Looking from outside the box, I think we need to analyze the dynamics that drive this game.

I think we need to determine why a clan might allow self farming, and why a clan might exercise its influence by declaring war on someone every reset just for their amusement if nothing else.

Clan size has determined how this and the Alliance Server have evolved. We don't seem to want land caps, and we seem to be split on self farming.

The prevailing attitude in Earth has always been a herd mentality. Safety in numbers. Players don't join clans because they're necessarily good, the join them many times just because they're BIG. Safety in numbers.

You wanna make this game more fun and competitive? Cap the number of countries allowed in any clan like is done on the Team Server.

By doing so, what you will see is netters gravitating to netting clans, and fighters gravitating to fighting clans. Less total countries means more clans, and more clans means more interaction.

Discuss.

It is a game, people should play it how they want and stop trying to force their views on other people.

If you wanna self-farm, great.

If you wanna dec war on people for self-farming every set, even better.

But the idea that we should change the game because of server politics? I think it is a bad idea, and worst of all, won't work. Your suggestion for example: if they cap the countries per tag we will just see TAG turn into TAG1,TAG2, and TAG3 with cross-retalling and the same member base.

The only thing that needs to change with this game is to get more people. And contrary to what the admins seem to believe, I don't think the wiki has anything to do with getting more members.

Also, some people may like big clans, because then you ostensibly get to talk to more people. And isn't this game all about friendships or something?

spoken like a true netter.

war clans declare war every set cause they don't like netting. they play this GAME for their amusement.
see where this is going?

CC > everyone else

/thread

god you're a fluff

and not in the gay way

god you are a little fluff that talks a big talk and then runs away from the fight

and not in the sexy fluff way, in the "you have no balls" way

And some war clans have the guts to declare on alliances that also like warring. And others choose to declare on alliances that don't like warring knowing they'll have the advantage. It's just as cowardly as when big alliances farm little alliances and untaggeds. Pick on someone who is at a disadvantage.

Just as the farming of untaggeds & small alliance hurts the game, so does repeated warring of netting alliances by war alliances.

Netting alliances and warring alliances both can be bullies. Both are often bad for the game. When they start fighting willing and worthy targets, they're not being bullies. There are netting alliances that don't farm untaggeds & small tags, and there are warring alliances who don't try to drive netting alliances off the server. Sadly, that's not everyone. Alliance is worse than FFA not because of land:land, but because of the farming of untaggeds & small alliances is so extreme. FFA's attempts to drive netters off the server is having a bad effect as well, but is not as bad. It's getting awfully close though.

Limiting anything in the "Free For All" server is a bad idea.

"FFA's attempts to drive netters off the server is having a bad effect as well, but is not as bad. It's getting awfully close though. "

Hmm, last set the netters you are referring to (There only being 2 netting clans) accepted tag jumpers into the clan, for the people they were policing for. Then when the clan tried to kill the tag jumpers (who were in a war), said netting clan declared war on the people they policing for, and called in their allies to help kill them. Then this set went into a coalition, which they say never gangbangs, even though they gangbanged last set.

You cannot blame war clans for driving netters off the server, netters do have a responsibility to remain neutral, if they want to be neutral. You can't be completely one thing one set, then decide to be neutral next set.

NETTERS ARE TERRORISTS

swords got gangbanged cause they are assholes, had nothing to do with tagjumpers, policing, bla bla bla...and PAN didn't ask KA to do fluff

I come back to FFA, and there's just two netting clans here, and most of the warring clans have a policy against OTHER alliances using self farming and also have a no land:land policy, yet you expect me to believe that there was no attempt to drive netting clans off the server?

play in tko u will be fine. Lae was the biggest clan for most of EE's FFA and was a netting clan and small netting tags do fine when the war clans have wars to fight.

Yes I do, have no reason to lie. Most netting tags are smaller 1-2 man tags, not grouped together in a clan.

LAE used to be another big netting tag, but they broke up and became a warclan due to their own internal conflict.

ESD, broke up from internal conflict.

SoF, wars or nets.

Dynasty, basically ran 100k acre countries with 2mil jet breaks, which was why NBK limited itself to 5 hits a day on any one tag. Also twice that set gave them a 72 hour DNH to catch up on retals. They didn't play next set, joined various other clans.

TKO - Never had to fight a war, stays neutral, and does well on retals.

Pan - Does get into wars, on the other hand, last set they had over two dozen countries detag and suicide various war clans in conflicts they were not involved it. They FA restarts, declared war on a smaller tag then jumped them with allies. Ive no real problem (Except one set of the 16 suiciders was on NBK), but when you step into drama, hard to shake it off.

If people really wanted to wipe out self farming with war, that would be really really easy to do, just from sheer numbers.

You can't assume that since there aren't many large netting clans, the war clans are at fault.

This has already been argued, but ultimately, if I want to netgain, the way I play doesn't force you to play the game in a way you don't want to play it. If you declare war on me, you force me to play the game the way I don't want to play it. So ultimately for a war clan to declare war on a netgaining clan is very selfish, because it's basically saying, if you're in the warring clan, that other people don't matter, just what you want matters.

I guess if that's how you want to play it, that's fine, but ultimately you're going to drive people away.

And K4F, unless you're going to play server police, it's not really your business what things we did wrong since they didn't affect you. If Swords/IMP wanted to come after us, at least they had reasonable cause to do so considering the conflicts we had. You're just grasping at straws to justify a war.

Although generally back to the topic at hand, I do agree that more smaller clans would be good, but I don't see the current sizes being problematic. When LaE was bigger than any 2 other clans for a short while there, that probably wasn't healthy for the server, and while LaE had some exceptional netting talent, you could see how bad it was for the server with the fact that they (we, considering I was with them for some of that time) dominated the netgaining ranks.

Ultimately, I'm not likely to play next set. I've got a lot happening in my life, and while I won't leave DURING a war, because I don't want to hang my fellow clanmates out to dry leaving my countries inactive, I just don't find it fun to war set after set and as long as the prevailing attitudes among the war clans stay the same, I don't see next set or the set after or even the set after being any different, and it's not worth dedicating the time I currently dedicate to this game if people are just going to dictate to me how I have to play the game.

i think we at imp are offering pacts to both tko and pan next set. i try to get us to every set and i am the imp war min. i dont have that much fun fighting an easy war but them pan guys can fight when they want to.

"it's not really your business what things we did wrong since they didn't affect you"

16 countries under the tag Pan, detagged and suicided NBK during the war with SoF, killing one of our best countries at a time, and hurting others, when SoF was getting the breaker advantage.

That makes it our business.

Then another Pan member detagged and suicided our allies, Swords in their war with KA.

The rest of the Drama that set, admittedly did not involve NBK.

But look at it this way. You gangbang swords, bss, you butchered your policing job. more then 10% of your clan detagged and suicided NBK, BSS, and Swords, one member keeping his main countries tagged PAN, and just suicided with his farms (Main countries were just left alone).

How did you expect this set to end well, basically attacking every single warclan that was not allied to you with the sole exception of IMP.

we offered reps for that but your FA never replied back to us, He said that he need to ask what the owner wants for reps... with those fa packages you could have break SoF´s top guys easily.

We didn't care that much about it, it wasn't why we attacked GD this set.

It is just a bunch of little things that cause drama that makes things not so neutral with the various war clans around.

It definatly is incredibly hard to netgain and thats annoying!

I want to be able to netgain in TKO and its so hard to do!

If your only point is that we caused a lot of unnecessary drama last set, you've got no arguments from me, K4F.

The members that suicided are out of our ranks now, and were members that I'll be honest, I wasn't really happy about their attitudes to begin with. Some of the other things we did last set there was disagreement within our ranks about as well, but ultimately we decided to stick together and circle the wagons. I fully understand that we caused drama, and that's why I repeat over and over that if Swords had come after us or IMP (as their police) had come after us, they would have been plenty justified. Ultimately, my arguments haven't been to try to paint NBK as bad guys (at least they weren't originally intended that way), but rather to point out to you guys something I assumed you hadn't thought about: That it sucks having someone else dictate the way you play the game.

If we continue to cause drama for war clans that is of our own doing, and not just defending against someone who's trying to push us around, then by all means, we've earned a war set, whether it's wanted by us or not, but ultimately, NBK warred us when we caused NO drama whatsoever, when we were NOT part of a coalition, and when we WEREN'T building war countries.

So now, two sets later, when you guys are claiming that if we weren't in a coalition and hadn't caused any drama and didn't have war countries, you'd have left us alone, well, perhaps it's true, but it just feels a little shallow to me. That's my main points in all this.

heh, I do find it somewhat amusing though that Dragon keeps posting ideas on how to make FFA better and every time it devolves into a netter vs. warrior, me vs. K4F argument about the overall politics of the server.

In a way, this is just as entertaining as the war, and hopefully I'm distracting K4F from his countries so he won't wall as well. :P

Well I'm glad that I provide you with amusement as opposed to food for thought, Matt.




*The Jester Juggles*

Yes NBK did war you, and admittedly we had no reason the first time.

And although I keep posting to counter stuff where people seem to take a shot at NBK, Ill ignore that for this post.

The only way to fix this is have netter tags, and fighter tags. Each clan has one of each. Netter tags compete with netter tags, fighter tags compete with fighter tags.
This is not an option unless you are a small clan 1-2 members.

Fighter tags, can landgrab fighter tags, fighter tags can declare war on other fighter tags all they want. If a netter tag gets pissed off at another netter tag, they can get their fighters to kill opposing clan's fighters. Netter tags stay out of fight 100%.

This will increase the amount of tags that can fight, and at the same time, will leave netters alone, if they stay outta drama. That way if you are seriously pissed at someone you only have to kill half the tag, and leave people who just wanted to net alone.

Now total rules governing this would have to be agreed upon, but if purely fighting countries are not involved, the excuse "We are getting hit by countries with low land" for the most part will go away. Self farming may be allowed, but will still probably be frowned upon and not so effective, cause EVERY fighter tag will have a couple netters in their tag, that are untoucheable by war theoretically who will grab the self farmers.

Now this will not work, if a said netting tag has NO fighters to defend itself, then it will be considered both, in TKO's case, it is fine as long as they are hardcore neutral. If not netters will probably suffer.

If some people want to hash something like this, contact me on forums.

Ironically, me and Outlawz0 tried to do exactly that with WARxINC and NETxINC after we left MPE.

Didn't work.

Takes more then a couple people, if it is just one or two clans doing it, it is pretty much divide and conquer.

Doing what MPE did is setting yourself up to fail. This only works if all major clans agree to it, and do it.

PANLV is netting tag, done.

By this rule you would have to have both. Dont need a lot, but a few that are around would be good.

If this is being shot down by Pan right away like it seems, then we can go back to the usual.

i´m not shooting it down, just saying that i doupt we have killers for it(we are mostly just lazy netgainers)... So if you can borrow us few then its cool.

Probably don't need many, and could probably get a few more. But the killers will not necessarily end up in a war. But end result is, someone pissed off at Pan wont be killing netters.

it will also give other big warring clans a better indication of who truly wants to net for any given set, and who is looking to give thier killers some action.
my only question is, if a 100 country WAR tag declares on another 100 ciuntry WAR tag, but the defending WAR tag also has a secondary NET tag with 200 countries in it, is it fair that the war tag brings its net tag into the fight also?

No, the only way itll work is if the Netting tag DOES NOT get involved, unless it is agreed upon before hand.