I'm saying I don't see or perceive the "loaded connotations" the way you do. This is why a perfectly normal phrase to one person could be offensive to another person.

Land is land no matter what you call it.

Thanks Xinhuan, its a good point. One listener may perceive a phrase as inoffensive where another takes offense. But my point is that one speaker may use a phrase meaning offense where another means none. Your use of the phrase topfeeder is emotively neutral. blid's is offensive. And by offensive I simply mean that it is meant to convey a negative judgement, not that I take personal offense, so don't take offense when I call you offensive blid, I mean the word simply in a neutral non emotive way :)

Lol. This thread is far too full of politically correct nonsense. :-P

Stop it, I now wanna puke. And by puke I mean hugs and kisses for all... Please don't mis-understand me. Sorry, I hate you, I love you, you suck, you're the best. :-)

I agree! *barfs*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpfM5Hn9Rto

An earthquake occurred destroying 638 buildings!

are our countries connected?

At least I am not experiencing more aftershocks.

They might be on the San Andreas fault lol

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU OUT BILL DANGER!

MY POWERS EXTEND FAR BEYOND TOPFEEDS!
BOAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA

As of now, there are lots of news feeds in #43. I'm sure lots of them MET his CRITERIA.

What #43 will do will be interesting.

He'll probably do nothing because he was unable in this thread to defend what he did. I believe before the usual and obvious "everyone plays their own way" talk flooded in here, I was still waiting for a response as to whether Bill would war someone for attacking back more than once, if that's what it took to recover the land lost, and if so, why he would consider that grounds for war. That goes for anyone topfeeding.

KA MAC, I'M CURIOUS WHY YOU CARE.

BLID, YOU SEEM TO BE CONFUSING PRIMARY AND ALLIANCE. I AM UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH A RETAL POLICY, A GRABBING POLICY, ETC. I ANSWERED YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION ALREADY AT http://www.earthempires.com/...-2359-talk-30315/6#557176
(RECURSIVE THREAD IS RECURSIVE IS RECURSIVE!) I DON'T NEED TO "DEFEND" "WHAT I DID" BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY "WRONG" ABOUT TAKING LAND FROM SOMEONE WITH VASTLY MORE LAND WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DEFEND IT. I ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT TOO. I THINK YOU'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP REPEATING YOURSELF HOPING TO HEAR A DIFFERENT ANSWER FROM ME, AND I CAN TELL YOU YOU'RE GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED.

TELL ME, BLID, ARE YOU SO OPPOSED TO "BOTTOMFEEDING" AS WELL? IT'S THE SAME THING ONCE THE TOP HAVE SEPARATED FROM THE HERD: HITTING SOMEONE KNOWING THAT THEY WILL NOT GET THEIR LAND BACK. ACTUALLY I TAKE THAT BACK, IT"S NOT THE SAME. IN THE CASE OF A "TOPFEED" THE VICTIM DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE IT BACK. THAT ABILITY COMES ATTACHED TO A HEFTY RISK. WITH THE WAY GDI IS SET UP, THE "BOTTOMFEED" VICTIM HAS *NO* RECOURSE (SPY OPS LAWL). HAVE I MIS-ASSUMED THAT YOU ARE NOT SO OPPOSED TO "BOTTOMFEEDING" AS YOU SEEM TO BE VEHEMENTLY AGAINST "TOPFEEDING?" IF NOT, THEN I FIND YOUR POSITION VERY HYPOCRITICAL, UNLESS YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE ONE THING I HAVE STATED IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT FACT.

NOW SEE LOOK WHAT YOU DID THERE, I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO "DEFEND" MYSELF AND THEN I WENT AND DID IT. YOU STOP PUSHING MY BUTTONS OR IT'S STRAIGHT TO BED WITH NO SUPPER FOR YOU!!!

IN CLOSING,
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/...ly-wonka-good-day-sir.png


HA!
BILL

Why do you think, lol

I'm not asking for you to publish a retal policy, I'm asking what the logical explanation might be for warring someone who hits back more than once if that's what it takes to recover their land.

People being bottomfed DO have the ability to get their land back and then some, I mean just look at your d-ally for evidence of that:
2014-04-13 15:57:39 PS THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) bAnAnA (#208) 2179A (3409A)
2014-04-12 02:27:29 PS bAnAnA (#208) THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) 1921A (2738A)
2014-04-11 16:41:22 PS THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) Break It Down Again (#76) 1939A (2950A)
2014-04-09 17:50:40 PS THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) The Black Pearl (#109) 2053A (3218A)
2014-04-08 19:44:57 PS THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) Imaginary (#99) 2142A (3356A)
2014-04-08 12:58:10 PS Imaginary (#99) THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) 334A (711A)
2014-04-07 19:51:45 PS Break It Down Again (#76) THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) 375A (723A)
2014-03-31 09:08:52 PS The Black Pearl (#109) THROW A BLANKET OVER IT (#134) 374A (684A)

Gained 10,000 land in those exchanges. Of course he simply didn't play well enough to avoid further hits, but he has promised more retals to come.

However, are some people simply bad enough that they're unable to muster up a retal? Sure, but those people simply need to learn how to play better. The game is a competition and people not as good at the game should be attacked. Complaining about bottomfeeding is like complaining about the Miami Heat scoring too many baskets against the 76ers.

"Defend your land" ... I already mentioned being hit by a 3m jet 45k turret country in Express - am I asked to defend my land against that? I already mentioned how MacXGee invested far more heavily in land and growth and having a better country than you, which is why short-term you were able to steal some land from him. To literally "defend your land" from any and all comers you would have to run an absurd number of turrets, and you'd probably wash out pretty quickly from the costs of doing so. I'm not saying a guy should be allowed to run a 50k acre country with 5m turrets and not be hit, I'm just saying the simple fact that someone is able to break a person doesn't mean the attacked player by definition was not defending their land properly. I could attack any player on the server, every reset, if I so chose. Does that mean NO ONE is defending their land?

I'm NOT saying it's 'wrong' to hit someone bigger than you, or trying to tell you what you can or cannot do, just saying the old a) it only works for a profit if you're already well behind, and b) even then, it only works if you're willing to throw your country into war over someone taking back the land you took from them (or if your victim believes you are), which again, I don't see how that can be logically justified except by shouting THUG LIFE! and being the next Gogy or w/e. I don't think you're making any good points.

Blid I think this is the big disconnect between you and a lot of people on here. People not as good at the game should be attacked, but it doesn't mean people on top shouldn't be.

Isn't complaining about topfeeding like complaining about the 76ers shooting only 3 pointers and doing hard intentional fouls to try to get back into the game? High risk high reward when you're already down.. Should a team eliminated from the playoffs just roll over and let the top seed beat them to clinch the conference title?

The analogy is bad. Really bad.

1. You're talking about a spectator sport. A sport with a high number of viewers, generates revenue, and players receives sponsorships from various companies. Even if you want to roll over and let the top seed win, you can't, because you are obligated to give your fans and viewers who paid for tickets a good show. If you don't, sponsorships might cease, and a player's livelihood might disappear.

In contrast, EE is not a spectator sport, someone can't watch from the sidelines and comment on how every single turn is spent wisely or unwisely. Not only that, nobody makes any money out of playing EE, let alone make a living solely from playing EE.

People roll over all the time. Try taking part in any online (or offline) Swiss tournament in any game, lots of people pull out midway when they realize they cannot finish in the top 4 or top 8. It happens with any non-spectator sport. Nobody wants to waste their own time. There is no spectators, there is no sponsoring company or contract to satisfy, and there are no prizes outside of the top few. Might as well go home and practice more or do something else.

But to deliberately sabotage someone else because you cannot finish well (by topfeeding), that's bad sportsmanship. I'm not saying all topfeeding is deliberate sabotage - some are, some are not, but it can be bad sportsmanship when it is deliberate. Some players have this "If can't do it, I will ensure nobody else can either" attitude.


2. In those sports, it is possible for an underdog that is behind to clinch several wins in a row and make a comeback. In EE, if you are behind, lets say you are 20k land right now, and there are 46 countries bigger than you (> 20k land), there is no way you can still finish t5 or t10. None. No matter how you topfeed, there is no reasonable chance you can make a comeback and win the server by topfeeding.

As explained before, topfeeding is a way to get ahead when you are severely behind. But it only gets you so far. Maybe to top 20 at best, you have to bottomfeed from that point onwards. From a netting standpoint, it is not ideal nor a good move to ever topfeed if a player's goal is to finish as high as possible, even from a "severely behind" position. (Retals are fine.)

If you are behind, you bottomfeed even harder to get ahead. You'll get better results every time from bottomfeeding from a mathematical standpoint, because eating retals (from topfeeding) is _extremely_ costly. Look at Phreaker2014 (#150) as an example. He was only on 20k land on March 30 (being behind, since bushel prices are bad in the first month), while the commies were maybe on 25-26k land at that time, and a techer was on 27k land. How do you get ahead? You bottomfeed harder, not attack people with more land. Obviously the excellent bushels price since have helped tremendously, and this is somewhat of an extreme example.

Sure, like I said, go for it, but ... just going whole-hog with the basketball analogy, I know it's ridiculous, still, say the Sixers come out shooting and hit two three pointers... and then the Heat come back and dunk 3 times. 6 points = 6 points, Heat dunked 3 times and drew back even on the scoreboard.

Would this Sixers have reason to start brawling with the Heat for that? Should they injure LeBron James? One of the two arguments I keep hitting here is that I don't see why would someone take exception to the big guy taking back the land they lost except, like I said, going full Gogy

Because, the difference is, in the bball scenario, if the 6ers then shoot more 3's, the heat would then start a brawl. Maybe this is just a bad analogy. Let's do a hockey one.

Dude on team 1 tries to lay out a guy on team 2 w/ his head down and doesn't get him flush on, clearly with the intent to put him into next week. Team 2 doesn't like it and later in the game someone takes a run at one of their guys with a clean hit. If team 1 then retaliates and sends someone to level a guy on team 2, if I'm team 2 I absolutely put out my enforcers against their top line and start a brawl.

By the way this is in reference to the DH and then later retal.

In your next analogy, playing like this is bad sportsmanship. In fact, if a real brawl did start out, all players involved would likely get barred/banned for a few games, or even for life at tournaments. This is your equivalent of a "red card" in soccer. It is bad sportsmanship even more so because a fight is not within the ruleset of the game. At least topfeeds are still within the boundaries of the game.

Errr a line brawl doesn't equal ban and isn't considered bad sportsmanship in hockey given the circumstances. Also it's within the rules of the game and is only a 5 minute major and maybe a few game misconducts or 10 minute misconducts handed out, but that's mostly to keep the peace.

Oh I thought you meant a real brawl.

I'm not really talking about the DH retal though, I'm talking about topfeeding in general, unprovoked topfeeds, and saying that if the victim of the topfeed hits back more than once to get their land back, that shouldn't be cause for war - because why should it? Unless, as I said, you're just a type of player who goes out looking for fights.

But, if it's not cause for war, and the victim hits back twice or w/e it takes to get back even, then topfeeding becomes pretty ineffective. The topfeeder will still gain acres probably, based on ghosts, but it will at that point have been much better to have simply attack a smaller player like most people do. Therefore, the efficiency of topfeeding relies first on being behind to begin with, but second on the threat of total warfare for someone doing something that I see as quite innocent (attacking back enough times to recover their land). In conclusion, topfeeders are TERRORISTS!

haha its like a game of chicken. But if it's a straight topfeed, yeah I agree I don't like it when it happens to me (I got bibigon'ed this set ugh) but it's within the rules so I won't complain about it being wrong. I didn't end up retalling it because of they way he's built and what I am trying to accomplish, so it was a good hit for him. It's a risk he took and got away with on me.

BiBi is annoying because he'll sometimes hit and then ramp his defense up to be like twice every other player's d, really hard to break, and you just know you're going to surpass him eventually, but that by that point 72 hours will have passed and he'll go ahead and ROR and war you because he just doesn't care. Some sets I get hit by both him and gogy, lol. I don't argue with those guys because it's established they just don't care, that's just how they like to do it rofl.

haha I send ally pacts to both of them early on now hoping they'll accept.

All I have to say is, you grab, expect a retal, simple.

This thread has gone retarded. You guys are relating this game to basketball playoffs and hockey fights. Lmao

Here's one just for fun:

Should a short stack getting blinded out on the poker table play like he has the chip advantage, or fold weak hands and choose his moments to double up on the odd hand here and there? Lol

Stupid I know. But so are your examples. Lol

Everyone plays how they want. They aren't breaking the rules. Don't cry. Play how you want.

Play how you want, but certain ways of playing makes you a fluff.

Sure. But look at life in general.. To one neighbor the next door guy is a fluff for cutting down his tree, to him the next guy is a fluff for letting his dog out and crapping on other people's yards, the next guy is a fluff for cheating on his wife, the next guys a jerk for boozing too much, the junkie around the corner is a drain on society, the cop is a jerk for harassing the skid rat junkies...he should have more compassion.

Everyone lives their lives how they feel best, and everyone goes down paths that others don't agree with. The game is no different. Nobody will agree with someone else's rules or guidelines that don't benefit themselves.

The guy cheating on his wife is definitely a fluff

AT LEAST WE CAN AGREE ON THAT! :-)

NOW AS FOR THE REST..
I SEE THIS AS A COMPETITIVE GAME. I DISAGREE WITH THE IMPLIED NOTION THAT UNLESS I HAVE A SHOT AT TOP SPOT I SHOULD JUST ROLL OVER AND DIE. I AM ALWAYS GOING TO TRY FOR THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE FINISH AND I SEE NO MORAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN DRAGGING SOMEONE ELSE DOWN TO RAISE MYSELF UP VS STOMPING SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY DOWN TO RAISE MYSELF UP.. OR IF ANYTHING THE MORAL DISTINCTION I DRAW IS THE OPPOSITE OF YOURS.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO PUT THE ONUS ON ME OF THE "WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GO TO WAR" DECISION. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SERVER IS CONFIGURED TO MAKE 1:1 GRABS THE NORM. I FIND THE NOTION THAT I SHOULD ONLY INITIATE A GRAB IF I CAN SAFELY GUARANTEE MY TARGET THAT HE WILL GET HIS LAND BACK ABSURD. IF HE BREAKS GDI THAT IS HIS DECISION, NOT MINE.

YOUR EXPRESS EXAMPLE IS IRRELEVANT TO ME. I AM FAR FROM AN ALL-JETTER. IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK EXTREMES, BY YOUR YARDSTICK OF A GOOD COUNTRY THE ABSOLUTE BEST POSSIBLE COUNTRY HAS ZERO MILITARY UNTIL DESTOCK.. SO YOU ALL SUCK AND DON'T DESERVE TO KEEP YOUR LAND. I'LL BE ALONG SHORTLY TO REMEDY THAT! HA!

SIMILARLY, WHY IS IT THAT IF MY D ALLY WAS UNABLE TO HOLD THE LAND HE TOOK BACK ON RETALS YOU JUDGE THAT HIS COUNTRY WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH.. BUT IF MY TARGET IS UNABLE TO HOLD THE LAND THEY TOOK THROUGH GRABS, THEIR COUNTRIES ARE BETTER AND I AM A fluff?

UNLESS YOU PLAY ALL-X I AM SORRY YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON HERE. YOUR LAND IS ALL GAINED THROUGH A NET LOSS FOR SOMEONE ELSE AND IS AT RISK OF BEING TAKEN UNTIL THE END OF THE RESET. GANDER, MEET GOOSE.

HONK!
BILL

AND TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR SINCE I DID MENTION END OF RESET, I WOULD CONSIDER MY HIT A fluff MOVE ON THE LAST DAYS.. AS IS NOW I STAND TO GAIN BY MY HIT, AND HENCE I JUDGE IT TO BE A GOOD PLAY AND NOT A fluff MOVE. QED.

"EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SERVER IS CONFIGURED TO MAKE 1:1 GRABS THE NORM."

no, ONE thing - gdi - is configured to protect people from hostile ops unless they double tap. it is configured that way to protect people from suiciders.

now, that does mean if your topfeed victim hits back more than once, he is breaking GDI, but is breaking GDI itself a cause for war? if i do one bomb banks on you, i just broke GDI. is that a cause for war? do you feel obligated/entitled to war, just because you CAN?

let's look at context here. in your exchange with macxgee, you 1) initiated hostilities, not him... you forced this on him, he didn't come look for it, and 2) you are at this point 10,000,000 networth smaller, an ant stealing from a bear, to the tune of him being out 1800 acres. him coming back to collect some more land from you strikes me as perfectly "fair," from every angle i can see it from. if he did that, and you went to war for it, i would consider you a fluff. that's right: a fluff.

Obligated, no, entitled.....fluff YA! RAWR!!!!!!

BILL don't worry, you've done nothing wrong. Don't let blid make you feel guilty for playing within the rules as he has many others. He just wants a place to net w/o fear of being hit while being able to hit those who can never touch him. A TF is a high risk move but if you get away with it you're rewarded. Eff what other ppl think. They have a problem they can war you over it.

im arguing that someone who's been topfed shouldnt be warred for hitting back more than once if the first hit still has them down acres. it's a totally fair thing to argue about and all the righteous "people can do what they want" bullfluff is just that. of COURSE they can, come on now. show me where i said you cant topfeed, ive said "be my guest" multiple times. and tell me how posting about the limitations of topfeeding and topfeed victim responses is supposed to be equivalent to wanting a place where no one can attack me.

i guess i should be thankful you're not having the same level of outburst you had last time this conversation came up, but really now. dont turn a debate about how well topfeeding works (or doesnt) and multitapping back into this sort of personal bs. what's the impetus for this crap? because i said someone who would war a guy for hitting back twice is a fluff? you realize i actually typed the word "fluff," ie was being light-hearted. a fluff! if the word fluff is pink it means someone actually typed the word fluff

fluff

I'm just sick and tired of you trying to make ppl feel guilty for their actions all the time and trying to get them to conform to your stupid ethics and morals crap. He's following the rules, he doesn't want to play like you, deal with it. What if he's not concerned about making top 10? WE ALL KNOW WHERE YOU STAND ON THIS, some ppl don't agree, that's fine. You're just trying to argue until the dude who did it feels bad enough and agrees with you and changes his behavior. Well eff that, who made you ruler of primary server?

And this was never a debate about how well TFing works. It's about you arguing how it doesn't work and you don't think ppl on top deserve to ever be TF'ed. WHO CARES. PEOPLE WANT TO TF. THEY'RE GOING TO TF.

Yah, exactly this junk, I know that's what you're saying. See, I'm saying "topfeeding is only efficient in these certain non-winning situations. and in those situations, if someone hits back more than once for it, i don't think war is merited."

And you're saying "don't tell people what they can't do. it's not against the rules. he doesn't have to play like you." but i see a huge disconnect between what you seem to be implying im saying, and what im actually saying.

the topic came up in this thread. Bill made a big post about it in this thread. i began debating it with Bill. that's how message boards work, if it bothers you so much then just skim past it or whatever. or, fine, start up with this unrelated stuff as if im forbidding people from playing a certain way, but it's silly.

and like this line in particular, if i hold a position, yes i might argue with people and try to persuade them into coming around to my position. what the h*ck does that have to do with being ruler of the server? it's what people do on discussion boards! it's utterly normal!

I DON'T SEE WHERE THE NOTION OF "FAIR" IS RELEVANT. LAND GRABBING IS TAKING BY FORCE. IF WE WANT IT TO BE "FAIR" WE JUST ALL EXPLORE AND NOBODY HIT ANYBODY. WOULD BE A PRETTY BORING GAME THOUGH.

You know why I care blid? Because:
================================================================
From:  blid
Oct 19, 2013
To:  LATC
Good to hear about your winning set but if you can't compete with your fascist hybrid then don't play a fascist hybrid, that's ridiculous. You're cheating everyone else going for a top spot when you do that. I really don't understand some of y'all.

From:  LATC
Oct 19, 2013
To:  blid

Funny, cuz I've never understood your 'everyone has to do things a certain way' attitude.

No where does it say you can't have tech (or O) allies.. they're a part of the game as of right now and everyone has a fair chance to find allies - as long as it's not coordinated at the beginning that someone runs a techer solely for your benefit it's legit. It's your personal choice that you don't use it, you can't blame ppl that choose to take advantage of the feature.

From:  blid
Oct 19, 2013
To:  LATC

You're being deliberately dense, I assume to cover up your nonexisting moral backbone
===========================================================

Because to you ppl can't have O allies, ppl can't have tech allies, ppl can't TF, ppl can't retal late, ppl can't retal DH's. And if they do you pester them and insult them claiming they have no 'moral backbone' if they choose not to see things your way. That's why I tell you to shut up on forums now whenever you start this crap. You aren't looking to argue, you're looking to convince ppl to change behavior YOU deem unfit for top players to have to be a part of.

It's just as fair for me to hit a guy 1/4 my size who can't retal me as it is for me to hit a guy that I have more jets then he has turrets.

Blid's argument is going way past over your head, unless you are just trolling now because you apparently have an issue with him from a year ago.

hah I'm just arguing that blid's not actually trying to make an argument simply for the sake of discussion (as he claims) and that he won't stop until ppl see things his way.

He's only arguing because his reasons haven't been answered not for the sake of argument.

I will restate his argument without the letters of POWER, lol. His argument is on the need for war on a topfeeding incident where the victim multi-taps to get his land back, not as you state, the morality or not of topfeeding. Hope that helps.

All I wanna say here is I don't think someone deserves to have war waged upon them for doing no more than attacking to get back land taken from them. Take it or leave it, I'll end it here for LATC's sake, as he's now jumped, for some reason, to posting PMs where I objected to his heavy tech leeching.

He's not asking for the *need* for war, but he's asking if it's *fair* that the person being top fed will possibly have to go to war to get *his* land back.

And that's already been answered by multiple ppl multiple times, including BILL. To summarize:

- Fair is irrelevant as long as it's within the rules.
- The notion that the person that got top fed is *entitled* to get all his land back with no repercussions is silly.

So why does he keep arguing it? Because he's not satisfied with the answer he got.