Hello members of the Earth Empires Alliance community,

As everyone knows, for the past few sets wars between the two major sides have been starting earlier and earlier, approaching a truly OOP war. This set, the war started on day 8, meaning only about 5 days of growth for the alliances involved. The war was quickly decided within less than two weeks, though it still continues. Being at war for about 5 weeks when either you mostly cannot hit down to or hope to lemming targets (depending on which side you're on) is definitely not what the war experience should be like in EE. We all know that later set wars are more fun and more strategic (rather than relying on your members to run a decent C/I for less than a week), but preventing this is a sense of paranoia that has overtaken most if not all of the major alliances. To combat this, and better the game in the process, the leaders of many alliances came together (including Rage, SoL, SoF, LaF, MD, PDM, Evo, Omega, LCN, and Rival) via a skype conversation and over the course of a couple weeks we have formed a resolution to stop early wars for at least the next two sets. Understanding that there is a time and a place for an early war, the conclusion reached was that it is best to put a hold on all of it for two sets at minimum. The terms are as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This resolution is enforcable by every signed member against all alliances in game, regardless of signing.


This resolution overrides any and ALL pacting in place without exceptions.


Extreme acts of war (which include kill runs, cripple runs, harmful spy ops and missile runs) may not occur prior to the beginning of the 29th day of the set. Stray accidental hits are tolerated and recurring infractions will be dealt with harshly.


Countries/tags that participate in EAoWs will be killed by any or all of the alliances that have signed this pact. Participation from all tags signed is expected as it is in place to protect everyone.


The signed parties understand that breaking this pact will nullify ALL other pacts signed, including FDP, LDP and uNAPs.



-EAoW definition:

--10+ special attacks (non-missile) made, by 2+ countries, against any country within 24 hours

--10+ harmful spyops made by at least one country against any single country within 24 hours

--5+ landgrabs by any country on a single tag within 48 hours*

--5+ landgrabs by any tag on a single country within 48 hours*

--5+ missile attacks made, by 2 countries, against any country within 24 hours

* - mutual landtrading and retals are exempt from this definition


-If a set of attacks does not meet EAoW thresholds, then the matter will only be decided between the offender's alliance and the defender's alliance.


-If a set of attacks does meet an EAoW threshold but the parties are able to resolve the situation independently, this pact need not be invoked.

--In the case the offending alliance wishes to resolve the issue independently, as long as a fair offer is made in a timely manner, this resolution may not be invoked.

--Definition of a fair offer:

---Offending alliance detags and kills the suicider ASAP

---Offending alliance makes an offer within 48 hours, to pay fair reps by the formula below to the victim, and payment must take no more than 96 hours unless the victim allows for an extended window.

----Reps in terms of tanks. Accepted rates for reps are as follows: 300tpa first month. 1 tank=3 jets/turrets = 4 troops = $550. Reps for tech points lost will be $3300 per tech point in the first month.

-----If a special attack (other than NM, which is calculated as above) is used and reps are owed, then $60,000 per building is owed in the first month. Military lost will be returned with 10% extra. Stock lost will be returned with 10% extra as well.


-If a country or alliance commits an Extreme Act of War against another and there is no independent resolution, the offending alliance, as a result of this resolution, automatically declares war on all signatories of this resolution.


-If a signatory of this resolution believes a country or spam tag (definition below) is going to suicide on their or another alliance, they are allowed to declare their suspicion on AT up to 24 hours after a pre-emptive EAoW against the suspected suicider. If the suicider initiates hostilities, there is no need for such a declaration as the suicider, by attacking, would have violated the terms of this resolution.


-Definition of a spam tag:

--Any alliance without formal relations to another alliance in the game

--Any tag under 10 members by day 7 that has not played the previous set

--Excludes SoF, SoL, MD, LaF, RAGE, Evo, PDM, DK, TPA, ICN, LCN, Omega, MONSTERS, RIVAL, DANGER.


After signing, this resolution is active for two sets until the end of the Dec14-Jan15 set.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short version: This pact prevents all early wars on the Alliance server for the next two sets. The only early war that should occur is when one alliance declares war on another (or at least commits an extreme act of war), all signatories of the pact declare war on the aggressor. This does not include suiciders and untagged landfarms.

List of pact signatures:

RAGE - Signed - FDF - 9/29 - Skype
SoL - Signed - CC - 9/30 - Skype
SoF - Signed - Aponic - 9/30 - Skype
Evo - signed - tellarion - 9/30 - Skype
MD - signed - tav - 9/30 - Skype
LaF - signed - ingle - 9/30 - Skype
Omega - signed - tulosba - 10/1 - Skype
PDM - Signed - AusPiggy - 10/1 - Skype
ICN - signed - Nole - 10/1 - Skype
LCN - signed - Scribble - 10/1 - Skype
RIVAL - signed - Heinrich - 10/1 - Skype
TPA - signed - PaoLo - 10/1 - Skype
DK - signed - bstrong - 11/3 - Skype


Lastly I'd like to thank Colonel Chaos for writing the basis of the pact; he basically got the ball rolling on working out the actual details of what we were all going to agree to. Of course I'd also like to thank the representatives of Evo (Tellarion), LaF (Ingle), LCN (Scribble), Rival (Heinrich), PDM (AusPiggy), SoL (Mdevol, Colonel Chaos, Makinso), SoF (aponic, WArriOR), TPA (PaoLo), MD (Randy, Tavaren), Omega (Tulosba), as well as Robyn, my companion from Rage.

Hopefully this step will make this server more enjoyable and start to build trust where it has long been absent.

Fail Diego Fail
RAGE HFA


Edit 11/4: Added DK as a signatory

The signatory clans are, of course, free to agree not to war with each other. Seeking to compel others to give up their right to war is another matter.

One Man´s Army is not a signatory. If sufficient offence is given to OMA, war will result whether the offence is given early or late.

Furious
FA One Man's Army

and here i was thinking we needed less pacts.

Furious, for your own sake, I'd encourage you to exercise your FA muscles and look for a peaceful position. If you can't or don't want one, then you should probably stock like mad and wait until Day 29 before pulling anything. Otherwise: dead.

I'll give you a tip, tellarion. When you want others to fall in with an idea you can ask them to do so or you can threaten them.

You guess which works better.

Furious - that all depends on who the "others" are. For some, threats are more effective.

It doesn't matter if you choose to fall in with the idea or not. The vast majority of the server has already adopted this resolution. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, and that's fine. But if you decide to start a war before day 29, the results won't be pretty. Your choice.

OMA = Spam Tag.... :D

how about no pacts at all, leave everyone nervous and edgy all set ?

All the signatory alliances would go to war with an alliance that never agreed to the treaty, because that alliance fought back against aggressive farming?

Personally, I would say no. That does not appear to be the purpose of this pact.

So this means that a tag that gets hit by every alliance at once over, say, 15 spy ops, would technically have the FS lol

If a small alliance has a grievance, they can come before the Council of Mighty Alliances (CoMA) to have it resolved.

Well, aggressive farming would itself be an EAoW, since EAoW contains these 2 definitions:

--5+ landgrabs by any country on a single tag within 48 hours*
--5+ landgrabs by any tag on a single country within 48 hours*

So for example, if 3 Evo countries PSes a single OMA country 5 times within 48 hours, that would be a EAoW.

-If a set of attacks does meet an EAoW threshold but the parties are able to resolve the situation independently, this pact need not be invoked.

If OMA refuses to resolve the situation, then the pact could be invoked to destroy Evo. But:

--In the case the offending alliance wishes to resolve the issue independently, as long as a fair offer is made in a timely manner, this resolution may not be invoked.

So if Evo was able to make a fair offer in a timely manner, then the pact cannot be invoked. So OMA either accepts the timely offer, or OMA gets wrecked by a 1v1 war since the pact cannot be invoked even though Evo is the aggressor in this hypothetical scenario?

Did I get it right, or did I miss something?

Say 5 Evo players each attack a separate OMA player two times per day every day without violating those definitions. Say OMA finds this unacceptable, and they are not interested in "fair offer," they prefer to fight back and do. It's still the first month of the reset. Is that Evo's problem to deal with alone, or is this bit below enforced on an unsigned alliance who didn't agree to this deal:

This pact has but ONE intention: Eliminate fluffty OOP wars and make the game more fun. The paranoia that led up to the OOP wars is now alleviated. Secondary... talking may help mend relations... any alliance members wishing to join the chat, contact me.

Blid/Furious: If you want to aggressively farm a large tag... they won't need the other signers to stomp your ass, they will do it themselves.

Any other Alliances that wish to sign the above pact, please contact me via email or skype as per my signature. I will add you to the list and give you the link to the list of signees (google doc).

Thanks!

OMA has 4 members. No relations. If you cannot retal them effectively, what makes you think warring them would be any more successful? If EvO needs all our help to fend of a 4 country tag... they have some major issues. THe intent of this was to prevent early wars. Not ROFLstomp small tags who fight back. I doubt that situation will ever come about...

Lol.
It aint gonna work. You all will still hate eachother. You will all still argue about why. The above draft solidified how much this server needs to retired and never mentioned again.

At least I'm trying... I refuse to continue with so much paranoia and hate...

This is why this game gets thinner every year, wow, 1a reaches an all time high in WutThaFckness

Hey, I'm just trying hard to find loopholes!

For example, SoF could disband and form 10 different tags of 6 members each, SoF1, SoF2, SoF3, etc, so now none of these would be recognized as a signatory, but they could all FDP each other and each SoF tag could do 4 grabs every 48 hours on every other tag without it being an EAoW!

This pact was not designed to eliminate the hate or to stop the wars. It was to stop the 2month long attrition fest that was dragging the game down. The wars will still happen just not at day 8-10.

at last - an ideea that would help the growing of the game. Or at least prevent more flee ...

needs proper capitalization of the words forming the acronym, along with a mention of the acronym used throughout the rest

Stopping early wars? You all wish to prolong your fight? This does nothing to solve the actual fluffing problem, whatever that is. This is 8-10 people sitting down to do nothing other than impose stupid fluff server wide. It is ironic. You cant seem to change eachother so you come up with this to stroke both sides imposing ego? fluff u. You all can do better than that. Do something constructive instead of adding more fluff to the pile.

I thought tella's threats were implying everyone would attack us.

The intention wasn't to end feuds mate. That is one of the great parts of the game. It was simply to shift the wars to a later time frame so everyone could have more fun. Country building will be a factor again. This isn't to say that EVO won't declare war on MD due to their long standing grievances. We all know that could happen at any moment after day 29!

pretty much this

Heston: we aren't so much imposing anything on the rest of the server as imposing a stop to the early wars that have occurred between the signing parties to date. It is down right demoralizing for both sides. The language of the pact was simply designed for the purpose I already mentioned. If a smaller alliance hits SOF, I am sure we will be happy to deal with them alone. The intention of the pact is not to 'gang up'.

Bottom line is that the above will be enforced no matter what. It doesnt add any honor to it by choosing to deal with it inhouse rather than the coalition of babies that signed that pact. Doesnt help that your actions dont need approval by everyone. If the rule wasnt self governing, every last one of you would have no hope. I get everyone is fed up, rightfully so. It is all self inflicted though. This pact will turn into another controversy and be on someones scorecard of ethics. So the reason for the rule is stupid, the rule itself is retarded.

Colonel. You got a bit carried away.

The agreement achieved its avowed purpose once the signatories - the clans who have gone in for ever earlier wars - agreed not to do so for two sets and to enforce this agreement among themselves by all ganging up on any signatory who fails to abide by it.

The threat to others, who have had little or nothing to do either with the early wars or with the server war this set, is irrelevant to the purpose you pursued.

That threat is irksome and bullying and overlooks the fact that a small clan's willingness to go to war if abused is about the only card it holds when dealing with a large aggressive clan.

Furious: I get the point you're trying to make, but in practice there's not going to be any difference. No larger tags are going to ever bother calling in others for a fight vs. a small tag, as any half-decent tag could kill 5 countries within 48 hours without breaking a sweat, then swat your restarts down as they pop up.

I am glad to hear that the large clans will not bother calling in others, iccyh.

Although that makes me wonder why they put this threat into their agreement/announcement and why tellarian, who seems to be some sort of self appointed spokesperson, repeated the threat so promptly and so enthusiastically.

In any event I have posted quite enough in this thread and have no wish to pour cold water over the main thrust of what is being done. The detail has gone astray but if the core part of the agreement helps the signatories to break out of their dull and repetitive routines that will be a good thing.

This thread is null and void Suncrusher didn't sign anything

The signatories of the agreement compose most of the server. The threat is in there because it makes no sense for them to hamstring themselves by agreeing to something like this while allowing others to adhere to a different standard when they can add an enforcement clause that no non-signatories will dare test.

Of course they'd include that and of course they'd stand by it; they don't want to be taken advantage of.

1) The fair offer is a reps formula (rounded up a bit) I found in a unap, I'm pretty sure as long as the offer is as good or better than what is in the above pact it is worth taking.
2) If Evo commits an EAoW against a non-spam tag, they'll be declared on by the signatories of the pact. If Evo grabs OMA a few times a day every day without violating the conditions, then yeah technically OMA would not be 'in the right' to declare war on Evo, based on the text of the pact. But, if OMA fits the definition of a 'spam tag' (it may or may not), then there's really no restriction on anyone grabbing OMA. If OMA declared war on Evo it could be everyones problem but I doubt Evo would need assistance with that.
3) The pact is enforced server-wide, regardless of signing (as explained in the first few lines).



That is possible, though with escalating retals and some form of L:L that most alliances have, the countries that participate in this will essentially be farmed to the point where they cannot keep up with the growth of others. Retals aren't included in the landgrabs per 48 hours, and you can still do 4 more to stay within the bounds. Also, since SoF# (a tag of 6 members) would not have played the last round and is under 10 members, they would be considered a spam tag and would be able to be killed with a suspicion that they will suicide or commit an EAoW.

You'll probably always be able to find a loophole, but the point of the pact was to stop this cycle of needing to get the FS first so badly that it happens in the first week. You can still war on day 29; this pact is no longer in effect the start of the 5th week of the set. So if SoF# have been skirting the rules till then they should expect to be destroyed in week 5. No leader worth anything would even try that.

Also this. Nobody would sign if it meant guaranteeing an enemy a pre-week 5 FS :P

now we just need an agreement that would put a CF into effect once the wars became so lopsided that nobody (winning or losing) is having any fun. I've been on both sides and to be brutally honest I'd rather have a tight close war than to win by complete domination, it just gets boring.

^^^ So much this. The main reason for including non-signers was to make it clear that any large alliance who initially refrained from the signing would still be liable for their actions... and uNAPs and pacts won't save them.



^^^ And yea... I stopped playing my country a month ago. BORING on either end. Hopefully things change a little and we can have more wiggle room in this...

I was not able to hit in this war since end of August.

Heston your so negative, this in itself could be the start of change in the game. The fact alone that everyone came together, and that there was no negativity nor fighting involved. Its a simple start, and I think it was a great idea by chaos. Its time to turn the game around. The grudges, the hate, its all getting old. Don't be so negative :):)

Robyn
RAGE PRESIDENT

I'll pretend my opinion means something and offer my two cents on this:

My personal experience leading has taught me to be very cynical about the ability of alliances to act in the interests of the game as a whole; it was always unfortunately common to see alliances filled with good people allying with bad actors due to expedience. I firmly believe that the game as it used to be, with thousands of players rather than hundreds, died directly because too many people found it expedient to cheat or ally with cheaters (it was always bound to decline given the age and nature of the game, but so many people were chased off by the futility of trying to achieve anything while cheaters had so much power).

Accordingly, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this agreement: is this really a group of alliances collectively doing something for the betterment of the game, or is this just a case where the stars aligned and it was in the individual interest of every signatory to do this?

In the end, I don't suppose it matters as the outcome is decidedly positive either way and I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth. Everyone involved should be applauded and absolutely encouraged to take game considerations into account when making alliance-level decisions as with there being so few people playing, attrition due to frustration is not something we can collectively afford if the game is to continue on.

Cool stuff, nice job.

*fewer

:D

/bonus

Bunch of fkn whiners here to be honest. Personally, I was against enforcing this pact on non-signatories, but I can understand why it turned out this way. This was aimed mainly at the big alliances who constantly fight each other, in order to reduce attrition and hopefully make wars fun again. As I said earlier, this set was incredibly tedious, and very few people actually enjoyed it.

And furious, grow up. If you want to act like a real alliance, then people will treat you as one. Please don't follow the model of fazer/outlaw and their rotating band of garbage. Get a few people who can run a strong commie, retal within the bounds of accepted practices, contact people if there are issues, and people will respect that.

Or continue to be snarky and fluff at me for stating facts. There's no need to come to each and every alliance directly, as, frankly, most alliances have nothing to do with this and aren't the target of this agreement. Hell, Evo may be a signatory, but even we aren't the main target of these restrictions. But as it stands, every war alliance, and 80%+ of the server have agreed to this. So yeah, you can take that however you damn well want.

I think this is more because there's basically no point to stopping a war anymore. I don't think it spawned out of a desire to grind alliances into dust(because otherwise, the losing side would probably approach the winners and ask...that hasn't been happening lately). If the war starts in week 2, and is mostly decided by week 4, then what the hell do we do for 4 weeks? Quit(and watch as most people never come back)? Try to net while hamstrung and far behind? Start another war?

I find it interesting that an Early war according to this agreement is pretty much the whole first half the set. That is not how I would define early. Instead I recommend that this be renamed to:
First Half War Prevention Pact.

This is trivial and being nit picky. I do understand the intent of this and have no issues with that if that is what majority of players in server feels needs done, and do realize that some time frame must be agreed upon. But it still strikes me as funny.

If its not late, then its early. There is no such thing as an "on time" war.

Early half, later half.

You aren't being nit picky, you are just being retarded and scrapping hard to find something to post about.

Furious is just angry, because if there are no wars in the first 28 days of the reset, then everyone is going to be farming OMA rather than farming the alliances people are at war with.

Send me a pm, let's work something out to make sure that at least Paradigm won't step on the little guys, server pact or not.

The first full 4 weeks? Seems a bit of a stretch to me.