ShAdOwNiGhT77 wrote:
When considering ROE, you must first consider the given variables of combat. ROE states that one may not destroy an ally in battle, unless stated to do so. It also states that removing a player from the game completely during a bs without giving them a chance is forbidden. Contrary to popular belief, ROE notes that it is inept to use any type of hack during any engagement with human opponents - engagements with only computer opponents are not mentioned anywhere within ROE. That's a brief run through as to what it means to abide by ROE.
Things have gone too far. Exceptions will not be tolerated among new members. Ever. Consider this your last warning.
Nooblet wrote:
But dude, thats bs, we dont have to do all that!
Ha.
ShAdOwNiGhT77 wrote:
Indeed. I'd say so. If you don't follow ROE, you aren't part of the organization.
Just from that segment I can tell ROE isn't anything "pussyish". Giving someone a chance isn't pussyish; if anything, it's more of a challenge. Like giving your opponent a bigger sword.. only to kick their ass twice as hard. If you can handle it.
Also, it sounds like it's to make things more fair.. almost like dueling, when you state you're going to attack someone. Plus the use of hacks is retarded anyway. ROE sounds good, very anti-nub
