Dekkers

Mapfag
  • Content count

    1443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1080 Excellent

About Dekkers

  • Rank
    King's Hand
  • Birthday 07/29/98

Recent Profile Visitors

1771 profile views
  1. I do believe you didn't read the suggestion properly tho I want full hp during peace time only, so everything you say about organisation etc during war remains (rightfully so, I agree with you there) Its just that many people want that TDM as you call it during peace without too much hustle. Being able to look for fights right away, instead of doctors first. Doctors still play a big part tho, because after fights (peacetime) and during wars people will still need heals
  2. And once again you try the ''what if you did it'' Well, we don't do it. And if in an imaginary world we would, then you would be in your right to complain about it. I don't know if the admin team would take it serious, but I think they would - given that they seem to take it serious from my side aswell
  3. Omg For the last time I know it happened before, but not on this scale, while people were fighting. That never happened. Please stop bringing it up Hopefully that will clarify it, I am literally getting annoyed at this point. Can you please please please just read what I write
  4. Then we wouldn't have been affected by it, thus the topic would've unlikely been made. Shorty, I see what you're trying, but can you please cut the hypocrisy? Clan leaders have complained once affected themselves for years, being a scener I know all about it - it's simply how people work and I work the same way. It's not an argument, so I'd appreciate if you'd stop bringing it up. Only brought up because it hadn't happened on this scale before during war. Also, witchhunting? Am I trying to get people banned? Why do you feel so personally attacked? I never claimed Jelkala to be insane - try quoting me on that - I just said that it is definetly not a weak castle, especially with 70 people holding it. For that matter, barely any castle is shit with that many people holding it, but that is not the discussion here
  5. Would I have made the topic? Unlikely, that isn't even a valid argument, that would hardly make sense. That is how most issues get addressed, the people affected complain, not those who do it... However, would I have been against it had any of you lot made it? No, because I would be the biggest hypocrite in PW's existence and I genuinly think it's a simple change to a relatively small issue that was only made big because you lot seem to find it quite necessary to be able to use such tricks.
  6. Same spawn size but the spawn is all the way at the back (further than the actual bannerpoint) forcing the attackers not to break the defenders once, but twice, making it practically impossible to hold given that you had 70 people, not to mention the spawn being relatively close to the bannerpoint which means that not having controll makes capping impossible, unlike Laszlo, where you can hold the gatehouse inbetween. Honestly, I made this map, you don't have to try and school me about the strenghts and weaknesses. Instead, why don't you try to tackle the actual arguments I have given? It's abusing a flawed feature which was clearly designed to tell players apart. Hence the option to show the faction name underneath, however, this can not be read during a large scale war. Armour does not do the job as there is not enough diversity and we can not all wear heraldic armour at the same time, atleast, that'd be boring and would require a lot more work than an extra line in the ruleset It's unnecessary and will not be deemed as ''banter'' by all people involved when done Adding one simple line to the ruleset will prevent it from ever happening again, given that the sentence covers the problem properly and does not create new problems It only happened once, but by adding this rule we simply prevent it from happening again. If it doesn't happen often, people won't miss it, no? Like, truely, try to counter them without making jokes, just to see where we get. Because honestly, Ragnosos, I have not seen you give any serious responces to the arguments given since you started posting.
  7. Also the castle is shit? Ahahha Mate you literally won because of that spawn and possibly this banner thing and you say this? How is the person who is going to make the final call even supposed to take you serious?
  8. I am not contradicting myself, learn to read. Also, I know that the changing of banners happends often, but not during wars of this scale - that is the whole point, which I stated a million times already If you lot would just actually read what I said maybe we wouldn't be spinning in circles
  9. What a great moment to sum up what we have People who are in favour (arguments): It's abusing a flawed feature which was clearly designed to tell players apart. Hence the option to show the faction name underneath, however, this can not be read during a large scale war. Armour does not do the job as there is not enough diversity and we can not all wear heraldic armour at the same time, atleast, that'd be boring and would require a lot more work than an extra line in the ruleset It's unnecessary and will not be deemed as ''banter'' by all people involved when done Adding one simple line to the ruleset will prevent it from ever happening again, given that the sentence covers the problem properly and does not create new problems It only happened once, but by adding this rule we simply prevent it from happening again. If it doesn't happen often, people won't miss it, no? People who are not in favour (arguments): You made this post because you lost It was just banter and should thus be fine Tommy is bias We already have enough rules (one of the arguments a person could partially agree on, however, one line won't make the ruleset worse) It doesn't happen often (several rules out there are to prevent things that do not necessarily happen often) Sometimes a banner change is necessary to cap and the colour can be the same (not sure if that happends with the big wars, but this is a valid argument IMO - possibly the only down side) Feel free to remind me if I missed anything, but from what I read it seems to come down to this.
  10. I would hardly say that capping is ever irrelevant. Idk how far Tommy got, but I doubt he was only like 10% in (jokes incoming), judging from what he said. Also, you only need to succeed once, had you lost the castle (the spawn), you would've definetly lost the war, even at that stage. Half your members died twice as often as ours... That says enough I know it doesn't happen often, I just want to prevent that it will. Or more clearly, I just want to prevent it from ever happening again. It's a lame strategy, not even a smart one - because anyone can think of it. You know, I would even be fine with leaving the rules as they are but making specific cases like today's ''reportable''(refering to large wars in process, and specifically in process, because that is when it is truely an issue), because clan leaders should know that we're playing with 200 people on PhoeniX, not just their own clan. It's a shame that some deem it necessary to pull of these ''bants'' as Benji called them. They're not ''bants'' for both sides, even when a select few people said they enjoyed getting smacked by their own teammates.
  11. What is it you don't understand about ''possibly'' and the reason I said ''possibly'' is because of this:
  12. Well that would take away the point innit, cuz' then you'd be stuck at watching faction members
  13. ye, 2014, untill the wrong people got power in Nexus and it went down hill ever since