https://www.earthempires.com/...lan-gdi-in-alliance-51945

Welcome back LaF!

Now you can’t be wiped off the map! Your dream of Eliminating PvP and carrying 0 defense and farming bots without a care in the world has now come true!

Also welcome back Evo. Now Evil LaF can’t hit you either!

Good bye untagged suiciders!

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it

Make a LaF vs bots server only already, and make the bots have 0 def just incase it gets too difficult

Any chance it can have the same stipulations as normal gdi? Countries pay based on the amount of land they have. I see no reason for clans not to go into gdi.

Could also script some of the bots to join a bot clan that is not in gdi.

As I remember it the old complaint about the last iteration of clan GDI was that it did nothing for war tags and supposedly war tags would get suicided. Maybe this fixes that complaint because this helps war tags as well. They can now decide when they get out and plan it by when they are ready for war, if I understand it correctly.

the clan GDI rules should still apply for the first 24 hours after the GDI tag is dropped.

Welcome to the Wargame without the WAR.....

Idk. It's weird to be playing in alliance with rules that now turn it into who can no life better than the next no lifer. Might as well change the alliance server to a different name or create a new server with these rule sets.

I like how cotton ball Pat tries to spin this new change as something that benefits the warring clans when everyone in the room knows who this change really benefits. This new change is a slap in the face for the warring clans. "suposedly war tags would get suicided" LOL yeah ok bud. We all know who was the one sending suiciders to grief evo from grabbing a record finish.

It's no surprise and somewhat suspicious that this new change was implemented after the general community grouped together for an asskicking on someone.

That's very confusing though. Would need an intermediate or something. Willing to add in more complicated mechanics if there's a clear reason though!

Could do that. I was thinking about making it buy up goods or something. But yea, something like that perhaps.




I actually really really want to do this. Also, it's like 50% of the way there, and has been for years. So maybe sooner than later.

Was really hoping you could get the retaliation bots up and running.

Coalie quit the cross server silliness. You’re the first to fluff about it then you bring your luggage due weekend trips!!! lol

LOL!!

Kinda seems like a way to eliminate pvp interaction. Also feel like it should come with a cost.

Countries joining this are in a server mode where theres other people playing yet they wont/dont want be able to interact with others. Seems like it should be another game type?

This is quite possibly the most absurd thing I've heard of. Does seem like a protect the netters at all costs from quitting the game after they got dealt retribution for past transgressions.

It should come at a cost at the very least

Will probably use this as a netter, because why not? But I also agree with most of the criticism.

A cost to it would be interesting because it would be level for all nettings tags/countries in GDI, and possibly encourage nettings tags to risk not going GDI to have a small leg up and encourage political maneuvering...

Not sure if MMRs are the way to go, would likely just shave a few %s off final NWs and alter start ups a little bit, while not actually impacting whether those countries would be likely to be grabbed/suicided etc.

Catering to laf has just ruined the game for half of the remaining players. This is obviously in retaliation to laf losing. Where is the integrity?

you guys are like the kid that loses a game and makes up new rules as they go.





Also, we all just lost the game.

I'm actually somewhat motivated to do this, so we'll see

the bots will start doing retals? haha nice.

can we fix the commie bots first?

I agree with that statement. Also:

- thanks to qzjul for actively trying to improve the game no matter how this change turns out.
- the feature probably makes the GDI till end of reset bonus superfluous?
- I hope the feature calms some things down at bit.

Alliance GDI is BS

How much is LaF paying for this change?? I am sure we could find enuff players to better that.

Im kinda on the "i hate to say this" other side on this one, i dont think the idea is healthy to the community as a whole. While there are other factors that are also unhealthy to the community, i feel like this should have a steep price for joining, or at the very least give an advantage to players who opt out of this mode. It feels like a bandaid is being attached to a broken leg. There are good things here but there are also drastically bad things. I feel like the vision of E2025 is slipping more and more away as days go by.

Then again im also a senile old man with Alzheimers so this could all be some delusion.

should have just made a server that doesn't allow war.

they just keep running players off it looks like that is what they want

^

Also, how many of the players who've read this and think it's done as most changes for LaF's benefit will retaliate? Just a thought

I can steal laf tech with no consequences now!

The whining is absolutely hilarious to me.

The fact that you are still here after publicly quitting the game is just as funny as the blatant changes to protect LaF after they were reduced to two tag countries last set

I think you are being very pedagogical right now.

Finally, a post I can read.

Doesn't this just prevent griefers from hitting multiple netters? If you have 7 people declare war, and kill the country, you can just make peace and keep going?

Sure is just as funny!

my reasoning behind this was to eliminate a clan living on an island, with almost total protection while building strong war countries that cannot be land grabbed, and so forth... then dropping the CLAN GDI and being able to FS out of nowhere.

It seems like a legit worry, if I am missing something please let me know.

As I read it. As long as every clan is in clan gdi the offending clan could only use harmful ops to try to draw a war out with another clan. It would still require the defending clan to respond.

Like smiley said you cant FS someone if they are in GDI. So the counterplay would just be to stay in GDI and build strong war countries for yourselves?

It's hard to see how this will play out, but I do agree that there should be some kind of cost or time limit involved when dropping out of clanGDI or dropping out of a tag that is in clan GDI. And also, especially when entering clan GDI. I see tag jumping as the biggest issue here, and how that works. Maybe it requires a timer for that as well?

Take away the warrom option entirely, have the game give land when it gives turns

Read the linked post: Reposted from there,

I may not have thought about it through completely. At a first read through though I do feel it makes compromises on communication, diplomacy and alliance building. Whether to help each other netgain, get protection from gaining, or forming war alliances.
The reason we (Apoc) and myself played this game 20+ years ago and why we came back is 100% because of the community interaction, the unintended consequence of a rich social game that this otherwise numbers game created. The intricacies of creating pacts, allying up, making threats, responding to threats makes this game great on Alliance.

For me, this is a 80% social game, planning, strategizing, making buds, making enemies that eventually you become buds with or at least respect each other. Brilliant moments have been written in E 2025 and EE history because of this byproduct the numbers game brings.

Idk man, seems like regardless of degree, this is a step in the wrong direction. Sorry I can't elaborate more. Initial thoughts / gut feeling kinda post response.

I was thinking more of the clan-tagged GDI building with next to zero conflict and then dropping Clan Gdi and being able to instantly FS another clan.

Some player(s) in this thread offer other more perturbing behaviors. Equivocation, skullduggery, duplicity, dissimilation, bamboozlitry, flimflamery, hornswoggling, dissembling, subterfuge and narcissism.

BHole still wears a leash.

Who are you?

HAHA well you do like to bark on here but i would say its more...off the chain lol

The part about declaring war in order to hit a another clan, works for me at least I can see it coming. All so It keeps me from hitting a PDM member for 4000 acres on a SS, because I miss typed my numbers...lol

i said this years ago if you want to net play on Teams this is the server for having fun not just netting this is a game that once was fun seem people just need to hug trees and do as they are told

so with that said take away the War Room no need for it now

I love warring and netting




that my 2 cents...

I actually agree with this sentiment. I've long been a proponent for clans having to declare war on each other to fight, and while I think there have been probably 3 or 4 better suggestions to accomplish that, this seems to be a step in the right direction, imo.

No one is saying war clans can't war. Just that they have to declare war to fight as I understand it. It really doesn't change a thing except individuals in a tag can't undermine leaders and hit tags without permission, or make Ratski type mistakes.

I said this years ago when I thought the game might actually get developed, but I'll say it again despite the lack of that over the years. Politics and pacting and even things like solo server collusion should all be built in mechanics instead of unwritten rules and after the fact deletions. It allows too much room for biased mods to be biased, for people to intentionally grief, and for individuals to control server politics over clan leaders.

If you sign a unap with someone, it should go thru the game mechanics, and all players in the tag should be forced to follow the terms of their pacts, rather than continuously having to police their members to follow them. Further, blindside FS typically wins. It's overpowered and I've long thought a 48-72 hour-ish war declaration period could create parity in otherwise boring wars.

I really fail to see how having to declare war on someone to war them is a bad thing. I'm sure this mechanic will be exploited and we will learn all the subtleties therein, but on face value, this seems like a warranted change.

fix how?

It changes the strategy that's for sure