I have made a list of all the non-commies above 100k acres right now. I then sorted them up by tag and calculated the NW/land of these tags fatties.

Here is the list in decending order:
PScript =$358
SissySoF =$277
LaF =$274
MONSTERS =$234
TheOmega =$223
EVOchem =$222

I removed commies because they run very high NW simply due to the fact that they run much higher NW/land right now and they would skew the stats. Only LaF and PS have commies above 100k acres so including commies would raise those two significantly and do nothing to the rest of the list.

What is the significance of this then?
All countries have approx 80-83 nw/land from buildings, pop and acres. So whats left over is the NW of military and tech(also stock but thats a very small part of the NW for these countries).

A portion of the NW is tech for sure and that cant defend you. Another portion is jets, which can in some cases act as a deterrent and for retalling but is mainly to gain more land. But that is the same for all these countries. It would be fair to assume then that the defences correspond quite well with the NW/land differences on average.

Do also note that the alliances plagued mostly by suicides this set has been LaF, PS and SoF(which is where SissySoF came from), and these are the top 3 alliances by NW/land and therefore, most probably, some of the best defended alliances in this group.

Now many arguements have been laid out before why being defended does not matter for who gets suicided or not, and most of them are good ones. But a certain crowd keeps ignoring it and keep playing the same hand every time these situations occur; 'defend yourself', 'you had x acres and y break', '*incert random ad hominem, often with sexual references*' etc.
But you can't ignore the fact that the most defended tags/countries are the ones who got suicided this set, last set and every reset before that.

Perhaps you only feel this way because you’ve been playing with the same hand for too long?

Ad hominem with sexual reference - nailed it

I don’t understand how anyone who’s spent 5 minutes reading these boards still subscribes to the defense idea.

The counter argument as been made many times.

Your post further proof it’s irrelevant.

Gerdler, everyone hits you because they don't like you. Its not that hard to figure out my friend.

Everyone is a bit exaggerated. We got 5-10 fanboys like you who can't hope to win on equal terms against us. Knowing that you act with cowardice and ruin netting not just for us but for all our competition as well since they dont get their ranks in ernest.

I understand that Im hated. And I understand that the hate comes from feeling inferior to me. That is fine by me, its your own fault. If you speak to me directly and have questions I will help you 99 times of 100. If you attack me/my people tho, I will defend myself, both in game and on the forums. The fact that my/LaFs warring abilities are matched by none makes you feel even more inferior. But we have never under me or as long as I have been in LaF forced anyone to be subjected to our warring abilities. We have always just defended ourselves. I know you want us to stop defending ourselves.

nobody had more defense then me, believe me folks.

i have great and unmatched wisdom, and the most military.

Great folks over there at the nation of Pooper Sex let me tell you, ive met some of them and they said they liked me so we'll see what happens.







on a serious note your math is flawed because i have a fluffload of tech

TLDR: hate us cause they anus?

nobody hates anybody imo..i thought AT was just for hype, banter and fluffposting.

Slow down there Gerdler before you have a heart attack, I never said I hated you. We may of not seen eye to eye in the past but you do think LAF couldn't have gotten this good at warring without Elders help? We showed you guys the light.

Did Gerdler just put on his celphi hat?

Were we all just assimilated?

Is such a thing even possible?

https://i.imgur.com/Dihwr2h.gif

Is having meglomania a pre-requistie to posting on these forums?

Are you serious?

We wouldn't have become good at fighting without practice that is true, but it hardly matters who we fight. Elders didn't do anything but force us to fight. Had we rolled over, like is a common practice of other tags LaF wouldnt have existed today. You know and I know that you would have kept hitting until we were out of the game if we didnt become stronger than you. First times we faught it was 1vs1(and LaF won) but in the end it took 4 tags(or 5?) breaking pacts and a blindside to beat us.

I also think that if we had an active leadership then we would have fared much better, which we kinda have now.

That said you always had better activity than LaF, and we always had better strategy, country building etc. LaF still has not learned to wall, as has been shown with our recent wars too. :)

im in symbolics boat.. gerdler said i hated him too.. i never said it.. even asked him to prove where i said i did

Do indys get hit less?

What's the deal with people like this?
https://www.eestats.com/...iance/oldcountry/1878/274

Yall have a lot of em... homies with 100k land and like 20-30 mill net?

We didn't blind side you with 5 tags lol we are not IX. We made that fake war with Evil.

i lub u Symbolic

Gerdler: you think 100k land is normal?
You don't think the fact there are countries with 100k land regularly is an indication that something might be wrong with the game?
I mean seriously, this is a game where once 20k acres was considered insanely high.

Just think about that for awhile.

yup i had a 20kish techer back in the day and got top10 with it

It was also a game where once there were 20+ tags each set with over 100 members, a game that used to be dominated by a small group of players running huge amounts of bots that dictated server politics, a game where tags used to launch 10k hits each during the first hour of a war.

Things change. At least Pang/QZ are occasionally stirring the pot and trying new ideas. The current server numbers cannot support bottom feeding and the community rejected land trading. 100K is an arbitrary number that is neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. It just . . . is.

Probably forgot to jump

Archaic answered it for you:

If we had fewer turns on this server we would go for fewer acres. With 2k turns instead of 4500 we would stop before 100k acres I guess. I'm not against lowering the number of turns a bit.

We had fewer bots just a few sets ago, grabbing was horrible and we would all be tyrannies(thus less strat flexibility) to get over the fact that we were getting 80-200 acres per grab. We would make more hits and spend more time grabbing and the player numbers were significantly lower then too because it was stale. Every serious netter still got past 100k acres back then if they were not teching.

bonus

winning? wining what?

That's a really, really bad argument if that is the crux of it. A better argument would be to look at the defense of those alliances before any suicides happened, and in particular, the relative defense of the countries that were suicided, if you think the main suicider argument is that land is undefended.

That would shift the burden of proof to where it should be; those who claim only underdefended countries get suicided.

The problem is this exercise as it is set up proves absolutely nothing at all.

For example:
Alliance A gets suicided for being landfat -> loses land so they are less fat, buys more defense so they stop getting suicided, etc -> Alliance A is now higher defense alliance that might have been lower defense when not suicided.
If you believe that this is an accurate measurement, then I have some snake oil to sell you.


I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong, I have no idea, but with what has been presented, then it follows that...



... this statement is not true. I can very well ignore that fact because no argument has been presented that suggests otherwise, at least not in this thread.

yes, it's an arbitrary number, but an arbitrary number with some legitimate context and background. It's not merely that "Things change", but that the goalposts have been continually moved, and there's this whole attitude of "it's my right to have this much land".
Further, to get that much land requires significant and aggressive hitting. So maybe we need to cut the bots back, and watch average land plummet...

Please don't call me fat. I prefer thicc.

As I said this was the way the game was 1.5 years ago and it was worse than today. It is not a viable solution to turn back the clock to 100 bots.

Reducing the turns might be. I dont know how wars would be affected if the turn rate was halved but it would reduce the arbitrary acreages that you complain about from 100-400k acres down to 50-120k acres. This would create a lot of interesting changes in how people approach the game. NWs and acreages will be lower across the board but everything else will change too, and I think it would be fun. Im sure warmongers would think it terrible, tho.

I don't understand to what end that would be - other than making netting a lot less time consuming. I'd love it if that happened because then all-X might be viable again and I might bother playing more. As it is, getting enough land from bots to be a viable netter is pretty laborious.

You have to understand that what you used to think of as grabbing is gone, 100% done gone over forever. Landgrabbing players in established alliances has become an act of aggression that almost always results in bloodshed, war, or being suicided. Not to mention its not at all profitable. You will always badly lose on the retal and essentially BOTH countries lose ground.

You are looking at 100k acres through the lens of nostalgia for Earth 2025. EE as it exists today is like an old west movie where everybody is walking around with a fluffed shotgun and if somebody so much as spits in the dust, everybody in the bar kills everybody else. Pang has graciously stocked the bar with endless bottles of free booze so that QZ does not have to mop up blood every day. Now we all just slowly waste away from diabetes and liver failure and reminisce about a time when Rage alone had more members than the entire server does now.

Drink up.

archaic one drunk old fart to another, I'll pay that.
but you have just highlighted a lot of the issues with the current state of the server that the gerdlers and the like don't get.

I totally get that this game would be better with 10k players than 300 players. But you cant just reverse the changes that have been made and they all come back.

The game was changed in some ways for the better and the bots are just a necessity with so few players and so many turns. If you want no bots you get landtrading, I didnt play then but from what I hear its a great exercise in math and spreadsheeting and much to no ones surprise that is what LaF excels at, and much to no ones surprise the community disliked landtrading. So bots were introduced.

If no landtrading and no bots you get farming of untagged and small tags til they leave, we had that for 10+ years in e2025 and its when most players quit. It was really hard to start a new tag and not get farmed to oblivion and that is the good old days you seek to return to, the time when everyone left the game because the game forced players to farm others to get ahead.

Well, to be fair - Vic and H4x0r and Ronnie ran a lot more people off with their cheating and hacking than bottom feeding.

Eh. I'm projecting a 70 mil finish for myself this set, or thereabouts, off a 5 minute a day all x techer. If that's not evidence that there is something wrong with the game, I don't know what is.
I mean, I am literally someone who has never been a good netgainer, playing halfassedly, on an all x strat, from memory, 1 set back from being retired for several years, and finishing significantly (about 30 mil at a guess) higher than I have EVER finished before. It should not be that easy. period.

Everything is relative, if you lower bots you reduce land and yes people will have less however the people who still play more efficiently will still do better. The average land doesn’t matter as competition is still about who makes better decisions consistently through the whole set (and doesn’t mess up the jump or end the set with 2 billion oil and no money).

I played during land trading and it felt really cheap and boring. Not to mention you have to coordinate way too much and get online at the same time etc etc. Such a pain in the ass. Bot farming is way more fun and it is more like the old e2025 days of “bottom feeding” — everyone did it even Paradigm.

Instead of be so nostalgic about the “good ol’ days” why don’t you just enjoy these days because they are probably more fun you just don’t remember.

I have to disagree with the e2025 reference of players quitting due to small tags being farmed. We had 10k+ countries, with lots of multis/bots, but those bots were not risk free in hitting, same with the multi's. It added risk to your LG'ing. Small alliances back in the day were never ran off the game from farming. They'd stand up and fight against it, politically allign themselves so that they could survive. There were many things that happened, and while a poorly ran small alliance may have died, the players didn't leave the game, they went to another alliance.

Bot farming is no where near bottom feeding of the old e2025 days. YOu can't even compare it. Show me a bot that has gotten bottomfed, and retaliated, attempted to retal, topfeed to get the bottom feeds to stop. There is none becasue there is ZERO risk in lg'ing a bot, where there were many risks in bottom feeding. Comparing the 2 is one of the worst comparisons you can make.

The reason most players quit, was because a large portion of the playerbase was in the 14-22 age. As that player base grew up, this game became either boring, or less important. Players graduated college, started thier new job, and new lives. Thus by about 2010, that age group turned to the 24-35 age, and this isn't a game that attracted new players, as there is no flash, graphics, or instant gratitfiacation one gets with this game.

Leaders also burned out back in those days, because we had to do something called LEAD. There were actual politics played. You were managing 50-200 people, over ICQ, IRC, or message boards. There was a lot more to do and worry about back in those days, and being an FA or alliance leader you had tons of political implications to issues.

But bottomfeeding was probally the least reason of reasons people quit back then. We did this thing called adapt.

Remove the bots completely and let people play the game...

It’ll show real skill and show everyone’s true attitudes towards the game.

Come play Primary and let's see how you do, you basically have that and no alliances.

Removing the bots doesn't incite solo play. It incites people to actually change their gamestyle for the better IMO.

Adding the bots has removed pvp interaction of ANY kind. Alliance has become a tag solo server. Tags play by themselves unless they are warring.

I think removing bots would be bad for the game in general. Smaller tags would get picked on by big tags looking for resources. Before you say that they can retal a small tag wouldn't be able to keep up with retals and its a losing proposition overall.

This would force the small tag to go extinct or merge with other tags thus making the game a 3-4 tag game. Is this really better?

A better suggestion would be to reduce the # of bots not eliminate them.

If that's the case, why is team such a fluff show?

Or small tags would just make alliances with war tags and those bigger tags wouldn't do a thing. I'm not sure why there's a push for less bots though. More bots is fine if anything. It's already a solo game and reducing bots won't spike interest in the game at all.

Bots are not the problem. It's broken bots that are.

Make them smarter and fight back. :D

They're too predictable right now.

Make bots great again!

^ Yes +1

What celphi said and sin I mentioned that because I don’t particularly like seeing 300k acre 1b nw countries. If you add even more bots that just makes it worse and DR is less significant which takes more strategy out of the game as every country would basically be a good grab. Shrugs

True that, we need to find a solid balance.

This i agree with 100% and have mentioned this before. At the moment its just free land. Like req was saying 300K+ countries with 1b nw isn't a good look either.

Bots who retal, bots who can spy op.

I have ALWAYS said what would be the ulimate would be an actual bot run GDI.

Who retal, grab and war... It would take a mountain of logic and coding hours I understand that, but it would be fun.

Here is the state of the game right now to counter what this quote said. Instead of there being rd bots or hand run multies, 20+ tags over 100 members, etc... we have a game where of a couple players exist that play within the rules that want to keep the insanity of other players mindsets that having 100k acre countries by grabbing mindless bots that dont retal by hitting them. The thing is, this game is like minecraft in a way. there are many different ways to play, no real goals other than the self goals set by all players.

player 1 has netting goal to get highest NW
player 2 has goal of grabbing easy fat land

player 1 has to make sure he doesnt look as delicious has player 3 does with the same game goal of netting and keeping 100k acres.

if player 2 succeeds many times in many resets, then the ultimate real reason is the game does not support or is balanced to have 100k acred countries. so this means really that player 1, and player 3 need to adjust there strats.

In summary... netting is really a game of how fat can i get away with being to get the highest NW possible. If you keep gambling to get 100k acres, and you keep losing, then that is the definition of insanity.

Ok, ask pang to scale all the nw modifiers down by 5. We know exactly what the result will be, and it's literally the easiest change that could be done in this game. No more billion nw countries, done. Making the game harder for people with a lack of time when you literally have half the people in this game crying about getting grabbed once or twice by "suiciders" doesn't seem like a good result.

I want you to consider this game in perspective for a second. Imagine some young game developer went to pitch a game to his boss and said "I have a great idea, let's make a wildly time consuming game, where we hand out a turn every 20 minutes , thus making it also slow... and let's make it a text based game." It's literally the worst combination possible. The reason people quit this game and it can't attract players, despite cries to the contrary that claim it's suiciders, is because it doesn't have anything that young people like in games. The solution isn't to make it even more time consuming. If anything, the game devs should be thinking about making it faster and less time consuming. The only server that seems to have any success drawing people back to this game is express because it at least alleviates one of those concerns.