planet theiving multies
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:40 am
http://www.stargatewars.com/stats.php?id=59691
http://www.stargatewars.com/stats.php?id=59541
very similar IDs both in an alliance called
world theft inc
they stole my officers planet and their IDs are too close for them not to be multies i dont even think those are the main acount. their both on the same lvl of nox policy but the one i havnt massed has sent his MS away
i dont know how many peoples planets theyve stolen but ive massed golden eye's mother ship because i think hes a multi and stole my officers planet and sabbed him. im gonna put something in the cheaters section they have very little income and 1 only has fleet strength and nothing else which is more proof of them being multies
can someone please anti covert golden eye when he gets unphased he has 700 mil covert that he used to sab 8000 of my officers weapons
if i get retaliated on by someone stronger then that will prob be their main acount and if golden eye recovers from the 25 billion naq worth of damages i inflicted quickly thatl be even more proof
http://www.stargatewars.com/stats.php?id=59541
very similar IDs both in an alliance called
world theft inc
they stole my officers planet and their IDs are too close for them not to be multies i dont even think those are the main acount. their both on the same lvl of nox policy but the one i havnt massed has sent his MS away
i dont know how many peoples planets theyve stolen but ive massed golden eye's mother ship because i think hes a multi and stole my officers planet and sabbed him. im gonna put something in the cheaters section they have very little income and 1 only has fleet strength and nothing else which is more proof of them being multies
can someone please anti covert golden eye when he gets unphased he has 700 mil covert that he used to sab 8000 of my officers weapons
if i get retaliated on by someone stronger then that will prob be their main acount and if golden eye recovers from the 25 billion naq worth of damages i inflicted quickly thatl be even more proof
