What if a test server was created, using 'Alliance' as its skeleton, with a stated 1:1 retal standard. Any alliance attempting to undermine that policy would then face united opposition to their policy. Perhaps such a 'standard' could just be issued on the current Alliance server upon the next reset.

I just posted this so a variety of opinions upon the subject could be voiced and discussed.

*rephrase of Requiem's thread*

Don't waste your breath because it wont happen. Basically we need the top 5 or 6 alliances to see things the logical way and agree to 1:1 (and enforce it) however they don't want to so there it is.

I just don't understand why they want to hang on to L:L anyways... Do they think exploring is more fun? Apparently so!

im sure sof would be game

Imag are you game? I'm sure it will lead to some juicy wars! Jump in on this action :p

I like the idea of a beta server in general - just a server where new/different ways of doing things are tried out. Politically, and formula/dynamic wise.

It doesn't really need the top 5 or 6 alliances to LIKE the policy, it just has to get them on board. Usually 4 straight sets of warring will lead to some kind of policy change. At least that's how it used to back in the day.

well back in the day people would create coalitions over policy.

glad that doesn't happen anymore.... :-\

does that mean collab would be down?

I think you'll see a lot more land next reset and a lot of the problems that are [partially] erroneously blamed on land:land will slowly fade. This set was a learning experience and people still pacted in very heavily. Next set a lot more land (and risk) will be available to anyone willing to go light on pacts.

Even with land:land, it's still profitable to grab alliances that do it in most cases. The problem now is everyone is pacted so even with the very positive ghost acres change, the effect has been small so far.

land trading dosnt seem worth it to me...

I think it probably is, especially during earlier points in the reset...

But even if it isn't worth it, what is?

What specifically would removing L:L accomplish? It would bring "fun" - to those that ran skinny, jet heavy countries, absolutely. It would bring frustration to those who don't - that's why L:L was put in in the first place. Bringing fun to some and misery to others doesn't seem like it would result in any net gain for the game as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wish someone who is for the removal of L:L would give a logical reason for it and attempt to refute the points the pro L:Lers try to make - that isn't an insult or a challenge, it's a sincere plea from someone who cares about the game as much as anyone else here.

Apr 27/10 7:55:46 AM PS Poisson Rogue (#109) (TheFist) In the Garden of Eden Baby (#522) (LCNostra) 2329 A (+954 A)
Apr 27/10 12:54:45 AM PS In the Garden of Eden Baby (#522) (LCNostra) Poisson Rogue (#109) (TheFist) 2332 A (+1106 A)


^I think that counts as a profitable land trade. Each came away with 1k acres (and maybe had to rebuild 600-800 acres each).

I think it is most profitable mid set when you can get returns like that .
Retailing is a skill for sure. This comes up every other set, do away w/ L:L .
We don't have a huge clan base, but Elysium is for it.

Down with L:L !!!

come on lets try it , just for 1 set. No pacts allowed next set.

i think it was a tracy lawrence song that said it best - you find out who your friends are. ( not a huge country fan sry. )

The old standard for tags was to allow 3 grabs per alliance in 72 hours on different countries. Anything more was then considered an act of aggression. Certainly something like that is hard to keep track of, but when it did, alliances would simply sign a 1 week non-aggression pact to show good faith.

Requiem lol, We've been into that since some time now :P

aponic, did you try the team server? if you did you would know that no "spirit of the game" server will work.