and detmer, i dont get what you mean by "no land to bottomfeed". for 3 resets in a row earlier this year in the previous resets i've broken 70k acres each time by bottomfeeding and placed t5 all 3 times. you can laugh at DR camping being "if i had no life i can do it too", trust me lots of people try to out dr camp the same targets i do and i confidently beat them 99% of the time (hence why i hit 70k all 3 times). there's a LOT of tricks and skills you need to learn (outside of having the time for it) that isn't apparent but required to help gain maximum land. if it was just as simple as "setting the alarm and having no life" then every who try to dr camp the same targets i did would've been just as fat as me those resets.

also i had to carry SDI (to block untags randomly nuking me), tanks (because they would randomly AB), and adequate defense to block their retals. and i did eat tons of missiles and suicide attemps as i bottomfed my way into fatness. there's some sense of randomness and excitement from the untags you camp dr for.

as a landtrader you don't have to worry that your landtrade partner is going to AB or missile you. they are pretty damned predictable. ofc there is more risk than than just hitting your explore button still because of the perceived human interaction involved hence i'm all for it being better than all-x.

Mmm


(doublepost)

I agree with Hanlong, as what he says is a reflection of what I have said in the past as well in terms of landtrading being imbalanced.

*humps Hanlong*

You fail at summarizing. Misrepresenting my opinion is fun though. RD isn't important enough to hate either ;) I dont hate anything in this game. Waste of time..

good post Hanlong.. well said =)

all that only applies to alliance

but any change to land trading will be passed on to FFA as well which to me is a load of crap because its completely different things to look at when comparing FFA and alliance, but the admins are only listening to 1a players

A lot of posts since my last point, but it simply comes down to ideology. Much of it comes down to what is perceived as landtrading. For us in SoF and in our pacts we say that it is when two countries exchange hits more than once in a 72 hour period. Yes, it is arbitary just like our 125% topfeed level, but so what, it works well and brings that balance with other grabbing methods. It is effectively a restraining of the mass exchange of land. An example of this is these 3 windows accumilating to "20 MINUTES":

16:48 03/02/12 SS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 2280 A (+ 1476 A)
16:45 03/02/12 SS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 2797 A (+ 1054 A)
16:44 03/02/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 3790 A (+ 2360 A)
16:41 03/02/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 3988 A (+ 1504 A)
16:39 03/02/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 3781 A (+ 2918 A)
16:38 03/02/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 3899 A (+ 1733 A)
17:36 03/01/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 3411 A (+ 2639 A)
17:35 03/01/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 3760 A (+ 1765 A)
17:33 03/01/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 2634 A (+ 2019 A)
17:31 03/01/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 3531 A (+ 1653 A)
16:36 02/29/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 2181 A (+ 1675 A)
16:31 02/29/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 2537 A (+ 415 A)
16:30 02/29/12 SS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 1248 A (+ 982 A)
16:28 02/29/12 SS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 1659 A (+ 390 A)
16:27 02/29/12 PS Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) 2014 A (+ 1538 A)
16:25 02/29/12 PS Mr Tan (#568) (ResDogs) Alexander Keiths Affectionado (#152) (Paradigm) 2405 A (+ 564 A)

20-25k land created in 20 minutes... that is what we are against and finding that distasteful isn't archiac, or stuck in the past. You are living in a bubble if you are thinking that we're opposed to shaking things up. We changed our retal policy before you even started to landtrade. It allows our members to grab without giving them a ridiculous advantage over the rest of the server. Because, I still disagree about the server being purely about alliances and I am damn sure that the majoirty of players and alliances find the added thrill of the individual competetion fron nw to hitstats as an added dimesnion. To lose that would be a great loss.

Also, as I mentioned it removes too much of the competativeness for my taste. This may be a war alliance's perspective, but it isn't the way I'd like to see the game go. I don't like the open/close list system for the same reason, but as long as there isn't unregulated landtrading as seen above, it doesn't directly effect other alliances significantly enough.

Therefore, I am in favour of a possible mechanical change that takes defence into account and regulation such as we have to keep things at a more even keel.

yes warster i realize my angle of this is all based on alliance, which is why this is alliance talk and not B&S or FFA talk =)

any change has to balance all servers of course.

maybe we can make an alliance server only game rule perhaps if it's too hard to balance.

problem is the only suggestions that certain Admins listen to are the ones that come from people posting here

ffa had this discussion for a year, admins did nothing, so ffa alliance adpted to the new playing conditions.

people in alliance start fluffing and the admins all of a sudden want to change it all on both servers disregarding the work already done by people in ffa.

personally i dont think people should land trading in alliance,

thats all i'm saying :)

Maybe this is one of the best ways around it. Making land trading something that comes under "Free For All"

There is no risk for land trading? Lol

Hanlong pro tip:

What do you think is more costly? Having enough Tanks/turrets to avoid hits of countries that are 10 times more smaller than you and having maxed SDI, or hits that HAVE to bypass your defences to work, that means that for every 2800 ghost acres that you get, you have to rebuild 7000 buildings.

Go and run your numbers because the cash and turns needed are obscene and well over the billions, if you factor in douche hits the risk is even greater because your capabilities to defend yourself are diminished by the fact that you spent most of your cash rebuilding.

Bottomfeeding factors "luck" not risk, because if you do it right you hardly get hit, a stray missile may get in once in a bluemoon but usually that won't happen, not to mention that is public knowledge a few untaggeds are actually multies, but that is another thing.

Hanlong if you want to feel how ridiculous are the building cost, go to your building page, pick the cost per building and multiply it for 10000 acres, THAT is the cost of 3000 acres, and let's not factor the CS/military/Oil lost, and with that clearly you will see why bottomfeeding will always be stronger as long as there are enough good targets and you play smart you will always be ahead, if sets where much longer then yeah land trading would be much stronger because the gains get progressively better while bottomfeeding isn't (well I guess if your country is 10 times bigger than what most clans can muster then you would probably be able to bottomfeed small clans like ICN, but that is another thing.

Land trading isn't as easy as you want to make it to be, bottomfeeding is much easier and less costly, is just that there are not enough targets for everyone.

I absolutely disagree with hanlong saying that "landtrading" as it's been executed thus far is low risk. It's only low risk if you net in a vacuum. There have been several grabs on my landtrading country this set that I could not retal adequately and ended up being an easy 3k+ acres (inc. ghosts) for the attacker and a net loss for me even after I retalled. It's very high risk; you have low defense and no stock to buy up adequate offense in many cases.

That said, Flamey, you were too quick to dismiss the substance of my reply to you as ideological differences, which I think is mostly unfair. However, to respond directly to your most recent post, while I don't personally have a problem with two countries hitting each other back and forth, it does seem like most of the server disagrees with the speed at which they are hitting / the speed of land gain as somehow anti-competitive. While my first reaction is to say, well hit them and get some land, I would also support game mechanics that nerf repetitive country:country grabs, such as what I've heard is in the works possibly for next set.

In my opinion, that doesn't undermine the spirit of "landtrading" aka friendly grabbing, which I still feel is a net positive for the server. Suffice to say I will defend the concept of friendly, coordinated, mutually-beneficial grabbing, but I am definitely willing to concede the repetitive country:country thing if that's a major hangup for you all. The greater good is mixing up the tradition of farming untaggeds and reflexively malevolent inter-tag hits.

And yet... you can go gain that back in one hit. A bottomfeeder who gets hit has all the same issues plus they cant get land back in one hit.

are you saying you prefer an environment where little guys get raped and can't retaliate to one where land is created for both attackers and defenders?

Bullfluff.

No constant rebuilding of acres means many billions saved in building costs; money not spent on rebuilding is spent toward tech and other military, etc; botomfeeders rarely, if ever, get hit by random people in other alliances who are bent/jealous such as happens to landtraders; a missile from a bottomfeeding target does a miniscule amount of damage which can be regained in a few bottomfeeding hits; I could keep going, don't feel like it.

Your whine and cheese party's almost over.

We like our whine and cheese party tyvm, and i cant really see what yer going to do bout it either Mr Snow :)

+1 Flamey post

kingkaosknows: i never said there's no risk. i said it was lower risk than traditional landgrabbing, but higher risk than all-explore so it shuold be slotted appropriately in terms of landgaining speed. please re-read my posts =) and i don't think it is "luck" that if you grab someone with 3M jets, you buy 5M turrets. so you don't raped. this is what you don't get to do when you landtrade. you are willing let someone retal you hence get the benefit of not paying for upkeep of military as a tradtional landgrabber has to. this is the whole issue of "imbalance" i'm trying to talk about ;P

and to answer the rest of you the only reason why some people "rarely get hit by missiles/suiciders/etc." while bottomfeeding/midfeeding is because they have to carry adequate defense. i see many spy ops of the landtraders and saw < 100k turrets and 0 SDI, which are things that no bottomfeeder will get away with (if you do that as a bottomfeeder, you will get raped). just the fact that you can landtrade and get away with such little defense tells me there's less risks involved. i fully understand why they carry low defense, because of the building costs of losing all that land.. they can't afford to both balance upkeeping military while gaining land at that rapid of a pace. if you want i can privately give you at least 7-8 examples of no defense landtrading countries going on this reset (and there's a total of 10-15 landtrading countries total, so just me casually seeing half of the spy ops having inadequate defense while landtrading tells me that it looks like it's the norm.. i'm willing to bet almost all of those 50k+ land landtraders didn't have the defense a normal 50k bottomfeeder would carry)

i guess you are right that you guys implied that landtrading is super expensive and forces you guys to not have much military which is why we see these < 100k turret > 50k land countries. the only difference is that a person getting bottomfed has the right to retal/suicide you, while what risk do you have when you landtrade back and forth? are you guys implying that third parties have the right to landgrab you? i was under the impression that it would start hostilities =)

that's why i suggested to both pang and qzjul to make ghost acres depend on the attacker's defense to force people to upkeep military while landtrading, just like bottomfeeders and midfeeders have to. it will slow down landtrading so the landgain is more in line to other forms of grabbing (aka balancing it)

and balin: i did not say i prefer an environment where the big guys rape the little guys. i just said landtrading should be balanced based on the defense you need to carry (aka risk) to successfully execute it. no matter if you topfeed/bototmfeed/midfeed (aka normal grabbing) you always kept more land as you kept more defense. like some of those untags (like croatia) can retal the fluff out of you, and if you could somehow bounce his retal, then more power to you... you get the land that no one else would get.

just to clear things up, i'm not opposed to landtrading specifically, i just want it balanced compared to the other landgaining methods. it clearly isn't balanced right now...

So the well defended country takes more risk than the one that has low defence?

Flawless logic is flawless.

Under certain circumstances I would agree with you, but pretty much everyone in PDM is saying that the countries that are land trading are not protected in bunkers, they are saying that all clans that have a grabbing pacts with PDM can hit their traders without causing an out roar, so the core of the problem lies in another place.

I traded in TKO in FFA and saw that trading takes effort and careful calculation to make it work well, and then I saw all that effort wasted in a "grab all you can and then delete run".

Again I don't support the you hit me, I hit you runs, those suck and are in complete opposition of all clans retal policies, countries that act in such a manner should be grabbed and denied L:L retals, but also I think is fluff talk that you come forward full of stupidity and ignorance and claim that they created 6000 acres at no cost.

I can agree with hanlong and Jiman that game mechanic tweaks are in order, but the increased ghost acres for Dictators was implemented so that it would have more of a chance at netgaining competion. We are now seeing the results of that, and yes, more people are giving Dictators a shot to gain land. Now people are complaining that these countries are displacing traditional strategies in the Top 10: that was the intent and it's working, perhaps too well.

I disagree with simply connecting returns to defense as this skews returns back too far that bottomfeeding outweighs landtrading, as you'll always have a higher Def:Off ratio. Instead, I would propose a series of changes to DR that would reduce the "abuse" that some perceive in both strategies.

1) Extend DR from 24 hours to 48 hours
While SoF has complaints up to 72 hours, the game standard currently is 48 hours. If attacks diminish returns for two days instead of one, then there is a reduced drive to attack the same country daily, whether bottomfeeding or landtrading.

2) Reduce DR removals for attacks from 1 to 0.5
Fast landtrading (as between #152 and #568) is only possible as one defend and one attack cancel out and 0 DR remain.

3) Change from step-function to continuous
Current Formula:
Hit 1-3: 100%
Hit 4-5: 80%
Hit 6-7: 50%
Hit 8-9: 35%
Hit 10-11: 15%
Hit 12+: 10%

Suggested Formula: 100% - 10%*DR
Hit 1-3: 90% average
Hit 4-5: 55% average
Hit 6-7: 35% average
Hit 8-9: 15% average
Hit 10+: 0% average

These changes would affect both bottomfeeders and landtraders, giving all-x strategies a small boost in relative ability. Bottomfeeders could no longer gain by deep DR farming for 20-30a a hit. Landtraders could only get maximum returns through one hit per country per 48 hours.

i think you reversed what i was trying to say. you are correct that a well defended country can take more risks (hence why you buy defense for). having lower defense implies lower risk. i'm not sure what you are trying to imply here... a bottomfeeder carries more defense than a all-x because an all-x just has to worry about random suiciders, while the grabber has to worry about the guys they just grabbed not retaliating (hence more risk more reward).

i did not say landtrading was no cost. last reset i actually exchanged 2 hits with PDM back and forth just to see what build costs + land created comes from it, so i have first hand experience. the cost is you can't afford military if you rapidly landtrade which is correct, but it's not like your landtrading parter is going to suicide you anways (unlike what a bottomfed target would do), hence that's the part which i think carries lower risk and hence needs to be balanced. at least rapid landtrading should be discouraged by game mechanics to balance things...

or am i still confusing you? :P

P.S. as an addendum if the admins really want to continue it so landtrading is much better than any other forms of grabbing/exploring then yes more and more people would end up landtrading (which is what some of you guys might want). however i just think it's bad for business to limit the ways you can successfully play this game, because that will cause less players, which is something this game does not need. more balanced ways to play = more fun for all = better for this game. right now LaF is warring so it isn't an issue, but i know that if we were netgaining (by looking at the avg land between evo who are normally the fattest in avg land vs rd this reset) the only way to compete in land with the landtrading going on this reset is to landtrade.. hence effectively without a game mechanic fix we essentially narrowed down the available means to gain land in this game and hence would potentially alienate and cause some members of our community to leave... i know some of you landtraders would be happy if the vocal anti-landtraders all leave but that's just a biased view on this situation without taking into consideration what this game fundamentally needs (more players). im sure if landtrading is tweaked so it is almost as good as bottomfeeding and better than all-x, those in favor of landtrading would still happily do it and get good finishes while the ones landgrabbing traditionally would still do it and not feel that the effort/time they spent would be wasted.

Yes, implying that it is your right to hit an under defended 50k acre country and be subject to normal retal policy without starting hostilities. I am not from the netting school that warps gameplay around a feeling of entitlement to every acre you've grabbed.

My comment about "an environment where little guys get raped" was directed at locket's post directly above mine.

I think we are in agreement that landtrading needs some balance. I am arguing against the people who posted here ignorantly dismissing it as immoral, unethical, anti-competitive, etc. in nature. It should be respected as an alternative to bottomfeeding and all-ex, and we can experiment and fight wars and tweak mechanics to determine how far we're willing to let the definition of "landtrading" extend from what already exists as non-hostile inter-tag hits.

also, hanlong, to be clear, you are talking about levels of risk but seem to be overlooking the crucial high-risk aspect that comes along with running low defense / high acres and having huge building expenses... you're going to get grabbed by a third party - how will you retal?

Change the dr function between two countries and i think youve got your fix. Few aside from a land trader would land grab back and forth within a 24 hr period. Or change the dr reductions as mapleson suggests, if you cant make fatty ghost acres, then people wont do it.

I appreciate the civil discussion that is developing, i think most people agree its a little imba in its current form and how it manifests in alliance. Claiming some moral highground for bottomfeeding is ridiculous though. Stop suggesting landtrading is killing the game, as you crush the life out of small tags and untagged players.

BTW guys, in a 24 hour period, if you exchange more than 2 hits, the amount of ghost acres you gain starts to reduce(yes there is DR for ghost acres too). As an experienced land trader, I know this. Too bad the rest of your don't.

Funny, because my argument is little different than Hanlongs. We even had a discussion on it and he proposed his idea to me which I liked. I think it is unfair atm and makes other forms of netting a waste of time.

Not by that much, you can exchange 3-4 hits a day and still get solid returns. I think that's what people are complaining about.

Also the larger you get, the better the returns, which is why all-xing can never compete.

You must not be that experiences, because it's 2 consecutive attacks, not 2 total hits per 24 hours. If you alternate hits, every attack removes 1 DR, thereby not achiving DR Ghost Acres. For proof, look at #152 attacks on #568 between Feb 29 and Mar 2.

I don't think you can remove ghost DR (check anyone who has been farmed, then retals). Plus those guys only exchanged 3 hits a day. Even so, they got huge returns.

DRs on ghostacres do not get cancelled out from attacks, it was stated in the fixes for this set

forget it - this thread is fluffing pointless

Ghostacre DR is on a 24 hour clock.

a fat bottomfeeder has the same risk (of third party topfeeders) as well as the added risk of being suicided by the guy he's grabbing, hence more risk. again i think my point stands that landgrab > landtrading > all-x in risk so the landgains should be appropriate to that level =)

you make it sound like a bottomfeeder growing super fat doesnt have a lot of building costs or risk of being topfed. one thing you forgot to mention is you guys are landtrading farmers with farmers and cashers with cashers which helps mitigate building costs while bottomfeeders grab anything they can get and get an assortment of buildings they have to tear down and rebuild. i dont think the building costs are THAT far off in reality (i know a landtrader still spends more to build than a bottomfeeder does, but i think the cost is being exaggerated here a bit ;P)

just to be clear i'm just focused on the balance on this game, not to debate whether landtrading is wrong or right. it is none of my business to dictate how others should have fun in this game (as long as they aren't breaking any game rules such as multies, etc.). i'm only interested in making sure this game is balanced so there is actually a point to actually try to play ;)

Then you haven't been paying attention. RD won Average Land the last 3 sets in a row, Average Net Worth the last two sets in a Row, and are strong contenders for this set in both. Their country total has tripled with the return of a number of very good old players who haven't been around for a long while.

I think they discount two of those sets because people land traded during them. Implying that rd can only win by landtrading.

to your last point, i think that's a great attitude.

so idk, on multiple grabs or one big one, you can easily spend 800m-1b/day building, even with building cost reduction. you're rebuilding the buildings that were destroyed in your target's grab, plus everything you just grabbed. i guess the risk is in that you dont have adequate defense :P

yeh but not having adequate defense is not as big of problem in the alliance especially if you are doing only friendly grabbing.

all-x have inadequate defense for the most part too compared to bottomfeeders because of the same lower risk.

i understand have lots of land and low defense is a risk in itself, but im just pointing out the fact that normal landgrabbers are directly agitating people daily by grabbing them while landtraders aren't since they guy who they are grabbing are actually happy about it. hence why i still stand by the fact that it's lower risk...

Again RD won without trading as well, at least without super organized one, yeah 2 of their countries did some trading, but most of RD achieved a good networth and managed to obtain victory, not to mention one of the traders was killed by a KSFer so you can only count one of them.

RD is looking like a solid clan for average net, they are still too small for anything else, but shame on you all for diminishing their efforts!!!!

Where were you when Oden was getting fed acres like a baby? Why not be offended at that? But be offended at the reality that for better or worse RD are decent.

kingkaosknows: no one said oden getting fed acres was good either. people were just as offended and i believe there was a thread about that last reset that most of us commented on ;P

i never claimed RD wasn't a solid alliance. i just said landtrading is imbalanced right now ;P but maybe you are referring to someone else's comments and not mine.

If they could do it without landtrading, they would do it without landtrading

but trading is fun and you get to joke with people using the ingame country message instead of the standard:

Mgs:

Retal for your hit on me, now fluff you

end of message

RD and PDM suck.

The only good netters are Evo and Laf imo ;) Omega was great but are super lazy and easy going now. The rest are all average. I guess crap is a bit harsh but yah.

Monsters is still full of its good netters, but we are just as lazy as omega

Hmm yes they and LCN are the other ones I tend to think of as above the others

I believe nonchalant netters is more accurate. I find it humorous that in order to be an 'elite' netter you have to win using a canned strat (with some tweaks of course) or it's not legit. I always love that jealousy. To be looked down upon because you don't fit the basic mold of what others have done before you to win makes me think you have a small mind.

deli said it best: stop calling us netters.

I'm not going to search through the thread, but now I'm curious exactly how many from RD have posted and proclaimed loudly (or sheepishly) that we're good netters, or netters at all. Seems like someone's got a crush on RD and doesn't know how to manage it. ;)

Well, Camo did call us a "fluff netting clan" so it must be true. So call us whatever you'd like, while we have primarily tried to be a netgaining clan since our return it isn't because we strive for greatness in it. We are a community of mostly 'retired' (lazy) veterans (cheaters) who try (keyword here) to avoid getting into the politics of war. If we perform/finish well then that is great, if not then there is always next reset. I think it goes without saying what type of alliance I spent about a decade in, my profile is completely open troll away at the badness.

If people have recommendations (again keyword here, not looking to debate anything) for a way to make landtrading a fair yet viable way to compete for top spots then by all means send me private message, to be honest I have received zero all reset (unless you count 1 SoF heads passive aggressive nonsense) and plenty of inquiries about landtrading in future resets.

I think not ;) Considering I think most of the clans are pretty crappy at netting :P Elitism at its worst? ;)

1) I find it extremely hilarious that RD and PDM are now buddies, especially coming from PDM. If only Comwood could see this. Abusing game mechanics is just as fluffed up as running multies.

2) @Warster, changes can apply to a specific server if needed. FFA will always be second fiddle because it is, stop QQing.

3) Landtraders don't really need oil. Where a bottom feeder needs 50x the amount of oil EVERY DAY just to make up for the land difference.

4) I spend probably more time than HLW trying to camp DRs. He beats me every reset. But I get to beat the all explore, and less time spending bottom feeders. Which works fine, but when you introduce land trading....

Land Traders can spend 5 minutes a day to match networth, hit, rebuild, and if done semi-properly, 180m finish isn't out of reach at all, unless you destock like LT.

I spend a lot more than 5 minutes a day, and I do everything perfectly, I'll get a 180m finish.

See the problem here? Yes, I know I suck at bottom feeding.

But why should I spend my time bottomfeeding anymore? I could just land trade and get a good finish.

Hense, what Hanlong said a few pages ago, if you allow an environment that dictates land trading would be better than 95% of bottom feeding, and 100% of all explore countries. Then what is the point of playing otherwise?

Everyone would land trade, and when someone pulls a 500m finish out of land trading. The current group that stands by land trading is perfectly normal, will be the ones whining that land trading is too powerful. Mark my words.

Land trading shouldn't be OUT of the game, it should be tuned.
Just like botland countries should be IN the game, but it should definitely be tuned so they can retal/decide to suicide.

"But why should I spend my time bottomfeeding anymore?"

You shouldn't?