It would mess with new players who accidentally choose something other than Monarchy (if they didn't know better). They won't be able to go back to Monarchy or switch to another government without a penalty.

the first one looks like butt cheeks

Interesting.

While this can potentially happen, I think if the price of land is high enough, a lot more people would be selling land. Let's say land got up to $500k/acre. So that is about $50M for 100 acres, which is expensive but not too ridiculous a price to pay given the scarcity of land these days. A landthin rep who explores 48 acres/turn would be earning $24M/turn, which is equivalent to a techer teching 10k tpt at $2400/tech point. I would totally run a 1k rep all-x if that were to happen.

Not any weirder than ghost acres.

EE/E2025 has not had a significant change like this probably since the introduction of oil. I think it's at least worth considering and maybe even testing.

Why gain 610 when you can gain 1170?

I don't see it as dumbing down the game as much as it is just evening up the odds between the people with no lives/"cheaters" and the casual players. If it were true that the ones who get the most land are the most talented players, then everything is fine. However, that is no longer the case and hasn't been for a few resets in alliance.

P.S. I've played this game long enough to know that in alliance, an all-x getting top 25 nowadays in a normal reset is quite the stretch. I'm not sure BigBen that anybody can easily make top 25 without attacking.

Depends on the reset of course, but the truth remains that if you don't camp DR or landtrade (both of which imo are unhealthy for the game), you max out at about 140-160M NW, which is not competitive for t10 and barely competitive for t25 under the right conditions. I don't think that really counts as "plenty of land".

your all-x has no chance at top 25 though. so yes, you do have issues getting land. you just choose not to let it bother you.

i should also add that i think this is much more viable and easier to implement than the land bots idea which has also been tossed around. this actually brings in a whole new set of strategies for playing this game, which will keep the game fresh and exciting.

agree with a, b, and c. not sure about d yet. it depends on what the going rate of land at the end of the reset would be.

yes the point is landtrading is not healthy for the game and frankly ghost acres take away from the realism of the game. i would even suggest getting rid of ghost acres in tandem with the land market. at least there is some historical basis for the buying and selling of land (louisiana purchase). not so much for land suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

Yes but all your responses are mostly geared toward other servers whereas my focus is on alliance. Alliance is probably the unhealthiest server in terms of land. The suggestion has always been that alliances should change their policies, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. My suggestions are for how to improve alliance (and I don't think the changes would hurt the other servers).

1. It is a good thing if land was tough to get for the right reasons. Right now, in alliance, land is tough to get and the ones who get it are either the ones who abuse policies (landtraders) or have no lives. Neither is "good for the game". If land getting involved who can play the best strat or do the best math, then it wouldn't be a problem. But that is not the case in alliance.

3. Very nice. My changes would not change any of that.

4. Again this does not work in alliance because of retal policies. With a land market, buying becomes an option while PSing is still an option. If you feel that the latter is still more profitable, then more power to you.

If untags were not allowed, we would still be in a state of basically all-explore, LG pacts, and landtrading. Nothing would change all that much. There would just be less overall land.

I know this has been mentioned before, but I truly believe that the next big change to this game should be the establishment of a land market. After playing this game on/off for the last couple years, it's clear that (at least in alliance), the biggest problem in the game is issues with land and ways people deal with that issue. Although a land market would not by any means solve the land problem, it will bring a new facet to the game. Consider the following (from alliance server perspective):

1. Let's face it. Land basically determines who will win NW titles. To have one aspect of the game dominate so much is not a good thing. The lack of land is a real problem from a netting perspective. Basically, the ones who win in alliance are either landtraders taking advantage of ghost acres or those who spend the most time camping for DRs. Neither type of player is really "good for the game".

2. A land market, with the proper institutional setup, is self-regulating. I have no idea what the going rate for land would be, but I imagine it would be quite high in the beginning/middle of the reset. But a fully functioning market would follow supply and demand, and so to a certain extent will be self-regulating.

3. Wars will still be fought. The concern may be that with a land market, there will be less incentive to LG and less alliance interaction. This is not true. First of all, wars are rarely fought for land reasons nowadays. Secondly, real LGing will actually be more profitable compared to bottomfeeding. I don't know how landtrading will be affected, but that is something that can be explored. It also presents a whole new strategy for war. Instead of killing, massive landgrabbing to fund a war becomes a feasible option.

4. New netting strategies suddenly come into play. A rep or demo land producer maybe? Think of an all-x land producer. With the right market conditions, that strat could be worth playing. Also, suddenly untags/small clans are not so helpless. They can sell their land and fund themselves to retal. How that affects suiciders is another question to be explored.

5. What happens at endgame? Some will sell their land to buy military from the public market. Others will buy land to increase their private market size. Who knows what will happen? But I'd love to find out which strategy pays off more.


With a new way to get land via the market, this will alleviate the tension that exists in this game in which people do unhealthy things (camp DR, landtrade) to get ahead. A casual player will stand a chance in this game if they play the right strategy and work the market. That's way more fun than sitting their hoping somebody doesn't put your untag in DR, and it might make me consider playing this game again for real and prevent others from leaving.

i'm asian but not azn.

Lobster used to be poor people food.

r

Because this looked fun...

Please note I am no longer playing actively nor am I in MD anymore, so these are purely my own opinions

1. hanlong betrayed us all. I always considered hanlong an elite player who was very good at what he did. I had the utmost respect for him, even during our war. I now feel very betrayed and have my doubts about whether anything he did was legit. I was also by far the most pro-Laf head in MD last reset. I could not believe that Laf was cheating and accepted hanlong's arguments for the most part. I even went through many calculations in my head and justified everything that Laf did. To know now that much of it was done through cheating, I feel very shocked.

2. With regards to whether or not Laf countries other than TC/HLW got aided, I do not know. I will say that I was indeed the top country in MD land-wise. However, I was definitely not the top country in terms of stock because I was playing a CI and military prices weren't all that high last reset. Who knows what the relative strength would have been had I been a techer. However, based on my recollection, Laf countries were significantly better than all of our techers. We had a fair amount of techers. While I am well aware that Laf is much more skilled at playing techer than MD is, I do feel there was an unexplained gap in quality of countries. I don't think there were 20 grabbing techers in Laf, so the grabbing does not explain it all away. At the end of the day, if you told me that 18/20 techers were clean, I would believe it. If you told me that more countries cheated, I could also believe that.

3. I do think SG has done a pretty good job in addressing the fallout so far. I really think one more step to be taken is to release all the information that hanlong gave to Laf that came from his "sources". We should be able to know what exactly hanlong said that gave you guys an advantage.

4. I think the Laf members need to do a slightly better job of just sucking it up. I think the leaders are doing a good job of responding, but the constant argument by members that "it was only two members" isn't going to fly because hanlong was your Don. Whether you like it or not, this casts a shadow over all of Laf. You ride together, you die together. Just suck it up and take what's coming. Don't troll (and don't accuse others of trolling). Laf is clearly in the wrong here, and being defensive is not going to make it any better.

5. Finally, I think hanlong owes us all an apology. He messed with the integrity of the game and threatened all the hard work that the admins have done for the game. He screwed Laf over and he screwed all of us. At least man up and apologize publicly.

So when hanlong publicly gave the script writing/googling explanation publicly on AT last set, did you not suspect something was up since he gave a different explanation to you? Also, I'm not sure which MD head had historical ties to Laf...

If Laf wants a fresh start and Laf leaders want to be exonerated, I think the first thing you guys need to do is to reveal exactly what hanlong told you before I'd even begin to believe you guys again. You should basically reveal (via screenshots) all head conversations related to activities from last set so we know exactly what hanlong knew, what he told you guys, etc. Transparency is the first step toward rebuilding trust.

Whether or not the whole leadership of Laf was involved, the whole heads team from last reset should resign. It's not about whether they knew about it or not, but the fact it happened under their watch means that they need to take responsibility. It happens actly the same way in the real world. When somebody screws up, the bosses take responsibility whether or not it was their fault.

This absolutely does invalidate the netting/warring performance of Laf. While I believe that most Laf members did not have access to the tools or cheating, the indirect benefits are huge. With Hanlong's knowledge of MD's FS time and war plans last set, many Laf countries were probably saved from being killed or crippled. In addition, by being able to stonewall with illegitimate gains, turns were wasted on cheating countries that could have been used to hit other non-cheating countries. The fact that Laf was able to win the war so easily last set was due in large part to the cheating even though most countries involved did not cheat. Winning the war led to easy farming for the legitimate Laf countries, so yes a couple cheaters definitely invalidates all the finishes, even for the non-cheaters.

In order to measure this, I think you have to take the highest acreage a country was at the entire reset, otherwise people can just drop land at the end (see all the trivial 1 acre finishes which would dominate this statistic).

Taking this into account, the recent non-trivial winners would be

me: http://www.eestats.com/alliance/oldcountry/204/244

followed by

SS: http://www.eestats.com/alliance/oldcountry/243/282

Wouldn't be surprised if he hit 100M...especially if he was up to 7500. i once hit over 140M on less than 10k acres, so it's definitely possible.

MD does not discuss politics on AT, but to clarify the confusion, whether or not a head in MD had a grudge against Laf was not the reason why the war happened.

There are many situations in which it is better to restart (i.e. a parking lot with minimal land/tech).

Kills are kills and hits are hits, regardless of target. MD will soon outhit and outkill Laf.

This is all under the assumption that the goal of war is to kill. From what I see, that is no longer strictly true.

Also, if somebody drops all of their land, does that count as a self-delete or a kill (i.e. do they get their restart bonuses)?

I'm on IRC.

How is this not a pact break?

LOL you really use simulations to figure out this game? that sounds way too much like my work...MCMC algorithms mmm

agreed with both forgotten and detmer

that's why he's #1

so you're saying somebody uploaded the log with "earthempires" in the filename?

if true...that is a pretty cool tool that i'd be interested in for my own personal work.

i've uploaded a file on mediafire with your name on it hanlong. can you find it and prove your tool works?

don't worry we'll flush out the laf spy soon enough :P

I've never believed that IRC or Boxcar would be compromised because I believe the admins would put the integrity of the game above any alliance. But given everything that has happened in the leadup to this (there's way more that was leaked), this is not an unreasonable request.

I thought Laf hit Evo last set because Rival asked them to?

yea so basically there would only be two endgame finishes, demo or DMBR. i'm not sure that would be good for the game.

This would kill the theo or TMBR destocks and everybody would play and destock demo.

It would have been better if you stood behind them, took off your pants, and started thrusting.

The announcement suggests that Imag will not recognize any L:L without FA contact, including C:C L:L.

Isn't C:C L:L the basis of PDM's retal policy?

bonus

i have no idea :(

Two members from the same alliance from the same high school wins #1 two resets in a row! We are the new bakku/hanlong!

congrats LCN!

i think there's a clear distinction to be made between "God" and "religion" and "the church". Religion is an intensely private matter. People look to the church for answers on how to interpret what the Bible (or whatever its equivalent) says, as well as try to understand God. The people we look to, which I assume is what you mean by "the church", are simply people as well trying to interpret God's will. They are subject to mistakes, subject to evil and corruption, and are really no better than any other person. So the fact that the church can be wrong or do bad things does not (or should not) take away from faith. If we equate church leaders to God and religion, then in some ways we're saying that those people understand God fully and can know his every intention, which defeats the purpose of God because no single person will understand God completely.

(replace God with whatever deity you are comfortable with)

religion and science go together in that if you believe in a God and that he created all things, then science can be a way to discover his creations. science can never prove religion wrong or right, but it is possible to be a scientist and religious (many top scientists are).

it all comes down to faith. there are many things that science will never explain. it's up to you whether you want to believe in a certain religion (whichever one you choose to believe in) or the religion of atheism or agnosticism. either way, to call people who are religious "idiots" shows how close-minded and stubborn people are. there are religious idiots and there are non-religious idiots. religion and idiocity are orthogonal.

here's a thought. there are many things science cannot explain. many people attribute these things to a higher being. people who are atheists would make the counterargument that science just hasn't figured it out yet. does that imply that at some point in the far future, we will progress to a state where science can explain everything, leaving nothing unexplained?

that would be interesting.

1. science is wrong about many things. as a statistician, i've seen way too many scientific studies that are wrong or use poor methods. we put a lot of faith in scientific studies being done well.

2. even if done well, the idea that what we see is correct and what we don't see (for example, God) is wrong is simplistic thinking. we don't see emotions, yet we know they exist.

3. the very idea of science is based on a lot of principles that we take for granted. there's a lot of literature on this. see for example, http://www.nytimes.com/...avies.html?pagewanted=all

i consider myself a strong Christian and a strong academic scientist, and i don't necessarily agree with a lot of both sides, but i fully believe that religion and science go together, and it pains me when they are often pitted as utter opposites that cannot coexist.