View Full Version : bunnies[bunnie] has declared War on EverlastingDarkness[xELDx]
Disorder
10-04-2009, 11:07
Seems Bunnies have put a hurting on xELDx.. whats going on with this?
CommunistCapitalism
10-04-2009, 11:27
http://www.realfreewebsites.com/blog/img/fail2.jpg
cheers! :tongue:: suiciders mmmm
how can anyone get mad at something that looks like this.
http://www.haethor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bunny11.jpg
Well, we'll not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit's dynamite.
how can anyone get mad at something that looks like this.
http://www.haethor.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bunny11.jpg
is that really a rabbit, or a guinne pig? haha
Max Logan
10-05-2009, 15:03
a freaking pillow?
Disorder
10-05-2009, 19:36
back to the subject.. I see this is still going on.. hummmmmm :think::
a freaking pillow?
You stuff your pillows with live bunnies?? :o
Max Logan
10-06-2009, 02:43
You stuff your pillows with live bunnies?? :o
preferably :p
only a threat to inactives like vinnie, you just brought up our ave. net by killing him, ty!
lol
Missionary
10-06-2009, 10:39
haha, i had only used 300 turns :(. what did i ever do to you runbin(who ever you are)
harsh few days, not been on for like 2-3 days. come back with my state is dead, im bankrupt n no longer a mod :( lmao. booooo
haha, i had only used 300 turns :(. what did i ever do to you runbin(who ever you are)
harsh few days, not been on for like 2-3 days. come back with my state is dead, im bankrupt n no longer a mod :( lmao. booooo
ouch lol
just trying to get some good old revenge, now will someone tell me z and sob's states pretty please :thumbup:
Divine Intervention
10-06-2009, 21:15
having looked at ge just now of sky it seems LoR shouldnt be surprised when they find their top states as fair game for all who want.
Why would that be Anton? We followed our retal policy that we posted...
having looked at ge just now of sky it seems LoR shouldnt be surprised when they find their top states as fair game for all who want.
Can someone help me translate this? Maybe it's my lack of understanding in English, but I really don't get what DI is saying.
I'm assuming he meant people are allowed to make war attacks on top states, but I dun see the logic behind it. Runbch is acting on his own behave, and killing inactive states who targetted him in the past for revenge. I don't see why LOR is involved. As for the ARs we did on #13, it's simply for retaliation. AR was actually a kind move, we could've waged an all out war as retal. The retal policy was stated in our forum post, and #13 subsequently called it "made up for pussies"....our problem? maybe not.
The translation is Anton hates LOR lol
Can someone help me translate this? Maybe it's my lack of understanding in English, but I really don't get what DI is saying.
I'm assuming he meant people are allowed to make war attacks on top states, but I dun see the logic behind it. Runbch is acting on his own behave, and killing inactive states who targetted him in the past for revenge. I don't see why LOR is involved. As for the ARs we did on #13, it's simply for retaliation. AR was actually a kind move, we could've waged an all out war as retal. The retal policy was stated in our forum post, and #13 subsequently called it "made up for ******"....our problem? maybe not.
I believe he is talking about how the state that did the attacks is attempting to seem like he is AAing randomly in the top ten. But actually, you can tell it was focused and the state was "appearing" to try and damage other states first.
For example. Here are some of the losses in the AA attack. When you lose attacks, you send 50% of cash on hand or 50% of forces destroyed. It just looks fishy, it just doesn't look like enough ships were sent to win the attacks, but destine to lose. No more then 800 ships were sent in these attacks in my opinion.
Defeat / $29.495= 13 ships
Defeat / $17.323= 8 ships
Defeat / $61.448= 27 ships
There is also the fact that one LoR state has been feeding land of this attacking state all set. So with that and the benifit LoR states got from the attacks, i would say it was linked....maybe not planned by LoR leaders, but someone in LoR is involved in my book.
P.S. I don't hate LoR :) I could be wrong, but this is just my opinion.
Missionary
10-07-2009, 08:07
ouch lol
just trying to get some good old revenge, now will someone tell me z and sob's states pretty please :thumbup:
dont remember us doing anything to you, then again i dont know who you are so.......lol.
tnova is definatly right. when he lost the attacks on the LoR and SLOB state he lost less than 100k cash meaning he didnt have much on hand. most likely because he was planning on loosing the attacks and dint want to waste the money. but when he starts to AA the SKY state and then grabs he looses alot more cash, because he was expecting to win the grab. you may say hes just forgot to bank the excess cash from the turns he just used but i doubt that. between attacking pron and then kanny 26 seconds later he manages to bank some cash so there is none given to kanny on the 1st attack.
Iono, I did an intel this morning on vuss, and he only had 631 ships with 361 NA ships. Plus vuss has very few spies at lvl 1 which makes him an easy target for this kind of attacks. Maybe the low ship count attacks aren't an accident.
And I don't think the reasoning that the attacker didn't bank his cash because he is expecting to win against other states is sound. If we're assuming the attacker is a friend of LOR, I don't get why he/she would bank when he/she's attacking LOR and not SLOB/sky (like the 2 AAs on Max and 2 SAs on vuss). I could be wrong about there being someone in LOR doing this, but everyone in LOR withheld our policy and did not take advantage of the situation to grab from vuss. There was a "no attack" message sent an hour after the incidence occured, but everyone has the mutual agreement that we should not be involved and no one did any attacks in between when it occured and when the message was sent. Instead, it was TTG that double tapped vuss right after. It looks more like what TTG has been doing this whole set. Vuss's high land/low spy/low ship makes him an easy target.
Sorry if I'm holding the wrong party responsible. Just stating the possibilities. It's a new game, and we're expecting new playing styles from different players. I think sometimes it helps to build your state to be well-rounded. I think for a top 10 state to have less than 1000 ship is a bit asking for it tbh...
I believe he is talking about how the state that did the attacks is attempting to seem like he is AAing randomly in the top ten. But actually, you can tell it was focused and the state was "appearing" to try and damage other states first.
For example. Here are some of the losses in the AA attack. When you lose attacks, you send 50% of cash on hand or 50% of forces destroyed. It just looks fishy, it just doesn't look like enough ships were sent to win the attacks, but destine to lose. No more then 800 ships were sent in these attacks in my opinion.
Defeat / $29.495= 13 ships
Defeat / $17.323= 8 ships
Defeat / $61.448= 27 ships
Yea, but #13 had very few ships--maybe a 1,000 when he finished jumping. By your calculations, the suicider only needed about 800 ships. #13 was 99% infantry, so it would not take too many ships for someone to break him. Seems more like the state that suicided the top was looking to hit INF hoarders, and Kanny and I had decent defenses.
There is also the fact that one LoR state has been feeding land of this attacking state all set. So with that and the benifit LoR states got from the attacks, i would say it was linked....maybe not planned by LoR leaders, but someone in LoR is involved in my book.
The only thing I see on GE is that #78 tripled #98. I don't know what you're talking about here Tnova. No one in LOR grabbed after the AA, because our retal policy--and Kanny and I even talked as he jumped and were saying that he won that one fair and square (I wanted to AA a few times and grab him lol--not too seriously of course). However, #20 grabbed 48 minutes after the AA's, 2 minutes after #98 failed to grab on his SA's. But I suppose that means LOR is behind it...
#13 was in our nation last set netting, and Kanny and I had nothing against him. No reason for us to want to suicide him.
P.S. I don't hate LoR :) I could be wrong, but this is just my opinion.
Aye.
P.S.--Why is this discussion in the "bunnies" thread?
dont remember us doing anything to you, then again i dont know who you are so.......lol.
tnova is definatly right. when he lost the attacks on the LoR and SLOB state he lost less than 100k cash meaning he didnt have much on hand. most likely because he was planning on loosing the attacks and dint want to waste the money. but when he starts to AA the SKY state and then grabs he looses alot more cash, because he was expecting to win the grab. you may say hes just forgot to bank the excess cash from the turns he just used but i doubt that. between attacking pron and then kanny 26 seconds later he manages to bank some cash so there is none given to kanny on the 1st attack.
Or, he's a casher state, who after a bunch of AA's didn't bank his money when trying to SA. The question I have is why would someone with no lvl 8 inf be worried about banking his money before an SA. Does anyone really think this guy was going to try to net out the set after this? Why would a suicider care about losing money on attacks?
P.S.--Why is this discussion in the "bunnies" thread?
Cuz bunnies are awesome?? :laugh:
http://weathermachine.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bunnies.jpg
Missionary
10-07-2009, 15:21
Or, he's a casher state, who after a bunch of AA's didn't bank his money when trying to SA. The question I have is why would someone with no lvl 8 inf be worried about banking his money before an SA. Does anyone really think this guy was going to try to net out the set after this? Why would a suicider care about losing money on attacks?
thats quite stupid asking that tbh. after using 5 turns he banked his cash. so 5 turns and 26 seconds later he had banked. thats quite good work and playing well. why would he not do it after ya know 20 odd attacks when going for a SA. the reason he would be bothered about money is he has been attacked and kept down on very low land for awile now. if he wants to do as much damage as he can then surely he would try to keep as much money as possible, being a casher in all. no1 mentioned netting, so the question i have is why are you sticking up for this "random suicider" pron when your alot cleverer to realise this is fishy? or is it because you need to stick up for your own??
You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not standing up for a suicider. I hate suiciding. What I'm saying is that LOR had nothing to do with it, and all I'm saying is that a suicider who stays at low net and with no upgrades or ship/jet defense doesn't care about how much money he has in the bank.
Whereas others in this thread are saying that he's associated with LOR because he "faked" a hit on LOR states. I'm saying it wasn't faked, but a failed attempt.
AA GoingForTop(#98) Mayor Fluffer(#59)[SLOB] Defeat / $353.938 18:38:50-2009/10/06
AA GoingForTop(#98) Mayor Fluffer(#59)[SLOB] Defeat / $329.359 18:38:47-2009/10/06
And does this mean that SLOB was in on it too?
Shadowen
10-08-2009, 17:58
Good bye little suicide bunnie
You will now remember the name Shadowen....do not be upset on being the first to fall, others will join you soon enough *cue evil laugh* :chair:
i'm sure we all just find it odd that if a state happens to be in 1st place that is non-lor he happens to get AA'd while u guys just happen to jump him.
happens frequently. no straight evidence linking you to it of course :P
i'm sure we all just find it odd that if a state happens to be in 1st place that is non-lor he happens to get AA'd while u guys just happen to jump him.
happens frequently. no straight evidence linking you to it of course :P
Lots of LOR states get AA'ed when they're in the top too--I think it's more a trend in the game than anything.
I think #13 got AA'ed because he only had 1k lvl 1 ships when he was in 1st. There are lots of people out there who hate INF hoarders.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.