Community - Forum - View old data

Categories :  

General Discussion

  Index

  • HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 02:15

Elliot2lazy
Since a lot of people are talking about HA related Banning things I was thinking of a
scenario that could of easily happened on either server. Here it goes...

Say Fleet A takes a harbor that is undefended from when Harbor Assaults started back
up.Fleet A has about 40-50 members when they attack.

Then next week's declaration Fleet B attacks Fleet A. Fleet B has 20 members when they
declared and still has less than 30 when they do the Harbor Assault.

Fleet A has now about 60ish members when this Harbor Assault goes on, but they only have
16 accounts that are BB5/CV5+ and of those they only have 7 that are either CV6 or BB6.
Most players in the fleet are Blitz players or just starting to get out of blitz.

Fleet B has 16 accounts that are BB5/CV5+ and 7 of those accounts have a CV6 or BB6, and
Fleet B has multiple BB6's and/or BB6,CV6 combination on one account. Where Fleet A
doesn't have any multiples at all. Also on average Fleet B has higher level accounts than
Fleet A. Therefore Fleet B has more 120 crews and ships, but they are still under 30 people.

Now Discuss would this be a bannable offense for wasting time, or would this be a
reasonable HA since, it is about fair number of players (accounts) with high level crews?
  Index

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 14:32

V2CxBongRipz
So Vick, IF TTF had attacked and taken a harbor would the same thing have happened to us?
We do not have 30 players, maybe 30 accounts, but not 30 active players.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 14:31

vick11
No Gt, not at all.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 14:22

Gtdawg
"there is an offer with him
to have the timeframe reduced that he has chosen not to take at the moment. That
offer is
not closed. "

What? Some sort of public or private apology for being mean and exploiting a rule that
doesn't even come in to play?

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:53

jhempsrt4
Can you point out the fallacy in my logic pyro? Because I believe that if a person has
two accounts that he plays regularly, then only banning one of them is not a ban at
all.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:47

Doomraver
I'd say unban rehor since NF plays a major role in his life.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:38

Pyrofiend
jhemp: His alternate account has 2 BB6s and a 110; It's not just some storage
account. Also, your logic is fallacious.

I'm with Clemo on this. The rules state that a reprimand is necessary only when
WASTING THE DEFENDING FLEET'S TIME. There is nothing stated or even implied
about other potential attackers.

The so-called punishment reducer Vick is talking about is for Rehor to accept that he
meant to waste peoples' time. That is the only way to reduce the amount of time he
is banned.

I still don't understand why the Rehor account was banned. It makes no sense.

I'm guessing we have a "new Cena" in town? Reporta to a power-hungry mod and
get that person banned; YAY!

Edit: PureTerror makes better decisions than this. Atleast he bans only the account
that committed the act and not multiple accounts unrelated to the matter.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:37

Hetekroket
If I were you Vick, i would look at this situation with, and i quote:

"Fresh Eyes."


And see if you still feel the same.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:26

jhempsrt4
I would think the reason for the Rehor account ban is obvious. Because that is his
main account. The fleet leader account is his alternate. Banning his alt account isn't
really banning him at all.

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:19

mav2kfk
what about ljseverns question?

why ban rehor account too? fleetless! make him stop grind SN? whats the goal
behind it?

  • Re : HA scenario Discussion

    03. 18. 2011 13:07

vick11
Plazma whether you believe it or not is up to you, but I really have no personal problem
with rehor whatsoever, nor anyone else in the community. The decision to place the
suspension was not mine alone, but I do agree with it and support it. The timeframe of
the suspension is out of kilter with where it would normally be in terms of previous
suspension history - in rehor's favour. I spoke to rehor for well over an hour on MSN and
we covered the position of the suspension in great detail and there is an offer with him
to have the timeframe reduced that he has chosen not to take at the moment. That offer is
not closed.

So as always, there is a lot more to a situation than I might make public. However, there
is nothing personal about any of it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Last