Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Constructive Discussion

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 This is a special, fairytale thread where no-one feels inclined to argue or bitch about past grievances. A big, unshaven man with a baseball bat and a boxer's nose stands to one side and watches; his role unexplained. Joel said: If you are the one who suggested the flag start closer to the defender then kudos. I definitely remember being all for it! So why didnt it happen?? I'm happy to re-open this idea. I do think it's a bit different to simply giving a CR boost. Maybe even give the defender some influence over moving the randomly chosen position of it (to simulate some form of defensive emplacement). Quote: A cr advantage of 20 -100 for defendee seemed massive to me suggesting it. Until i saw the starting cr we had to play with... even 100 cr is a fart in the wind in 3000+ cr battles. Yes, and I think everyone agrees with that. Quote: Which is the toughest thing... but you come up with a good idea to reduced that and make the 750 cr/player limit more workable and the vault crowd shoots that one down. Which idea is it that you like, the one where there's a CR limit on the battle, with proportional reduction of both teams? Quote: (again i would suggest the defender should be able to hold in reserve some reactionary cr at camp...perhaps deployed at a more aggressive decay. If the atracker doesnt attach of course he wasted it). I do think there's some merit in this, it's been an idea kicking around in my head. Properly balanced and not OP, obviously. But it would benefit the game by leading to closely balanced battles happening more often. Quote: Point by point it has played out on these forums...despite calls for a meeting... to go with whatever goat wants. That is probably the biggest reason for our current dissension. I honestly struggle to see where this has come from or what changes have been made to favor goat's ideas. The latest idea (to do with giving both camps more control over schedling) simply seemed like a no-brainer to me (I didn't necessarily agree with the exact implementation that goat suggested - it's mostly the idea of giving camps the ability to specify their best and their worst times, rather than just their best, which I like). But sorry for the wrong impression having been given here. I do my best to be unbiased; in fact, I probably shouldn't take part in any more camp battles myself. You are right that we need another meeting.. things progress in a much more civilized manner there. I will organise this. Quote: Now i KNOW i mentioned 500m escapes need to get fixed (and i know i brought it up years ago with scl) And certainly our warnings of border merges bringing 4...5..6 and many more combats unreasonable to bring in the whole server coordination for them, have been ignored. That is certainly one reason aggrivating the feelings of not being listened to. What happens (too frequently) is that I see suggestions, agree with them, make a note to work on them.. and then get swamped with 101 other things from my day-job, family life, other DW issues, and work on my other games. Ignoring good ideas is never intentional. Quote: Oh and regarding the defender times... do you really think you want to talk to any camp owner who is forced to defend his actual camp at 3 am his time? This is a good point, of course. The system chosen time should absolutely be taken from the defender's opening hours if at all possible. Maybe the solution is to allow the attacker to pick a time from the defender's open hours (as sort-of suggested by Longo) and to have this automatically be accepted as a re-negotiated time? (but maybe also increase the minimum open hours to 10?) ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 6:55 am Last edited Jun 8, 2020, 7:16 am by *sam*

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 just out of curiosity what does the defence rating mean on tiles some are alot higher, maybe that rating could give some sort of cr boost to the defender say x2 or higher? owe and i recently signed up for discord, but nobody on it yet, do these meetings happen there? ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 7:52 am Last edited Jun 8, 2020, 8:05 am by darthspanky

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 *sam* said: This is a special, fairytale thread where no-one feels inclined to argue or bitch about past grievances. A big, unshaven man with a baseball bat and a boxer's nose stands to one side and watches; his role unexplained. Joel said: If you are the one who suggested the flag start closer to the defender then kudos. I definitely remember being all for it! So why didnt it happen?? pretty sure this is a good idea. not sure about moving it though. that would allow for some possible gaming of stuff i think. I'm happy to re-open this idea. I do think it's a bit different to simply giving a CR boost. Maybe even give the defender some influence over moving the randomly chosen position of it (to simulate some form of defensive emplacement). Quote: A cr advantage of 20 -100 for defendee seemed massive to me suggesting it. Until i saw the starting cr we had to play with... even 100 cr is a fart in the wind in 3000+ cr battles. Yes, and I think everyone agrees with that. i do. defence rating CR addition should possibly be something like a minimum PLUS a proportion of the defending CR Quote: Which is the toughest thing... but you come up with a good idea to reduced that and make the 750 cr/player limit more workable and the vault crowd shoots that one down. Which idea is it that you like, the one where there's a CR limit on the battle, with proportional reduction of both teams? nine raised some legitimate concerns about this (especially as they relate to smaller battles. but i would still be happy to see it happen (provided that it didnt end up with situations where the proportional reduction plus the defenders CR DR rating ended up with low deployments having the same CR as higher ones. It needs careful balancing. Quote: (again i would suggest the defender should be able to hold in reserve some reactionary cr at camp...perhaps deployed at a more aggressive decay. If the atracker doesnt attach of course he wasted it). I do think there's some merit in this, it's been an idea kicking around in my head. Properly balanced and not OP, obviously. But it would benefit the game by leading to closely balanced battles happening more often. This just looks like a player who is losing a part of the game (hex deployment) trying to circumvent having to do the thinking bit. It would make the game significantly less interesting. I might be happy with it if it applied only to the immediate hexes around the camp (with vicious CR penalties). Quote: Point by point it has played out on these forums...despite calls for a meeting... to go with whatever goat wants. That is probably the biggest reason for our current dissension. I honestly struggle to see where this has come from or what changes have been made to favor goat's ideas. The latest idea (to do with giving both camps more control over schedling) simply seemed like a no-brainer to me (I didn't necessarily agree with the exact implementation that goat suggested - it's mostly the idea of giving camps the ability to specify their best and their worst times, rather than just their best, which I like). But sorry for the wrong impression having been given here. I do my best to be unbiased; in fact, I probably shouldn't take part in any more camp battles myself. i think we have pretty well shown that none of my suggestions bar the concede button have been implemented. So i think its time to draw a line under this weirdness. You are right that we need another meeting.. things progress in a much more civilized manner there. I will organise this. Quote: Now i KNOW i mentioned 500m escapes need to get fixed (and i know i brought it up years ago with scl) And certainly our warnings of border merges bringing 4...5..6 and many more combats unreasonable to bring in the whole server coordination for them, have been ignored. That is certainly one reason aggrivating the feelings of not being listened to. What happens (too frequently) is that I see suggestions, agree with them, make a note to work on them.. and then get swamped with 101 other things from my day-job, family life, other DW issues, and work on my other games. Ignoring good ideas is never intentional. Quote: Oh and regarding the defender times... do you really think you want to talk to any camp owner who is forced to defend his actual camp at 3 am his time? This is a good point, of course. The system chosen time should absolutely be taken from the defender's opening hours if at all possible. Maybe the solution is to allow the attacker to pick a time from the defender's open hours (as sort-of suggested by Longo) and to have this automatically be accepted as a re-negotiated time? (but maybe also increase the minimum open hours to 10?) if you get an excel spreadsheet out and work through every possible scenario you will see that this would NEVER happen under my suggestion. All that happens is that each camp gets to choose some time that they simply cant do (like the middle of the night). The times then favour the open times of defending camp. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 8:38 am

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 *sam* said: This is a special, fairytale thread where no-one feels inclined to argue or bitch about past grievances. A big, unshaven man with a baseball bat and a boxer's nose stands to one side and watches; his role unexplained. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 10:26 am

*Rev. V* Cestus Dei Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 3,208 Joined: Aug 3, 2010 Oh great, a dog's nose...mutie ......................... vet wv zom marshal paintladder cont Posted Jun 8, 2020, 11:38 am

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 tho i dont think you should stop playing in camp wars, found this lmao. https://youtu.be/HgwcI0FOpvY maybe you could be available to play the player who no shows cars? ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 11:38 am Last edited Jun 8, 2020, 12:14 pm by darthspanky

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 I think that is a point tbh. ITs a good way for you to see how it works close up. I know harrys doing it, but you may as well be too. Im sure we all understand that you are unbiased in this. You could play both sides and show the options for mercs in this. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 11:56 am

*Longo* Longos Merry Men Darkwind Guru Mutants Faction Group: Marshals Posts: 6,670 Joined: Dec 15, 2007 Sam - First don’t think for a minute that we do not appreciate your efforts and know that you don’t eat, ####, and sleep Darkwind, like the rest of us! We know you have other things in your life and appreciate all you do to please the masses of Evan. Maybe if you need someone to talk to, could I recommend one of the Mutie monks In Gateway who can show you the ways of Longoism? I think we all want camp wars to succeed. It seems like they have been dragging on though, and although the “hex game” is fun, as goat said, the battles have been few. And trying to learn the rules and then trying to keep up with what seems Like constant changes is frustrating for some of us. Scheduling hasn’t been the best, and making it so you don’t fight right away after deployment week is a definite bonus. The last scheduling suggestion just seems like too much... my point was that I have 8 hours up there, you want to attack me, you can literally open your attacking camp for one of my hours and guarantee when the battle would be. It might not be optimal, but you could make it happen, especially if you can be co dial and negotiate a change with the either player. But then you get one player that makes a suggestion and you roll with it without any input from others, and this added to the frustration. Was the auto lose with 4 to 1 odds already Implemented? I think we already lost due to this? I am pretty involved in the camp combats and I don’t know this myself. Lastly, I don’t think putting a maximum on what can be deployed is fair for the higher CRed gangs. If we have it, we should be able to use it. But there should be a button where you can agree to reduce at 50%, or 75%, if need be, as long as both agree on it. Making it just 4K, means some big camps might have 6k to deploy, and will just have to have that extra 2k sit idle because they have it and can’t use it. ......................... vet combatL1 ped1 paintladder semiprocombat ped2 wv pvp4 pvp1 gwped paintball pvp3 pvp5 slay2013 marshal circuit2 combat1 e2g raceL1 gwextrav gateautumn pvp2 triangle1 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 12:13 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 *Longo* said: Was the auto lose with 4 to 1 odds already Implemented? I think we already lost due to this? I am pretty involved in the camp combats and I don’t know this myself. It wasn't implemented. I asked Sam about it after the event closed and he said the logs show Joel forgot to put crew in his car. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 12:19 pm Last edited Jun 8, 2020, 12:20 pm by *goat starer*

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 am i the only one looking forward to the mutie smacking someone with the baseball bat? ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 12:22 pm

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 Sits waiting with a bowl of pumpkin seeds ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 12:43 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *Longo* said: Sam - First don’t think for a minute that we do not appreciate your efforts and know that you don’t eat, ####, and sleep Darkwind, like the rest of us!  We know you have other things in your life and appreciate all you do to please the masses of Evan. Maybe if you need someone to talk to, could I recommend one of the Mutie monks In Gateway who can show you the ways of Longoism?  Thanks  :-) *Longo* said: Scheduling hasn’t been the best, and making it so you don’t fight right away after deployment week is a definite bonus. The last scheduling suggestion just seems like too much... my point was that I have 8 hours up there, you want to attack me, you can literally open your attacking camp for one of my hours and guarantee when the battle would be. It might not be optimal, but you could make it happen, especially if you can be co dial and negotiate a change with the either player. Yes, I think this approach is good. It could be made more usable by having the attacker pick the time (from the defender's open hours) straight from the hexmap.. no need to mess around with their own camp schedules which would have knock-on effects (e.g. what if you're also being attacked by a 3rd camp?) *Longo* said: But then you get one player that makes a suggestion and you roll with it without any input from others, and this added to the frustration. I get it. Sorry! Like I said, it seemed like an obvious improvement so didn't occur to me that some people wouldn't see it that way. *Longo* said: Was the auto lose with 4 to 1 odds already Implemented? I think we already lost due to this? I am pretty involved in the camp combats and I don’t know this myself. No, I wouldn't add something like that without agreement. Joel forgot to add his character to his car, in that instance (from what I can make out in the server log). *Longo* said: Lastly, I don’t think putting a maximum on what can be deployed is fair for the higher CRed gangs. If we have it, we should be able to use it. But there should be a button where you can agree to reduce at 50%, or 75%, if need be, as long as both agree on it. Making it just 4K, means some big camps might have 6k to deploy, and will just have to have that extra 2k sit idle because they have it and can’t use it. Absolutely, I agree. Having a maximum deployable amount was never on the table in my opinion, for this exact reason. The way the proposed cap would work is that if you deployed 6k, you'd effectively be deploying it in the knowledge that it would appear in play as 4k, but that you'd also be downsizing your opponent by the same amount (33%).    We can certainly start it off on a consent basis, as you suggest (and this is what I already offered you and XMan to do in the upcoming 'rumble of the badlands'). Sometimes it's necessary to system enforce things, though. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 2:03 pm Last edited Jun 8, 2020, 2:07 pm by *sam*

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 *sam* said: - Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to put anyone or their efforts down, I am in fact very appreciative to see development on this front and the game in general... It's what brought me back after all. However, I feel like there should have been more of a test run before putting this system on the live server, it is one thing to call it a work in progress, but doing a test run with peoples active gangers and camps is going to create hard feelings. Especially when rules are changed on the fly. I am going to state some of my issues in the form of obnoxious and patronizing seeming questions, as we all know I'm bad at this writing thing and it's mostly not intentional so please try to bear with me. I'd rather have Sam's responses to these first than have others try to explain what was and wasn't intended, as some of you seem to have rather widely differing ideas about what was agreed upon when planning this metagame. There will be plenty of time to explain how wrong I am after that, don't worry. 1. Was it intended for the PvP system to be mostly a map painting game rather than something built to encourage fights in the game? From my point of view as a rather experienced wargamer* the system actively encourages avoiding client battles and taking as much territory with as little fighting as possible. This is compounded by the lack of any real defenders advantage and how much better attacking is**, as pointed out before. This might be a smart way to play a wargame, but if the stated goal was to get people engaged in PvP fighting, this ain't it chief. *. Late 20's might be young by most of your standards, but a lot of that life has been spent staring at messy maps in a turn based fashion. **. The sheer amount of CR required to defend when players have no advance warning about where the enemy will attack makes it a pure guessing game, a fools guessing game with terrible odds. Trying to out-trade tiles with the enemy is almost always a better option than holding, barring a few chokepoint situations. This also further encourages attacking as many tiles as possible in a given round. 4 fights in a week is nothing compared to what the alley/spanky/bill situation will generate. 2A. Even if above is the case or not, was it intended for camp wars to basically be won or lost based on who can buy sponsorships? To put it another way, to have the entire camp map metagame mostly decided by who has the fatter wallet and ability to game the economy? I was hoping to raise it at the next meeting, but here we are at the new year and it is now blindingly obvious. This applies to multiple sides right now so if I see someone calling this a biased point, I'm going to punch a wall. Even if they have the same base CR from map tiles, there is no way on this earth that the embassy can fight longovilles sponsorship CR number, nor can the alley fight spankys combat sponsorship. They might somehow pull wins out to circumstances or brilliance but with any remotely similar skillbase a 2-1 or even higher advantage in deployable CR is insurmountable. 2B. Was it meant for the same group of people to several different active war camps in close proximity to effectively double team single camps? This point is entirely dependent on what you envisioned camp PvP to be, but if it was to encourage people to fight tactical battles then this is a cancer that will destroy it. No, I'm not going to call anyone an exploiter or a cheater unlike some on several sides here. But these are the basic facts. The Vault and Bill's camp share the vast majority a significant portion of PvP active players and they are long time friends. These two camps combined give the same players two sources of CR to deploy on surrounding opponents. The idea that these camps would actually fight is pretty laughable, as they share the players. But it gets better, Bill could have had a fairly even fight with the vault alley (CR wise). Instead the active pvp members of the vault/bill camps joined spanky and vice versa. This is presumably to make sure they beat The Alley by default, as mentioned above.* Nah, this is neither exploit nor cheating. But encouraging people actually fight battles this is not. *I am perfectly aware my new southern camp and the alley could have done the same to bill, hence why I made efforts to not get into that sort of situation, as evidently I think it's both unbalanced as all getout and bad design. Multiple people can attest to me stating things like that unless they thought I was flat out lying. In conclusion So, we already have a situation where one camp is about to get attacked by the same group of players operating from two different camps. This would already have put it at at a near insurmountable 2-1 CR disadvantage. Is is then further combined with the ability to buy CR with darkwind bucks and has turned it into more like a 4-1CR ratio. Oh, I'm also very grateful to spanky bragging about the plan in the last public thread to help make my points blindingly obvious. Not that I can really blame spanky for caving in to whatever demand/suggestion the vault/bill made, since he doesn't have enough players in his camp to actually take a fight. As it stands he need their manpower to field cars and as soon as they leave, he either has to make other friends or be screwed since camps with low player counts are not allowed to effectively participate under current rules*. *Something that would be fine if there were more than 10-15 people in the whole game that wants to pvp. I appreciate it was planned in the hope of bringing in more players, but it also has to function with the playerbase the game already has. Anyway, if the response this is mostly going be "Teamwork" and "Working as designed" feel free to dismiss this post and have fun, but in that case I probably won't be engaging much more on this topic. If any of you got trough this post... Thanks for reading? I guess. [PS: I was not sure if to bother posting after most of you seemingly agreed that the attackers convenience is nearly as important as the defenders on time slots. Yeah, I'm salty Nine.  No really, the attacker can at least plan and roughly guess how many battles on an uncomfortable time he might have to take due to being the initiator. The attacker can also decline to attack if they think they won't have time to fight on uncomfortable hours for a certain week. The defender has no luxury and must take fights or lose by default. Expecting a camp to be able to take multiple fights over an 8 hour range in a single week is very, very close to unworkable for people with jobs... increasing it to a maximum possibility of 16 is asking a lot. I could do that, but I don't have much work right now. I doubt most people have that much free time.] Again, I'm really not trying to call out the intentions or character of people here, this is simply how the system and map looks to me right now and how people are playing it. If I can't say this much without people having hard feelings about it, then I'm out. Good night for now. Edit, Fixed a few words, old ones are strucktrough to keep the text intact. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jun 8, 2020, 9:54 pm Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 1:54 am by FireFly

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 - I would contend that we had no significant cr advantage until we started winning - we don’t have significantly more active pvp players than the opposition, and those we do have have very limited ganger resource. It’s simply not true to claim that we are anything but the underdogs. - Deliberately placing a camp right next to the vault was not a very wise tactical move - the lack of ‘fair’ battles has been a factor of poor camp placement and our strategic tile decisions, not opportunity - our allied camps were widely spaced, It was camp placement by camp David that made it easy (and necessary) to get 2 camps into contact. I think part of the war game was absolutely to get alliances to function. If we had wanted to pile onto someone then we would have located both camps an equal distance from the alley. In fact we put both in neutral space and then found that the alley dumped a proxy a few tiles from our camp. Your characterisation of this bears no resemblance to what actually happened. - we have never asked darth to do anything. Again that is simply a misrepresentation. Darth is his own force of nature and the only negotiation we have had with him has been around not creating antagonistic borders. - the chronic misunderstanding of a proposal that significantly gave a time slot advantage to the defender (4 out of 6 possible scenarios giving the defender their open hours, the remaining 2 giving them the closest available slots to their open hours and none making them play in their not available period) is just odd. I don’t think anyone actually read it - and nobody has come up with the slightest response to the inherent time bias that accrues to the US. Frankly... given the incredible, mildly offensive, pile of conjecture and misrepresentation in that post I would venture to suggest that the best response would be to set the baseball bat mutie on you. Implying a whole raft of, obviously untrue, motivations and actions to people doesn’t magically become ok if you write that you weren’t implying the things you were at the end in bold text. There are some decent points in there about how the map fails to function entirely as intended... but when you wrap them up in so much factually inaccuracy and misguided conjecture it detracts from the point. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 12:16 am Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 12:25 am by *goat starer*

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 This ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 12:21 am

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 i dont really care about sponsorships, main reason i bought them was so certain players didnt have access to the cr boost and or try to use my economic might by making them pay more, its very hard to consistantly do it i could maybe do it for 2 or 3 more game years if prices on sponsorships stayed the same then id be close to broke, i agree that it seemed rushed to impliment, my concern now is that rules will be changed making all the money i spent of sponsorships be for nothing, i would have most likly only went for 1 sponsorship if it didnt affect a camp war cr boost, i have nothing personally against anyone, but for me its a way to try to fix the bs i see, same players always winning the top prizes, they dont seem to care about having alot of competition, well we have it now with this war. ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:16 am

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 That's nice goat. I never denied you guys have been playing the system well, nor did I ever defend anything about the decisions Camp David made. In fact I've criticized it. Joel and Krak's positions are not all the same as mine, even if you can't see that. I'm a bit sad you'd that entire post as a personal attack. However surely you must see how it looks when the prominent vault members join spankys camp and vice verca after spanky jokes about dropping his newly bought CR on the alley in combination with bill... How else to take it? Nevertheless, I don't care about intentions, I care about the system that allows this. My comments were fairly focused on the obvious upcoming situation and how misguided I think the CR system currently is. Especially in regards to the same players joining multiple camps and fame mostly being based on paying dw $'s. I also pointed out how the same situation applies to longoville/the embassy, albeit in a less extreme fashion. Finally for the love of tank guns goat, stop telling people who sam is/isn't going to punish. If he thinks it is worth the hammer then so be it, but don't you realize you speaking for him to this degree is why several people don't trust his objectivity as a game master? Whilst I still do, I don't think putting him in that position is fair. Gonna try that sleep thing again and probably fail. If you want a more specific response to your points we can do that after Sam makes things clear. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:47 am Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 2:02 am by FireFly

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 at the risk of getting smacked by baseball bat mutie boy, if i didnt buy sponsorships up and apply it to cr boost in a war, someone else would have imo, gives the baseball bat boy a dirty look ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:55 am

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 darthspanky said: at the risk of getting smacked by baseball bat mutie boy, if i didnt buy sponsorships up and apply it to cr boost in a war, someone else would have imo, gives the baseball bat boy a dirty look  Thats part of the point spanky, my problem is how it can be done, not that you did it. It was the smart thing to do. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 2:02 am

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 Firefly is Jordan peterson.. who knew ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 3:51 am

Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Powered by MercuryBoard [v1.1.4]
© 2001-2005 The Mercury Development Team

0.1343 seconds - 30 queries - 0.29 load