Really, it was taken out of the game by the new coding. I'm sick of people justifying their silly land policies on the basis that they are trying to stop a practice that doesn't exist.

If you are small and hit a bigger opponent, your land gains are drastically reduced. It should be a very hard break if the bigger target bothered to buy some defense.

If you are big and hit a small target you get drastically less acres.

If you are roughly equal (15-20% either side) in networth this is a 'good' grab (as defined by the coding) and it is not a topfeed.

If you get 'topfed' and lost a lot of acres, the only real result was that (a) you were on too many acres for your networth level (hint: buy $2-3m more worth of defense) or (b) a smaller country somehow broke you because you had no defense. Lets face it, one of the reasons the land:land advocates keep no defense is so they can farm untaggeds and smaller countries all set.

The race to see how many acres you can get on no defense by farming untaggeds/exploring (then crying like a girl when someone actually does a good grab on you) is a crap way to play the game!! :)

Agreed. Although i still think there should be a slight advantage in gain if you are small and break a much larger opponent. If you can't get your land back by a 1:1 retal then you had too much to begin with, and or lack of defence, so again still too much land.

You whine and cry more than the people that do what you are whining about.

fazer - agreed, but the land:land advocates think land once gained (or grabbed) is theirs to keep all reset.

Obviously, you need to have a lot of land to get a lot of networth. To get a lot of land you need to farm lower ranked countries. To farm lower ranked countries you need to have low networth. Low networth = low military.

So, to get land you are risking having no defense, then when you get grabbed you complain? lol. Makes sense! Land without risk is how the game should be played!

tosspot - because you don't agree does not automatically make it a whiners thread. Did you go to the Helmet school of SORE LOSERS/WHINERS/BABIES retort teaching?

KillKillKill :)

dipfluff - I never said I didn't agree with what was posted, just the fact that all you do is whine and cry about the fluff that the other people whine and cry about.

/me golfclaps for dagga's superiour posting skills on whining and crying.

@Dagga

No.

"or (b) a smaller country somehow broke you because you had no defense."

Perhaps the larger country has adequate defense, but the attacking country is an all-Jetter. That scenario never struck you as a possibility?

"Lets face it, one of the reasons the land:land advocates keep no defense is so they can farm untaggeds and smaller countries all set."

Yeah, that may be a reason. But it's not the only one. Some countries don't farm and still get fluffed over. Just because LaF/Evo (and some others) are notorious for farming, doesn't mean everybody is.

lol

Great post. Surely you have persuaded everyone to change their polices with your awesome use of examples and logic.

+1

and this:

Your argument for defence needing to be higher is obsolete since about late 1998 when Mehul increased the military costs to unsubstainable levels on high networths.

Prior to that you could quite happily netgain with 200m networth or more. Now you would lose 100m cash per turn.

As such you can never truely have enough defence to block topfeeds until you jump end game as they can always get more offense.

Combine that with 3 allies instead of two and 150% bonus on PSs.

Only folks saying there aren't topfeeds are those that don't like to or don't know how to net.

Laf/Evo keep more D on hand then the other netting clans from what i have seen.

Also... Dagga... I think you should try to make a country that no one can break sometime. Go get some land and at any point in the server post your number and if ANYONE breaks you then you can admit to everyone that there is no such thing as enough defense. Hell you should know that right? You love taking your 10k acres and breaking people who have 20mill jet PS breaks because you like to mess with other people and the way they want to play.


Not having more than 10-15k acres all set and TOPFEEDING the best netting countries who can't possibly defend everything and net is a lame way to play the game!

If they have to buy up offense to hit you, wont they end up bigger in networth and there for not a so called 'topfeed'

200 turrets per Acre

add tech and everything to the mix not so much.

Basically...

If you pick a target that's withing 75% -> 125% land of you give or take, you gain land, they gain land.. everyone wins.

If you hit someone with 150%, 200%,300% you are trying to take advantage of them and come out the only winner.

Therefor any alliance worth their salt would say hell no :)

Not if you have a decent amount of networth from buildings and technology, and still have a lot of defensive military.

When someone can buy 64 million jets on 18k acres and make a grab, its ridiculous to say that topfeeding doesn't exist. It just makes you look like a total idiot.

With the ability to stockpile and then destock on jets just to make a grab, topfeeding is impossible to defend against.

+1

what rockman said happened to me in FFA, a guy stock to the 6 weeks mark of the reset, destocked as an all jetter and grabbed my 700K land country for a total of 180k land and i had 30 mil turrets as a dict and 2 equally defended allies

exactly. I'd like to add, that everyone who mouths off in a big way here propably never had it happen to them yet.

I'd like to see you build a 30k(that's still pretty reasonable) or more acre country and have it hit by a 10k country, dagga. And not during the last week of the set either, but rather halfway through or so.

I'm not a big fan of L:L retal policies, because it takes at least some skill out of the usual retaling. But if there is no way to regain your land, no matter how much you tweak your country, then you embrace it. And we were already over the case that almost any country can be broken any time of a set.

at higher land ranges that's not enough. If you are in the top 10 of land and have 6 mil turrets for 30k land, prepare to get grabbed.

I had 30 mil turrets as a dictator with 142% weapons tech in primary and still got grabbed. And I had someone in FFA destock and get 64 million jets on 18k acres so that they could grab my 70k acre country.



I've been topfed a few times while running over 1000 turrets per acre (modified, not raw - because I usually play dictator). Defense cannot keep away topfeeders.

Actually for this reason I view topfeeds as worse than missiles even as losses are greater and are still done for much the same reason, to inflict damage on the country it's done against as there's not much else purpose for it as the country topfeeding is never a netgainer, just trying to hurt the country they hit

cant believe I agree with Mr silver on something

"Only folks saying there aren't topfeeds are those that don't like to or don't know how to net."

Topfeed is an ambiguous term - that much should be obvious.

It can be defined as grabbing a country with more land than you, more networth than you, and the percentage difference between both countries can all vary, dependant upon who you talk to and when you talk to them.

Defining this very narrowly, then stating that the term no longer exists is erroneous. Read a book, learn how to say what you want and then say it Dagga. This was certainly one of your stupider posts.

whilst to a degree there is still some topfeeding in the game, people here are citing examples of some genuinely massive defences being broken, these examples and what people generally complain about as a topfeed are quite different. Whilst I would be willing to probably give land: land for some of the cases here, such as Rockman's 30 mil turrets (dependent on land of course), I would be less willing to pay out for someone who had the same number of acres but say just 1 or 2 million turrets, which is where the majority of 'topfeeds' occur.
I think there needs to be a little give and take in regard to this, and that different standards need to apply where the defender is under a reasonable defence, and where the target is at or over, a reasonable defence, and where the hits is a blatant grief hit.

what dagga really want to emphasize is that if they topfeed you, they don't care about your tag's retal policy, you follow theirs. nothing more.

The basic premise of this whole debate is idiotic.

If there is such a thing as "retal policy" in the first place, it's up to people and alliance to set it. There is nothing inherently "right or wrong" in retaliating in a specific way.

If you attack someone in anyway, it's up to them to respond in a way they find appropriate. Then you can respond to that response in a way you find appropriate etc.

Everything else is just political bullfluff. And to join that, I'll give you an example about why "topfeeding" is retarded.

If you punch me in the head and I get a broken nose and a concussion, you can't expect me to just want to slap you back. I will want to smash your face too, regardless if I wore a helmet preemptively or not... ;)

ANYONE WHO RECEIVES ILL GOTTEN LAND FROM BOTTOM FEEDING IS A CHEATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!