View Full Version : WLF=WTF the L switched with a T.
Lord Burch
05-23-2010, 01:03
Seriously! You weren't satisfied with killing me once? Honestly! I can't even begin to play while you idiots get involved!
So WLF, WTF?
You attacked MAG or whoever out of boredom and really warred useless. Look at what happened with LoR this set. They warred randomly, community did not like it, now LoR is only tough in the forums ;).
Come play with me next set, I will teach you a couple of things about netting (the real purpose of this game). Message me ingame (I am #65).
Lord Burch
05-23-2010, 02:40
You attacked MAG or whoever out of boredom and really warred useless. Look at what happened with LoR this set. They warred randomly, community did not like it, now LoR is only tough in the forums ;).
Come play with me next set, I will teach you a couple of things about netting (the real purpose of this game). Message me ingame (I am #65).
I'd be interested, but I commited myself to Dogma's group next round.
Maybe next time.
I disagree with the whole warring MAG useless thing. I mean, if WTF (Oh I'm sorry, I meant WLF) hadn't interefered, MAG would be close to dead as of now if not so already. So now I'll have to make you see how easily I can kill a noob. I have two targets in mind. I'll be doing cleanup.
Why would you want to kill a noob?
I repeat myself: This games purpose is not warring, this games purpose is gaining the biggest networth.
Soviet Russia
05-23-2010, 07:03
It is not WLF, it is just me. You should be glad that I'm wasting my precious turns on you.
And I clearly remember that I warned you last set when you attacked my restart for no reason. It seems you thought I was kidding.
Join a real nation and learn this game, you can do better, I've trust in your talent.
But if you keep killing new players to show us (?) how easy it is to kill them; then I'd also be glad to show you how disgusting it is to be killed for no reason. Consider me as an ally of every new player, thats very legistimate.
Lord Burch
05-23-2010, 19:29
It is not WLF, it is just me. You should be glad that I'm wasting my precious turns on you.
And I clearly remember that I warned you last set when you attacked my restart for no reason. It seems you thought I was kidding.
Join a real nation and learn this game, you can do better, I've trust in your talent.
But if you keep killing new players to show us (?) how easy it is to kill them; then I'd also be glad to show you how disgusting it is to be killed for no reason. Consider me as an ally of every new player, thats very legistimate.
I figured Z wouldn't do this. No I didn't think you were kidding, actually I forgot about it entirely! You only seem to feel safe with WLF (w/o Z's backing) to attack me. I'm tired of you jumping me just because it is easy for me to kill new players. I mean, look at LoR. They jump at ICN, but do I see you aholes protecting them? Of course not. This isn't about newbies, or protection. You just simply hate me, which is all fine and good. Just call it what it is. At least Devil had the balls to say it from the start! So no, me killing newbies isn't your 'legistimate' reason, it is called your 'retribution'. Trust me, I will remember this and tear you apart. God I'm going to love next round!
Oh, and one more thing! I already am going to join a nation, led by dogma. Thanks for asking.
Lord Burch
05-23-2010, 19:30
Why would you want to kill a noob?
I repeat myself: This games purpose is not warring, this games purpose is gaining the biggest networth.
I'm sure a bunch of people disagree. This isn't Nation Netters, it is Nation WARS! You want to net, go play some other game. This entire game is about warring!
[QUOTE=Lord Burch;113260]look at LoR. They jump at ICN, but do I see you aholes protecting them? Of course not. QUOTE]
Actually, no one protected us, instead 2 other nations joined in to fight us back...
Lord Burch
05-23-2010, 23:00
[QUOTE=Lord Burch;113260]look at LoR. They jump at ICN, but do I see you aholes protecting them? Of course not. QUOTE]
Actually, no one protected us, instead 2 other nations joined in to fight us back...
I was talking about WLF 'defending against the new players'. Which is total BS and SR, yourself, and I all know it. (Pardon the crappy grammar)
Soviet Russia
05-24-2010, 01:41
I'm sure a bunch of people disagree. This isn't Nation Netters, it is Nation WARS! You want to net, go play some other game. This entire game is about warring!
Yeah it is, and so I am warring you. What makes you crazy, you should better to learn losing as well.
I'm tired of you jumping me just because it is easy for me to kill new players.
It is also easy to kill you. Stop complaining.
I take back my offer to teach you something.
Lord Burch
05-25-2010, 07:42
Yeah it is, and so I am warring you. What makes you crazy, you should better to learn losing as well.
It is also easy to kill you. Stop complaining.
I'm not whining at all. On the contrary. I just want you to admit the REAL truth so everyone is on the same page. It is vengeance that makes you want to war me, not protecting newbies.
As for learning about losing, well to be honest I don't care if I win or lose. Thing is, I was fighting 3-1 then nosejam and you jumped in. You obviously can only kill me when my growth is stunted because my account keeps getting killed by ***holes like you!
Anywho, again I point out the whole motive thing. Don't attack under false pretenses. Devil at least had the balls to flat out state the truth.
Soviet Russia
05-25-2010, 11:04
Kid, think on that, why did we attack just you but not the others?
Also, your '3-1' MAG rape was not a war, because they did not ever strike back. They were inactive.
Plus, it is better for you to keep growing and then attacking. It is very obivious that you'd die with 1-2 mil net only aggressive states.
After all, none of us, me, nosejam or Devil take you that much serious. It only takes a few minutes. I felt "hmm I killed him again, let's look for some SAs" That was all ;)
Kid, think on that, why did we attack just you but not the others?
Also, your '3-1' MAG rape was not a war, because they did not ever strike back. They were inactive.
Plus, it is better for you to keep growing and then attacking. It is very obivious that you'd die with 1-2 mil net only aggressive states.
After all, none of us, me, nosejam or Devil take you that much serious. It only takes a few minutes. I felt "hmm I killed him again, let's look for some SAs" That was all ;)
LOL you only used 1 turn to kill him, what else were you gonna do?!
Lord Burch
05-26-2010, 22:34
Kid, think on that, why did we attack just you but not the others?
Also, your '3-1' MAG rape was not a war, because they did not ever strike back. They were inactive.
Plus, it is better for you to keep growing and then attacking. It is very obivious that you'd die with 1-2 mil net only aggressive states.
After all, none of us, me, nosejam or Devil take you that much serious. It only takes a few minutes. I felt "hmm I killed him again, let's look for some SAs" That was all ;)
LOL. You guys might not take me seriously, but that is an error. Don't underestimate my abilities...I defeated Mhaphew 1-on-1 in the past, and I can always do the same to anyone I please. However, I have to put away my grudges for a round, as I got recruited to a new nation this upcoming round. I do appreciate the tip though.
'Plus, it is better for you to keep growing and then attacking. It is very obivious that you'd die with 1-2 mil net only aggressive states.'
Tip appreciated. And just because MAG didn't strike back doesn't mean they weren't part of a war. I mean, take WWII poland. They let Germany walk all over them, just like the French surrendered Paris w/o a fight. It's a war alright, just sided in my favor.
I disagree with almost everything.
Soviet Russia
05-27-2010, 09:25
LOL you only used 1 turn to kill him, what else were you gonna do?!
I've killed him again after that one :drool:
I defeated Mhaphew 1-on-1 in the past, and I can always do the same to anyone I please..
Yeah about that, You may have killed me, however it took you 1 week to kill me, also, i was inactive that set...so yeah...
I wouldn't brag about that, besides all of your kills have been against inactives...
GF;::
You have killed Magod(#219)
You destroyed a total of 13 land.
During this attack, you lost 5 Jets.
Your Nation lost 3 Jets.
While defending, your enemy lost 2.849 Jets and 2 SAMs
GF;::
You have killed Magod(#219)
You destroyed a total of 13 land.
During this attack, you lost 5 Jets.
Your Nation lost 3 Jets.
While defending, your enemy lost 2.849 Jets and 2 SAMs
2 minute kill :clap:
Soviet Russia
05-28-2010, 04:21
I was planning to do that:(
We claim kill rights because we declared on him first this set for killing noobs and he declared on us when we had 2 other nations warring us. :)
Soviet Russia
05-28-2010, 16:50
We claim kill rights because we declared on him first this set for killing noobs and he declared on us when we had 2 other nations warring us. :)
I was in LoR when LoR declared, so I think I also have a share of the rights :P
I was in LoR when LoR declared, so I think I also have a share of the rights :P
you got your share, you killed him at least 1x.
ooga booga
05-28-2010, 20:07
We claim kill rights because we declared on him first this set for killing noobs and he declared on us when we had 2 other nations warring us. :)
And all he could muster up where what, 7 failed AR's on your worst state and then he gave up? We burned down LoR's front gates and he still just sat at the entrance throwing pebbles at the crumbled walls... :P
And all he could muster up where what, 7 failed AR's on your worst state and then he gave up? We burned down LoR's front gates and he still just sat at the entrance throwing pebbles at the crumbled walls... :P
I agree lol. He didn't put up much of a fight against us, however, its the principal of the thing :)
Why would you want to kill a noob?
I repeat myself: This games purpose is not warring, this games purpose is gaining the biggest networth.
Listen to Blaa, his name is full of virtue and he knows what he is talking about.
This is a game of peaceful networth gaining. the purpose has little to do with war, otherwise the name of the game would probably involve war wouldn't it?
There are no war attacks in this game, nations compete for rank alone peacefully.
most of the threads on the forums here are about peace and love and gaining Networth. none have anything to do with war, or hostile actions.
This game is for hippies and economists, not for those seeking to have fun.
Listen to blaa, he is the man.
Z
Calvin74
06-08-2010, 23:17
Listen to Blaa, his name is full of virtue and he knows what he is talking about.
This is a game of peaceful networth gaining. the purpose has little to do with war, otherwise the name of the game would probably involve war wouldn't it?
There are no war attacks in this game, nations compete for rank alone peacefully.
most of the threads on the forums here are about peace and love and gaining Networth. none have anything to do with war, or hostile actions.
This game is for hippies and economists, not for those seeking to have fun.
Listen to blaa, he is the man.
Z
you say that yet at the same time this game is won by the person with the highest nw. most of the measurable statistics concern how much net you gain not how much you destroy. more people remember the great netters instead of the great warrers. this game is best when there is a delicate balance between netters and warrers. the problem right now is that there aren't enough players for both portions to be happy so the warrers win out since their states take little time and talent. destroying something is always much easier than building it up.
but in the end the game thrives on having great nations and persuasive nation leaders that make playing this game fun whether it is warring or netting. the downfall came when most those leaders preferred to net and just got tired and left the game and no one stepped up in their spot.
Calvin74
06-08-2010, 23:20
And all he could muster up where what, 7 failed AR's on your worst state and then he gave up? We burned down LoR's front gates and he still just sat at the entrance throwing pebbles at the crumbled walls... :P
i don't know this guy but i have to say that is one of the funniest lines i have heard in a long time on these boards:P:dblthumbup:
Lord Burch
06-09-2010, 00:54
LMFAO wow you're STILL talking in this thread? I thought you got bored with it...lmao
Calvin74
06-09-2010, 11:56
LMFAO wow you're STILL talking in this thread? I thought you got bored with it...lmao
me?
i got bored with the game but i am still here so why stop with 1 post:P
me?
i got bored with the game but i am still here so why stop with 1 post:P
calvin is known for his gravediging :P
Calvin74
06-09-2010, 12:31
calvin is known for his gravediging :P
i would like to point out i didn't gravedig
Z did the grave digging
it was just my duty to inform him that netting is more important than war in this game. like a public service announcement
i would like to point out i didn't gravedig
Z did the grave digging
it was just my duty to inform him that netting is more important than war in this game. like a public service announcement
thats exactly what I was saying.
world of war / nation wars is not about war.
its about netting.
Z
Lord Burch
06-09-2010, 16:33
i would like to point out i didn't gravedig
Z did the grave digging
it was just my duty to inform him that netting is more important than war in this game. like a public service announcement
Like I said before, this isn't nation netting aka nation fishing (Nice pun, right? lol) it is NATION WARS!
Get that through your p.u.ss.y *** head!
Like I said before, this isn't nation netting aka nation fishing (Nice pun, right? lol) it is NATION WARS!
Get that through your p.u.ss.y *** head!
Calvin is afraid of wars, and hasn't managed to kill anyone in all his time playing the game:P
I once played with him in a pure netting nation that we called EURO. We hated any form of warring and would use only infantry. The player who founded Euro, Scavenger, used to argue tirelessly on the forums for the need to abolish all wars in the game.
Calvin74
06-09-2010, 18:25
Calvin is afraid of wars, and hasn't managed to kill anyone in all his time playing the game:P
I once played with him in a pure netting nation that we called EURO. We hated any form of warring and would use only infantry. The player who founded Euro, Scavenger, used to argue tirelessly on the forums for the need to abolish all wars in the game.
what ever happened to that peace loving hippy:P
Calvin74
06-09-2010, 18:26
Like I said before, this isn't nation netting aka nation fishing (Nice pun, right? lol) it is NATION WARS!
Get that through your p.u.ss.y *** head!
once again you don't know me and i don't know you
i do know from the forums that my war attempts are much better than yours so i feel safe to say that i know what i am talking about both in warring and in what really matters in this game...
Lord Burch
06-09-2010, 20:59
once again you don't know me and i don't know you
i do know from the forums that my war attempts are much better than yours so i feel safe to say that i know what i am talking about both in warring and in what really matters in this game...
Well, the warring part, maybe. What really matters, not so much.
Calvin74
06-09-2010, 22:12
Well, the warring part, maybe. What really matters, not so much.
well unless you are an alter for someone i am pretty certain:P
this shouldn't be a pissing contest though...
Crimson Shadow
06-10-2010, 00:21
Like I said before, this isn't nation netting aka nation fishing (Nice pun, right? lol) it is NATION WARS!
I'm really sick of people using this excuse. Yes, the game has wars in the title, but it doesn't mean it is the only way to play. I guess I get to use a cliche since you used one: If warring is supposed to be the main part of the game, then why are winners chosen by the highest net worth?
Think of it this way: The main way to score in "American Football" has nothing to do with a foot. You have to carry or pass the ball into the endzone to score the most points. Does this mean that teams should only kick field goals since the word foot is in the title? I doubt many teams would be successful with this logic, since there are more efficient ways to score.
Maybe it is time that we change the name of the game, to something that does not reflect wars or netting. Make it something neutral so that way people stop using this lame excuse.
I had a way of tying this all together so it actually made sense, but it is past midnight and I'm tired. So if anyone has trouble connecting the dots then maybe I can fix it in the morning. lol
I'm really sick of people using this excuse. Yes, the game has wars in the title, but it doesn't mean it is the only way to play. I guess I get to use a cliche since you used one: If warring is supposed to be the main part of the game, then why are winners chosen by the highest net worth?
It is stated that war is a necessary aspect of the game in Mr. P's message that i believe is on the front page.
Welcome to Nation-Wars
Nation-Wars is a free, multiplayer, turn based strategy game. You will compete with players from across the globe to achieve victory, with a variety of strategies. Winning can be accomplished in many ways including individually, and/or as a team. You can build your account to be the largest or war your way to the top.
And ingame as well...
Crimson Shadow
06-11-2010, 19:21
It is stated that war is a necessary aspect of the game in Mr. P's message that i believe is on the front page.
And ingame as well...
I'm not arguing that war isn't important/necessary. Don't get me wrong, I love warring just as much as netting.
I just hate that people use the same, lame excuse that the game has "war" in the title, so you must war. If you net then you aren't following what the game's title suggests. I was just providing an example showing that just because it is in the name, doesn't mean that is the only thing to do in the game. When people get upset at netters, they always say something like "It's Nation-WARS, not Nation-Net." Using this excuse to justify a war isn't going to make the netters go, "Oh! I never thought about it that way before."
Lord Burch
06-11-2010, 20:28
I'm not arguing that war isn't important/necessary. Don't get me wrong, I love warring just as much as netting.
I just hate that people use the same, lame excuse that the game has "war" in the title, so you must war. If you net then you aren't following what the game's title suggests. I was just providing an example showing that just because it is in the name, doesn't mean that is the only thing to do in the game. When people get upset at netters, they always say something like "It's Nation-WARS, not Nation-Net." Using this excuse to justify a war isn't going to make the netters go, "Oh! I never thought about it that way before."
I get your point already, so don't get upset over minor details. Like I said, I get your point, so drop it already! God, this is almost as bad as people whining about suiciders...
Crimson Shadow
06-11-2010, 21:25
I get your point already, so don't get upset over minor details. Like I said, I get your point, so drop it already! God, this is almost as bad as people whining about suiciders...
Not everything that is written on these forums is towards you or about you.
Yes, the first post of mine was directed towards you, but if you couldn't tell the second post was quoting mhaphew.
I was replying to what he said, it was in no way referenced to you.
Lord Burch
06-11-2010, 22:40
Not everything that is written on these forums is towards you or about you.
Yes, the first post of mine was directed towards you, but if you couldn't tell the second post was quoting mhaphew.
I was replying to what he said, it was in no way referenced to you.
I know that. When you quoted mhaphew's arguement, his argument was to further prove me right, whether he meant to or not.
Just saying.
Crimson Shadow
06-11-2010, 23:48
So then why did you get pissed because I replied to him.
Am I not allowed to make a reply when someone says something against what I said?
Max Logan
06-12-2010, 04:31
So then why did you get pissed because I replied to him.
Am I not allowed to make a reply when someone says something against what I said?
break it! :p
just let him rattle!
And you`ll never win the "Nation Wars/Net" argument, so you might as well not try :p
ooga booga
06-12-2010, 20:31
break it! :p
just let him rattle!
And you`ll never win the "Nation Wars/Net" argument, so you might as well not try :p
Yeah I don't bother arguing that argument. If that is the best they can come up with than they are not worth my time, lol.
Lord Burch
06-13-2010, 01:58
So then why did you get pissed because I replied to him.
Am I not allowed to make a reply when someone says something against what I said?
I'm not pissed, I'm merely stating that I get it, there's no point of arguing anymore...that was a misread on your part.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.