PDM top topfeeders? :P - Earth Empires Forum

locket

Member
6176

Sep 10th 2010, 5:31:31

2010-09-09 16:51:02 PS 2TANs1cup (#190) Paradigm Jossica (#63) EVOata 6963A (10382A)

haha I do applaud you. Thats one heck of a grab acres wize. 17200ish lol. Maybe he will fail the retals? :P

Strife

Member
251

Sep 10th 2010, 5:49:33

One can only wait to see what happens...

Thomas

Member
1763

Sep 10th 2010, 5:54:11

0.o

lol

TAN

Member
3439

Sep 10th 2010, 5:54:14

Paradigm does not recognize this term, "top feeding".

However, we do recognize country:country -> land:land.

FREEEEEDOM!!!

Thomas

Member
1763

Sep 10th 2010, 5:56:54

PDM is getting ballsy. I fluffing love it.

Thumbs up for playing with balls!

locket

Member
6176

Sep 10th 2010, 7:12:57

so you dont recognize top feeding but you do recognize country to country land to land eh. Interesting.

wtf.... how did I post that earlier and now the news has changed?

Sep 09/10 2:51:02 PM PS 2TANs1cup (#190) (Paradigm) Jossica (#63) (EVOata) 6963 A (+3419 A)

which one was the real amount of ghost acres? :S

Dragonlance

Member
1611

Sep 10th 2010, 7:16:21

locket looks like 1st was total acreage, 2nd had just ghost acres:p

Pain

Member
4849

Sep 10th 2010, 7:17:33

you took news from 2 different places, which show it 2 different ways.

the ghost acres were 3419. 6963+3419 = 10382 total acres grabbed

edit: got beat to it lol

Your mother is a nice woman

locket

Member
6176

Sep 10th 2010, 7:24:25

bah both were on boxcar though -_- hmm... shiiit nvm the first was on eestats :P thanks though ;) Man I woulda been more impressed by the 17k acre grab of before :P

Drow

Member
2024

Sep 10th 2010, 8:25:09

topfeeding per se was eliminated from the game by pang. Best results come from having roughly equal NW's these days, which can only imply this target was horribly underdefended. Simple really... /shrug

Paradigm President of failed speeling

"EE's DILF" - Coalie

Sir Balin

Member
656

Sep 10th 2010, 15:30:21

the country was not horribly underdefended, Evo != LaF

10k+ grab ain't too shabby, 17k would have been seksier

Evo consistently gets their land back (and then some). Go to NA if you're looking for a fat profit margin on land trading.

diez

Member
1340

Sep 10th 2010, 15:37:36

I had ~10m turrets defense at the time of the grab.

It's really hard to keep your land in this server huh.

Oh well, all I have to do is retal, right?

M m i x X

Member
753

Sep 10th 2010, 16:06:17

Originally posted by locket:

... Maybe he will fail the retals? :P

he already did 2 succesful retals :) 1 more to go...

Edited By: M m i x X on Sep 10th 2010, 17:42:12
See Original Post

-=(M m i x X)=-

Slagpit

Administrator
Game Development
5090

Sep 10th 2010, 17:33:55

Originally posted by Drow:

We didn't change the grabbing formula except for ghost acres. Also, on this server it usually implies that the attacker is horribly under-defended.

locket

Member
6176

Sep 10th 2010, 18:58:16

Yah I think the game is too balanced for attackers. 10 million turrets is a big amount of defense. This is comparable to when son goku got suicided when he took something like a 27mill jet PS or somesuch to break.

Sir Balin

Member
656

Sep 10th 2010, 20:14:05

testing

Edited By: Sir Balin on Sep 10th 2010, 20:16:44
See Original Post

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9548

Sep 11th 2010, 0:16:19

Anyone can grab anyone in this game. Even with 20 million turrets you could be grabbed. So the amount of defense is really trivial... Buying turrets is only good to keep small un-taggs and crap clans from grabbing you. Other than that everyone can be broken, and everyone can retal... Which leaves one to wonder: Is it ever worth it to LG other alliances?

Probably not.

Req,
- Premium Patron Member

TAN

Member
3439

Sep 11th 2010, 2:36:44

Well the guy had something like 55k acres or so didn't he? I'd say for that many acres he was horribly under-defended.

FREEEEEDOM!!!

Drow

Member
2024

Sep 11th 2010, 3:10:32

10 mil turrets is no small amount, and definitely nothing to sniff at. the point I was making is the fact that for that amount of acres GRABBED, the target also had FAR more land than the attacker. jets and turrets cost roughly the same to maintain. this is why the implication (through costs for land) that the defender was under defended.

Paradigm President of failed speeling

"EE's DILF" - Coalie

diez

Member
1340

Sep 11th 2010, 3:36:44

LOL @ TAN

over all the pdm countries that evoers have spied (for retal purposes, of course), very few have better turrets:land ratio than #63.

torment

Member
278

Sep 11th 2010, 3:45:21

The real reason #63 got hit so hard and was broken s easily was because its owner was a big nubs. Nothing the country itself could do about that - short of a rebellion I suppose.

In all seriousness the game is too attacker oriented. With 3 OA vs 2 DA, the PS 1.5 multiplier and natural attacker advantages. Perhaps reduce the number of OA to 2? I thought maybe make 3 DA spots - but that would prob overdo it.

Detmer

Member
4289

Sep 11th 2010, 3:48:03

PS and O allies are mutually exclusive in a way though. To get full O ally benefits you can't be PSing. I definitely think reducing O allies would be better than decreasing D allies.

And as I try to advise anyone in defense... a more important factor than d/acre is d/where_you_stand_in_the_grand_scheme_of_things

Being #1 in land is a very tenuous position to be in.

Edited By: Detmer on Sep 11th 2010, 3:55:34
See Original Post

diez

Member
1340

Sep 11th 2010, 3:52:54

Allright, I get it. so anyone #1 in land will get topfed regardless of his defence.

:p

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9548

Sep 11th 2010, 4:03:00

Originally posted by Drow:

You're really missing the point here. It's the fact that his land could never be defended from attack because of the way the game is designed. No amount of turrets that he could realistically have could prevent him from being LGed.

This is theoretical of course. Also Detmer's "d/where_you_stand_in_the_grand_scheme_of_things" is very subjective and really means nothing more than "We could break you therefore you didn't have enough defense" which is absurd i.e. read above.

Req,
- Premium Patron Member

Detmer

Member
4289

Sep 11th 2010, 4:05:47

You didn't understand the point. If you are the top in land you stand out and become a target for everyone and thus need disproportionately more defense. Pretty straightforward...

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9548

Sep 11th 2010, 4:16:24

What you're saying has nothing to do with the fact that the game favors the attacker and he could never defend his land against a top feeder. Saying that he needs more defenses is irrelevant... Whether he had 15, 18, or even 20 million turrets he could have still been top fed and you would set there and say "more defense"...

We get it that the more land you have the bigger of a target you have on your back however the point here is: he could never defend against a top feed with the way the game is built.

Req,
- Premium Patron Member

TAN

Member
3439

Sep 11th 2010, 4:19:04

Req, you and Detmer are making two separate points and you are trying to make it sound like your argument somehow fits in with his.

Detmer's point is: He has so much land that he will always be a "top feed" target.

Your point: No matter how many turrets he gets, he'll never be able to avoid being "top fed".

Both of your points are true. So what are you arguing about?

FREEEEEDOM!!!

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9548

Sep 11th 2010, 4:22:30

Who's arguing?

He said I don't understand, and I clarified... Just because someone doesn't see eye to eye on something doesn't mean they are arguing ;)

Plus I'm bored setting in my hotel room!

Req,
- Premium Patron Member

Detmer

Member
4289

Sep 11th 2010, 4:23:14

I am supporting my point which was under attack from a separate argument (as you pointed out).

I suppose the common link here is since #1 can never defend their land that maybe being #1 in land is not ideal for being #1 in NW at the end, if such is your goal (and if you still get #1 because you still have over 40-50k acres then I suppose whatever hits you suffered weren't so bad)

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9548

Sep 11th 2010, 4:32:57

I agree with that Detmer. Often it is safer to run under the radar and hope someone doesn't ruin your set.

Req,
- Premium Patron Member

Chewi

Member
902

Sep 11th 2010, 4:51:38

Originally posted by torment:

Confirmed the owner is big nubs.