Cazaric

Yet again, I am disappointed.

I can't really decide who to feel sorry for in that pairing. So condolences to both.

I have 1000 tech for the first person to go back in time and respond to Caliph's 2016 whining exclusively with his 2017 trolling.

Given your attitude towards Oculus and their behaviour last year, when your ass was on the line, can we please have a giant "I'M A HYPOCRITE" tag at the beginning of each of your posts, so we can be clear on what exactly we're about to read?

Where you stand depends upon where you sit, and all that.

Just saying "find a third option" does not mean that a third option exists.

Is Umbrella going to declare their war, or is that a courtesy that belongs to a more honourable time?

Yeah, you fellas beat up those inactives! God forbid you ever take up a real challenge, right?

It's okay. I'm sure you'll get your turn to play it dirty again soon, okay? Let someone else do so for a change, sweetie.

Heh, I should have posted my thoughts on this here, rather than in the D1 DoW, but oh well. I am strongly in favour of this.

I, for one, would very much support the idea of capping membership in alliances. As it currently stands, there are only three alliances with significant membership, and one (D1, with 33 members) with considerably more than any other single alliance. The reality for D1 is that they will never get the chance to fight a 1v1 war under current conditions, because the opposition needs to be in a coalition in order to match their statistical strength. If we were to cap alliances at 12 (two static trade circles), we could get six or so alliances from D1, AW and DCS. Add in the four alliances that currently have ~12 members apiece, and we are looking at ten medium-sized alliances, as opposed to the current setup. Sure, it may be difficult to separate yourself from your traditional allies, but over time it would happen. And I believe if an alliance continued operating as a single unit over multiple alliances, they would be quickly rolled by the rest of the world who are interested in making Planet Steve interesting again. And as for the idea of Evil Cazaric reforming TDO, I can't see that happening. The whole reason we disbanded is because we were bored, and that was in a time when there was marginally more going on in TE than currently, heh. That said, if we did cap alliances, I would possibly see what I could do about bringing back the name.

I've had to deal with that before. Thanks, D1's Silent Expedition It's less fun than you'd think it would be. More irritating.

Congratulations on your grudge-holding skills; I commend you. Decimate them, Legion.

I already had "Kaboom calls Caz stupid and/or garbage" from an earlier session of bingo, so I didn't need this extra, but thanks anyway!

Kaboom claims his alliance is scary? Hell yeah, I got bingo!

True, you have collectively gathered together so much strength that they don't even make the tiniest of dents. But in all seriousness, how is that fun for you? How do Oculus members not wake up just, fundamentally, bored to their core? Is a game without any opposition, in which you collect pixels that you'll never get to use, really something you like to do?

But poisoning is the most fun thing to do. I like how you discount the players who denounced you because they were "friends of ours." The majority of the TE vets, as you say, were "friends of yours," so should their opinions be discounted? Same old D1, one rule for you and another for everyone else. You don't go from strength to strength. You huddle around in your unskilled swarm, preying on those you perceive as weaker than you. When your pure numbers take the day, you pat yourselves on the back, having overcome a smaller alliance whose players were better than you, but who were denied the gentleman's agreement because of terrible reasons such as "well, we only had two days as well." So yes, I'll always take the side that opposes you. Not because you are a real threat, but because you are an uninspired villain. If you're going to walk that route, at least do something fun with it, rather than just "I'm the playground bully because my gang is bigger."

Krabz started as the TDO training alliance, Fatality. We had the goal to nurture new players to the level where they could keep up with the TDO Knights. The ones we ended up getting from them were highly valuable players, for the record. But how did D1 react to Krabz? By curbstomping them right out of the gate, of course. Yes, I'm sure you're all about nurturing new players. Of course nobody misses us. We wouldn't have been very good villains if we were missed, would we? But we were infinitely better villains than you are so obviously trying to be here. I'm going to give you an opportunity here, Fatality. Point me to a war in which we called in our friends. I guess you'll point to the one where the Avengers jumped in to assist us and Krabz from the war in Round 36? That was a downside larger than any I've seen since, and you were condemned by the vast majority of TE for doing it, to the point where your rolling at the end of the round, and Cowboy's subsequent cries for help, were met with "you deserve this" by many players. So I guess we'll count that as one. Go ahead, name me another time we had someone come in to help us, I challenge you. And also, need I remind you that we're having this discussion in a thread where you have done exactly what you're falsely accusing TDO of having done? Fatality, King of Nothing But Irony. EDIT: As for us recruiting veterans, I think you'll find that when a veteran alliance such as TPC disbands, they'll move to another elite alliance, where they can feel at home and work with like-minded players. I would have been surprised if they went anywhere else.

Oh, Fatality. You should know that this is how you summon me. TDO was never an alliance about flag running. The system that admin has created for flags means that the alliance flags will just go to the biggest alliances. As we valued quality over quantity (unlike you, I might add), we were always at a major disadvantage there. So if we won alliance flags, it was by chance, not drive. We played to kick ass and take names, not win little prizes. As for the individual awards, at least two identified flag runners were removed from the Order, because we did not support or condone flag running if it damaged the ability of the alliance to fight coherently. So not sure where you get that idea from, for a start. And secondly, willing to burn for them? Oh, my friend... remind me how many times in our existence TDO was defeated? Was it three times? Four? ...oh wow, I'm now being told it was only once. Once over five rounds. Seems to me like saying that we burned for anything is quite uninformed at best. In fact, when we disbanded, it was because we were just bored of a world where nobody challenged us. So Fatality, you can play at being the villain all you please, and you can claim you're the best around. But I have faith that Al and his Wolves will kick your ass six ways to Sunday because they are twice the alliance Defcon 1 will ever or has ever been.

I'm currently a temp for Stevie. There's nothing that will bring me properly back to this dead world, but I'll happily talk smack on the forums and root for AW victories

I really enjoy the rhetoric that a two-day peace is okay because the attacker also only had two days. The lack of logic or self-awareness is beautiful to behold.

Heh.

My friend, you must understand how the world looks to ol' Boomy. If he wins a war (hahahahaha), it is because of his overwhelming talent and general superiority to all around him. If he loses, then his enemy engaged in an unfair downdeclare, or they were cheating. Of course, it could never have anything to do with his lack of skill.

Oh hell yeah, I'm on the leaderboards.

Given that they've been held to war for about eight months, can you really blame them? Ridiculous.