Who would be for or against bringing this back?
Please keep the discussion unheated, be adult-like, no pointing fingers, please.

EDIT: here are the old Spirit of the Server rules:
"Effective Next set: only two tags will be able to war each other at one time. If a third tag gets involved, it will be deleted. IE tag A wars tag B. if tag C enters in to help A or B it will be deleted. If two tags jointly FS a third tag they will both be deleted.
What constitutes "joint warring" will be done at our discretion. A single grab by a third tag will NOT get the tag deleted but mass farming by the third tag on a warring party would. Obvious Mifluffs won't get you deleted. If tag A FS's multiple tag on their own that would not be considered against the spirit of the rules and those tags would be allowed to both hit back and coordinate against tag A in retaliation. It's obvious from the news. We can see spy ops and other stuff as well. Trying to outlawyer the mods will not be tolerated:)


Any questions direct them to Warster or myself.
***For purposes of this rule each "untagged" country counts as its own tag.***"
thread here: http://www.earthempires.com/...ver-everyone-read-30216/1

👉 none i think its a dead subject myself

Bring it back, there shouldn't be any questions about it.

only if it applies to all countries and it'd be clearly stated what's allowed and not allowed since if there's loophole it'll be found for sure.

not that it helps if defender decides to nuts when gets grabbed.

What are the spirit of the server rules?

I can't tell you if I'm for or against when I don't know what they are

Would this mean that you can't have 15 countries essentially in the same tag like you do this reset?

I edited my first post with the rules that were in place before

can have like 100 countries in tag and subtags but only 5 of those can attack against other team.

its against the rules to call in allies is all i am saying . and thats what makes thi game. You learn to become friends with people .

Valid point.

Marshal doesn't even play, he shouldn't be allowed to post here.

No, leave Team the way it is now, we like anarchy.

Scenario 1: Ok so Im an untagged suicider. I will suicide say hcnfc or whatever they are called.

hcnfc kills me together with their sister tags. All is well.


Scenario 2: What if I tag up as a 1 man tag and hit them? Now they cant hit me with any other tag than the one that got hit?
If they cant that means we have just made suiciders stronger on team server.

---

Another problem I see:

Tag A wants war with Tag B. Tag B wants none of it. A friend of tag B creates a tag and sends 5 EMs and 20 GS and declares war on tag B. They are now safe from tag A and can net in peace all set.

alternatively tag B just realized that tag A is gonna FS them, they have a friend create tag C who FSs them really ineffectively, they then store up turns and FS tag B who could not hit them at the time they wanted. Im not saying this is a disaster it might make the war more even, but its still a bit odd and not intended consequence depending on how we define these rules

---

I think regardless its game mechanic changes that are needed to adress a dead market and the overpowered suiciders on this (and some other) server.

if you want to make rules for the game they need to be coded in to the game from the begaining
i blame the admins for not coding it in to the game the way they want it to be they half ass did it
its not our fault we play the way we do it coded into us to protect our friends form the may game on here.............................................................................................................................blah blah and more words
i think if they wanted be one vs one code that fluff in you click a button so yout clan declares war and then no other clan cn attack you

I agree

Yeah, since marshal is not playing he can print this.

The problem with the rules was that there was always grey area, which was often exploited. When this happens, it puts a mod in charge of making judgement calls. The last mod to attempt this was extremely inconsistent with these calls and it eventually got him removed from modding team, at which point the rules were dropped.

The server is 60 players and has been operating for years without the rules. What is the benefit of adding them back? Leave things the way they are and save yourself a multitude of headaches.

Also (and I can't believe I agree with mob on something) this ^

I can imagine rules can be made that will create a better atmosphere but these are not it, imo.

I don't understand why players who have 0 countries on TEAM should make comments on how TEAM should work.
If you left TEAM because of the environment,. then why advocate the same system to remain in place?

I really don't see how enforcement of rules would be hard.

Do game mechanics enforce the rules on EXPRESS? No.
Moderators do.

If we used the same logic applied in EXPRESS with 1:1., you can achieve the same thing on TEAM with (3:5, 4:5, 5:5).

The scenarios presented by Gerdler could also happen in EXPRESS. It's possible to coordinate with a player to constantly hit you so that you could avoid war with another player. But., let's be real here., how often does that happen?

The rules should enforce what the server is called. TEAM vs TEAM. Just like EXPRESS enforces PLAYER vs PLAYER.

This is not Alliance 2.0

One other point.., a clan should be considered 3+ players.. not 1.

I support something being done rather than nothing. Just because you think it is hard or might have problems doesn’t mean you do nothing.

Game mechanics will not happen. That's obvious. So it's either moderators intervene or nothing at all.

Maybe team could share a market with another server or something?

That would require a significant game mechanic change.

I think Gerdler is suggesting adding bots to server.

The untagged factor would be the biggest issue in my opinion. What stops multiple untaggeds from weaking team A and having team B FS for the win.

Absolutely nothing, sure they can be purpled, but that will be too little too late.

Ask yourself the same question if that happened on EXPRESS...


What if 5 players attacked one? They'd all get deleted but it's likely too late. But let's face it,. how often does that happen on EXPRESS?

If a player gets deleted, that's almost an entire month they can't play. I doubt they do that every set.

I agree. And people that play clean don't want to get purple countries.

Celphi the express example is silly because collusion is against the rules while on tagged servers the whole point is the collusion.
There very few grey areas in express, its mainly what the mod can prove and what the mod notices that decides if someone is deleted or not. That will not be the case here. Its much more complex with tags than with players, as the possible combinations of events are orders of magnitudes larger.

You will have to define what is war, what is a legit tag etc in order to remove the grey areas. That has not been done yet.
The rules as they are written now are bad and will not result in the server improvement anyone seeks. Rewrite them and that may change. I'm not against a rule change, just these rules.

My examples are gray areas that will come up all the time.
I'm especially against supercharging suiciding. Should we make untagged+ tags of 1-2 considered fair game to collude with other tags against?
This will be an issue 5-20 times each set. You can't avoid addressing this.

I have also played team more than you in the past 3 years and have only taken 4 sets off in that time so yeah I do have a say.
Further, the problem you mean to adress is not and have not for a long time at least been the main issue on team server.

I struggle to see a reason to make suiciding stronger on this server, that has never been an issue.

I also dont like this notion "do anything because its bad now" because yeah it is bad but adding a not thought through set of rules to that is not going to help us, will it? And it also risks to stick for 3 years or take so much time to police that other servers get neglected.

So do it right or not at all.

There is 0, ZERO, merit to saying the problems of team server of the last 3 years would have been alleviated with the presently suggested rules change.

I do think it’s BS that a clan can have multiple groups/tags like HCaFC.

As with any ruleset people will find ways to use them to their favor. I know who benefits and how I will use the proposed ruleset to my favor, and it will create a worse environment than we have now.

I'm sure we can create better suggestions than this, tho. :)

Since when are people threatened by 14 all X netters? How about you make a tag for them and send invitations, can you do that?, that's all I had to do, send invitations to people I know that like being challenged, create tags as needed, it's not rocket science, no, really, it isn't.

Who is this directed towards? Just because you don't see someone's name on the scores list doesn't mean they aren't playing somewhere. My profile has been hidden for ages, and I'm too lazy to change it, but I still play semi-frequently. I imagine others are the same...

Christ, now I'm on the same side as Mob and Gerd? I need to head to back to retirement.

@Gerdler:

Played TEAM more than me in past 3 years? I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Did you even play in 2016? It doesn't even matter. My point remains the same.

Does war need to be defined on EXPRESS? No.
Yet a moderator can still determine what is considered 2v1.

You say collusion is the point of TEAM. But,.. you're using it in the wrong context. Collusion is WITHIN the same team. Like,. I'd collude with my teammates to attack another team. But!, you should NOT be able to collude with a different team.

You have to look at each team as a single unit.

BTW,. doing nothing allows the very exploits you're speaking of to happen now. If you go back and read the rules originally in 2010., you'd see a clan consists of 3+ more players. The link Galleri posted does not encompass all the rules.

Obviously every system is exploitable. Including the bots. Timing their exactness of buying units on market (so you can buy out all the underneath tech to sell yours at much higher prices), recognizing which countries are bots by their #s, knowing exactly their max defense based on govt type and not having to spy, using scripts to pinpoint which ones are in DR or not are all exploitable., but does that mean we do not add bots?

The point of adding rules is adding a stopgap solution until a better solution can come along. Implementing nothing is not a solution.

We need Boltar back :-)

@vamps the comment is directed to whomever wears the shoe.

I don't even have to know who wears it. Just watch the people who respond to it.

I am fairly certain you fall on the (I won't have that term used here and I asked for things to remain civil - galleri) so I'm not going to tear you down as I've willfully done in years past. I am encouraged that I don't see any threads lately of you threatening people's RL fluff to leverage whatever argument you're making.

With all that said, you're wrong.

If you are getting pummeled in this server, makes allies. Talk to people. This is a small community and friends are everywhere. I know you can do better if you try.

This isn't an alliance server. You divert the problems of server to topics outside the discussion.

Weird, I'm fairly certain I join an alliance with a password every set. Or at least, that's what the underpants gnomes tell me...

There are currently 470 countries in the Alliance server.

There are currently 62 countries in the Team server.

I know it's hard to see the difference.

Do you know what bots are? Because they represent 3/4 of alliance now...

This is the problem with constantly thinking you're the smartest person in the room -

I'm trying really hard to restrain myself. Please make better arguments.

I know the exact # of players that are bots. You just look at the last digit & its range.

You missed the most important words "Alliance" & "Team". One is an alliance server and the other is a Team server.

173 tagged players in alliance in a SoF reunion set that brought dozens of players back to the game. 62 players in a secondary server... Does any other server have a +/-50% (not counting the SoF bump or bots), other than team?

You missed the most important words in "This is a small community and friends are everywhere. I know you can do better if you try."

I will stop it here. You're going to keep pushing me and I'm going to increasingly feel guilty because I expect you have real social issues, which we've discussed before and you know makes me feel uncomfortable.

Take care man.

Friends exist on EXPRESS too. Doesn't mean you can team up on one player.

This isn't a server of let me see how many friends I recruit to beat your friends. That's ALLIANCE or FFA. It's about doing the most you can with 5 people.

That's why at the end of the set your clan's networth is displayed. Your clan of (max 5 players). Not your friends' networth spread out among 2-3 clans.

If you allow large alliances on server then the smaller force will resort to suiciding. It's the most basic tactic of any war between a large army vs a small one.

By capping teams at 5 you actually encourage players to find teammates to war fair 5:5 wars.

quoting Tella of a locked thread:

Dec 7th 2014, 8:39:00

And yeah, I agree with what you said and this is one of the biggest reasons we're having so many issues: This server was never meant to be multiple teams of 5 working together, but it was allowed to do so for way too long before attempts were made to fix it. If we could turn back the clock to the start of the server and enforce that provision of the rules, we would, but instead we have to try and fix something that has gone on for way too long :/


And if you read the rest of thread you'd see why Vamps chimed in on this discussion.
https://www.earthempires.com/...-allowedansweryes-34306/2