Hi!

Thanks for all the feedback on the first discussion I posted. Since then, I reflected on a couple of aspects and came up with something new that I'll run up the flag pole for feedback.

This is looking for a less complicated implementation to start with which we can build on (both technically for implementation and conceptually for players to grasp), has some benefits which don't require meeting a Minimum Military Requirement (MMR), some additional great benefits which DO require the MMR, and a mechanism for it to be overridden through declaring war.

Clan GDI Rules:
- All countries, regardless of MMRs:
    - When attacking or defending, no returns are captured, only destroyed (except land/buildings)
    - No SS attacks can be made by members of clan GDI
    - Only non-harmful spyops (both ways)
- For countries that meet the MMRs:
    - Cannot be SS’ed
    - +25% SDI (maybe 25% is high, but somewhere around there)

Declaring war:
- When Clan A declares war on Clan B:
    - Clan B is alerted about the declaration of war immediately
    - After 48hrs, all Clan GDI protections will be removed (SS, spy op, SDI, returns captured)
    - If Clan B accepts the declaration of war prior to the 48 hrs, all protections are removed immediately

So two quick points on that:
- Declaring war in some form will likely be a follow on piece that happens after the initial clan GDI implementation
- The spyop piece is a simple on/off because of technical limitations in how we do spyops. It needs to be looked at more thoroughly to make a better solution.

Anyway, as always, if you have feedback please bring it forward in a civil way. Framing the feedback in the context of "you're killing the game!" doesn't really resonate.
Thanks!

I enjoy the fact devs agree this game will never grow.

Congrats on being a douche. Maybe try and post something productive, try to see things from other perspectives. I just had 50k buildings Chem’d, the top 8-10 in LaF ruined by one guy not even on his restart. There is a problem for a large portion of the game. Zero chance I play again unless it’s addressed. So status quo will ensure the game doesn’t grow, this is an attempt to help it.

Looks great! Thanks for your efforts.

Just confirming that if Clan GDI is in place are untagged countries are still open season (ie bots)? If this is not the case the I really dont see the community going for it as a whole.

The 48 hour dec war means that blindsiding is far less effective and the defenders have 48 hours to either pre-empt the FS or get ready to wall/CS.

Please make the MMRs high enough that people require more defence than just prayer (which some players still rely on).

I’m curious, as of now, what are the objectives of implementing clan gdi?

From my earlier understanding clan gdi was meant to deter griefers who have no interest in ‘advancing their own clan or country through war’

Current proposed -
- All countries, regardless of MMRs:
- When attacking or defending, no returns are captured, only destroyed (except land/buildings)

I don’t see how this will help allow netters to continue enjoy the netting game and allow war to happen when it happens.

No returns are captured, only destroyed.
Well that’s what griefers want isn’t it?
They still get that.

I’m all for pvp interaction and wars when it happens.
We fluff talk each other, heck we are a small community that play this together since we were boys.despite our past drama, I still love the boys in Sof and elders and want them to enjoy their game, we fight once in awhile but it’s all cool it’s just a game. I’d like to think the feelings are mutual

But as what Savage pointed out, recently the mouse trap (#136) nuked 40k of my land and em’ed millions of my jets.

Just because he can, just because we are laf.
Doesn’t matter he gets killed after, not playing to win nor compete.

If clan gdi doesn’t address this, I don’t see why there’s a need for clan gdi.

When comes to actual wars between alliances, the usual creative war decs on 1a forum works well enough. No complains about it, when war comes then let’s have fun.

But this freedom to grief others is bullfluff.
Clan gdi needs to address this.

I'd be curious how much SDI those countries that got nuked have. I'd guess like 10% from looking at the news.

There has to be some level of responsibility on the country owner to protect themselves. Many folks who yell at me about this want a magical boolean flag that will let them attack but not be attacked. That's not realistic.

The key to stopping capture of goods (stock) is so it doesn't allow countries to fund their continued efforts on the backs of those they hit.

It’s either not enough turrets, or tanks, or troops, or spies, then finally not enough SDI.
If I have all of these at 100k land at this stage, I’m a war machine with no hopes of winning the set.

When some alliance is always targeted in this manner while others can run defenseless countries without ever getting suicided on, no responsible amount of defense is enough.

I’m not asking for a magical boolean, been like this for awhile now I’ve even given up complaining.

You wanted feedback, so I’m just voicing my views.

This is an alliance server. Why do untagged countries enjoy the same mechanics as dedicated alliance members?
It's an assault on the theory of good gamesmanship that an untagged player can wreck so much havoc on an alliance and restart with $9,698,165 NW on 44,389 acres. That needs to be corrected.

Clan GDI could be interesting, changes always bring strategic creativity and that's good for the game. But it's time to recognize alliance play in the coding for this alliance server while still allowing new players to interact.

Just a thought - after the first two weeks of a new set, allow untagged countries to only attack other untagged countries. Limit the restart bonus to only countries tagged for a minimum 72 hrs. Treat single-country tags the same, as well as players that leave or are booted from a tag.
When a player is creating a country for the alliance server, include a splash screen that explains the disadvantages of playing untagged or solo tagged so new players understand they meed to find a home on the alliance server or play without full alliance server privileges.

I'm not a coder, so don't know the complexity of what I suggest. All I know is that if i am lucky enough to finish top ten NW this set i'll feel it's not quite legit, because one pissant griefer took out much of the friendly netting competition.

It's demoralizing to see this happen set after set, whether it's to me, my clanmates, or my competition in other alliances.

coming back to the same point I raised, if it requires keeping such huge military and sdi to prevent a solo untagged who is single minded intending to wreck others.. probably is easier that as an alliance server kill every single country that is playing untagged?

I agree with cyref completely.
I’m not saying we all be left alone to run countries without defense and just hit bots etc.
This is an alliance server, if there are interaction and wars between alliances, fine.
If netting tags are competing on netting we build our countries on economy. Ridiculous to see our play get wasted by someone who isn’t interested.

On other servers where context are consistent, like in primary - u gotta carry every type of defense, u hit one another trying to outgrow one another.
U break gdi u get into war ur fault.
That is fun.

That’s a pretty awesome idea cyref honestly. I’m on my phone but I’ll post a more detailed response this evening.

Remember when I got nuked at the end of the set last set?
That was the best suicider action ever.
That made my week, shoot it is making this week good just thinking about it.
I know Relaxlah, it is too early to lose all your land right now.

I like that untaggeds can only attack untaggeds after two weeks.

Is there a way to implement that you have two weeks to tag up and after the two week mark you cannot?

Also once tagged restarts will always go back to being in that tag?

The challenges of any "untagged can't do x" solution is that you just make a 1 man tag and you're no longer untagged.

Or if it's tags of x size, now I need to find a friend or make a multi.

I'd prefer more scalable solutions

So clan gdi people cant hit bots? They are allx only or is this only clan to clan and untaggeds can still suicide? Im confused

I dont mind the idea of paying for clan gdi by way of capturing no resources. Thats honestly a pretty big hit. Just don't think i understand if you can hit bots or not.

untagged can still suicide, but not with SS or spy ops, and you cant SS either.. Seems worthwhile for techers pretty much but they usually get ABed when they get suicided.

Yeah if you cant ss, you're all x right? So capping clan gdi folks around 200m nw id figure on a blessed set for a demo. I think no one gonna use it if thats the case...


...unless of course you tag the bots and make them war declarable, which i think many have asked for them to be tagged or a diff color anyways. Perhaps?

make it simple ,,,, Make so you have to Tag up and you have to declare war to attack someone
and if the other clan does not want to war it can't be hit Auto declare on bot tags :P

Right that seems sensible mob. Like having a bot tag be auto decd makes the server still playable while in clan gdi....otherwise youre basically playing primary with a tag...

It would prevent players from blending in untagged.

You could also prevent the use of missiles on tagged countries unless at war with this clan gdi thing which would give clans a 24 / 48 hr notice that a one man clan was going to hit them.

I think the idea is that you can enter at any time you please. So a techer could get to 70-80k acres then have his tag join, and PS a few more days as a demo and stock the set out. Thats how I play techer on 1a anyway. The issue is that every other strat has to stay out of this til day 45-52 in order to grab, and the techer who joins can still be PSed, ABed, Missiled(albeit with less success rate) and/or BRed.

I think it misses the target but on the other hand this war declaration business is very very interesting. Right now tho It seems that a tag can FS a tag in clan-GDI but will recieve a 25% penalty to missile success and cant do SSing, plus their first days their GS dont capture tech, oil, cash or bushels, only kill civs. I dont think that is all that significant but the mechanic is very interesting.

LaF would split to two tags with this, all-xp and techers in one tag and the rest in another. I dont see it doing much difference, and I dont see how splitting tags by strategy is great for the game.

Shhhh. We were pretty much told to stfu by some people that have posted on this thread for pointing that out.

The mouse trap country was tagged up and has been around on 1a for years and years and years. This is far from an isolated incident with the mouse trap.

maybe LaF didn’t do any this set to deserve it. But it’s been proven you killed unprovoked untagged or griefer tag countries set after set for more then several years. Your cries ring hollow in my humble opinion. No disrespect to relaxlah, whom I actually have respect for.

I would suspect the person has a historical grudge.

I am curious to know if it is the same person throughout the years

Was this a false flag operation to attempt to garner support for imposing changes? Pretty damn convenient.

Jesus

With that logic I should sucide sof every set for killing Paradigm off and it would be justified?

Also a single country wrecked the *ENTIRE* market with his actions. Tech has tanked. Oil has spiked. Food has slowed. And land is way more available. How is that good?? We’re not asking for a magic unicorn but some basic level of sanity.

In today’s world it is literally impossible to adequately defend yourself against all possible suicide attacks. You’d be a sucky all-x country. Stop the victim blaming. Focus on the assholes. Not rocket science.

Disable special attacks and harmful ops for until you are in a tag of 3 or 5. If it looks like multies or suiciders joined together the server (all of us) should police these unknown tags/countries.

Bonus fun:


Yes, just like you have accused sof of with no proof!

o.0

I’m not blaming anyone

I’m simply saying if you put a bees nest full of honey in front of an old bear. The bear cracks it open and goes balls deep 10/10 times. You were simply the honeypot.

It’s just all the sweeter if there is some added revenge factor

It’s a game there are no victims; only combatants.

Ya I didn’t read it all lol

I’d say this will be my last set, at least for a while. Not being able to SS means you can’t really compete. The onus can be put on the defending country and I understand that but...

It’s pretty well documented that if someone wants to hit you they’ll find a way anyway. If I had 80% SDI I’d get BR’d, if I had 20m Turrets I’d get AB’d, if I had 5,000,000 tanks I get op’d. If I had all (or really any) of those things I wouldn’t be able to sniff the top 10.

This makes my options

1. Join SoF/SoL/Elders and war constantly (sorry, but not for me)

2. Leave LaF and go play in Monsters, PS, Omega etc and have a chance at a top country but have to quit on my clan mates

3. Status quo- invest hours into a country, the optimal(ish) way to play. Farm bots, focus on economy and minimize expenses. Then get smashed and have all those hours flushed down the drain

4. Play a war country (we’ll protected all the way around)
in a netting set and waste 100% of my time doing that... Try and compete with top PS/Mosters/non hit LaF etc with that style not going to happen

5. Stop playing and focus my time on better things

I may have misunderstood, but you are quitting when things haven't been implemented? He is offering a suggestion to get feedback.

Yeah. Again i just see things like eliminating the restart bonus and tagging the bots as a far more effective alternative. The positives of this system don't outweigh the negatives enough to allow similar gameplay with less griefing. In fact this seems to degrade the gameplay experience quite a lot in exchange for very minor protections. The dec war part is at least intriguing to me tho.

Idk. This doesn't seem to offer a system that prevents much in exchange for the whole experience of 1a.

This suggestion doesn’t do anything for suiciders / griefers unless you don’t plan to run a top country. But no one suicides those countries today anyways.

There have been numerous good suggestions before that I won’t repeat. I appreciate the intent to do something, but this current proposal doesn’t actually help for the reasons mentioned above and on the prior post.

That ps country had more land though iron. Guess it must be a mentally challenged bear that hit laf.

well yea, it was done on FFA (how successful it was is different thing).


my 5 cents is that clan gdi needs some explaing on what countries in clan gdi can do aka if no lging then no1 will use it and suicider doesn't need land so if he/she doesn't get land it's just fine.

If you want to stop griefers, then address this imbalance.

All this other stuff seems way to fangle-dangle. Sure, if you are doing it cos you think its cool and interesting then thats totally cool, your game, your time, you do what you want. I just don't think it's an effective solution to what just happened in alliance.

Clan GDI makes suiciders a clan's problem, you are putting the cost of protection from suiciders on the clans! Why should clans pay for something that - I think - most people think should not be an issue in the first place.

The solution in my mind to the suicider problem is incredibly simple: If you remove a their teeth, they cant bite you.

Its the "no effort" country being able to wreck the "hard work" country that is the issue. That is what is appealing to the griefer mentality. It's being able to easily wreck another person hard work. This is grade school level psychology. It's the injustice that irks players.

If a person has the time and inclination to make a great country, then "suiciding" with that country does not trigger the same sort of injustice. It almost certainly shrinks the number of casual suiciders too.

I know for a fact that as it stands I daren't put any significant effort into an alliance country because the risk of it being wasted in a few seconds is too high.

That 10% limit is the best suggestion I’ve seen. Nerfs top feeders on other servers too. Perhaps create an exception to that rule if you’ve been grabbed by the country you are grabbing- prevents unlimited bottom feeding from stronger players.

I should point out that I think others before me already thought of this.

The bottom-feeding clause, I think, makes it perfect. Nice catch!

Yeah it's been suggested before. I included with my comments on the previous thread regarding this too. The same cap you're talking about does actually exist on Nukes/ABs as well albeit not drastic enough imo. But you're right. Just on general concept a country shouldnt be able to essentially double acres on 1 or 2 hits. It's absurd.

But yeah. Any of those changes (including killing restart bonus, ratio grabbing to elim topfeeds (i.e. a country cant grab more than it can lose), tagging bots, etc) in a bubble seem to provide more protection than this. A combination of those proposals seems to be more in line with our desires as a community.

Just as an addendum, it looks to me like clan GDI stops blindsiding, which I don't think is good. That's part of the politics of alliance imho. I'm not even that onto war but I don't think nerfing the blindside is a good idea.

The kind of gameplay that shouldn’t be allows is:

- make a country on day 1
- grow and stock for 30-40 days
- blow your wad attacking innocent people who never touched you all set

Agree. The idea would need some nuance around it.
There are 2 things that immediately come to mind

1a) The reference point should not be current land, but land from say 24 hrs prior. Otherwise, someone through sheer volume could be up to grabbing massive amounts per grab by the end of their run.

1b) On the receiving side, if someone get smashed by someone, the should have the opportunity to return the favor. Less alliance driven, but if someone gets farmed down by 50% in express, it would be devastating to have your returns limited by this kind of rule.

2) Bottomfeeding retals would get ugly fast if the mechanic was overly complex. My first thought is there being an available window to retaliate any aggressor. But if someone gets quad tapped in a bottom feed, what's the appropriate window?

I like the declare war idea but I think 48 hours is too long, imo 12 hours or at worst 24 hours.

In my opinion 48 hours gives too much time to the side with the counter strike. The FS side still have the advantage in turns and thats it but the other side has all the advantages when it comes to reduce breaks straight away.

Building on the 10% return idea - just change networth matching to land matching. Maybe even humanitarians, but a lot of the top players wouldn’t be able to grab at this point in the reset.

Pang, look at the news of #136 and #514. That is the fluffing problem with this game, how can you be so fluffing retarded that you don't see it?

Playing Devil's advocate here.

Pang is saying there needs to be an element of personal responsibility. How many of those countries had more than token defence in the areas they got hit? Im not talking 50%+ SDI or 5mil turrets here. Less than 10% SDI less than 1mil turrets less than 100k tanks.

Your point is completely valid - Im just playing Devil's advocate.

Playing devils devil advocate are you #136