Biggwall problems.

I'm doing nothing more then backing my opinion. What syrian did was fine in my book.

This convo............................................................

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 16:41

I'm doing nothing more then backing my opinion. What syrian did was fine in my book.

And so am i my friend, just backing up my opinion that i stated above before responding to you.

• "there should be no trespassing your opponent teritory turn 1"

Im defending laochra's right and everyone's right to make a big wall without opponents entering their teritory, but under condition...

• "there should be no rewalling turn 2

Meaning, create a inner wall for your capital.

So i proposed a compromise between players refraining from wall fuckin and entering opponents teritory turn 1 which is a big no for me and people who want to use big walls to refrain from abusing it in the form of rewall.

Problem? ...who cant read? I respond to your legal, illegal comment, proposed a compromise, but you didnt respond to my own opinions, but instead told me to get of this topic and go to ideas and suggestions.

I will look at this topic more when i get back but im a little confused..... are you saying people shouldnt be allowed to make two walls on turn 1 because then the cap wont be open till turn 3/4? as well as saying tht if the bigger wall gets wfed, it's okay to exploit it?

In all seriousness and taking into consideration the fact, that i never agree with goblin in game matters, i think goblin is right.End of discussion

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 16:53

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 16:41

I'm doing nothing more then backing my opinion. What syrian did was fine in my book.

Argument

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

It could have been a interesting and decent argument, until he made this comment:

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 15:25

First turn WF's are legal. There is no official rule against them.

Im ignoring waffels post because it is filled with ad hominems and attacks on my clan, theres no truth to any of his accusations, and if im needed to clarify further i will.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

Of course i agree with you Waffel, since we had this discussion recently.

For the sake of the game balance:
1. there should be no wall fucking capitals turn 1
2. there should be no trespassing opponents teritory turn 1
3. there should be no rewalling turn 2

Rewalling, in its "infamous" state i limit only too turn 2 and definite it as:
• preventing an opponent to have a chance at breaking walls that would leave his capital city open*
* preventing does not include of course turn blocking your opponents wall fuck units in order to prevent them in this task

Since rewalling is preventable in every way after turn 2, by wall fuck units and that includes the big walls aswell:
• rewalling should be permited after turn 2

Turn 2 rewalling can unbalance the game and gain undeserved advantage to some countries which is far greater then the initial "capital" invested so to speak (does few extra units).

Conclusion:
• a move that cant be prevented, by your own moves and skills ...cant be a legal move. ...this is a similarity between 1st turn wf and big wall rewall.

You cant contradict this Laochra.

i do not seek to contradict you goblin just for the sake of it, we merely have different perspectives. Someone in the previous few posts said it was about who right and whos wrong, for me i want something done about this. Just look at the previous threads on these topics, some people support rewalling but hate serb rewalling, others support team rewalling but not self rewalling. The communities divided on these issues, which leads to conflict on views of fairplay and threads like this on the forums.

And no, this is not the first thread of this kind, nor will it be the last.

When i say i want clarification from an official source, i want the rules stated and enforced by the mods so that if theyre broken in a competitive game(a duel or a cw), i can screenshot them and have that game removed from record. For example

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

For the sake of the game balance:
1. there should be no wall fucking capitals turn 1
2. there should be no trespassing opponents teritory turn 1

Everyone in the competitive community agrees on these rules, but if broken could you go to a mod and seek the game removed, and perhaps some sort of warning to the other player? I don't think you could. You could wf me in a duel right now gob and laugh at me and i could do nothing about it, there might be a sympathetic mod or 2 but within the current game rules its only frowned upon, not actually forbidden.

I would like to see the above 2 rules officially stated in the gamerules, and i would like to see an official mod controlled vote on the use of rewalling, serbian walling, and the grey area of opening walls on an opponents territory without actually invading the territory to do so. There would have to be an exception added to the third issue, where it is unavoidable with opposing countries in close proximity, that play is continued as if the walls are there. But bear in mind this would render double walling of countries void, unless the wall layers are formed far enough inland to prevent units outside the territory opening them.

these 3 issues would need to be voted on separately, as serbian walling is a legit move within the battle mechanics, but it is considered cheap. Rewalling might be a bug, if this proposal is considered ill elaborate. I used to believe it wasnt a bug but recently when testing tb mechanics i discovered something which bothered me. Now i do believe theres something wrong with the rewalling mechanics. As for the third issue, it currently isnt an illegal move, but it causes much debate and friction. Most players if they broke a wall on an opponents territory turn 1 would pretend it is there and continue playing, others break them deliberately and exploit the wf.

If this is taken to a vote, i would propose 3 separate threads for discussion, and that the votes are handled by mail by rank 7s and above(to prevent abuse by alts). It may seem like a lot of effort, but these issues have appeared time and again for years, isnt it time something is done?

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

Conclusion:
• a move that cant be prevented, by your own moves and skills ...cant be a legal move. ...this is a similarity between 1st turn wf and big wall rewall.

an interesting thought, but rewalling can be prevented turn 2, so this would render it perfectly legal, also big walls are preventable by first turn wf, but only unpreventable if we adhere to the 1st rule.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 16:38

Geschrieben von AlBoZzZ, 13.10.2014 at 16:25

I didnt see the cw. What did syrian do?

Syrian wall fucked the big wall of laochra.

W4r thinks i am not aware of that.

W4r claims all things possible in AW are legal since there is no official rule against them - i pointed out there never will be and that we the players make it legal or illegal

By playing for years with our unofficial rule that 1st turn wall fuck is illegal we practicly made the rule official by the common custom among the players.

I responded to W4r by making the issue of his statement wider so he can see the bigger picture ...he responds with common aw forums ego.

Thats all.

So basically syrian wfed turn 1? Did he attack cap turn 2?

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Goblin, Syrian didn't enter lao's territory turn one. If I place my unit out side of your territory turn one, there shouldnt be anything against that. That is all im saying.

Anyone got SS? At work thanks.

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 17:49

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Goblin, Syrian didn't enter lao's territory turn one. If I place my unit out side of your territory turn one, there shouldnt be anything against that. That is all im saying.

im tired of your godamn stupid logic fucking kid.dont you dare cw me, cause i am wallfucking your UK.i swear.and by your words it wont even be illegal my unit will be on sea.

Geschrieben von Khal.eesi, 13.10.2014 at 18:22

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 17:49

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Goblin, Syrian didn't enter lao's territory turn one. If I place my unit out side of your territory turn one, there shouldnt be anything against that. That is all im saying.

im tired of your godamn stupid logic fucking kid.dont you dare cw me, cause i am wallfucking your UK.i swear.and by your words it wont even be illegal my unit will be on sea.

Whoa calm down there. Thanks for letting me know ahead of time. Ill make sure to avoid your WF. Cheers

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 17:49

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Goblin, Syrian didn't enter lao's territory turn one. If I place my unit out side of your territory turn one, there shouldnt be anything against that. That is all im saying.

Syrian put his unit close to turkey without entering teritory so that lao big wall fails. ?

Ok ...bit of a grey area again. When we accidently break someones ports without actualy invading his land we always agree not to attack the city and pretend the walls are up. I dont know man ...its a similar thing.
Maybe we need teritorial waters added. XD

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 18:30

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 17:49

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 17:07

Geschrieben von Tundy, 13.10.2014 at 17:03

Goblin, you can't argue with retards.

I think we just didnt understand each other completly ...that happens to much on this forums and then what could have been normal discussions turn into flames.

Goblin, Syrian didn't enter lao's territory turn one. If I place my unit out side of your territory turn one, there shouldnt be anything against that. That is all im saying.

Syrian put his unit close to turkey without entering teritory so that lao big wall fails. ?

Ok ...bit of a grey area again. When we accidently break someones ports without actualy invading his land we always agree not to attack the city and pretend the walls are up. I dont know man ...its a similar thing.
Maybe we need teritorial waters added. XD

Whether his wall fails or not, it is on Lao not syrian. Syrian did not invade his land turn one. So it's legit. That is on the person walling to make sure his wall does not get interrupted.
Usually when we break ports, we are putting our trans right on enemy land. For instance, hamburg WF, Odessa WF. That is different then what took place today in Illy's CW.
Realistically, If im not on your land turn one, and you make a bad wall. I can attack your cap. If I'm on your land, and its acknowledged, then we know not to hit that port city, or cap

My opinion about this matter is that wf turn is legal and anyone can do it.

Not wfing turn 1 is an agreement between players.

We can argue about this but we all know that it wasn't "accidentally" wfed based by knowing syrian i say he did it on purpose. So basically syrian broke the agreement we had and i hope syndicate leaders do something about this and making sure it never happens again. I dont think anyone here respect syrian and his stupid friends like death,monkey,mother but with what syrian did ,he burned the hopes of anyone ever respecting him.


As for laos wall its also legal. He can do that in each turn if he wants, whatchu gonna do? Cry about it or report to mods? There is no agreement between players of avoiding that big wall so far. Big wall its pretty smart cuz he gets to defend cap one more extra turn.

I hope someone wfes syrian turn 1 in cw, so that we can all get to work by decoding and translating what syrian will writte in his crying thread after cw lol

Literally lold at commandos post about Syrian

Chill out guys !I usually don't post on threads like these because they usually just turn into flame wars thanks to the majority of the community being what it is. But, shouldn't coalitions just clarify before CW whether or not they'll allow 'bigwall' around capitol first turn?

Personally, I think Goblin makes a lot of sense and his argument would be the safer route. But really, It all boils down to game play etiquette of both coalitions. Like rewalling, shouldn't there be a fair way to prevent such a desperate move like 'bigwalls'? If 1st turn wallfuck is the only option there shouldn't be any 'bigwalls' 1st turn anywhere. If you're going to secure your capitol with a big wall like it's WW2 you can't quite complain when a part of it is 'wallfucked' because you're units were 'wasted'. You don't always benefit from your investments. However, I had no problem with rewalling when it first came around because it was easy to prevent and I've never had a problem with someone using a 'bigwall' on their capitol first turn. If it gets wallfucked under the same circumstances as Odessa and Hamburg, you can't attack it but could you wallfuck it inside to make sure he doesn't benefit? Completely up to the community, majority rules. All in all, I don't see there being a consensus anytime soon but some critical thinking can go a long way in speeding up to a conclusion.

The argument behind wallfucking the bigwall on France being legal because "the unit isn't actually in France" is fairly idiotic in my opinion. Doesn't that mean you could wallfuck any wall as long as your unit is on the other side of the border ? I'm sure not 100% understanding the logic behind that argument. And please enough flaming guys.

Hurrah. (Had to type this really quick more than likely mistakes, sorry about that)

Quit bitching. Rewalling and triangle walls are a part of the game, sure it's happened to me, but I don't cry about it.
Also...
>stop cry

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 17:16

Im ignoring waffels post because it is filled with ad hominems and attacks on my clan, theres no truth to any of his accusations, and if im needed to clarify further i will.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

Of course i agree with you Waffel, since we had this discussion recently.

For the sake of the game balance:
1. there should be no wall fucking capitals turn 1
2. there should be no trespassing opponents teritory turn 1
3. there should be no rewalling turn 2

Rewalling, in its "infamous" state i limit only too turn 2 and definite it as:
• preventing an opponent to have a chance at breaking walls that would leave his capital city open*
* preventing does not include of course turn blocking your opponents wall fuck units in order to prevent them in this task

Since rewalling is preventable in every way after turn 2, by wall fuck units and that includes the big walls aswell:
• rewalling should be permited after turn 2

Turn 2 rewalling can unbalance the game and gain undeserved advantage to some countries which is far greater then the initial "capital" invested so to speak (does few extra units).

Conclusion:
• a move that cant be prevented, by your own moves and skills ...cant be a legal move. ...this is a similarity between 1st turn wf and big wall rewall.

You cant contradict this Laochra.

i do not seek to contradict you goblin just for the sake of it, we merely have different perspectives. Someone in the previous few posts said it was about who right and whos wrong, for me i want something done about this. Just look at the previous threads on these topics, some people support rewalling but hate serb rewalling, others support team rewalling but not self rewalling. The communities divided on these issues, which leads to conflict on views of fairplay and threads like this on the forums.

And no, this is not the first thread of this kind, nor will it be the last.

When i say i want clarification from an official source, i want the rules stated and enforced by the mods so that if theyre broken in a competitive game(a duel or a cw), i can screenshot them and have that game removed from record. For example

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

For the sake of the game balance:
1. there should be no wall fucking capitals turn 1
2. there should be no trespassing opponents teritory turn 1

Everyone in the competitive community agrees on these rules, but if broken could you go to a mod and seek the game removed, and perhaps some sort of warning to the other player? I don't think you could. You could wf me in a duel right now gob and laugh at me and i could do nothing about it, there might be a sympathetic mod or 2 but within the current game rules its only frowned upon, not actually forbidden.

I would like to see the above 2 rules officially stated in the gamerules, and i would like to see an official mod controlled vote on the use of rewalling, serbian walling, and the grey area of opening walls on an opponents territory without actually invading the territory to do so. There would have to be an exception added to the third issue, where it is unavoidable with opposing countries in close proximity, that play is continued as if the walls are there. But bear in mind this would render double walling of countries void, unless the wall layers are formed far enough inland to prevent units outside the territory opening them.

these 3 issues would need to be voted on separately, as serbian walling is a legit move within the battle mechanics, but it is considered cheap. Rewalling might be a bug, if this proposal is considered ill elaborate. I used to believe it wasnt a bug but recently when testing tb mechanics i discovered something which bothered me. Now i do believe theres something wrong with the rewalling mechanics. As for the third issue, it currently isnt an illegal move, but it causes much debate and friction. Most players if they broke a wall on an opponents territory turn 1 would pretend it is there and continue playing, others break them deliberately and exploit the wf.

If this is taken to a vote, i would propose 3 separate threads for discussion, and that the votes are handled by mail by rank 7s and above(to prevent abuse by alts). It may seem like a lot of effort, but these issues have appeared time and again for years, isnt it time something is done?

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 14:59

Conclusion:
• a move that cant be prevented, by your own moves and skills ...cant be a legal move. ...this is a similarity between 1st turn wf and big wall rewall.

an interesting thought, but rewalling can be prevented turn 2, so this would render it perfectly legal, also big walls are preventable by first turn wf, but only unpreventable if we adhere to the 1st rule.

You come up with some randomy ''perspective shit'' talking about this and that, asking things. I anwser them for you, and then you come with this:
-''Im ignoring waffels post because it is filled with ad hominems and attacks on my clan, theres no truth to any of his accusations, and if im needed to clarify further i will.''
If i give my opinion about what I think is wrong (seems like thats all you do, about strats/walls/AW/players/mods) you get mad at me, and say ''Waffel is personal attacking and not reasonable'' Only if I agree with you I dont see such words or blashements... this is pathetic man. Read my other quote towards you, you'll find your anwsers, its you attacking me the whole time with crap like ''waffel stop lying, you cant even give proof (neither can you, only saying ''chess said this chess said it could be coolblablabla'' -.-

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 14:47

This is basically just repetition of the argument in my other thread.

Support !

Zitat:

As for the rest of this thread.

Nice personal attacks and ad hominen. This post wont last much

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 13.10.2014 at 17:16

Im ignoring waffels post because it is filled with ad hominems and attacks on my clan, theres no truth to any of his accusations, and if im needed to clarify further i will.


i do not seek to contradict you goblin just for the sake of it, we merely have different perspectives. Someone in the previous few posts said it was about who right and whos wrong, for me i want something done about this. Just look at the previous threads on these topics, some people support rewalling but hate serb rewalling, others support team rewalling but not self rewalling. The communities divided on these issues, which leads to conflict on views of fairplay and threads like this on the forums.

And no, this is not the first thread of this kind, nor will it be the last.

When i say i want clarification from an official source, i want the rules stated and enforced by the mods so that if theyre broken in a competitive game(a duel or a cw), i can screenshot them and have that game removed from record. For example

You say, official source? We all know you are implying to acq, and its almost 99% sure acq will support all you do and say. Because mods aint listening to us, because we ''cry'' or ''flamewar'' or ''trashtalk''
And what about all the games which get lost or ruined by disconnection? You want people to purposly disconnect and SS it and ''want the game removed''? If this is going to be in this game the whole 3v3 cw system will be a bigg fraud.
All we are asking is for you guys to stop with these ridicilous annoying walls that lead us to disadvantages.. But all I hear from you guys is, because there is no rule against it, we should all accept it, and if not we should not cry about it -.-. Then you come with'' stop attacking me waffel'' im ignoring your posts'' Stop being so selfish and only do whatever you want yourself, you are ruining the fun of 3v3's by doing this kind of things. Idk if you have noticed but alot of people dislike playing 3v3/cw's nowdays. To be honest I myself only like to play vs SM. If they lose they dont cry about it, if they win they dont bragg about it. They win without all these rewalling crap. So as my ''proof'' you dont need this wall at all..

And like I said in my main comment, dont use the excuse of ''we lose 8 troops to wall'' just to justify this kind of playstyle, you choose to lose 8 troops dont let the others have an disadvantage because of it. After all the crap/wars/discussions these wallings have caused and you guys still cant manage to understand most of the people is your own problem not ours, dont ruin our fun by doing this.

Laochra what happened to you man.. all I say or do is ''personal attacking in your eyes, or trashtalking or flamewarring.. and you say im unreasonable..'' how is this not being personal at all? Its weird nobody else is saying these things.. and even goblin is agreeing with me, but strange you say you disagree with me, but not with goblin o_o?

I should start to wf even triangle wall.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 13.10.2014 at 16:53

Geschrieben von W4R_MaChINE, 13.10.2014 at 16:41

I'm doing nothing more then backing my opinion. What syrian did was fine in my book.

And so am i my friend, just backing up my opinion that i stated above before responding to you.

• "there should be no trespassing your opponent teritory turn 1"

Im defending laochra's right and everyone's right to make a big wall without opponents entering their teritory, but under condition...

• "there should be no rewalling turn 2

Meaning, create a inner wall for your capital.

So i proposed a compromise between players refraining from wall fuckin and entering opponents teritory turn 1 which is a big no for me and people who want to use big walls to refrain from abusing it in the form of rewall.

Problem? ...who cant read? I respond to your legal, illegal comment, proposed a compromise, but you didnt respond to my own opinions, but instead told me to get of this topic and go to ideas and suggestions.

This is what im saying the whole time ... just dont rewall in turn 2, and I have no problem with this biggwalling.

For one thread only waffel, i am going to take the time to respond to everything youve said, since i just logged on to 3 notifications from you from the same thread.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

People use this bigg wall turn 1, and triangle wall turn 2. Its unfair to the other people who cant open the capital wall for 2 turns.
And if people WF the bigg wall turn 1, without attacking their capital, and just wf it turn 2 too they get mad. Lmao.
I don't get this logic-.-?

why is it unfair, they get the advantage of their cap walled an extra turn? why is this more unfair than if their wf gets tb'd? If a cap walled an extra turn devastates your game then i can only conclude your gameplay is too focused upon turn 3 cap pressure and you need to make changes and react. Ask yourself, why did they bigall, where are their troops, do they intend to expand do i need to stack my cap much. should i expand?

it is absurd to claim a legitimate strategic move is unfair, theres a tonne of moves a player can carry out in the early turns to obtain an advantage over their opponent, why should this move be different? why should these walls be banned? because you dont like or cant handle them?

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

Only because you lose 5 extra troops (which isnt that 'big of a deal) since you can easily expand with ukraine/turkey/spain/germany/uk without those 5 units, with france most of the people choose to not rush italy so they wont take a big damage at all by losing those 5 extra troops. You guys use this excuse just to approve this wall, it isnt legit...

effective double walls require 11 or more units, for more info ask clovis. By effective i mean they take 2 turns to open.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

Only because some people feel like playing this game, its not a reason to say :''If they do it, you do it too'' because thats just beyond stupid.. if people want to play this way, go ahead but dont expect people to like it and accept it.

indeed, i am glad that you said this, if you want to go around first turn wf'ing people because you dont like double walls, dont expect people to like or accept it. This is why i created the other thread waffel.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

Wall is to prevent getting capped FOR THAT TURN. if you wall like this to prevent it from 2 turns walled, dont cry if people wf just to make it 1 turn.

first turn wf is a big no no in the competitive community, just because you dont agree with big walls, you cant breach this etiquette and then act surprised when others get mad about it. This extends to making pissy forum posts.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

> There is also no ''rule'' for no WF turn 1. It was a ''standard'' rule between the competitive 3v3 players who respected each other enough to not WF/annoy eachother turn 1. At turn 2 you can do anything you want to harm the enemy. By doing this wall, you wont allow people to harm you at turn 2 either. In turn 2 you are ALLOWED to open any wall you want, especially capital walls. So by wf'ing this biggwal turn 1, and not attacking it that turn 2, but just wf'ing turn 2 makes it legit.

indeed there is this rule, yet your clanmate broke it, and you attempted to justify this rulebreak because you dont like double walls, many of the spectators watching the game condemned syrians actions, i could name them but why bother. The difference in opinions is why i made my last post in this thread.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

You guys are hypocrite, I remember u guys doing this belarus rush from turkey, by doing that rush you guys WF odessa and all of you know it but still did it. Then you guys said we wont attack it turn 2 so its legit, same counts for this. Only this time it happends TOWARD you not from you, and that fact you simply cant accept. I call it selfish and hypocrite. Only counter to open that wall in turn 2, is by wfing it turn 1.

who are you adressing the section of this post to, you quoted me so i must assume youre speaking to both me and illyria. I personally have never used the belarus rush. The only players who i have witnessed carry out this attack and invade enemy tterritory turn 1 are madara and Plato, note that a thread condemning madaras etiquette breach was made recently. No illyrians use this move, so with that accusation proving to be a lie i am not sure how you can call us selfish hypocrites....

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

>official source,
I know acq a long time now, and he told me him self he didn't like rewalls, it was a faggy thing to do and not cool at all.
Since acq made illyria with pontez in it, he ''changed his mind''? Bshit man.. all you guys do is backing eachother when you guys do something wrong. You never accept anything you do wrong, and why? bcs you have acq behind you ( a respected mod).

This is what i mean by personal attacks waffel. and it is why i dont usually bother responding to your posts. the mod team consists or more than just acquiesce, i actually never ask acqui for anything regarding or requiring moderation action on my behalf, mainly to prevent accusations of bias or favouritism, yet these accusations ofc still come, mainly from you waffel. Note that the only illyrian who responded and voiced any suport in the other thread was khal. Acqui replied but clearly didnt want to get involved. Acqui can make up his own mind on matters, neither me nor pont have any influence on him. You should know better than to be making silly groundless accusations like this. And funny that you would accuse us of supporting our own clanmates for doing something wrong, when you and eagles are basically supporting Syrians first turn wf.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

-''Im ignoring waffels post because it is filled with ad hominems and attacks on my clan, theres no truth to any of his accusations, and if im needed to clarify further i will.''

see above quote^^

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

If i give my opinion about what I think is wrong (seems like thats all you do, about strats/walls/AW/players/mods) you get mad at me, and say ''Waffel is personal attacking and not reasonable'' Only if I agree with you I dont see such words or blashements... this is pathetic man. Read my other quote towards you, you'll find your anwsers, its you attacking me the whole time with crap like ''waffel stop lying, you cant even give proof (neither can you, only saying ''chess said this chess said it could be coolblablabla'' -.-

your opinion usually amounts to groundless accusations and personal attacks, as seen in your previous posts. I can respect an opinion, but you make these disagreements personal, and try to make it about whos right and whos wrong. And whats chess got to do with anything?

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

You say, official source? We all know you are implying to acq, and its almost 99% sure acq will support all you do and say. Because mods aint listening to us, because we ''cry'' or ''flamewar'' or ''trashtalk''

nope i meant the moderator team, in fact i deliberately directed desu to my previous post, he can bring it to the moderator team if he thinks its worth consideration. I picked him because 1. hes not acqui. 2. he actually plays competitively and has a vested interest. 3. he might actually care enough to do something about all this.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

And what about all the games which get lost or ruined by disconnection? You want people to purposly disconnect and SS it and ''want the game removed''? If this is going to be in this game the whole 3v3 cw system will be a bigg fraud.

a ridiculous comparison. Disconnects are unfortunate but they are what they are. Due to possibility of abuse it is at the opponents courtesy to offer a rematch/draw or not.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

All we are asking is for you guys to stop with these ridicilous annoying walls that lead us to disadvantages.. But all I hear from you guys is, because there is no rule against it, we should all accept it, and if not we should not cry about it -.-. Then you come with'' stop attacking me waffel'' im ignoring your posts'' Stop being so selfish and only do whatever you want yourself, you are ruining the fun of 3v3's by doing this kind of things. Idk if you have noticed but alot of people dislike playing 3v3/cw's nowdays. To be honest I myself only like to play vs SM. If they lose they dont cry about it, if they win they dont bragg about it. They win without all these rewalling crap. So as my ''proof'' you dont need this wall at all..

who is this "we"? i feel that you are using "we" in attempt to give your opinions and accusations more strength. Who specifically are you speaking on behalf of, your clan? or this minority of players who think its ok to wf turn 1? You guys ruined my fun, by breaching what i and many others consider a common courtesy. Many people spectating the game condemned you for it, people since on this thread have condemned you for it.

3v3s are being played in the lobby more than ever, some of us who have played them a lot are getting bored and others have stopped playing, but how is this point relevant to anything in this thread?

illyria has played 400 cws, of all those that i have seen and took part in, few clans have given us any issues. You just caused us issues with your actions, and now suddenly we are the problem clan? go tell syrian to wf desu turn 1, see how quickly your relationship with stalins deteriorates. a clan whos members incidentally team rewall. and because they have won cws without rewall, doesnt mean that they dont need them anymore than it means they do need them.

See this is why i dont respond to your posts, poor logic, accusations, personal attacks, irrelevant examples, it is just all too much to respond to. This post has taken me a good 20 mins to compose. Not how i like to spend my time, especially when it accomplishes nothing.

Geschrieben von Waffel, 13.10.2014 at 14:14

And like I said in my main comment, dont use the excuse of ''we lose 8 troops to wall'' just to justify this kind of playstyle, you choose to lose 8 troops dont let the others have an disadvantage because of it. After all the crap/wars/discussions these wallings have caused and you guys still cant manage to understand most of the people is your own problem not ours, dont ruin our fun by doing this.

Laochra what happened to you man.. all I say or do is ''personal attacking in your eyes, or trashtalking or flamewarring.. and you say im unreasonable..'' how is this not being personal at all? Its weird nobody else is saying these things.. and even goblin is agreeing with me, but strange you say you disagree with me, but not with goblin o_o?

all the answers to this can be found in my previous responses, nothing at all happened to me. i just do not appreciate being called a selfish hypocrite. Or told that my clan is ruining the game for everyone.

Geschrieben von Madara, 13.10.2014 at 20:01

Chill out guys !I usually don't post on threads like these because they usually just turn into flame wars thanks to the majority of the community being what it is. But, shouldn't coalitions just clarify before CW whether or not they'll allow 'bigwall' around capitol first turn?

Personally, I think Goblin makes a lot of sense and his argument would be the safer route. But really, It all boils down to game play etiquette of both coalitions. Like rewalling, shouldn't there be a fair way to prevent such a desperate move like 'bigwalls'? If 1st turn wallfuck is the only option there shouldn't be any 'bigwalls' 1st turn anywhere. If you're going to secure your capitol with a big wall like it's WW2 you can't quite complain when a part of it is 'wallfucked' because you're units were 'wasted'. You don't always benefit from your investments. However, I had no problem with rewalling when it first came around because it was easy to prevent and I've never had a problem with someone using a 'bigwall' on their capitol first turn. If it gets wallfucked under the same circumstances as Odessa and Hamburg, you can't attack it but could you wallfuck it inside to make sure he doesn't benefit? Completely up to the community, majority rules. All in all, I don't see there being a consensus anytime soon but some critical thinking can go a long way in speeding up to a conclusion.

The argument behind wallfucking the bigwall on France being legal because "the unit isn't actually in France" is fairly idiotic in my opinion. Doesn't that mean you could wallfuck any wall as long as your unit is on the other side of the border ? I'm sure not 100% understanding the logic behind that argument. And please enough flaming guys.

Hurrah. (Had to type this really quick more than likely mistakes, sorry about that)

you seem to be an idealist madara, have these threads taught you nothing? Coalitions are not going to be able to agree on whats fair or not any more than individual players. In regards to your third paragraph, this is exactly what syrian did to me, he placed a unit on turks boarder opening my circle wall turn 1. His clanmates supported his actions.

what he did in my book is even worse than what w4r did, this time it was deliberate.

given the no turn 1 wf rule, common courtesy would result in most players not interfering with walls on another persons territory turn 1, if this happened accidentally they would pretend the wall is there. The only people who disagree with this are those who dislike double walls and it interferes with their notion of fairplay. then theres also people like bonker who think its ok to wf turn 1 as long as your unit isnt on their territory and you dont attack the cities to be walled.

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 14.10.2014 at 04:03

it is absurd to claim a legitimate strategic move is unfair, theres a tonne of moves a player can carry out in the early turns to obtain an advantage over their opponent, why should this move be different? why should these walls be banned? because you dont like or cant handle them?

Ok ...this is where you go wrong. This is where i can just repeat the same question to you and we can go round and round in circles...

Why shouldnt the walls be banned? because you dont like it or cant handle it?

Can you see the absurdity of this kind of conversations? You also argue about courtesy, but dont think in fact that you show no courtesy to people who deem rewalling to be unfair...etc. etc.



Lets look at this thing rationaly:

• community agreed upon and played by this unwritten rule that 1st turn wf is wrong ...this make it have value and its wrong of people to use the argumment "just cuz community agreed upon and there is no official rule its not illegal" ...many rules in life dont have written laws or punishment but are respected ...but nvm that now.

• when we discussed rewalling many times. key argumment of you guys was always its preventable ...i had my opinions on how it still makes it unfair by usage of different strategies, countries etc. but whatever, my opinion doesnt matter since its my opinion and not communities

• so basicly we stoped arguing about rewalling and i accepted the fact that i will just send 2 units, like i always did, to prevent rewalling ...and with this we are basicly agreeing that rewalling is fine and not illegal move

• but then, you guys start using big walls to rewall ...and now you lose your key argumment that its preventable

• you start making another set of argumment on how some countries have disadvantages if they dont use this ...this is something all of community doesnt agree upon and its your personal opinion, just like mine was in a paragraph above

• so why is your opinion more important then mine Laochra or waffles, or acquiesce or anyones for that matter

• now people who believe that big wall rewalling is unfair and because it cant be prevented in turn 2, are starting to prevent it when its possible, in turn 1 ...by their opinion, that is no less important then yours, this is a legit move to counter your move which you consider legit

• now we can go on and on clashing our personal opinions, and considering there are many grey areas in this game nobody is completly right or wrong ...or we can come up with a compromise like the one i presented above.

• i would go even further in my offer for a solution and sum up my idea in only 2 rules:

1. do not enter opponents teritory or prevent your opponent from making walls in his teritory
2. do not make moves of rewalling turn 2 that your opponent cant prevent by using his moves

• its a fuckin good offer dont you think? ...im basicly saying make rewalling legit, but dont use moves that are not preventable and call them legit and dont use the "im using 11 troops to do this" argumment. 11 troops mean nothing compared to benefits.

Big wall rewalling is like me giving 50 dollars to someone knowing i would without a doubt get 500 the other day ...there is no risk, no skill involved and your opinion that this is needed because some countries have a disadvantage is a poor argumment because we dont find personal opinions to be facts and most of us have different opinions.

Non preventable moves shouldnt be used. - we go from this, this should be the sacred rule from which we consider other rules and not personal opinions, because like that you couldnt get 3 people to agree let alone a whole community.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 14.10.2014 at 04:58

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 14.10.2014 at 04:03

it is absurd to claim a legitimate strategic move is unfair, theres a tonne of moves a player can carry out in the early turns to obtain an advantage over their opponent, why should this move be different? why should these walls be banned? because you dont like or cant handle them?

Ok ...this is where you go wrong. This is where i can just repeat the same question to you and we can go round and round in circles...

Why shouldnt the walls be banned? because you dont like it or cant handle it?

Can you see the absurdity of this kind of conversations? You also argue about courtesy, but dont think in fact that you show no courtesy to people who deem rewalling to be unfair...etc. etc.



Lets look at this thing rationaly:

• community agreed upon and played by this unwritten rule that 1st turn wf is wrong ...this make it have value and its wrong of people to use the argumment "just cuz community agreed upon and there is no official rule its not illegal" ...many rules in life dont have written laws or punishment but are respected ...but nvm that now.

• when we discussed rewalling many times. key argumment of you guys was always its preventable ...i had my opinions on how it still makes it unfair by usage of different strategies, countries etc. but whatever, my opinion doesnt matter since its my opinion and not communities

• so basicly we stoped arguing about rewalling and i accepted the fact that i will just send 2 units, like i always did, to prevent rewalling ...and with this we are basicly agreeing that rewalling is fine and not illegal move

• but then, you guys start using big walls to rewall ...and now you lose your key argumment that its preventable

• you start making another set of argumment on how some countries have disadvantages if they dont use this ...this is something all of community doesnt agree upon and its your personal opinion, just like mine was in a paragraph above

• so why is your opinion more important then mine Laochra or waffles, or acquiesce or anyones for that matter

• now people who believe that big wall rewalling is unfair and because it cant be prevented in turn 2, are starting to prevent it when its possible, in turn 1 ...by their opinion, that is no less important then yours, this is a legit move to counter your move which you consider legit

• now we can go on and on clashing our personal opinions, and considering there are many grey areas in this game nobody is completly right or wrong ...or we can come up with a compromise like the one i presented above.

• i would go even further in my offer for a solution and sum up my idea in only 2 rules:

1. do not enter opponents teritory or prevent your opponent from making walls in his teritory
2. do not make moves of rewalling turn 2 that your opponent cant prevent by using his moves

• its a fuckin good offer dont you think? ...im basicly saying make rewalling legit, but dont use moves that are not preventable and call them legit and dont use the "im using 11 troops to do this" argumment. 11 troops mean nothing compared to benefits.

Big wall rewalling is like me giving 50 dollars to someone knowing i would without a doubt get 500 the other day ...there is no risk, no skill involved and your opinion that this is needed because some countries have a disadvantage is a poor argumment because we dont find personal opinions to be facts and most of us have different opinions.

Non preventable moves shouldnt be used. - we go from this, this should be the sacred rule from which we consider other rules and not personal opinions, because like that you couldnt get 3 people to agree let alone a whole community.

Omg I wanted to do a quote list on laochra´s quotes but this said it all!
I think the solutions are great and should get ´´respected´´ just like the no wf turn 1 rule.
Your english just wrote down my thoughts ;3

Geschrieben von Goblin, 14.10.2014 at 04:58

Geschrieben von Permamuted, 14.10.2014 at 04:03

it is absurd to claim a legitimate strategic move is unfair, theres a tonne of moves a player can carry out in the early turns to obtain an advantage over their opponent, why should this move be different? why should these walls be banned? because you dont like or cant handle them?

Ok ...this is where you go wrong. This is where i can just repeat the same question to you and we can go round and round in circles...

Why shouldnt the walls be banned? because you dont like it or cant handle it?

Can you see the absurdity of this kind of conversations? You also argue about courtesy, but dont think in fact that you show no courtesy to people who deem rewalling to be unfair...etc. etc.

Lets look at this thing rationaly:

• community agreed upon and played by this unwritten rule that 1st turn wf is wrong ...this make it have value and its wrong of people to use the argumment "just cuz community agreed upon and there is no official rule its not illegal" ...many rules in life dont have written laws or punishment but are respected ...but nvm that now.

• when we discussed rewalling many times. key argumment of you guys was always its preventable ...i had my opinions on how it still makes it unfair by usage of different strategies, countries etc. but whatever, my opinion doesnt matter since its my opinion and not communities

• so basicly we stoped arguing about rewalling and i accepted the fact that i will just send 2 units, like i always did, to prevent rewalling ...and with this we are basicly agreeing that rewalling is fine and not illegal move

• but then, you guys start using big walls to rewall ...and now you lose your key argumment that its preventable

• you start making another set of argumment on how some countries have disadvantages if they dont use this ...this is something all of community doesnt agree upon and its your personal opinion, just like mine was in a paragraph above

• so why is your opinion more important then mine Laochra or waffles, or acquiesce or anyones for that matter

• now people who believe that big wall rewalling is unfair and because it cant be prevented in turn 2, are starting to prevent it when its possible, in turn 1 ...by their opinion, that is no less important then yours, this is a legit move to counter your move which you consider legit

• now we can go on and on clashing our personal opinions, and considering there are many grey areas in this game nobody is completly right or wrong ...or we can come up with a compromise like the one i presented above.

• i would go even further in my offer for a solution and sum up my idea in only 2 rules:

1. do not enter opponents teritory or prevent your opponent from making walls in his teritory
2. do not make moves of rewalling turn 2 that your opponent cant prevent by using his moves

• its a fuckin good offer dont you think? ...im basicly saying make rewalling legit, but dont use moves that are not preventable and call them legit and dont use the "im using 11 troops to do this" argumment. 11 troops mean nothing compared to benefits.

Big wall rewalling is like me giving 50 dollars to someone knowing i would without a doubt get 500 the other day ...there is no risk, no skill involved and your opinion that this is needed because some countries have a disadvantage is a poor argumment because we dont find personal opinions to be facts and most of us have different opinions.

Non preventable moves shouldnt be used. - we go from this, this should be the sacred rule from which we consider other rules and not personal opinions, because like that you couldnt get 3 people to agree let alone a whole community.

why should double walls be banned? you and waffel state it provides an unfair advantage and is unpreventable.

why shouldnt double walls be banned? It is a strategic move that not long after you learn to wall in this game you either think to do yourself or you encounter someone else doing. When i was a low rank i saw it all the time, i had no problem with it then, i have no problem with it now. I just really dont understand where you guys are coming from, Stop making this about "Laochra thinks his opinion is more important". I want you to explain. You say 8 extra units isnt important in a turn 1 expansion? youre both experienced high ranks, how many times have you failed key cities by 1-2 units in your turn 1 opening with the other player stealing your expansion? every unit counts in your turn 1, unless youre turk 8 units is huge. If double walling was so outrageously advantageous, then why dont those of us who do it do it all the time in every country we pick?

There are 2 countries on europe + alone i double wall with ever, the rest i feel it is simply not worth it or a waste of units.

I'm surprised at waffel, someone who is so openly against rushing and constantly complaining about how it is ruining the game, seeking to have a move which discourages rushing and encourages slowrolling to be banned.

Geschrieben von Goblin, 14.10.2014 at 04:58

• now people who believe that big wall rewalling is unfair and because it cant be prevented in turn 2, are starting to prevent it when its possible, in turn 1 ...by their opinion, that is no less important then yours, this is a legit move to counter your move which you consider legit

this is where we have issues, they are breaking the no first turn wf courtesy most players play by, im pretty sure you guys are in the minority with your views on this. in illyria nobody would do to me what syrian did to me today, same with mk, stalins have shown themselves divided. But you will find that many players will bristle if you deliberately first turn wf them. Most the players who spectated that game today condemned syrians actions, this is why i made my previous post. But i feel like im wasting my time debating this with you guys, unless something is made official. these arguments are pointless.

btw to further elaborate, nobody is right or wrong, you're criticising me for not showing courtesy to you and waffel but you just did the same to w4r. as i said, the first turn wf rules arent official, so technically it is legal to do so. W4r was completely correct to say this. Waffel pretty much hit the nail on the head when he stated that it is a courtesy players who respect each other extend. that is all it is, a courtesy.