Just who are the war tags?

All I can conclusively come up with is SoF, Sol, and iMag. Sanctuary, Paradigm and Rage are probably the next most warlike, but none of them is what I would call a true war-tag.

Perhaps the reason that the war alliances keep picking on the netters is because they have a genuine fear of extinction if they keep killing each other off. This is probably the fewest dedicated fighting alliances in relation to the game as has ever existed.

As much as i agree with the general sentiment that repeatedly blindsiding netters is not very productive - upon further review, having Sol and SoF war each other set after set is not any more sustainable.

We really need at least 5 competitive war alliances in order to provide a game where the war/net cycle allows everyone to play the game the way they want at least 2/3 of the sets.

so,

RAGE - Start working those old email lists and try to restore yourselves to the fighting elite

IX - come back

TIE - use your time with LCN to rebuild and then spin back off as the fighting machine you once were

RD - tons of potential to work the villian angle and prove that you are elite fighters and can be a force in war

Or - how about a WOG, RM, or KoG comeback?

Of course, for any of this to work we need to increase the player base. But, if any two of these tags can take it to the next level then that would give us 5 war tags that could vie for political control of the server. That is also enough to allow any of them to take a break as needed for rebuilding.

Being the warriors is hard work, we cannot expect 2-3 tags to carry the burden alone.

It is parallel to the downward shift in players as well

some pretty good suggestions, but the only solid solution would be a influx of quality players

TIE is a netting clan.

not sure if you realised, but netting clans are dissapearing aswell

fighters were driven away by other fighters
netters were driven away by fighters

I don't see how this thread has much merit :p

mrford hit it on the head -- the game has been losing clans and members consistently for 6 to 7 years.
it's almost time for growth again, though.

Players as a whole were driven away by cheating, a lack of game development, bottom feeding, unfair retal policies and war clans. In that order.

There's another thread where I go in depth on this though... so I won't launch into a full rant here.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

lol your so full of fluff foog Unfair retal policies did more then war clans? Should we saint you yet?

as well as being driven away by being farmed by netters:p

In the history of this game? Definitely more people have been driven away by ridiculous retal policies than by war clans.

Unless you want to attribute things like RD's campaign against UCN as the fault of war clans instead of cheaters.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I said it back in the day, and I haven't changed my opinion, but when landgrabing between real alliances because basically useless do to land:land, the game became pointles because you then only had the Untagged/multi's that were available to be hit, which drove the legit new players away, and multi's would suicide more.

TIE netted as well as warred it was 50/50...

...although while I was VP/HFA I did tend to avoid wars as I was lazy and liked to hug trees :P

add suicider to that list

I view being farmed and being blindsided in the same category, personally. I'm not sure if it's possible to argue about which one is worse--although personally, being killed out of the blue ends the pain more quickly than being farmed into oblivion.

It's harsh, but untaggeds would get spammed so much with clan recruitment messages, that if they don't join one and get farmed as a result, they only have themselves to blame.

well, the difference between being blindsided and being farmed is that we already have mechanics and AI-related changes meant to alleviate the kind of farming we have seen over the last few years. this is seen as a major problem to the game by most netters -- I don't see netters defending the idea of farming tags/untagged/etc, only saying that it in a necessity to be able to play competitively, and as such, we have had good discussions about how we can update the game to make it more friendly to new players and conducive to small clans growing.

the only solution to blindsiding is political (short of MAJOR changes to game mechanics that change the nature of the game drastically) and we have seen no attempt to diverge from the path we're on by any of the fighting alliances or even some netting alliances

I think the main difference between the netters and fighters, in that regard, is that netters pretty much universally realize that farming IS an issue, and want to work towards a solution.
Fighters generally tend to favour the status quo, or make the argument for netters (or fighters) who are blindsided need to "toughen up and deal with it" and we seem to have a general culture where war alliances say "we will not hit our friends, and our friends are all the war alliances!"
netting alliances are only friends until they're viable targets, but war alliances are apparently friends forever.

it's not an apples to apples comparison at all.

I'm thinking in terms of an untrained player that doesn't know what the hell to do when he starts getting fifteen notices a day about being hit, or a notice of getting killed. Either way, he won't be happy, and after enough time he'll leave.

Although, I have to thank dustfp for reminding me why that hopefully won't happen, as there will be enough chances for that player to get decent advice and tag protection on top of it.

Well, we're also focused on putting brand new players into the solo-play games because we don't feel the alliance games will be new-player friendly.

I think people generally forget that we're not trying to expand the Alliance player base as our primary goal. We are looking at expanding the overall player base and allowing alliances to recruit from those servers.

Pang, you've been asserting on these forums for several weeks now that war alliances do nothing but hit netters without cause. So far this hasn't been challenged, but does history really bear it out? It certainly wasn't a constant phenomenon on 2025... and I don't think the history here on EE supports that point of view either.

I can't speak knowledgeably about every war alliance since the move to EE. I haven't been involved enough in politics to pay a lot of attention. But what alliances do we have to address here. SoF, iMagNum, SoL... who else?

I don't even know how SoL's war last reset started... let alone what they've done over the last year. However, I know that SoF didn't blind side anybody last reset. They tried to get through peacefully absorbed an FS. In the resets before that, I don't know who they fought... but I know that in April they wanted a peaceful reset too. Could someone more familiar with their recent resets post a summary of their wars including who FSed who?

Of course, iMagNum I can speak knowledgeably about. And I don't think that our history of EE is in line with your claims. Anyway, reset by reset:

EE Reset 1: iMagNum FSed LaF. I forget if we had any serious reasons or not. But I'm willing to mark this war with being in line with what you're complaining about. 1 point for Pang's theory.

EE Reset 2: TIE FSed Collab. iMagNum dec'd TIE. RAGE, Rogue and Elysium all dec'd iMagNum. None of those wars are "war alliances beating up on netters" and there's no doubt that there's war clans righting eachother here. Obviously war clans do fight eachother. 1 point against Pang's theory (at least).

EE Reset 3: iMagNum FS'd Fist of Odin and LCN Dec'd on iMagNum as a result. The war with Odin was prompted by their mass FA to TIE while we were fighting them the reset before. I have no idea if Fist wanted to net this reset or not, but if you intentionally interject yourself in wars you should expect consequences. LCN choosing to hit iMagNum is also, obviously, not a war alliance picking on innocent netters. That's 2 points against Pang's theory now.

EE Reset 4: LCN FSed iMagNum. Nothing complicated here, I don't think I need to explain any further. We're up to 3 points against Pang's theory.

EE Reset 5: ICN attacked SoF, iMagNum came in to protect their FDP. After a CF, Collab attacked SoF, EEVIL and iMagNum... after some funny politics the war became Collab & ICN v. iMagNum, Paradigm, SoF & EEVIL. I don't see any blind siding of netters here either. That's 4 points against Pang's theory.

Like I said, I can't speak about other alliances. If someone else wants to break down other war alliances' records to show how they have picked on netters, I will happily listen. But iMagNum, the poster-boy for the "game destroying war alliance" has only twice in the last 5 resets declared war on an alliance that can make the argument that it was "netting". And only one of those two occasions was a blindside without provocation. In those five resets, we've certainly fought other war alliances too.

I'm sorry that the one netter blind side we've conducted in the last *year* was against your alliance Pang. But, at least as far as iMagNum is concerned, your claims that war alliances never fight each other and only blind side those who want to netgain in peace is nothing but hot air.

If you think the record of another alliance supports your claims better, fine. But I want you to post the record so I can see the evidence. Without that, you've got nothing but deflated hyperbole.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

PS. Pang, you recently commented that you lubbed me... do you still? :-)

EE reset 1 - SoL blindsided Collab near the end of the set

EE reset 3 - SoL FS'd Evo & DK

just to add to your data :p

umm.... ok, I'll go over your breakdown set by set

Reset 1: war with laf -- obvious, needs no explanation, we agre there

Reset 2: You didn't offensively hit anyone, you helped an ally which does not go against my theory. TIE hitting Collab (while they were netting, I think) may have been fighter vs netter.... depending on how you classify either alliance, I think that war could go either way.

Reset 3: Carryover from the previous war, I'll give you a point for that I guess since it does have somewhat of a reason and the fist isn't a PURE netting alliance, although they are closer than many.

Reset 4: Carry over from the previous set -- and LCN made it clear that they were only FS'ing imag because imag was going to FS LCN. It was no secret that imag was planning to hit LCN the next round. This would be a wash, but it would maybe be a "point for me" if LCN hadn't had the foresight to see that imag was going to continue this war.

Reset 5: you defended an ally again -- that's not part of my argument

So I think overall, you are trying to change the conversation. My argument is, and always has been, that fighters are not willing to challenge fighters to the kind of wars they used to, and instead bring war to netters. Your comments above show that clearly iMag has not pre-emptively FS'ed a war alliance at all in EE, but they did FS a netter. So I think that is 1 points for my theory, 0 against it.... maybe 1 against, depending on how you consider it.

You're also only looking at EE, where as I was talking about the general trend that started with the end of the SLIT vs RAGE wars, which were the last real "coalition" wars that weren't netter vs fighter. I don't see a single time that iMag has FS'ed or been FS'ed by a war alliance (ie both alliances are NOT at war, and the war begins when one alliance FS's another. All of your counter-points involved other alliances, maybe of which fall in line wit my argument of the fighter vs netter plight)


So in closing, I don't think you're actually attacking my argument, you're trying to create a different one -- that imag doesn't always blindside netting alliances, which I think is fair. I have never made that assertion. But they certainly don't go after fighting alliances when they have to make a choice of who to fight.

My core argument is that fighters are not hitting other fighters when they 'need a war' or are 'looking for a war'. They pact them and leave netters open to hit. Look at imag's wars you posted -- the catalyst which started all of them (whether it be the same set of the previous one, and regardless of whether imag was involved in the start of the war) is a fighter attacking a netter, possibly while netting.

Your signature is becoming more accurate the more you post on these threads :p

Now, this will probally be found as offensive to alot of people here, but the people who remember me will also know that I don't care:)

What pang is saying, goes into the theory of alot of the "new generation leadership" that is around now that calls the shots looks for the more easy victory. You started seeing it a little before I retired, and from reading these posts, it seems to have gotten worse. Now I'm not saying all you are, so dont' go there, but if you get offended by that, I probally mean you:)

From what I see in this game right now, There is really no big reason to war anymore.

Most allainces do land:land it seems
Some run on just all explore and retalers

The only reason I can see a war starting is someone picking a fight, or an allaince farming a smaller allaince. I know netting allainces did that in the past, and if they thought the allaince was no real threat to thier netting set, they didnt' care. Ohh no, that allaince will kill off a few of our smaller countries, Ok ANW goes up.

I know nothing of the political side of things here as I've been gone too long. But even though people change, the way the game is played or enjoyed doesn't change much.

But I got off track, The leadership nowadays goes after netters instead of war allainces you say, and now that I rethink it and type this out, I'll change my mind a bit. have you looked at the top 25 alliance list? There isn't 40 alliances to chose from right now, and this is a war game. I think someone stated earlier, if you don't like getting farmed, join a better allinace. IF you don't like fighting, Don't join an allinace game.

This post goes all over the place, probally makes little sense, and is not spell check approved

that is all over the place...

read my last post though, it sort of sums up the overall situation

are you advocating the idea of having separate fighting and netting servers for clans?
There is only ONE alliance game, so that is ONE place to have alliance-style netting, and alliance style warring (with 1 country each)

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what I am pushing for -- I'm not saying netting alliances should be left alone to net whenever they want, I think that they should have to fight as well, but fighting alliances should take on OTHER fighting alliances in the same manner they are willing to take on netting alliances

that is to say, starting issues with them, going to war and fighting it out.
It worked for many years, and the server's downfall has been accelerated by that policy, which - as I stated - started after the breakup of SLIT and has gotten progressively worse over time.

I've read your last post pang, My view is a wacky one of someone who went one way pulled a 180, and went another. You know me from back in the day, I could go all over the place in a matter of a couple sentences. Nothings changed. Let me try going at this at a better clip, and in a straight line:P

And first, I want to say this is not directed at anyone in particular, or any clan inparticular, but if you feel offended by it, then you are probally a target of this post inderectly:P\

Seperate servers is horrible idea:P In my opinion one of the things that was bad for earth 2025 to start with was more servers added. I beleive when we had alot of newer players(and multi's I know) There was 1a 1b and tourny. Throw the new players into allinace, let them get recuirted up, and go from there.

What my comment about netters/fighters was, Somewhere someone posted if you don't like getting farmed or something, go to a solo server or some crap. What I am saying, is if you dont' like to get get into a war, or have a chance at war, don't play in an alliance. Wars are part of the game. Simply put.

IF alliance leadership is not that great right now where Fighting alliances don't think that they can survive against each other, then they will go pick on someone smaller, or who isn't a "warring allaince". It's how weakend, no too harsh of a word. It's how the new generation leadership works From what I've seen. If there is a chance to fail, do not attempt. Horrible way to go about things, but at least you can pat yourself on the back I guess...

Pang I'm not defending either side either:P I'm a trouble maker.

Personally, I know nothing of politics now, but my guess would be the war alliances set up thier pacts so they can't war eachother, because they are afraid to lose.

They war a netter, and when they get an ally called in, they call someone else in, instead of dealing with it themselves. True war alliances could deal with a 2:1 advantage. Especially with a 120/120 FS advantage.

I went all over the place and cant' even remember the point, so I'll stop here for now

there was 1a, 1b, 1c, etc etc etc
+ tourney a through z
+ alliance
+ ffa

limited was OK, but nichey
EC was what accelerated the downfall (due to less multies, and real people being farmed)

i don't think we currently have too many servers, we just need to populate them :p

There wasn't an FFA though pang till down the line some, and limited and EC was just ewe.

I wasn't saying that there are too many servers here:P I was saying seperating netting alliances to one, and warring ones to another was not good:P

If you go back to my original post I identified what I think are the only three remaining pure fighter in the game - Sol, Sof, and iMag. Correct me if I am wrong, I missed the first set - to date, they have yet to war one another since the inception of EE?

I think that the uncertainty of the outcome, and the already low membership restrains them from fighting each other. They can satisfy their members bloodlust by warring the 'second tier war tags' LCN, PDM, Collab, and Rage - as well as taking random shots at LaF or NA when they need to fight even numbers. Right now our warring alliances are playing it safe.

PDM is not a war tag, and it never will be.

Our wars, save the last one (lots of politicking there, but ultimately was to help our friends in iMag) and the pre-arranged SoF war (was it last year?), are made out of necessity.

The difference between us and you war tags is that you war to have fun -- we war to maintain our tag's integrity when it's called into question, which has been happening a lot lately and it's looking like it's happening again this set (some tags have introduced a "new" retal policy and are "testing" it against PDM -- good luck retards).

We'll see how it goes. Warring is fun for me but I prefer the no-stress life of netting. I have no stress at all IRL -- except for when PDM has a warring set. :P

SoF and SOL has still warred each other more then anyone else in the game i think

I dont see what the problem is, I think theres 1 tag in the game that ive never ever killed and all the others ive done laps on several times around by now

I think part of it is what LS is saying, also that an SOL vs SoF war would be long and arduous, and fairly repetitive....

I personally believe in mixing the game rules up a bit (we've already done so for netting a couple times) to make things interesting; doing so for warring might be a nice change to make the warrers want to fight a *real* war.... just to try it out...

if we even discuss touching war mechanics, we usually get a new round of "OMG admin netters are ruining the game! welcome to netgaining paradise!" threads, even when the changes are positive for fighters :(

omg the admins are going to stop supporting netters?WTF PANG! I thought you were biased for us!

I've said for awhile now that I thought the worse thing for warring was the introduction of diminishing returns into attacks.

DR generally makes warring unprofitable. If you want to encourage more people to engage in war you have to give incentive for netters to war.

That means a successful war should lead to more land and concurrently higher networth for the victors. Since its impossible to defend from all special attacks, I would also make kills harder to execute and weaken ABs a little bit, that would give netters an incentive to systematically farm people for higher networths. They would still risk having damage to their countries but defending their countries would be more manageable without being online 24/7.

War right now largely is reliant on stonewalling and most people don't have the time to stonewall. If you want to encourage war, you need to lessen the killing / stonewalling paradigm a little bit and make it viable for users with less time and capable of only playing once a day to be more useful in wars.

To do that, you have to make a war involving landgrabbing without killing a viable war strategy for a netting alliance with less members but "better built" countries.

You have to give incentive to other smaller alliances to join the war and benefit from farming enemies. As long as you keep the same paradigm of war leads to lower networth for both sides, the trend of less war alliance and users interested in war will continue until they no longer exist.

I still remember in the first ten resets or so, pretty much all alliances were "war alliances." The basis for most of the early RoCK wars involved massive farming of enemy alliances which lead to higher networths. LaF in its early years warred for the same reason, to get more land for higher net.

Mehul screwed it all up by introducing diminishing returns because at that point war meant only sabotaging and destroying countries. He ended the incentive for netters to war with the introduction of DR.

You give netters a viable chance to get 100k or 150k acres through warring and they will be more open to war if it also means they can win the game or get a top 10 finish.

This thread has a lot of interesting thoughts, from the different sides' point of view. There was certainly a point where war alliances started pacting each other more and gave up grudges that had us fighting each other set after set for years.

The trend I noticed was that most netting alliances reached a point where they wanted to net at all costs, so they would pact at the last second in order to avoid being called into a war to help an ally. Before then, most would help out occasionally either directly, or with FA, and in return the war alliance would help keep people from attacking them while they netted. This trend of late pacting became surprisingly common, and left many alliances wondering who their allies really were. From SOL's perspective we reached a point where we had no alliance we could count on to stand with us. We then began talking to our long time enemies, trying to do simple pacts to avoid the exact same war set after set.

What we found doing this, was that it was those same alliances we used to hate that were most willing to work with us. While other netting alliances we'd been pacted to for years would try to stick every possible retal in that was written in a pact, another alliance might be willing to only take 1 retal over an obviously mistaken, failed grab. While an older "ally" would go out of their way to sign those pacts so that they'd never fight with or FA us, our old enemies were sometimes willing to help. While the old allies would retal before ever talking to us, the onetime enemies were in contact after each hit, trying to keep things working out between us.

This is a hard game to play in without any allies, and the biggest reason the warring clans started banding together, is because the leaders of most netting clans you couldn't count on for anything, or trust with any information. Now at the time there were a lot more alliances so there were still enough warring alliances to form sides, but now with the game shrinking that becomes harder and harder.

I often think of something Norcal once told me about leading. You don't make a pact with an alliance, you make a pact with the leader of that alliance. A pact is only worth as much as the person behind it.

It's a tough game to change up alliances in with so many leaders out there that don't talk to each other as much as we all used to.


Dragon

I can see where you are coming from. However, a lot of the problems you mention stem from the same problem of war = finishing with a lower networth. Netgaining alliances have member bases have users that want to avoid war at all costs because wars lead to lower networths for all parties involved almost 99% of the time.

Now on the other hand if you get rid of DR, then you might find someone more willing to help out, if it means their alliance can finish with an average land of 50 to 60k acres instead 30k acres by joining in to help out SOL in a war.

It's largely a matter of incentive. The more you mingle the incentives between warring and netgaining, the more integrated the community will become. Of course, this might mean letting go of kills being as prevelant in war strategies and weakening special attacks a little bit so first strikes are a little less important.

Making killing a little harder will give an advantage to players that have less time to stonewall... however, it comes with the benefit of allowing more people to partipate in a large war alliance.

I see a lot of old war people joining netting alliances for the simple reason that they don't have time to be a member of a war alliance (bc the current dynamics mean war alliance membership requires a lot more hours to be a contributing member).

it is true.. how many wars has laugh and the other netting alliances gone through because they don't regonize untags retal policy of I'd like my land back please. I think RD was created on that policy.. or atleast something to that nature of protecting the untags from being netting clan farms. war clans don't really bother with untags for the most part.. if they get retaled it pretty much ended there. if a member lost more land he got made fun of for losing more land then he took.. he didn't retal a retal cause he could.

Netters are also expected to keep their own land. Only time we ever take issue with untagged is when they hit people who havnt touched them. And if that is true about how RD started they sure didnt hold to that very long. I personally doubt that is true but I guess i dont know for sure.

And netters war with small tags due to excessive landgrabbing usually. War clans either war for no reason or to bully someone. At least one of those can be dealt with by FR :P

Is there much land exchange anymore with large alliances? There is what, about 10 alliances over 30 members? According to what I've read, there are 3 warring alliances, which would then lead to 7 netters/whatever happens alliances. Those 3 alliances constantly fighting each other because they just attack eachother over and over, would get boring. Playing in an alliance game always runs the risk of going to war. it's going to always happen, and as Dragon posted, netters pact out so they can't fight, so what really is the point in pacting with them. Sure they can FA you, but if you need the brute force, they aren't there.
Right now, the problem is just that there is limited #'s to do anything without ticking off someone. Which of course is something I like:P

Speaking of which, who are the left over members of TIE, Ant, Sir Mao, Anton, Bru.. any of them left?

Sir Mao vanished into thin air a long time ago and Bru went to LCN.

blackmamba should post way more! Great posts always

Pang, I'm confused. Isn't your argument "The practices of war alliances are bad for the game"?

With "practices" defined as "being pacted to one another, and only warring netters" and "bad for the game" defined as causing players to leave?

To suggest that your entire argument is just proving that war alliances are all pacted doesn't make sense... because that would be a fact that doesn't matter in and of itself. It only matters in the context of being detrimental to the game.

If I'm wrong in suggesting that's your argument, I apologize. But if it's not, than your comments don't fit into the discussion that this thread was designed to provoke.

On the other hand, if you accept that this is indeed your overarching theme, than the comments of mine, which you dismissed as irrelevant, once again come into play and prove you wrong.

Let me walk through this again slowly:

The basis for your argument (as I understand it) is that players in netting alliances are leaving the game because they don't want to war, yet war is forced upon them by war alliances.

Now, I established that since the start of EE, the alliance which is most associated with forcing wars upon peaceful netters (iMagNum) has only done so once. Every other war was either started by others, against someone already in a war, or provoked by the opposing alliance.

You attempted to dismiss these facts by modifying your argument. You began saying that the issue is that "fighters are not willing to challenge fighters". This allowed you to state that resets where iMagNum was called into a war via a pact or carried over a war from the previous reset somehow didn't disprove your assertion. Yet, as I've pointed out, this can't be your argument because there's nothing inherently wrong with this (it's also untrue, but I'll get to that). It's only something that needs to be stopped if it's detrimental to the game -- and its only detrimental to the game if it's causing players to leave.

Because of this, the frequency at which war alliances blind side netters matters. You want to dismiss any reset where iMagNum joined a war via pact (for example) as irrelevant -- yet I believe that frequency is the most relevant part of this discussion. You stated that you take issue with the fact that "fighters are not hitting other fighters when they 'need a war' or are 'looking for a war'". Apart from being patently untrue (I will get this this) it's also irrelevant unless the resets in which those fighters "'need a war' or are 'looking for a war'" are common. If such resets only happened 1 in 20 resets, you would not complain. At present, in EE's history, we have iMagNum having been in such a circumstance in 1 reset in 5. It's a judgement call as to whether this is enough to be detrimental to the game, but to entirely ignore the frequency (as you did by claiming that 1 reset proved your point, while none disproved it) is ridiculous.

As I stated in my original post, I'm happy to discuss other alliances records as well. If there is one which someone thinks proves Pang's point better that iMagNum, please post their EE history. I simply don't know anyone else's history well enough to bring it up myself.

Frankly, unless you can provide examples of other alliances with worse records that iMagNum in this regard, I believe that this effectively tears your argument asunder Pang. But here's the final nail:



We've done that. By your own admission, in EE's history there is only 1 point against iMagNum in terms of "blind siding netters". What you ignore is that this number of equal to the number of times iMagNum was been involved in a War alliance v. War alliance fight, in which both alliances were at peace prior to the FS.

In the third reset of EE, iMagNum fought Rage and both were at peace prior to the war.

I'm sorry Pang, but you're dead wrong no matter which way you turn on this.

If you stand by the suggestion that your only argument is that "War alliances are pacted to each other, and only war netters", my response is that it's not actually true and irrelevant unless it's causing harm. On the other hand, if you are, in fact, making the argument that such a practice is causing harm by causing players to leave... then I refer you to the arguments above and point out that netters only deserve sympathy if such wars are extremely frequent -- something not born out by the facts.

If you can find other alliances' warring histories, you may be able to resurrect your point of view. However, all the refutations that you've levelled at what I've said thus far fall entirely flat.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

stopped reading this half-way down, but just wanted to say that a lot of fighting alliances become fighting alliances becuase they can't stand the policies that bigger netting alliances try to enforce on them so that they can net 'peacefully'.

for quite a long time, it has been netting alliances that try to bring in and enforce new policies and all other clans are just expected to receive these new policies with open arms... even if they trample over everything the other clans believe in. why can't a war clan challenge those assertions of power and see if the netting clan has the nerve/strength to hold their own?

SoL+Ely vs LaF was a good example of that last set... and i've seen other good examples in recent resets.


sure, occasionally, typical warring clans find it fun to completely blind side another alliance(we never go looking for netters specifically) for stupid reasons, but for the most part, we are just trying to use whatever force we have to keep ourselves heard in the general politics of this game.

if a netting alliance can't take the odd bashing from another clan, then maybe they should merge with another one that can?

Foog.... keeping an open mind since 1971.... oh wait hes blind to anyone elses opinions.

Well, I know Foog lied about the Fist FA so what other reasons are bullfluff?

We had one country FAing and you didn't ask us. And you never proved otherwise.

I propose ARROW comes back...nice balance between war and netting

hrmz. Foog saying "mass FA" may be a bit of an exageration.. but it was at least 2 countries FA'n and they sent a fair few packages away.

rage actually fought a war against imag specifcally to NOT hit a netting alliance.

our thanks for that was that after imag beat us the set after (perfectly acceptable in my book, revenge wars a good fun:p) laf proceeded to farm us because alot of our members took some time off and we didn't run a proper retal setup.

If Netters want to be left alone by war alliances, then they better run all-xplore every set, because otherwise it aint gonna happen i feel.

*looks at Dlance*

Much love

lol iZarcon i always thought imag just pulls the names out of a hat

I personally don't have a problem with fighters and netters going head to head persay.

My issue has always been (and I've been saying it on AT for a few years now) with wars that break out for no good reason.

LaF still very much approaches this game the same way we did way back when it all first started.

Tags were formed so that individuals could gain tag protection and do better than they could do on their own through group cooperation. Thus there is a lot more of an individual player/country element to it than a lot of people like to recognize these days.

The largest element of this was protecting member countries from being abused by other people/tags (aka establishing tag protection).

War came about as a function of these interests: When a tag needed to war another in order to maintain their tags integratity, or defend their members from the abuse of others. As such wars happened for a reason and served a purpose: To protect your tag's members and their interests.

I understand perfectly that some people perfer the war element of the game and want to persue it, and that is fine. But does that mean that the purpose of war inherently changes? Every alliance has its own propensity to war over issues, and has a threashold of how far they need to be pushed before decided that war is the best option to protect their member's interests (associated with the marginal gain percieved with warring over the marginal cost).

But warring just for the sake of it flies in the face of why war, and the entire system exists to begin with, does it not?

I guess what I'm really saying is that people need to start being a little more competitive around this game, try to build the best countries they can, and in the process of doing so land issues will arise, negotiations will break down, and wars will happen. These wars will happen DUE to something, and I can say with confidence that I, and most other netters, wouldn't have anything negative to say about these occurances.

Relax. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on Fist or anyone else. I wasn't active in game that reset, only of iMagNum's site so I only know what I read there.

The impression I got was that there was a significant amount of FA being sent. If this impression is wrong, I take no issue with corrections being put forward. I do take issue with anyone assuming the worst motives in me (or anyone, for that matter) by making accusations of deceit over simple mistakes or differences in opinion.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.