Page 2 of 2
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:51 am
by The WuTang
ive heard avenger non-stop b!tching about this and its got to stop.
what do you want to be done? or what can be done?
payback?
well why dont you get off your sorry ass and do it yourself
also i am 100% sure admin will not reimburse you for your own stupidity.
and i hope you do know that the 60 day protection is for the beginners ascending, other wise they can be deascended with one hit within hours of there ascension since there life force is climbing up. and also i doubt that newly ascended players will have much knowledge about deascension and the works of the ascended server.
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:01 am
by Juliette
Jack wrote:And for God's sake....
Read the mother efin before you mother efin post
You forgot "thread".
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:58 am
by Angel_F1re
Change it so if someone makes an ascended attack within the first 60 days they foreit the protection, meaning that they can be descended in retaliation. Could possibly make it only the person attack who can retaliate to make it kinder..
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:27 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
The_Lurker wrote:ive heard avenger non-stop b!tching about this and its got to stop.
what do you want to be done? or what can be done?
payback?
well why dont you get off your sorry ass and do it yourself
also i am 100% sure admin will not reimburse you for your own stupidity.
and i hope you do know that the 60 day protection is for the beginners ascending, other wise they can be deascended with one hit within hours of there ascension since there life force is climbing up. and also i doubt that newly ascended players will have much knowledge about deascension and the works of the ascended server.
sigh, you OBVIOUSLY took the time to find out why i posted this!
please read this, you only have to read the 1st post and you will understand.
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=101394as for reimbursement, have you heard me ask for anything from anyone??
[AK]Avenger wrote:don't get me wrong, i'm not crying about this, in fact i might thank the bleeder for the fun i will have with him lol
where do you see me **Filtered**?
after reading that post please let me know coz i want to know how dumb you feel!!!
now before you go flaming people next time take the time to get your facts straight or stay out of the convo all together!
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:55 pm
by The WuTang
well then why do you have 3 threads about this then?
if it wasnt that big of a deal you wouldnt make such commotion about it on the forum.
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:06 pm
by Borek
Angel_F1re wrote:Change it so if someone makes an ascended attack within the first 60 days they foreit the protection, meaning that they can be descended in retaliation. Could possibly make it only the person attack who can retaliate to make it kinder..
who cares, it's only 2 months, just wait and crush them when the timer expires.
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:52 pm
by Legendary Apophis
Hehe what's annoyer's ID? (descender) (pm me)
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:08 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
The_Lurker wrote:well then why do you have 3 threads about this then?
if it wasnt that big of a deal you wouldnt make such commotion about it on the forum.
are they all the same subject?
Apophis The Great wrote:Hehe what's annoyer's ID? (descender) (pm me)
jim, are you trying to take my fun?
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:53 am
by repli**cator
[AK]Avenger wrote:i understand why admin has made it so newbies to the ascended plain can't be descended. i don't have a problem with that, i just have a problem with not being able to retaliate against an aggressor.
well you did mass him in main didn't you?
that's something...
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:01 am
by zeekomkommer
live with it, ascend again, descned the prior when he can be descended and destroy the main acount till it deletes
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:20 pm
by Angel_F1re
zeekomkommer wrote:live with it, ascend again, descned the prior when he can be descended and destroy the main acount till it deletes
Thats a very good plan. Little suggestion, do his CO and alliance as well..
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 2:52 pm
by Legendary Apophis
[AK]Avenger wrote:The_Lurker wrote:well then why do you have 3 threads about this then?
if it wasnt that big of a deal you wouldnt make such commotion about it on the forum.
are they all the same subject?
Apophis The Great wrote:Hehe what's annoyer's ID? (descender) (pm me)
jim, are you trying to take my fun?
Not really but well...just wanted to see
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:59 pm
by [KMA]Avenger
zeekomkommer wrote:live with it, ascend again, descend the prior when he can be descended and destroy the main account till it deletes
who says thats not the plan? but, does it make it make it fair??
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:36 pm
by Nuto vixen
You think thats bad?
AB were at war with Polish Alliance who were cheating, and their main accounts were banned, but someone overlooked the fact they weren't banned in Ascended. So what did they do? They just started massing and descending AB in ascension because they still had the power to do so.
Re: who else thinks this is wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:49 pm
by Rottenking
should be like ppt, if you do an ascended attack you come off protection