No I am saying its not a battle unless 2 players in power agree to it.

((Damix you sir are wrong, You had a bunch of 105's compared to level 50s and 20s. You wouldnt of won if you were evenly matched in levels. So why dont you stop your whining you may of won the first battle but you didnt win are spirits. Also arent you suppose to be a RP kingdom? If so maybe you should start acting like it and instead of saying oh i was posting in a forum, Maybe you should start typing OOC stuff in ( and ) instead of just talking. You sir just got owned by this post so there i win a battle now ****.))

Hi; the forums are, by their very nature, OOC. Ergo, you are the one using superfluous parantheses. Your post makes me doubt your maturity level, if you would tell someone else to stop their whinning and in the same breath claim victory over a bit of minutea that you do not apparently even understand the workings of.

Have a nice day. ;)

You died a lot more than twice, James. I killed you once on the boat, and I saw you die a lot more by colorspray.

ya,rly.

Haha... I love you Gryffon... I'm pretty sure that Chaos just got owned by your post ;)

It seems this is the level of maturity that Zormite has. Jesus what is wrong with all your heads.

See, now this is why there needs to be some sort of organized and judged war system. Otherwise it devolves into a 3rd grade argument of "I PwnED U!" " NO I K1lL3D j00!", and so on.

Do not judge the maturity level of a nation because of the actions of one person. I'm pretty sure there are a few people in Samurai who are less mature than you would want, aswell.

I actually tried to log on for this war but had connection problems :( would of been nice to be there for the Samurai victory! grats guys :)

The 3 heads of your various sections have all showed immaturity.


Yea Shawn, we do need some sort of battle system.

So the vast majority of battles that took place on 2K1 (which generally followed the model of spontaneously attacking a kingdom's castle) were, in fact, not battles?

2k2 does not equal 2k1.

We have to deal with different game mechanics and very different levels of roleplaying.

2k1=better and funner than g2k2

Yeah, I mean when the Netherlands have a war with the USA they can say "Yeah but you had nuclear bombs" and then the USA says they did lose the war and the Netherlands totally owned USA.

HA!

No, it doesn't work that way. If you know you are gonna get owned, why even challenge them?

Let's say you *did* own Damix and Lylic.

Who else did you own. Perhaps, dunno, your own leader, idiot boy?

It's a war over viagra now ???

And somehow this changes the definition of a battle?

From a roleplaying standard yes. We don't have the ability on Kingdoms to be able to hold random battles without immaturity prevailing.

You also hold a nostalgic view of 2001 along with everyone else on this forum, the roleplaying wasn't very good either, and most battles were pathetic excuses of a proper roleplaying battle.

That's why you don't like spontaneous battles, but that doesn't mean that they're invalid.

Except that I posted before that 2K1 RP wouldn't live up to the standards of elitists on 2K2 and also explained why this was a good thing.

http://forums.graalonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=59267

We can just say its a tie. a PK war cant go either way. Both kings were killed regardless if it was during wartime. Most wars dont go for 1 battle then say "LOLKEKE I OWNT U U GO KRY NOW NUBECAKE" Perhaps me and googi, and vamp were assasinationerpeople, and killed both Damix and Lylic. SO I WIN LOL U OWNT.
And in the james post, you can see him going "lol" thats good RP skillzorz.

If you wanted a PK war, then you guys lost horribly. Only ONE of your members did not die. If there was any idea of a you die and you don't come back your kingdom would have been defeated in a matter of minutes.

If you were trying to roleplay killing me and Lylic, then you failed. You killed 2 members while they were away and Gryffon will be the first to tell you that the consent rule was breached there.

Samurai was victorious, you invaded and we made you retreat, a few members not listening to your leader does not constitute another battle.




Googi, you just proved my point by showing that 2k1 and 2k2 had/have different standards. Your "attack" on our castle could have been called a war on 2k1, but not on 2k2.

Except that there isn't a 2K1 version of a battle and a 2K2 version of a battle, there's a definition of a battle that exists independantly of Graal.

No, though it is likely to turn out that way. Like I said victory isn't based on some kind of scoring system of kills/deaths or battle victories/defeats, but on accomplishing objectives. Victory for Samurai would be accomplishing their stated objective of the removal of you, Mech and EndlessX (was it?). Victory for Zormite would be accomplishing our stated objective of getting Samurai to back down on this demand. Neither of these outcomes is likely.

Googi has summed this up wonderfully.

Graal isn't about text book definitions. There is a difference between a battle on 2k1 and 2k2 because in pretty much every way, they are different games.



The war will in all likelyhood be a tie, but we are taking about the battle. The one where you attacked us and we forced you to retreat. That is a victory for Samurai, not Zormite.

The only way to "remove" anyone in this game is to either have them quit or them banned for some reason. Roleplaying on 2k2 is pretty much useless because there's no way to enforce what happens to people. The fact that most roleplaying events on 2k2 are so unorganized and pretty much pointless makes what happened yesterday just a random PKing by 2 "guilds".

If it is considered a "tie" then samurai actually wins. In a defensive war, "tying" means you win. I don't know, thats just how it is in the real world, a stalemate is generally a victory for those being occupied.

Then explain why there's a difference between a battle on 2K1 and one on 2K2 and how this difference is based on actual inherent differences in the two servers.

In the first battle, yeah.

Removed from their high ranks (or possibly the entire kingdom), not removed from the game itself.

It's not a defensive war. Samurai made demands of Zormite.

You screwed up your quotes. I didn't say the last thing.


I'm saying that *if* a random kingdom attacks another kingdom without any knowledge by one ruler then it is not a battle. If this was considered a battle on 2k1, then 2k2 and 2k1 battles are different.

According to that, Samurai just one a battle against every other kingdom because we PKed their players and stormed their castle.

If a war is to be properly roleplayed then all battles will be known about in advance and both leaders will agree on it.

As an uninvolved observer of the battle, I would have to say Samurai won the battle.
During the actual battle, most of the fighting never even made it off of the western beaches.
It sounds like Zormite's trying to compensate for their loss by bringing technicalities into the picture.
The "battle at the castle" was basically when most of the Samurai had left/logged off when Matthew White retreated and three remaining Zormites stood around yelling at James.

Why not? What is the basis for this kind of definition of "battle".

And?

What kind of RP principle are you deriving this rule from?

The widely accepted definition of battle. This is a game not real life, people need to know when things happen so they are on for it to happen.


So according to your definition we had 47 battle today and we went 47-0. I believe that would make me the supreme ruler of Kingdoms.


Again, the accepted one. Its just how things work.

The true definition and the definition that's convenient to you are two different things.

If you're telling the truth, then this would be correct.

No, because as I said before battle victory and casualty statistics don't actually mean anything in and of themselves aside from maybe feeding your ego.

Then when did the "accepted" definition change from the one used on 2K1. If what you say is true (that the definition difference is based on differences between the two servers) it must have changed when 2K2 was released. What is it about the release of 2K2 that caused this change?

Your guess is as good as mine. EVERY battle I have been in (note: I'm one of eldest GK players (and 2k1 players for that matter)) has been known by both leaders. Its just widly accepted as proper roleplaying. Who are you to change it?

Why can't we stop this unsavory fight, and just agree that in the absence of a semi-nuetral third party acting with appropriate knowledge and power of Roleplaying and its graalian precepts, war quickly degrades into a Player-killing uberspar thinnly veiled attempts to lolrp?

I've agreed to that many times, if they would like to admit to that, then Samurai was still victorious.

Personally, since the other party wasn't aware of this in a RP sense, I would think that this battle should go unmentioned as far as RP goes.

This isn't an explanation, it's circular logic. It's obvious that every battle you'd say you'd been in would have been known beforehand by both leaders because you don't recognize it as a battle otherwise.

I'm not advocating the changing of any definitions. I can see how what you are saying could represent a case that Zormite's fighting were improper and/or otherwise ethicly dubious, but they don't make that case that the fight at the castle wasn't a battle. It fits the dictionary definition of a battle, but what you're saying is that this definition does not apply on Graal, but given that dictionary definitions seem to apply for all other terms, why is the term "battle" somehow exclusively exempt?

I doubt a third party would necessarily stop that, but of course I acknowledge that there were a lot of technical infractions at the two battles, but that doesn't mean that either or both of them didn't happen.

FOR THE REPUBLIC!

Sadly, you bastards lagged me out, so I was unable to watch. :(

It's something called common sense: if you're gonna launch a surprise attack on Samurai, the chances somebody is there are very slim. You go to the island, then what? Are you gonna claim you won a war and the island is yours now?

Then I'm King Of Graal. :rolleyes:

Indeed.

This is a pretty bad characterization of what happened. There was a battle fought at the Samurai castle and Zormite won it. Nowhere did I say that this somehow entitles Zormite to the castle, the island, or anything at all.