Biggest game changer so far - Earth Empires Forum

fazer

Member
630

Apr 3rd 2013, 22:32:57

Lol those who think there isn't extreme bottomfeeding already think again. At the end of the day the issue is lack of players. It always has been that way. Whilst there is a lack of players, a tight pacted server to ensure high nw finishes, bottom feeding will continue and so will land trading. People will always bottom feed the untaggs and small tags into the ground until they have outgrown / no longer becomes beneficial where intra / land trading provides win win situations.

The attitudes within the game prevent that growth from happening. By farming new tags unto the ground and forcing smaller tags to merge you do nothing for the server but feed the situation.

Take away the benefits of land trading, and you force greater attention on farming of smaller tags / bottom feeding to continue the same results.

We should bot out the GDI and create an alliance wide clan which creates land possibilities and would encourage growth.

I also think we need to create a server wide 'theme' or story which is documented and announced each round so we create sometjing other then top nw and average nw finishes and some clans doing 'anything' to achieve it...

- -

Fazer - MGP

"if somethings not fun, why do it?"

http://www.boxcarhosting.com/...pplication.php?clanID=MGP

Forgotten

Member
1605

Apr 3rd 2013, 22:37:18

Increase attack cost, such as oil barrels used

~LaF's Retired Janitor~

Mr Azure

Member
65

Apr 3rd 2013, 22:50:46

Hi fazer, still trying to convince people life should be fair?

Organized trading is super boring at this point. admittedly i have done it before but i prefer grabbing random people and getting retalled like normal.

the problem is this game is old and stale and people are just looking for new methods to break their own or other peoples records to stay interested. the game really needs some bots with AI that can suicide to liven things up. or an influx of a few thousand players

Mr Azure

Member
65

Apr 3rd 2013, 22:52:46

Alternatively every reset qz should code something different into the server. like one set he codes in a land cap, another set he codes in some other limitation to see how people can adapt set by set.

fazer

Member
630

Apr 3rd 2013, 22:58:36

We shouldn't discourage attacking. Just how and what we are attacking. The game needs some development, surely we don't think twice about spending $60 on a game we play for a month and then leave it.

Some have been playing this game for 10+ years. Lets get a pool together and develop the game further?

- -

Fazer - MGP

"if somethings not fun, why do it?"

http://www.boxcarhosting.com/...pplication.php?clanID=MGP

Dibs Ludicrous

Member
6702

Apr 3rd 2013, 23:08:44

my $1-5 Windows Phone xbox games get much more play time now than the $60 games. hmm, reminds me that i haven't checked to see if Tomb Raider has been released On Demand since December.

There are no messages in your Inbox.
Elvis has left the building.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Apr 3rd 2013, 23:34:18

Originally posted by qzjul:

I do think landtrading is a bit too much abused;

The trick is how to adjust it without causing people to revert to extreme bottomfeeding...

Originally posted by Requiem:

Make ghost acres gained in ratio with defense... no defense no ghost. Make it too expensive to trade.

ZIP

Member
3222

Apr 4th 2013, 1:33:33

I think things are fine as they are. I would not want to change things for the FFa server. Things are just fine in that server.

I really think if politically we could get rid of L:L, open some pacts most of the problem is solved. back to someone gains and someone loses.

win : win exchanges is bad mmmkkk.

fluff your 300 Spartans fool - i have 32 of the biggest fluffed mother fluffers made of titanium !!
A brigade from Blackstreetboyz (#91) has invaded your lands! Your defenses held against the invaders and forced them away! Your military lost:1 Troops

Mr Azure

Member
65

Apr 4th 2013, 3:12:26

Win Win exchanges result in less people quitting the game due to frustration or wars resulting from bad grabbing policies.

Purposeful1

Member
546

Apr 4th 2013, 3:33:41

Originally posted by Xinhuan:

Originally posted by wari:

A) If I'm a suicider, I already have too much suicide strength. Given the batfluff crazy AB CS losses, you think I'm going to bother buying jets to grab-suicide when I can just AB a guy two dozen times to take out as many CS as I could in 50 grabs? If I were to even buy jets, just to entertain the argument, I'd take out much more CS and use less resources BRing the victim. The only case where a suicider is making landgrabs is to landgrab stockpile, and if you have enough stockpile to be landgrabbed by a suicider without enough defense to protect yourself from it, you deserve it.

(not to mention how easy it is, in comparison, to just stock warfare for the first 3 weeks, missile a trader who has no CHANCE to get SDI before 50k acres, and take out his CS that way)

B) No, a nominal increase in CS loss would not have a real effect on farmed, untagged countries. An elimination of landtrading would cripple untagged countries that are not currently being farmed quite as hard has they used to be. I've seen people here today lamenting the ineffectiveness of the C:C ghost acre changes because it penalizes bottomfeeders more than traders. You're fluffing about only getting ghosts on your first TEN freaking grabs on a country every reset? I call bullfluff.

Xin, you're smarter than this... This argument doesn't hold water.

A) The AB CS losses is another change that I highly disagreed with, and wish that qzjul would revert the change. It clearly made suiciders a lot stronger on countries that had no tanks (while it did limit damage on countries with considerable amount of tanks).

B) You try being an untagged then, and spending twice the amount of turns exploring and building acres on low BPT after being hit 10x a day. A typical landgrab might make a country lose about 1% of his CS (when being bottomfed, losses are less), so you are losing 10% CS a day if you are being farmed into 10 DR everyday. If you increase the CS loss by even just 50%, that is significant, I would have to rebuild extra CSes everyday, or spend extra turns to rebuild newly explored acres.

It's actually better off being killed as an untagged and restarting with insane amounts of CS as it is.

I'm not fluffing about getting ghosts on bottomfeeding. I'm comparing the relative effectiveness of landtrading (which requires significantly less time and effort) than bottomfeeding, the rewards does not consumerate with the time and effort spent. All-explore countries have always not finished well in NW, but that is to be expected, it literally requires no time to be one.

What you aren't realizing is qzjul still wants to protect the untagged countries being farmed somewhat, increasing their CS losses doesn't help. Increasing/reducing ghost acres on the other hand doesn't affect the untagged country in any manner that is positive or negative, it is simply additional free land for the attacker.

The CS losses also make being a techer landtrader a LOT less profitable, since you end up spending so much time rebuilding your CS as is.

Purposeful1

Peanut

Member
154

Apr 4th 2013, 3:36:55

Maybe add an AI component to attacking? Besides land trading and bottom feeding(which isn't conducive to a good finish) oilers, farmers, and some other strats don't have any real options to spend turns on. Other strats like cashers and teachers have options directly built into the game that greatly benefit them more than the others. Without a huge increase in player base and people playing untaggs with the current L:L alliance enforced and land trading culture certain strats will always be better than the rest when it comes to netgaining and even warring.

bertz

Member
1638

Apr 4th 2013, 4:19:42

No win-win will cause people to quit and be frustrated.
Just make it win less - win more

locket

Member
6176

Apr 4th 2013, 5:40:36

I tend to think it is just best to agree with Xin. He is always right anyways.

bertz

Member
1638

Apr 4th 2013, 5:56:06

Originally posted by locket:

I tend to think it is just best to agree with Xin. He is always right anyways.

^ Yeah

KriSatZ

Member
270

Apr 4th 2013, 5:59:23

I'll say in here as well,

You are all looking at changing landtrading, well, why is nobody looking at making slight changes else where?

A tech that increases land explored. (Would also give the techers another string to the bow to sell)

Land being available to buy on the private market. That increases unit value per acre of land the country has by an increasing ammount?

Both these would help the other strats compete with trading. I really don't like the idea of 2 people being able to grab each other and come out on top. BUT the level of co-operation that has to go into alliances to make it work, is all part of an alliance server where pacts and relationships can be forged. So I think it would be foolish to ignore that site of it.

Success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are.

LaFamiglia - zKriSatZwpn - LaFamiglia

Cerberus

Member

EE Patron
3849

Apr 4th 2013, 6:10:23

Originally posted by Xinhuan:

Originally posted by qzjul:

I do think landtrading is a bit too much abused;

The trick is how to adjust it without causing people to revert to extreme bottomfeeding...

You intended it to nerf landtrading, but instead it harmed bottomfeeding because bottomfeeding no longer gets much acres. All the bottomfeeders switched to landtrading, and with so many countries landtrading, C:C DR isn't even close to becoming an issue.

You should
A) Revert the C:C DR change
B) Half the ghost acres gained
C) Remove the Dict ghost acre bonus - you will notice almost all the landtraders are Dicts for a reason - and make the BPT penalty slightly less to compensate.

(You need both B and C because otherwise people will just switch to Theo casher land trading)

The whole point is, without competitive land grabbing (via bottomfeeding), Alliance is fast becoming a cooperative grabbing server.

This is a joke, right? Competitive landgrabbing (via bottomfeeding), Right?

That's not competitive, that's repertitive, carries no risk of an actual retal, and just defeats the whole concept of competitive.

If you really want competitive landgrabbing, get all the alliances to start landgrabbing from each other. Then you'll have competitive landgrabbing.

That's the only way. Instead, you all hang around scumming off the newbies and untagged until one of them suicides, then you all trot your spineless asses up here and cry about it.

If you want to compete, compete at building a powerful country, not just the fattest. Prove your mettle and grab someone who could conceivably retal the strike.

Institue a "No Balls, No Bluechips" ratio for land. Hitting someone with a net close to yours should result in the largest gains to reward the bold and the brave, while bottomfeeding shouldn't yield much more than exploring for land. Then, we can actually all compete.

Edited By: Cerberus on Apr 4th 2013, 6:19:54
See Original Post

I don't need anger management, people need to stop pissing me off!

locket

Member
6176

Apr 4th 2013, 6:19:24

It is competitive. One person wins in bottomfeeding and the other loses.

Only way to compete for powerful countries and net is if they remove military expenses so you can carry full military and eliminate stocking.. but then Laf would just grab everyone and everyone would hate it :P

Xinhuan

Member
3728

Apr 4th 2013, 7:15:25

Originally posted by Cerberus:

Are you acting dumb? That is exactly what is happening now. The so-called "competitive landgrabbing" you claim you want by alliances starting to landgrab each other... Hey guess what? It is called landtrading! It is "competitive" in the sense you can finish top 10, right?

This is a war game, not a hug each other game.

Forgotten

Member
1605

Apr 4th 2013, 7:20:21

xin, i thought PDM has successfully made it a hug each other game by making the netters land trade.

~LaF's Retired Janitor~

ZIP

Member
3222

Apr 6th 2013, 3:04:58

w0w more big moves by LAf this set is truly some changing fluff. They have shown they will do anything and everything to reach rank #1. Anything goes as long as they hold #1. Although i don't agree with it, it do like their attitude and commitment to reaching their goals. but i don't think they played nice.

Forgotten

Member
1605

Apr 6th 2013, 3:05:52

play in PDM if you want to play nice. FA some guy who has no clue to try to get #1

~LaF's Retired Janitor~

Detmer

Member
4247

Apr 6th 2013, 3:08:30

Originally posted by Forgotten:

play in PDM if you want to play nice. FA some guy who has no clue to try to get #1

FA <=> Market aid

Pick your poison.

ZIP

Member
3222

Apr 6th 2013, 3:14:23

all was with-in the game rules. what are you going to do about it? try to change it politically by fighting and changing pacts and affiliations? No you will accept it and it will happen next set. LAf has this server under it's thumb and they again have proven it.

neal

Member

EE Patron
96

Apr 6th 2013, 3:49:30

well zip for the record, we are not the first ones to pioneer land trading(see RD, PDM, EVO, others....), there are many within the LaF alliance who view it as something that is not legit(i am in that camp).... there was some controversy engaging in this practice but unfortunately we decided to try it out and the results are pretty ridiuclous and speak for themselves, keep in mind we just started this set when others were engaging in it

I hope qz and the other game admin's change this as landtrading kind of destroys the spirit of the game/competition(although i suppose you could argue this for bottom feeding)

for the record LaF has never market aided people....

I'm pretty sure every alliance FA's each other countries for the end of reset finish, is this not a generally accepted practice?

ZIP

Member
3222

Apr 7th 2013, 13:28:54

what is accepted and what is not is determined by what you get away with. No war this set over it then it is accepted.

neal

Member

EE Patron
96

Apr 7th 2013, 21:43:18

I am confuse on your last statement

but yes what alliance are you from

I am pretty sure they have FA'd each other for end of set top ranking purposes

Marshal

Member
32,589

Apr 7th 2013, 21:56:10

zip is imag's aFA (so says lks).

Patience: Yep, I'm with ELK and Marshal.

ELKronos: Patty is more hairy.

Gallery: K at least I am to my expectations now.

LadyGrizz boobies is fine

NOW3P: Morwen is a much harsher mistress than boredom....

ZIP

Member
3222

Apr 7th 2013, 22:28:27

referring to generally accepted pratices - what makes them accepted is by putting them in a pact to signor to war over it if someone does not agree with it, the winner makes it accepted or not.

lol IMAG HAS NEVER FAED SOMEONE INTO THE TOP 10 !!

but neal i can tell by your post count there is a chance you are new so no worries.

Xinhuan

Member
3728

Apr 8th 2013, 2:46:19

Actually, Neal has been playing this game since 13 or so years ago.

euglaf

Member
408

Apr 8th 2013, 3:37:14

Originally posted by Xinhuan:

Actually, Neal has been playing this game since 13 or so years ago.

actually, neal has been playing since early 98. He recruited me, hanlong, and bakku all at the same time in late 98

dannydk

Member
87

Apr 8th 2013, 4:21:54

crappy post count, that 15yr old newb