10:48 AM
Maintaining that players can only attack when you are holding X turns of gold is completely absurd. If you are attacked too often raise your DA and/or sentry.

If you make enough gold for someone to attack you every 30 minutes, you make enough gold to do something about it.

ShadowMajestic
1st February 2010, 11:52 AM
whahahaha this is retarded

if you dont got the defense to keep your gold, your not worthy of that gold.
Dont cry if you get farmed, its part of this game



you shouldnt click either if u dont want to be farmed =D and dont farm others, dont sab aswell, and shouldnt DAwhore or rank... basicly

stop the f'ing game and go play Villagers or something

Seneca
1st February 2010, 12:31 PM
Agree with Xeros completely. Good I didn't even have to write it myself, someone else did it before me ;)

My point is still the same as the above post, if you're going to agree with a post that's clearly been pwned, you have to pwn my argument first, or you'll look like a retard.


Maintaining that players can only attack when you are holding X turns of gold is completely absurd. If you are attacked too often raise your DA and/or sentry.

If you make enough gold for someone to attack you every 30 minutes, you make enough gold to do something about it.

Yes, we do have enough gold to do something about it. We sab the person that's hitting us, and if they sab back, we approve them. That's what we do about it. What's the problem? It's a war game, sab us back :) We don't mind I can assure you.


whahahaha this is retarded

if you dont got the defense to keep your gold, your not worthy of that gold.
Dont cry if you get farmed, its part of this game



you shouldnt click either if u dont want to be farmed =D and dont farm others, dont sab aswell, and shouldnt DAwhore or rank... basicly

stop the fucking game and go play Villagers or something

if you don't attack people for what you think is fair gold because you will get sabbed, stop the f'ing game and go play Villagers or something.

fistsofthor
1st February 2010, 12:40 PM
My point is still the same as the above post, if you're going to agree with a post that's clearly been pwned, you have to pwn my argument first, or you'll look like a retard.

Um, your point wasn't better than xeros's point. Obviously, anyone who attacks you does so because they aren't afraid of getting sabbed. Also, why do you think "sabbing all who attack me" policies don't work?

Because slayers find it ridiculous and they end up trashing the player(s) who have them. That is why.

Now, no one here is saying that if all the other alliances switch to what I suggested (hit must be a fair margin lower than all the other hits in a recent time frame), and TFE sticks with a 120 minute rule, that those won't eventually co-align, or that other alliances would do something about it if TFE bankers demanded that they hold 2 or 3 times what everyone else holds.

LordCounter
1st February 2010, 12:47 PM
calling a BF policy unfair isnt really gonna help anything. if you dont like the BF policy break it, war TFE. and yes only a few can thats the idea behind power abuse lol

Maz
1st February 2010, 01:02 PM
My point is still the same as the above post, if you're going to agree with a post that's clearly been pwned, you have to pwn my argument first, or you'll look like a retard.


According to you, yes. I agreed with the post above your post, since I don't agree with your post pwning the earlier post (which is pretty clear, because then I wouldn't post after your post now would I?). Stop making yourself look like a retard.

Eden-
1st February 2010, 01:03 PM
You know I'm just coming to light with all this battlefield policy stuff and Just developed a policy for my alliance. I've had a couple run-ins with players that don't seem to understand it. So I want to clear things up to make sure I understand it.

Today a player hit me twice, less than 8 hours a part, now I pretty much know that's no policy for any clan out there. He claimed that his clan's policy is 2 hits per 24 hours so that justifies him attacking me twice within 8 hours.
However the part that bugs me is that he uses his own clan's policy to justify attacks on other clans. When in fact it should be the other way around. He should be respecting the policy of the other alliance when attacking them, not his own policy.

Now, My alliances policy is 1 hit per 12 hours. He broke our alliances policy with his actions so that means he has to compensate me or he will receive actions. My logic is that. I would not go to attack someone from another alliance based on my alliances policy, for instance i would not attack someone based on 1 hit per 12 hours if it was not their policy. If their policy was 1 hit per 24 hours, i would attack them a maximum of once per day. If i attacked that person following my policy and i hit them twice, how can i possibly justify my actions when i broke the other alliances policy. They are in the right to request compensation. Does this make sense? Is this how it REALLY should be? Because that's what i think.

-Mael

fistsofthor
1st February 2010, 01:21 PM
You know I'm just coming to light with all this battlefield policy stuff and Just developed a policy for my alliance. I've had a couple run-ins with players that don't seem to understand it. So I want to clear things up to make sure I understand it.

Today a player hit me twice, less than 8 hours a part, now I pretty much know that's no policy for any clan out there. He claimed that his clan's policy is 2 hits per 24 hours so that justifies him attacking me twice within 8 hours.
However the part that bugs me is that he uses his own clan's policy to justify attacks on other clans. When in fact it should be the other way around. He should be respecting the policy of the other alliance when attacking them, not his own policy.

Now, My alliances policy is 1 hit per 12 hours. He broke our alliances policy with his actions so that means he has to compensate me or he will receive actions. My logic is that. I would not go to attack someone from another alliance based on my alliances policy, for instance i would not attack someone based on 1 hit per 12 hours if it was not their policy. If their policy was 1 hit per 24 hours, i would attack them a maximum of once per day. If i attacked that person following my policy and i hit them twice, how can i possibly justify my actions when i broke the other alliances policy. They are in the right to request compensation. Does this make sense? Is this how it REALLY should be? Because that's what i think.

-Mael

Generally, the clan that is more powerful gets its bf policy enforced. If your clan is a lot weaker than his clan, then his clan's bf policy applies whenever he wants it to (except for when its to his advantage that your clan's bf policy applies. example: his clans bf policy is 1 hit per 24 hours, and yours is 1 hit per 12 hours, so he attacks you, and then attacks you again 13 hours later, and he is fine.).

So basically, the more powerful clan gets it its way. Or, at least thats how it works in practicality. BF mods are given some wiggle room for all alliances, and the level of friendliness between your two alliances is key.

For example, if the guy who hit you is a member of tfe or rf, neither of those clans will allow their members to get approved for something they wouldn't approve someone else for doing. Meaning: they get their way or they will probably war or take some sort of action.

Now, if its a more flexible alliance, you can go talk to their leaders, and talk it over and come to some sort of compromise.

SleepingDragon
1st February 2010, 02:40 PM
Not allowing your guys to get approved for things you would not approve is part of the alliance dynamic, and is mostly a good thing. Now, the real problem is when people are allowed to break their own alliance rules and get "absolved" from BF approvals, meaning they get away with it for some reason or another even though they continue to retaliate.

Does anyone know LaCN's BF policy yet? TFE's out here answering to everyone and we don't even know what their main rival is doing :p

Mudvayne
1st February 2010, 02:43 PM
Maintaining that players can only attack when you are holding X turns of gold is completely absurd. If you are attacked too often raise your DA and/or sentry.

If you make enough gold for someone to attack you every 30 minutes, you make enough gold to do something about it.

Bravo. Bank more and bitch less.

ZAR
1st February 2010, 06:51 PM
Trashing them for the 120 TBG rule wonīt help, also I am sure no one in TFE would really care about complaints ;)

RF bf policy is still work in progress, mostly because my english sux :P

fistsofthor
1st February 2010, 07:10 PM
Trashing them for the 120 TBG rule wonīt help, also I am sure no one in TFE would really care about complaints ;)

RF bf policy is still work in progress, mostly because my english sux :P

Can I put in a good word for the thing I recommended that a hit needs to be low relative to all the hits around it by a fair margin in order to be considered a low hit.

MarriedToTheMob
1st February 2010, 07:20 PM
Yes, we do have enough gold to do something about it. We sab the person that's hitting us, and if they sab back, we approve them. That's what we do about it. What's the problem?

The Problem: This is why new players get frustrated and quit the game. Each alliance formulates their own set of stupid rules and then they expect other players who have never even heard of their alliance to know, understand, and abide by these rules.

For example, a few days ago one of my officers was sabbed by TWO members of TFE for a low hit on ONE of them. This was the second time an alliance had sabbed him for a "low hit," and not understanding the origin or purpose of these unwritten rules, he interpreted it as bullying. An interpretation with which I agree. He said he was probably going to quit and he hasn't logged in since.

So sure, maybe if we are talking about a top-20 player you can expect them to know about your alliance and your gay BF policy. But beyond that, don't you think it's a bit pretentious to punish people because they've never heard of you? If someone has crossed your line, why not just shoot them a PM? I find that 99.9% of the time they will honor your request. Save your turns for sabbing your real enemies instead of bullying new players.

ZAR
1st February 2010, 07:59 PM
Comment on the last 2 posts, RF uses no lowhit policy :P

aesop
1st February 2010, 08:00 PM
wow, I have been playing for a few years now and this is the first time that I have actually read about all these policies. Bottom line is you guys with your unwritten rules, trying to control a GAME to suit your own needs is freakin ridiculous. Out of respect 1 hit per 24 is quite justified but come on, if you really don't want your gold taken by a noob account who sees that gold as a major haul, buy some DA. This is a war game, the goal of this game is to attack weaker armies and take their gold. Stop hiding behind the size of your alliance, even the owners of KoC can see that you are destroying the game for everyone, that is why they put a limit on the amount a single account can be sabbed a day. Grow up, it's a game, I hope you all put the same energy in your real lives as you do in here for this is just a mindless distraction.

ZAR
1st February 2010, 08:08 PM
We started with bf policies in Age 1 ...

fistsofthor
1st February 2010, 08:31 PM
wow, I have been playing for a few years now and this is the first time that I have actually read about all these policies. Bottom line is you guys with your unwritten rules, trying to control a GAME to suit your own needs is freakin ridiculous. Out of respect 1 hit per 24 is quite justified but come on, if you really don't want your gold taken by a noob account who sees that gold as a major haul, buy some DA. This is a war game, the goal of this game is to attack weaker armies and take their gold. Stop hiding behind the size of your alliance, even the owners of KoC can see that you are destroying the game for everyone, that is why they put a limit on the amount a single account can be sabbed a day. Grow up, it's a game, I hope you all put the same energy in your real lives as you do in here for this is just a mindless distraction.

there have always been bf policies. however, it has only been recently, with the ability to sab spy and sentry tools, that ranker alliances can push around individuals as opposed to individuals and sab chains pushing around ranker chains.

X-ago
1st February 2010, 09:36 PM
yes bf rules started long time ago... and you have no idea how many millions of billions of trillions of quadrillions of gazillions of gold i have sabbed over the ages from people that think that we can not try to control a game to suit or own needs because it is ridiculous :)

(music: i got the power starts in the background)

Sh4nnon
1st February 2010, 11:37 PM
Well if some one does not like a bf policy .. just oppose it :D no point to quit a game over bullying . I mean if you quit a game due to e-bullying i wonder what will happen in RL when you are bullied by your peers :D

Seneca
1st February 2010, 11:49 PM
Um, your point wasn't better than xeros's point. Obviously, anyone who attacks you does so because they aren't afraid of getting sabbed. Also, why do you think "sabbing all who attack me" policies don't work?
It wasn't worse either, so why don't people agree with me? People aren't discussing, just saying: YOU NEED TO GROW BALLS!!1


Because slayers find it ridiculous and they end up trashing the player(s) who have them. That is why.
Well, come and trash TFE <3


calling a BF policy unfair isnt really gonna help anything. if you dont like the BF policy break it, war TFE. and yes only a few can thats the idea behind power abuse lol
Yes.


According to you, yes. I agreed with the post above your post, since I don't agree with your post pwning the earlier post (which is pretty clear, because then I wouldn't post after your post now would I?). Stop making yourself look like a retard.

If you don't think my post pwns his, then explain why lol. You can't argue like this:
X; I think this
Y; I don't agree, because xxx
Z; I agree with X

That just doesn't make sense, and adds nothing to the discussion.

Trashing them for the 120 TBG rule wonīt help, also I am sure no one in TFE would really care about complaints ;)

RF bf policy is still work in progress, mostly because my english sux :P
Yes

The Problem: This is why new players get frustrated and quit the game. Each alliance formulates their own set of stupid rules and then they expect other players who have never even heard of their alliance to know, understand, and abide by these rules.
Well honestly, with the way Rocco is raping this game and scaring off new players, I don't feel guilty at all if our bf policy makes one or two noobs quit.



Now, in order to actually make this discussion go beyond: TFE SUCKS, NO WAI, YA WAI, ORLY?, YA WAY, NO WAY, an actual new development.
I don't know about others, but I (having crap DA for my TFF really) am holding over 60 minutes all the time already. That's one week into the age with crap stats (hardly any technology or w/e). I think in maybe 3 weeks people are going to be ashamed of themselves for trashing our policy now.

I'm also curious about other policies. Are people going to follow my farming idea? If, for example, RF follows (which honestly I expect them to), I don't think LaCN will have a choice but follow, and if TFE/LaCN/RF have the same policy, then it's going to be a new general KoC rule. Would be good! Let's see!
I expect RF to have a bit lighter policy than TFE, and LaCN probably just as harsh as ours (not that I think ours is that harsh), with one or two points taht will make people go: WTF?!

SleepingDragon
2nd February 2010, 01:02 AM
I'm also curious about other policies. Are people going to follow my farming idea? If, for example, RF follows (which honestly I expect them to), I don't think LaCN will have a choice but follow, and if TFE/LaCN/RF have the same policy, then it's going to be a new general KoC rule. Would be good! Let's see!
I expect RF to have a bit lighter policy than TFE, and LaCN probably just as harsh as ours (not that I think ours is that harsh), with one or two points taht will make people go: WTF?!

TFE's BF policy mostly works because it does not equate to a a BF tax. TFE does not have the membership of LaCN or Age 12's SR. The whole point in bitching about it, however, is that LaCN and 75% of KoC copy TFE to "protect smaller players" -- except that smaller players can't hit most TFE accounts, at least in past ages. LaCN and 75% of KoC lack the quality accounts of TFE that enable you to sort of hold decent gold, whereas everyone else just acts like it should be a KoC Rule not to hit for less than 2 hours of gold (excuse, I meant STEAL, which is even more dumb). Now, of course it's up to the BF-mods to determine approvals, but grudges and miscellaneous circumstances (such as if it's a girl getting "low hit" or sabbed back, if girls even still play KoC lol) make it inconsistent and basically on a whim whether or not a bad percentage was a disregard for X's BF policy and demands you "be taught a lesson."

Also, one of those "WTF?!" points is ANY policy that says it's okay to sab in place of someone for defended or low hits. If someone doesn't like a particular full attack turn (raids don't apply), but can't do anything about it, they should recognize that they can't protect their shit and send a message to the hitter like "yo yo yo, puh-lease don't take advantage of my crap DA/sentry and make ur turns count by hitting for X amount. i appreciate it and you will too." And if the kid continues to hit like a bum, then it's open season on him/her I guess, but none of this nanny state business should be tolerated IMHO. :rambo:

Semper.Fidelis
2nd February 2010, 01:35 AM
I don't know about others, but I (having crap DA for my TFF really) am holding over 60 minutes all the time already.

I recon you very frequently saw a lot of others reconning you and I've never seen you with more then 9m. Since I do recons at work and a couple at home that covers pretty much 18 of 24 hrs a day where you don't hold 12m let alone the 20m you ask for. Not even close.

Thing is you can abuse power and enforce stupid rules to a certain extent, but eventually you're gonna get raped for it. If History has taught us one thing it's that you're never quite as untouchable as you think. Actually it also told us that History tends to repeat itself because most people are idiots.

Seneca
2nd February 2010, 06:36 AM
I recon you very frequently saw a lot of others reconning you and I've never seen you with more then 9m. Since I do recons at work and a couple at home that covers pretty much 18 of 24 hrs a day where you don't hold 12m let alone the 20m you ask for. Not even close.

Thing is you can abuse power and enforce stupid rules to a certain extent, but eventually you're gonna get raped for it. If History has taught us one thing it's that you're never quite as untouchable as you think. Actually it also told us that History tends to repeat itself because most people are idiots.

Actually I log into 7-12m often, try harder.

Also, we don't think we're untouchable, but no we're not going to get raped for it.


Also, one of those "WTF?!" points is ANY policy that says it's okay to sab in place of someone for defended or low hits. If someone doesn't like a particular full attack turn (raids don't apply), but can't do anything about it, they should recognize that they can't protect their shit and send a message to the hitter like "yo yo yo, puh-lease don't take advantage of my crap DA/sentry and make ur turns count by hitting for X amount. i appreciate it and you will too." And if the kid continues to hit like a bum, then it's open season on him/her I guess, but none of this nanny state business should be tolerated IMHO. :rambo:
It's meant as a rule to prevent people with low spy from being pushed around.

Adrenalinejunky
2nd February 2010, 07:05 AM
since you are so insistent on someone actually responding to your post seneca, i will step up, though honestly i believe it is obviously flawed in such a way that its below needing a refutation....


This is a war game, Ive never heard of an enemy saying 'oh let's not take their gold, they'll sabotage our weapons!!!1'

yes, this is a war game - and war heavily includes elements of politics by its very nature.

if it were just "oh no they'll sab me" then i would be fine with it - big deal they sabbed me. sab back, go on about my day. but hiding behind your alliance because you are sabbing someone based on an arbitrary line that seems to be enforced the most by people who are only getting hit below that arbitrary line because they have no understanding of the basic principles of causality is absurd.

on to the politics side - i am not saying it is not your right to have your BF policy be whatever you want it to be. if you wanted to make recons approvable - that is your right. and honestly, i would have more respect for that kind of a policy then one that tries to hide behind the guise of "fairness" and "reacting to the changes in the game" when reality is designed in such a way to allow you to not properly forge your account or put in the effort on maintaining (banking) that would otherwise be neccessary with some style's of play, instead bullying people into not taking your gold because you want to make your life easier. and once again, just because i don't respect that stance, does not mean you do not have the right to do it.

but then there is the other side of that - you have to think about what effects your policy will have, how people will react to it, and wether that reaction will in fact be worse for you then just not having the policy. which personally, should you start enforcing this in such a way as clans have enforced in the recent past, then i fully think you deserved to get taken down.

Shane-
2nd February 2010, 07:16 AM
So...

Without further ado, Does anyone mind posting other policy's? I mean I love to see everyone bitch and whine about TFE's, But if you're going to bitch and whine, then man up and let others review your own policy too?....

As someone already said, We're not really enforcing our policy at the moment, and the "Low hits" part is reviewed on a case by case basis, based on the persons typical hit, to judge if its lower than normal, If it is, /win, If it isn't, /fail.

But considering the policy ain't been enforced on 99.9% of you guys, I don't see the problem, And considering TFE barely ever approves anyone anyways, It wont be a problem for most.


Shane

cowboy_from_hell
2nd February 2010, 08:53 AM
RF's should be up asap. The work on the final draft was done by ZAR so it's only a matter of time before we release it officialy.


Well honestly, with the way Rocco is raping this game and scaring off new players, I don't feel guilty at all if our bf policy makes one or two noobs quit.


hell fucking yeah! Time to drop the whinny attitudes. I'm sure people remember ES' policy? Was it fair? no ofc not. But you had the option to follow it or get sabbed. Same goes for every policy. If you believe a policy is total bs, bring the topic to your leaders and war over it. It's what happened in the past and sure as hell would make the game more fun. The biggest problem I see is these days are all the huge chains. So when war breaks out it's always a big one. Back in the day, we had waaay more smaller wars. Which was way more fun imo.

AxEHeaD15
2nd February 2010, 09:05 AM
True that.

Also, TFE has inspired us :p MK will be coming out with a new policy as well :)

-AxE

fistsofthor
2nd February 2010, 10:13 AM
Actually I log into 7-12m often, try harder.

Also, we don't think we're untouchable, but no we're not going to get raped for it.


It's meant as a rule to prevent people with low spy from being pushed around.

if you don't have the DA or Sentry to hold the gold you want, and you do not have the spy to sab back, then you should get one of those yourself. There is no good reason why a pure bpm mode player with no spy. da or sentry should get a teammate to sab back those who "low" hit him. Its just silly.

blazed420
2nd February 2010, 10:14 AM
if you don't have the DA or Sentry to hold the gold you want, and you do not have the spy to sab back, then you should get one of those yourself. There is no good reason why a pure bpm mode player with no spy. da or sentry should get a teammate to sab back those who "low" hit him. Its just silly.

It is part of the reason people join alliances. If people think its "silly/stupid/retarded/unfair", then war them and make them change their policy?

fistsofthor
2nd February 2010, 10:35 AM
It is part of the reason people join alliances. If people think its "silly/stupid/retarded/unfair", then war them and make them change their policy?

If I recall, that happened age 12, and the bf mod of that alliance ran from the war.

So yes, it has happened before, and it probably will happen again. But, we can also use our WORDS.

blazed420
2nd February 2010, 10:40 AM
If I recall, that happened age 12, and the bf mod of that alliance ran from the war.

So yes, it has happened before, and it probably will happen again. But, we can also use our WORDS.

Stop crying about policies if you wont do anything about it. Simple.

PS: In Age 12, it took 3 alliances to take SR down, and SR still won Age 12. Goes to show how good their plan worked eh? :) Moving out of chain during wars can be used as a tactical move, something you know nothing of because you run your mouth and then you get approved and QQ about it months later. Bye nub.

fistsofthor
2nd February 2010, 10:42 AM
Stop crying about policies if you wont do anything about it. Simple.

PS: In Age 12, it took 3 alliances to take SR down, and SR still won Age 12. Goes to show how good their plan worked eh? :)

given sufficient protest, it may be possible to convince an alliance to adjust their bf policy, or convince alliances still writing their bf policies to possibly align their bf policy closer to public sentiments.

blazed420
2nd February 2010, 10:43 AM
given sufficient protest, it may be possible to convince an alliance to adjust their bf policy, or convince alliances still writing their bf policies to possibly align their bf policy closer to public sentiments.

Lol. You and everyone here knows better, bitching and whining at TFE isnt going to make them change a thing. They will continue to pwn you if you break their policy, and pretty much there isnt any chain out there who can bring them to their knees and make them change anything. Words or war.

You've dealt with them before, how did it turn out for you? xD

Seneca
2nd February 2010, 11:21 PM
True that.

Also, TFE has inspired us :p MK will be coming out with a new policy as well :)

-AxE

Oh sexy


if you don't have the DA or Sentry to hold the gold you want, and you do not have the spy to sab back, then you should get one of those yourself. There is no good reason why a pure bpm mode player with no spy. da or sentry should get a teammate to sab back those who "low" hit him. Its just silly.

Yes, but TFE does not have such lame accounts. Neither will we back someone up that's pure BPM mode and goes around doing crap hits.

The only thing we're protecting our smaller members from is being pushed around by bigger guys.


given sufficient protest, it may be possible to convince an alliance to adjust their bf policy, or convince alliances still writing their bf policies to possibly align their bf policy closer to public sentiments.

No, lol, no alliance is going to convince themselves by a few noobs ranting on GUA

SleepingDragon
2nd February 2010, 11:46 PM
It is part of the reason people join alliances. If people think its "silly/stupid/retarded/unfair", then war them and make them change their policy?

Yea, but what if, HYPOTHETICALLY, TFE and LaCN both have it as a policy to counter each other...which one does your alliance "war?" Hurting one only helps the other, and either way you lose. :P

I'm all about weaker people not getting pushed around, but there's a point when you can't play nanny for them. Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, but he's just gonna keep asking you to fish for him if you don't teach his/her bitch ass to fish. That's why if someone can't sab, they need to get someone stronger to communicate with the hitter instead of sabbing first. It happens cuz most alliances immediately want to flex when someone bitches that they can't protect their gold or armory in a 1 on 1 situation and cry for help.

I just don't see the point of substitute sabbers unless you also want a "stunt cock" pulled on you. The only real way to compete with that is to chain back, cuz if you just do it to the person that sabbed you the whole clan/alliance will run over your "stunt cock" and probably you for "sabbing back." It's a catch-22 when sabbing back, you either get sabbed by people not involved or have to sab them first. Oy vey. :lamer:

Seneca
2nd February 2010, 11:49 PM
Yea, but what if, HYPOTHETICALLY, TFE and LaCN both have it as a policy to counter each other...which one does your alliance "war?" Hurting one only helps the other, and either way you lose. :P

I'm all about weaker people not getting pushed around, but there's a point when you can't play nanny for them. Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, but he's just gonna keep asking you to fish for him if you don't teach his/her bitch ass to fish. That's why if someone can't sab, they need to get someone stronger to communicate with the hitter instead of sabbing first. It happens cuz most alliances immediately want to flex when someone bitches that they can't protect their gold or armory in a 1 on 1 situation and cry for help.

I just don't see the point of substitute sabbers unless you also want a "stunt cock" pulled on you. The only real way to compete with that is to chain back, cuz if you just do it to the person that sabbed you the whole clan/alliance will run over your "stunt cock" and probably you for "sabbing back." It's a catch-22 when sabbing back, you either get sabbed by people not involved or have to sab them first. Oy vey. :lamer:

I really don't understand what you're talking about lol


That's why if someone can't sab, they need to get someone stronger to communicate with the hitter instead of sabbing first. It happens cuz most alliances immediately want to flex when someone bitches that they can't protect their gold or armory in a 1 on 1 situation and cry for help.
Well that's probably the best way, but for TFE it's either you communicate yourself, or you sab (or have that person sabbed).
What happens is that people think: ohh this guy is weak, and then they harass him. We don't want that.
I'm not sure what your point is with all the metaphors, but our reason is simple :p

SleepingDragon
2nd February 2010, 11:57 PM
I'm not sure what your point is with all the metaphors, but our reason is simple :p

lol, I was watching Orgasmo earlier and I thought "stunt cock" was the best way to describe substitute sabbers. They do the dirty work that the less endowed player can't do himself.

Tbh, I've never seen anyone harass a player because he/she has weak stats (other than the big tff, low DA/sentry farms that anyone can hit, but even they should be respected as far as farming goes). I feel if you have the SA to hit someone, you should have the spy to sab them if they sab you. If you don't, too bad. Likewise, if you don't have the DA to hold the gold you want, but not the spy to seek revenge, tough cookies. I think any alliance should operate like that, from top to bottom, which is why iShane's mammoth sentry is the best thing in KoC so far this age. You can't hit what you can't see, and even if you can hit it, if it's not a good hit and you get sabbed, you can't fight back. It's awesome! :)

ZAR
3rd February 2010, 06:40 AM
You can find the RF policy for Age 13 here (http://forums.relentless.ws/showthread.php?t=15843) :)

Blipje
3rd February 2010, 06:45 AM
You can find the RF policy for Age 13 here (http://forums.relentless.ws/showthread.php?t=15843) :)

I think it's an OK policy!

Seneca
3rd February 2010, 07:32 AM
The offender is farming you. RF's farming policy this age is 2 hits / day and 6 hits / week. Any more than this can be approved.
You got it half right!
Lol, what's the point of having 2 hits / day if you have 6 hits / week? o_O


You steal from the offender 60 turns (1 hours gold) or more, and he asks his chain to sab you. If you hit for less than 60 turns you are on your own.
Not bad I guess...


In special cases we might approve if they break their own inchain-policy - this will be typically posted on forums. If you have such a case post it up so that HC can review it accordingly!
Lol, this is going to be fun. You can't expect some noob from TFE that bothered to check your lowhit-rule to follow our own policy, which he might not even know.

If the offender brought his chain in for something that shouldn't be approved by RF this can be approved after further investigation.
Lol, you're planning on warring TFE for the second age in a row or what?


Honestly though, possible volatile situation granted that we have two medium sized chains, both intending to enforce their bf policy, while they're not the same.. /me prepares RF sablist

ZAR
3rd February 2010, 07:50 AM
Haha, no we arenīt going to war anyone intentionally and tbh TFE and RFs battlefield policy fit each others pretty well.

To reply: 2/6 is similar to your 2/14 - we just give the freedom to hit 2 times a night but we donīt want to be farms, so the limit of 6. With your policy the average TFE slayer that sleeps and invests 2-3h a day into this game will mostly be able to hit once a day, it should even out.

"In special cases..." is just that ... in special cases, noobs should be encouraged to stay in this game. Oh and I do expect members to know at least their own bf-policy. If they play by it is not my choice :)

And again, no plans to war TFE, as far as I know issues have been worked out perfectly between our alliances and I expect it to stay like that. Like TFE most RF members donīt report everything :)

Oh and btw, you were not able to hold today even 40 minutes of gold ... maybe you should enforce your bf policy so that I can take your gold? :P

Adrenalinejunky
3rd February 2010, 08:44 AM
interesting.

the one thing that stuck out to me:

"You were sabbed or raided without any provocation ( this means you didn't sab him and you did not farm him or did not raid him ) "

I'm assuming this probably means "mass raided" though you know what they say about assumptions...

could someone clarify that a bit? approving for a single raid would seem a bit... rediculous.

ZAR
3rd February 2010, 09:15 AM
There is a need for single raids?

ThomasA
3rd February 2010, 09:22 AM
There is a need for single raids?

probing for gold if you cant see past their sentry?

cowboy_from_hell
3rd February 2010, 09:24 AM
probing was an approvalable offence ages ago aswell. Now it's back, why not approve it again ;)

If someone raids one of us, he always has the option to compensate. If he doesn't he risks getting approved. Your own call so I don't find it harsh at all ;)

fistsofthor
3rd February 2010, 09:33 AM
Haha, no we arenīt going to war anyone intentionally and tbh TFE and RFs battlefield policy fit each others pretty well.

To reply: 2/6 is similar to your 2/14 - we just give the freedom to hit 2 times a night but we donīt want to be farms, so the limit of 6. With your policy the average TFE slayer that sleeps and invests 2-3h a day into this game will mostly be able to hit once a day, it should even out.

"In special cases..." is just that ... in special cases, noobs should be encouraged to stay in this game. Oh and I do expect members to know at least their own bf-policy. If they play by it is not my choice :)

And again, no plans to war TFE, as far as I know issues have been worked out perfectly between our alliances and I expect it to stay like that. Like TFE most RF members donīt report everything :)

Oh and btw, you were not able to hold today even 40 minutes of gold ... maybe you should enforce your bf policy so that I can take your gold? :P

I would like to note that in number 2, it doesn't mention anything about a low hit being a reason to sab the guy.


2.
You were sabbed or raided without any provocation ( this means you didn't sab him and you did not farm him or did not raid him )

Should there be something in there like:
(this means you didn't sab, low hit, farm or raid him)?

Or, are you declaring bad steals as unreasonable.

ZAR
3rd February 2010, 09:41 AM
Donīt waste my time with your stupid posts, your point IS covered by our bf policy.

fistsofthor
3rd February 2010, 09:44 AM
Donīt waste my time with your stupid posts, your point IS covered by our bf policy.

Well, I just wanted to make sure. Occasionally groups decide interesting things. So sabbing a low hit is fine. Awesome.

ThomasA
3rd February 2010, 09:48 AM
3.
You steal from the offender 60 turns (1 hours gold) or more, and he asks his chain to sab you. If you hit for less than 60 turns you are on your own.
NOTE: This policy only covers inchain-members, that enforce this rule as well - ask your leaders about it!
...



7.
Finding loopholes in the RF-bf-policy. We try to keep most cases 1 on 1 - if something is not covered this may be intentional,
if the offender tries to break the policy he may be approved by HC.

Also



5.
In special cases we might approve if they break their own inchain-policy - this will be typically posted on forums. If you have such a case post it up so that HC can review it accordingly!

You better not have low hitting in your own policy fists ;)

ZAR
3rd February 2010, 09:49 AM
You really didnīt read - oh well I do not mind, I will be happy approving you personally :)

AxEHeaD15
3rd February 2010, 11:42 AM
I really like RF's policy, possibly even better than TFE's (Sorry Seneca you know I love you man), MK's is still under discussion. As we are a laid back alliance it probably will be even less strict than RF's lol.

-AxE

Screwdriver_LaCN
3rd February 2010, 11:31 PM
I like RF's policy :D and I think 120 turns are a lot but 60 or 90 are more acceptable ;)

X-ago
4th February 2010, 12:21 AM
You got it half right!
Lol, what's the point of having 2 hits / day if you have 6 hits / week? o_O


Not bad I guess...


Lol, this is going to be fun. You can't expect some noob from TFE that bothered to check your lowhit-rule to follow our own policy, which he might not even know.

Lol, you're planning on warring TFE for the second age in a row or what?


Honestly though, possible volatile situation granted that we have two medium sized chains, both intending to enforce their bf policy, while they're not the same.. /me prepares RF sablist


not everything in this world/net/game/board/thread its about you and your chain ;)

most of that stuff was already in the old policy just got adjusted to the new game system

Adrenalinejunky
4th February 2010, 02:27 AM
There is a need for single raids?

there is a use for raids, i do understand the problem with them, i do sab people who raid me, i also happen to think however, that a full approval for a single raid is rediculous.

Seneca
4th February 2010, 05:47 AM
not everything in this world/net/game/board/thread its about you and your chain ;)

most of that stuff was already in the old policy just got adjusted to the new game system

I didn't say that, so please go back and read before you reply

Maz
4th February 2010, 06:31 AM
I didn't say that, so please go back and read before you reply

If one reads between the lines, one can interpret what you wrote just as X-ago interpreted it. :)

fistsofthor
4th February 2010, 06:41 AM
i think its a fine interpretation. not everyone needs to conform to your bf policy.

Seneca
4th February 2010, 11:15 AM
If one reads between the lines, one can interpret what you wrote just as X-ago interpreted it. :)

That's not at all what I wanted to say, and that's obvious from my comment. I just pointed out that the policy seemed to be asking for conflicts with TFE, which is true if you read both of them. It's really easy to think of scenarios which would lead to war eventually if bf policy's would be followed.
God I can't believe Im explaining this because retards can't see the obvious..

It's all been cleared up and from the looks of it TFE / RF relations will stay good :)

LordCounter
4th February 2010, 12:40 PM
i heard RF called TFE a bitch alliance

Mudvayne
4th February 2010, 12:52 PM
tS battlefield policy. Almost exactly the same except we ask for 90 minute steals.

http://www.thesyndicate.freeforums.org/the-syndicate-battlefield-policy-koc-age-13-t370.html

rofl @ counter

fistsofthor
4th February 2010, 01:26 PM
That's not at all what I wanted to say, and that's obvious from my comment. I just pointed out that the policy seemed to be asking for conflicts with TFE, which is true if you read both of them. It's really easy to think of scenarios which would lead to war eventually if bf policy's would be followed.
God I can't believe Im explaining this because retards can't see the obvious..

It's all been cleared up and from the looks of it TFE / RF relations will stay good :)

TFE and RF always stay good, and they always have different bf policies. I'm missing what you think would be new here.

As for tS policy:
one per day? What other major alliance has a 1 per day farming policy?

And whats up with raiding someone 5 times a week being acceptable?

Also, you would approve for a low hit? That seems kind of harsh to me. I mean, a 24 hour approval the first time someone low hits?

Maz
4th February 2010, 03:35 PM
That's not at all what I wanted to say, and that's obvious from my comment. I just pointed out that the policy seemed to be asking for conflicts with TFE, which is true if you read both of them. It's really easy to think of scenarios which would lead to war eventually if bf policy's would be followed.
God I can't believe Im explaining this because retards can't see the obvious..

It's all been cleared up and from the looks of it TFE / RF relations will stay good :)

Of course, we love you guys!

As for tS battlefield policy; is it really a good idea to have such a harsh policy when you guys are reconstructing and so on? Especially with some big alliances out there having a totally different policy.

fistsofthor
4th February 2010, 04:59 PM
LoP bf policy has been released in a non-final form. You can check our alliance thread for the link.

It seems like a good policy so far. Also, it used the 1 hit per 12 hour farm rule, which makes a lot of sense.

X-ago
4th February 2010, 05:16 PM
I agree with Maz, ts policy is less flexible than the RF and TFE that may cause them some problems...

and fistsofthor could you please be so kind of adding a link in your previous comment? I r lazy :)

ThomasA
4th February 2010, 05:31 PM
LoP bf policy has been released in a non-final form. You can check our alliance thread for the link.

It seems like a good policy so far. Also, it used the 1 hit per 12 hour farm rule, which makes a lot of sense.

or it can be posted here to stop your alliance thread from being spammed ;)


Hi,

BF Policy Under Construction is found at : http://www.lordsofperil.org/forums/bf
Finalized BF Policy will be put at the same place.

Regards,
Wulfric

X-ago
4th February 2010, 06:53 PM
ah <3 ThomasA :)

that Bf oplicy is very slayer friendly! /me likes

probably the ones who will probably like it less are their own members but it is very good for the slayers that hit your farms, err accounts.

Mudvayne
4th February 2010, 07:10 PM
Well I can tell you that in my time with tS through half of age 12 and the beta no one was ever approved for a low hit. Low hits stayed 1 v.1 unless the agresser made the first move to get some help. Raiding is now part of the game, so doesn't it make sense to let people use it? One hit per 24hrs has been around for ever but if it starts to become a problem I'm sure it can be changed...

ZAR
4th February 2010, 07:25 PM
Allowing 1/12 but raids + hits and re-hits on defended is extremly stupid, maybe have one guy work on all rules?

tS policy fits into Age 8 or 9 ... you guys missed that we have Age 13 now.

trigger-joe
4th February 2010, 09:30 PM
Personally, I think all BF rules are ridiculous. If your want to limit how often you get attacked, INCREASE YOUR DA. I mean seriously... big TFF's with no DA deserve to get farmed in my opinion. Also, am I supposed to keep myself updated on each alliances different rules to make sure I'm not breaking them. I might as well send a pm before I attack someone to make sure its okay with them first. And a 120 minute minimum?! Okay let me grab my calculator quickly and figure out their income after 7 recons ...k now multiply by 120... alright now lemme check the time...soo I need to wait until 6:48 to attack this person.

On a more serious note, building DA is the way to solve farming. Obviously having a higher DA means a higher SA is required to steal the gold and those with higher SA's are generally more picky about their turns.

Although there is one upside to BF rules, and it is that violating them is typically the spark that starts wars...

fistsofthor
4th February 2010, 10:28 PM
Personally, I think all BF rules are ridiculous. If your want to limit how often you get attacked, INCREASE YOUR DA. I mean seriously... big TFF's with no DA deserve to get farmed in my opinion. Also, am I supposed to keep myself updated on each alliances different rules to make sure I'm not breaking them. I might as well send a pm before I attack someone to make sure its okay with them first. And a 120 minute minimum?! Okay let me grab my calculator quickly and figure out their income after 7 recons ...k now multiply by 120... alright now lemme check the time...soo I need to wait until 6:48 to attack this person.

On a more serious note, building DA is the way to solve farming. Obviously having a higher DA means a higher SA is required to steal the gold and those with higher SA's are generally more picky about their turns.

Although there is one upside to BF rules, and it is that violating them is typically the spark that starts wars...

BF policies are still required. Otherwise, we might have players who things its cool to sab every attack, and players who think that more than 1 hit in a week means you are farming, or players who randomly chain. And, alliances need to have set procedures for those sorts of things. And, whats ok and not ok has changed through the ages. So, don't tell people thats whats ok and not ok in koc is obvious.

Adrenalinejunky
5th February 2010, 02:05 AM
I gotta respect LoP for that policy - very reasonable, nicely done :)

cowboy_from_hell
5th February 2010, 05:28 AM
Agree with AdrenalineJunky. I dig LoP's policy :p Pretty laid back it seems but I wouldn't push them ;)

Shane-
5th February 2010, 06:13 AM
+1

LoP's policy seems to be pretty nice.


Shane

trigger-joe
5th February 2010, 06:52 PM
BF policies are still required. Otherwise, we might have players who things its cool to sab every attack, and players who think that more than 1 hit in a week means you are farming, or players who randomly chain. And, alliances need to have set procedures for those sorts of things. And, whats ok and not ok has changed through the ages. So, don't tell people thats whats ok and not ok in koc is obvious.

Oh of course but they do not need to be as strict as some of them are... I'm somewhat talking out of my ass right now anyway since I'm not familiar with many BF rules to begin with

fistsofthor
5th February 2010, 07:03 PM
+1

LoP's policy seems to be pretty nice.


Shane

Keep in mind that if there is a player with 800 defense soldiers holding ISs, with a tff of 1k, and a sentry thats decently high, and he is regularly getting hit for many many turns, he would still be able to sab hits that are significantly below the normal hit on him.

ZAR
5th February 2010, 07:20 PM
So LaCN is not gonna release any BF policy this Age?

fistsofthor
5th February 2010, 07:23 PM
So LaCN is not gonna release any BF policy this Age?

It was my belief that they were still working on it, and have yet to release a finalized bf policy. Keep in mine that LoP's bf policy is not necessarily in its final form.

ZAR
5th February 2010, 07:28 PM
As the rules contraindicate each other in LOPs bf policy, I am pretty sure it is not finalized.

Was asking about LaCN because the number of noobshits explodes from day too day ...

Screwdriver_LaCN
5th February 2010, 10:30 PM
As the rules contraindicate each other in LOPs bf policy, I am pretty sure it is not finalized.

Was asking about LaCN because the number of noobshits explodes from day too day ...

Sorry ZAR but we really still discuss it...

Seneca
5th February 2010, 11:48 PM
I singlehandedly changed farming rules in KoC yes!


Anywho @ the guy asking what I think is changed: RF has a new rule which makes them able to enforce it on others. (f.e. if some TFE guy was hit by RF for 70 mins, TFEguy retaliates, RF guy retaliates, TFE approves, RF approves any in RFmember logs <- that could happen now, strictly. I don't think it could before.)

cowboy_from_hell
6th February 2010, 03:45 AM
It could before but never really happened. But yeah it can happen ;) Sounds fun doesn't it? Kinda reminds me of ES' 1 hit a week policy making it so that wars had to break out :D

LordCounter
6th February 2010, 06:30 AM
Sorry ZAR but we really still discuss it...
so you dont have a BF discussion but you do approve ppl based on a non exciting BF policy.

cant wait for the release of your amazing BF policy.

Adrenalinejunky
6th February 2010, 07:00 AM
As the rules contraindicate each other in LOPs bf policy, I am pretty sure it is not finalized.



where?

ZAR
6th February 2010, 07:56 AM
where?
As I pointed out before:

1/12

vs

allowing

probe+hit
defended+hit

Why not
hit+hit then?

SleepingDragon
6th February 2010, 08:05 AM
so you dont have a BF discussion but you do approve ppl based on a non exciting BF policy.

cant wait for the release of your amazing BF policy.

what? then how are they are approving people if they don't have a stone tablet to tell them what to do? :eek:

Looks like anarchy in the LACN, but it's still a party in the USA! :devil2:

ZAR
6th February 2010, 10:34 AM
I singlehandedly changed farming rules in KoC yes!


Anywho @ the guy asking what I think is changed: RF has a new rule which makes them able to enforce it on others. (f.e. if some TFE guy was hit by RF for 70 mins, TFEguy retaliates, RF guy retaliates, TFE approves, RF approves any in RFmember logs <- that could happen now, strictly. I don't think it could before.)
Yes, that rule was in place in Age 12 already - it is not new :D

And so far you didnīt change most BF-policies, my inbox is full of stupid requests so far ^^

Adrenalinejunky
7th February 2010, 01:08 AM
As I pointed out before:

1/12

vs

allowing

probe+hit
defended+hit

Why not
hit+hit then?

thats not a contradiction, its a quantification.

and it actually make perfect sense.....

ZAR
7th February 2010, 07:31 AM
thats not a contradiction, its a quantification.

and it actually make perfect sense.....

Actually it doesnīt Iīd rather lose gold to good hits than being probed to be damaged twice for 1 goldhit.

Seneca
7th February 2010, 07:36 AM
thats not a contradiction, its a quantification.

and it actually make perfect sense.....

Lol, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Defended + hit and probe + hit actually hurt you more than farming, it's a stupid rule

Adrenalinejunky
7th February 2010, 08:11 AM
you do realize that last age TFE also did not consider a defended + hit to be farming?

on defendeds - if you get screwed by a freak anomaly of the game you can hit again... most likely you'll get hit again by someone else anyway. how is this a stupid rule? its not their fault the games random percentages suck. no reason to be a douche about it.

on probes - do i sab for probes? of course. do i think 20 people should sab with me over it? no, thats just a rediculous overeaction. if someone continually probes then i could see a case for approval, but over one? no reason to be a douche about it.

fistsofthor
8th February 2010, 03:05 PM
does TFE know if it will be adjusting its bf policy in light of the loss of some of its key accounts that enforced bf policy?

sirlapins
8th February 2010, 07:41 PM
Gentlepersons can clear befuddle mind of a old n00bie 1/ Am I bounded by rules of an alliance I am NOT a member of ie defended attack 2/ Who enforces BF policy if an alliance will not ie farming Sir Lapins

Pauly_D
8th February 2010, 07:46 PM
Gentlepersons can clear befuddle mind of a old n00bie 1/ Am I bounded by rules of an alliance I am NOT a member of ie defended attack 2/ Who enforces BF policy if an alliance will not ie farming Sir Lapins

1- if you attack someone for example from SR then they will take action if you break their BF policy
2- i dont understand what you are asking here, are you asking whose BF policy you should refer to when someone attacks you, if that is what you are asking then you use your alliances BF policy. If that isnt what you were asking then please re-phrase your question

sirlapins
8th February 2010, 08:08 PM
Sir i was hit 2/3hr a breach of attackers BF politely ask for compo , ignored message his commander ,was told to deal with it myself ,message next highest commander . no answer so who is responsable to enforce a BF policy in cases like this cheers

fistsofthor
8th February 2010, 08:46 PM
Sir i was hit 2/3hr a breach of attackers BF politely ask for compo , ignored message his commander ,was told to deal with it myself ,message next highest commander . no answer so who is responsable to enforce a BF policy in cases like this cheers

your alliance is responsible for enforcing your bf policy. So, if you were mistreated, its the job of YOUR alliance to help you out.

SleepingDragon
8th February 2010, 09:59 PM
Sir i was hit 2/3hr a breach of attackers BF politely ask for compo , ignored message his commander ,was told to deal with it myself ,message next highest commander . no answer so who is responsable to enforce a BF policy in cases like this cheers

Good sir, I may be able to help you with the incident in question. Please let me know your in-game account so that I may investigate this further. I make no promise you will be GIVEN compensation, but if that is the case then compensation will be TAKEN for you. :fear:

ZAR
9th February 2010, 04:21 AM
Seemingly players think, that other alliances have to enforce their bf rules, have had some funny chats about it already.

Newsflash: No, we do enforce our bf-rules on you, as you are supposed to enforce yours on others. If you are a noob-chain with no real accounts you better look up the bf policy of other chains and adapt - especially a 1 hit per day rule is getting you nowhere.

Merv_LaCN`
11th February 2010, 11:25 AM
A 5 day mayor Poll has started within our Family.
And all the BF-rules from all of you have been summarised in a table for quick reference.
In 5 days we'll know more.

Untill then we must follow the rules we had, (which ain't that aggressive related to the new BF-rules from some clans I've seen)
But we'll loosen our actions for the time being ;)

http://www.lacnfamily.com/BF_rules_others_2010-2-11.png



so you dont have a BF discussion but you do approve ppl based on a non exciting BF policy.

cant wait for the release of your amazing BF policy.
U'll be breaking them anyhow ;)

ZAR
11th February 2010, 12:59 PM
Hey Merv great post,

small correction tho,
smallest punishment in RF is 15 sabs/24/1vs1 approval for farming/raiding/defended - 20 sabs/24h approval for sabbing - the 2nd offense is reviewed case to case :)

We use to apply other chains BF rules on them tho, if they are being enforced on us.

Edit: Just saw it, we just defend our slayers if approved for low hits, we do not approve on low hiths tho, they stay 1vs1.

Seneca
11th February 2010, 03:07 PM
Nice Merv.

As TFE has like, no accounts left or barely any, we haven't been able to decide on the 120 turns thing. The rest seems right, Action hard is when people retaliate and shit?
For retaliation it's usually 24h or 48h extension, and if ppl insist on being a-holes they just get approved until someone feels like removing it.
Also, if morale is paid so our member is happy it can replace any approval and shit, just like the others where it's listed.

Fun thing:
tS approves for defended hits... SERIOUSLY?!

Lopina
11th February 2010, 04:29 PM
tS approves for defended hits... SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.thesyndicate.freeforums.org/the-syndicate-battlefield-policy-koc-age-13-t370.html

Check yourself ;)

sirlapins
11th February 2010, 05:03 PM
Thank you one and all your words and work cheer me but think on your attack/time iower level will leave or not return with anymore than 4/7 attacks and this game need new blood try splitting 2500 below 4/7 1000 5/7 above 999 6/7 but slayers must have 1 to 4 DA to SA let put their gold at risk

ZAR
11th February 2010, 07:10 PM
Thank you one and all your words and work cheer me but think on your attack/time iower level will leave or not return with anymore than 4/7 attacks and this game need new blood try splitting 2500 below 4/7 1000 5/7 above 999 6/7 but slayers must have 1 to 4 DA to SA let put their gold at risk

What?

RoHaLoVeR
12th February 2010, 01:34 AM
As got summarized by Merv, here's TUE's bf policy:

http://www.theunitedempires.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3103

We don't have a general definition of a "low hit", some accounts can hold 30 minutes of gold, others can hold 5 hours of gold, I do like LoP's percentage, but nobody in TUE complained about low hits yet =P

Adrenalinejunky
12th February 2010, 02:58 AM
interesting, another BF policy still keeping to 1/24 and 5/7....

i would bet that will cause quite some trouble for you (and ts) but we'll see how it all plays out.

sirlapins
12th February 2010, 08:06 AM
[01:10] -AcidGlow- SR Battlefield Policy Age 13:
[01:10] -AcidGlow- Farming: Farming rules for Age 13 beta will be one hit allowed per 12 hours and 10 hits per week. Farming will result in a 24 hour approval if morale compensation isn't paid.
[01:10] -AcidGlow- Low Hits: Hits should be for 75 minutes of gold or over. If someone makes a low hit against you then you can sab the offender with 10 turns. If the offender retaliates the sab then it will be considered an unprovoked sab.
[01:10] -AcidGlow- Raids and Defended: Raids are absolutely not allowed. Any raid or defended will result in a 24 hour approval unless morale compensation is paid. ,,,,
[01:10] -AcidGlow- Unprovoked Sab: Any unprovoked sabs will result in automatic 24 hour approval. Any retaliation on any SR member during the 24 hour period will increase your approval time.
[01:10] -AcidGlow- If multiple infractions occur the amount of approval time can be added together. IE: Farming and Defended can equal a 48 hour approval. ........i find this nothing but bullying most sr "players" have a DA 2/1mil SSA20+mill return attack you are sabbed , I use raids when attacked by player with low DA/SA tatio or warn off repeat attackers instead of sab so sr and i are going to clash i will now write my own bf called the Don Quijote charter cheers

Shane-
12th February 2010, 08:28 AM
Thats for age 13 or age 13 beta... Because the farming rules part clarifys as beta?


Shane

jog1
12th February 2010, 09:07 AM
lol SirLapin I'm SR and I pretty much only get hit under 75 turns and I receive some defended hit. I never asked for anyone to be approved.

Of course if you raid someone for a low hit you won't get approved if you raid someone for a decent hit then yes you will get approved.

Seneca
12th February 2010, 09:33 AM
1/12 and 10/7 isn't bad.

sirlapins
12th February 2010, 10:29 PM
this talk fest fails in realty SR attack 2in 3hrs breach of thier rules i ask morale polite but in a manner to get attend got a foul threating reply now 2 x raid and heaps of threats I have not return attack hope the alliance would sort it under thier BF Any rule abused shows the weakness of the group Now I must tilt at windmills may the sun shine on you all Sir Lapins Baron of the Rabbits

funny_bone83
12th February 2010, 10:57 PM
this talk fest fails in realty SR attack 2in 3hrs breach of thier rules i ask morale polite but in a manner to get attend got a foul threating reply now 2 x raid and heaps of threats I have not return attack hope the alliance would sort it under thier BF Any rule abused shows the weakness of the group Now I must tilt at windmills may the sun shine on you all Sir Lapins Baron of the Rabbits

Depends on what alliance you belongs to. if you return fired on someone that low hitting you, I dont see a problem in that, but if you raid someone just to check on their DA then you should at least cover their lost, its a courtesy thing.
also there are noob out there that like to throw out empty threat. i'm sure if there is an issue a BF mod would get in contact with you to try to have something sort out.

I wonder if NWO still have their BF policy as hitting 5 times a week is called farming, and also consider farming when you hit an account at 23h55m apart 5 days later. and i hope they tell people that they get approved too, instead on them have to find out from their leader whats going on.

SleepingDragon
13th February 2010, 05:36 AM
Depends on what alliance you belongs to. if you return fired on someone that low hitting you, I dont see a problem in that, but if you raid someone just to check on their DA then you should at least cover their lost, its a courtesy thing.
also there are noob out there that like to throw out empty threat. i'm sure if there is an issue a BF mod would get in contact with you to try to have something sort out.

From his posts in this section, I gather he was the victim getting taken advantage of because he's NOT in an alliance. He's getting threats and raided, and while it's NOT an official action from whatever alliance is bothering him...I'm sure he's tried to message people and not gotten much help.

I tested LaCN's lack of official policy earlier, but they tried for 2 days straight to get me to pay 100 morale. Back in the day, that'd be acceptable to get out of sabs. However, no one else asked for courtesy morale or sent any messages out of FF, TFE, DL, LOP, RF, and RU who I also got defended hits on. Nothing happened either because they either didn't have established policies for this age or didn't care, but LaCN followed through on a non-existent policy but when they approved it was only for 12 hours (not too bad at all, most sab in first 12 hours anyway). I chained back, but they still let me go after 12 hours. Sounds fair.

But I never tried SR, which seems to be the ones giving Sirlapin a problem. :)

ZAR
13th February 2010, 07:04 AM
The only ones trying to enforce a 1/5 BF-policy are FF, applying their BF policy to them gave me a couple of 100s Morale and nice sablogs - we will see how this plays out, sad to see that FF never learns and adapts.

AxEHeaD15
13th February 2010, 09:11 AM
MK will have their BF policy out by the end of the weekend.

-AxE

Symphony_x
13th February 2010, 09:22 AM
I m sad to see people adapting policies in a war game

ZAR
13th February 2010, 09:29 AM
I m sad to see people adapting policies in a war game

Name a war-game which is guild based and has no policies ...

death frog
13th February 2010, 09:38 AM
Name a war-game which is guild based and has no policies ...

usually i agree with your statements Zar, but just because other games have gang demands doesnt mean everyone likes playing that way. some people may prefer to see some real chaos. maybe that would shake up the same old names that are always on front page.

ZAR
13th February 2010, 09:43 AM
We had that Chaos in Age9 where a single account could do billions of damage to an alliance main - and guess what, we had still the same names on the frontpage :)

A thing like BF-policies happen in most games, there is always a codex outside the game set hardcoded rules that people follow ... (red=dead, no PKing lowbies etc. just to name a few).

Oh and we all fully expect people not to follow rules, thatīs why we have them ;)

AxEHeaD15
13th February 2010, 10:11 AM
usually i agree with your statements Zar, but just because other games have gang demands doesnt mean everyone likes playing that way. some people may prefer to see some real chaos. maybe that would shake up the same old names that are always on front page.

The same names are not on the front page this age that are usually there. This age small alliances have a better chance.

-AxE

Paradiso
13th February 2010, 10:22 AM
and guess what, we had still the same names on the frontpage :)

So what I've always said is true: these policies don't even help rankers, they just make the game less fun for slayers.

It baffles me that people can't see that when every ranker enforces a policy like this, there's no advantage in it. Yes you're keeping more gold, but so is everybody else. It's stupid to ruin the game for a particular playing style in pursuit of a strategy that doesn't even benefit you.

jog1
13th February 2010, 10:55 AM
So what I've always said is true: these policies don't even help rankers, they just make the game less fun for slayers.

It baffles me that people can't see that when every ranker enforces a policy like this, there's no advantage in it. Yes you're keeping more gold, but so is everybody else. It's stupid to ruin the game for a particular playing style in pursuit of a strategy that doesn't even benefit you.


It benefits the rankers on the slayers. So it does benefit.

ZAR
13th February 2010, 11:07 AM
So what I've always said is true: these policies don't even help rankers, they just make the game less fun for slayers.

It baffles me that people can't see that when every ranker enforces a policy like this, there's no advantage in it. Yes you're keeping more gold, but so is everybody else. It's stupid to ruin the game for a particular playing style in pursuit of a strategy that doesn't even benefit you.

Uhm, you took out my statement about pure Chaos in Age9 with unlimited hits you could do on a single account and formed out of it something totally different oO

Slaying works well this Age, maybe you should try to slay before you complain?

AxEHeaD15
13th February 2010, 11:32 AM
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Mortal_Kombat_Forums/index.php?showtopic=104

Done, made by Phil.

We the Kombatants of Mortal Kombat, in Order to form a more perfect Tournament, establish Order, provide for the common defense, and secure the Blessings of strength and Glory for ourselves, do establish these Rules of our Battlefield


Article I.

Section 1. No person shall attack a Kombatant of MK for lower then our judges deem prudent. These decisions will be based on DA, Sentry, and past attacks. Anything less is unacceptable and may be avenged by that particular Kombatant alone.

Section 2. No person shall attack Kombatants of MK more then once every 12 hours. Anymore the one attack is punishable by Law.

Section 3. No person shall sabotage a Kombatant of MK without just cause. Any violations are punishable by Law.

Section 4. No person shall Recruit from within the ranks of MK. Any Kombatants that are being recruited by other alliances should contact an Elder and provide logs and messages where available.

Section 5. No person shall disrespect our allies. They are our only Support in the battles to come. If a Kombatant has a problem with an Ally a judge should be contacted to rule on the subject. In most cases Morale will be given. We do not sab our allies, for this is a grievous breach of foreign policy.

Section 6. No person shall disregard the rule of KoC. For these are the guidelines we have been given to have a fair fight. The Elders will deal with anyone knowingly breaking those rules with severe punishment.

-AxE

Screwdriver_LaCN
13th February 2010, 11:42 AM
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Mortal_Kombat_Forums/index.php?showtopic=104

Done, made by Phil.

-AxE

Short and Simple ;)

ZAR
13th February 2010, 11:47 AM
Yup - puts some preassure on this lowhit 1/24 chains :D

LordCounter
13th February 2010, 12:47 PM
so when you farm a MK member do you get sabbed or do you have to participate in these gay mortal kombat tournaments where you make a lot of noise do some kicking :ninja:

Paradiso
13th February 2010, 04:31 PM
It benefits the rankers on the slayers. So it does benefit.

Of course it widens the gap between them, but rankers will always be ahead anyway so there's no difference. If the gap is going to be there no matter what who cares whether it's broad or narrow (and those aren't even the right terms, "broad" and "very broad" would be more accurate)?


Uhm, you took out my statement about pure Chaos in Age9 with unlimited hits you could do on a single account and formed out of it something totally different oO

Slaying works well this Age, maybe you should try to slay before you complain?

You admitted that rankers will always be on top regardless. If that's the case, it shouldn't matter what the bf policies are because the same names will sti be on page 1.

And no, i won't be playing this game again unless the ridiculous player-imposed rules are gone. I'm opposed to those kind of rules both in principle and in practice, because even i granted that there should be player-imposed rules the ones that are in place are still absurd. Farming, for instance, is a dumb rule. If a person is hitting for what you define as good gold (another preposterous concept, but that fact aside) every time, it has the same impact on you as if multiple people were each hitting once. The real reason people want that rule is so that they can hold good gold, have a slayer see it, and still get to keep it by threatening to sab for multiple hits in a day. This is just laziness on the part of the ranker.

jog1
13th February 2010, 04:52 PM
Of course it widens the gap between them, but rankers will always be ahead anyway so there's no difference. If the gap is going to be there no matter what who cares whether it's broad or narrow (and those aren't even the right terms, "broad" and "very broad" would be more accurate)?


Your missing something here. Of course Alliance main accounts who have 80 officers and huge tff have an advantage on slayers.

I have 300k tff and I don't have an advantage on slayers. A lot of people can hit me.

You don't seem to understand the game much?

I used to slay every ages, and I'm trying to be a banker this age to test things out and let me tell you my account was way better when I slayed. And don't try the you don't click or you can't bank excuses. I bank like a normal human being, which means less 16 hours a day.

Paradiso
13th February 2010, 06:11 PM
I have 300k tff and I don't have an advantage on slayers. A lot of people can hit me.

We're talking about different kinds of advantages here. I mean in terms of your rank/account value: it's inevitably going to be larger than the people hitting you for gold.

When you set rules on slayers, you're not trying to gain an advantage over them (because you'll always have a better account than them) but rather your fellow rankers. You want to keep more of your gold than another person's 300k tff account so that you'll outrank/outvalue them. It certainly will benefit you assuming the other guy isn't doing the same thing. But of course, he is, because he went through the same train of thought you did. So the rules you impose aren't helping you surpass him. You'll have a higher account value in the end, but your value in relation to the other guy will be the same, thus your rank in relation to him will also be the same. The only ground you gain is on slayers and noobs, who you were already ahead of anyway. See my point?

It's analogous to a race. You discover a dirty (but legal) way of improving your performance at the expense of the enjoyment of racers much slower than yourself. The only catch is that all the faster racers who were in contention with you before get to do the same thing. So of course, they do it, and things are back to where they started. Except now you've screwed over the slower racers, and unnecessarily so, because you gained nothing in relation to those who can actually compete with you. All you've done is made things less fun for a group of people who don't matter to you.


I think what they ought to do is just cap the amount of times you can bank per day. Then people wouldn't freak out about losing a few turns of gold because it would be expected, and furthermore is would eliminate the social and physical unhealthiness of playing an online game ~20 hours a day. And it would get rid of those nasty remote bankers. Then just adjust attack turns accordingly so slayers will make around the same amount they were before rather than taking over the game cuz of all the loose gold floating around (either less attack turns, or a lower % steal per turn).

ZAR
13th February 2010, 07:05 PM
Paradiso, I have no clue what you are arguing about - what do you want, no battlefield policies at all and everyone does what he wants?
If you have a problem with any special parts of battlefield policies, name them, you write and write and write and no one gets what you want exactly.

Seneca
13th February 2010, 07:23 PM
@ Paradiso

You're forgetting one thing. if both rankers have 120 turns policy instead of 60 turns policy, they both get to sleep twice as much without waking up, thus, /win

Paradiso
14th February 2010, 04:44 AM
Paradiso, I have no clue what you are arguing about - what do you want, no battlefield policies at all and everyone does what he wants?

Yes. Is it really that crazy of an idea to let things play out as they were designed to? Slayers get a certain amount of turns. They either use them wisely or unwisely. If they do so wisely, they'll make good hits. If not, they'll waste them and not be an effective slayer. Their SA won't keep up with your DA and you won't have to worry about them.

Obviously for aggressive actions like massing you should sab. But just for playing the game as it was built to be played? I have a real problem with that.


If you have a problem with any special parts of battlefield policies, name them, you write and write and write and no one gets what you want exactly.


Let's start with farming



Situation 1: Player X hits you once for good gold, Player Y hits you once for good gold
Situation 2: Player Z hits you twice for good gold


The impact on the ranker is exactly the same in both cases. Two good hits were made on him. Why does it matter who made them?


@ Paradiso

You're forgetting one thing. if both rankers have 120 turns policy instead of 60 turns policy, they both get to sleep twice as much without waking up, thus, /win

Why stop at 120? If it was 240, we'd get even more sleep. 480? Even better. Heck, let's just tell people they can't hit us at all.

Maz
14th February 2010, 05:47 AM
Actually, I agree with Paradiso. It might even be better if one person steals your gold.

The way your rank is affected is that someone else gets higher rank by stealing your gold. Thinking that way, it's better that 1 person gets the gold instead of different people. So it actually benefits you if one person farms you rather than different people. Sure, that one person will get a lot of gold thus increasing his rank a lot but still. :)

Pauly_D
14th February 2010, 05:57 AM
Actually, I agree with Paradiso. It might even be better if one person steals your gold.

The way your rank is affected is that someone else gets higher rank by stealing your gold. Thinking that way, it's better that 1 person gets the gold instead of different people. So it actually benefits you if one person farms you rather than different people. Sure, that one person will get a lot of gold thus increasing his rank a lot but still. :)

that was a pointless post and you missed what Paradiso was saying, he was saying it doesnt matter if 2 people hit you once or if 1 person hits you twice, you still lose the same amount of gold.

Maz
14th February 2010, 07:51 AM
that was a pointless post and you missed what Paradiso was saying, he was saying it doesnt matter if 2 people hit you once or if 1 person hits you twice, you still lose the same amount of gold.

No it wasn't really pointless. I was just explaining from a different angle.

When you get hit, it affects your rank in two different ways. First one is that you lose gold which means less weapons bought by you to up your stats. The second one is that the person who hit you will increase his/her stats/rank which means your rank will decrease.

Just like Paradiso said it doesn't matter if one person hits you twice or two persons it you once each, you still lose the same amount of gold and it will affect your rank in the first way I explained. However, here is when my point comes in. The person that hits you will increase his rank, which means yours will decrease, and by that it's better that one person hits you twice than 2 persons hits you once each. Because the gold will only go to one person instead of two different. And it's true that if it were two different people the gold they stole each would be less and affect theirs and your rank less, but still it does make a difference.

Maybe I just didn't explain it good enough in my previous post.

ZAR
14th February 2010, 08:17 AM
Yes. Is it really that crazy of an idea to let things play out as they were designed to? Slayers get a certain amount of turns. They either use them wisely or unwisely. If they do so wisely, they'll make good hits. If not, they'll waste them and not be an effective slayer. Their SA won't keep up with your DA and you won't have to worry about them.

Obviously for aggressive actions like massing you should sab. But just for playing the game as it was built to be played? I have a real problem with that.

The design of the game has alliances and sabbing also in it, so why shouldnīt alliances sab? Especially since I get more XP with that?

And I have np spending my turns, I am pretty sure you suck at slaying and cry that other people also use the hardcoded options they have.



Let's start with farming



Situation 1: Player X hits you once for good gold, Player Y hits you once for good gold
Situation 2: Player Z hits you twice for good gold


The impact on the ranker is exactly the same in both cases. Two good hits were made on him. Why does it matter who made them?



Why stop at 120? If it was 240, we'd get even more sleep. 480? Even better. Heck, let's just tell people they can't hit us at all.
This lowhit-stuff also damages your DA more and kills or mercs ... but then, who are you to decide how a none-slaying account feels about beeing slayed and who are you to tell them what to do? Farm, raid, sab them or follow the rules ... it is simple as that.

blazed420
14th February 2010, 09:03 AM
And I have np spending my turns, I am pretty sure you suck at slaying and cry that other people also use the hardcoded options they have.

Why is it that almost every post you make, you end up flaming someone? Paradiso is just trying to have a legit discussion with you in the BF Rules Discussion thread, and you resort to insults.

ZAR
14th February 2010, 10:00 AM
Yes you are right blazed.

Sorry Paradiso!

I say slaying is possible tho - if you are not successful you should learn to do it (like banking, ranking, sabbing ...).

Semper.Fidelis
14th February 2010, 11:15 AM
Rules that protect your members from being chained, massed and unprovokedly sabbed are fine. Rules to dictate a slayer how often and for what to hit have always been and will always be pathetic. They just show most rankers are to lazy to bank properly and have shitty stats for their tff.
The game mechanics imply that buying DA and sentry enables you to hold more gold, meaning having to bank less often. But till you have those stats you do need to bank every 10-30 mins or you get shit hit all the time.

The game mechanics clearly are not intended to be abused the way they were the last couple of ages which is precisely why sab cap and turn increase and 1-min turns were introduced among other things to limit this abuse.

Ofc you can sell all your DA for morale but if you're to lazy to bank while you're naked you get hit for lame gold, cause your 10 mins of tbg are 5hrs for someone else.

There is no argument to support a x hits per bla policy as paradiso already pointed out and low hits are only possible if you're lazy. Bank proberly and the slayers wasting their turns on crap hits won't be able to keep up with you, that's the way the game mechanics are obviously intended to work.

ZAR
14th February 2010, 11:29 AM
Believe it or not, the game is a Sandbox with offensive and defensive stats and a communitypromoting way to increase power and people use it like that with all their different playstyles.

Semper.Fidelis
14th February 2010, 11:53 AM
I remember, I was there before sabbing was introduced and before lame images and recruiters were introduced and before everyone was constantly crying about something...

ZAR
14th February 2010, 11:56 AM
Yes, I was there in Age 1 as well and we massed everyone down to crap that didnīt follow our rules :P

blazed420
14th February 2010, 12:14 PM
Yeah back then were some fun times. Now its all about tears and complaining... what happened? :(

SleepingDragon
15th February 2010, 05:55 AM
Yeah back then were some fun times. Now its all about tears and complaining... what happened? :(

I've tried everything short of "unprovoked" sabbing to provoke a reaction out of different major alliance members. No messages or morale requests. I'll bet no one has been approved anywhere because if I haven't been at least "warned" for my actions, then no one is manning the BF-policy ship anywhere. :(

cowboy_from_hell
15th February 2010, 05:57 AM
Or you did that to people who don't really care?

SleepingDragon
15th February 2010, 07:08 AM
Or you did that to people who don't really care?

I tried to keep it within the first 300 ranks, which I figured would care a little bit.

Can you tell me who DOES care or is approving people? I'm just not seeing it anywhere :tongue:

LordCounter
15th February 2010, 07:35 AM
it is indeed hard to get approved this age

JHC_fs
15th February 2010, 10:59 AM
is it lordcounta.....;)

AxEHeaD15
15th February 2010, 04:03 PM
It is isn't it LC? After our BF discussion in BL room, I would be surprised if anyone anywhere gets approved or wars. Especially with most of SW banned/suspended :p They were the ones that started everything after all. CTM and BL have been rather quiet this age, ofc with everyone getting banned/suspended, the trouble makers are notrly around to cause any issues.

I am sure that being the beginning of the age still has an effect on whether or not people get approved. Most people that don't follow the bf rules are newbies that don't know about them. Those are unsabbable anyway, so notrly worth approving.

-AxE

Phantomis
15th February 2010, 11:17 PM
then let's all hug?

Seneca
15th February 2010, 11:43 PM
It is isn't it LC? After our BF discussion in BL room, I would be surprised if anyone anywhere gets approved or wars. Especially with most of SW banned/suspended :p They were the ones that started everything after all. CTM and BL have been rather quiet this age, ofc with everyone getting banned/suspended, the trouble makers are notrly around to cause any issues.

I am sure that being the beginning of the age still has an effect on whether or not people get approved. Most people that don't follow the bf rules are newbies that don't know about them. Those are unsabbable anyway, so notrly worth approving.

-AxE

I hope I can get approved by MK soon, I already 10x'd some guys but I never got approved I think :(

ZAR
16th February 2010, 05:53 AM
I hope I can get approved by MK soon, I already 10x'd some guys but I never got approved I think :(

Thats because they hate you :(

Seneca
16th February 2010, 06:32 AM
Thats because they hate you :(

No way Axe loves me :(

ZAR
16th February 2010, 06:55 AM
No way Axe loves me :(

Thats because AxE is full of love, they lured him to the dark side tho ... with cookies (low carb tho, as his wife said he needs to shape up a bit :D )!!

ThomasA
16th February 2010, 07:35 AM
Lets get back on topic of BF policy discussion.

AxEHeaD15
16th February 2010, 03:01 PM
No one bothered to report you Seneca, and yes I do <3 you.

And Thomasa I was enjoying the off topic loving of the AxE :p

Srsly though, has any alliance had anyone approved yet? I think we had 1 or 2, but now people are getting real value.

-AxE

Screwdriver_LaCN
17th February 2010, 07:43 AM
We have approved targets xD But I guess it is because we have constant fans who break all kind of BF rules any Alliance would have every single age xD

Merv_LaCN`
18th February 2010, 07:32 AM
We have finished the major part of our BF-rules.
They are now up to a Family-wide vote, that will close tomorrow.

LordCounter
18th February 2010, 09:10 AM
We have approved targets xD But I guess it is because we have constant fans who break all kind of BF rules any Alliance would have every single age xD

yet you are the only ones that approve! im constantly being bullied by lacn

Lopina
18th February 2010, 12:22 PM
LC, how bout you do a little experiment.

Why dont you try attacking a few people from other chains with 5 attacks in a row.
I wonder if you'll be approved of farming ;)

LordCounter
18th February 2010, 05:02 PM
LC, how bout you do a little experiment.

Why dont you try attacking a few people from other chains with 5 attacks in a row.
I wonder if you'll be approved of farming ;)

i attack 5 times cause its impossible to follow your BF policy so i might as well break it a bit more, getting sabbed anyway. and i kinda like your approval PMs. 'contract' and so on. great.

impossible BF policy = bullying
http://www.giveupalready.com/showpost.php?p=1332785&postcount=52
and you still havent replied my question!

SleepingDragon
18th February 2010, 05:06 PM
i attack 5 times cause its impossible to follow your BF policy so i might as well break it a bit more, getting sabbed anyway. and i kinda like your approval PMs. 'contract' and so on. great.

I also like how Lopina thinks everyone is jealous of him and uses it as part of the "approval" process. It's cute. :rambo:

Lopina
18th February 2010, 11:59 PM
i attack 5 times cause its impossible to follow your BF policy so i might as well break it a bit more, getting sabbed anyway. and i kinda like your approval PMs. 'contract' and so on. great.

impossible BF policy = bullying
http://www.giveupalready.com/showpost.php?p=1332785&postcount=52
and you still havent replied my question!


7 hours ago LordCounter attack 3,032,102 Gold stolen 75 34 177,620,138 163,016,423
7 hours ago LordCounter attack Attack defended 54 22 160,906,885 166,825,958
7 hours ago LordCounter attack Attack defended 62 18 139,767,947 195,908,311
7 hours ago LordCounter raid Attack defended 84 34 151,111,066 155,271,213

I think this says enough :)

475 turns for 3M

Cmon, LC, I know you know better, and still don't understand why you do things like this.

chaser1
19th February 2010, 01:05 AM
yet you are the only ones that approve! im constantly being bullied by lacn

LoL! really? I think you have been approved every age for being just stupid when it comes to rules. You know you are going to get sabbed by us, so why are you griping? You end up fighting us every age so quit griping and get to fighing. It's the point of the game, right? Or did your values that you've learned in the past fade away?

scrse my typing, im half blind here. Had eye surgery last friday.

Screwdriver_LaCN
19th February 2010, 01:50 AM
Here is what actually is LC trying to say:
"Oh Noo :( I do 4-5 hits in a row until I get some gold (actually lame amount), I raid others after I stole their gold and when they sab me I mass or sab everyone I can...LaCN are real Bullies why they cant leave me mass/farm them without bothering me :( :CryeMeARiver:"

powdered_donuts
19th February 2010, 03:37 AM
This is something I fail to understand.

General KOC rule, Sab = Sab. It wasn't too long ago there was still AA's and people had that in their AA.

Now I had this long chat with Screw and it seems the the general koc rule has strayed away from this.

Now I guess it's okay to sab someone for minimal reason and it doesn't get approved so long as you only sab a certain ammount?, like the chain won't back you up for it? I guess it's like this in LaCN, SR, RF, TFE, and others now.

Will someone please fill me in on when people stopped sabbing people for sabbing them? I'm so lost.

Lopina
19th February 2010, 04:45 AM
things change, pal...

conflag
19th February 2010, 06:57 AM
All of lacn are spineless. If they get sabbed for any reason, they run to mom and dad and get the family to sab. Never fight their battle one on one. NEVER. Always approved for some BS faux rule. That is why that crap clan is called bullies all the time. pussies is more like it.

And the mere thought that someone would sit idle when a clan is sabbing them for 24 hours and not retaliate is ri-goddamn-diculous. Not gonna happen. I sab back when I am sabbed. hence, I am always on their shit list so I make damn sure I am on there for a good reason according to our chain 'rules'.

Here is the pussy request this time:
http://www.lacnfamily.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46438&page=1

-lame

:badger:

LordCounter
19th February 2010, 07:38 AM
Here is what actually is LC trying to say:
"Oh Noo :( I do 4-5 hits in a row until I get some gold (actually lame amount), I raid others after I stole their gold and when they sab me I mass or sab everyone I can...LaCN are real Bullies why they cant leave me mass/farm them without bothering me :( :CryeMeARiver:"

no this is unfair, just because im not as cool as you guys and dont have a tattoo of my koc alliance on my arm i get treated like shit. now you've approved my dear officer for bs reasons its pure bullying. and you are the only alliance in all of koc that has approved me.

to prove lacn's BF policy is wrong ill show you the PMs!
Screwdriver_LaCN Hello 7 hours ago



Hey LordCounter,

This was done from you on Chaser1:

2 hours ago LordCounter raid 551,599 Gold stolen 14 9 224,744,085 183,956,008
2 hours ago LordCounter raid Attack defended 18 9 171,175,959 194,168,086
2 days ago LordCounter attack 6,463,804 Gold stolen 10 12 186,611,924 121,171,449
2 days ago LordCounter raid 1,595,891 Gold stolen 17 17 157,550,134 123,776,912
3 days ago LordCounter attack 9,902,996 Gold stolen 29 6 166,272,267 110,901,179
3 days ago LordCounter raid 1,343,473 Gold stolen 33 6 180,779,023 133,933,721

And you still expect compensation and the actions to be stopped???Get a life!Every single chain out there would approve you for retailation!When you stop retailating we can talk about stopping the actions on you.

Screwdriver_LaCN
Loyal Member of LaCN
BF Mod
==

see, i should get a life and this is the funniest part
"When you stop retailating we can talk about stopping the actions on you."
now ive send a message to lacn about that and they refuse to reply.
Screwdriver_LaCN None 15 hours ago yes

Lies. i was provoked and merely retaliating. its a massive injustice that im being sabbed for retaliating. if someone hits you in the face do you wait 24 hours to hit him or do you -being lacn- bítch slap him back right away?

i demand 150mil compensation minus my hits ofc. so thats close to 3mil gold.
if i dont get 3mil gold i will continue to mass.

-LordCounter-
Loyal Member of DT
Loyal Member of BSS
Loyal Member of CTM
Loyal Member of TFE
Loyal Member of LGC
Loyal Member of NR
Loyal Member of DH
Citizen of the Glorious Kingdom of the Netherlands
Being on the Internet.

lacn's BF policy is just there to bully the harmless, peaceful slayers like me and if you retaliate they go after your officers.

xjghost
19th February 2010, 07:44 AM
I'll have to admit it LC your "peaceful slaying" this age has impressed me. Never would I have thought you could give up the "renegade sab game" but alas you have!

Screwdriver_LaCN
19th February 2010, 08:04 AM
All of lacn are spineless. If they get sabbed for any reason, they run to mom and dad and get the family to sab. Never fight their battle one on one. NEVER. Always approved for some BS faux rule. That is why that crap clan is called bullies all the time. pussies is more like it.

And the mere thought that someone would sit idle when a clan is sabbing them for 24 hours and not retaliate is ri-goddamn-diculous. Not gonna happen. I sab back when I am sabbed. hence, I am always on their shit list so I make damn sure I am on there for a good reason according to our chain 'rules'.

Here is the pussy request this time:
http://www.lacnfamily.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46438&page=1

-lame

:badger:
OMG, Conflag you still havent ignored everyone from LaCN???Impressive :D
And you did a lot more shit before!I missed to copy the other replies of HoJ where you are farming him constantly :)
Now go check the public contract and I hope others will check it too to see how "BS" is the reason for appoving you ;)
All the time when I see you or LC to complain about our BF policy this smiley appears in my mind:
:rofl:
I am sure it appears in a lot of other player's mind :D

chaser1
19th February 2010, 08:14 AM
Lies. i was provoked and merely retaliating. its a massive injustice that im being sabbed for retaliating. if someone hits you in the face do you wait 24 hours to hit him or do you -being lacn- bítch slap him back right away?

lacn's BF policy is just there to bully the harmless, peaceful slayers like me and if you retaliate they go after your officers.

I hardly call you peaceful when you blow 625 turns to steal 8 m gold, its rather obnoxious. Also, is someone, physically there, punching you in the face for 24 hours or are you just getting sabbed in a text-turn based game for 24 hours? I do see a distinct difference there.

conflag
19th February 2010, 08:32 AM
OMG, Conflag you still havent ignored everyone from LaCN???Impressive :D
And you did a lot more shit before!I missed to copy the other replies of HoJ where you are farming him constantly :)
Now go check the public contract and I hope others will check it too to see how "BS" is the reason for appoving you ;)
All the time when I see you or LC to complain about our BF policy this smiley appears in my mind:
:rofl:
I am sure it appears in a lot of other player's mind :D

I am not complaining. I am telling it like it is. you are all pussies that cannot fight a single battle by yourselves. That makes a smiley pop in my mind. Just letting you know that this player is not intimidated by pussies like HoJ that whine to daddy for help after a single sab event. "Whaaaa, daddy, he sabbed me!" Don't like it? stay outta my logs, lamer.

double smiley.


Oh, and you are all on ignore due to excessive whining. triple smiley

LordCounter
19th February 2010, 08:42 AM
I hardly call you peaceful when you blow 625 turns to steal 8 m gold, its rather obnoxious. Also, is someone, physically there, punching you in the face for 24 hours or are you just getting sabbed in a text-turn based game for 24 hours? I do see a distinct difference there.

see another shameless lie without posting the facts or logs, typical lacn.
now, what really happend in 10 easy steps for lacn:
1: sassy reconning saying chaser has moneys
2: me probing cause you can never be to sure even though the recon is a few seconds old
3: me winning the probe
50 minutes ago Chaser1 1,550,870 Gold stolen 5 8 176,406,259 212,679,987
4: me probing again cause if DA is close and you probe and win the attack the next attack is usually defended
5: im right
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 5 12 201,418,519 160,423,313
6: i hit with 150 turns now to get his moneys
7: i get defended again dammit
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 9 19 186,048,941 156,768,354
8: i really need his gold so i hit again
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 12 20 188,877,870 187,346,130
9: dammit i get defended again so one more try cause i need his gold
10: 50 minutes ago Chaser1 8,037,835 Gold stolen 8 12 181,395,485 197,239,370
bingo

now someone please tell me how this is against koc rules or any other rule considering it are my turns being wasted by that damn koc admin guy that keeps changing the damn formula or something cause i keep getting defended.

Lopina
19th February 2010, 08:44 AM
see another shameless lie without posting the facts or logs, typical lacn.
now, what really happend in 10 easy steps for lacn:
1: sassy reconning saying chaser has moneys
2: me probing cause you can never be to sure even though the recon is a few seconds old
3: me winning the probe
50 minutes ago Chaser1 1,550,870 Gold stolen 5 8 176,406,259 212,679,987
4: me probing again cause if DA is close and you probe and win the attack the next attack is usually defended
5: im right
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 5 12 201,418,519 160,423,313
6: i hit with 150 turns now to get his moneys
7: i get defended again dammit
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 9 19 186,048,941 156,768,354
8: i really need his gold so i hit again
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 12 20 188,877,870 187,346,130
9: dammit i get defended again so one more try cause i need his gold
10: 50 minutes ago Chaser1 8,037,835 Gold stolen 8 12 181,395,485 197,239,370
bingo

now someone please tell me how this is against koc rules or any other rule considering it are my turns being wasted by that damn koc admin guy that keeps changing the damn formula or something cause i keep getting defended.

LC, noone is saying this is agains KoC rules.

We're merely implying that you need better turns management ;)

LordCounter
19th February 2010, 08:47 AM
LC, noone is saying this is agains KoC rules.

We're merely implying that you need better turns management ;)

oh so now lacn is gonna tell people how to use their turns. do you want my login too? saves a lot of time

ZAR
19th February 2010, 09:40 AM
Going by breach of BF-rules and how they deal with us I would say this Age the biggest problems come from:

1. SR
2. tS
3. FF
...
...
...
8-10: LaCN, MK, TFF, LGC etc ...

So I am not exactly sure why all the LaCN flaming happens here - there are other alliances obviously doing a worse job.

Screwdriver_LaCN
19th February 2010, 10:28 AM
I am not complaining. I am telling it like it is. you are all pussies that cannot fight a single battle by yourselves. That makes a smiley pop in my mind. Just letting you know that this player is not intimidated by pussies like HoJ that whine to daddy for help after a single sab event. "Whaaaa, daddy, he sabbed me!" Don't like it? stay outta my logs, lamer.

double smiley.


Oh, and you are all on ignore due to excessive whining. triple smiley

How to fight with an account which is almost unsabable or already maxed and massing doesnt hurt much???

jog1
19th February 2010, 10:32 AM
Going by breach of BF-rules and how they deal with us I would say this Age the biggest problems come from:

1. SR
2. tS
3. FF
...
...
...
8-10: LaCN, MK, TFF, LGC etc ...

So I am not exactly sure why all the LaCN flaming happens here - there are other alliances obviously doing a worse job.

If you think SR is so badass I guess I'll have to aprove RF accounts next time they farm me. I guess adapting to your bf policies is not enough for you guys.

ZAR
19th February 2010, 10:36 AM
If you think SR is so badass I guess I'll have to aprove RF accounts next time they farm me. I guess adapting to your bf policies is not enough for you guys.

A bf policy doesnīt consist of farming only, there is other stuff - like recruiting in RF chain.

chaser1
19th February 2010, 10:39 AM
see another shameless lie without posting the facts or logs, typical lacn.
now, what really happend in 10 easy steps for lacn:
1: sassy reconning saying chaser has moneys
2: me probing cause you can never be to sure even though the recon is a few seconds old
3: me winning the probe
50 minutes ago Chaser1 1,550,870 Gold stolen 5 8 176,406,259 212,679,987
4: me probing again cause if DA is close and you probe and win the attack the next attack is usually defended
5: im right
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 5 12 201,418,519 160,423,313
6: i hit with 150 turns now to get his moneys
7: i get defended again dammit
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 9 19 186,048,941 156,768,354
8: i really need his gold so i hit again
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 12 20 188,877,870 187,346,130
9: dammit i get defended again so one more try cause i need his gold
10: 50 minutes ago Chaser1 8,037,835 Gold stolen 8 12 181,395,485 197,239,370
bingo

now someone please tell me how this is against koc rules or any other rule considering it are my turns being wasted by that damn koc admin guy that keeps changing the damn formula or something cause i keep getting defended.

LoL! Your logic is awesome. I don't think I need to say more. I'm actually smiling at your post LC. It was like watching a field surgeon, in action, having a tourette's episode. Also, he has bad, explosive diarrhea.

DrunKnGoblin
19th February 2010, 11:34 AM
see another shameless lie without posting the facts or logs, typical lacn.
now, what really happend in 10 easy steps for lacn:
1: sassy reconning saying chaser has moneys
2: me probing cause you can never be to sure even though the recon is a few seconds old
3: me winning the probe
50 minutes ago Chaser1 1,550,870 Gold stolen 5 8 176,406,259 212,679,987
4: me probing again cause if DA is close and you probe and win the attack the next attack is usually defended
5: im right
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 5 12 201,418,519 160,423,313
6: i hit with 150 turns now to get his moneys
7: i get defended again dammit
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 9 19 186,048,941 156,768,354
8: i really need his gold so i hit again
50 minutes ago Chaser1 Attack defended 12 20 188,877,870 187,346,130
9: dammit i get defended again so one more try cause i need his gold
10: 50 minutes ago Chaser1 8,037,835 Gold stolen 8 12 181,395,485 197,239,370
bingo

now someone please tell me how this is against koc rules or any other rule considering it are my turns being wasted by that damn koc admin guy that keeps changing the damn formula or something cause i keep getting defended.

Well they give you 10 attacks a day, i figure why not use them. Running to alliance for approval, ???? what ever happened to 1v1, or 1(offys)v1(offys)?

LordCounter
19th February 2010, 11:52 AM
LoL! Your logic is awesome. I don't think I need to say more. I'm actually smiling at your post LC. It was like watching a field surgeon, in action, having a tourette's episode. Also, he has bad, explosive diarrhea.

please use direct answers to my questions or statements only, dont dodge the question by talking about field surgeons, even though i could easily be one with my immense intelligence.

and ZAR, how about you *** on my ***. how dare you talking back at me. LaCN has the worst BF policy, end of story.

To end this discussion we of BL and CTM have decided to present our BF policy as well and everyone has to respect it.
well we will present it soon.

ThomasA
19th February 2010, 12:01 PM
lordcounter is right there are no koc rules preventing his playing style, though likewise there are no koc rules preventing lacn from their playing style either.

On a more serious note tone down the banter before it goes too far.

chaser1
19th February 2010, 12:35 PM
please use direct answers to my questions or statements only, dont dodge the question by talking about field surgeons, even though i could easily be one with my immense intelligence.

and ZAR, how about you *** on my ***. how dare you talking back at me. LaCN has the worst BF policy, end of story.

To end this discussion we of BL and CTM have decided to present our BF policy as well and everyone has to respect it.
well we will present it soon.

I didn't see a question in your last post. Please restate, oh my genius, mad explosive diarrhettic, spastic field surgeon. I'd be happy to provide an answer.

LittleMonster
19th February 2010, 01:39 PM
How am I not surprised to see HoJ mentioned in the BF thread...oh wait, maybe because he lied about one of our members sabbing him to try to get us approved. Dont beleive me? Ask him yourself, FN_zMonkey has the PM where he admits it. What a user.

Fusion's BF policy is, you anger us, you pay the price. You anger us by any hostile actions. If you farm me, i dont care. I am not there to take the gold. If i think their is a hostile act involved, you get added and we all go after you. We are not afraid to sab everyone and anyone. That is why we play. What is more satisfying at the end of the day, righting an injustice, or worrying about your armory?

sirlapins
19th February 2010, 05:48 PM
haveing been farm by 2 SR i wait and see

ZAR
19th February 2010, 06:30 PM
please use direct answers to my questions or statements only, dont dodge the question by talking about field surgeons, even though i could easily be one with my immense intelligence.

and ZAR, how about you *** on my ***. how dare you talking back at me. LaCN has the worst BF policy, end of story.

To end this discussion we of BL and CTM have decided to present our BF policy as well and everyone has to respect it.
well we will present it soon.
No thanx; I am just pointing out the obvious :)

Sterling
20th February 2010, 12:18 AM
tS has one of the worst BF policies this age but fortunately their alliance and chain is in ruins so they won't be able to do anything. Likewise, to the guy being bullied by SL for "being rude", they are also very weak and can be destroyed by any alliance.

I agree with LordCounter and DrunKnGoblin: what ever happened to 1-on-1...??

Screwdriver_LaCN
20th February 2010, 12:37 AM
How am I not surprised to see HoJ mentioned in the BF thread...oh wait, maybe because he lied about one of our members sabbing him to try to get us approved. Dont beleive me? Ask him yourself, FN_zMonkey has the PM where he admits it. What a user.

Fusion's BF policy is, you anger us, you pay the price. You anger us by any hostile actions. If you farm me, i dont care. I am not there to take the gold. If i think their is a hostile act involved, you get added and we all go after you. We are not afraid to sab everyone and anyone. That is why we play. What is more satisfying at the end of the day, righting an injustice, or worrying about your armory?

hahaha Hoj was upset he had sabotage attempts on him so he wanted to believe it was successfull :D I told him I have the logs he asked for screenshots.Anyways your guy sabbed him to show him he didnt sab him successfully in the first attempt, then he sabbed him for sending messages.I know those messages were rude and I explained it to him so now he behaves :P But excuse I dindt understand why you and FN monkey sabbed him while he didnt sab you, just Se7en (Actually se7en did it on his own even HoJ didnt know :/)

@ThomasA:There are no rules in the home page/game rules but people created those rules long time ago.What LC does is breaking all kind of rules and every single alliance with BF policy would approve him for his actions except the alliances which are fans of LC i.e. trying to be badass excuse me BadLordCounters =D

ThomasA
20th February 2010, 06:18 AM
@ThomasA:There are no rules in the home page/game rules but people created those rules long time ago.What LC does is breaking all kind of rules and every single alliance with BF policy would approve him for his actions except the alliances which are fans of LC i.e. trying to be badass excuse me BadLordCounters =D

I think you missed the point I was trying to make by only reading the first half of the sentence.

What is fair, right, best for the game etc are different matters to what I was referring to.

LittleMonster
20th February 2010, 07:48 AM
I dindt understand why you and FN monkey sabbed him while he didnt sab you, just Se7en (Actually se7en did it on his own even HoJ didnt know :/)

Logs and screenshots are easy to fake, providing them is worthless. I got a PM to sab HoJ so I did, no questions asked. Not sure what started it but afterward was made aware of the nasty PMs HoJ sent. Never heard why there was sabbing in the first place.

Se7en got ghosted for over 4 times what i lost so i didnt even bother retaliating. I am defintly not gonna cry over a couple mill worth of sabbed weapons. Se7en may have not followed LaCN BF policy by going rogue but at least he was standing up for his "friend".

Screwdriver_LaCN
20th February 2010, 08:52 AM
Logs and screenshots are easy to fake, providing them is worthless. I got a PM to sab HoJ so I did, no questions asked. Not sure what started it but afterward was made aware of the nasty PMs HoJ sent. Never heard why there was sabbing in the first place.

Se7en got ghosted for over 4 times what i lost so i didnt even bother retaliating. I am defintly not gonna cry over a couple mill worth of sabbed weapons. Se7en may have not followed LaCN BF policy by going rogue but at least he was standing up for his "friend".

WoW...who will waste his time to fake screenshots???I guess there are such people but...weird ;)

AxEHeaD15
20th February 2010, 08:58 AM
Going by breach of BF-rules and how they deal with us I would say this Age the biggest problems come from:

1. SR
2. tS
3. FF
...
...
...
8-10: LaCN, MK, TFF, LGC etc ...

So I am not exactly sure why all the LaCN flaming happens here - there are other alliances obviously doing a worse job.

MK listed in top 10 problem alliances? We have one of the loosest BF policies around!

I eagerly await BL/CTM policy LC <3

-AxE

LittleMonster
20th February 2010, 09:05 AM
WoW...who will waste his time to fake screenshots???I guess there are such people but...weird

LoL, the mods took the teeth out of my last post. Have you ever used paint? You can use paint and it would only take 2 seconds, especially sab logs. All you do is use the Select option to combine two differnt sabs. I just edited your last post in 2 seconds. I would have posted a fake sab log with you sabbing me but dont have access to KoC at the moment:

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m148/busybusi/Paint11.jpg

ZAR
20th February 2010, 06:26 PM
MK listed in top 10 problem alliances? We have one of the loosest BF policies around!

I eagerly await BL/CTM policy LC <3

-AxE

I with that I tried to list all alliances, you get the picture :)

Truewind
21st February 2010, 05:54 PM
BF policies, especially strict ones, are a joke.

No one has time to check for low gold, calculating exactly how much someone makes per turn and ensuring it's adequate with that person's BF policy before attacking for 10 million gold.

If you honestly slayed that way you'd never catch some of the bigger gold steals and you'd definitely be wasting a ton of time.

~~~~~~

If only 3 alliances existed, maybe that would be possible, but we have too many Alliances in KOC and each end up creating contradictory policies with the others.

Someone in our Alliance listed like 10 or more BF policies in a thread to make it easier for us to find when slaying, but who actually has time to check every person's different BF policy before attacking them?

~~~~~~~~~

What I propose

The answer is simple, use common sense to slay fairly. If you can make the case that you were being fair and the other party wasn't, then your alliance will back you up.

As a rule of thumb, don't attack someone more than twice a day and for 1 week straight.

If you don't consider raids/defends to be offensive and rude, then you'll probably be chained before you know it.

In the case of defends, always send a letter explaining why it happened, especially if it was accidental.

Use your Alliances BF policy to know when sabbing is acceptable.

Screwdriver_LaCN
22nd February 2010, 12:07 AM
LoL, the mods took the teeth out of my last post. Have you ever used paint? You can use paint and it would only take 2 seconds, especially sab logs. All you do is use the Select option to combine two differnt sabs. I just edited your last post in 2 seconds. I would have posted a fake sab log with you sabbing me but dont have access to KoC at the moment:

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m148/busybusi/Paint11.jpg

My point was that it will be a bit difficult to change the intel logs screen from Recon to Sabotage :/ or from Sabotage to Recon xD

Gohon
23rd February 2010, 06:10 AM
BF policies, especially strict ones, are a joke.

No one has time to check for low gold, calculating exactly how much someone makes per turn and ensuring it's adequate with that person's BF policy before attacking for 10 million gold.

If you honestly slayed that way you'd never catch some of the bigger gold steals and you'd definitely be wasting a ton of time.

~~~~~~

If only 3 alliances existed, maybe that would be possible, but we have too many Alliances in KOC and each end up creating contradictory policies with the others.

Someone in our Alliance listed like 10 or more BF policies in a thread to make it easier for us to find when slaying, but who actually has time to check every person's different BF policy before attacking them?

~~~~~~~~~

What I propose

The answer is simple, use common sense to slay fairly. If you can make the case that you were being fair and the other party wasn't, then your alliance will back you up.

As a rule of thumb, don't attack someone more than twice a day and for 1 week straight.

If you don't consider raids/defends to be offensive and rude, then you'll probably be chained before you know it.

In the case of defends, always send a letter explaining why it happened, especially if it was accidental.

Use your Alliances BF policy to know when sabbing is acceptable.


Argeed

Also i would like to add that if you earn 10mil from turns every hour then you should have defence and sentry stats worthy of holding such a large amount.
If your defence is poor and everyone can see it then you should not be pissed when someone attacks you for 5 mil.

ZAR
23rd February 2010, 08:35 AM
Argeed

Also i would like to add that if you earn 10mil from turns every hour then you should have defence and sentry stats worthy of holding such a large amount.
If your defence is poor and everyone can see it then you should not be pissed when someone attacks you for 5 mil.
I agree 100% BUT if I have the spy to sab you, I will do it - so if you have an aat you should consider that a spyrating can also protect gold :)

blazed420
23rd February 2010, 08:41 AM
I agree 100% BUT if I have the spy to sab you, I will do it - so if you have an aat you should consider that a spyrating can also protect gold :)

You may be approved by some alliance who considers that "unprovoked" though... unless that's all changed? Haven't been paying much attention lately heh.

ZAR
23rd February 2010, 09:02 AM
Well if you run around and sab all your logs you will get approved for sure, if you sab lowhits - like hits 20 minutes worth I donīt see any alliance approving this.

Gohon
23rd February 2010, 01:39 PM
It just annoys me that people can have a large tff and a low defence and sentry. And then justify asking for morale with their BF policy.

for instants, i try to make the most of my turns and attack everyone i can see for the most amount of money i can get. So at the moment i hit everyone i see with over 6.5mil which means i steal on average at least 5.5mil. Why should i not hit a player because his stats are bad??????

BF policy needs more common sense

jog1
23rd February 2010, 01:59 PM
Low hits should be allowed imo.

Let the slayers hit for whatever they want, if you don't want noobs to hit you just buy more DA.

So ya I think low hit should be removed from all bf policies.

Dunno why the farming rule was reduced to 1/12hours.

I think farming should stay 1/24 hours and low hits should be allowed, it would make a lot more sence imo

Semper.Fidelis
23rd February 2010, 02:08 PM
From a slayers pov it is idiotic to steal 6,5m from a target when the guy holds 10m 1/3rd of the day. But those are the slayers turns to waste. And the da whore will outgrow those idiots wasting their turns if he banks frequently. If he doesn't that's his fault not the slayers.

1/12 or 1/24 doesn't matter both are stupid. Don't want to be farmed, bank it's as simple as that. Too many people seem to think KoC is mainly about being able to identify some shitty image and press the corresponding key at a remarkable speed 1 hr a day and not bother with anything else.

On a sidenote seeing as a slayer's main source of income are steals and a Da-whore's is tbg how about the BF policy regard banking more then 50% of your tbg per day an approvable offense from now on? Same principle applies.

ZAR
24th February 2010, 06:29 AM
It just annoys me that people can have a large tff and a low defence and sentry. And then justify asking for morale with their BF policy.

for instants, i try to make the most of my turns and attack everyone i can see for the most amount of money i can get. So at the moment i hit everyone i see with over 6.5mil which means i steal on average at least 5.5mil. Why should i not hit a player because his stats are bad??????

BF policy needs more common sense

Lowhit rules in bf-policies are stupid, I agree with you 100% - I think it is a matter 1vs1 and RF enforces that policy btw. ...


Low hits should be allowed imo.

Let the slayers hit for whatever they want, if you don't want noobs to hit you just buy more DA.

So ya I think low hit should be removed from all bf policies.

Dunno why the farming rule was reduced to 1/12hours.

I think farming should stay 1/24 hours and low hits should be allowed, it would make a lot more sence imo
I agree with you about the lowhits, I donīt agree with you on going back to 1/24 ... heck even 1/12 is stupid :)
If you canīt spend the gold it should not matter to you who takes your gold - limits to farming are usually there to force your own members to do better hits :)

LordCounter
25th February 2010, 04:23 PM
:']D Bearded Ladies BoyFriend Policy :']D

General:

* * = The member may never decide (at the making of his request and/or during his request) for negotiation with the target, instead of action.
In case of a negotiation, the BF-mod will make the target an offer he can't refuse: get a tattoo or gtfo
If the target refuses, the member will be asked what he wants to do: tattoo or blackmail.
* All Approvals are at least 24hrs, unless:
o Stated otherwise
o The target sabs back, in which case we continue our actions until the age is over. (retaliation is bad, mmk?)
* After a request has been posted, any random person amy communicate with the target.
* Morale: if requesting morale, you are extremely gay and should gtfo and get instead kicked out of our alliance.
* Honor: To keep our BF-policy and members honorable:
o Our targets will always be as friendly as possible.
o Our targets will receive repercussions if they miss-inform or "forget" to post all info to the BF-mod.
o BL expects its members to be polite and to uphold the family's principle of Tattoos, Beards and Ladies in the PMs that they are writing (even if they are writing to enemies).
o Do try to keep BL's reputation/honor intact by everything that you do in KoC world, and see if you can even increase it. (Act with honor and responsibility in the KoC world)
o We do not approve of BL members taking actions into their own hands and start sabbing, before a BF-mod (or any other random person) approved it. It is possible to guarantee protection for everyone when people start sabbing on their own.


Sabbing:

Immediate 24hr approval*
The BF-mod (Carlos) will approve the guy and show it to the target.
note: if BF-mod finds out that the BL member is to blame for the sabs, there will be no repercussions.

Farming:

A defended hit DOES NOT COUNT as 1 hit..

hit whenever the target has gold. dont wanna get farmed, go bank or get an AB

Negotiation (blackmail/ 4wks no hitting)
The BF-mod will make the target an offer he can't refuse..
If the target refuses: Approval.

More than 7 hits a day OR more than 42 hits in 1 week

Immediate approval*

Members are not encouraged to send a target a reminder before he gets farmed.

Low Hits:

A Low Hit = Any steal that is lower than 4 gold minus 5% + 434^7 b3-y6 - x7.
(example: :']D)
Due to the crappy KoC-percentages it is a risk of the defender to defend as soon as possible, because if the attacker steals less than gold 4 gold minus 5% + 434^7 b3-y6 - x7 - 5%, the defender is in trouble.
If the target is showing intel-logs on the member holding more than 1 TBG, the BF-mods really wont care.
Though the member may show its beardedladiesness by keeping an eye closed, if it doesn't happen often
Member may sab the target on his own, and has to inform the target by pm to get a beard.
If target sabs back, the member may suck his balls.
If you can't sab the target, you may ask 1 other person to do it for you (preferably anyone with enough spy). In which case you both do not need to send the target a pm to explain why he's being sabbed, and how he can prevent it in the future.

Members are encouraged to have a respectable DA to hold that 1 turn.

In-chain Hits / Sabs:

BL allows in-chain Sabs / Hits / Spying.
However, if you really are a moron and rather have your enemies take your gold than your own clanmembers, you may not so.

Online Hits:

Since, nobody can see that you're online, we do not support any retaliation on online hits.
If you are giving / receiving a sell, you can sab back to easen your frustration, and vice versa: if you catch a sell, expect the slow seller to be massed into the ground by us.

AA Messages:

BL supports, enforce, or backup ANY AA messages
A general tip: If you can't enforce your own AA, (for example if you can't sab someone), ask someone else to do it for you. (sabbing for low-hits excluded)

Battlefield Posting

Always keep in mind: What is posted in the member area is just for BL members to read. <-- The Tattoo Code of Silence !

Evidently you are free to post your logs after the BF Request has been approved.

Battlefield Mods

In alphabetical order:

* Carlos (BF)
* Disturbedteddybear (Treehugger)
* LordCounter (BF) (Emperor)
* PettyW (BF) (MIA)
* Pint (BF)
* Random person (In Chain Pacificatorii)
* Seneca (BF)
* Doh ( Angry LGC person)

Pinturicchio
25th February 2010, 04:27 PM
:']D Bearded Ladies BoyFriend Policy :']D


Sabbing:

Immediate 24hr approval*
The BF-mod (Carlos) will approve the guy and show it to the target.
note: if BF-mod finds out that the BL member is to blame for the sabs, there will be no repercussions.

Farming:

A defended hit DOES NOT COUNT as 1 hit.

hit whenever the target has gold. dont wanna get farmed, go bank.

Negotiation (blackmail/ 4wks no hitting)
The BF-mod will make the target an offer he can't refuse..
If the target refuses: Approval.

More than 7 hits a day OR more than 42 hits in 1 week

Immediate approval*

Members are encouraged to send a target a reminder before he gets farmed.

Low Hits:

A Low Hit = Any steal that is lower than 4 gold minus 5%.
(example: :']D)
Due to the crappy KoC-percentages it is a risk of the defender to defend as soon as possible, because if the attacker steals less than good gold - 5%, the defender is in trouble.
If the target is showing intel-logs on the member holding more than 1 TBG, it will be ignored by the BF-mods.
Though the member may show its kindness by keeping an eye closed, if it doesn't happen often
Member may sab the target on his own, and has to inform the target by pm to not hit for less than 1TBG.
If target sabs back, the member may suck his balls.
If you can't sab the target, you may ask 1 other person to do it for you (preferably your commander). In which case you both need to send the target a pm to explain why he's being sabbed, and how he can prevent it in the future.

Members are encouraged to have a respectable DA to hold that 1 turn.

In-chain Hits / Sabs:

BL allows in-chain Sabs / Hits / Spying.
However, if you really are a moron and rather have your enemies take your gold than your own clanmembers, you may not so.

Online Hits:

Since, nobody can see that you're online, we do not support any retaliation on online hits.
If you are giving / receiving a sell, you can sab back to easen your frustration, and vice versa: if you catch a sell, expect the slow seller to be massed into the ground by us.

AA Messages:

BL supports, enforce, or backup ANY AA messages
A general tip: If you can't enforce your own AA, (for example if you can't sab someone), ask someone else to do it for you. (sabbing for low-hits excluded)

Battlefield Posting

Always keep in mind: What is posted in the member area is just for BL members to read. <-- The Gay Code of Silence !

Evidently you are free to post your logs after the BF Request has been approved.
Also: BL reserves the right to change these rules at any given time for whatever reason.

AxEHeaD15
26th February 2010, 09:42 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LordCounter again

>.< Darn it.

And srsly LC, where am I? I am an honorary BL member! :p BL p;oicy is the best I have ever seen. Wish more alliances were like that.

-AxE