Astro Galaxy - a realistic space exploration game
  October 24, 2020, 10:58:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
1  General Talk / Non-member Requests / Re: since Dadds brought it up... on: November 05, 2014, 03:07:29 PM
What a bunch of losers. Glad i got much more important things to do than play in your imaginary important world anymore. Quit invoking my name as an excuse to your retched existence. You guys contribute more to the carbon footprint than all the livestock on the planet.
2  Corporation General Talk / Corporation Recrutment / Re: Recruitment 101 - General Tips for Finding and Retaining Players on: August 22, 2014, 04:04:59 PM
I wanna say one of the most important tip in both Recruiting and Retention: Be one of the strongest and/or the richest. Won't matter if you employ all those tips and you are as weak as a puppy and as poor as a beggar, your corp won't grow (even if it does, it will be a very very slow growth). 
Incorrect Raphael.
 Being richest will attract only the greedy
Being the strongest will attract the weakest hoping for some sort of protection.
Since you dont or cant provide that protection then your conclusions are wrong.
IMG when it first formed was much poorer than a beggar. It was formed from like-minded people who wanted a particular style of gaming. That elevated us to top 5 very quickly without even trying. The trick is to have a few or several people who follow a banner, and it will grow quickly, if you believe in it.
The way NOT to grow, is to isolate yourself too early from the mother corp [SOL] without having any other contacts because the game is not great with keeping in touch with others after you leave a corp like [SOL]
3  Corporation General Talk / Corporation Recrutment / Re: [SSS] --- S. S. Syndicate on: August 22, 2014, 03:34:26 PM
you fail to mention though Rostin that since your "boss" has declared a blood war on our corp with no condition and no end, you also invite them to your feud. It's not all glory, especially since your boss doesnt share much.
Good luck with the recruits, mate
4  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: corporate stations on: August 22, 2014, 03:29:26 PM
one of many things that was suggested as an upgrade before the pledge system came into effect. Another one was hangar combat deployment. Been waiting patiently for that one for a long, long, long, long, infinitum time
5  Info Terminal / Add-on projects in progress / Re: Fortress, planetary structure on: August 22, 2014, 03:26:24 PM
what a hero you are. and the sycophants that follow you raphael. Should i now start posting all the kills of your weaker members and bad-mouth them?
All of you are just so pathetic it boggles the mind!

6  Info Terminal / Knowledge base, Information board / Re: AG battle system on: August 22, 2014, 03:02:58 PM
JJL he posts it now because his railgun CD ship attacked my corp ship VIGILANT and got bounced, and it cost him a pretty penny of QP lol. I have been saying for a while now the numbers dont seem to add up, especially with opti ships (eg bomber) on the potential damage they should inflict vs the actual damage inflicted...the numbers just seem so random it doesnt make sense. I see a reports of light hits doing not much less than direct hits sometimes, for eg. It starts to come down to a toss of a coin almost.
7  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: COM missions drop over existing COM on: August 22, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
The likely culprate is Dadds.  That said I did send out a reminder to my people about it. Just in case someone did it and I hadn't heard about it. Only 1 person besides myself has personal ships capable of producing COMs of these powers. That is Sauron. Though I doubt it is him. Also some of my other people do have use of corp COM ships capable of producing such missions.  That being said I can understand why some might do this to Mata and Raph without thinking much of it. They are so much bigger they figure they aren't hurting anything. Unfortunately not everyone thinks ahead.  That said those like Dadds know the benefit of doing this to them and would gladly do this to his enemies.  After all that is how he sees us all.  Even those he isn't at war with he sees as a potential enemy.
There you go again, pointing blame toward me and my corp. I will state again, for the record, for those morons who keep missing the point, I DONT DUMP COM MISSIONS ON OTHERS. If a combatant is in a system that i go to, you can expect a combat counter before a dump. The only time i use that tactic is when i want to extend a com counter to keep an aggressor in place while i attack them so you will know when it is me doing this. It is likely a sneaky cheap lazy act of someone that is or was a pirate, JJL. Who is the more likely suspect there, i wonder?
8  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE on: August 10, 2014, 05:06:57 PM
What are you trying to say?  "We are officially at war, and I will attack you next Monday?   No, war does not work that way.  If we are at war, you will be attacked whenever you are spotted (even before you start shooting yourself).  A true combat veteran will understand that.
On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions What bloody actionsand by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS.What have I ever done to you, except disagreement? Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives.  And, truth be told, I don't give a bloody rat's arse how you rank me.
OK lets do a count of how many "combat veterans" are here today. Now, including me, i count one. who wishes to add to that number?
Who has stood up to fight for their country?
Dont go quoting "that isnt how war is conducted" you sanctimonious piece of dribble. You obviously are blissfully unaware of how things are done.
To answer the "lookers" and "sprookers" did you also not read, IMG wait on this treaty? let me give you a clue. Sorry for those non-English speakers, but the clue was in "wait" I know i am a heck of a lot cleverer than you, but i didnt think i was talking to vegetables when i made that quote. Obviously i need to adjust my language to that of a new-born so everyone can U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D me. Get it? or do i need to explain further.
As for raphael...pfffft! you are as lame as it gets. a benchmark for underachievers. I laugh in your general direction.
9  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE on: August 06, 2014, 03:06:00 PM
See what you fail to understand, all mighty sprookers of the forums, is i actually have a life to attend to, and cant be bothered reading all the crap you sprook every hour. i generally deal with it every week or fortnight, since what you say here has total lack of value and meaning to me.
Having said how unimportant your points are, lets analyze a couple of concepts. (get your lawyers books out again Sargas lol)

By your words, as soon as the treaty was validated, we would be at war.  And as soon as the treaty was validated and signed,  by your words, we were at war.  This tactic of yours seemed to the EoS as your saying 'play the game the way I want you to do or else'.  So, our only option was the 'or else'.  That bloody idiotic statement of yours guaranteed the alliance.  You have been wanting me for a long time (how's that gotten you so far?).
By your words, I wasnt "privvy" to any alliance details, so how can i decide who is ally, neutral or enemy? If you read into my statement that an alliance with SSS automatically declares war on us, then you need to point that out to us before you attack in such a dishonorable way.
I have told all those who i am at war with well in advance of such an action. It is the only honorable way.
On the post of a public fuel station, i have responded in kind. Add a big minus to trust your corp by your actions and by your commitment to your criminal allies. "Once a thief, always a thief". There is no trust of EOS. Self-serving criminals is how we rank you. And that is the positives.
10  General Talk / General Discussion / Re: Should Public Fueling Stations be exempt from WAR? on: August 06, 2014, 02:39:57 PM
Yes if they are open to the public, I suppose they should be exempt but of course there's no way to make that a binding agreement. I mean if you're at war with everybody like Dadds, and you agree to not go attack public fuel stations, and then break that agreement then well nothing changes as you're already at war.

The only reason to not exempt them is if you really want to slow down the progress of other players.
Unlike all you "mouth breeders" there is something called honor. You probably dont have a grasp on its concept, that is ok. Hopefully you will evolve one day, or grow up and learn its meaning.
I am happy to sign off on an honor based agreement on all public fueling stations however i know for a simple fact it will not be honored toward me. By words and by action my public stations have been attacked and destroyed as well as been betrayed by others out for a minor capital gain.
Thats the difference between me, my corp and the rest of you. The rest of you have no honor.
I have only one honor pact and its with a corp i am at war with, so your argument there Joolz is laughable at best. I honor my agreements and statements.
JamJul is free to set up public fueling stations as i offered, free of IMG harassment. Until you get a public consensus to implement an honor-bound word not to attack each other's public fueling stations, the point is moot. So the answers to the questions, "should public fueling stations be exempt from war?' is yes, but "will public fueling stations be exempt?" is no.
Also, anyone setting up a public fueling station is not doing so to advance themselves. If you do the math, you dont actually make any cash doing so since the fuel prices are set by the game. Shooting one down wont hinder a player's progress at all, just annoy him or her somewhat.
11  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE on: August 02, 2014, 06:15:05 PM
my point exactly. The children want to break things. My point is that you all are siding with this child probably out of fear, i dont know.
My resolve vs the criminal who also chooses to taunt ingame and with name changes is the game's biggest criminal. He always has been. Its why the first Galactic Council made him a criminal. Nothing has changed, not from my resolve. Sadly others choose a different path.
@Sargas: you always had a non aggression pact with us, simply because we dont attack miners, until you attacked my position at Jupiter. I now know your true colours as a betrayer and can never trust your word again.
"Liar, liar pants on fire" oh wait, you dont wear pants, that burn will hurt.
Until all top corps can come to an agreement about orbitals, and i know the children out there will never honor an agreement, then sorry to say Sargas, that anything you build will be removed or liberated by IMG.
@ Jamjul: My statement regarding TGE is still valid. What constitutes a defence vs military outpost? hmmmm well lets look at this. the top 15-20 players can kill it regardless of what you put there. So what are you wanting to defend against? My agreement says we wont attack your public orbital. look down the list of who will attack it. if the top corps are all your allies, then guessing you only need around 3M power to defend it.
If you want to pick a number let me know.
12  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: News report: Anomalies detected within quadrant 0,0. on: August 02, 2014, 05:50:02 PM
oh, and @Raphael. I didnt start that out of topic thread, i just responded to it, yet again. As i did with yours. If you have an issue with me responding to inappropriate threads, dont post them in inappropriate forums.
13  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: News report: Anomalies detected within quadrant 0,0. on: August 02, 2014, 05:46:52 PM
nice find raphael
14  General Talk / News & Strategy / IMG stance vs civilian outposts of TGE on: July 31, 2014, 06:45:15 PM
To confirm my resolve and my word of honor, IMG will not strike down any public refueling outpost controlled by TGE. If we detect a military build-up around a public establishment, we will send envoy message to dissipate forces or face an attack. I would ask a similar agreement from TGE though the point is moot, since we will not set up any public outposts, as it is clear the children who think they control this game want nothing but to ruin my gameplay.
One day, in another universe, we would envision setting up not just a refuelling depot, but a working buy/sell outpost that will accept most materials and gases, and also sell to the buyers.
Naturally that is just a pipe-dream for the moment until we stamp out criminals bent on the destruction of property for the simple sake that they can.
We are at war, JamJul, for words against my corporation, words you could have modified. You are good with words, except it seems when it is important.
It was your call to post your opinion of us, it was my call to take offense to that. The ball is still in your court.
For the rest: death rip2
15  General Talk / News & Strategy / Re: News report: Anomalies detected within quadrant 0,0. on: July 31, 2014, 06:16:54 PM
As requested politely by Sargas, the discussion of outposts will be moved to a topical thread i will create so this thread i created can go back to the discussion of anomalies and discoveries by pilots.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!