Thats why we have all upgraded from 56k. I left earth the first time because running 300 on it was a killer much less 800. It was mainly the startups.

I am still in favor of a new government, considering that the last time we got a new government, it was Fascism.

i think a couple of new Govts would be good.... mix it up a little...

I've suggested ideas, but they always seemed to favor either those with inexperience or rainbow strategies. What I've tried to do is get some positive feedback and some constructive criticism, but again like you said, something to mix it up a little.

they should include a "drunk" goverment...


it does random stuff and posts dumb fluff on the boards...

ohhh hang on, thats half the server already...

Automatically severing relations with dead countries would be nice. Then my restarts can allie with each other easier, instead of loging into each ofluffry, checking relations, severing, etc.

yeah good call Ketchup..

No offense, but wouldn't you fall into the category of your own government?

Make Grabbing other players countries as competitive as grabbing your own countries...

I think the bigger problem is that almost all of the server is smaller than all-explore countries. When people can't keep up with all-explore countries, then the issue is player incompetence, not game mechanics.

While the idea is based on good intentions, the idea of having bots of any kind in the game would just create problems. You'd have jerkoffs with the mindset that if the admins do it, they could too and we'd be right back at the problems we had with FFA circa 2003-04 and 2004-06.

The heyday of text based games is past. Earth will never return to its former glory. Bringing in bots for people to farm would help ruin the little community that is still here and would not bring anyone back to the game.

Ok so unlimited is probably to much. How about 32 or 64 :).

Something to weaken the power of an fs might be good. I know it has been discussed in alliance as well but with 16x more countries, it is even more deadly here a large chunk of a clan can be taken out by relatively few people.

1) I think 16 countries is enough for a ceiling.
2) Don't alter the ability for countries to self-farm/land-trade. They have their advantages and disadvantages as does everything else.
3) A new government could be interesting. Perhaps a customizable one.

I'd really really like to be able to switch between countries while staying on the same page. (What Tertius described on the previous page.) At the moment when spending bonus-points I usually hit back and edit the "multinum" variable in the url.

Adding a combobox for switching countries would be pretty easy but making it look good (and integrated) isn't. Perhaps some kind of small button next to the status bar with a drop-down menu?

Also I think CX LAE's suggestion for a customizable government is a very interesting idea, difficult to implement but still interesting nonetheless.

You can spend bonus points for the control screen for all 16 countries at once. You should poke around the control screen, theres a lot of neat stuff there.

Nothing against the idea of a customizable government, but more or less a suggested idea would be to propose a couple governments, and then get some constructive feedback on how to balance it out so that it's neither too powerful or too weak.

I would love to see something like a Republic without the military disadvantage, granted with enough Military Tech you can cancel that out. The Theocracy is nice, but I remember that the two biggest casher governments were Republic and Demo.

As far as coming up for names for governments, I would say Socialism and/or Anarchy.

Something like these, but again, some constructive criticism would be nice to make them viable ideas.

Socialism
+30% Per Capita Income
+25% Land Exploration
+15% Military Strength
+20% Military Costs
15% Market Commissions
+30% Technology Effectiveness

Anarchy:
-20% Per Capita Income
+20% Military Upkeep
+35% Military Strength
+50% Industrial Production
Triple GDI Expense
1 Turn To Attack

why would anarchy make more indie production. wouldn't it be a -?

Admin/mod run bot tags would rule.

i would argue this is there was a disadvantage, namely, take out the ability to DR yourself.

Socialism
+30% Per Capita Income
+25% Land Exploration
+15% Military Strength
+20% Military Costs
15% Market Commissions
+30% Technology Effectiveness

Damn that is waaaay overpowered. The tech effectiveness nullifies the market commisions as does the mil strength. The mil strength also nullifies the military costs somewhat. What you are left with is basically a powerful casher that is able to get its techs up earlier and grow at the same rate.

I'd drop the military effectiveness bonus and drop the tech effectiveness to 10% at the absolute most.

Anarchy:
-20% Per Capita Income
+20% Military Upkeep
+35% Military Strength
+50% Industrial Production
Triple GDI Expense
1 Turn To Attack

This is making a really strong indy - 1 turn attack means more time to build CS and land. The mil upkeep penalty would mean players would have to double or triple sell earlier to keep costs down. The GDI penalty is nullified as it would have to grab to make the most of all of its bonuses. It would also make a really strong bottomfeeding techer as well.

Why is Troop/Spy Production done in Industrial Sites and not Military Barracks? I've always wondered that ;)


I like the Idea of more Governments. But the current grabbing vs exploring vs self farming is way unbalanced.


Its not the lack of skill, its unbalanced game mechanics that make SS/PS < All X < Self Farming.


Let me ask you something...

If Player 1 SS/PS all set and ended with 100k Land
and
Player 2 Self Farmed all set and ended with 100k Land

Who ends with a better NW?


Player 2 still wins, because they didn't have to pay for military expenses and losses all set.


In Reality though, if you want to SS and PS your land, you'll probably end with less than 30k. Which, in no way shape or form, can compete with any self farmers.


I really don't give a fluff if you allow Self Farming or not. The point is, make the game balanced and not completely lopsided in favor of Self Farmers. They get EVERY perk for netgaining, and none of the flaws. Its rather ridiculous.

DedlySmurf - maybe if people wouldn't start killing when they get grabbed by SS and PS and can't retal back with SS and PS, it would be a better method of growth :P

And it is lack of skill that makes SS/PS < All X. For any skilled player, SS/PS > All X. On other servers, SS/PS > Self farming. The reason self farming pulls out ahead in FFA is that one has 16 countries in FFA and can do self-farming with all 16, whereas bottomfeeding with 16 countries is not feasible the way that bottomfeeding with 1 country is.

Furthermore, if player 1 SS/PS all set and player 2 self farmed, player 2 would probably keep more military, since they would not need to keep their networth down to increase the number of targets available to them. They could very easily keep a reasonable networth while still exchanging grabs with each other, whereas a grabber keeping that same networth would put himself out of range of numerous untagged targets. And their military losses would be higher than a bottomfeeder, since bottomfeeders get to hit small countries, whereas a self-farmer has to hit countries that are trying to give themselves some defense against topfeeders.

I've probably lost more jets and turrets to grabbing this set than anyone else has. So don't argue that we don't have to deal with military losses.

You have no experience self-farming, and you have no clue how its done properly, so you are clueless to the perks and flaws to self farming. Not only have I probably lost more military to grabs than anyone else, but I've also probably spend 3 times as much money on buildings than anyone outside of Mercs. Military losses are tiny compared to the cost of buildings. Spending over a billion dollars on buildings for just 1 grab is rather expensive.

Well the main disadvantage I was considering was the loss of buildings/CS during every grab. Sure, landtrading/self-farming generates a pile of land, but countries have to shell out a lot of funds in increased build costs and CS rebuilds to make it worthwhile.

Terrorism? You could have come up with some other government names than that I'm sure.

sounds more like a strat that would make self farmimg the only strat netters could use unless you add something like -75% land on PS and SS attacks.

the problem is with the bonus that you have for unused land people who self farm for land don't even have to build anything to make a bundle with the triple food and their cash income would also go way up with the double population. They would not have to worry about the damage done to their CS when they grab themselves. they would just leave the land empty. all they would have to do is keep grabbing themselves to 100k 200k or more acres and no other strat could touch them.

Well, idk if I was blind or this was put into effect since my post. If it was the later, I thank you very much!!
I logged in with my android and there was all the options!
TY

get rid of cruise missile

either replace it with something useful or remove it so the ratio of nukes/chems goes up

This, in my opinion would not help the attractiveness of self farmers' suckling countries or slaves, (whatever they are referred to..) As they seem to think those countries are above and beyond getting grabbed, and aren't defended well, at all.

We cannot live with with the old rule of 5 LG's per 24 hours rule, as there are too many who want to enjoy the land that is so loosely defended.. As one of our crew had stated, it's more like a DNH, with this LG policy.. And frankly, I understand that thinking, and NBK will likely change our policy, once we get the details worked out.. either later this set, or at the start of next set..
Another reason for this move, is the is no incentave to stay within the 5/24 limit, when even at a penalty of 2 and more retal allowance, against the abuser. As he still, may reap positive land, after the exchange and ghost acres are tallied. so, I think this is a common problem trying to keep a war clan or a netter from getting plainly out of hand, re. Land


I've never been one to hand out pacts because they diminish available land. Yes, I've extended DNH pacts to some clans who are either just starting up or are counted as friends, but the reality is that pacts hurt pursuit of available acres if you grab.
===============================================================
I agree 100%, dragon..


I'm not sure even more countries per player is the answer.. But having an amount of defended bot countries might be the thing...

I don't understand thoroughly the reasoning for ghost acres, but it seems to be benefiting both the attacker and the retaller, when said and done, if the retaller is fairly smart, better than the original grab..
What is that? Didn't it used to be... You had to work harder to regain the acres lost, from the initial grab, (there was no ghost acres) and other than that, if I recall both sure did not gain land.
This to me is somehow fundamentally flawed, but then, so is self farming, to me..


why should a war clan give a flying fluff that a netting clan self farms?
=================================================================
Well, Ford, if the war clan needs land to build their "Killer", if not All-X, where does they go? Answer: "netting clans who self farm.." Why? because they are where the easy land is, and you can almost smell how easy the breaks are. It's simply too alluring, even for an otherwise all_Explorer ..

Flame on, you crazy diamonds..

;o)

Hmmm, I'm happy with 16 countries. Although as many as 64 or 80 would be fine. Anything over that you should just make a new server called Unlimited.

Always at the top of each country no matter which screen you are in, it shows turns, money, food, nw. I would also like it to tell me my country name and government. The biggest reason for this, I tend to run different government types, and it's a pain to keep double checking.

Would love some new government types.

Here are a couple ideas, I'm sure they need some adjustments.

Totalitarian
+50% Industrial Production
+25% Technology Effectiveness
+20% Military Costs
15% Market Commissions

Terrorism
Triple Missile Cap Per Acre
Double Food Consumption
+50% Spy Effectiveness
+10% Warfare Cap
1 turn per attack
+10% Military Upkeep Costs
No GDI (The Global Defense Initiative does not support terrorist :-p )

Missiles
Chem - leave it as is
Nuke - small change. Make the minium a nuke destorys either 25 acres or 10 acres. This will make it easier to kill a country effectively with nukes.
Cruise - The biggest problem with Cruise, you can't kill with them. And there is no real way around that. You already have one missile for civs and one of acres. So, the best I can come up with, make it more devestating. I would say two ways to do this. Either increse the amount of military is destorys. Or you can rename it to something like The Econimic Black Cloud or something of that nature. And have it destory cash and SDI at a high rate. You can also make the last missile have a greater chance of breaking threw SDI, no matter which of the two options are picked.

Cruises do suck. They've got to be more devastating if they're going to be worth anything. Obviously right now, it sort of rotates around as far as who's acting as server EM dump. If there's a unit that sucks so bad that we'd be willing to use turns to get rid of them, then clearly they're not very valuable.

Terrorism is a problematic name for a new government simply because of the idea that terrorist cells are so decentralized and fairly nomadic, which really doesn't translate to a game like this. If such a government would be made, if you want to have any real-life similarity, it should pretty much be designed to be a suicider government, and I don't think we really want to encourage that.

Perhaps an oligarchy government and/or a barbarism government would be ways to go with that.

Barbarism would be very powerful early on military wise, but ultimately would be a terrible long-term government.

Barbarism
1 turn per attack
+20% military effectiveness
Some type of readiness bonus
-10% Military Upkeep Costs
-10% Per Capita Income
-10% Food Production
-10% Industrial Production
-25% Technology Effectiveness

Does that seem balanced? Or are the penalties too harsh?

Or an oligarchy or aristocracy government, which would be sort of the opposite. This would be a great government for technology usage, as rule by the best/wisest would logically lead to greater technology, but since it's rule by many, anything military/spy based would be slower and less effective.

Aristocracy:
-25% Spy Effectiveness
-10% Military Effectiveness
3 turns to attack
Declaring War requires 3 turns
Alliances/GDI are 25% cheaper
+20% Technology Effectiveness
+20% Maximum Technology

I don't really care if there's more governments or not, but I figure if we're all going to throw our ideas out there, I might as well do so as well :P

Once again though, Cruises suck. Replace them or make them more effective. Perhaps if they also destroyed a portion of buildings.

I'd like to see Exploration Tech. That would solve a lot of land issues.

Exploration Tech wouldn't be an Easy Button either. player would have to invest either time or $$$ in building it up. While it does not immediately increase the land pool per se, it allows for alternatives to self-farming and land grabbing in a heavily-pacted, land-poor environment.

or you could just rasie the explore rates on all gov's. that would be easier to do.

Yes having the country name and number is needed for those of us that run several strats, specially if the start ups are different.

For example, I have 13 farmer countries, but some began with an indy start up, farmer start up, half oiler stocker start up, etc

About the governments:

Terroist shoudln't have more missiles, they should have an spy bonus.

make Medical Tech more useful by having it add a small amount to the population. It stands to reason that if a country has better medical it's people will live longer so it will have a higher population. I know there is already tech for Residential that adds to the population but the Medical Tech could enhance it by a small amount in addition to what the med tech already does.

Dragon, JP: How about both explore tech plus an overall raising of the rate?

Or perhaps not necessarily a straight raising of the rate, but that it stays higher for a lot longer and that there's a minimum (say 15 acres per turn average)

I don't think the 40 acres to start is a problem, it's when you get to 10k+ acres and it sucks to spent 100 turns to get just a few hundred acres.

No, exploration tech provides a choice players must make.

by the time you can afford the explore tech many would be done exploring and converted to strats that need to use turns for things other than exploring.

Your right on the money with that

It provides another method by which all-explore countries outgrow the crappily played war countries played by nubs.

Every time we increase the number of turns per day, we increase the number of targets one must find per day for bottomfeeding in order to match an all-explore country in growth.

Back in Earth 2025, not only were there many more countries to bottomfeed, but turns were also much less frequent. I remember back when I first started, alliance server had 1 turn every 40 minutes and FFA had 1 turn every 60 minutes. Tournament was a 'fast' server with turns every 25 minutes (and it had 26 different games, not 3). The random games 1C through 1L or so had about half as many people each as primary has right now.

Bot countries are a poor solution to the lack of landgrabbing targets. A better solution would be to just create a 2nd explore button that requires one to use jets, oil, and turns in order to get land, rather than just turns. But then that would destroy the illusion that you're actually hitting a real player's country.

Exploration tech would increase the amount of land in the game, but the difficulty right now is that explorers gain land too fast compared to the lazy nubs who do who knows what with their turns and end up at 8k acres 2000 turns into the set topfeeding all-explore countries. Increasing the amount of land gained by exploring would be a bad change for the game, if anything, we need to decrease how fast you gain land by exploring to alter the balance of exploring vs grabbing.

Spot on, Matt.

I respectfully disagree. If "lazy nubs" would suffer, then WHY are they suffering and why should true netgainers be punished for a lazy nub's lassitude? Interesting perspective. You're basically say that netters should dumb down to the level of the most stupid, laziest killers.

Because its these lazy nubs that grab much larger countries than their own. If growth via landgrabbing is made more competitive, then good players will outgrow bad players by a much faster rate than good players outgrow bad players if all-explore is the method of growth. Land-trading is a good example of how people grow at very different rates under the same rules. If you look at the all-explore countries, they are all very similar in landsize. The ability to differentiate yourself from others is what will protect netters, and strengthening explore gains only makes it more difficult to outgrow other people.

I'm actually saying the opposite of what you've attributed to me. I believe that netters should be able to outgrow the most stupid laziest killers, and strengthening explore gains will make that more difficult.

I guess I see it from the opposite end. Personally, unless I WANT you grabbing me, I'm always more well defended than the average bear. Extra land acquisition ability comes at a price. Defend it or do not. And you're NEVER going to stop a low acre all-jetter from eating your lunch unless you're in a clan that has the ability to frown on that stuff.

To me, running a small netting tag, it's still an acceptable cost at the end of the day.

incressing the explore rate would reduce the need to selffarm. selffarming takes away any reason to do a LG on anyone else so until you make selffarming meaningless there will not be much LGing going on.

EXACTLY. And what's perceived as "unfair" land gaining by self-farming is really the thorn in the side of the community, it seems. A lot of people over the years have contended that this game is purely a War Game. I disagree. It is what it is for every player and those of like minds who play together in clans.