no man if im goign to win ill win on my terms, not hide under someone who always win,

id be a hypocryte if i though anything less,

i can admit i run my mouth more than i should, may as well hold true to my ideals.

um, shut up pagen?

ya thats the phrase i was lookin for

For those who can't read between the lines, you can see the kind of mind warping kane and his mercs are throwing, just by this forum thread; also a minor judgement of character.

Whenever kane runs into a folly of someone on the forum behind the lines he must go find one of his followers to support him such as Ping there. Redwurm, as i know, is a player on E1 and according to kane there is his "best enemy," which brings me to which is someone kane has worked his mind around. Bringing me to justins term of manipulation and "hiding"


Whats that suppose to mean kane, afraid of losing or what? Or is that just the sense of greed i hear spuring from your mouth. Not satisfied unless you are on top and stay that way. Every single time we faught you we put together a team with a considerable amount of weakness. A plight of say maybe 6-8 top notch players, the rest was decent to moderatly ok, so yes the wins you had was won mearly by activity of all 14 players, as where we lacked. The skill justin and his father posesses with this game its just on par with yours, for which you have no right of judgement based on the number of wins. While on this topic, I would like to point out another folly to kanes goons. Ping there in his banner, reads " I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best" As quoted by Purple Ace which is another kane soldier. On a second note, Ping I didn't know you could read minds through your internet connection.
Proves to show he surrounds himself with people of the same nature, but birds of a feather flock together do they not?

Now to get to the real arguement, to clarify justins statement, the arguement is not steared toward who gets the most wins, this is the matter of how you obtain them. More of an arguement of the style of play and im not refering to stategy, although im sure you will claim it to be. The matter of which, to your self-imposed magnitude should be holding yourself to higher standards instead of playing these so called mind games and manpulation. I don't know how you are able to do it, but you do. The undermining of allies like 2 rounds previous with pinksoda, the subs, and what i like to call slave alliances. As for subs, i know for a fact that you use to complain on Tabulas massive sub empires, but as time went on you seen its effectiveness and his win agianst you. You surround yourself with these and when someone calles to question this act or any act you do for that matter, somehow you make it appear your the victim. After playing an untold number of rounds against you, the game you play hasn't changed one bit working things into your own favor. The players that you obtain and play with have proved time and time again that you can pull a win off with none of the B.S. that you play time and time again, but you still yet continue. You moreover use it as say, insurance, but with the skill you possess its unneeded. As said above, i think your afraid of that loss, afraid the old mighty kane will fall to a team of lesser skill and lose his championship belt, which we have tried to do for a couple years now to show that your style of play is a direct result of the games increasingly known courrption. The day will come and you know it will come, when this style of play will be ripped off whats left of the BD community. This is more or less "The kane era." When will it end is unknown, but one way or another it will.

I've played for 5 years, long long before you heard of BD. When did my era start and what makes you think there is anything special about this time?

You say Tom and Justin are on par with me... when is the last era they won? 2 years ago? Longer? Against me, not only do they not win wars but never even a single battle... how can you compare us. It is laughable to suggest that. If he was on my level, don't you think I'd have noticed by playing against him (and with him) a few times?

I know I'm coming off very arrogant, but some things are facts based on records. None of your group has ever caught one of our armies and killed it, much less proven enough skill to win an era. You're being quite silly. To suggest that anyone who agrees with me is just brainwashed is another poorly conceived argument, how about disproving any of it with facts or evidence instead of baseless insults.

Then you go on to say BD is corrupt, how so? Because we win? On the issue of subs, it is a simple diplomacy issue. When honesty breaks down and people stop holding to the agreements they make, it gives me little incentive to place my trust in those people when I can instead recruit subs who are actually loyal. I don't believe you've ever had to engage one of my subs so I'm not sure what your complaint is when each time you've lost it's been to the main.

These come off like the rantings of a sore loser, not someone with an actual argument. I'm taking a break over the summer, planning to return in the fall, you are more than welcome to try yet again.

Skwrel,

I dont know you. I am not sure if I know you, or if I have seen you play. I have played against Kevin once. And with him once. I dont hate anyone I meet on BD, its just a game, but dude, WHAT A RANT!!

Seems like you've lost so many times that you call Kevin all kinds of things. I couldn't even read and register what you wrote.

But all said, I can only say, that Kane wins because he has a very dedicated team that will be available whenever he wants them to be. They are also skilled enough, to do things on their own during war, and dont wait for the leader to give all of the orders. Regarding how he handles relations, yes, maybe if you are a threat, he will turn others against you. Or make you break a NAP when you are not too strong. Or talk to others who are on your side, and get them against you etc. That is all diplomacy. You cant complain if he does a better job at it.

Next time, try to learn from your defeat, and see where you made mistakes and correct it instead of writing a 1000 word rant that just makes you look like you are being sour and jealous about someone else.

Cheers and all the best

Sorry kane, ive played just a bit longer than you. I was thrown into this game just about one era before you reared your head, so all in all, i can say we have the approximate same amount of time in this game.

As for justin and tom, yes they do possess the same skill, the only difference as i mentioned above was the lack of activity and commitment that we had as a team. A comparison of individuals, if you wish, they can match you hit for hit, without question and you know it. Knowing that we couldn't take on your team without losing anyway, we lost our faith and more or less gave up. Lets face it, 6 on 12-14....ya ok, odds are slim. What gives you the right to make the judgment call on there skill, based on win records? You know for fact its much more than that. This is not a question of skill, kane, im surprised you didn't pick it out of my crowd of words earlier. It was our lack of teamwork which ultimatly caused us to lose, which you are feverously ignoring. But you cannot ignore the fact of all the things that you did prior to our fall, which would have undoubtly tipped the scales toward our lesser team.

I cannot even count the number of things on two hands. Thats what the arguement is about. Nothing about wins, nothing about skill, its the way you go about it and your brand of "diplomacy." That is what i was also refering to as the corruption, ive witnessed first hand of all the things you have done in E4. Ive played other servers on and off and i see your brand of "diplomacy" being stamped in the community. Your impact into this game, which i am refering to as the "kane era."


I cannot even count the number of times we have caught your armies with spies let alone many attempts to snag one of your armies moving from place to place. As said previous, the failure in this area was on our terms, due the lack of a dedicated team. We just couldn't uphold our dance of war. To the issue of the brainwashing, i didn't say "anyone who agrees with you" in my last post. The point is the select few in which you have the privilage to know and will do anything at the drop of a hat, those are who im am refering to.


Still continuing this issue, you said it right there. You just proved my previous argument in my last post and the previous paragraph in this one. Its your brand of "diplomacy." Which is the sole reason of this argument. Its like a chain reaction all of these things i have described and give my reason to is a direct result of your "diplomacy."

Through these years, it has become self evident that it will not change and i have come to terms with it personally. Im just relquishing the fact that people need to open there eyes and see through what is really there, but i guess there are too many who are just blinded by what you have done.


You can call it all you want, this goes beyond our losses, and there is an argument here. From my last post you left a lot of questions and areas unanswered becasue you know they are true. You just want to slam it and make it as if we are the agressors. I wish to enlighten the fact of the things you do, the way you play, so there is a knowledge to the people. I am aware of your break in play and had no question that you would return. If i can find the time myself, you can count me there for another shot and more to come if need be. No sense in wasting this rivaly we hold so dearly, huh? lol



LMFAO thx, i know, its my specialty.

I started in April 2006, when there was only an E1, and there was a couple eras of it before E2 was released. Never saw you back then, if you WERE there than I feel bad with your grasp of the game, though I sincerely doubt you've played more than 3 years.



Then how come I never found it difficult to catch and slay their armies? How come they never won in the new client, which has been going for two years. I don't see how you can talk them up to top level players without any evidence to back it up. They can donate and build an army, but they always lose it quite quickly. Their biggest success in the new client was killing HU, should we be impressed? This sort of thing isn't "Top level unless proven otherwise", I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you if you wish to make those claims.



So because you knew you would lose you gave up, I still don't follow how it makes me a bad guy.



If your team was worse, and Tom was the person in charge of putting together and managing the team, I do believe it qualifies as a failure on his part. You don't get to have half a team and try to win using your handicap as a safety net from criticism. If you try to win and fail, it's a failure. That is not to say you should be ashamed and quit the game, it's fine to not win... but to be such a sore loser about it and still claim to be a top level group of guys is naive and I'm not sure who you are trying to convince, me or yourself.



Let me take a stab at a few:

1. Sub alliances. I could agree with you here if sub alliances ever made a difference between winning or losing, as it stands it only makes it a bit less stressful for me. I've played both sides of the coin many times, and like Napoleon setting up puppet states in conquered territory, I see no reason not to augment my empire in this way. I never micromanage the subs offensively, you always lose to my main players, so I hardly see what the issue is. Overcome the other obstacles and I will take your criticism here more seriously.
2. Getting your players to defect. That is a failure on your part in recruiting disloyal players, and for having weak leadership. Be more careful with whom you play, and you'll find this becomes less of an issue as time goes on. I never even used them to spy on you, just got them to leave.
3. Getting your allies to turn against you. How is it in their best interest to be your meat shield? If you treated them well and they betrayed you, their reputation will take a hit, otherwise I don't see the fault.
4. Using spam. Demoralizing you is an indirect offensive tool that many players don't put enough emphasis on. If we can get you to quit without having to kill your armies, we still win, so why not do that? Look at real wars and military history, the greatest moves are always the ones that bring victory at the smallest cost.
5. Attacking all over the map instead of concentrating our force for an even fight. This is the basis of all military strategy. The art of attacking many objectives to force the enemy to disperse his forces, then concentrate your forces on the enemy's weakness to overpower him. Strategy 101.
6. Fighting only battles where we can win with a large advantage. Another basic strategy axiom. This attacks both the moral center of the enemy, and the military center of myself. By reducing losses and making the enemy feel helpless we can make sure to be most profitable while killing the enemy in the best way possible.

If other people follow me, I welcome it. I play smart, the more people to do that the better. As long as no one is cheating it should make for a better game. People are only copying me now after seeing how effective it is, back in the old client I was in high school and not quite as well versed in military strategy. I still won, but it wasn't as impressive back then. I surely hope others follow my example, I never shy away from giving advice. If you want advice, ask for it less disdainfully.



Yet none of those attempts worked, and no attack following a spy never landed... why? Because we exhibited better teamwork, which is the core of this game. You can't claim to be a great player if you can't understand that. I can fail to attack people all day, how does this make me great? Why would I not play with people who are skilled, mature, friendly, and active? You make it sound like a bad thing. Perhaps if you were better these people would want to play with you instead... or perhaps it's because I'm not the mean spirited greedy person you claim me to be. Think about it.



Perhaps if you used more diplomacy you'd lose less. It's part of the game and you need to get used to it. I won plenty of times without subs, and what did it get me? The problem is the subjectivity of sub alliances. If you have an ally who wants to help you, is it a sub? What if he's a passive leader and needs lots of advice or just generally is fine with doing what you ask him to do... is he a sub? What about when he names himself after your alliance... where is the line? As long as the battles are proven elsewhere, I don't see a problem with subs. If it stagnates the game by stopping war, than it is a problem... but playing against me will never show you a stagnated era, I always engage in war so your complaints are null and void.



I never hid how I play. Generally in a rivalry, both sides need to have some successes to antagonize the other into becoming better.

skrewl,justin. You know your talking to a wall...talking to these guys is like clapping with one hand....And to say i can't be trusted kevin....for shame on you....yes i have made deals and have had to break them...but never once was the deal broken behind your back kevin...i have always told you straight up ..we were cooll and/or to stuff it!!!!

and to critisize my skills in this game...

im not even going to defend myself. I know what i am capable of here

as for subs, it is pretty sad when even the admin chimes in on broadcast about how sad it is that these super alliances use them...

i cant sit here and blame the likes of you kevin and the john howards of this game and there use of subs...

that falls on the week minded who chose to not make a stand on there own

which allows you exploit the weak ....thats where the true problem is