ooooh that's a pretty horrible statement to make, LI...

I'm not going to go in depth on it, as that's not the point of the thread, but know that I feel you are absolutely incorrect in all your assertions.

and don't forget that most of those leaders had been active for many years before that.

sof.earth2025.net

or is the point of the post that it has to be an alliance not named SoF or SoL?

That's the thing, the netting alliances all banded together to take on the fighting alliances. It took a lot of effort from a lot of people, but then the war alliances wanted round 2 and 3 and 4... it was almost an entire year of warring. That's why a lot of the netting leadership isn't interested in starting again. A lot of membership was lost, and in the end, the warring alliances got the wars they wanted and the netters had no enjoyment and gained nothing.

The other big issue with forming multiple blocks is that I think at this point in the game, there aren't enough alliances that would want to be on SoL's side (possibly I'm wrong on this, I'm not too into the politic scene here, but my impression). Then it seems like SoL knows if they stopped being friendsies with SoF then they really are SOL (fluff outta luck).

I said NEW powerhouse -- SoL and SoF already got there. Good for them :) LCN is up-and-coming and likely the best contender at this point to emerge as the next powerhouse.

if you're going to cherrypick my quotes, at least pick ones that prove your point :p

yup, that's how I remember that saga as well :p

I have run / been part of upper leadership for at least 5 successful alliances and it was fun =P What you said has no meaning whatsoever.

And Pang, what i said is not horrible. Those smaller clans should make up new things like i said as an example to change the dynamic of the game, and just not come on the boards to do the easy thing (which is cry about the big alliances).

There is a saying, the minority has more power than the majority.

i don't think pang (or at least i'm hoping) is really saying this from a biased agenda he has. because even though i'm in LaF also, i'm fine with SOL or SoF being the powerhouse, because what they did in recent resets (recruitment, more active leaders, etc.) gave them that advantage. you get the efforts that you put in.

frankly, i don't get why SOL and/or SoF like sharing the top dog throne. in the past all the #1 alliances made sure they were #1 by kicking ass and taking names. another alliance trying to claim the top alliance throne got a swift reminder by the top dog to show them their place (or otherwise if they lost, that new contender takes the spot). during the times LaF was the #1 alliance, we didn't buddy up with the #2 and #3 alliance and bullied the rest.

we are now missing that dynamic and the game is actually getting quite stale. you couple that with lack of countries and land, no wonder the game is dying. it used to be the politics at least made this game interesting, and we don't even have that now.

and another point i was thinking about this and i remember only once when something like this happened, and it was during the early RoCKfamily days. the top 4-5 alliances all bundled together and bullied the rest of us. while they might have enjoyed it, it really killed the parity of the game.

SoF/SoL schooled LCN this set.

They should never have jumped rage without a proper backup plan in place to deal with SoF/SoL.

LCN leadership will need balls of steel and real support from allies, not token efforts.

E.g. Last set Collab not pacting rage to support LCN, but then not actually acting on it... leaving them up against SOL all alone. Probably due to Collab wanting to also keep Sol onside for their own protection.

It's sort of like a very nice and unobtrusive method of using your strength/allies for protection by sol/sof, without the same nonchalent bravado and outright offensiveness of IX.

i privately msg'ed my opinion to pang on the sol/sof top dog sharing concern to pang hanlong, needless to say i don't believe they are sharing it at all.

I believe they are only allies so as to avoid a full-scale server destroying war, which is what would result

unfortunatly for you personally, that means laf is a lower dog until such time as constant server size growth is maintained, or a collab/lcn/evo/laf can prize them apart through clever politik without a server wide mayehm war.

actually i would disagree with that. especially after RAGE merging into SoF, the numbers wouldn't be favorable to SOL if we were forced to do this:

1) Everyone must participate in a world war.
2) SOL and SoF are on two sides.
3) All alliances have to pick a side.

i'm willing to bet SoF would have twice as much countries on its side.

because of the policies/politics of SOL aren't in line with 75% of the alliances in this game (L:L vs 1:1 being the main one), the alignment would naturally be in that ratio also.

from SOL's perspective i can see why they are willing to share top dog status with SoF, because they need them for survival. the reverse isn't true actually.. that's why i don't see why SoF is willing to share it

good post hanlong.

and yea... that cherrypicked, one-sentence quote from me doesn't even make sense.
I said NEW alliance, because SoL and SoF are already there and if you thought otherwise, that is dumb :p

maybe.

maybe sof doesn't want to do that to sol out of genuine like and friendship?

controversial i know:p

SOF and SOL should FS LAF next reset

then it's like RoCKfamily days again ;) because RoCK just liked RD/TGA/HAN/etc. out of "genuine like and friendship"


GAAAAH :P

I would post what actually happened around a year ago but that would get in the way of everyone's fluff waving.

you can do that to alliances one by one until there's no more alliances but you two ;) way to be on the "let's try to get this game more fun/dynamic" side of the fence ;)

lololol

Posting to make a bookmark

im done on this thread. pang your rhetoric gets so nauseating sometimes its not even worth responding to. no wonder helmet and you go back and forth - you get more and more condescending every post its enough to drive any level headed person into a trolling frenzy.

as an admin I'm not sure why you constantly think its your job to change the politics on the server because its definitely not. the people playing the game should be free to play how they want to and be allied to who they want to, not who you want them to be allied to. just lock this thread before it gets out of control because I can see your mod-blood starting to boil.

Pang: I think you misinterpreted my vague post. I am not saying that it has to happen, I am just saying that I think it would happen. That has always been my point on this issue.

i do agree with chevs that is is SoF and SOL's decision to pact each other and not the admin's decision. mehul never cared about who pacted who, although he didn't quite care about the multies either :(

i'm happy that arrangement is working out for SOL/SoF. extremely well played. now i wished LaF/MD/etc. got along with RoCK back then, imagine what could've been if the anti-coalition forces were never formed. maybe we were too stupid to not try to join up and bully the rest of the "pitiful souls" in the server and instead fought epic server wide wars instead ;)

In the current state of this server, if every single alliance in the server went to war, then the public market wouldn't be able to handle a week 4 FS...there'd be very few countries available to buy all the bushels as everyone releases their stock. Everyone may as well FS on day 7, because trying to get stock after that point will be pointless.

i'm not sure that makes any sense nukevil

Good post

My last post on it ,

For server dynamics to be Able to change people Will have to be willing to stand up for their allies. Really stand up that is. Among THE current alliances i see only One allied relationship between lcn and omega (who properly kicked our butt hard for interferring in LCNs bussines). Omega gave up their netting set for LCN there to properly stand up for their ally. That war had no aftermaths no round 2 of 3 initiated by either Side. Mainly due to lcn/omega's fierce response.

Disagree with that nuke. If everyone is warring. It would just mean bushel prices would be around $39 since there would most likely be more farmers and no one stocking. And then military would be bought from the private market since there would be a high demand for military.


Only thing that wouldnt handle it would be tech prices, the military ones would sky rocket. (but they always do that when wars start)

Ugh hit submitt to Quick anyways I think lcn is one of The alliances that if they play their Cards right could rise to power. What differs them from the other netters is they Will without fluffing get their hands bloody of necisary.

Leaders like purp trife voltron(the ones i talk 2) Will actually invest in motivating people to fight if Deemed necisary instead of whining about it looking at their past sets they've been waring Tons even during netting sets het they've retained membership with a normal up and down every now and then! Now according to most netter leaders its impossible to do what lcn had done as à netter whilest retaining membership.

Its à crock of fluff and lcn has proved it!! It's managment skills and activity what allowed lcn to pull of what they did. À wise woman once told me it takes à man to know when to hold or when to fold. This counts heavily for Our positions as alliance leaders

Blah iPhone Posts suck lol

for the right price, i may offer my services as a wargod to any alliance in need. contact me in PM if interested...

*slaps mdevol around*

*sigh @ everyone who thinks i'm trying to force what I want on you*

if I wanted to force change on you, I wouldn't bring it up in a political context, you'd read about it on the announcements page :p

I'm speaking up for a lot of folks who don't want to speak up, because the narrative this board seems to produce when anyone challenges or even gets into a conflict with either SoF or SoL.

Like I said -- I just really wanted to clarify my point I made a month or two ago to see if it was mis-received initially. Apparently it wasn't mis-received, it was just successfully spun by those who disagree with the message.

This thread is being spun again so I'm done wasting my time on this. Thanks to the few of you who actually took this in the context it was meant.

If SOF and SOL were really the premier fighting alliances they paint themselves to be, they'd be challenging each other for the top dog spot, not working together like little panks. :P

i blame lebron

just focusing on those who prefer to net versus those who prefer to war

almost all of it boils down to how complicated/hard/boring people find various things

for war you have:
sitting around waiting for other people to hit
having to build countries which suck for netting and war at the wrong time to be optimal
numbers are greater than most other things, if you have more people on your side you can be less effective individually and still win
once a war gets too lopsided the reset is larely pointless, with such a large first mover advantage wars can happen very early
stonewalling makes a huge difference, more so as the player base falls
there is very little catch up built into the game anymore, if you fall behind in a war unless you have numbers advantage your unlikely to be able to achieve much
war tempo has gotten higher and higher
a few people have to put in a lot of effort for a war machine to work well

netting:
if you dont start near the beginning of the set its not competing in the same race
if you dont focus on pure netting by getting warfare tech sdi and spies your not really competing in the same race
an alliance has to focus on the individual or the group, you cant really do both, if your alliance landcreates it screws the individual going for t10 or the win, if you dont your alliance tnw and anw wont compete
unless you play allx netting takes a lot of time waiting for targets, if you do play allx its a lottery to who doesnt get grabbed, or who does get grabbed a little early and uses the ghost acres to get more networth
FA, buyouts, minibuyouts, landcreating, landselling, directing retals, two stepping, untagged allx's, players who 'quit' then get farmed, all of it makes it incredibly hard to work out whos 'legit' or not, which makes people either help eachother more or stop trying to compete


to bring the sides closer together and make each option more tolerable to the other i feel we only need to:

a) increase transparency on aid from one country to another or one tag to another
b) change target selection and farming from the 24 hour DR camping of very few targets to favour skill or something else over time commitment
c) change tempo of war to slow down lopsidedness, introduce a catch up mechanism, reduce effectiveness of stonewalling and make offline hitting and non/slow warchat hitting more useful

as the player base has dropped and changed we cant expect netters to camp targets 24 hours a day and fighters to show up at 1-3 specific times each day for maximum efficiency

When i returned to the game and SoF 2 resets ago, it was a big chock and something i will never like, that we had SoL as allies. If i were in charge ill drop that pact and FS them faster then....:)

But ye main issue is that we need more players to get new powerhouses and that will result in more intresting politics aswell. Cant really be that hard can it? I can get 20 people to return without even really trying but that would meen thye end up in SoF again and thats not the best right now but im sure most of u can bring in atleast 1 person u know played before.

Here we go again with Pang. Everyone else is a troll, everyone else tries to spin his honest and well-intentioned posts with thier disingenuous smilies.

Reality check Pang - no one believes you have your heart in the right place no matter how much you whine that you and Slagpit et al were the saviours of this game. You chose to involve yourself in alliance politics. You have shown your hatred of SOL and of SOF over the last 6 months and you can't be believed even when you claim to be acting in the best interests of the game.

You can't have it both ways.

Either apologise for the way you have described SOL and SOF in the past or assert that you have moved on from being an admin that sticks their nose too heavily in alliance politics.

If you want anyone other than the lackeys in Evo and LaF to give you a fair hearing you have to do one of those two things.

You know, you could have just copied and pasted that post, and put it on the other two threads you just posted on...because you basically said the same thing in ALL THREE THREADS...

No they weren't.

mmm i didn't say everyone was a troll who disagreed with me, just the one person who actually trolled me, 2 now :p


like I said, I wanted to clarify what I said before to make sure it wasn't being received wrong; it was being received correctly so that's all I wanted to do. if people don't get that/don't want to believe that, fine... I don't really care.

if you don't think my heart is in the right place, that's a problem I cannot change. if you think I want to make this game into my personal pet-project where everyone does exactly what I want, that certainly doesn't align with the last year of how things have gone. I don't have time to micromanage the game -- my focus is to get this server into a strong, healthy environment; one which will be a great home to a new generation of players and leaders. that's not just a SoL and SoF problem (as I repeatedly say) it's something everyone needs to do together. this server is toxic in a lot of ways, but still strong in a lot of ways.

Pang, I like your idea. I just think it WOULD lead to wars every set because SOL fights every reset. That being said, SOF would be warring every set or leaving its allies to fight SOL alone. My opinion is simply that coalitions would increase the scope of wars and thus more alliances would be involved in them.

To your point, I think that wars for small alliances are not viable at this point. It is too hard to organize 20 of 30 people to be in a warchat everyday and much less than that and you are not killing much. So I definitely think you have good reason for wanting coalitions. They make wars fun with large numbers on each side and no clear victor on day 3 of a war.

Simply, I don't think there is enough alliances to fill things out, no IX or other substantial war alliance to throw the sides one way or the other. Planned wars seem much more viable to me at this point and yes, coalition wars could be planned, but that really goes back to a SOL/SOF alliance where both agree to a mutual war where each leads a side.

My fundamental disagreement here is that given the server size, the division of alliances into netting and warring rather than any clear goal of most alliances to be "The BEST", and the number of alliances mean the formation of two main coalitions would ruin the server.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you entirely, aponic.

I don't think that SoL and SoF working together is better for the server than them not working together. Going into full-on, all-out reset after reset war is not good either, but the two main fighting alliances being unwilling to fight eachother HAS to be a problem for this server. You're even unwilling to fight eachother in friendly wars, so the problem you claim (who will sol fight) exists regardless.

"who does SoL fight?" is a question that has to be asked every round now anyways. In a situation where SoF and SoL aren't buddy-buddy, that leaves more opportunity for politicking and such. what happens now? no one is willing to stand up and take on either SoF or SoL in a war, because there is no one to back them up for a potential round 2. wars need to be almost bargained for now, or stretch for a reason to fight someone. the two alliances that smaller alliances SHOULD be able to fall back on for help are SoL and SoF, but they are absolutely unwilling to take on this role.

You're also taking this though as if it was all or nothing thing, and that's not the intention. the intention is to shake up this unnatural state of politics. look where it's gotten us to now -- dwindling server population up to this set (and we'll see if the bounce continues now that the loughner crap has passed), alliances folding and many leaders being burnt out.

this post is meant to be in the same spirit as the posts you make re: arranged wars, aponic. It's meant to be the server coming together, lead by the most powerful alliances, to make this server into a fun environment again. You touched on this point, but you took it the wrong way. I'm not saying "let's all make sides and fight!" I'm saying let's discuss a new political reality for this server, as what we have now is detrimental to this server's growth.

although, as an aside, maybe we need to consider a member cap and re-work how killing works on this server to make it so that the smaller alliances can fight more effectively without going into full-on coalitions?
but the idea of a cap makes me a sad panda

i think the united states should fight canada and england so that all the third world countries can thrive instead. The political climate on the globe is rather stagnant.

pang you clarified your point on the very first first post, no need to keep posting and letting every person who posts an opposing view that they are dumb or that you 100% disagree with everything they say. everyone else is a troll except you anyway so don't bother responding.

Deerhunter: STFU. Christ. You make me want to dig my own eyes out with a grapefruit spoon to eliminate the chance of running into another one of your trolling diatribes.

I don't think you use a good analogy there at all, chevs :p
and the US did that anyways when they were in a hegemonic position -- remember globalization? that's made the rise of a lot of other countries possible; some friendly to the US and some not so friendly to the US. So in a way, they did exactly the thing I am talking about -- diversifying who its friends are with the goal of making the world a better place. :) This was mainly pre-GWB, though :p

also, stop saying I'm saying everyone is a troll, chevs... that's getting tired already :p
I called one guy a troll -- the guy who everyone agreed was trolling.

'

lol me too ;)

Pang, SOL declined an arranged war for next reset. Maybe they will want one soon. You have your opinion and I have mine. I am not martyring my alliance for your political views which are quite different from mine.

We disagree. Right now the server is in relative calm. What needs to change is more players, not the formation of coalitions.

I will make a point that has not been brought up here yet. A fundamental difference between now and the 'good olde days' is that alliances lack leadership and structure. Look at PDM or NA, barely clinging on. Look at Rage that just folded. If those alliances are to be counted on, that means even more work for the leading alliance like SOF. I am not going to take on that responsibility. Talk about earth burnout.

I say this sincerely. If you can't be pleased with things stagnating right now, in the interim period to the facebook application, then you will end up driving away the few people still running alliances.

Why not try to show confidence in current leaders rather than constantly pushing them to do things? When you get pushed you either push back or walk away. I am getting tired of pushing back. The alternative is to give up on what is becoming a very boring series of debates.

we can just disagree then, aponic.

this wasn't meant to so much be a debate, and it's unfortunate that it's gone down that route... you're taking one very small part of what I'm saying and always focusing on that, where I'm talking about expanding the political goodwill and such that has been going on lately to do more than just create small, one-time friendly wars.

edit:
also, the relative calm is a reason to have this kind of discussion now. it doesn't have to force change, but it's sure a good time for it compared to other points in the server's history. we're at a very low level of grudge wars continuing (i think imag/NA may be one with potential to spill to next set, from the AT rhetoric I've read) and most folks only carry a small handful of DP's now-a-days. the server is not a powder keg and people seem to be looking for positive change, and we've got some of that happening already. This was meant to build on the back of that.

If I suggested that you run a mile for charity, lets say cancer, the big issue I am talking about is cancer. However, if you have stitches in your foot and you know that running a mile means ripping them open, you might be stuck on that small point.

Nothing politically can happen until alliances regain their leadership. I see only a handful of alliances with enough active leaders:

SOL
SOF
Imagnum
Monsters
Omega (not sure)
Evo (not sure)
RD (not sure)

LCN would be in bad shape if they had to be very active next set. You could put PDM, LAF, and probably NA and ICN in that bag too.

The solution is new players, and then new leaders developed out of that new player base. It is a long process. I see leadership in the game folding before the process can culminate.

I'm up for a stitch-foot cancer run.... when and where? :)

I definitely agree that we need new players, I'm just wary of this server being the kind of place to attract and retain new players at present. The kind of political structure that the alliances engage in will determine the success of bringing new players in and retaining them, thus, the discussion in the first place.

The discussion certainly has merit.

I do think that aponic is making a lot of good points. Both SoL and SoF have to worry about their own alliance's health. Every alliance has issues with leadership burnout. The server health is definitely important, but there's no point in fixing the server if a large portion of members are lost in the process (especially as the influx of new members is agreed to be a big part of a cure).

In theory, having a big, bad villain that the server comes together to overcome is fun. In reality, a lot of current players are veterans who either did the war thing and like it (and continue to do it) or found that it wasn't their thing or they don't have enough time for it. So even if the server politics is shaken up a bit, the dichotomy between warring and netting will always exist. The political power will always be in the hands of the warring alliances as they're the ones who choose who nets and who doesn't. That's probably the reason it looks like the war alliances are being singled out, because they have the biggest choice in the matter.

Finding the balance in warring responsibly (in the sense that the server is healthy and your members are satiated) is not easy. SoF has taken some very difficult steps in order to help where they can, and they are definitely commended for it. I'm guessing the main idea that Pang is trying to get across is that if SoF and SoL are not pacted and war each other at least occasionally, then there is that much less pressure on netting alliances to war. Considering in the entire history of EE that LaF and Evo have only netted at the same time ONCE speaks to that. However, if that is not what is best for SoF and SoL, then it can't really be helped, and that seems to be the fundamental difference between where aponic is coming from, and where pang is coming from. The whole agree to disagree.

On a side note, I agree that Pang can have a very negative light in his posts, and then follow it with a smiley that doesn't seem genuine. Maybe that's not the intention, but not having a horse in this race, that's how it comes out to me (though this also includes my view from Pang's posts dating back to when I found EE many months ago). Something in your writing style can quite easily be taken as condescending and confrontational. But hopefully we can all be rational enough to give everyone the benefit of the doubt as reading emotion and intention from text is not always easy. *shrugs*