[RGL5] Main Thread

[Lone]

They joined Movements regiment, they know exactly what kind of a retard he is so it kinda is their fault tbh

1:0 to you sir

[Golden.]

Wouldnt it make sense to ban historical names as a whole in RGL? I can't see why you would care about a historical name and it makes it so there are less accusations of inviting. Unless people copy names ofcourse, which would be next level cancer.

Well their is no point since players can change names and faces regardless, besides some players like fwuffy, salakien prefer to use their historical names such as "Thomas Harris". It Doesn't make any difference, if players and leaders want to invite they will just use a generic name or change face the only way to complete remove invites is a whitelist of some kind.

@Price, you do realise there are a quite a few players in movements regiment that have no idea about "nw drama" and don't care, loufoks is a good example of someone who knows nothing of movement or his history so it isn't fair to say that they knew what they were joining and ultimately unfair to ban the entire regiment.

[~NickCole~]

If regiments are going to use invs at least do a better job of hiding yourself since there is a certain way to hide yourself really good.

[Keita]

ye i agree

[Tigere]

ffs guys calm down and relax, this is just a game. Every1 knows that movement did shit, but most of u instantly react to this like to the “leak“ that EA is scamming their player with Battlefront 2

[pieter]

ffs guys calm down and relax, this is just a game. Every1 knows that movement did shit, but most of u instantly react to this like to the “leak“ that EA is scamming their player with Battlefront 2

JUST A GAME KIDDDDDDDD NOW U DONE IT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Piercee]

i feel like this will calm ya'll down

thanks me later

[Normanguy]

i feel like this will calm ya'll down

thanks me later

leave my culture out of this

[MarxeiL]

Archangel is only 12 yo tho so it's inhumanely af to ban him
We should all blame his parents and his big brother max1m!!!1

[MrDixon]

Besides, kicking the 79th doesn't mean you ban their players, you just prevent them to participate under the same leadership. If their active members want to join other structures under a new (and competent) leadership, I don't see the problem.

Let’s just keep insulting other people in a forum of a computer game

Let’s just keep complaining about other being aggressive towards the same usual retards because it’s easier than just admitting what you've done wrong!

And what about players which play for two regiments on RGL in 79th? I talk about invites. If they don’t respect rules, why you give them possibility to make it again and again? I know that there are some loyal ppl which played RGL only for 79th, but I think you all may know some famous mercs. Like Archangel btw, which played for 79th and kka. So, I think we need to ban ppl like that, this is main problem of movement’s regs. Bcs for example, movement tried to invite me too, but I said no. So, if you respect rules, you can deny and don’t brake rules. Ezzz

[Piercee]

Besides, kicking the 79th doesn't mean you ban their players, you just prevent them to participate under the same leadership. If their active members want to join other structures under a new (and competent) leadership, I don't see the problem.

Let’s just keep insulting other people in a forum of a computer game

Let’s just keep complaining about other being aggressive towards the same usual retards because it’s easier than just admitting what you've done wrong!

And what about players which play for two regiments on RGL in 79th? I talk about invites. If they don’t respect rules, why you give them possibility to make it again and again? I know that there are some loyal ppl which played RGL only for 79th, but I think you all may know some famous mercs. Like Archangel btw, which played for 79th and kka. So, I think we need to ban ppl like that, this is main problem of movement’s regs. Bcs for example, movement tried to invite me too, but I said no. So, if you respect rules, you can deny and don’t brake rules. Ezzz

He got kicked out of the KKA too so at the end of the day he lost quite a lot, lmao.

[MrDixon]

Besides, kicking the 79th doesn't mean you ban their players, you just prevent them to participate under the same leadership. If their active members want to join other structures under a new (and competent) leadership, I don't see the problem.

Let’s just keep insulting other people in a forum of a computer game

Let’s just keep complaining about other being aggressive towards the same usual retards because it’s easier than just admitting what you've done wrong!

And what about players which play for two regiments on RGL in 79th? I talk about invites. If they don’t respect rules, why you give them possibility to make it again and again? I know that there are some loyal ppl which played RGL only for 79th, but I think you all may know some famous mercs. Like Archangel btw, which played for 79th and kka. So, I think we need to ban ppl like that, this is main problem of movement’s regs. Bcs for example, movement tried to invite me too, but I said no. So, if you respect rules, you can deny and don’t brake rules. Ezzz

He got kicked out of the KKA too so at the end of the day he lost quite a lot, lmao.

lmao, but I think we need to make a rule for persons like him which will ban them in RGL or nwl at all.

[John Price]

Dixon you are widely renowned for your repeated double regging so I don't think you should really comment on such things bud

[pieter]

Dixon you are widely renowned for your repeated double regging so I don't think you should really comment on such things bud

Kinda has a point here.

[MrDixon]

Dixon you are widely renowned for your repeated double regging so I don't think you should really comment on such things bud

Give me some proofs that I played for two regs on nwl or rgl please. Most of Russians played in Russian and EU regs at one time for practice (I can bring many examples), but not on tournaments, so, shut up or give me some proofs. And now you're just verbiage.