I'm interested to know how each alliances policies work in regards to Landgrabs/Landtrade retal policy.

Its pretty obvious when someone hits you and is trying to trade and create land. This grabbing can be aggressive yes but in the end most both parties are somewhat working together. Evo and I did it somewhat last set (yes Laf and Evo worked together lol)

What i want to know is where alliances stand on how these unpacted hits are retalled.

How i see it is like this...

Scenario 1

A hits B .... B retals A (if B does not get 80% Land before ghost acres back he gets a 2nd hit) ...Fair enough as it was likely a topfeed and not done with the intention of it being mutually beneficial to both parties.


Scenario 2
A hits B .... C hits A C does not get 80% of the Land back the retal is now complete???

Should the 80% Land:Land policy only stand for the Countries being hit? As they alone are already in range to make the retal completely and benefit from the exchange or are we all in this to try and bend each other over all the time ? I see it like the SS and PS issue when pacted alliances go for 150 and 200% L:L retals to manufacture another retal.

How and where do the alliances currently stand on this issue?

Also would others as individuals like to see this practice done ?

Sorry my thoughts are Country B gets the 80% L:L policy afforded to them as long as they don't try to manipulate their nw to intentionally create a 2nd retal when one isn't needed....

and if Country C retals then only 1 hit is allowed.


Remember guys when commenting on this, this is policy in regards to unpacted alliances... or alliances that may already have pacts in place to promote trading.

scenario 2 is essentially PDMs retal policy. you only get L:L if the country does its own retals. otherwise it's 1:1

In that case i personally applaud Paradigms stance on the issue, i think its healthy for the server and promotes good faith amongst its community!

Which is something that we really do tend to lack alot of the time for such a small group.

That's my personal view as well.

Yeah, as elvesrus has said, our retal policy is country:country land:land, or cross-country 1:1. We don't recognize "topfeeds".

Regarding back-and-forth landtrading, we've been discussing it for sets now, and generally still split on what it means and how it fits into Paradigm's policy and direction.

I'm outta this loop. LOL It is an interesting discussion though. By all means lets hear from some of the more influential people in here.

I think the mods have done a great job of eliminating the back and fourth trading that saw ghost acres cut from e2025 and that the balance isn't far off being right.

Also opinions wanted on countries intentionally altering nws to manufacture a 2nd hit in the case of scenario 1?

no comment :)

En4cer, that may be true about the admins, but there's still more to be done on that front, because it doesn't really address landtrading circles - although to be fair, if one has the logistical acumen to manage a large trading circle, then they probably shouldn't be penalized for it.

Regarding manufactured hits, it's annoying. The usual offenders are LaF and Evo (to be fair, Evo has been good with retals lately and we haven't exchanged hits with LaF in over a year). I've seen other alliances do it - I think it's been done in PDM once or twice before, although I can't even remember the last time it happened.

Our landgrabbing pacts do address manufactured hits under the "good sportmanship" clause. Manufacturing hits and retal avoidance are both covered under that clause and merit FA action.

what's a "manufactured hit"?

Where you orchestrate a retal so that the returns are barely below a particular land:land threshold in order to be technically owed another retal.

For instance, our policy is that if ghost acres make up the remaining land lost, then land:land stops at 80%. In this case, what if someone engineered their first retal to get 79%, then took another hit? We've had this problem with our policy before, which is why our landgrab pacts specifically address landgrabbing etiquette.

I can tell you LaF doesn't intentionally "manufacture" a hit. We don't have sophisticated enough tools to calculate teh return that precise. As a matter of fact we have the same tool PDM does on that front.

Evo on the other hand I suspect of having far more accurate tools to calculate teh return and thus being able to pull that off more frequently.

Also I do know some PDMers who do intentionally try to sandbag the first hit, so PDM isn't innocent in this either. You know who I'm talking about TAN.

Requiem, the attention you give me is flattering, but unnecessary. I'm not sure why you always try to disparage or smear me on these boards, since I really never did anything to you.

Anyway, I'm not sure who you're talking about. The only time I've ever *heard talk* from people in Paradigm about manufacturing hits was as a punitive measure due to a particular country repeatedly hitting us, and even then I'm not sure it ever happened recently (that I witnessed). And furthermore - especially in the case of landgrabbing pacts - I always encouraged everyone to play nice, even if there was resentment.

Your revisionist history of me is perplexing, and I'm uncertain what I ever did to you to deserve it.

you need a tool to estimate returns?

Req, please no finger pointing in here this is not that kind of thread.

I do believe The way PDM are going about this is good... Is there anyone else that works like this or are you alone?

As a Laf member of 8 years though Tan I have not ever seen such a practice employed intentionally by one of our members especially not in EE... We have not had an accurate LG returns calc sine e2025. I had heard of and have seen people in the past use ss's in the past when retalling pacted alliances to create an extra hit in the l:l style pacts, again no accusations or finger pointing.

Please continue...

Elv, it's been a while since I played and competed for the top spots, in e2025 there was a formular readily available and u knew how much land a grab would yield down to the acre, I have asked of this formular in EE and no one (in Laf) has yet been able to point me to it.

I've seen some general numbers that are close enough for me. not down to the acre like the old ones, but good enough.

I believe SoL adopted the C:C L:L policy after an early LaF FS a while back (not trying to bring up bad feelings), but not sure if they kept it. don't know if anyone else has a similar policy

Ah well then apologies. It *seemed* that Evo and LaF were the biggest offenders *in the past*, but I could be in error.

As far as I know, no one in Paradigm uses a calculator for figuring out returns, but approximates instead based off of military strat, what BC tells us insite, government bonuses, NW proximity and total land disparity.

Regarding other alliances who landtrade, RD is an avid supporter of it. SOL has adopted a slightly similar policy to ours in regards to unpacted retal policy, but I think their official stance on "landtrading" is hostile (just a guess as to their stance).

Before LCN went inexplicably bipolar, LCN and Paradigm exchanged relatively friendly hits that *some* would argue as landtrading, depending on the definition one adopts.

Most of the landtrading you see though is negotiated ingame between individual countries.

If you like, we can open up a shared forum between LaF and Paradigm and exchange ideas on landtrading. In Paradigm, there is a lively debate at the senate level on what constitutes landtrading - some have broad definitions, and some have narrow definitions. Let me know if you're interested, because those with the broad definitions (who tend the be the supporters) have some interesting ideas about landtrading, conducive climate and the future/direction it will take.

That's a ok elv. I have not been heavily involved I this kind of thing for a long time. I'm chasing views and standpoints from everyone.

L:L is bad mmmkk

You guys keep dancing around semantics, ok?

Why would I hit an unpacted alliance with out the intention of it being mutually beneficial???? I want to gain as much land as possible from the exchange and him suck out of the retal.

Imag's policy is 1:1 unless l:l is autherised by leadership.

bah wrong button :P

To me a land trade is any hit whereas a retal is taken and both countries involved come out with more land than before the hits were exchanged.

Btw with PDM's stance on how these hits are retalled you can be sure that members of Laf will be looking to exchange these kind of grabs with PDM. It is also this kind of policy that I am trying to promote inside of LaF.

Are there any other alliances out there that would like to say something on this?

Could have had something to do with PDM members "topfeeding"...

Anyway, people are more likely to fluff you over if they feel that you've intentionally gone out of your way to make their gaming experience more difficult.

Ano, what is Evo's stance on this?

As part of SoF's 70th set celebration we will be LG you all and you cannot Retal..Cheers to us!! lol

i don't know en4cer. i'm not a leader and i don't have a country in evo.

what i do know is that this game is getting worse every reset. before it used to be farm untaggeds/escape retals get fat and win. now it's who can landtrade the quickest (aka who has the most mates) and win.

i prefer the solo servers, cos there's a real sense of accomplishment after a reset.

p.s. not that i've never "land-traded", but i know how little skill it requires, and is just done out of laziness/it's slightly more "fun" than clicking the explore button.

That's my general opinion of it too ano and as yet I have not exploited it. This set however I do plan too. Last set I traded hits with guys in Evo for about a week which saw me recover from a suicider. I think the game mechanics reward trading a little too much. To me it seemed when I traded hits with Evo last set that the way PDM do things are the same.


Omega, monsters, LCN and anyone else want to spread some light on this?

just don't do it - organized landtrading between alliances will not end in your favor.

I have not been eagle eye the past couple sets but hasn't the top 10 been mostly traders?

I think there were only 3 traders in it last set??? Or was it 4?

zip wouldnt know, he is not a filthy netter :P

I'm sorry we are unclean scode :p

its ok, its not your fault, im really just jealous cause i cant net :P

Scode: do a set in LaF. You'll be a netter soon enough. :P

i was going to once, it was all H4's fault :P

Personally, win-win situation in grabbing is always the best.
But some players don't want to be grabbed by unpacted clans so they'll fluff you up so you wont bother to grab him again.

Evo views 'landtrading' as exchanging hits between countries more than once within a 24 hour period. If not for this agreement between the countries involved, that kind of grabbing would be considered a retal on retal, and would spiral out of control.

I don't consider what you are describing as midfeeding to be landtrading. Sounds to me like you consider grabbing anyone that can and will retal as a land trade. That's fine if you want to call it that, but I definitely don't see that as a negative thing.

The Omega recognizes the mutually beneficial nature of alliance-wide 80%L:L retaling. In our dealings with alliances that share this policy or with our grab pact partners we try to instill a since of mutual benefit and gain without allowing any set of hits to spiral out of control or become de facto landtrading. To this end we enforce our rules against RoRs and will make FA contact with alliances when the appearance of landtrading is seen or brought to our attention.

The purpose of grab pacts and the 80% Land:Land retal policy is not to encourage landtrading but to allow for landgrabbing in a way that is fun for both the grabber and the retaler. To this end I see a lot more Omegans taking their own retals as a result of grab pacts and the 80%L:L policy.

Angel would omega purposely allow its members to take retals in such a way that a 2nd is created when it was not needed??? Ie the manipulation of nw's or the passing off of the retal to someone else to create the scenario where only omega can come out on top and it not be mutually beneficial?

Tella Ithe scenario I have in mind the aggressor initiating it is doing so with low defense to allow an easy retal from his target where they will have both come out ahead. The maths would have been done by the aggressor to ensure he was not top feeding (land fat country) and that the retal that would ensue would easily account for the required land.

As far as I can tell, no such case has happened in at least the last 3 resets with Omega. We don't go about trying to do that, we even routinely let slip a second hit if we have ie. 78% returns on the first one if the GA were good and the alliance has always been cordial to us. So no, we're not out to screw anybody over :)

Ok cool, who are we still waiting on here???

The only two alliances in the game that have actively landtraded are RD and PDM.

Some elements in PDM purport that landtrading is often defined narrowly and can be actually much broader - they argue that our landgrabbing pacts are even a form of landtrading. Depending on how you define landtrading, that's true. And that's just the trick - how do you define it?

I would define it as multiple premeditated hits by both parties within a short span of time (so as to violate one or more retal policies) in order for mutually beneficial gains of land based on ghost acres.

Some in PDM argue that that definition is just a veneer of something larger - if you hit back and forth between the same two countries all set long, is that landtrading? They argue yes, and I can see how.

As I said, if you really want to debate the ins and outs of landtrading, we should share a BC forum and discuss.

All I can say here is that I made it to 50k acres last set just retaling hits, matching Networths and, in most cases, both parties benefited from the exchanges of hits, (#121 from last set is mine if anyone is curious). Would this be what you would refer to as Land Trading? Personally, I enjoy it. Generally the insite chatter back and forth is more personal than the usual, "Retal for your hit". I enjoyed the set PDM "Landtraded" for the social aspect moreso than the acres aspect... it really isn't THAT profitable to trade hits back and forth... many of the 35-45k acre countries sat at 60% built most of the mid-set growth cycle, (weeks 2-4). It was ridiculous trying to keep techs bought up and buildings put up.

*Shrugs* It will be interesting to see what happens with grabbing exchanges this set...

Well, considering how much easier it is to just pump jets and break someone than completely protect yourself from said grabs, this type of grabbing has become the de facto standard. Because of this and the changes to ghost acres, there's simply no point to having mass defense and 1:1 policies. That's what I think, anyway.

:)

It is what it is, it's all a matter of how quickly we all recognize it.

If you want to be smart and actually communicate with your target, perhaps that's where you cross over the red line to DIRTY LANDTRADER or whatever. Until then, you're just landgrabbing. Randomly. Of course, it's random.

Is it landtrading if you grab someone relatively close in NW and land, rebuild your defenses and leave your defenses relatively low or is that just being a nice player? I usually do that because I don't see much point in instigating when the system is structured such that everyone can win.

However, if you're asking my opinion of L:L policies, I say do away with them and move back to 1:1 and 2:1. This would make grabbing far more interesting.