http://atarchive.gotdns.org:8080/...ivepost.jsp?thread=238665

he hit that one of the head pretty well lol.

Pain means BigDog? Yea he is smart guy.

He was right about multies, they provided land and no multies like at former EC (not that it was totally multi-free) and current Alliance Alliances hit others more and start wars or hit same tgts (those few who are untagged) as others and get crappy returns but don't start wars.

Wow he seen the future

He didn't really see the future... it was already happening when he wrote that. In 2006, a lot of RD was leaving the game and a lot of land farms were disappearing.

Though he didn't predict that all-x strats would come into vogue... which was the larger in game change that happened as a result of multies leaving the game.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I like koon's thoughts about self-retals :p
I think the game would benefit if all alliances moved to a country:country retal system for single hits, with multiple hits open to alliance-wide retals.

Country:Country would never work. You would find alliances that did follow that retal system losing members quite easily once members were fed up with being hit regularly and unable to retal, or retal other hits made on other members. If a 20M NW country hits a 5M NW country, that country would have to blow a lot of stock to even try to get the land back. It would be taken advantage of to the point that the members losing the land would go elsewhere where they could be protected.

if u went to country:country u might as well remove the tag, the whole point of a tag was to protect each other

While there was a time when tag-wide retals were unacceptable (I think it was IX who fought a couple wars to bring them in), there's no way they'll be leaving the game.

You can only change policies to something that offer an advantage. If a major alliance tried to enforce C:C retals, no one else would even need to fight them over it. They could all follow C:C retals with that alliance and it wouldn't matter -- because there's no way said alliance would netgain as well as alliances following current retal policy.

How many crappy netting resets is a major alliance going to suffer before changing their policies back?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

thomas and fooglmog hit it on the head about C:C.

it will never work. someone may try it but i forsee them dying over and over at the hands of more then 1 tag

the only way it would be possible would be if all alliances adopted it at the same time, that's for sure

"if u went to country:country u might as well remove the tag, the whole point of a tag was to protect each other"

the tag would protect you from multiple hits from the same clan/country
and the grabbing power of a tag would probably be a deterrent, as clans could go into grabbing pseudo-wars without breaking policies

just an idea anyway... i think it would certainly be interesting

If C:C were applied in the way suggested, the larger countries would simply cherry-pick a single, small target from every clan. More likely than not, the hitting clans are all going to find the same target. Now you have a single country that's required by this policy to retal however-many hits on its own, while its larger teammates simply climb the ladder to the top 10.

Wow.

'They'll adapt and "complain" a lot and either fold or merge.'

Smart doggy. ;)

What's kinda interesting is that he had Elysium in the 'mega' alliance category...and now they're the ones being farmed/killed as per his 'prediction'...

NA had at its peak over twice current members and that isn't as far as Ely's peak at members.

ya ely was pretty big back in the day

and rage et co had years ago several hundred members.

i remember 550 in rage that was a little nuts

but I believe that was during the era when several hundred were multies, be it known to leadership or not :p

1A had 20,000 countries and 5000 players?:P

Turtle Crawler
Patron Jul 16th, 2006 1:07
When orkin says your a cheater apologist b/c your using their same arguments, hes really saying that your saying the same things that i said to him when we discussed this exact problem earler. he can call it a "cheater apologist" argument or whatever, but it doesn't make it any less true.

1. Removing NW ratios from landgrabing gains is crucial to large countries hiting each other.

2. without it multies are crucial to having enough land to grab and a fun enviornment for people to play

so

3. if its just like limited without untaggeds you won't have anymore people playing than say... limited.

And it will fail.

People can say whatever they want, but it wasn't a player decision for alliances to not grab each other, it was a decision made by mehul and can only be reversed by mehul. In the end everything is dictated by the rules and formuli that mehul puts into the game, whether he or anyone else knows or takes credit for it or not.
This is where I see us heading

2003: 12-14k countries

2010: under 1k