Joint Poison Clan - iFOK Announcement

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Australian Warlord' timestamp='1293448244' post='2555203']
Btw : For those that don't know, two sleepers went back to their people in NEW and one long term decent player has gone to Fark for reasons he can state himself (if he wishes).
[/quote]
NEW hiding players in other alliances?
I could well imagine why the other guy jumped to Fark. Also explains his declaration reason a little more.

[greenacres]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1293438015' post='2555140']
So you suggest I might do it yet you demand I shouldn't? I could take your advice but I think I will pass. If my smugness offends thee then thats something you and I will have to live with, many thanks for your two cents however
[/quote]

.. it doesn't offend me, it's just you were being hypocritical. You shouldn't call someone out for being smug, while at the same time being smug yourself is all I was saying.

[erikz]

[quote name='raasaa' timestamp='1293381190' post='2554406']
This has to be weirdest war with all alliances getting reinforcements from their buddies. NEW is getting reinforcements from all over planet bob, INT is getting reinforcements from LSF, SOS, NEAT etc, Fark is getting reinforcements from Guru Order, Creole, TENE, WTF etc....so far i think only The Profilic Empire is playing fair and sticking to the agreement that was made

o/ TPE
[/quote]
Well, people seem to heed our warning well. If they're not ghosting and in my range they will be nukerolled asap.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1293456167' post='2555235']
.. it doesn't offend me, it's just you were being hypocritical. You shouldn't call someone out for being smug, while at the same time being smug yourself is all I was saying.
[/quote]
sigh...for the record I was not criticizing that guy for being smug, infact i was stating my recognition of his evident smugness and derision for INT and the fact that these two things would make the fighting that much sweeter. I think that is pretty obvious from my original post.

I should have have been more clear in my last reply to you rather than trying to make light of your reply, a mistake I shall not make again in regards to your goodself. But perhaps then again your reading my post a certain way for a particular reason? or maybe my written English is so rubbish as to lead to such a misunderstanding on your part...alas I shall have to wait for your inevitable reply (seeing as your so fond of calling people out) to clarify that for the both of us, you have a good day now you hear

[Australian Warlord]

Just killing 30 seconds & saw something interesting. The top 8 in NEW has only been there within the last week. You also have to go down to 15th on their list to find the 1st actual NEW player willing to fight. So the question is, who's actually fighting here?

[SonOfHoward]

[quote name='Australian Warlord' timestamp='1293518883' post='2556041']
Just killing 30 seconds & saw something interesting. The top 8 in NEW has only been there within the last week. You also have to go down to 15th on their list to find the 1st actual NEW player willing to fight. So the question is, who's actually fighting here?
[/quote]

As a 60K plus nation myself I can tell that they are fighting for their ideals.

[Vespassianus]

[quote name='Australian Warlord' timestamp='1293518883' post='2556041']
Just killing 30 seconds & saw something interesting. The top 8 in NEW has only been there within the last week. You also have to go down to 15th on their list to find the 1st actual NEW player willing to fight. So the question is, who's actually fighting here?
[/quote]

I see 544 wars for 172 nations. What do you see man with 13k casualities?

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293520539' post='2556062']
I see 544 wars for 172 nations. What do you see man with 13k casualities?
[/quote]

Some sad person trying to imply wartime casualties can be equated with credibility.

((Edit: the spell check, she give you a word, and it looks like what you aimed for, but it ain't it!))

Edited December 28, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Bonardo88]

[quote name='Australian Warlord' timestamp='1293518883' post='2556041']
Just killing 30 seconds & saw something interesting. The top 8 in NEW has only been there within the last week. You also have to go down to 15th on their list to find the 1st actual NEW player willing to fight. So the question is, who's actually fighting here?
[/quote]

You really clueless , of course most of original top player already down to less than 3k infra most , those left are stagger for 3rd & 4th wave, are you telling against 4:1 odds a High NS nation can maintain their position in TOP ?

if you want to troll use your intelligence

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Bonardo88' timestamp='1293530444' post='2556101']
You really clueless , of course most of original top player already down to less than 3k infra most , those left are stagger for 3rd & 4th wave, are you telling against 4:1 odds a High NS nation can maintain their position in TOP ?

[/quote]
..except, as far as I can tell, NEW only had 1 nation above 100k NS, and that guy folded like a house of cards and went from 122k to 62k in a week. AND was only fighting 3 wars, only 1 of which was defensive. Let's not waste our time actually looking at facts though.

Edited December 28, 2010 by EViL0nE

[Vespassianus]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1293542870' post='2556163']
..except, as far as I can tell, NEW only had 1 nation above 100k NS, and that guy folded like a house of cards and went from 122k to 62k in a week. AND was only fighting 3 wars, only 1 of which was defensive. Let's not waste our time actually looking at facts though.
[/quote]
If you have fought on high tiers you would know that 60k in a week isn't horrible at that level if you fight with enemies who are bigger then you and have lots of tech. Also NEW had 2 guys bigger then 100k when the war started, but otherwise cool story bro.
[quote]Some sad person trying to imply wartime casualties can be equated with credibility.

((Edit: the spell check, she give you a word, and it looks like what you aimed for, but it ain't it!))[/quote]

She said only !@#$%^&* thing, more then 3 wars/nation average for NEW while she says that she can't see that who's fighting...

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Vespassianus' timestamp='1293544178' post='2556175']
If you have fought on high tiers you would know that 60k in a week isn't horrible at that level if you fight with enemies who are bigger then you and have lots of tech. Also NEW had 2 guys bigger then 100k when the war started, but otherwise cool story bro.
[/quote]
You seem to be doing better than that and are fighting nations with higher tech than the other guy was.
But hey, I'm not going to tell you not to fight their battles for them on every front possible.

P.S. you should probably change your forum profile to reflect your membership in NEW.

P.P.S Edit: Just for the kids at home, Fark/Int/etc have so far managed to destroy ~2.2m NS from the NEW AA not bad for a week's worth of war.

Edited December 28, 2010 by EViL0nE

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1293549660' post='2556200']
You seem to be doing better than that and are fighting nations with higher tech than the other guy was.
But hey, I'm not going to tell you not to fight their battles for them on every front possible.

P.S. you should probably change your forum profile to reflect your membership in NEW.

P.P.S Edit: Just for the kids at home, Fark/Int/etc have so far managed to destroy ~2.2m NS from the NEW AA not bad for a week's worth of war.
[/quote]

Just for the kids at home, NEW have so far destroyed 1 million NS from the INT AA. Not bad for a weeks worth of war on top of being at a 4:1 disadvantage.

[Locke]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293562596' post='2556352']
Just for the kids at home, NEW have so far destroyed 1 million NS from the INT AA. Not bad for a weeks worth of war on top of being at a 4:1 disadvantage.
[/quote]
It might be if NEW didn't have a 67.44% MP ratio; nukes pretty much guarantee you're going to be doing damage even if your overall performance is genuinely terrible.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293563732' post='2556367']
It might be if NEW didn't have a 67.44% MP ratio; nukes pretty much guarantee you're going to be doing damage even if your overall performance is genuinely terrible.
[/quote]

Yeah, nobody is arguing nukes do damage. But after day 3 of the war INT had 30 aggressive wars and over 80 defensive ones.

You were saying something about terrible performance?

[Locke]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293566527' post='2556398']
Yeah, nobody is arguing nukes do damage. But after day 3 of the war INT had 30 aggressive wars and over 80 defensive ones.

You were saying something about terrible performance?
[/quote]
Actually, I wasn't, merely that saying "we did a lot of damage" isn't a good indicator of performance in a nuclear war.

[Lord Fingolfin]

Watching the same arguments get rehashed 50 times is getting a little old, however I will state that I am highly impressed by the reinforcements that NEW has gotten. I think they're mainly from PC based off the few names I recognize. Seems like there is a group of at least 3 of them that are coordinating very well and if you check their FARK targets they've all dropped more than 50K NS since the war began while the PC guys are still sitting pretty. I rather like FARK so its somewhat sad to see, but still very impressive.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293563732' post='2556367']
It might be if NEW didn't have a 67.44% MP ratio; nukes pretty much guarantee you're going to be doing damage even if your overall performance is genuinely terrible.
[/quote]

Is that your actual opinion, that NEW is doing 'genuinely terrible' when they have 544 wars for 172 nations, and are severely outnumberd to boot? I can't see anyone doing a whole lot better under those circumstances, just what were you expecting?

I'm not sure how or why it happened, but INT sure seem to have gotten the icky end of the stick on the winning side.

[Locke]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1293581228' post='2556656']
Is that your actual opinion, that NEW is doing 'genuinely terrible' when they have 544 wars for 172 nations, and are severely outnumberd to boot? I can't see anyone doing a whole lot better under those circumstances, just what were you expecting?
[/quote]
No, that isn't. Read the rest of what I said:
[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293566830' post='2556404']
Actually, I wasn't, merely that saying "we did a lot of damage" isn't a good indicator of performance in a nuclear war.
[/quote]

[Jacques Cousteau]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293618203' post='2557208']
No, that isn't. Read the rest of what I said:
[/quote]

Id say its as good an indicator as anything.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1293566527' post='2556398']
Yeah, nobody is arguing nukes do damage. But after day 3 of the war INT had 30 aggressive wars and over 80 defensive ones.

You were saying something about terrible performance?
[/quote]
heh I do seem to remember something about concentrating firepower on INT, as INT was seen as the ''weak link''...but hey that surely has nothing to do with it whatsoever right? . That said we should have done better as an alliance, of that fact you have my complete agreement. But do not forget context baby, context.