If your idea of war is to FS a clan that is completely netting then yeah it would ruin war for you. If your idea of war is to actually fight someone who wants to fight/ is ready for a fight, then nothing changes.

I dont like planned wars. I also do not like warring netting tags for no reason.

The sandbox is to small. If this can bring back players and more war tags pop up so you dont have to plan wars that would make me happy.

In the conventional sense it totally does. People like cerb, as indicated by recent ffa events, still fights for things he's passionate about and largely doesnt participate in arranged wars. Curbing his ability to wreck ppl over their politics is pretty obviously a negative change for his war style of play.

#1 in Alliance netters grab bots there is no policy to wreck people over other than being jealous of a bigger country

#2 this doesn't affect FFA

Lol. Sometimes i wonder if those blinders you guys are wearing is some fluff you actually believe in. I was referencing how cerb fights. If you want me to go back a year and show you what i mean i can. But cerb is the type of person who fights for politics reasons outside of ingame interaction. I know that's probably incomprehensible to ppl, but wars used to be faught over things like retal policy and bullying small tags. Cerb is that type of player.

I know it won't affect ffa. Obviously. I was just using a more recent example of how it degrades his style. And it 100% totally does. Ours too.

It'd be like if you shouted "THIS ISNT FFA" at Gerdy over his imp example. Stop trolling ppl who disagree with you in a hypocritical way. It's unbecoming.

I’m trying to point out there is no policy he could fight over if we only hit bots.

You wanna fight wars because I like a different type of food or something lolz

I really need to quit looking at AT...

Blinders are the cause of this entire disucssion

If you cant handle a difference of opinion then maybe you shouldn't keep posting here, myself included. This is my last post here.

Ttt

I find it ironic some are championing a new feature that will ultimately, in my opinion, limit the ability for human players to interact within a multiplayer online game. Interactions that currently commonly occur and are definitely part of the game.

Part of the justification for this rapid implementation is an attempt to attract and retain new players? Perhaps also entice some legacy players to return as well? I do not see how reducing or limiting functionality that currently exists is going to accomplish those goals.

I am not against changes. I am against reducing the functionality of waging war.

As qzjul has said, the biggest potential source of new players is the thousands of players that have played before. Gerdler didn't mention that in all the times he invoked qz's name to try to legitimize his arguments. So turning the game into Farmville to attract new players to a nice safe environment is not the way to go. And we've already seen the spies calculations changed so people can net with massive countries and be really really fat without needing the spies to match, and now we seem to be adding clan GDI to protect LAF from the suiciders, when LAF should be trying to improve their ethics and be better at diplomacy. So I have my doubts about all this. And as for Pang "owning" the game, it seems to me that so much volunteer effort has gone into the development of Earth Empires that whoever owns it actually holds it in trust as a responsibility to this community, and probably to the world, since this is one of the oldest games on the Internet.

You are speaking marshal now. Spies have not been changed.

Also your sense of ethics is a little weird. We let everyone alone and we help others kill their suiciders and we somehow have bad ethics. I know its because we calculate the breaks on bots instead of spying them which is why you went apefluff in monsters... but you are the only one who thinks its unethical to calculate something based on public information.
You have also argued against fixing the ally losses bug in order to prevent better calculations on repeated hits. You argue to keep bugs in the game because they help your playstyle... pot meet kettle.

I wonder who has been telling you that 'LaF changed the spy calculations'. The last change to spy ops was ~2014 and it was a big fu to anyone that isn't land thin ie all netters.

I thought it was unethical to make an arrangement with other clans, including RAGE, to share spyops on the ghqnet sustem, and then have countries running with no spies and stealing all their ops. So I cancelled that arrangement as the Admin for the Monsters, and then I quit, and then I took my retal on the person who was accepting money from a new recruit, probably sent in as a ringer by LAF, who were also trying to bribe me at that time.

And you are still wiling to do anything to win Gerdler, and I don't know what tricks you have up your sleeve to get such high scores, but your opinion on how game development should go isn't held very highly by me.

Didn't we just have a huge discussion about the spy calculations about a month ago, and spies are going to equalized in some way for coutries that are huge? Or did I just imagine that?

Elliot was in monsters far longer than he was in laf. He was a great player and from what I've gathered a great person. I reqruited him to laf and he stayed for like half a set because we were in the middle of a one year war with elders. I tried very hard to get him back so no he was not sent by laf, and he was in monsters for at least 5 times as long.

He donated money for a good cause as I see it and you accuse him of bribery and your co-leaders of corruption, lol. In an online game, lol. Your sense of ethics is, umm, a bit weird.
How you cannot see that wanting to keep the bug that helped you is a bit sketchy is beyond me, tho. :)

I and a few others argued to basically revert the change that punishes war countries for becoming larger than their enemy's. It does make suiciders job harder as well if the main source of damage is spy ops, tho it generally isn't so it would likely have negligible effect.

Key things to understand here are that
A) people from SOL, Monsters, PS, Elders, Mercs basically argued for the same things as I did.
B) NO CHANGES WERE MADE. And the devs have not even indicated that they are looking to change that in any way.

Thats not a bad idea at all.

Yes, well, I missed that memo. Thanks for the update.

Anyway, I probably went off a bit there, always a bad idea when you're keyboard is sticking too. I don't think we should make the game safer. I don't like GDI. I don't games which are about money, where you can buy resources to win. I don't like people who abuse their allies, which is what running with no spies does. So maybe I'm a bit weird but there it is, and now I'll shut up.

If it makes you feel any different I have not looked at an uploaded op on a bot all set and I did it like 4-5 times last set. Its not worth the time to log into boxcar generally to find an old op when I can just oversend a bit. I generally land on 99% successful landgrabs and Im sure a lot of extra jet losses and extra oil spent which I could have prevented by spying my bots. Its totally worth it, but its neither easy or without cons.

Does Elliot even still play?

It was just a discussion on how spies could be changed in future and how people would like that to look, nothing was going to be changed at that point.

It was a brain storming session, but just like with the gdi , it got derailed by people's self interest instead of actually discussing the issue and possible side effects, everyone just starts yelling and stop listening , then everyone stops having in depth discussions about it.

The first 4 or 5 pages of this thread are discussing the subject and possible side effects and it will all be ignored anyway. So what's the point?

The first 1 page only, after that it was a netting vs warring argument .

Yes, those are the parts of the game that will be changed by this feature.

i mean the arguement of "this is only to help netters and screw war alliances over" "this change is for laf cause they dont want to get hit"


all i see is netters not thinking about how it affects war tags and war tags not looking at the possible restrictions that Clan GDI put on Netters ability to grab freely and the added costs for netters ( which is good because more military sales outside of jets ) or the fact that if a clan joins GDI, only countries who meet the MMR are actually protected by it.

I think it can be either a feature or a detriment to warring depending on how it works if you want to leave clan-GDI. If it can be done there is a risk that war tag A might abuse clan GDI to get a favorable war timing with war tag B by joining it perhaps right before tag B wants to hit them and then stocking up for free before leaving.

Either it should be impossible to leave or the restrictions of being in clan-GDI should stay active for like 48-72 hours after leaving it, with no protections offered.
Potentially if done right this could make strategizing for war even better.

I'm sorry I insulted you Gerdler, and I'm sorry I posted yesterday. I'm glad you guys are working to improve the game. I certainly enjoy the game, and I agree that a few griefers can cause way to much damage and drive people away. Thanks for spending a few hours yesterday talking with me on irc. I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with and trying it out.

I have my moments. Few and far between but I have them.

*looks around*

Getafix for SOL president!

+1

BONUS!

Thanks for the appreciation Derrick and mac23, but ABM is my leader in SoL and I am quite happy with beige. But I wouldn't mind trying out some warchat leading because thats fun, and I'm usually happy to give my opinion on various matters. But I quite like being at a vice-president level. In the Scouts, I was an Assistant Patrol Leader, and thats sort of my comfort level, plus project leader roles.