Then why are you complaining about this pact? If it doesn't effect you, then you have nothing to worry about...

Unfortunately it effects all tags
This allows the signed tags to basically come in and gangbang any tag that wars early
You gave the example of if I choose to hit LAF and surmised that Laf could then call in SOF and another tag which would wipe us out.
No doubt there in fact most larger tags would wipe us out
But why would a large tag need that protection?
That's my whole point which is being passed over
Used to be the community would chide the larger from creaming the small
That goes away with this

If anything , it's the smaller tags that need this protection.
Will I try to be included and sign?
Of course not
Simply because it's not designed to protect the smaller tags and allows the larger tags do pretty much do what they want without fear of any repercussions.
That's just wrong I think
But hey? At least you got me writing more than I have here in years
Not that it makes a difference, but it's kind of interesting

The ewpp does nothing but reduce activity. Which is the last thing this game needs.

Wars are now arranged and the date is set for fs which is pretty boring...

Imo the ewpp will be the demise of the alliance server. The sets will become boring and give people more reasons to not tag up, or stop playing altogether.

The arranged server war on the other hand is excellent and so is the introduction of bots.

You guys can war each other early if you want, there's nothing stopping you.

Do you know the biggest reason we started this? Because we had just had the BIGGEST server war we'd seen in YEARS. Almost every single alliance was involved. And you know what? It was BORING AS fluff. The war was decided within a week or so of the FSes, and lots of people either quit when it was obvious there was no coming back, or halfheartedly tried to keep participating. We(being the representatives of the largest alliances in the game) decided to put a stop to the cycle and get rid of the early wars, which very very few people enjoy.

I'm sorry if you think that is killing the server, but the majority of players disagree with you. And before you even start attacking that statement, let me just shut you up; if the average member isn't happy with their leaders signing a pact like that, they can vote with their feet and join someone who hasn't signed it, or they can talk to their leaders internally to get it changed. As it stands, this pact has already been in place for 4 months, and the only people still fluffing about it aren't signatories.

But if you don't care about all that, let's talk tactics: A week 1 war doesn't really benefit anyone. Sure, bigger alliances or netting alliances are better off further down the road due to stocking, but that doesn't mean you have a chance by striking early unless you have even numbers(or close to it). Like I said, it doesn't matter if you surprise the hell out of, say, MD in week 2. You are going to have 70-100 countries at least hitting you back, unless you've got big allies to even it up. Unfortunately for you, most of your potential allies were involved in the creation of this pact and continue to support it. If you want to find a way for a smaller alliance to take on a bigger alliance, you need to be more creative than just hitting them early. Most big alliances can handle that, and the end result would be the same...

I've said my piece and I'm done
I respect that we can disagree and still listen to each other

Have a good set

This could be done without the EWPP. If we accept the premise that the intent of the EWPP is to create scenarios for large alliances to gang bang smaller alliances, then the EWPP really doesn't do anything. The EWPP also has clauses that allow for signatories to resolve issues independently. If a large alliance has an issue with a smaller alliance that results in an early war there is no motive for the larger alliance to invoke the pact. Calling in more alliances would just mean splitting the loot.



Larger alliances could already do this.

Because 2~ years of progressively early wars between the same alliances didn't already do this. The dated design and mechanics and increasing apathy of the player base didn't have anything to do with it either. It's not like the server's player count wasn't shrinking over the past year. It's all the EWPP's fault.

/s

Exactly Blade. I agree 100%

Honestly, this is hardly different from the existing framework of Defensive Pacts that every alliance has. It's just scaled up and includes the vast majority of alliances on the server, including yours if you wish it. If you declare war on any of the signatories individually, regardless of the ewpp, the result would be nearly the same: A huge dogpile of that alliance's allies and a steaming crater where your alliance used to be.

Again, that is unless you flex your FA muscles and arrange your own network of pacts, but to be honest, I don't know if you guys can pull that off..

If so many people agree with Blade, why haven't you fought it? If the EWPP is so bad get your alliances to withdraw from it. If it's killing the game, kill it.

It is not so easy to simply quit your tag that you have formed bonds with unless it is something crucial. Trust me I have debated several times leaving, in part (mostly but not solely) over this. But the simple fact of the matter is, that I have friends in my clan that were friends even before joining the clan. I am here to help my friends, being in another clan means I would be changing why I am here. Which is a possibility if it is something that like I already said is crucial enough.

While I think Blade has a lot of excellent points and truth in what they say, obviously since I was considering it even prior, the problem is that the EWPP is not so bad, or at least not bad enough for me to leave the clan. Yes I have some issues with it, mostly for a lot of same reasons and gripes Blade brought up, along with couple of others. Yet I do realize the intent this was put into place too. In the end I am torn about EWPP, especially this second one with the better changes (way it should have been to begin with imho if one were to insist on having it). It in part helps to create some issues and some boredom in one aspect, while on other it helps to prevent that exact same thing for others. So no it is not so bad. The biggest problem is that EWPP really should not have been necessary to begin with and it is sad that so many felt it was needed which especially impacts and imposes the smaller clans. ok maybe not so much with this revised edition, but definitely the first version. Even this one though it still does on smaller scale.

Yes all of that is true for SOME people. There are many reasons I am sure why some leave, and these are only some of them. But no of course it is not all EWPP's fault specifically. But you are missing the point, it is same mentality and part of major clan politics. The first revision was catered solely towards the major clans and was almost saying screw the smaller ones, they can either cow tow to us or bugger off mentality. We, the major clans, decide how everyone else on this server gets to play period. While I do not think that was the intent, it is like the mentality is so ingrained that it became a part of the EWPP naturally.

That's a good point. Others need to speak up. There are only a few who speak what they feel. I had others message me in game saying how they feel. But then again they wont speak up on the forum here.

k

Two observations so far: (1) The people who complain are still cowards. Talk is cheap and that's all you have. (2) The EWPP is protecting the rats. A few large countries in large alliances have received large topfeeds and expressed frustration. If the standards and the repercussions of the EWPP wasn't holding these alliances back, smaller tags would already be dead. Doubt me? Keep pushing once the early war grace period expires.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the EWPP somehow limits the topfed's ability to retal the hit on them? Or do you mean that the EWPP prevents you from making the topfeeder's alliance go squish?

Genuine question, just wasn't sure whatcha meant

The latter. Oma would be dead by now if not for the EWPP. How ironic is that, when the OMA jerkoff responsible for messing with other alliances is also one of the biggest opponents of the EWPP.

TTT for quaxbi.

So this expired after the June set?

It has been Resigned

Pfff sissies lets WAR :<

We will still war...

Of course it has....

We will war the set after this just for this pansy ass EWP bull :<

If you want to be technical and interpret that to the letter...

/me thinks this has become auto renewing

Smh..

fluff limp fluff pact.

Sounds like a lot of confusion on the matter. Maybe the current heads of the alliances involved could re-post the current language and sign off on it each set. I'd hate for someone to get the stick on this just because they misunderstood the current status or terms....

There is a difference between resigned and re-signed...

Yes, exactly. Hence why a more clear post/answer would make sense.

Or instead of "it has been resigned" maybe "it has been dissolved" or "it has been renewed"...

defunct... deprecated... ripped to shreds....

Unless all signatories verify it, I'd say it is questionable at best.

which is part of why I say if it isn't stickied it doesn't exist

this was stickied but was requested to be un-stickied.

before day 21 of last set. any other nuggets of wisdom?

This