ElIndio at 08:16:37 on 28/09:

In advance.
Note1: When in the following I speak of Avaritia, I mean their 2nd round (4.72), the only time I really was actively forming it. I don’t know enough about Avaritia 4.71.
Note2: When I say pact, I don’t mean smaller pacts but those who bring huge pressure on the rest of the game and disallow a creative play.


You having NOT planned 4.72 war listed above, having been one of our main opponents in the version, and so as opposition NOT having known about our internals, I can confirm that not the claim about Avaritia being „not integral to any balancing“ is true, but the total contrary - Avaritia was essential to balancing.

You are outstanding at calculating, but it turns out Avaritia outplaying you against the odds tainted your judgement and you couldn’t absorb your defeat. Thus why you not only misremember, you also fail to see things in space and time. But then you were misreading some things already back in 4.72, when you seriously expected us not to have a backup ready against Aeterna, and called us dealbreakers just to make ceasefire with your target, while we proved you with logs that we told you upfront and beforehand that we wouldn’t accept such a silly thing.

I can’t believe that I have to go over this again, so I won’t. A link where I summed our view up in a lengthy statement shall suffice:
http://news.omertabeyond.net/1747

What is written there are facts you won’t be able to deny if you don’t want to deny the obvious.
If you still try, I will elaborate on it with running the risk of feeling stupid for having to tell.


I don’t expect much from an English idea of nobility, so call us stupid. At the end we made bold decisions you could never take. What makes them bold is the fact that we knew about the high risks. What marked us was the will to win in a certain way rather than winning with the poor mentality of „anything goes“. You would go for a lame way which you’d call smart, but which we found below our dignity. Call it gravitas.

To continue with the topic of Avaritia’s impact. As someone organizing a lot of wars with a wide variety of fams (you for sure organized with and for almost every fam) it must be you to know best about how strange some fams tick. Those were factors working heavily against us, which we - although with pain and misery, but also with the help of the very few proper tops left back then in the game - did master perfectly. If it was not for Avaritia, the Anarchy+ war would probably have decided the version already.

I dare to say it without false modesty: Thanks to Avaritia, 4.72 was an exciting, colorful and interesting version full of vicissitudes. Dare to deny!


Don’t you worry, the most piss we received from Gode ourselves – and he was right. It was the poorest version I had.


Just 4 fams? Funny. You take Anarchy’s record of this version as benchmark and you can literally excuse everything.


Right. Until last point. Sometimes fams came together to fight a pact without blooding each other. Once the goal was achieved, they feuded each other. 3.5 is an early example and the first example where Vinci+ pactweb was beaten. Most fams I’ve actively been crew were such fams.
But over time this idea became weaker and weaker among the fams, mainly because Aeterna Era pacts made the last decent tops retire.


I do blame the players. I do not expect salvation from a system. „The will to system is a lack of integrity.“
Your mechanistic perception is only acceptable if you refuse that any of us can take decisions. I for myself won‘t lower myself to an animal.
While the cycle you described was there in the game as a problem most of the time since 3.3, some situations offered chances to break out of the circle. An example is the last return of Vaffanculo and early Aeterna. That came in a most critical time and created a critical point where things could have „normalized“ if the game was read properly by enough tops and players. Personally I never expected much, yet I saw a possibility for change. Last hope I lost in 4.72, and retired after.

The players could not form a community, they formed a society because your mentality was the prevailing one. Most people refused to set theirselves any limits, because they are weak and have the mind of a slave. Most of those who complained about pacts just complained because they were at the receiving end; it was simply not them being good at it.
People don’t dare anything and flee into a mechanistic view, finding any excuse that logic convincingly and unconvincingly offers. But that’s the world we live in, so Omerta didn’t make an exception, it just arrived at today.


(Taking out the personal attacks,) Another right generalization. Until enough people were tired of what this brought and guys like you were left.


You speaking about what this game couldn’t afford? While you enjoyed fighting your colonial wars in Saros‘ pact (which you joined whenever you could and miss whenever you were out of), then decide the winner among yourselves, the rest of the game were getting smaller and smaller.


I have fought against pacts, I enjoyed it. I have fought in pacts, I puked from it. Usually it were fams like mines which brought balance to the game, but you guys made even us stop playing. So much on what the game could afford.

Now all that’s left to you and your alike is to speak about Anarchy’s lameness while all you do is to compare your diarrhoea with theirs.
-Your shit stinks more.
-But yours is dirtier.

You claim to have been enjoying strategically and politically challenging gameplays, but you enjoyed them even more when you could steamroll your opponents without real opposition.

ElIndio at 09:58:49 on 28/09:
New kid, listen. We’re playing this game for a longer time now and you might not know .com history with its pacting issues or our history in particular before your time on .com. You prove it since you don’t even seem to know on which tops our strategic mind lies and what our core is.

There's been just 2 versions of Avaritia, the 2nd one they were your bloods, and they were even good ones. In the opening war they helped you KNOWING what that meant for theirselves. To the contrary of what you think, when me and B|Jack play together, we have nerves to keep our ire in control and we see more than we say. And that’s how we shape our game.

I don’t care about anything after Avaritia. I never created an acc again, B|Jack didn’t really play either. That’s where you can draw a final line. What you cannot is to mix up the political core of our fams. What friends did afterwards is irrelevant.

You must know that your wrong superiority complex obscures one thing; you ain’t shit.

--

Whatever. Judging on who I still see on Beyond there’s a few tops who if they decided to were capable of making a difference in this game: Fenrir (who did), Solstice (he seems to care) and MurderInc (who’s coldblooded enough). But it won’t happen.

Destination/Indelicato guys were right.
Leviticus was right. Even if I don’t like Donalo.
Krays had a necessary posture (Tutum) but didn’t bring it a step further, they had no active behavior (Tavır).
Just to name not a few, but most already.

ElIndio at 09:58:49 on 28/09:
New kid, listen. We’re playing this game for a longer time now and you might not know .com history with its pacting issues or our history in particular before your time on .com. You prove it since you don’t even seem to know on which tops our strategic mind lies and what our core is.

There's been just 2 versions of Avaritia, the 2nd one they were your bloods, and they were even good ones. In the opening war they helped you KNOWING what that meant for theirselves. To the contrary of what you think, when me and B|Jack play together, we have nerves to keep our ire in control and we see more than we say. And that’s how we shape our game.

I don’t care about anything after Avaritia. I never created an acc again, B|Jack didn’t really play either. That’s where you can draw a final line. What you cannot is to mix up the political core of our fams. What friends did afterwards is irrelevant.

You must know that your wrong superiority complex obscures one thing; you ain’t shit.

--

Whatever. Judging on who I still see on Beyond there’s a few tops who if they decided to were capable of making a difference in this game: Fenrir (who did), Solstice (he seems to care) and MurderInc (who’s coldblooded enough). But it won’t happen.

Destination/Indelicato guys were right.
Leviticus was right. Even if I don’t like Donalo.
Krays had a necessary posture (Tutum) but didn’t bring it a step further, they had no active behavior (Tavır).
Just to name not a few, but most already.

Critycal at 07:02:52 on 28/09:
Hahahahahaha, obsessive boy.
Funny how your entire idea of "pacting" revolves around Siberia and Avaritia being the one to fight it.
To get you out of your illusion: pretty much every opening war where Avascum and Siberia were involved Ava was nothing but a puppet in a longer lasting war between us and Colossal/Empire and the only ones to take credit in that are Redvendetta and Jordyrp.
Ava was most of the time too dumb to wipe their own ass and you're a perfect example of someone involved at Ava: do whatever you can do as long as it involves shooting Siberia, even if that means making a huge pact yourself, or create about 30 extra "neighbours"... Probably to fight the pact right? ;(

PS: nice work on the highlighting by the way! i guess your brain functions slightly better when famnames are bold so you know where Avaritia should focus on. Hint: Siberia!

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:
Getting Avaritia to agree to ''anti-pact'' wars was no easy feat, even if it was obviously in their best interest too. Sure they provided numbers, but their actions and decisions led to the those numbers being as detrimental to the game as they were beneficial.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:
I have fought against pacts, I enjoyed it. I have fought in pacts, I enjoyed that too, win or lose. There is usually a balance, and any imbalance is what creates the pacts to begin with. So if the game is balanced, chances are you have pacts. If the game is imbalanced then chances are the pacts are going to form. There are certainly some possible balancing factors that could and should be added which would eliminate the need and/or the appeal to 'pact'. Many have been proposed to the admins and developers already (one of which was proposed in 4.0 and is only now being taken seriously). I honestly don't know what the correct solution is but I can tell you one thing for sure; it ain't fucking Avaritia.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:Having planned most of the wars you listed, I can confirm that Avaritia wasn't particularly integral to any 'balancing' , ever. In fact the one version Avaritia were left to their own devices they managed to create arguably the biggest pact the game had seen at the time - in regards to percentage of highranks, and they still managed to screw it up and lose to Siberia by shooting and trusting the wrong families.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09: they still managed to screw it up and lose to Siberia by shooting and trusting the wrong families. Do not confuse stupidity with nobility. Getting Avaritia to agree to ''anti-pact'' wars was no easy feat, even if it was obviously in their best interest too. Sure they provided numbers, but their actions and decisions led to the those numbers being as detrimental to the game as they were beneficial.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:Also, Aristocrats was equally made up of Avaritia tops, so if you want to blame that family at all then you're being hypocritical.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:If you want to look like somewhat less of a neurotic, pact-obsessed twat, then you could concede that what you call a 'gaypact' was actually just 4 families working together at the time of 50+ family versions, and that it was a direct reaction to Templari's overblooding and outright cowardly win the previous round.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:Most pacts I have been a part of or fought against have been born of necessity. Even way back in the 2.x days when the whole nationality thing was a big factor (turks vs dutch). What most people don't seem to understand is that to create a pact there will usually be a reason, a uniting factor, and to defeat a pact you have to almost extend the problem by creating one of your own.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:It's a never ending cycle and the only people to blame really are the admins for not figuring out an incentive to break the cycle. So I don't particularly blame any players for the current state of the game, players make their choices within a a set of rules determined by the developers, and as there is no consequence to blooding 50%+ of the active playerbase (or no benefits if you don't) I can understand the appeal.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:Usually when a group of families work closely together, they will probably have some success and thus get labelled a pact by morons like yourself. The following round there is mostly a backlash, or a united opposition for the previous version's 'pact', sometimes this united opposition is oblivious to the fact that they're as much of a pact as the families they're fighting against, but they're not always as deluded as yourself. As one side gets bigger, the other grows too in order to counter it, honestly it leads to some great battles with good strategical and political challenges.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:My main issue with the group of families that played together this version is that the necessity that created most of the previous pacts was noticeably absent. If anything the group of families which should have been at risk of a pact forming against them from last version (Gambino+) were strengthened further by the return of Anarchy, at least initially until some of the orbiting families slowly realized that there wasn't enough room in the pact for them. And no, being friends 5 years ago is not a reason to ignore the current climate of the game and overblood as extremely as was displayed this round. It is not a necessity, it is a luxury, and one the game couldn't afford.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:I have fought against pacts, I enjoyed it. I have fought in pacts, I enjoyed that too, win or lose. There is usually a balance, and any imbalance is what creates the pacts to begin with. So if the game is balanced, chances are you have pacts. If the game is imbalanced then chances are the pacts are going to form. There are certainly some possible balancing factors that could and should be added which would eliminate the need and/or the appeal to 'pact'. Many have been proposed to the admins and developers already (one of which was proposed in 4.0 and is only now being taken seriously). I honestly don't know what the correct solution is but I can tell you one thing for sure; it ain't fucking Avaritia.

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:

Having planned most of the wars you listed, I can confirm that Avaritia wasn't particularly integral to any 'balancing' , ever. In fact the one version Avaritia were left to their own devices they managed to create arguably the biggest pact the game had seen at the time - in regards to percentage of highranks, and they still managed to screw it up and lose to Siberia by shooting and trusting the wrong families. Do not confuse stupidity with nobility. Getting Avaritia to agree to ''anti-pact'' wars was no easy feat, even if it was obviously in their best interest too. Sure they provided numbers, but their actions and decisions led to the those numbers being as detrimental to the game as they were beneficial.

Also, Aristocrats was equally made up of Avaritia tops, so if you want to blame that family at all then you're being hypocritical. If you want to look like somewhat less of a neurotic, pact-obsessed twat, then you could concede that what you call a 'gaypact' was actually just 4 families working together at the time of 50+ family versions, and that it was a direct reaction to Templari's overblooding and outright cowardly win the previous round. But I applaud your decision to throw caution to the wind and expose your own stupidity, it honestly saves me some time.

Most pacts I have been a part of or fought against have been born of necessity. Even way back in the 2.x days when the whole nationality thing was a big factor (turks vs dutch). What most people don't seem to understand is that to create a pact there will usually be a reason, a uniting factor, and to defeat a pact you have to almost extend the problem by creating one of your own. It's a never ending cycle and the only people to blame really are the admins for not figuring out an incentive to break the cycle. So I don't particularly blame any players for the current state of the game, players make their choices within a a set of rules determined by the developers, and as there is no consequence to blooding 50%+ of the active playerbase (or no benefits if you don't) I can understand the appeal.

Usually when a group of families work closely together, they will probably have some success and thus get labelled a pact by morons like yourself. The following round there is mostly a backlash, or a united opposition for the previous version's 'pact', sometimes this united opposition is oblivious to the fact that they're as much of a pact as the families they're fighting against, but they're not always as deluded as yourself. As one side gets bigger, the other grows too in order to counter it, honestly it leads to some great battles with good strategical and political challenges.

My main issue with the group of families that played together this version is that the necessity that created most of the previous pacts was noticeably absent. If anything the group of families which should have been at risk of a pact forming against them from last version (Gambino+) were strengthened further by the return of Anarchy, at least initially until some of the orbiting families slowly realized that there wasn't enough room in the pact for them. And no, being friends 5 years ago is not a reason to ignore the current climate of the game and overblood as extremely as was displayed this round. It is not a necessity, it is a luxury, and one the game couldn't afford.

I have fought against pacts, I enjoyed it. I have fought in pacts, I enjoyed that too, win or lose. There is usually a balance, and any imbalance is what creates the pacts to begin with. So if the game is balanced, chances are you have pacts. If the game is imbalanced then chances are the pacts are going to form. There are certainly some possible balancing factors that could and should be added which would eliminate the need and/or the appeal to 'pact'. Many have been proposed to the admins and developers already (one of which was proposed in 4.0 and is only now being taken seriously). I honestly don't know what the correct solution is but I can tell you one thing for sure; it ain't fucking Avaritia.

Get over yourself.

gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:

4.6.1 : Lusa & Siberia & Aristo gaypact wins => first round of siberia

4.6.2 : Koolio, Paria and Empire are targetting Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1688
Kuro and co. wins this version, clearly open version when Siberia side is cleaned

4.7 : Trafficante, Illuanna, Krays → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1707
as i said Krays/Traffi were also balancers, they didnt belong to big pact anytime

4.7.1. : Siberia, Lusa and Aeterna+ are under attack by a number of families.
The attacking families known so far are Avaritia, Atom, Provenzano, Renocenti+, Krays+++++
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1719
pact is cleaned then open version is won by Kuro+ (clearly small group cant be regarded as pact)

4.7.2 : Avaritia Bafra Blacksea Jannisary Colossal Colosseum → Siberia Cartagena Colossus
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1739
Avaritia could win it by making a gay non-shoot agreement with Maraz, but chooses to shoot and open version is won by Siberia (open version means you can win it with your rebirth accounts)

4.7.3 : Fortuna, Colossal, Renocenti, Persico → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1754
version with cluster-stabbening, yeah killing Siberia wasnt enough since Aeterna/Lusa/Colossal etc. had 8-10 bloods each

After 4.7.4, Colossal was raped by Siberia multiple versions, and 4 versions won by Anarchy/Gambino/Siberia (same side)

yeah avaritia was the balancer. and similar crew fought as Fidelitas/Venture/Xzone against Johnny's Conflict & Vinci pact 3.x

gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:

4.6.1 : Lusa & Siberia & Aristo gaypact wins => first round of siberia

4.6.2 : Koolio, Paria and Empire are targetting Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1688
Kuro and co. wins this version, clearly open version when Siberia side is cleaned

4.7 : Trafficante, Illuanna, Krays → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1707
as i said Krays/Traffi were also balancers, they didnt belong to big pact anytime

4.7.1. : Siberia, Lusa and Aeterna+ are under attack by a number of families.
The attacking families known so far are Avaritia, Atom, Provenzano, Renocenti+, Krays+++++
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1719
pact is cleaned then open version is won by Kuro+ (clearly small group cant be regarded as pact)

4.7.2 : Avaritia Bafra Blacksea Jannisary Colossal Colosseum → Siberia Cartagena Colossus
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1739
Avaritia could win it by making a gay non-shoot agreement with Maraz, but chooses to shoot and open version is won by Siberia (open version means you can win it with your rebirth accounts)

4.7.3 : Fortuna, Colossal, Renocenti, Persico → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1754
version with cluster-stabbening, yeah killing Siberia wasnt enough since Aeterna/Lusa/Colossal etc. had 8-10 bloods each

After 4.7.4, Colossal was raped by Siberia multiple versions, and 4 versions won by Anarchy/Gambino/Siberia (same side)

yeah avaritia was the balancer. and similar crew fought as Fidelitas/Venture/Xzone against Johnny's Conflict & Vinci pact 3.x

Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:

Having planned most of the wars you listed, I can confirm that Avaritia wasn't particularly integral to any 'balancing' , ever. In fact the one version Avaritia were left to their own devices they managed to create arguably the biggest pact the game had seen at the time - in regards to percentage of highranks, and they still managed to screw it up and lose to Siberia by shooting and trusting the wrong families. Do not confuse stupidity with nobility. Getting Avaritia to agree to ''anti-pact'' wars was no easy feat, even if it was obviously in their best interest too. Sure they provided numbers, but their actions and decisions led to the those numbers being as detrimental to the game as they were beneficial.

Also, Aristocrats was equally made up of Avaritia tops, so if you want to blame that family at all then you're being hypocritical. If you want to look like somewhat less of a neurotic, pact-obsessed twat, then you could concede that what you call a 'gaypact' was actually just 4 families working together at the time of 50+ family versions, and that it was a direct reaction to Templari's overblooding and outright cowardly win the previous round. But I applaud your decision to throw caution to the wind and expose your own stupidity, it honestly saves me some time.

Most pacts I have been a part of or fought against have been born of necessity. Even way back in the 2.x days when the whole nationality thing was a big factor (turks vs dutch). What most people don't seem to understand is that to create a pact there will usually be a reason, a uniting factor, and to defeat a pact you have to almost extend the problem by creating one of your own. It's a never ending cycle and the only people to blame really are the admins for not figuring out an incentive to break the cycle. So I don't particularly blame any players for the current state of the game, players make their choices within a a set of rules determined by the developers, and as there is no consequence to blooding 50%+ of the active playerbase (or no benefits if you don't) I can understand the appeal.

Usually when a group of families work closely together, they will probably have some success and thus get labelled a pact by morons like yourself. The following round there is mostly a backlash, or a united opposition for the previous version's 'pact', sometimes this united opposition is oblivious to the fact that they're as much of a pact as the families they're fighting against, but they're not always as deluded as yourself. As one side gets bigger, the other grows too in order to counter it, honestly it leads to some great battles with good strategical and political challenges.

My main issue with the group of families that played together this version is that the necessity that created most of the previous pacts was noticeably absent. If anything the group of families which should have been at risk of a pact forming against them from last version (Gambino+) were strengthened further by the return of Anarchy, at least initially until some of the orbiting families slowly realized that there wasn't enough room in the pact for them. And no, being friends 5 years ago is not a reason to ignore the current climate of the game and overblood as extremely as was displayed this round. It is not a necessity, it is a luxury, and one the game couldn't afford.

I have fought against pacts, I enjoyed it. I have fought in pacts, I enjoyed that too, win or lose. There is usually a balance, and any imbalance is what creates the pacts to begin with. So if the game is balanced, chances are you have pacts. If the game is imbalanced then chances are the pacts are going to form. There are certainly some possible balancing factors that could and should be added which would eliminate the need and/or the appeal to 'pact'. Many have been proposed to the admins and developers already (one of which was proposed in 4.0 and is only now being taken seriously). I honestly don't know what the correct solution is but I can tell you one thing for sure; it ain't fucking Avaritia.

Get over yourself.

gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:

4.6.1 : Lusa & Siberia & Aristo gaypact wins => first round of siberia

4.6.2 : Koolio, Paria and Empire are targetting Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1688
Kuro and co. wins this version, clearly open version when Siberia side is cleaned

4.7 : Trafficante, Illuanna, Krays → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1707
as i said Krays/Traffi were also balancers, they didnt belong to big pact anytime

4.7.1. : Siberia, Lusa and Aeterna+ are under attack by a number of families.
The attacking families known so far are Avaritia, Atom, Provenzano, Renocenti+, Krays+++++
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1719
pact is cleaned then open version is won by Kuro+ (clearly small group cant be regarded as pact)

4.7.2 : Avaritia Bafra Blacksea Jannisary Colossal Colosseum → Siberia Cartagena Colossus
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1739
Avaritia could win it by making a gay non-shoot agreement with Maraz, but chooses to shoot and open version is won by Siberia (open version means you can win it with your rebirth accounts)

4.7.3 : Fortuna, Colossal, Renocenti, Persico → Siberia
https://news.omertabeyond.net/1754
version with cluster-stabbening, yeah killing Siberia wasnt enough since Aeterna/Lusa/Colossal etc. had 8-10 bloods each

After 4.7.4, Colossal was raped by Siberia multiple versions, and 4 versions won by Anarchy/Gambino/Siberia (same side)

yeah avaritia was the balancer. and similar crew fought as Fidelitas/Venture/Xzone against Johnny's Conflict & Vinci pact 3.x

Aart at 15:41:02 on 26/09:
huehuehue

Anonymous at 15:15:36 on 27/09:
haters are going to hate and you all bitch and complain really get a life you all had to chance to do whatever in the game and you didn't do it your lose but oh well the is a next version to try again haha

Anonymous at 10:30:14 on 27/09:
Why can't heist split up race form to both players instead of just the driver?
In that case all players got more changes to gain rf, too many players at heist want to be the driver :( Oh and skip races, just for fun but not to get the better bullet amount. Maybe an idea to gain some rf from oc aswell?

Just my thoughts.