1) Readiness loss relative to the attacker's land

- The logic is not great here - you are equating low land with a country that is not worthy of hitting a country with a lot of land? What about the 6k acre tyr/techer who has stocked all set for war and wants to grab 4-5 enemies at the end of their turns in a first strike? How big is this readiness drop? Here's an idea, give a readiness bonus to the country with more military (/sarcasm).

2) You may not drop below the amount of land you grabbed in the last 72 hours.

- Good idea, I brought this up in another thread.

3) You will be able to self-delete in preferences. This allows self-deletion rather than dropping of land.

- Always thought this was an option anyway? Mehuls game? Anyway, missed an opportunity to protect against suiciders and possibly not have to implement the flawed change #1 by not allowing self deletion within 24/48 hours of a country making an attack. That coupled with no land dropping means the poor netter who had all of 500k turrets will have the chance to buy some jets (oh no! my stockpile!) and get some land back.

4) You must stay out of vacation for 24 hours after leaving it.

- Not a huge change in the scheme of things, but a good one.

Overall, I think it is a starting point attempt at giving the victim of a suicide attack more chance at retaliation, but the community needs to be VERY clear that skewing game rules in favour of players that think playing the game with no military is how it is meant to be played, is wrong. You should not be penalized for having low land - that is bs.

Easy fix is this:

No land dropping - done.
No self delete until a 24 hour 'no attack performed' window passes (eg GDI)- not done.
24 hour no-vacation window - done.
Reward victims with a retaliation bonus - not done.

Close guys, but I think the netgaining slant is too much here.

Your slant is too much here. I'll give your ideas more consideration once you stop acting like a lobbyist.

Well i hope you dont hold your breath then!

I dont see a netgaining slant in this even tho i have seen it in a large amount before with older changes

Slagpit, you're kidding if you think giving a bonus to a country just because it has a lot of land is good for the game.

Who's idea was that one? Pangaeas?

looks to me like dagga is trying to take credit for things we've been discussing for a long time...

cute.

Your idea of what is "good for the game" appears to be random destruction. The end of set rankings are determined by final networth, not total networth destroyed. We encourage countries to resolve legitimate disputes in whatever way they see fit, but we also try to prevent abuse of game mechanics. For example, a country should not be able to drop to 1A with a few minutes left in the set in order to do destructive spy ops on any country in the game.

That gives great comfort to the growing concerns you guys are driving a biased netgaining agenda behind the scenes.

it's not growing... you're just kind of making stuff up, as far as I can tell.

I haven't had anyone lobby me about our changes being anti-warring or pro-netting... I think that's kind of a baseless claim you've made...

The change committee has 2 career fighters on it, 2 former members of IX during their prime, and 2 other people who can step back and look at both sides of the game.

Please don't act like we have a hidden agenda, as we are completely transparent. The only person trying to push an agenda here is you.

I'd invite you to stop being a fluff and let us do our job, rather than just trash us, but you've shown in the past you don't care about anyone or anything but those who share the same viewpoint as you.

So now you're reduced to crying wolf at a simple statement that's been true for at least the past ten years? This whole "warrers versus netters" false dilemma honestly comes across now as a bad joke. We were nice and let you mouth off on AT, but it looks like no one agrees with you. Better luck next reset?