Land trading is BS and I've lost all respect for anyone doing it, particularly PDM.

It takes 0 skill and now you're DR'ing yourselves...Props for a tough finish!

Land trading is BS and I've lost all respect for anyone doing it, particularly PDM.

It takes 0 skill and now you're DR'ing yourselves...Props for a tough finish!

It takes 0 skill and now you're DR'ing yourselves...Props for a tough finish!

See Balin/PDM most alliances including SoF arent against your grabbing lists or stuff we are against the simple back and forth hitting that goes on between 2 countries 40 times to get fat

The rest of you seem to comment on grabbing lists and grabbing/retaling other countries and thats a completely different thing which afaik no one has an issue with, at least SoF doesnt

Balin posted up a list of roughly 5 alliance thats hes landtraded with while infact from the news ive looked at the only actual landtrading going on is between PDM/RD and I dont see why the other tags would when they have signed pacts with 1:1 retals for back and fourth hitting countries just like we offered PDM earlier this set

fluffF!

Eh detmer its actually you and your members who are miss understanding what people actually call landtrading, or everyone else in the server is wrong and your right which wouldnt suprise me with your dagga logic

Like we give a fluff about who you answer to or dont

as for requim id love to see how you came to the conclusion that I cant netgain sure its been awhile now but i dont think id have any problems competing for a t10 spot if i wanted to at least it didnt use to be all that hard :)

Dude 1 person from tag A hitting someone from tag B has been called landgrab for the past 15 years now i dont see why it would change term just like that

If you want I can explain to you what CS IC and all the other common abbreviations means as well to you

Tone down the insults and get to the points.

Flamey, I disagree that so-called "landtrading" violates some code of conduct on the server. Although this vocabulary we've developed over years of playing and political posturing is more or less empirically arbitrary (concepts like a topfeed, for example), I do agree that there are certain entrenched styles of play that "landtrading" challenges.

That is, as a server we've developed methods of play for which we've sought to maximize potential, and "landtrading" adds several variables which challenge the standards for achieving a top networth. For example, you have the "landtraders" themselves, who acquire large amounts of land. (This is not so different from getting fat from farming untaggeds... it takes a similar number of turns, and is more risky than bottomfeeding.) You also have the high-defense countries that will inevitably steal that land mid-set. This challenges the idea that land should either be acquired by farming untaggeds/camping DRs (an old tradition that I'm philosophically opposed to), or through marginal gains in uncoordinated, aggressive grab exchanges.

If you consider the latter, which you gave examples of, what are the exact differences between this type of grabbing and the type of grabbing that takes place between "landtraders"? It seems the main difference is intention - "landtraders" intend for both parties to profit, bottomfeeders intend to take the land from countries that cannot possibly retaliate. There are other potential differences, such as the time between grabs, etc., but fundamentally it's a difference in intention. I guess my point here is to ask, how can you ever regulate intention? And why would you want to, if the net result is generative?

I have recently "landtraded" with RD, Evo, Sanct, LCN, NA, and Monsters. Each to a various degree of coordination and congeniality, but always with the intention of both parties benefiting from incremental gains in ghost acres. I think the only exchanges you'd have a problem with are the ones with RD, as they were the most optimized and, thus, profitable.

Essentially, from my perspective, you disagree with congeniality and coordination in land grabbing. Not an unfair point to make if you argue that this game is purely a war game. However, we also have a long-established tradition of this not being just a war game. Hence policies like land:land, which assert that countries have a right to retrieve all of their land when hit. Hence pacts loaded with clauses about reps for lost production, etc.

I do not think people who have not tried to play in a style of optimized, mutually-beneficial grabbing can appreciate the challenges of so-called "landtrading". It is not free land on top of traditional play styles. If you're going to 40k+ acres, you're chronically under defended, tech-thin, with no stock until week 5. All of your income is spent building acres, trying to keep enough offense to make retals, and trying to keep tech up. I will concede that the potential payoff is huge, which obviously is why someone would want to play this way. But just because it's a high-risk, high-reward strategy does not mean it is bad for the server. It just means it challenges the superiority of other strategies that have less risk involved.

The main way that I see this being exploitative in the way you insinuate is if an alliance were to completely pact out so that they could do mutually-beneficial grabbing in a bubble, thereby eliminating the 'high risk' aspect of the grabbing strategy. That's why PDM has gone to great lengths to make sure that our countries who are getting super fat through grabbing are subject to normal retal policies rather than being cloistered away in some netting bubble. The result of that has been gains shared with many different tags with whom we have good relations. Like any other situation that involves grabbing, when the grabs get hostile, it becomes a different scenario.

Maybe ghost acres are over-powered (though again, we've never seen a "landtrader" stack up successfully against LaF/Evo's top netters), but don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because some players are trying something different. Anyway, my unedited three cents.

Balin posted up a list of roughly 5 alliance thats hes landtraded with while infact from the news ive looked at the only actual landtrading going on is between PDM/RD and I dont see why the other tags would when they have signed pacts with 1:1 retals for back and fourth hitting countries just like we offered PDM earlier this set

And also if your in PDM and you can landtrade with evo/monsters/sanct/neofed then why do you stick to the same country repeatedly if you have 150? to choose from (too lazy to count number of countries in those 4 tags)

He means RD

and clearly RD got Avg Net crown last set without land trading, so they aren't fluff, maybe not as good as Evo or LaF, but clearly their members have earned the right to be called the 3 best netting alliance pound for pound.

so KJ baseless insults just prove you are jelly

They won ANW with 15 tagged and only 85m... wow. Theres a total lack of decent players in RD and PDM, yet they have countries with much more land than some of the best players in the game. You can sugarcoat and defend landtrading as much you want, I am not particulary for it, but I can understand why people do it. My only point is that its building a platform for the skill to be took out of the game.