I would care cause I am a tight wad that refuses to pay such exorbitant thievery prices. I would rather watch my country starve and die before giving in to such high-way robbery. Possibly consider losing turns until prices lowered.

Which makes me wonder, I wonder if its possible to kill yourself by running out of resources and if so, how many times/turns.

Getting suicided on sucks big time. However it is usually cause and affect. Very rarely have I seen no causes or reasons why it is done. Even than I would bet most of those times there was a reason from the prior set. So while it sucks big time to have this done, I do not see any reason to roll back countries for the majority of these incidences. It is just part of the game. (Something I have to tell myself when it happens to me).

IF and a big IF, there was no reason that can be seen. I would not object to having a gam mod look into it lil further. See if that country maybe had a reason in the prior set, see if their country was attacked the prior reset. If there still is no reason that can be seen, than and only than might I see potentially rolling back.

The arguement about no land to grab is also a bunch of bull. I can look and see 300+ viable targets to hit all the time. The issue is not about no targets but not being to hit due to clan politics. This is due to two main reasons.
1) Most all the major clans pact out. Pacting out with everyone is one thing, so long as some of those pacts actually allow LG's with specified escalating retals.
2) The % L:L retals makes it foolish for anyone to hit. So even if you have no pact, most policies have such retals and/or most pacts seem to have these policies as part of the pact.

Do away with those two main reasons above and than you would have plenty of targets PLUS plenty that you could actually hit. Which brings me to last thing mentioned about untags. If there are no longer major issues about having targets that one can hit, there would be absolutely NO reason at all to farm untags. (IMHO there shouldnt ever be a reason and/or need to farm untags and I find any clan that does so pathetic and not very good players). But aside from my opinion, once one could find plenty targets that one can hit the amount of farming of untags/small clans should really drop, as well as the amount of suiciders. Oh sure there will always be some, but there should be significant drop.

So I do not see any reason for any changes to game mechanics at all, the clans needs to change as they have brought most of these so called issues upon themselves.

Good point as I have seen that happen in other forums. However this should not stop the Mods from actually attempting to mod the forums. Give out temp bans to keep them from posting after they have been warned, etc. Racial comments should be edited out and never allowed, and send out strong message that continuing personal attacks/exchanges back n forth in threads that have gone way off topic should not be tolerated either.

I fully agree with this. I would never actively try recruiting anyone to such a game where the official forums are so negative.

Negativity due to alliance arguements are one thing and even that could be toned down. But it is way beyond that. There are individual wars and posts that should not ever be allowed to stay on these forums. Threads that should be closed once they start turning into pissing matches, etc.

There are few other things that I think detract and make new players not stick around, but this is one thing that should be fixed and should be done first before one can seriously start to talk about making some other changes. Forum Mod's need to actually mod these forums. I realize they are volunteers and not paid, but that is the case in most forums.

You make a ton of AB's on countries and seriously expected not to be killed. LMAO.

Why would anyone attempt to communicate, actions speak louder than words, and all those AB's were saying you had declared war, so I see no point in trying to communicate after that. If it had been done on only one country, maybe, just maybe attempt to communicate. But that would have been a very generous thing to do and certainly should not be expected.

Yes thank you very much Chaos for the war, you had some really nice countries. I wished mine were better, but it still was a lot of fun.
Cheers mates

14 seems too short, that leaves potentially 6 weeks of a long drawn out war.
21 at first seems short I admit as that still leaves maybe a 5 week long war. However looking from opposing viewpoint as it stands now with 4 weeks which is half the set. A whole half set of declared peace in a war game seems kinda silly.

As I posted before in the other thread, I see 3 distinct phases. Building up phase, stocking phase and de-stocking phase. What makes sense to me is war after the first building phase. So the question that needs to be answered is when the end of that is here and make that the de-facto peace period. 2 - 3 weeks building phase depending on the strat you run but will leave that to more experienced vets to answer. Imho 21 days is about right.

I do not understand why Imag is considered a spam tag, yea they have less than 10 members but they have been around prior to this set.

Anyway back on OP topic, per the EWPP:
" -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."
[b]and lil further down...[/b]
" -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."

So a set of attacks was met by EAoW threshold when Imag (supposed spam tag) did a FS against DANGER (not spam tag per exclusion list). However if both parties are able to resolve this independently, by deciding to war each other, shouldnt this no longer enact the EWPP?

Of course that is only if DANGER has agreed to this so called independent resolution.

Land trading is a skill, especially competitive land trading. I will not deny that. To that extent when and if you can be one of the most efficient land traders, I am sure there is some elation and thrill in that. But for the rest of us peons land trading, I at least find it boring. However, I get the impression that you all are missing what Furious is talking about.

Land grabbing when done right and when you dont have to worry about % L:L retal, but just a basic progressive retal, is bigger adrenaline rush than just being one of the best land traders. Not only that, but that adrenaline rush can be shared by a lot more players than just those few top land traders. The sense of grabbing and then waiting to see if a retal will be done, done in time and will they get as much land back in the retal. There are other factors that can come into play as well, like trying to outrun a retal (which I personally dont like) or making it so costly for them that they lose more resources than the land they gained back or for the retal'ing clan in picking the best country to do the retal (and vice versa too like in knowing who best retal countries are and waiting until they are busy before hitting your target for an LG).

And no I am not talking about bottom feeding, nor sadly with policies of most major clans top feeding either.

PS: I also find it odd that so many around here seem to think Land Trading exists because there is no other alternative. Odd because WW4 and Mars (although could be wrong about mars) do not have ghost acres and therefore no land trading, but that is convo for another topic or thread.

Ghost acres

However if you actually read what Home Turf posted (yea I know it was difficult), they were suggesting using the age old standard of 1:1, 3:2, progressive retals etc instead of the way most major clans policies are now of x% L:L. Trust me, if you choose your targets wisely, 1:1 LG and retals can definitely result in gaining land for the initial LG'er or for the retal'er if not. Those type of retal policies required a lot more skill in gaining land and/or picking the right country to do the retal, which meant teamwork for non-solo servers.

I find the whole Ghost Acres dull and boring, but I find the 130% L:L even more so. How does anyone gain land and so why would anyone do a LG with 130% L:L retal?

Please explain to me (I am a simpleton moron apparently), how Land Grabbing can work with x% L:L retal policies that are mostly in place currently. Because sorry I do not see how anyone can gain with 130% L:L retal in place, and so the only thing I can see is that this is to prevent LG's being done in the first place, which means defeating the whole purpose of the game or means you pick on and farm the little guys (the noobs and small clans). The end result which means you drive away any new potential players to the game.

Home Turf - While I agree with a lot if not most of what all you say (spam tags, LG's, L:L retals, topfeeds, etc), just because you state it along with "that is a fact" does not make it a fact.

So even though I concur with the main intent of what you said, sadly I agree with Iccyh more as you make it all sound bitter with hardly no basis in reality. The negativity in all that speech of yours does no good for the server and AT at all. It makes it kind of hard to argue some of these points when people like you have talked prior so bitterly and negative about some of these same issues.

Furious you are quite the character and very entertaining even if you are the enemy in my eyes. So dont change, even though I may or may not agree with you. You are prolly correct though about my booky, they did look bit shady to be honest.

Iccyh, first of all I am not Hawkeye, you got the wrong person.
Yes you are prolly also correct, as I am sure there are many reasons why some leave. Definitely yes that part of the charm for a warring game is (shock horror) to have wars and bad feelings IF done well and they are fought for good reasons. What one deems a good reason will ofc vary, but I see a lot of small things that imho point to a lot of needless wars or made up excuses just to war, which is fine I guess if also done well. Just one small example are sometimes the lack of even a declare post, among lots of other small things that all make up a whole. I can only speak mostly based on what I have seen and felt, but it is indeed sad if some clans/alliances are more about grinding the other side into dust, which is all for the wrong reasons of warring.

Any rate I still feel that another positive next step is to see if all the major clan leaders can work on a negotiated peace time to try and clean the slate. Lets move on, get some new bitterness and bad feelings to war about later.

I just placed some bets at 5:1 odds that EWPP will work (odds dropping every day that peace goes by)
However worse are the odds at 22:1 that EWPP will do any good o.O

That is much too high, I want to see those odds go down before I place any bets on it doing any good. 7:1 or 6:1 would be nice.

I played here for couple sets several years ago, and one of the reasons I did not stick around was due to the animosity on this server and here in AT, what with all the really old long term grudges and what not that I did not even try to understand. So I come back couple sets ago and things at first looked slightly different. Some clans gone, some other new ones around. Some major big clans now small and some smaller clans now being major one. Different alliances joined together and etc. However there is still all this animosity and hate lingering around. Whether it is new hate or old grudges hate, do not really care, it is still there.

The EWPP is a great step in the right direction, but why stop there? Can we keep the momentum going and try to see if we cant establish something really great and even better. Lets take last set for example.

Huge server war and from what I heard one that the losing side deserved for w/e I dont really care reasons. The point is that this winning side should have felt elated to stomp down the losing side. Instead mostly what I have heard is how boring the war was, this is the exact opposite of what I would have expected for them beating down the so called the enemy. The results speak for themselves as a lot of clans last set seen 10 - 15 member drops from BOTH sides. This was during the war. Now I did hear some members from the winning side not wanting to be involved in war at all, which might partly explain drop from winning side. But I dont think it explains all of them, No I think what I said earlier about the war being boring had more a part in this. I understand the results from the losing side, but from the winning side as well too? A lot of those countries did not come back this set either.

SO I think EWPP is a great start, but after such a huge long drawn out BORING lopsided war, I really think we need to continue the momentum and maybe see about giving the server a break from any major wars for at least one set and hopefully two. Can the leaders of these clans accomplish a pact for the greater good of the entire server and the game itself? Wipe the slate clean, it is supposed to be a new reset every set after all, so can we bury all the animosity and hate and move on to a new chapter? I do not know, but I do think a couple sets of pre-arranged peace will go a long way in accomplishing this. Give everyone a breather and more importantly lower those odds of the EWPP actually accomplishing some good so I can place some bets on that as well ;)

tl;dr - EWPP was imho a positive step but not enough for the server and the game with amount of player numbers declining. So can we move to the next step in interest of the server by clan leaders agreeing to a 1 or 2 set CF and peaceful set. Try to get rid of all the past animosity for one full set.

I could tell some interesting stories during that conflict .. but that is all they would be is stories as I can neither confirm nor deny anything officially ;)

You know, I did feel kinda sorry and bad for you. That was til of all the countries in CC that you had to pick first to hit. Now I know better as obviously you have double standards.
So did you pick countries that were aggressively attacking others and/or yours? No
Did you pick countries that were completely minding their own business without doing a single attack all set so far? Yes

Even worse, I only had 6 countries, why couldnt you have picked someone that had full 16. So yea I am going to complain. Plus you were complaining about your losses prior, so dont try and give that double standard either, as I am smart enough to know better know. Not sure what I am going to do with only 3 countries for our coming up war as I really doubt I can get 3 more ready in time for that.

While all this is true and valid. At same time I do not see where it is up to the players to be recruiting and effectively advertising to try and bring more players to the game. If they do great .. but you should not be expecting this to happen. If it is not happening naturally from the players then the owners need to be looking into why and trying to fix it so that it does happen naturally.

Besides this is a common trend with most games anyway, playerbase typically declines after reaching its peak.

As has already been mentioned, this was actually a failed/too late retal. But I do not understand if you were trying to provide an outsiders opinion and remain neutral, why did you bring up "Topfeed" policy that neither of the two involved clans recognize?

You put a spin on it already by that point in doing this. You even said it yourself that RAGE does not recognize topfeeds, so who cares what all clans that you listed do have this in their retal policies as none of those clans were involved.

Personally I will never understand this so called Topfeed, nor this attitude about being greedy, in a war game that the point is to win. To me anyone whinging about topfeed are the ones being greedy. The ones that are expecting to not be hit by a smaller country. If they dont like it, than do not be so big, that is all part of the risk of being in top largest land acres countries. It is fine balance trying to grow and win, without being taken advantage of that growth. To try and stop that balance by whinging about it and/or creating policies against it, kinda defeats the whole purpose and challenge of the game. Where is the skill in that?

bonus

Yea you are correct, I suck at trolling.

However what my country does not suck at are the great professional services we provide :D
I sent out a few more messages to select few countries, please respond quickly if you happened to be lucky enough to get one of my messages in-game before our services go up in price. Or you can always contact RAGE here: http://rage.myclanhosting.com/

Hmm odd, considering RAGE was founded prior to SoF. Are you sure you dont have that backwards, SoF is subsidy of RAGE. Or maybe RAGE should let MD recruit for RAGE since they were with them not too long ago. Thanks but no thanks, RAGE recruited just fine the last couple of sets all by themself. *shakes his head*

Anyway my professional services have been messaged out to a select few countries. Please do not hesitate to take advantage of these highly skilled services should your country be one of the lucky ones chosen :D

1280 minimum :O uh oh. It still looks great though and I can not wait to start using some of these new features :D

I think I have an intel pact slot still available :p

You make some good points. However, you are at least imho missing half the entire aspect and point of this game. Half the point of this game, especially for team/clan servers, is to dominate and control in order to quote "win" the game. This is done by 1) establish and dictate server wide rules. 2) being able to enforce those rules. Otherwise, if this was not the intent of the game, there would be lot of other rules already in-game, such as set pact agreements that teams/clans would have to choose from, set retal policies, specific definitions, etc that would all be part of the game.

For example there are several things and policies that I disagree with. However, the leading clans are dictating these policies and apparently able to back them up and enforce them so that the rest of the server uses them as well and/or at least accepts them. If I wanted to change them, than it is up to me and/or my clan in order to break those policies. As long as those leading clans can enforce those set policies, it is there right to do so if I cant change them.

I personally think this is a positive step and a good thing for the server. I do not think this will fix the bigger problems with the server nor even the game though. I would prefer to see other things done to address what I see as bigger problems, however at same time it is better to see a positive thing being done than a negative one. Since as you say, they proved that something can be done, I would think that even you would see that as a positive.

Well looking at it from that viewpoint, than yes I agree. It is an early war from that viewpoint.

I tend to look at the game from viewpoint of AT LEAST 3 stages however. Beginning, middle and an end.
Beginning: 2-3 week building up stage.
Middle: week 2-7 netting stage.
End: week 6-8 destocking stage.
So sorry but no it is not retarded, just different way of viewing the game. Your viewpoint has totally skipped the middle phase which changes this. Each stage has overlaps as it depends on strat and play style. But from my viewpoint an early war would be in beginning stage or first 2 to 3 weeks of the set.

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.

CF ??? Sorry does not compute, need better input.

I see it, but I will admit I may be reading more into it than what is intended as it is not spelled out .. I kinda doubt it though. There is an implication that this war is at least partly due to some of things Alin stated "I don`t like your system, i don`t like your past in this game, i don`t like that you are always the guys that
we didn't know
, i don`t like the early wars you force everybody into because you can`t war late". If this is correct and Alin is blaming at least part of the reason for this war due to their reasons, that is trying to dictate how SoF plays or how not to play. Again I will admit this is not specifically stated by Alin.

I definitely agree with your statement about it being AT rhetoric and that actions are more telling .. however once again if this is part of the reasons for the wars against SoF, then the actions are telling they are trying to dictate and control how SoF plays.

Personally I really do not have any issue with this per se, as I think that is all part of intent of the game. One clan makes policies ... and more importantly tries to dictate and control the other clans/server by backing up said policies.

Pfft. I highly doubt you have tried very hard either .. drop net and start hitting.

And you did it once again, stating one thing only to prove yourself wrong a few sentences later LMAO.

Wow, I am impressed, the best post and reply think I have seen from you. Some good valid arguments in the first paragraph at least.

"I don`t think people in MD and Sol have expectation to control your alliance or any other alliance." But uhm you do realize that immediately after you made this statement, you than go on to disprove it, but trying to tell SoF how to play or how not to play. Trying to control and dictate how that clan plays is guess what, trying to control that alliance. Ofc that is kinda whole point of this game, but you still cant deny ... followed by statements doing the exact opposite lol.

Congrats mate







I am sure glad you are better than all the rest of us .. at dieing ;)

I really could not answer this question, it is a freaking game for crying out loud. Either play it and have fun .. or .. if you dont have fun and are hating other players, I would think it is time to move onto a new game.

I like your thinking as all of those choices includes warring and having fun :D

Not too sure if those are accurate or not, but hey I like so am willing to go along with it for now.

If it bothers you that much, you could buy it all up and resell it at higher price. Or better buy it all and resell it on private which would get rid of some of huge surplus supplies (but is also costlier). No small task given status of the huge war though.

Why does war have to be restructured? Were there problems with wars in e2025? If so than maybe I can understand need for change, but from what all I have heard that is not the case. So if not, than what has changed on server here where you or anyone else thinks it needs to be restructured?

Solution are the clan policies and the players themselves need to change. Your solution sucks and completely ignores the whole point of this game, which is war game with big social aspect. Just because the social aspect sucks, doesnt make the fundamentals of the game bad. More importantly your solution means I stop playing as alliance is only server I care for.


No wars in a war game? War has to be justified? WRONG. This is a game after all, if you want game involves only growing a country, go play one of those.
Do clans need to communicate better and get together? YES of course, but an even better suggestion is to get rid of all the negativity in the forums and endless putting others down constantly. Once that is done, than maybe, just maybe you can start addressing and working on fixing some of the other social aspects to the game. That kinda stuff should be done in private one vs one elsewhere.

Hmm, maybe true, but others just wanna war too for w/e reason so a CF is kinda counter-productive :p

I was not around (or if I was not in those clans) back than, so none are mine.

Even though I wasnt around I can pretty much guess a couple of them because the country name is the same as the nick :p

I dont see the point in asking for ceasefire, only to than start warring each other again ??

Impossible.

The side with ~190 did not have that many until xSx joined the war, which was on day 5. So either the war was won after 5 days .. or .. the war was won less than 72 hrs when numbers were ~210 vs ~179. It can not be both.

Meh I am used to whinging to myself, have debates too. I always win that way :D

I have plenty to say ... but when I did everyone tells me I am just whinging. So I stopped saying it and just keep it all to myself now :p

Agreed, so because of this......

I vote Nay (option 2), go out and defend those rights.

Juices game was e2025 plus a lot more, it was an expanded version. One that was imho more challenging game mechanics. At any rate it was similar enough that coming to play here one would not be truly a noob as it was vice versa to the ones going to play there from here. Plus some of those players had played e2025 before as well.

I understand this and definitely agree if it is the best and most viable solution. But that is not the case here. There are so many other ways to directly address this without affecting so many other things.

Back when e2025 was in its early days, the internet was lot slower than it is now. PC's and especially mobile phones processing power was lot slower. Things have changed and sped up, so I understand there might be need for change.

This could be addressed by changing the DR rates. Prolly wont be most popular but it would work.
Or could be changed by adding delay to attack again button. Once again not best but it would work.

However you could combine things:
Like have higher DR in beginning day, each day slowly changing until it stabilizes out around by day 15 of the set or w/e day you want to the current DR calc being used now. This would encourage one not to FS so early in the set.

Could have reverse of this too. Attacking countries that do too many hits when just starting out, their own population will flee the more attacks they do, because population considers it to be a young unstable country. If your country is less than 24hrs old for example if you do more than 10 attacks, growing portion of your own population flees for each extra attack you make. If 24 - 48 hr you do like more than 15 attacks a certain growing portion of your own pop flees. Etc until you get to day 15 or w/e day in which their is no population loss for the attacking country.

Or instead of a delay to attack button, you could alter the DR drastically for the first 15 seconds or 30 seconds. This will ensure that a country survives at least 15 (or 30) seconds, but can still be killed fairly quickly. The disadvantage to this would be it would require more hits to kill than currently. (But you could change DR for that too after the initial 'x' amount of seconds). Unless you do one or two attacks to start the timer ticking, wait x amount seconds and than continue hitting which would be most efficient way to do KR. Plus it allows defender that small window of chance to start walling.

These are just some examples that can be done to address mainly this issue, along with other suggestions posted here previously by others.

Of all the turn change suggestions though, I do like VicRattlehead the best, where it is stored turns that are lowered. Not sure it will keep FS being done so early, but if they do they will definitely be slower wars w/out so many stocked turns.

Hmm speak for yourself mate .. I like my sleep.

No I am trying to argue about current situation and claims that SoF is taking over and running RAGE and/or claims that SoF has members tagged up inside of RAGE. This is simply not the case.

Whether it was true in the past, I can not answer. Nor do I really care as its not the situation atm.