if alliances a, b, c and d war for 10 resets, leaving the only other remaining alliance, alliance e, to win tnw/anw every reset, does that make alliance e good?

answer, no.

Either you have no idea who laffers are, or i really doubt you played in those alliances with your eyes open.

ska and theclub hardly had a top tier netgainer between them, raheel was the closest thing for the club, and ska... loopy? if you call him top tier you dont know how to netgain.

ska/theclub, only ever had alot of t10's when they had laffers taking those t10's, once laffers played in laf again, they were just small alliances that could take anw due to their size, while being completely incapable of warring.

monks was the same except they never had alot of players in the t10 to begin with.

how long have you played this game not to know the meaning of 5 tap?

do retals escalate if i hit once, and then hit again 24 hours later? no. under escalating retals its always been 5:kill, you never had 5 in 24 hours, you just moan because you couldnt retal me.

i only rate un-aided, anything aided may as well be dead, is carries the same weight to me...

and grim isnt particularly good bobby...

omega deserve a mention imo

omega if you call them a netgaining alliance (which they tend to be nowadays) would be the closest i guess

All im saying is, laf is being rated on war performance during that period, when laf never entered into a reset war prep'ing. So naturally they come off badly.

For the tier system, it has always related to war performance, which i think most can agree laf was far from the greatest during the "golden ages". However during the golden age, laf was more overly dedicated to netgaining than it has been recently. Really the start of laf being able to war was the LCN and pdm wars in 1a, which probably explains why if you made a tier system based on netgaining, laf would be the only top tier alliance since no one ever came close during the period.

NA holds the TNW record in EC (beating laf by like 15m nw with 50 more members)
NA has more top 1's than any other clan in EC (id be suprised if you have more than 3 legit (meaning unaided) rank 1's after the 1a alliances moved over)
NA holds the record for most top 100's in a single set in EC (news to me? how many t100's meh)

the only thing we never excelled at was ANW, which is because i let people join all set long, and never drop people from tag to raise ANW end of set. (a: so do alot of alliances, and b: you never had a chance at anw so it never made sense to try to drop members, since you'd be looking at droping 70 odd members)

ANW of our top 20 members is higher than the ANW of the top 20 members in any other clan (really shouldnt say any other clan when laf regularly put up 10-15 of the top 25 in a reset), the majority of sets we have netted. and that includes even if you take the top country off of both tags to not count an aided top country (as far as i know only na and tie ever really practiced aiding a top country... and nbk once i guess


In all honesty, i cant think of one netgainer that regularly played in na that is even t10 average, and t10 average is embarisingly easy...

rage/ely had no justification to kill any of laf's members, since none of them 5 tapped you.

http://eestats.com/...e[]=LCN&badside[]=SOL

omega is outhitting sol... an alliance over 50% larger than itself... thats pretty good going...

i farm big clans and small clans indiscriminately...

i would suspect it would be more along the lines of, 6 tap = kill, do you want to save your member, type of conversation, judging from the news.

it would likely end in a draw

edit: bah fluff you locket!

omega = crappy? thats a pretty stupid mistake to make if you really believe that...

why is it that alliances that have no hope of winning with or without the fs always claim the alliance that hit them to be affraid of them...

sol blindsiding collab a smaller while they netgain shows fear
collab fs'ing a larger sol while they war prep'd, does not
and collab fs'ing pdm over general grabbing crap, really does not show fear

collab arnt crap enough to be affraid of what a fully war prep'd 15 man tag is capable of, atleast, i dont think they are.

anyone that is looking to be tag killed?

dude ghana were good, australia did really well to beat serbia, although i think the serbs already thought they were through tbh, for england i wasnt really sure who i would rather face, germany, ghana or serbia, and after the germany ghana game, im still not sure.

we end up playing germany, but germany are pretty crappy, not that england are any good, but when they play well, they are better than germany playing well, but knowing england they'll dominate germany, draw and go out on penalties.

probably something about australia losing to england at rugby...

and still wouldnt of broken me lol

confirmed.

your tried retaling me 4.5 days after my last hit on rage and still failed, you guys couldnt retal me so you took out your fustration on someone else heh.

there are like 3 tags that want to war every set bobby...
sof, sol, imag....

collab would be the next closest to a warmonger alliance and they call themselves netgainers meh

Snawdog, its every alliance leaders responsibility to look after its members, failure to do so, results in the failure of an alliance. You cant give fluff to warmonger alliances for warring every reset even when they war for no reason to the detriment of who they are warring. Because if they didnt, they would lose membership. LaF provides an environment condusive to netgaining, because its what our members want most of the time, although recently they are more war hungry but thats just because they are getting old heh.

The failure of alliances has to do with the downturn in quality leadership and time spent on alliances. Blaming laf for the down turn in the game is just stupid, without laf the game would only have died quicker.

I've said it before, but i guess i have to say it again, you cry when laf hits untaggeds, you cry when laf hits tags and you cant retal, there are no new arguements being posted here, just contradictory ones depending on which side of the fence you now sit. If you cant retal, thats your own damn fault, if you want to start a war over it, that's your right, but dont complain about it afterwards.

DL, you retaled our retals, and then said you dont accept L:L from unpacted alliances. You thought because you couldnt retal me, you'd hit other laffers in the hope we'd bend over, instead you're getting bent over meh.

And LaF doesnt pact small alliances, because pacts arnt made to stop landgrabs. Pacts are based on some form of relationship between the alliances. LaF doesnt need relationships with 5 member tags, we have nothing to gain from them, so why would he have them. It is just that simple.

just thought id put this out there, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phNuOt7WCl8

Are you serious? dude i challenged ix to 1v1 wars when they had 50% more members than laf, numbers mean nothing to laf, laf will win whether you have 20 or 200 members, thats just how it is. Rage picked a fight, now they die, do you want me to appologise for rage being small?

This is alliance server, team server sounds like it might be more for you...

3.2 hours ago
ragely (#157) declared war on your country!


rage declared war i'm affriad...

oh no they did try and retal, 4 and half days after the last grab on rage, they attempted a retal and failed... the guy was only about 4-5m jets short of breaking, nothing huge though...


embarising much?

does that logic not apply to suiciders?

really? i havnt hit you in 48 hours, am i really trying to prevoke a war?

Good to see i have such a huge influence on rage policy, if pointing out false statements on AT gets me a war i should do it more often.

Incidently, my attitude is a responce to yours, your brought this discussion to at, you made threats against laf, and this while you all whine about bottomfeeding untaggeds out of the game, but then you cant take it when you're grabbed a few times either. Talk about the good old days when not everyone was pacted, and yet at the first sign of inconvenience you cry about laf not giving you a pact. Its pathetic.

Yes, escalating retal policies have always been 24 hour periods, DL is just being deliberately ignorant.

thats interesting DL, because what your saying is, that laf should kill #208, correct?

techer isnt better this set, its worse...

normally people respond to grabing issues with contacting an fr rather than complaining on forums and retaling retals...

dude if i played, id be 40k by now... and you would of had 40 grabs on you by one country.

all hits on that country are retals, and all hits made by that country are topfeeds... so you are doing the grabbing here...

Not that i have any say on it, but that sounds like the attitude of an alliance looking to be tag killed.

Actually i think you'll find #455 didnt make a single topfeed, and didnt refuse to accept retals. So rage "started it", the And pang has nothing to do with LaF policy decisions, so trying to hold an admin accountable for an alliances retal policy is pretty stupid.

heh 6 grabs in 72 hours and you complain about farming....

this isnt a job for the mods its a job for ingame politics, if alliances want to act, as many have before, against internal farming, then do so.

i still see three off ally spots?

only people have become so accustomed to not getting grabbed, people need to man up and start grabbing

i cheated... on parallax.