Are total countries an accurate indicator of total players?

One of those sets I had 14 countries. With Clan GDI I would have 1...

When there isn't war, there are a ton less countries created.

Those are specifically alive countries at the end of the set. Dead ones aren't counted in the total.

Large scale wars almost always cause a major influx in membership due to warring tags recruiting old buddies back to the game, in addition to the current netting meta being very boring FFO only. I, for example, had not played EE ever after Earth 2025 folded in 2009, but I was a known warleader and LaF hater from the old days. I was recruited back by old friends who had supported me thru tough times that had remained RL friends of mine. Link bought me a sandwich when I was homeless and starving and I sorta owe all my current success business-wise to his and others support. So when he asked me to help him kill LaF in 2015, a clan that in the old days had cheated and botted to kill me 7 or 8 years previous, I had no choice but to support my friend. Ive been here on and off since then, and I don't think this sort of behavior is unusual for wardogs. I've helped people get everything from medical licenses to reinstated drivers licenses here because I pay forward the support the wardogs here have given me, and during this most recent campaign, I saw people in the warchats that I hadn't seen in anywhere from 5 to 20 years. Wardogs are lifelong RL friends generally with other wardogs from the hours and hours they spend together. When they get pissed and want to win, hundreds of old folks can turn up.

You can play solo and win the game netting, but wars require members, so there's more motivation to recruit, and those folks have closer knitted ties from people spending hours in warchats together as friends. The 10 largest membership sets of the last decade were all server wars or peak covid times in 2020, with those involving attacks on LaF generating the most, likely due to a rich history of pissing people in the community off and cheating in addition to a handful of old LaF kill team members who only ever play their war sets.

Peaceful sets and friendly war sets tend to steadily decline where server-wide grudge wars cause the only consistent membership increases the game has seen over the last several years.

As an example, LaF was 29 members pre-war, 32 members the set they beat the coalition (that's them recruiting a few wardogs back. In the 2nd set of the 3 war sets while they were saying people were quitting, they were actually growing in numbers). They are at 23 now which is a decrease from their war numbers for a net decrease of 6 people from their pre-war total. One could argue they'd decrease at roughly that rate normally, but that's conjecture and I'm making a purely statistics based post. However, considering their near 50 members in 2018, losing roughly 15% of their tag/year is statistically their normal decline rate. And that's been pretty consistently declining at that rate since they dropped under 200 members.

Pre-war SOL was 15 members, SoF was 7, mercs was 12, elders, thebomb and apoc hadn't come back and joined the war yet. The set they won, Elders/mercs was 22 members, SoF 10, SOL 17, apoc 6, cc 3, bomb 5 and 3 solos. Net increase of 22 members.

Just with people who were tagged, it's easy to see how war tends to increase membership, but counting people that either didn't tag their restarts after they died, or played solo, the total net gain at the peak of the war was north of 50, and it's only now fallen back to pre-war totals. Next set should be an all time low if you follow the trends.

The peak of the war had the highest amount of members playing 1a since the height of covid in mid-2020. The numbers 4 sets ago hit highs that weren't seen in years aside from the peak of the pandemic, which also had a pretty top shelf server war in addition to everyone being stuck in their houses with nothing better to do.

When you really dig in to user trends, the game clearly thrives as a war game compared to when it supports diehard netters. Kind of a bummer because I prefer the latter but the data doesn't support anything other than "total war" being the most likely driver of membership and "any netting" generally causing decreases.

You claim this on page one of a post started 48 hours ago wanting to radically alter a game server. Seriously dude, shut the fuk up.

Team has never been TEAMS. It is more like ffa than a team game because they may be tagged up in 5 man groups but they are attacking in three to four groups like a player in ffa.

If you really want it to be a team game you need to change the programing to make it where the team leader or tag holder to be the one who has to declare on the other team and the rest of the teams in the game are blocked from doing anything while they are at war with each other or until one team is tag killed or surrenders by undeclaring war. If they both have not agreed to a team war the tag holders that is they can only do land grabs until they both have declared war on each other. Has to be set in the game programing so no know one can do anything unless they are in that team. So if both teams agree to the war the clock will count down 24 hours and then attacking will commence so no one can be blind sided by a one way attack they are not expecting. What we have now is three teams all attack out of the blue and kill a bunch on the other side and they have tp play catch up if they can depending on how many other start attacking out the blue also. This would solve all major problems and then we would know which team really is the best players in a 5 on 5 team match up.

MAKE IT SO AND LET ME KNOW I AM READY If EVERYONE ELSE IS?

UJ out here just describing exactly how clan GDI should work off the dome lol. My guy is blessed with the logics lol

https://ibb.co/d7kBXh1

You're essentially right on the money, my dude. I've talked about and thought about how clanGDI could/would work to improve the game, and you nailed it kinda first time you gave it thought haha. A savant I wished posted more. Sometimes I think the 4 or 5 of us total that do both war and netting are the only ones that get it haha. Good to see you btw, bro. Good to know our old ass brains are still in lockstep haha. I think that makes 22 years of us never once having a disagreement lol.

If you really want to make a fun game this is what you should do. Total new game set up to where there are only two tags and you can not play unless you are tagged as one or the other.

The Confederate army against the Union army. You are either Red or Blue no untags will be able to play. You as the player will not have a choice of which side you are on when you make your country one will be Red the second will Blue the third will Red so there will be an even amount on both sides. The game play will be one side against the other. When your country is made you will only be able to aid the players on your side and only be able to attack players on the other side. should be easy to set up and run with and would be different players on both sides every game. Also if you get killed you can only net gain with the Walking DEAD tag when you restart you will be the Walking Dead TAG and can only Net gain and watch the fun on the sideline with know way to assist the other team players until the reset ends YOU CAN ONLY ATTACK THE OTHER WALKING DEAD. If you get killed in the WALKING DEAD TAG you are out for good NO RESTART FOR THE ZOMBIES.

See what you can do about that> We are waiting to here from the management.

Yes, I do.

Should I send you a PM in a week? Two weeks? A month? How long do you want me to wait till I send you a message that says "Told you so, now apologize"?

That seems like a fun idea, but it wouldn't allow people to grief other people they don't like in the game. And it wouldn't allow one tag to have a huge numbers advantage over the other.

Both core elements of what a lot of players in this game want.

*realizes data doesn't support what he's saying on multiple levels*

*pivots to crying about a war he doesn't even know the politics of*

I personally prefer even wars. The closer they are the better. Love to stonewall and you only get that opportunity if the war is close or your side is losing. Both are preferred to blowouts for me. So that's another incorrect generalization that most most most wardogs favorite aspect of war is winning. In reality if you polled 10 wardogs on what their favorite aspect of war is, I think around 8 would say stonewalling, 1 would say hanging with old pals and 1 would say winning. So data again doesn't support what you're saying.

Let's try this. I'll speak for you. "Wow Derrick, that's some surprising data to me. It turns out I was very wrong about everything I've said here and war consistently increases game membership. Wardogs are a closer family than I thought. Turns out war for the majority is about spending time with old friends, and despite a few loud voices, seems to actually just be a fun low drama affair when you consider that of the 60-80 people that were warring together, only really 3 or 4 ever really talk. The rest were just there to hang with old friends and hope to wall.

It really is JUST the vitriol and bs people on the forums tell me that I believe, and I'm a cause or a perpetuater of a ton of it with comments like the one I just made. Sorry for being wrong."

HOW MATURE OF YOU BHOLE

Like I said before, he's lacking in the comprehension department...

I would like stonewalling better if kills were a bit slower. I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect someone on in like 10 seconds 24/7.

But now we are so far off topic that its not even funny, LOL.

That said when I walled a CM rush from SoF one time... Pretty big rush!

I was actually going to respond to you and say thanks for the data. I didn't get a chance to yet... You'll notice that I didn't say anything to you in either direction.

I responded to Prime about mods not wanting to do anything, which has nothing to do with your comment.

And then I responded to Uncle James and said I liked his idea, but I didn't think the player base would be for it.


I think you need to take a chill pill buddy.

I'm lacking in the comprehension department because..... Ko. You really gotta help me out here. Struggling to follow your comments about me.

I lack comprehension because Derrick provided some data that I had questions about (thank you, btw Derrick), and.... because I... didn't respond? I lack comprehension?


So by me... not responding fast enough, I don't comprehend? How does that work exactly?


Seriously bro. You went from being a reasonable person, to being completely ridiculous all because of your hatred for me. It's like it's got you so emotional you don't know how to logically think through situations.


I never responded to Derrick either way, so how does that demonstrate comprehension in any direction?

So now that I have time to respond to this much longer comment, I will do so. And Derrick, I'll ignore your personal jabs for the sake of conversation.


I had previously asked if your stats counted total countries or total players. In that very short comment/question, did I ever insinuate that I didn't believe your stats, disputed them, or in any way disagreed with them? Nope. I simply asked a clarifying question.

To the main point, it would seem that war does bring activity to the game. That makes logical sense to me, and would seem to line up with what I've experienced too. This is a war game, after all (at least partially), and in my opinion warring is more fun than netting. So yes, war is good for this game. I think especially so when both sides are energized by the prospect of a fun war.


This is why I said the 50/50 server split might be fun, you would have an even war, with friends on both sides, and lots of hopefully friendly trash talk that would occur.



There ya go Derrick. I actually agreed with your comment. I accepted your stats (after asking for clarification).


Next time maybe wait for me to respond before you call me immature? It seems you're falling into the same hole as many of your friends where you want to insult first, and talking/discussing things like a kind and rationale human is a distant second.

Can we reset, you and I? I don't think we have to be so mean to each other.

I feel like I was there lol. Definitely remember that. SpeedkillTM is like 0 for 20 against me haha. Feel like I'm just lucky and see the demos every single time Xyle has ever run a chat on me lol.

Fun fact tho....civilian returns on hits were about half what they are in EE in E2025. A normal GS kill was about 550-580 hits in the old game. They shortened it to keep the war meta alive with a smaller player base. It made sense to me on servers like this one, but on 1a and especially FFA, I sorta wish the slower wars were still a thing. I think 12 guys being able to wipe 9 netters without spies and war tech off a server is sort of an extreme and unintended consequence of shortening kills. Most wars get decided in the first few days because hits and kills are so devastating and fast. It made FS/blindside suuuuuper overpowered.

I agree with this completely. I think the speed at which kills happen is a big turn off for a lot of people who might otherwise be really interested in the war mechanics in this game.

I mean, as long as you continue to make disingenuous statements and generalizations to support your tired narrative that literally no one supports you in or cares about in the least, it's gonna be tough for you. I was just saying to someone yesterday I wished I liked you better, because it'd be good for game theater if I did. I just find you to be an incredibly annoying complainer especially when it comes to speaking about wardogs and the war meta.

You can have a full convo going where the only dogs talking are being friendly and having productive debate, like me, uj, mdevol with non-LaF netters like KoH and Teritus, and you'll still just dump a generalization like "That seems like a fun idea, but it wouldn't allow people to grief other people they don't like in the game. And it wouldn't allow one tag to have a huge numbers advantage over the other.

Both core elements of what a lot of players in this game want."

That generalization is not only accusatory towards those playing the more popular, better recruitment tool, arguably funner meta within the game, it's wrong and does not represent a single one of us posting here. It doesn't represent me, it doesn't represent uj, but as wardogs, we should both find offense to it and take it as an insult. If you quit derailing threads to complain about people, I'd have literally no problem with you.

Stop crying about where one guy touched you and look at the bigger picture. You're missing the orgy because you're stuck complaining about 1 attendee.

Bro our last war against SoF, I showed up with 15 million SDI tech and they used 400 missiles to rush me. I recalled my sdi tech to wall and ended up dead anyways. What a rush. Those SoF guys ran a tight ship, I’ve never seen a clan war prep with over 400 chems before. I think you were there

Yes sdi is actually extremely vulnerable. You should break it with other myself types though, like cruise. Then finish with cm. The only way to counter if to continue to buy SDI in real time through the kr.

I've walled a singular Chem rush on phone before. My action was drop land, cash 40 turns, drop land, recall tech, recall market, drop land, cash 40 turns, drop land, sell bushels, drop land, buyout SDI, drop land. I ended with a completely wasted 1800 acre country broke af with no turns, but I lived to wall another 500 or so hits lol.

You will need to drop land to raise your SDI % if they have too many missiles.

Also keep in mind these are arranged wars we are talking about so there are abnormally large amounts of missiles out there on the FS :P

That wouldn't matter as much if you have a good amount of stock to live off of you bad netter you!

In his view we're all wrong, he's right about everything, how can you have a reasonable conversation with a person like that?

Woah woah woah.


I'm calling time out on the play. I'm not going to let you get away with this, and I'm surprised you're trying.


This chain of comments stems from you calling me immature based on my response to you. WHEN I HADN'T EVEN RESPONDED TO YOU YET.


I then responded to you, and asked if you could back up a second and try to start over. Rather than you admitting your mistake (pretty golden, considering your mistake consisted of you accusing me of not admitting to mine), you misdirected the narrative into something about the substance of our disagreement.


Look, we can have a conversation about our disagreements, and I'm happy to do so. But not until you start conversing in good faith.


You need to back up and admit that you were wrong in calling me immature. It was completely inappropriate to call me immature for not admitting to a mistake, when I hadn't even responded to you yet, nor had I made a mistake.


So why don't you take a little of your own medicine and we can start there. I know you're an honest and fair person, so I fully expect you to admit to that mistake and then we can move on from there.

You've accused me of having poor reading comprehension a few times now. Yet you are the one that appears to be failing in this department. I admitted earlier in this thread that I agreed with Derricks narrative that war brings more players to the server.


Even when I agree with you guys, you just ignore it and want to throw out more insults. Come on Ko. What are you doing here buddy?

There it is again, he wants someone to admit they're wrong about something LOL

https://youtu.be/...DZ3Sg?si=fDMoMs-nNSXL68ET

Absolutely I do. When someone calls me immature over my response to something, and I haven't even responded yet, they are absolutely wrong.


Do you disagree? Do you think that Derrick should have called me immature for not thanking him for his statistics when I hadn't even responded to him yet?


Please defend that, Ko.

can you please get this pissing contest off my thread now like really!

So the quote I thought was highly immature complaining, insulting, worthless to the conversation, unproductive, annoying and untrue was this one:



Just because you happen to agree with statistics that were presented to refute disingenuous statements, or otherwise outright lies you made about war causing people to leave, which God bless I'm glad you understand facts as facts, does not make that statement any less of highly immature complaining, insulting, worthless to the conversation, unproductive, annoying and untrue fluff to derail a productive conversation.

I stand by that. Like, did you think anything productive would come out of that statement aside from derailing the conversation with crybaby bullfluff? Because that's the only outcome possible I see. Annnnnnd congrats. You succeeded bro. Thread successfully derailed. Gratz

To reiterate, I actually have literally no problem with you if you stop doing that, but I find it so immature, and I'm irritated you managed to derail another productive thread.

This is your quote

"Let's try this. I'll speak for you. "Wow Derrick, that's some surprising data to me. It turns out I was very wrong about everything I've said here and war consistently increases game membership. Wardogs are a closer family than I thought. Turns out war for the majority is about spending time with old friends, and despite a few loud voices, seems to actually just be a fun low drama affair when you consider that of the 60-80 people that were warring together, only really 3 or 4 ever really talk. The rest were just there to hang with old friends and hope to wall.

It really is JUST the vitriol and bs people on the forums tell me that I believe, and I'm a cause or a perpetuater of a ton of it with comments like the one I just made. Sorry for being wrong." "

You followed that quote up by saying 'HOW MATURE OF YOU BHOLE' in call caps.

You started that comment out with me not acknowledging your data. In fact, the first four sentences, in the large paragraph, are all related to data. Then you add on one comment about vitriol and BS on the forums, which I assume you're accusing me of. I think it's fair to me to view your comment as calling me immature based on me not agreeing with your data, and me taking umbrage with that based on the fact that I hadn't even responded to you yet.




As for my 'vitriol and bs', I also take issue with that. And I suppose we can get to the substance of the disagreement now.

I stand by my statement. I don't think the player base would have any desire to play in a 50/50 war. Am I wrong? Please, let me see a whole bunch of posts supporting that in the same way they support the 10 man teams.

Now maybe you actually agree with me that the player base wouldn't want that, but you disagree as to the reason. My reasoning was that people want to hate war their enemies, and would have no desire to team up with LaF, Light, myself, or others. They also have no desire to war themselves. My evidence for that? If they did, they would war each other in 1A, where they absolutely could, even with clan GDI in existence, but they choose not to.

To state that another way. They would rather not play on a server than play in arranged wars against each other.

But yes, my well reasoned, thought out, and articulated opinion is BS and vitriol. But you never ever ever call chevs or coalie or anyone else vitriolic and BS when they call people retards, make homophobic jokes, racist remarks, etc.


I AM VITRIOLIC AND BS for having an opinion that you disagree with. But people literally hurling insults are not vitriolic and bs.

Do I have that right?

Oh no, am I going to get a TLDR? That's usually what happens when I try to actually discuss anything in detail with anyone.

Derrick!!! Look!!! The vitriol and BS you're so against! Please make sure you shout down Coalie!!

I don't read anything you or Derrick type if it's longer than my phone screen.

D knows that already.

I'm legit curious if you guys stopped feeding this troll if he would be any less insufferable.

You could always just do us all a solid and ban him/her for harassment and trolling.

10 months of coaching under the tutelage of fratboi99 and this is the end-product.

LOL

Oh look, rather than responding to the arguments, you and your ilk resort to name calling. How surprising!

I don't think hes wrong though, you do bring it on to yourself.

I argue with people, and don't shy away from those arguments. There arent many that are willing to go toe to toe with the majority of you on these forums. I'm one of the few.

I know my opinion is shared by many. I've been messaged privately from people in just about every alliance other than the alliances I've been at war with for 10 months now. They have all expressed support for me, and disdain toward many of you.

To many of them though it's a 'nothing will ever change, so why bother' type of situation.

I'm happy to continue the conversation though, none of you get to me.


Let's look at the claims/statements I've made in this thread, one by one.


1. I claimed nothing will happen because the devs don't care about this game.

I was hated on for making that statement in a thread that is only 48 hours old, yet here I am, and now devs have made any comments at all about this idea, that has near unanimous support from the community. I think I'm going to end up being right here, despite you all being jerks to me about that statement.

2. I asked Derrick for clarification on numbers, he provided them, and then insulted me for not thanking him and admitting I was wrong.

I then proved that A. I hadn't had an opportunity to respond, so I shouldn't be called immature for not responding yet. And B. I wasn't wrong about anything, as I didn't have a stance on anything. I asked a question, a genuine question, and then I actually agreed with and thanked Derrick for the info.

Yet I was thrashed for that sequence of events.

3. Derrick criticized me for my opinion about the 50/50 suggestion, the opinion being that the majority of the player base would have no desire to play against each other and team up with their enemies.

I asked someone to tell me I'm actually wrong, and obviously no one has. You guys don't want to do that, I think we all know that. But Derrick called me vitriolic for saying that.


In response I pointed out how he's silent about all the actually vitriolic comments toward people from his friends who say things like calling each other retards, homophobic and racial slurs. No one challenged me on this, because it's obviously true.



Now this thread has devolved into 'way to go BH for getting it off track' 'fuk you bh' and other garbage.

I didn't derail the thread, you all dead by constantly attacking me. When I defended myself, you all didn't even respond to the merits of what I said, but instead further devolved the conversation into pure garbage full of personal insults and little else.



But yes, I suppose I bring it on myself.




I know none of you will read all of that. And that's the point, I suppose. Just levy your next criticism/insult and move on. When this thread ends we can do it in another.

What I said is not crybaby BS. And it's not inaccurate.


NOBODY WANTS TO PLAY IN A 50/50 WAR. Period. In fact, I'm pretty certain they've stated as much when threads about drafts have come up before. Darkness does not want to split up, team up with LaF guys, and fight other Darkness guys.


You find it unproductive for me to tell the damn truth?


For the record, I'll say it again. I LOVE the idea. But I know very few others will go for it.


Prove me wrong.

>be me
>eat a ton of marinara sauce
>drink a bunch of beer and wine to wash it down
>have a nightcap
>wake up 6am in a panic
>run to toilet
>have a legit BLOWOUT out my hairy BLACKHOLE
>hot snakes and water just splattering everywhere.
>shidding and farding wakes up kids
>call wife from toilet to go deal with them because I’m in therapy
>login to earth forums to literally sh*tpost and BLOWOUT BLACKHOLE and watch him cry
>feel like a king afterward
>f*ck my wife and fall back asleep.


yeah idk Derrick you been on a roll lately…but maybe it’s time to get back on your meds, everyone needs a good blowout once in a while.

Derrick, Coalie - you gonna criticize Real Man for being vitriolic and derailing the thread?


I'll keep holding you to that standard now since you want to hold me to it.

Oh no real man, post what you just posted, don't delete it and be shy. Maybe you can work on another forum ban.

+1 for a 14 day ban. This crybaby has broken a lot of the forum rules. They are written at the top so they are hard to miss

No because I’m funny and everyone likes me.




I just double posted, don’t get so excited friend. No need to cry we will get through this together