|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:46 AM |
| Looking back at all their recent wars, it clearly shows a war can never work out.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:47 AM |
Eh clan wars are always pretty bad.
i am a bear ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zapolean
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 9217 |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:47 AM |
"Eh clan wars are always pretty bad." then why are you here
zap zap |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:49 AM |
VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no
The Bear King of C&G http://www.roblox.com/don8-m8-item?id=257070884 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
IiMZ
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Aug 2014 |
| Total Posts: 3578 |
|
| |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:50 AM |
| Not all clan wars are bad. Some work out, some don't, some are enjoyable, however, most are not.. Anyway but a war with VAK can and never will be fun.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Tsyolin
|
  |
| Joined: 14 Aug 2012 |
| Total Posts: 6255 |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:50 AM |
i think its dumb they had to stop the war to do things they did what they did before they started the war
why not just get to the fighting... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:53 AM |
| I think the ceasefire was just stupid it lasted longer than vaks response to uaf's declaration.. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:55 AM |
VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no [2]
And since this is ROBLOX where people respawn, make rules about how many people are needed for both sides, and instead of building an impenetrable fortress you have to make it as fair as possible. That all kinda makes most wars poop.
i am a bear ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Azaes
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Aug 2013 |
| Total Posts: 2520 |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 10:58 AM |
VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no [3] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:00 AM |
VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no [4] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:08 AM |
"VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no"
Please, educate yourselves.
From Sencu: "-Compromise 1: Take turns raiding, and defending. One day raiding, another day defending.
This does not guarantee that VAK will defend either. You'll probably continue to break the war terms.
-Compromise 2: Resume war 3-3, and don't allow server hopping, server hops won't be responded too, and shutdown servers result in a raid win for the time on the recieving end.
to* receiving* And this just means you can shutdown every server before they get the terminal lol?
Compromise 3: Increase requirement from 8 defenders to 10 on both bases (server hopping would be allowed) Resuming the war score at 3:3 (to compensate for three shut down servers) Terminal rollback at UAF's base is much faster than our anti-virus, therefore - our anti-virus is sped up. A & B is removed.
Nah, SMOII is unfair enough. Just train your VAC's so that they can defend, instead of using the excuse that "we had 8 VAC's and 3 VAK's in the server and VAC are bad you could easily win". And does the antivirus not reset the terminal timer completely?
-Compromise 4: Resume the war on a completely fair battlefield, with everything being completely balanced.
It's clear that you want Varcia with this compromise, but why the hell do we even have forts then?
-Compromise 5: Allow server hopping but, everytime a server is fled for whatever reason the defending team gets a win.
Well this is simply just stupid, I don't even have to explain why."
--------
Second explanations: ""-Compromise 1: Take turns raiding, and defending. One day raiding, another day defending."
This would hardly solve the problem. If VAK is refusing to defend now when Vaktus EXPLICITLY said they'd defend ALL servers, then why should we believe that they will defend in this case?
"-Compromise 2: Resume war 3-3, and don't allow server hopping, server hops won't be responded too, and shutdown servers result in a raid win for the time on the recieving end."
Disallowing server hops, is again, for lack of better word- dumb. This would essentially allow both sides to fill up servers with 11-12 men, forcing equal or outnumbered raid situations. No sane man would agree to this.
"Compromise 3: Increase requirement from 8 defenders to 10 on both bases (server hopping would be allowed) Resuming the war score at 3:3 (to compensate for three shut down servers) Terminal rollback at UAF's base is much faster than our anti-virus, therefore - our anti-virus is sped up. A & B is removed."
This makes no sense. Why would we give VAK FREE base updates in their favor and a free win when they're the ones who broke the war terms in the first place? This also clearly shows their intentions, they want a higher official count so they don't lose due to numbers at SMO II. Our compromise was a counterproposal to this, which would raise the official count and allow VAK to speed up their terminal recapture.
"-Compromise 4: Resume the war on a completely fair battlefield, with everything being completely balanced."
Sencu said it better than I can here.
"-Compromise 5: Allow server hopping but, everytime a server is fled for whatever reason the defending team gets a win."
See #2."
--------
And our offers:
"Compromise #1: "I offer VAK a compromise once more, though do so publicly.
- Increase defender requirement from 8 defenders to 9 on both of our bases, while also raising the server sizes of each base to 23.
- Change the SMO II terminal recapture time to match Red Sandstorm's rollback (100 seconds / 1 min 40 seconds to recapture).
- Allow UAF to add a sprint feature to Red Sandstorm (as SMO II has one)."
Compromise #2: Resume the war as-is with no more refusal to defend. Simple."
"[Compromise 3]
Increase to 10 Defender; Both Bases):
The Vaktovians had just said that they don't like having numerical advantages for raiders. It's perhaps absolutely hypocritical to say that it's bad for raiders to have numerical advantages, but turn around and say that it's good for defenders to have such advantage. Neither Red Sands or SMO II are built for 'Even Number' gameplay. The advantage that the proposed 10 Defenders would have are:
SMO II - - Higher elevation at spawn - Closer spawn to the base's entrances(10 seconds more than raiders) - Within the path of the raiders - More defenders that can spawn trap
With this, the defenders could easily just continually reinforce the base. Making unlikely to set up any efficient position or even having a reinforcement point. Keep in mind, there's 3 ways into the base, 2 ways to the terminal. The more defenders there are, the more likely raiders will be spawn trapped.
Red Sands- - Higher elevation at spawn - More defenders that can spawn trap
Once again, pure example of the Vaktovian's inability to see tactic/strategy. You guys already have a problem being spawn trapped at Red Sands, why in Hell would you want to add more defenders? Oh, that's right, so you doing lose raids at SMO II.
Resume War w/ Score 3:3):
Only reasonable request.
Rollback Times):
It takes about 30 - 60 seconds for the rollback at SMO II for the term to reset. While at Red Sands, it takes about 100 seconds when the term is 1500 to reset. We aren't going to let you speed up your rollback, it would make more sense to have the roll back at Red Sands to equal that of SMO II's. This is why we decline this request." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Azaes
|
  |
| Joined: 01 Aug 2013 |
| Total Posts: 2520 |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:09 AM |
| Someone make me a tl;dr version? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:10 AM |
| tl;dr = ur compromises favored vak and ur a bunch of cry babies because you got called out for cheating - again |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:14 AM |
| Wrong copypasta for 'our' compromise #3, but UrbanPhoenix made a thread for our third compromise, I'm sure someone can find it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:23 AM |
| the only people backing up vaks compromises is vak |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:37 AM |
vak/vac/pre-vac should be group banned from the majority of the forts
they would be forced to change their ways/fight honorably or they'd die out |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:38 AM |
how do you change your ways if you're banned from every fort
like wtf kind of logic is that |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:39 AM |
they beg on their knees to be unbanned and if they go their next war without cheating they can stay that way
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:39 AM |
'beg on their knees'
ur funny lol |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:40 AM |
whats funny is that vak hasnt gone a war without cheating since pre-vak/tgi
whats that, 2+ years?
nice. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:41 AM |
clan wars are dodgy at the best of times if im honest
jet fuel cant melt dank memes |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2015 11:41 AM |
VAK gave 5 good compromises
while
UAF was like no [4] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|