Re: ** Pretenders Vs Contenders PinWheel 55 **
finally a PvC again. Thanks for the effort you put into it. Its a nice read after all the bitching you see in here!
Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Universal News → ** Pretenders Vs Contenders PinWheel 55 **
finally a PvC again. Thanks for the effort you put into it. Its a nice read after all the bitching you see in here!
nice PVC! ![]()
lol @ serenity
if you wanna go there again..
You wanted planets from the fam dead last, with only a few planets left, and noone of the players involved in the war were still there, so you decided a bunch of new signings should pay for the people who deleted, not giving that fam any chance of regrowing.
But we discussed this last round already, showing youre true face, and with multiing now, you just proved yourself being an ass.
Nice PvC man....
Nice PVC Gay, thanks ![]()
Yup
Interresting read ![]()
I am in 3228, and I am hoping that we for a change get some infra whoring time to catch up ![]()
2 Pokemon? (3224) [38,58] 29 40580 3721
Sun Tzu leading this pack. If this was an infrawhore galaxy, these would be my contenders ftw. They have alot of empty space around them and are closeby to there ally who are very strong! With the right attackers, this family should contend for top 5 but im not sure they have those attackers! With the right diplomacy, avoiding early wars, I put them contenders top 8.'
some update here:
Sun had an accident and handed over leadership. Allies got raided from 3 different ways at the same time and fallen behind but started to recover now. We wasnt able to avoid early wars but came out pretty equal so back on infrawhoring again:)
nandro u still owe me 3 morales -_-
> Forever wrote:
> Nice PVC Gay, thanks ![]()
Trying to find them atm Rin:)
Nope, but decent winners do grant the losers some air to restart, especially once the treat is gone. And the attitude of "I dont care about new players, they are simply new enemies funding the war " makes you just about as lame and unhonourable as is possible.
i have a question.. does the standard nap rules contain this term as a standard term?
- cancellation must be given to leader and at least 2 VL's.
it has to be at the same tick? if its not at the same tick could be considered the start of the canceling time the last msg?
Cancellation must be given to leader and at least 2 VL's.
- means cancellation is not effective until leader and 2 VL's get the cancellation message. So countdown will start from tick that 2nd VL get message ... simple@!
I think the message must be sent the same tick to all three players (leader and 2 VLs) lol. Otherwise it's just weird, no?
i agree temp. and it is included in a standard nap ? or its needed to be added as a term.. same thing is the alliance change that we are including this round after silvarias trickery of past 2 rounds ![]()
nah its a clause u need to add. there is no such thing as a standard nap as naps aren't official in IC.
there is such a thing as a standard nap, it was made by TNT years ago ![]()
if I search on my old harddrives I probabely can find that one somewhere ![]()
TNT Nap was no cores? Standard NAP with cores? Thats how it used to work? I can't remember, noone uses the lingo anymore ![]()
standard nap is no cores, that's the reason you have to do a core clause. The 'core' thing was added to decrease competition so the bankers can infrawhore. Right now you have to add as many clauses as you need to avoid 'loopholes'
and even that way nothing stops people from breaking naps, so no point in it.![]()
I mean, no matter how many clauses you add and how much you care about your nap writing, Rain will break it anyway.
^thanx Serenity for putting this, I think some of you are mixing TNT with standard. Standard is basic nap, no cores, no need to warn the VLs, it is just a nap with a certain cancellation time, any clause you need to add you have to write it appart (core clause, ally clause, compensation clause, cancellation forms clause, etc...)
> RedLink wrote:
> i have a question.. does the standard nap rules contain this term as a standard term?
- cancellation must be given to leader and at least 2 VL's.
it has to be at the same tick? if its not at the same tick could be considered the start of the canceling time the last msg?
so the answer is NO (as long as there's no aditional clause about it)
> Render wrote:
I mean, no matter how many clauses you add and how much you care about your nap writing, Rain will break it anyway.
lololol
easy to guard against though, just put a DS in the system he's most likely to attack in.
Serenity stop cheating please.
> Tryme wrote:
> Serenity stop cheating please.
don't you know you can't teach an old dog new tricks?
Imperial Forum → Universal News → ** Pretenders Vs Contenders PinWheel 55 **
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.