If you don't like Dagga, don't feed him.

good point

*goes back to not posting ever*

I think i read a post earlier in the forum about AI controlled countries. In all honesty i think it would solve ALOT of the above issues. War is always and should always be apart of this game.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not the game is diminishing, and when i say that its just a pure numbers count. I am a long returning player and was happily surprised to come back some 10 years later and find the game still even around. However once creating an account on alliance server it didn't take merely one or two days out of protection to be farmed by tagged countries 10 x + my size in nw.

When i first played as a young tike, i didn't want to join any of the larger alliances, i wanted to create my own clan. Have a sense of creating your own group and 'surviving'. Back then you could be a alliance of small nub countrys and some how make it through the set just 'doing your own thing'. Yes you might get hit a few times, but if you minded your own business, others did the same. The larger alliances still wanted to dominate, and war as you do and it was fine.

War's were arranged, or not but carried out with respect. Now it seems the state of the game is far from where it was, but i would say most of the issues lye with some egos who have been playing at the top for too long. They want the game to stay exactly as it is now for some virtual fear of loosing the 'online power' they currently play out through the game. Thats a killer, and i guess back then with a heap more plays and a heap of large alliances at any on time not just one or two power houses those personalities were naturally kept at bay.

Land has become scare, and what looks like an over pacted alliance server means noone can hit anyone without starting a war. So naturally anyone who isn't tagged is LAND.

But besides the dodgy countrys / suiciders. Most of the new players who somehow find the game, don't tag up, or create there own clan and then are farmed until they leave.

Some of us have played on an off so well over 10 years now. We don't think twice about investing in other area's of our lives if we see a return. I don't see how we can't all invest into this game, we played for so long, why not invest some $$ to make the time we are going to spend in the future all it can be.

It's not enough to expect the admins to do this without payment, as like most of said they all lack the time. If we got 300 players to contribute $50 there is $15k to put towards real game development time. This game for some is alot more then just the game. Others have mentioned the community, you've invested so much time and make real friends through the game. Why not make a small investment? I just don't get it. Just my thoughts, from the week or so i've had back in the game.

I'd donate some money to help the game.. just saying.
---

I think I've made this point before, but can't remember now. The game itself, no matter what game it is, will be played by the games mechanics and "abused" as much as possible for the benefit of the player; at the expense of other players for the pursuit of perfection, power and "winning".

It does not matter what type of game it is, how old it is or how well knit the community is. If something within the rules allows something to happen, and that something is beneficial to the participant (or extremely harmful to a competitor/enemy), it will happen.

The changes needed are those of game mechanics, this can be seen with attempts, such as the new GDI rules on express and now primary, to curtail practices that many consider harmful to the growth and stability of the game.

I'm about to start beer #3, so I'll stop typing now. (yes im a cheap ass drunk)

I disagree.
War is apart of the game. The issue since there is a low poulation in the game, constant wars for netting alliances is going to almost be unavoidable if things like what occured this set happens. In THAT context, I am 100% right. You would be right if the game had a bigger poulation, but that simply is not the case. Things are different, please understand that. I think you are a well thought out individual when you create posts, I would ask you attempt to try to understand the context of the statements made before you qoute and reply us.

*hugs*




Thank you for the positive comments :-) The issue is that the retribution that will occur is not going to be positive for the server. I do not think you understand the state of the game. Since there is a low population of players, constant wars for netting alliances are going to force those netters to want to stop playing. LCN is a netting alliance, yet they have seen constant war recently... is this really the retribution the players of the game want to see when it may force people to leave the game? There are not many alliances to war against, there for netting allainces are going to get more love much more often.





Again context. I am referring to the now and the actions we take now. You say its ok if SOL seeks retribution, yet you say we should avoid being harmful? That is contradictory.

For us to avoid being harmful, we will have to avoid retribution.

Note: I am referring to actions on a political scale not on an individual scale.

"Thank you for the positive comments :-) The issue is that the retribution that will occur is not going to be positive for the server. I do not think you understand the state of the game. Since there is a low population of players, constant wars for netting alliances are going to force those netters to want to stop playing. LCN is a netting alliance, yet they have seen constant war recently... is this really the retribution the players of the game want to see when it may force people to leave the game? There are not many alliances to war against, there for netting allainces are going to get more love much more often."

You have to understand that the netting alliances getting hit every second or third reset by SOL. often for no real reason, are probably not going to stand for it forever. So you have what you have this reset. Let me ask you Jiman. Do SOL members actually enjoy warring LCN those times you hit us for no real reason? You have been doing this to us for 10 friggin years!!! The outcome is known before the war even starts. I know LCN wouldn't enjoy a netgaining match against SOL because we know we would win easily.

The old ways are not going to cut it anymore. We aren't the ones jumping the same alliances for little or no reason so perhaps your leadership needs a new gameplan.

I am just curious what retribution SoL is seeking?
You blindside LCN while they were netting? You blindside LaF while they were netting? You tried to isolate LaF this set so you could blindside them? You got your ass handed to you for these actions.

If the threats continue the actions by alliances sick of your crap will escalate, be it in game or if it backed into a corner too long you will see things outside of the game.

Ravi, if you read my prevoius posts besides that single comment you will see that I am for SOL fighting other strong warring alliances. I agree that LCN has been warring much too often, and IMO that is a symptom of the low population of the server.
I think LCN vs SOL has gone on for awhile, but the amount of war LCN is having with SOL (IMHO) is a symptom of both the low population and yes, SOL in a frame of mind attatched to the old ways of playing the game (when the population was higher).
This issue is not just an issue with SOL alone though, it is an issue with many other alliances, even LCN. You fail to realize that alliances such as ours need to war.
Look at the SOF vs NA war. Was there reason there? NA wanted to net, with no sigs what so ever of warring. Why are you not questioning there actions? Why is it that warring alliances need to change all of a sudden? I hope you see where I am going with this.

You ask whether or not SOL members really enjoy the wars we have vs LCN. I would have to say yes, we enjoy the wars we participate in. You make a statement attempting to make me say "we war for no reason". Yet, in our prospective we do war (every single time) for a reason. Does that mean others will agree with our reasons? Not at all. I doubt you ever will.

The question you should ask should be "Do you think the members of SOL are being completely fullfilled with the wars you are currently having with netting alliances?".

That, I would have to answer "No" to. I think SOL is greater than the wars we have been having recently. I would like to see SOL challanged by other war alliances that would stand a chance against us.

Look at SOL during this reset. See how high our restart rate is even though we are gangbanged? I think this reset is a breather for an alliance like SOL. This set is truly a challenge, and I am one enjoying it.

Focusing on solutions. I do not believe the short term answer here is to gain more players. They will soon see the issues and leave. There is obviously a lot of long term relationships here both positive and negative and a whole heap of politics and egos to boot.

I would be willing to contribute to the game financially, if i could see a return and a well managed plan to make that happen. At the end of the day, the key issue here is LAND. And to be frank the state of the server in alliance is that there is NONE.

Have we though about developing out the 'GDI'? Or a coalition run but multiple AI strategies with some cool scripting to develop 'reactions' to different scenarios ie if this, then do this etc etc. Its time, and time is money, so back to the 'EE' development fund. We're all got some spare cash we could come up with. Some more than others.

At the end of the day, the game. And by that i mean 'everyone involved' cannot just stick heads in the sand hoping for it too fix itself. It wont, and if you wait until there are 50 players left to go 'fluff we need to fix this' it will be too little too late.

Netters could net, warring alliances could war as you do now. And the added focus would allow new players some grace, and smaller clans the ability to get established and grow.

Symac, it was true that there was at one point an intelligent convo between us. I think you are crossing a line where you are just typing out your feelings rather then the current topic and context of the thread. You are also making very biased comments and narrow comments.

Considering I think you just made real life threats to the members of SOL, I would suggest you calm down some... (if i read your last sentence incorrectly, my appologies.)

"The question you should ask should be "Do you think the members of SOL are being completely fullfilled with the wars you are currently having with netting alliances?".

That, I would have to answer "No" to. I think SOL is greater than the wars we have been having recently. I would like to see SOL challanged by other war alliances that would stand a chance against us."

Well your leadership can change that. Your alliance usually pacts anyone they consider a threat so they can concentrate on one netting alliance they know they can easily beat up on. Sometimes you will pact out everyone except for two alliances and then hit them both calling it a challenge. The problem is that hitting 2 netting alliances who don't usually work together is not a challenge.

I know you are trying to speak about this in general terms but I am talking specifics as it relates to your own alliance because you have made your living fighting wars that are not a challenge. Any talk of wanting challenging wars is disingenuous on your part based on your alliances history up to now and I mean no offense. It is what it is until you decide to change it.

Otherwise we will keep having sets like this. All this talk of retribution is nonsense because next set will be business as usual for your leadership. You will pact out everybody except one or two alliances and call it retribution but it will be the same formula as it is every set.

I haven't mentioned SoF hitting NA. I have no opinion on it. If SoF does that every set like SOL does then I will have something to say. You seem like a smart fellow. You know the SOL formula is not the same as the SoF one set after set so to even bring them up in the same breath as your alliance would be wrong at this time.

o_O

No. Read it again. What retribution is SoL seeking? SoL got exactly what it was owed and I believe will continue to get this treatment until things change. You pushed LCN and LaF too far and they found means to defeat SoL outside of the game.

You have bullied more alliances than just them, SoL is with out a doubt the most hated alliance on the server. I really don't get what you want here or what you don't get.

How does outside of the game in anyway mean physically? Inside the game to me would mean they FS you or all go on vacation. Maybe outside the game is not the best word to use for it but it entails anything that isn't started inside the game. It could also mean spies in SoL or pulling allies away from SoL.

- I take no offense, understand though I just returned to the game last set after a few years break for college and life.

- I have only used the term "retribution" in reference to as well as replying to Derrick comments. If you considered SOL warring for no reason, do you think this reset would really help your cause?

- Lastly...

The only way to makes things right is for some understanding between ALL alliances on the server. People are speaking out directly towards SOL is if they are the problem... hello people! SOL is simply playing the game as its intended, it just happens to be because SOL is aggressive and likes to war other alliances happen to be effected by there actions.

If you think SOL is going to change there opinions based on what is said on AT, you have another thing coming.

It blows my mind that there has not been any attempts at a Universal Unified Agreement Pact that would help control as well as help dictate the actions of alliances so that stability may come to the server to avoid any negative reprucations towards the player base. At this point, I think this is the only way to avoid constant wars that we have been seeing with netting alliances. ALL netting alliances who have been involved in war.

Symac, erm...

You really think that line of thought is really good in any way for netting alliances? Who do you think would outlast constant wars? A netting alliance or SOL, who have been through the worst crap you can even imagine. We have had our extreem lows, we know pain really well and we know how to last.

I highly HIGHLY suggest you rethink your frame of thought... constant war both inside and "outside" the game will end up hurting the netting alliances much much more.

You really think SOL is suffering right now? Look at our restart rate my friend. We are only getting started if the only path is war and pain. SOL THRIVES on war and pain.

Edit:

As I said

hmmm

"I have only used the term "retribution" in reference to as well as replying to Derrick comments. If you considered SOL warring for no reason, do you think this reset would really help your cause?"

Perhaps, since based on SOLs history they will not war alliances every other set who can beat them.


"People are speaking out directly towards SOL is if they are the problem"

I can only speak for my alliance and while there are other warring alliances on this server yours is the only one we have this problem with. Why is that?



"It blows my mind that there has not been any attempts at a Universal Unified Agreement Pact that would help control as well as help dictate the actions of alliances so that stability may come to the server to avoid any negative reprucations towards the player base."

Umm what do you think this war is about? Would you have felt better if every alliance on the server was on board?

The game has never been intended to go around smashing alliances that honestly have no chance to win.

This gives no credit to just Sol... The game is designed around either you net or war... Netgainers aren't for the most part running around on 30 missiles and maxed SDI... They likely aren't loaded with spies and troops.

I think for the most part they have some defense but you aren't netgaining through a set with 10m turrets and troops.

So quoting FS equalling numbers out to make a war even or networth is silly.

What choice have you left them. Hopefully more alliances step up and realize that the best thing for the server is for SoL to be disbanded or if it is what SoL wants than alliances can come together and gangbang SoL every set so the server can stabilize.

To alleviate confusion I am not saying the goal is to disband SoL or that is what is wanted. That is simply the most likely outcome. SoL can say they enjoy this set but posts by the members I have seen show something very different. I don't think SoL will agree to change and these old alliances aren't going to be pushed around as they have been for the last few years.

Yet we end up being attacked by more than we expect. We have had our lows and highs.

SOL is the most aggressive warring alliance. We do not like the net. We are seen as a threat.
Its pretty simple to understand.



Do you think this is the right path at a attempt at server stability? It was already agreed on it is not. There is no ends to the means here. Thinking otherwise is futile.

"You really think that line of thought is really good in any way for netting alliances? Who do you think would outlast constant wars? A netting alliance or SOL, who have been through the worst crap you can even imagine. We have had our extreem lows, we know pain really well and we know how to last."

I know you directed this at someone else but that comment is interesting. I will argue that SOL has never had to endure crap anywhere near that of LCN. There was a stretch that lasted for over a year where either IX, SOL or TIE hit us. We are a netting alliance and we are still here. SOL has never gone that long getting kicked around.

I think your leadership has done a great job in the long haul for making sure SOL was never in that situation. It is questionable your member base would tolerate that. And I would never wish it on you either.

You are very narrow minded to think destruction of SOL would mean server stability.

Yes, getting rid of an aggressive alliance may relevate some symptons of pain the server is feeling, but the issues will still exist. Actually, even more so. That would mean the server is even SMALLER. Less alliances to war with, and there are still warring alliances. You think netting alliances will leave every warring alliance alone? Not at all.

You think the other warring alliances will not defend themselves?



The issues will always be here unless
a) the server grows in populations.
b) there is a agreement that multiple alliances leaders have with one another to stabilize the server.

I am sorry for being rude, but to think otherwise is just stupid and I have no pity on you for your lack of intelligence.

"SOL is the most aggressive warring alliance. We do not like the net. We are seen as a threat.
Its pretty simple to understand."

"We are seen as a threat" makes no sense. The alliances you hit over and over again rarely, if ever, FS you.


"Do you think this is the right path at a attempt at server stability? It was already agreed on it is not. There is no ends to the means here. Thinking otherwise is futile.'

It was also agreed that SOLs round robin ways of attacking the same few alliances in this game is not going to be tolerated any more. Thinking otherwise is futile. Come up with a new game plan.

I would never wish this on anyone as well.
As you can see, I am being very pro "lets have all alliances come to an agreement" so that we can all play this game and have fun without the worry of lossing too many people to war against... or for netting alliances, be in too many wars where it isnt fun for them any more.

Sorry I edited to alleviate some confusion on that, Jiman.

However server stability would be increased thousand fold by SoL not being involved in it. Believe it or not netting alliances do have their own agendas outside of netting. With out SoL threat always looming you would have seen LaF FSing Evo by now. You may have even seen the reverse. LCN at one point likely would have FSed LaF, ahh but again SoL was there.

Netgainers warring is not against the stability of the server. Netgainers generally war for a reason. Indeed at one time you needed a reason to war. For a long time though SoL has just ran around like a chicken with it's head cut off FSing alliances that it knows can't win.

If you want a challenege wait until after the first month and FS a netgainer, make sure to tell them you are coming a few weeks ahead. FSing a netgainer in week 2 is not even looking for a challenege.

Sorry I misread what you typed.

I guess my reply to this would be "I do not understand the political backround between LCN and SOL". O_c

SoL chose them as a target and continues to FS them when ever and however they want?

beer # 7

I made the thing say something funny lol.
bidden bodden bidden, bod bid bod bod bidden.
bidden bodden bidden, bod bid bod bod do!

I think i might be an alchoholic. im serious.

I am here for you deepcode if you ever need to chat :-)

i don't think SOL leaving the game is good either. we need all the members in this game. you seem like a reasonable guy Jiman. if i was a SOL member i would be in your boat also, because as a SOL member i would want to be in an alliance that will give me wars which i deem to be fun and makinso's job is to find you guys such wars.

just like a netgainer alliance's job is to find ways to keep their members netgaining and foster an environment that allows that. evo has been doing a good job of that recently for instance and monsters have been also (and historically they always has been).

i'm reaching out and saying that we NEED to find a way for both sides to be happy. i'll even make sacrifices and even volunteer to take turns in the round robin to war SOL and other aggressive alliances if it means i can at least enjoy it just a little bit. if it was up to netgaining alliances they would never want to war SOL but of course i understand SOL needs their fun just like netgaining alliances do and we do need to coexist here. it's not about winning or losing really it's about having fun also. this is what pre-planned wars would hopefully solve no? we only get wars where its guaranteed to be fun for both sides (because otherwise why would you preplan such wars if you know beforehand its not going to be fun for you).

netgaining alliances also have fun when they war, but they just don't want to war as often as warring alliances. do you remember as a long time SOL the SOL vs UCN war? do you remember why that was fun? that was probably the most epic war i ever saw (and i didn't even participate in it i was playing in LaF :P) but i remember being at the edge of my seat watching warstats everyday for a war i wasn't even a part of because it was such a close war (and it was just as fun for SOL as it was for UCN i bet).

we don't have those wars anymore. i remember there was some talk of netgaining alliances just all going on vacation mode and taking the reset off if warring alliances blindside them again for no reason as a solution to this madness. just the fact that i heard that brought up tells me something is fundamentally wrong. to most netgaining alliances there's no point in fighting a war that they have no chance in winning.

when netgaining alliances are backed in a corner, they have no choice but to take the extreme. i'm just as disappointed as you that it had to come to this extreme this reset. i deeply wish it would've never been this way. if you have prearranged the war with Sanct/Omega/Evo/LaF/LCN/etc. (just from the top of my memory alliances you war so far in EE, i think you also warred NA in EE right? pretty much every single netgaining alliance u have fought so far in EE through rotating political maniuplation) you would still get the same wars and possibly more challenging wars (and might have lost some, but would've definitely won some too of course)... but instead you guys play that political game and isolate each one of us individually throughout the past few years just to find wars. i think the result would've been the same (you still get the same wars), but at a way where it is less toxic to the server imo.

you can ask evo/sanct/lcn/omega heads yourself (some of them vocally have expressed the same ideas pretty much). i don't get along with all of those alliances personally but somehow we can come into an agreeance when it comes to that point. and it's not like we're stupid either and can't see it. we all do. we all know you rotate us through politics so you can isolate yourselves to FS us. it doesnt have to be this way.

i'm not completely blaming SOL for this either. i know we historically didn't cooperate with you guys either and try to limit you from your fun as much as we can too just like you do in the reverse. we are just as guilty. we don't get each other's ideals so we just assume the other is wrong and try to drive each other away. maybe we should come into a universal agreeance together and form a new era of earth.

it's not like it hasn't been done before.. we had fundamental server shifts in policy before (from C:C retal to 1:1 to L:L, etc.) we used to not have uNAPs and only NAPs, etc. we created the idea that breaking uNAP and DPs is shunned by the whole server, etc. we can all create the notion that only pre-arranged war is acceptable if we chose to.

and maybe the devs should be the one fixing it if the community refuses to. i think earth is fundametanlly flawed design wise (and hence why mehul gave up on it for utopia imo.. its not the current dev's fault because they copied mehul's design but they can fix it going forward tho). let's take a successful game like starcraft. very similarly you are forced to "net" (aka building your economy so you can afford more units) and "war" (aka attacking your enemy with your units and destroying all his buildings). very similar to earth. but because the condition of winning is that you must essentially war to win, you are forced to war to win. therefore there is no "blindsides" that make the game not fun, because everyone expects to be attacked eventually and you spend all game building up for defending against the attack as well as launching yours.

the problem with earth is that winning a war is a user/community created notion. nothing in the game says "you won the war!". the only game created notion of winning is actually netgaining (through the final rankings sheet). the winner of the reset was designed by mehul as the guy with the highest nw in the end. i personally think it is lame that the game doesn't accomodate the war related things. this is why it is so hard to fit netgaining alliances and warring alliances in a positive and community building way. and the fact that expenses are built in the way where you are pretty much doomed to not netgain well if you spent the time to build heavy troop and sdi defenses for instance makes the netgaining alliances not run to run troop and sdi heavy countries when they are trying to chase down that ANW/TNW title. maybe if we have AI countries that randomly killed countries to keep you on your toes so everyone is forced to be decently defended at all times (thereby making blindsides less effective), or anything that gives an equal playing ground to all netters to have an incentive to also be in a position to have fun in war. there's just so many ideas you can do to help this and i'm just touching the surface...

i can blab forever on this, but imo either the community does it (by doing prearranged wars) or the dev fixes the design flaw (imo) that mehul created in regards to war vs net, or we will be in this same position

Hanlong, that is a long post :P Ill read it tommorow and reply, but for now I have spent too much time tonight on AT already as it is :P

Thank you for writing that post up. I am sure it will be an awesome post ^_^

haha i apologize for writing such a long post

i started writing it and realized you guys already made like 6 posts in between after i click submit =)

but to give you some perspective i actually should be in a warring alliance now. i don't find all-exploring and buy no military and spending all your money on tech so you can min-max your networth (which most netters do) fun at all. the only reason i'm in a netgaining alliance is because i've been in LaF since 1998. i actually see SOL's position. i want to see them to succeed as much as you do (and this part i might be different from some of the other netters). it might be the netgainers fault also that we drive you guys to only use political manipulation as the way to get fun wars for yourself. i'm open to ideas where we can change all of that. but you guys need to tell us what we can do to make it so you don't have to politically manipulate us in order to find fun wars.

maybe completely pre-arranged wars aren't fun either from SOL's perspective. i'm open to other ideas definitely... maybe not set the FS time and leave that part open? etc.

I would agree with Hanlong's post except for that it's just close wars that are exciting.

Yes any blow out war is boring no matter what, but I can not remember an interesting war that wasn't a war based on a good reason.

Suicider's, spies, backstabbing, and plotting against a former ally. The cripple war between Rage and IX.. Rage farmed the bejesus out of IX who was hiding in an unknown tag, IX farmed back bam war. War with reason. LaF vs LCN a close war.. If I remember right it was a policy war. After the war things were cleaned up and back to netting, it wasn't but a few sets and back to FDPs.
Why war with out reason it gains nothing.

reason is good too.

if SOL told us "we don't like your L:L policy". that is completely valid reason. just like we tell them we don't like 1:1. we can then war over it.

but getting blindsided over it is just lame. and taking turns with other netgaining alliances getting blindsided on the frontfacing side while getting politically maniuplated on the backfacing side over it is even lamer. maybe if we prearrange a fair war over L:L vs 1:1 policies and loser has the adopt the other sides policy for the next reset as an award?

then you get a reason and an incentive along with your pre-arranged war so no one gets blindsided. and it will be much more civil and community building.

we can make everyone happy if we try. its just unfortunate no side (by that i mean warring and netting alliances) want to make the sacrifices to do so and as a result we all lose from it. because warring alliances lose the ability to blindside and netgaining alliances are forced to fight. no one wants to do take that sacrifice ;P

The US government is a good comparison to this.

Neither side wants to give an inch and so the people suffer and nothing ever changes.

just do real wars. Sol had it coming this set. Now the sides have the option to decide what happens next set. If both sides think another war is needed then war. But since Sol should be getting what they want this set and next (you say you want to war) then give uNAPs to the people you fought and pact out in some ways after you have your fun.

one thing i said before to the admins was maybe revert back to landkills only like the good old days

because of a few factors:

1) land is scarce. killing countries without landkill = wasting land. we all complain about no land and yet we waste land all the time
2) makes FS/blindsides less potent and evens out the warring landscape since it takes longer to kill
3) makes crippling a more viable strategy as part of the war process. as it stands AB is most useful for suiciders for the most part.
4) makes it so warring is actually viable as part of netgaining. like i said in that long ass post if netgaining+warring can be done together succesfully, then it will naturally make warring alliance and netting alliance cooperating because they have the same goals.

Jiman: "If you think SOL is going to change there opinions based on what is said on AT, you have another thing coming."

That's a problem. Think of it this way. Any given set there are between 150-300 players. We'll use 300 as an example. Now, the nature of any online game is that there is going to be people who just quit playing. Whether it be school, life, a crabby girlfriend, whatever. So the base of players will consistently dwindle unless new members sign up. That's just a fact. Now, SOL is imo getting what they deserve. That's politics though which has nothing to do with our current discussion. Unfortunately members will get fed up and leave, but lord knows if they like the game, they'll come back. It doesn't matter if people quit as long as more people join than quit. ICN is currently personifying the little guy. Not only are we one of the smallest on the server but we are also inept at warring. All we ever wanted was for large clans to just not mess with us and we won't mess with you back...

Why not pact us? Because you want our land. You are well aware of our weaknesses and due to your size you wish to exploit them. ICN has always had a policy of no more than a couple hits in 72 hours on any untagged country. There are times when our member exceeds the minimum and the target country unloads missiles. Standard protocol in that situation is to send a recruiting message and not retal, and not kill. The idea being to attempt to bring new players into the game. Throughout our history we've had the worst of newbs, and once people realize there is war and we are not part of it, they often go elsewhere. That's how I was recruited by ICN the set before TIL 1. That's why, as a warleader and a poor netter I will stick with ICN through thick and thin. If you kill a newb he's not going to restart. If we don't teach them how to play they will quit playing.

To make my point crystal clear. I don't care who wars who. I for one love war and think netting clans, us included, need to suck it up. It is the new member, and the mini clan I worry about. Personally, I think the best clans are balanced. I prefer netting about 1/3 of the time, and warring when someone starts something. Clans like SOL will start something more often than I prefer but I won't say that is why numbers are dwindling. They are, after all, just playing the game.

After reading hanlongs post I realized something. Netters are forced to war, but warrers are never forced to net. I think that has a lot to do with the hate for SOL or any war clan (we've seen some hate for imag too, and I love those guys). Netters never have the option, it is more of a matter of "do you think we can make it?" I can see someone who enjoys netting getting fed up with that after 6 months of trying to net and never getting the opportunity. It would be quite frustrating. I think this is why the DP was invented. It should supersede a nap...such as in real life. If SOL hit one of our close allies we should feel obligated to join in, pact or not. The best way to solve those issues is instead of everyone always pacting out, just pacting your friends. But that is a huge overhaul of culture. It'd definitely keep sol from pacting out and gangbanging though.

In any case, if we created a universal governing body for the server it would turn out like TIL. If it did come together it would nearly eliminate wars altogether creating a bad environment for the warmonger. I think of that as the exact opposite of what we have now. Perhaps you could say have those who want to sign a universal pact that reads:

-Our clan hereby invalidates any pact with any clan who wars without proper cause.

-Proper cause is not limited to, but at the very least includes one or more of the following:
More than 3 hits in 72 hours on any country/tag without agreed resolution
Disputed policy
Retribution for past indiscretions
etc.

As I type that I already imagine people abusing it. I don't know.......rock and a hard place I guess.

Seriosuly, you guys want to have a fair and balanced chat stop the bullfluff "SOL is a bully they deserve it" routine. I know it makes you feel better but here are the facts;

Last 12 months;

Jun 2010: SOL gets called by imag into LCN vs Imag war
Aug 2010: SOL hits LaF over land:land
Oct: 2010: LAF hits SOL as revenge, PDM hits SOL, SOL hits imag
Dec 2010: Imag hits SOL, Rage calls in SOL to hit LCN
Feb 2011: NA calls in SOL to destroy imag
Apr 2011: SOL hits LCN/ICN over grabbing, IMAG hits SOL, SOL keeps the war at 110 members vs 75-80.

Now stop the bullfluff. There have been TWO wars in an entire year where we haven't been either hit or called in by allies to help.

TWO IN A YEAR. One we first struck LaF who had an extra 20 members and the second we took on LCN/ICN/Imag where we gave away 30-35 members.

If you aren't going to call it like it is, then shut up. LCN like to play the "whoa is me" card, but at the end of the day we have first struck them once without being called in by an ally. If you want to crusade against pointless first strikes see SOF vs RD or LAF vs PDM.

Get a clue.

Note that I believe that we have almost bottomed out membership wise. A lot of people still playing won't quit regardless. Not all....just a vast majority. Hence why MD gets kudos for looking out for the little guy. It's good for the future little guy that has been trying for the last few years and never was permitted a shot by the big bad wolf.

whoa is me. haha...woe.

dagga...do you know what we are talking about? It's a little bit bigger than what you are posting. No one likes you (SOL), and that's fine. To some degree you would agree that you brought that on yourself...by hitting people. That's ok too. Every clan has an agenda. Yours happens to be in conflict with most others playing. The problem lies in the fact that certain things make this game less enjoyable for certain people. Instead of having the game prohibit you from these things, people work out agreements. The game approached as a metaphor for life brings out the purpose of rhetoric in general. You certainly can kill someone. But the societal confines deem it a crime against humanity, thus rhetoric was used to draft laws constructing a body against such crimes. This game will never kill me in RL, but me quitting this game equates to me dying in the metaphor, and you killing my country for 2 years straight being the metaphor for murder. Intense speak is for those less capable of having intelligent conversations. We are debating something worthwhile here. Please, if you have something decent to say, by all means, participate.

Between spending your time as an MD suckhole and speaking gibberish maybe sit down and provide us with something that makes sense.

We haven't killed anyone for two years straight, we've hit LCN 3 times and twice we were called in by allies. You are trying to have a discussion but distorting it with the incorrect view that we have somehow bullied the server. You're full of fluff.

Yes, we nailed your alliance (ICN) last set but it's because you couldnt control your members when we clearly were looking for war.

MD is not looking out for the little guy, they were looking to get their rocks off in a one night stand. Instant gratification but no long term substance, and possibly (most likely) extremely destructive.

If MD truly were as Dagvation described it, how does one explain ICN (as mentioned above, not pacted) being given so much as the time of day? How can MD's return to the game be so cancerous and detrimental to the game, that it has nevertheless grown this set? How is it that non-Earth MD players are joining, succeeding, enjoying, and staying, even as he swears left and right that MD's return will only cause players to flee?

Basically, dagga smells.

Where is the war with LCN and LCN called Omega in? Did that just vanish?

Omg, too much text in this thread :P

I think Uber Bu's last point is one we can all agree with.

it vanishes because it doesn't support his point :P

about Jun 2010... i wasn't around so i don't want to say what i heard (i only want to say what i saw for the sake of accuracy and not playing telephone), but my hunch is it wasn't this simple otherwise why would both imag and LCN end up warring you after?

how can you go from "getting called by imag" into a war to warring both of them in multiple times in a few short resets? you are missing some key information here to your story because from someone who just came back recently, your storyline has some holes in it to explain what happened.

Aug 2010 and Apr 2011 is what we all already identified as the classic SOL war case. find a grabbing issue "usually over L:L, etc." and use it as a reason to blindside netters that you isolated politically. almost every single netter you FSed for the past few years see it this way so it's not like i'm trying to make this up.

it's pretty clever actually but we've all seen it for more than 10 years now. fundamentally there is nothing wrong really. you created a valid reason (with your differing policies) to go against which isn't really a problem because you have your own rights. your heads are smart enough to pact the right guys so you can be in an environment to win the wars you planned out. it's probably the most successful war formula in the history of this game and that's why you guys do it. this is also the same reason why netters run 0 troop countries when they net and farm the hell out of untags. because they work we both refuse to give an inch to let go of what we done for 10+ years.

we know it works for SOL and it might continue to work. no one doubts if SOL will survive or if their tactics will work in this game. you guys have more than proven that and i respect SOL for that. it's similar to how netters run 0 troop netter countries that farm untags because that will give you a better chance at top ranks/ANW/TNW titles. what i was trying to point out that both ideas are detrimental to the game in terms of building community. and until our current devs fix mehul's design flaws i was just hoping the community would collectively universally agree to some sacrifices to their tried and true methods for the sake of community building.

i have some doubts anything like that will happen though. it's just too easy to do what you are used to and cruise based on that. which is fine...

EDIT: and just to clarify because i know it would be brought up sooner or later. i don't think what happened this reset builds community either. that's the reason i'm making posts like this instead of the usual "moral victory for SOL" type posts that i've done in the past ;P it just doesn't feel right and i'm trying to calmly come clean and throw it out there that perhaps we can all change our ways.

Finally went and read your post Hanlong :P A lot of it I agree with, and maybe besides differing opinions on some views, I think its dead on right.

Agreed. Trying atleast would not hurt right?


Fun is why we play games. :-)




I think the hightened emotion occuring when reacting to the wars currently is due to a claustrophobic feeling based on the small population of the server relative to the population of E2025 in the past (when the server had a decent population).

In short, the game needs more people :P


A dream in which can only occur if someone steps over the boundaries and starts communicating.

Your opinion? I am not really sure whats going on behind the curtains O_o


That is my position. Some believe that this type of attitude may create another "TIL" (points to Derrick). I agree with Derrick, but only if there is not an universal agreement. There is no way this idea will work unless all alliances come to form general basis for practicing policies.
Everyone on the server will need to take their heads out of their asses O_o


It their responsibility isn't it?



I know a thread was started on the suggestion forum asking what kind of formula could be used to rank warring. This is a good start, but need to be pushed forward.



Agreed.

Thanks for the reply Derrick, here is my reply to you.

I have no issue with what is occurring personally at all. The effects of the constant harsh wars that does not give players a chance to recuperate and learn is what will hinder population increase. As you said, a newb dies right away they will be put off by the game. I do think Alliance is not the first server a player should play on... but as hanlong said, what is occuring right now is making the game pretty toxic.

It may seem like all we are trying to accomplish through this chat is idea's to protect netting alliances and yes in a sense it is. Without an strong economy that is provided by netters, how can war alliances benifit? Without the player base and politics that netters provide, how can war alliances continue to have such a deverse game?
Everything we are talking about here is for both war alliances and netting alliances. Everyone needs to realize this.

Only if there is not a universal agreement. The more alliances that do not want to attempt a 'governing body' (which will likely collaspe when people get corrupted and want to do there own thing) the harder this will be to create. Its not really a governing body though, but a unified agreement... which I guess the only way it could be accomplished would be through a governing body with representives from multiple alliances as well as a few dedicated to the cause alone.


The point of it would not be to create peace. The point of it would be to give breathing room for netting alliances, and try to have warring alliances play with each other... but also have alliances given the ability to defend themselves.

The point of this would not be to change the packs that alliances currently have for one another, it would just change the intentions of aggressive behavior and attempt to put a halt to the constant revenge wars... to basicly control the flood before its too late.



It wouldn't be so cut and dry like this.
You can not just force polocies that could be broken my random members.
Its about trying to adjust war intentions of warring alliances.
It would also be about netting alliances and their grabbing intentions.

BOTH are causes of war.

I could go into GREAT detail of different idea's that could follow. Maybe the governing body would be an alliance themselves, that would kind of act like a real "GDI". This GDI would only use EXPLORE to grow land, to avoid hitting mistakes.
Maybe they would act as a type of deterrent. Their actions controlled by the governing body.

Again, random ideas. I see many flaws. Many points that people could be corrupted.

The only point of this is that we at least try.

you are right about the political take on it. it could be my opinion and maybe we are unfairly assuming the worst out of SOL. maybe you guys have better intentions, but better communication would easily solve that though.

i know that netgaining alliances have their own toxicity they spread to this server (namely farming anything that moves into the ground). that also drives away players just as much as warring alliances blindsiding netgaining alliances. we are both guilty of the sorry state the server is in.