Question: Landgrabs and warring - Earth Empires Forum

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 22nd 2015, 3:05:14

I'd like to get this detail hammered out, because it seems like the biggest gray area and the other threads are getting polluted.

What I want to hear from you guys is what your stance is on landgrabbing during a war.

-Tag A and Tag B are at war.
1) Is Tag C allowed to LG either side 'at all'
2) If so, should there be a limit? How many hits per tag? Per country? Per day?
3) What is an appropriate response for Tag A and B if Tag C grabs Tag A?

-Also, I am absolutely not OK with trying to bait tags into giving them an excuse to war. ie Tag C grabs Tag A 3 times, Tag C retals 3 times, Tag A says 'That's overretalling!' and goes to war. Any suggestions for how to solve this?

Again, my goal here is to remove any and all gray areas(if possible) so we can all have the same understanding that 5v5 MEANS 5v5. Trust me, I don't want to spend my time sorting out who was right and who was wrong. I'd much rather people just follow the rules and we can all move on.

Please keep this thread civil. Unlike the previous threads, I'm planning to delete posts that aren't contributing or are off-topic. Thank you.

bstrong86

Member
2482

Aug 22nd 2015, 3:28:44

LGing shouldnt be delete able unless its in excess. And no. If you are team A warring team B. team Bs land is not teams A.

Its up to each team to PR for police. If you dont have police. Maybe you need to re evaluate your team situation.

The Death Knights

XI

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 22nd 2015, 5:34:37

Sure- just keep it simple and say no attacks whatsoever on tags at war.

But there needs to be a way to know if two clans are at war still.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 22nd 2015, 5:39:39

@bstrong:

The whole policing idea is unbalanced. You're basically giving the upperhand to all the older clans on the server. Perfect example was two sets ago. Villianz killed all of xBaDx's suiciders but Rybka was warring xBaDx and killing their own suiciders. It's basically encouraging clan alliancing.

Edited By: Celphi on Aug 22nd 2015, 6:11:23

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

elvesrus

Member
5058

Aug 22nd 2015, 6:13:01

Originally posted by Celphi:

Sure- just keep it simple and say no attacks whatsoever on tags at war.

But there needs to be a way to know if two clans are at war still.

basically this

also I'd be impressed if clan C retals their own grabs :)

Originally posted by crest23:

Elves is a douche on every server.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 22nd 2015, 6:27:07

I definitely think LG'ing should be deletable if the tags in war are not allowed to retaliate it. Obviously I would rather just kill the offenders, but keeping this a legit 1 tag v 1 tag server makes sense. Plus it defines the style of team a lot better.

drkprinc

Member
5114

Aug 22nd 2015, 7:33:46

Should be 0 outside interference at all be it Land Grabbing or even just doing a simple spy op, if 2 teams are legit at war let them war it out wait until one surrenders, if their isn't enough sign of war investigate both tags as to whether they are "fake" warring for netting protection if so delete both tags if not then let them be.

no netter is going to want wasted turns so even trying to fake a war to keep outside hits away will be less effective than netting proficiently in a normal standard.

a war is a war tipping the scale in anyways is interference even if you fail an attempted land grab you are reducing military and resources.

(<(<>(<>.(<>..<>).<>)<>)>)

zz.ghqnet.com - 0.o
http://LaF.center - LaF
imp.ghqnet.com - IMP

drkprinc

Member
5114

Aug 22nd 2015, 7:35:07

Also to my post if you are in war and you hit out of that war for land which ebert had did last set that should be means to rip away any war protection you can't war and net at same time sorry ebert :P

(<(<>(<>.(<>..<>).<>)<>)>)

zz.ghqnet.com - 0.o
http://LaF.center - LaF
imp.ghqnet.com - IMP

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 22nd 2015, 7:48:35

In an ideal world I agree 100%. But if the argument lies in do we have a right to protect our own war (which mods have said no) then I would rather just say no outside influence on any war.

My actual position is we as a tag should have the right to say we will deal with any outside interference in our war. Either by killing the offending countries that couldn't stay out of our affairs, or just slowly bending them over like we did. Both tella and bstrong disagree and say we have no right to handle what happens in our war. If the players are not allowed to protect themselves and their interests, then I wouldn't mind settling for all outside interference.

Edited By: Colo on Aug 22nd 2015, 7:51:04

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 22nd 2015, 8:55:00

Originally posted by Colo:

Protecting yourselves is absolutely OK. It's the other part that is not ok.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 22nd 2015, 8:59:09

Ok, protecting yourself to the extent of mods definition. I still 100% say if you force us to take action against you, you can't complain how we do it. Like I said, I would rather have the option to protect ourselves by killing the offending countries, get the message across that it's not ok to come stick your hand in our cookie jar.

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 22nd 2015, 9:08:30

Originally posted by Colo:

Phrase it however you want to, you don't get to retal on your enemy's behalf.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 22nd 2015, 9:19:14

And that's why I am saying we should just stick to all outside interference. If mods refuse to allow players to have control over what happens in their war, it give netters incentive to go in and hit the loosing side.

We may obliterate our enemies, but we don't tolerate cowardly netters coming in and picking up the scraps off of our enemies rotting countries. Just because they can't retal, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to have someone do it for them..

Could you imagine real life situations where we didn't allow weak feeble people to have the same rights as everyone else??

Edited By: Colo on Aug 22nd 2015, 9:21:36

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 22nd 2015, 9:31:17

If you don't want fighters to be able to handle this situation, then at least acknowledge it gives incentives for D-bag players to go in at hit the side that lost and that no longer has the ability to defend themselves.

As a fighter, I find it incredibly disrespectful to jump into a war you weren't invited to. Which is why normally we would just kill them. I know it's a rather impossible task to explain it to a netter, but immunity shouldn't be given to people who jump in to take from the side that lost.

Scorba

Member
666

Aug 22nd 2015, 13:51:48

If tag C hits either tag A or tag B who are at war then it becomes an unwanted and hostile action and either tag A or tag B may do something about it depending on their feelings or positions at the time.

As for an appropriate response, that greatly depends on the position of the warring parties. If tag C has bought up a ton of defense in order to farm tag A or tag B who have been weakened by war, then pretty much any response including killing should be expected. If retals are easy enough to preform then they should be attempted first, but not relied upon as the only possible response.

Having police becoming more common is probably a better way of dealing with things as long as there are enough tags willing to police either/both sides of a war in order to keep everyone else out.

But to keep things simple, stay out of existing wars if you don't want to be harmed over it.

Zorp

Member

EE Patron
953

Aug 22nd 2015, 16:50:31

Tella, Colo is exactly right here. If you aren't going to delete the offending tag C country, but you also aren't going to allow tag A/B to kill that country then it seems to me that tags D, E, F, etc. can now just come in and take whatever they want from the smaller/beaten side without repercussions.

It makes no sense to me that it's perfectly acceptable for teams to have 1:kill policies, but once they are at war they're only allowed to respond with SS/PS.

Dissident

Member
2750

Aug 22nd 2015, 17:32:07

I have a hard time with a 1:deletion on teams at war. I think we can find compromise here and find a suitable punishment if there is a persisting problem.

I propose:
C may be allowed 1 landgrab on either A or B... but if C grabs one more time during that war, the mods may detag the offending country forcing him/her to play untagged for the duration of the set. This forces teams to keep their players in line.

This is a compromise between the wild west and complete deletion.

Just an idea

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 22nd 2015, 23:51:35

That's exactly what Colo is agruing against Dissident. He want's to be able to demo them to 70% and LG as many times as he wants. So just keep it simple, no attacks whatsoever.

Edited By: Celphi on Aug 22nd 2015, 23:53:49

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Dissident

Member
2750

Aug 23rd 2015, 0:06:09

I can't get behind a prohibition of grabs for the simple reason that... not everyone is paying attention to the wars going on. sometimes people make mistakes and grab. At that point, the leader of team C can tell his member to refrain from such activity.

We can't expect ANYone to be paying attention to the server politics.

the crux of my idea was that there are things that can be done by the mods that arent simply deletion. Can detagging for infractions be an idea?

ps... it's ok for me and colo to have different ideas.

elvesrus

Member
5058

Aug 23rd 2015, 0:42:00

not too hard to check a country's attack and defend history along with any others in the tag. deep DR on a country should be a pretty good indicator there is a war going on

Originally posted by crest23:

Elves is a douche on every server.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 23rd 2015, 1:54:53

Originally posted by Dissident:

I am actually slightly sad that I am suggesting we go this route also. I would love nothing more than to be allowed to handle our affairs in our wars but we have to accept that our mod has a netting philosophy. The next best situation to stop these solo players from having immunity in hitting tags that no longer have the ability to protect them is to have the mods deal with it.

And it is ok to have a different view then I do. It just means your automatically wrong since I am always right.

Edited By: Colo on Aug 23rd 2015, 1:57:34

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 23rd 2015, 14:23:39

Originally posted by Zorp:

You're missing an important point about our ongoing argument: In Colo's case, Tag C grabbed Tag B, and Tag A wants to retal. No one is saying Tag A or Tag B can't defend themselves against Tag C, it's the concept that Tag A now OWNS Tag B and nobody else can touch them without somehow owing Tag A something...

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 23rd 2015, 14:24:13

Originally posted by Dissident:

We don't have the ability to detag people. Only admins can do that.

Dissident

Member
2750

Aug 23rd 2015, 14:55:00

How long does it take for admins to do what mods ask?

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 23rd 2015, 16:03:33

Originally posted by Dissident:

How long does it take for admins to do what mods ask?

Too long to be an acceptable solution for you guys or us.

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 23rd 2015, 16:18:53

Why can't we just keep it simple? No attacks at all on tags at war?

If you allow even one attack Tella, Colo is going to demo x10 and then PS, because that's how he grabs. That puts us at the exact situation as before.

It's the clan's leader responsibility to inform their clans what the rules are. If they have a new player, then they can tell them how it is. Just remove the grey.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 23rd 2015, 16:21:25

Also, it would help to know when a report gets looked at. We have no idea when, if ever, a mod looks at it. How are we supposed to know the difference between a mod not seeing a report & a mod deciding not to take action?

If we knew you haven't seen the report & it's going on 3 days, we then know to send PMs or contact other mods.

Last set is a prime example. PMs & reports were sent & nothing happened all set. How were we supposed to know you went out on vacation?

Edited By: Celphi on Aug 23rd 2015, 16:24:33

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Zorp

Member

EE Patron
953

Aug 23rd 2015, 16:26:55

Originally posted by tellarion:

Originally posted by Zorp:

So if a country in Tag C hit (PS/SS) a country in Tag A, then tag A is allowed to kill (GS/BR) the tag C country? That's all I'm arguing for really, some things I read made it seem this isn't allowed. I have little personal experience with war on this server lol.

Dissident

Member
2750

Aug 23rd 2015, 21:23:27

thats correct zorp

Celphi

Member

EE Patron
6349

Aug 23rd 2015, 22:11:04

Zorp,, that's not even what happened.

Tag A & B are at war.
Tag C & D are at war.

Tag C PS Tag B.
Tag A wars Tag C for PS'ing his enemy. (Making it 2v1)

That's why I say, just remove it all together.

Edited By: Celphi on Aug 23rd 2015, 22:13:12

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 24th 2015, 1:21:02

Originally posted by tellarion:

Originally posted by Zorp:

The only counter argument you have is an ego stroking post I troll celphi with?? Cmon tella, aren't you better than that? Stick to my points made in a real discussion..

Lets just cut the bullfluff and shoot straight with the TT community for a second. We get that the fighters were the problem, so upper management sent in someone with absolutely no warring experience and a netting philosophy to side with the netters 110% of the time. You have elite fighters that are bringing real ideas to the table but honestly, you have already made up your mind and this is all a show. It won't mean diddly.

Let me explain how bad this policy really is by sharing a fun fact to the TT community: Did you know that steamrolling douche bags who enter our wars is the 2nd largest job creator for drunk fighters? The policy of removing the players ability to control what happens in their war isn't just bad for fighters. It's bad for the server. I honestly hope that people take a second look at this and examine the long term impact of what eliminating the 2nd largest contributor to jobs will be to the serer.

Dissident

Member
2750

Aug 24th 2015, 2:40:00

Originally posted by Celphi:

this has never happened under the new rules.

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 24th 2015, 3:16:12

Originally posted by Dissident:

Originally posted by Celphi:

this has never happened under the new rules.

This happened last set.

Colo, stop trying to twist the facts to garner public opinion. I don't agree with how you viewed that whole situation. Once again, you weren't defending yourselves. You were defending your 'claim' on your enemy's land. That's COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from you retalling when someone grabs you.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: If someone attacks you, you can respond however the fluff you want. We never have and likely never will try to limit that.

elvesrus

Member
5058

Aug 24th 2015, 3:19:57

That actually didn't happen last set. When C grabbed B they weren't at war with D. They were at war with D when A retaliated for B.

Originally posted by crest23:

Elves is a douche on every server.

ssewellusmc

Member
2431

Aug 24th 2015, 3:24:30

[quote poster=tellarion; 37279; 678265][quote poster=Dissident; 37279; 678254]

Originally posted by Celphi:

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: If someone attacks you, you can respond however the fluff you want. We never have and likely never will try to limit that.

So if I am attacked by any clan, and I choose to launch missles at Tella's country on alliance... that legit because it was a retal "however the fluff you want". ; )

Pew Pew Pew

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 24th 2015, 3:27:44

Originally posted by Colo:

Originally posted by tellarion:

Originally posted by Zorp:

A) Once again, this entire concept of the rules wasn't created by me. It was decided on before I became a mod here.
B) I am not the only mod, and I don't make all the decisions. Between all the mods, we have a wealth of experience in different servers and types of clans.
C) You know NOTHING about my warring experience. Alliance has been pretty damn quiet for at least a year now, but there were constant wars before that, and I was right smack in the middle of them. The fact that you think I know nothing of warring is pretty fluffing hilarious.
D) Aside from the one sticking point, I agree with you.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 24th 2015, 4:48:37

Originally posted by tellarion:

Originally posted by Dissident:

Originally posted by Celphi:

this has never happened under the new rules.

You can pretend you care all you want. I brought facts and solutions. I spoke my piece. It's clear where you and celphi stand.

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 24th 2015, 8:35:49

[quote poster=ssewellusmc; 37279; 678268][quote poster=tellarion; 37279; 678265]

Originally posted by Dissident:

Originally posted by Celphi:

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR: If someone attacks you, you can respond however the fluff you want. We never have and likely never will try to limit that.

So if I am attacked by any clan, and I choose to launch missles at Tella's country on alliance... that legit because it was a retal "however the fluff you want". ; )

Pew Pew Pew

Ask qz how well that goes over.

PS: Joke's on you, not running a country this set :P

Warster

Member
4172

Aug 25th 2015, 8:06:13

Colo posting those figures prove jack fluff

look at my stats

Attack Success 95.71% #338
Kills 7 #650
Deaths 4 #1145
Pop Killed 1,297,881 #585
Attacks 5836 #384
Missiles 349 #397
Defends 2724 #781

FFA- TKO Leader
Alliance- Monsters

MSN
ICQ 28629332

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 25th 2015, 16:18:36

Posting what figures warster? If you wish to flame me, create a seperate thread calling me out. Otherwise GTFO this thread. The question tella raises in this thread is whether or not clans should have the ability to control what happens in their war. I am trying on a serious level to bring a warring perspective to the table that tella simply can't understand. This policy is going to be a massive failure and the people of TT deserve to have the information before hand.

Edited By: Colo on Aug 25th 2015, 16:23:50

Warster

Member
4172

Aug 26th 2015, 11:40:36

where did i flame you?? you tried to claim Tella wasn't good at war by posting his Alliance Leader board stats, i just posted my own to show that leader board stats mean nothing at all.

the stats just prove who wars more then others. proves nothing about knowledge or skill

Edited By: Warster on Aug 26th 2015, 13:10:48

FFA- TKO Leader
Alliance- Monsters

MSN
ICQ 28629332

archaic

Member
7014

Aug 26th 2015, 13:29:48

Can't everybody see how absurd all of this is. Why does Team have to be strictly 5v5? NOBODY ever asked for that and it never was that for the first 50+ sets of its existence. We had one coalition that took it too far and Red-X **spit**, came up with these idiotic 'spirit' rules. He had never played Team and he left a few weeks later. Nobody likes the current apolitical server meta, lets just do away with it.

Can the mod/dev team not admit it was a less than adequate solution and just let it go instead of trying all of these contortions to try and make it work? I can not for the life of me understand why we are insisting on this silly arbitrary set of rules that were NEVER applied before.

I have never come out and said this, but I'm going to now. Having guys with zero Team Server experience and understanding trying to mod team is not working very well. I suggest that we allow elvesrus to be the next Team mod. He gets it.

Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

mrford

Member
21,378

Aug 26th 2015, 13:38:24

Tella PMed me asking for my opinion, and when I gave it he didn't respond to it or give any input, he just responded to the 2nd aspect of my post which was polite ways to fix his moderation.

That is a good metaphor for this server.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 26th 2015, 14:27:31

Originally posted by Warster:

Where did I say it proves knowledge or skill?? I said "We get that the fighters were the problem, so upper management sent in someone with absolutely no warring EXPERIENCE and a netting philosophy to side with the netters 110% of the time. "

If he doesn't have the stats he certainly DOESN'T have much experience. The stats are literal proof of it. And what I meant by flame is why the fluff is a bunch of mods all of a sudden active in this?

+1 archaic.

Colo

Member
1037

Aug 26th 2015, 14:30:44

If you think tella has as much experience as dragon, ford or even myself in warring, you are a fluffing whack job.

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 26th 2015, 16:23:13

Originally posted by mrford:

Way to jump the gun, sir. I asked about 10 people, and planning to ask more. In fact, I've already posted the information on the mod board with my recommendations...

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 26th 2015, 16:36:16

Originally posted by Colo:

If you think tella has as much experience as dragon, ford or even myself in warring, you are a fluffing whack job.

Nobody is claiming that, which is why I ask people like Dragon when it comes to warring. You were claiming that I have NO warring experience, and that is laughable. I prefer netting, but I'm also a leader, and I damn well know the political side of organizing wars, which includes delegating the running of the war to people who know more than I do. I arrange the pieces, they make them fall down. It works.

tellarion

Member
3906

Aug 26th 2015, 16:46:03

Btw Archaic, you have a good point with regards to moderator choices. The reason they choose people who have no ties with a specific server is: because they have no ties with a specific server. A lot of people volunteer to mod on certain servers, but they have a massive amount of connections, history and ties with that server. The most active people on a particular server would be instantly rejected by half the players...

mrford

Member
21,378

Aug 26th 2015, 17:05:35

Originally posted by tellarion:

Originally posted by mrford:

Way to jump the gun, sir. I asked about 10 people, and planning to ask more. In fact, I've already posted the information on the mod board with my recommendations...

Jump the gun? The only responce you sent me.in PM had nothing to do with my suggestions. What exactly am I supposed to draw from that? You mentioned nothing regarding the question you asked. Poor form. Par for the course.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford