» Menu
» OB/Site News
» Articles
» Barafranca News
No news found. Reset in progress?
 |
|
article
General Comments & Major Rumors section.
Everyone knows where this section is for, keep it clean from flaming and only posts in english are allowed.
Everyone knows where this section is for, keep it clean from flaming and only posts in english are allowed.
Anonymous (09:58:04 - 29-09)
Long posts.. Long posts everywhere!
Anonymous (01:29:15 - 29-09)
damn German spammer..
Aart at 15:24:14 on 28/09:
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Redvendetta at 12:17:41 on 28/09:
Where to start with this...it seems like every point you made is already addressed by the point you were responding to, and you just rambled off a bunch of words without saying much at all, but hey ho.
Firstly, as I explained in my post extensively, the pacts I was in were always relatively balanced. Like I also said in my post, you can't complain blindly about pacts when you yourself have created some huge ones - even without my influence, as you seem happy to blame me for Aristocrats' blood choices, even though there wasn't much complaining until the end of the version.
The only reason 4.72 was 'interesting' was because you couldn't control the pact that you had built, the smaller families like persico and outlawz had enough of your shit and decided to shoot you. This is part of that political strategy I mentioned, and part of the game you and your family simply lack. That and the fact that even though you're so against pacts and Siberia, you actually blooded them initially for safety, and then when the logs leaked about them wanting to sell you, you still managed to screw up the war against them by being paranoid morons like always, which eventually gifted Siberia (the pacters you hate so much) a free win.
As I also explained extensively I love a challenge, you can't say that I love pacting and you guys hate hate it. Look at the wars Gode listed, Colossal and Empire are mostly on the same side as Avaritia - and I planned 90% of them myself. The only difference between me and you is that I make no excuses for the tactics I apply. I acknowledge that during those versions, in order to kill Siberia, we created a side that was just as big. You seem to want to think you're some kind of underdogs all the time, it's delusional nonsense.
That is always the case (as I also explained in my response). You can't beat a pact without creating a group of families as big as, or bigger than the pact you're trying to kill. This was all covered in my initial response, but you seemed more inclined to put your fingers in your ears, spout some crap about how all this is my fault and pretend you have some kind of hilarious moral high ground as always.
Pact complainers like yourself have no perspective. Pacts exist because they're effective, pacts create anti-pacts, which are just as much pacts as the pact they're trying to beat. Just because you're usually in the anti-pact pact doesn't mean you're not in a pact. It seems like a lost concept on you, but it's true. Any group of families working together could be labelled a pact and you have been a part of them as much as I, or anyone else, it's how the game works. You can't blame the players for using the most effective strategy, like I said - everyone operates within a set of rules determined by the developers. There needs to be some sort of benefit to not working with half the other families or some consequence if you do. Then again, I'm trying to be rational and solve a problem here, clearly you just want to point fingers and drone on about how great your families were.
Fuck off back into obscurity please. And for the record, I wouldn't comment on someone's nationality when you're a half German, half Turkish hybrid.
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.
Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
But over time this idea became weaker and weaker among the fams, mainly because Aeterna Era pacts made the last decent tops retire.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where to start with this...it seems like every point you made is already addressed by the point you were responding to, and you just rambled off a bunch of words without saying much at all, but hey ho.
Firstly, as I explained in my post extensively, the pacts I was in were always relatively balanced. Like I also said in my post, you can't complain blindly about pacts when you yourself have created some huge ones - even without my influence, as you seem happy to blame me for Aristocrats' blood choices, even though there wasn't much complaining until the end of the version.
The only reason 4.72 was 'interesting' was because you couldn't control the pact that you had built, the smaller families like persico and outlawz had enough of your shit and decided to shoot you. This is part of that political strategy I mentioned, and part of the game you and your family simply lack. That and the fact that even though you're so against pacts and Siberia, you actually blooded them initially for safety, and then when the logs leaked about them wanting to sell you, you still managed to screw up the war against them by being paranoid morons like always, which eventually gifted Siberia (the pacters you hate so much) a free win.
As I also explained extensively I love a challenge, you can't say that I love pacting and you guys hate hate it. Look at the wars Gode listed, Colossal and Empire are mostly on the same side as Avaritia - and I planned 90% of them myself. The only difference between me and you is that I make no excuses for the tactics I apply. I acknowledge that during those versions, in order to kill Siberia, we created a side that was just as big. You seem to want to think you're some kind of underdogs all the time, it's delusional nonsense.
That is always the case (as I also explained in my response). You can't beat a pact without creating a group of families as big as, or bigger than the pact you're trying to kill. This was all covered in my initial response, but you seemed more inclined to put your fingers in your ears, spout some crap about how all this is my fault and pretend you have some kind of hilarious moral high ground as always.
Pact complainers like yourself have no perspective. Pacts exist because they're effective, pacts create anti-pacts, which are just as much pacts as the pact they're trying to beat. Just because you're usually in the anti-pact pact doesn't mean you're not in a pact. It seems like a lost concept on you, but it's true. Any group of families working together could be labelled a pact and you have been a part of them as much as I, or anyone else, it's how the game works. You can't blame the players for using the most effective strategy, like I said - everyone operates within a set of rules determined by the developers. There needs to be some sort of benefit to not working with half the other families or some consequence if you do. Then again, I'm trying to be rational and solve a problem here, clearly you just want to point fingers and drone on about how great your families were.
Fuck off back into obscurity please. And for the record, I wouldn't comment on someone's nationality when you're a half German, half Turkish hybrid.
When I said „you“, I didn’t mean Siberia. I wouldn’t deny Siberia’s success. First Siberia appeared to me as the puppet of Saros, but they then detached and gained profile, and were very successful, too. At least in what’s regarded a success in these circles. I guess. I actually haven’t been a good follower of politics in recent times. I’m clueless. Completely.
--
@Redvendetta
This is so disappointing, I really reply to you reluctantly.
Read from beginning. Read till end. You don’t get it? Read again.
So what was our exchange about again?
Explanation for Redvendetta
You say:
„In order to beat a pact you need a group of fams that are at least the same strength as the pact itself, and that’s how the game is played. This is the natural course. Every group of families can be called pact.“
I say:
„(2.5 times) You’re right in all your generalizations. I agree. However, let me make a very simple addition: you don’t need to blood every fam you work together with. Here’s an example, look! It works differently, too.
Let me state in advance: „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 say:
„There’s a vicious cycle. It’s not the fault of the players. Admins are at fault. The solution might be to bring game mechanics preventing actual gameplay.“
I say:
„It’s the fault of players. They use many excuses. Among their excuses is „wrong system“ for own harmful decisions. People have to set limits to theirselves. If they can’t, they’re weak.“
I don’t say I disagree that new game mechanics might solve things. I was in the same suggestion group like you, remember? I just don’t know.
I offer a more fundamental criticism. I speak of mechanistic perceptions, of taking decisions, I name a dichotomy of community vs. society. I speak of critical points in Omerta „history“ where things could have developed differently. I say that Omerta has taken an unsurprising road and arrived at today of the real world. All of this went past you ofc.
--
Everything above is constructive criticism for the game, and a repetition of my answers given before. Below is what’s personal.
----
You say:
„You pacted huge. You couldn’t keep your pact together. They were full of your shit and killed you. You played shitty anyway.“
I say:
„This link shall suffice. There are the facts, dare to deny. If you deny, I will reply.“
You still speak unsupported. You claim we pacted huge? You claim we played bad? You better provide us with details.
You say:
„You blooded Siberia to be safe from the ones you call pact.“
No. That version started promising with a lot of space for variation in bloodcircles. We blooded Siberia because we wanted that circle to open up. They were our first blood.
You say:
„You didn’t complain much when Aristocrats was running.“
Did you expect me to whine like a teenager? I simply kept it mature. I DID share my disagreement with our course all the time, I became passive after a point.
You say:
„I like playing challenging rounds.“
I say:
„You like them even more if you can steamroll every opponent easily, smoothly. Whenever you can, you will join a pact that bulldozes the rest with their superior capacities.“
It stays as claim. I base it on my experience with you before and in Aristocrats. It’s nothing which can be debated. I do claim to read intentions, how sick is that of me?
--
This sample of arguments to provide you the insight that you talk trash.
As you see, it’s all there, you just have to read. Is there something I didn’t understand or something you still think I didn’t answer? Let me know.
All of your accusations about my reading comprehension fall back to you.
If you now would please be so kind and follow my request to fill your claims about Avaritia 4.72 with content. Because, you know, I did. In that link. Once you give me a qualified answer I finally can reply.
Redvendetta at 12:17:41 on 28/09:
Fuck off back into obscurity please. And for the record, I wouldn't comment on someone's nationality when you're a half German, half Turkish hybrid.
Fuck off back into obscurity please. And for the record, I wouldn't comment on someone's nationality when you're a half German, half Turkish hybrid.
Oh, why not?
Aart at 15:24:14 on 28/09:
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Aart at 15:24:14 on 28/09:
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
I wrote it to get you into conversation :) where is the bashing about my english? I also missed that 1
Aart at 15:24:14 on 28/09:
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
They are all gay!!
Aart (15:24:14 - 28-09)
Here we go with the master manager thing again.... out of all the horseshit we've seen passing OBN today...
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
I'll have you know that redvendetta is the british commander in chief, Critycal an astronaut and Murderinc miss Universe.
Anonymous (14:38:55 - 28-09)
gode at 13:49:07 on 28/09:
I was top for once (bcz our bitch tops were so tired) in a bad version ran by pact of conflict/vinci
Personally i decided to hit Presidential bcz i didnt want you guys escape with Vincitori asslicking. I felt stupid that time, but it seems to be a good choice now
I dont have spare time to be crew/top. Whether some trolls bash or not, i have completed masters+got upgraded 3 times in my company+married and made a baby while playing 15+ omerta versions.
MURDERINC PING ME WHEN SOMEBODY GETS 2 STARS WITH SAME INGAME BRO. I SEE "MONSTER" TRYING IT BUT AINT EASY :)
MurderInc at 12:34:05 on 28/09:
He has two stars. TWO STARS, DO YOU HEAR ME? HOW MANY STARS DO YOU HAVE? ON YOUR KNEES, PEASANT.
Redvendetta at 12:25:29 on 28/09:
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
gode at 08:34:14 on 28/09:
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
I was top for once (bcz our bitch tops were so tired) in a bad version ran by pact of conflict/vinci
Personally i decided to hit Presidential bcz i didnt want you guys escape with Vincitori asslicking. I felt stupid that time, but it seems to be a good choice now
I dont have spare time to be crew/top. Whether some trolls bash or not, i have completed masters+got upgraded 3 times in my company+married and made a baby while playing 15+ omerta versions.
MURDERINC PING ME WHEN SOMEBODY GETS 2 STARS WITH SAME INGAME BRO. I SEE "MONSTER" TRYING IT BUT AINT EASY :)
gode at 13:49:07 on 28/09:
I was top for once (bcz our bitch tops were so tired) in a bad version ran by pact of conflict/vinci
Personally i decided to hit Presidential bcz i didnt want you guys escape with Vincitori asslicking. I felt stupid that time, but it seems to be a good choice now
MurderInc at 12:34:05 on 28/09:
He has two stars. TWO STARS, DO YOU HEAR ME? HOW MANY STARS DO YOU HAVE? ON YOUR KNEES, PEASANT.
Redvendetta at 12:25:29 on 28/09:
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
gode at 08:34:14 on 28/09:
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
I was top for once (bcz our bitch tops were so tired) in a bad version ran by pact of conflict/vinci
Personally i decided to hit Presidential bcz i didnt want you guys escape with Vincitori asslicking. I felt stupid that time, but it seems to be a good choice now
MurderInc at 12:34:05 on 28/09:
He has two stars. TWO STARS, DO YOU HEAR ME? HOW MANY STARS DO YOU HAVE? ON YOUR KNEES, PEASANT.
Redvendetta at 12:25:29 on 28/09:
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
gode at 08:34:14 on 28/09:
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
I was top for once (bcz our bitch tops were so tired) in a bad version ran by pact of conflict/vinci
Personally i decided to hit Presidential bcz i didnt want you guys escape with Vincitori asslicking. I felt stupid that time, but it seems to be a good choice now
I dont have spare time to be crew/top. Whether some trolls bash or not, i have completed masters+got upgraded 3 times in my company+married and made a baby while playing 15+ omerta versions.
MURDERINC PING ME WHEN SOMEBODY GETS 2 STARS WITH SAME INGAME BRO. I SEE "MONSTER" TRYING IT BUT AINT EASY :)
Redvendetta at 12:25:29 on 28/09:
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
gode at 08:34:14 on 28/09:
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
Redvendetta (12:25:29 - 28-09)
gode at 08:34:14 on 28/09:
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
I just wanted to pick up on this quickly. While you're eager to point out that I haven't always been an influential top (even though I was still planning wars for that 'pact' at the time, something you seem to be unaware of), you're completely oblivious to the fact that you have NEVER been an influential top. It's interesting. The rest of your post serves its purpose well in showing what a cretin you are, but this specifically caught my attention. The irony is just incredible.
I mean, I value everyone's opinion equally as I think everyone should, so whether you have been a top or not doesn't change how wrong you are. But if you're going to try and discredit my argument with the point that I used to be irrelevant, while you yourself are still irrelevant by your own standards, is just...well, fun.
Meow.
Redvendetta (12:17:41 - 28-09)
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.
Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:
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
gode at 12:19:12 on 26/09:
Avaritia was the balancer against that
Avaritia was the balancer against that
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
But over time this idea became weaker and weaker among the fams, mainly because Aeterna Era pacts made the last decent tops retire.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Where to start with this...it seems like every point you made is already addressed by the point you were responding to, and you just rambled off a bunch of words without saying much at all, but hey ho.
Firstly, as I explained in my post extensively, the pacts I was in were always relatively balanced. Like I also said in my post, you can't complain blindly about pacts when you yourself have created some huge ones - even without my influence, as you seem happy to blame me for Aristocrats' blood choices, even though there wasn't much complaining until the end of the version.
The only reason 4.72 was 'interesting' was because you couldn't control the pact that you had built, the smaller families like persico and outlawz had enough of your shit and decided to shoot you. This is part of that political strategy I mentioned, and part of the game you and your family simply lack. That and the fact that even though you're so against pacts and Siberia, you actually blooded them initially for safety, and then when the logs leaked about them wanting to sell you, you still managed to screw up the war against them by being paranoid morons like always, which eventually gifted Siberia (the pacters you hate so much) a free win.
As I also explained extensively I love a challenge, you can't say that I love pacting and you guys hate hate it. Look at the wars Gode listed, Colossal and Empire are mostly on the same side as Avaritia - and I planned 90% of them myself. The only difference between me and you is that I make no excuses for the tactics I apply. I acknowledge that during those versions, in order to kill Siberia, we created a side that was just as big. You seem to want to think you're some kind of underdogs all the time, it's delusional nonsense.
That is always the case (as I also explained in my response). You can't beat a pact without creating a group of families as big as, or bigger than the pact you're trying to kill. This was all covered in my initial response, but you seemed more inclined to put your fingers in your ears, spout some crap about how all this is my fault and pretend you have some kind of hilarious moral high ground as always.
Pact complainers like yourself have no perspective. Pacts exist because they're effective, pacts create anti-pacts, which are just as much pacts as the pact they're trying to beat. Just because you're usually in the anti-pact pact doesn't mean you're not in a pact. It seems like a lost concept on you, but it's true. Any group of families working together could be labelled a pact and you have been a part of them as much as I, or anyone else, it's how the game works. You can't blame the players for using the most effective strategy, like I said - everyone operates within a set of rules determined by the developers. There needs to be some sort of benefit to not working with half the other families or some consequence if you do. Then again, I'm trying to be rational and solve a problem here, clearly you just want to point fingers and drone on about how great your families were.
Fuck off back into obscurity please. And for the record, I wouldn't comment on someone's nationality when you're a half German, half Turkish hybrid.
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!
gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:
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!
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.
You've proven yourself to be focused on shooting 1 specific target at the start of every version, you simply can't deny that. That's what I was referring to.
And I'm not attacking Avaritia, if you think so, I'm attacking the illusion that Avaritia is always being the gamechanging anti-pact hero that shoots the "Siberia-pact".
Simply because out of all those listed versions, we were part of what you can call a "pact" in perhaps 2 of them.
Hating and blaming someone for something is an easy way out, even with all those "sources" that show nothing but Fidelitas-spinoffs attacking us in several ways, without our bloodline and the impact of that war on the version as reference.
Don't get me wrong, focussing on 1 or 2 fams every version is your own decision and it sure makes you an interesting group to have in a version, but it's simply bullshit that you always keep the game in balance or that the Fidel crew are the big saviors of the versions as gode is stating.
I sure do know that you and BJack were retired (BJack not as much as you as he was involved with some turkish fam later, Inflames I believe), and I never stated your involvement in those fams, it was merely a response to the praising of shit that didn't happen.
And by the way, not being shit as a new kid?
We've dominated multiple versions and we have always been one of the biggest families in the game when we were around when our top was pretty much built up out of your so-called "new kids", with a small amount of exceptions.
As founder of a family that won 2 versions, finished multiple others and with plenty of other examples where we were one of the fams with the most influence of the version I think it's hard to deny my/our relevance ;(
Anyway; I'm looking forward to another version with your crew being active rather than sticking feathers up your own ass on a newssite.
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!
gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:
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!
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!
gode at 21:44:13 on 27/09:
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!
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.
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.
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.
its obvious you cant get a big fam into a war "easily", since those tops are running fams 15+ versions. your english ego makes you feel like you always run the show, like you tried to do in aristocrats. even you are managing something big, you are not motivator/influencer like Donalo (even he went retard time to time)
side not : 3.x versions we fought against %50 of game when you were licking Vincitori balls, you were not lion just a cat. dont forget those days
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.
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.
its easier to win when you find an opportunity to create a bloodcircle of your own. decisions of tops are making versions interesting or not, when game is not providing such features as proposed. when you feel "comfortable" with your big bloodcircle then i'm not with you (as in aristo). i dont "enjoy it" like you do
Time to time Maraz created big side but i will stick to my list, we can easily add DIG and Faffie, more can be added ofc : Leviticus Krays Maraz Avaritia/Fidelitas
Redvendetta at 23:45:23 on 27/09:
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
gode at 12:19:12 on 26/09:
Avaritia was the balancer against that
Avaritia was the balancer against that
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
But over time this idea became weaker and weaker among the fams, mainly because Aeterna Era pacts made the last decent tops retire.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aart (07:21:59 - 28-09)
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. 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
gode at 12:19:12 on 26/09:
Avaritia was the balancer against that
Avaritia was the balancer against that
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
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.
We're looking forward to your reply.
Regards.