wasnt me...also top post on second page!!!

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's jayr multi

life a vacum !

damn suiciders :(

Not reading this but the guy who hit me had never even been touched by Rival and I was all explore so some of us get it for more odd reasons. That would qualify for Pang's roll back type stuff Id assume

I would support whatever rollback and its guidelines that are put in place. Obviously some people will find ways around it to suicide but come each new set the parameters can be added too strengthening them.

Sorry to see this happen to you mate. I was looking forward to hooking up with u to finish this sets trading off :(

only ppl i dont like is laf...so i take all credit to all suicides against laf

What is this notion that I must wait for someone to hit my country before I grab from theirs? When I look for a grab I look for a country I can break and which will yield a good return. I particularly like to hit all-X countries.

Is it being said that somehow this is wrong, that I am spoiling the game and the results of my actions should be rolled back?

Thought that SoF was the cancer - or atleast Xyle....

Ive heard it all now. Netters wanting peole to roll back their countries. Hell why your at it roll back my country in the next war. I obviously deserve it because.... dunno they weren't nice when they killed it. That is the most asinine thing Ive ever heard. Well if you discount the "war Pact", land for land", well hell I could keep going.

Furious: You should probably check the ingame news of the countries in question if you think any of this is about grabbing. #453 never had any hope or intention of keeping the land they gained; their only purpose was to damage the countries they hit, which may or may not have been a justifiable thing to do but that's a totally different debate than the one you seem to be trying to characterize this as.

The real discussion we should be having here is this:

Should we have human untagged countries on the alliance server?

The only people who play untagged are either total newbies who don't know what they're getting into and risk being driven out of the game, or veterans who are looking to stir up fluff. In either case, the only real value they provide to the server is their land, and if that is going to be replaced with bots, then there isn't any reason to have either of those groups on the server as they are now.

Say we do something like this:
All countries on the alliance server must be in a tag in order to play turns. There will be a 3 day grace period provided to new countries (not including restarts), while restarts could not leave protection without a tag. Warning messages and the like could easily be written and added telling new players the risks of going solo.

What happens?

Unknown tags would likely be treated as hostile by all alliances on the server.

Newbies get the message that this is the alliance server and that for their own protection they should join with others to survive. At this point, if they proceed in a one-man tag or try to start their own without trying to engage with the rest of the community via AT, they at least have been warned that doing so is a bad idea. That is a better situation than they have now.

Suiciders either go to real alliances or unknown tags. If they go to unknown tags, they're probably killed before they can do any damage. If they go to alliances, their victims will almost certainly get compensation and if victims start getting compensation, the incentive to suicide on specific countries goes way down. If the aim is to damage a particular alliance, then sneaking in and suiciding from that alliance is an option, but it shouldn't be *that* damaging to them overall, and they only get to do it once before they're banned and probably have their IP passed around to other alliances as well.

I don't think there's any real downside to mandating that people play in tags for this server, and that doing this would likely stop suiciding without compensation almost entirely, without the need for the admins to ever intervene.

No changes to this game should be made because one country got grabbed three times. However, I do quite enjoy drinking the tears being cried in this thread. Please continue.

lol

/grabs a frosty mug

+10

Thanks for clarifying iccyh, you're right, that's exactly what this whole thread is about.

I would be glad to see an increase in the number of people playing on the Alliance server not a decrease.

OMA is a fledling clan started by a couple of people playing untagged who formed alliances together and then found it made sense to tag up together. Why prevent that sort of thing? And why prevent new players getting a taste of the game and a chance to be recruited into a clan where they can quickly learn the skills that make it enjoyable?

I wonder how many there are who are into their land trading and want to enjoy it in peace? Plainly the OP is one. Some of tose who have posted also. But my suspicion is, from what I see on the news, that if they were counted the number would not be far off the number of folk who like to play on 1a untagged.

I have said in other threads that it seems to me the main danger is over engineering the various servers trying to create very narrow environments. In my view this will produce sterile play. If you look at all the great games they have few rules and this allows the players to create diversity, surprise and interest.

Furious: How does what I suggest prevent that? You'd likely see more small tags forming due to the requirement rather than fewer; there's nothing in what I've said that would ever prevent that.

Untagged countries have next to no real impact on this server except as land, or as suiciders.

In none of the rambling, pathetic attempts at posts you've made on this thread can be found anything remotely resembling sense. We are all dumber for having read them. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Keep calm and troll on.

I started last set intending to play untagged, iccyh. I am not a new player nor did I intend to stir up fluf. I just hadn't settled on a clan that I wanted to join and I also wondered how I would cope with the sort of punishment you get if you play untagged from the bottom feeders. In the event, because of the server wide war that lasted all set I was not pestered with bottom feeders and could netgain happily.

Your faith that you can see into the minds of all those who choose to play untagged is misplaced.

And I don't agree that untagged players add nothing except their land. In fact I have an admiration for the stoicism of the guys who play through a whole set seeing endless multi taps but still doing their best to make some headway. And when someone gets totally pissed off and suicides that seems to me entirely healthy. The cosy world of the OP NEEDS shaking up.

That's nice? How would what I'm suggesting have had any kind of a different outcome for you personally, or for the people you admire?

All I'm suggesting is that players be explicitly warned about the consequences of playing in a one-man tag (since they'd have to do that as opposed to playing with none) and that, since they've been warned, alliances might choose to act against those who are a suicide risk. There wouldn't be a ton of difference, except that instead of risking farming, you'd be risking death.

I love the two sides of this.
"Untags don't belong in an alliance server" "WAAAAH SUCK IT UP fluff LOLOL"

and

"Untags shouldn't get farmed on an alliance server" "WAAAAH SUCK IT UP fluff LOLOL"

you guys aren't even opposite sides of the same coin :P

Vic Rattlehead:
There are three separate things I need to answer to reply to that.

First, what I think the game mechanics should do and how I think alliances should behave are two different things. Alliances and players generally want certain outcomes rather than uncertain ones, and are right to do so. The mechanics can and should counter-act that to a certain degree, to stop the game from becoming stagnant.

Second, at this point bottomfeeding (which is what hitting untagged countries is, 99% of the time) is not something that increases participation on either side of the equation. I don't think there is any debate about how those being on the receiving end view being farmed into diminishing returns on a daily basis, so lets look at this from the other side: targets are so few and far between that even three people bottomfeeding on alliance will start to significantly diminish the returns of the others, even if they're willing to be online and watching for targets most hours of the day. There is little risk in these hits, as well. The 1% chance that you or someone in your alliance might get suicided on is low, and mostly unmanageable regardless; few bottomfeeders will bother taking that 1% into account because there is no reasonable way to do so.

Third, look at the actual composition of the server and where the activity lies: untagged countries make up less than 20% of the total number count on the server, less than 1% of it's NW, and less than 2% of the land. Untagged countries are basically irrelevant, except as a land source or brief speed bump when they suicide. If the aim is participation, there should probably be changes made so that the players of untagged countries are better included in the game and what's going on, as it is not explained in any real depth when people join the server.

So, no. I don't think there is anything particularly inconsistent in my saying that I like risk, variance, and participation when I don't think untaggeds contribute much to any of those on this server.

Azz Kikr:
Thanks for actually reading the post I put up, I'm not entirely sure anyone else has yet :P

#453 looks to be the restart of #193 who was killed by LaF after going on an AB/SS spree against them. This is the same person who was killed multiple times last reset PRIOR to MD killing two of his countries.

He waits until someone pisses him off, does whatever damage he can cause, gets killed and repeats the cycle. Last reset he was killed because he was a threat (stocking cash and jets) and probably saved some netters from what happened this reset.

Getting suicided on sucks big time. However it is usually cause and affect. Very rarely have I seen no causes or reasons why it is done. Even than I would bet most of those times there was a reason from the prior set. So while it sucks big time to have this done, I do not see any reason to roll back countries for the majority of these incidences. It is just part of the game. (Something I have to tell myself when it happens to me).

IF and a big IF, there was no reason that can be seen. I would not object to having a gam mod look into it lil further. See if that country maybe had a reason in the prior set, see if their country was attacked the prior reset. If there still is no reason that can be seen, than and only than might I see potentially rolling back.

The arguement about no land to grab is also a bunch of bull. I can look and see 300+ viable targets to hit all the time. The issue is not about no targets but not being to hit due to clan politics. This is due to two main reasons.
1) Most all the major clans pact out. Pacting out with everyone is one thing, so long as some of those pacts actually allow LG's with specified escalating retals.
2) The % L:L retals makes it foolish for anyone to hit. So even if you have no pact, most policies have such retals and/or most pacts seem to have these policies as part of the pact.

Do away with those two main reasons above and than you would have plenty of targets PLUS plenty that you could actually hit. Which brings me to last thing mentioned about untags. If there are no longer major issues about having targets that one can hit, there would be absolutely NO reason at all to farm untags. (IMHO there shouldnt ever be a reason and/or need to farm untags and I find any clan that does so pathetic and not very good players). But aside from my opinion, once one could find plenty targets that one can hit the amount of farming of untags/small clans should really drop, as well as the amount of suiciders. Oh sure there will always be some, but there should be significant drop.

So I do not see any reason for any changes to game mechanics at all, the clans needs to change as they have brought most of these so called issues upon themselves.

If you're going to argue that something should be done for the betterment of the game, you'll probably have more success making your case to the admins rather than by trying to tell alliances anything.

What incentive to alliances have to change their behaviour? None, because they don't benefit at all from anything you say, and their responsibility is to their membership rather than to the game as a whole.

Yea I know and I am preaching to the choir too. I just cant help it though, as I find it all silly that everyone whinges about problems that they created or helped to create.

Whine about suiciders that they or their clan caused.
Whine about no land to be had, when their clans caused that.
Whine about early wars, that once again clans have caused.
The list just goes on and on.

Notice a pattern here, and yet every time someone is wanting admins to change the game.
Clans have no responsibility or care about benefiting the server? Hmm yea maybe and this is partly why the game is in state it is in. Good luck to their clan looking out for their members when no one is left around to play against.

If you're blaming alliances, I'd say you're looking at this backwards. They're the main anchors that keep people tied to the game, and are the main reason why people look to recruit new people in; you don't tell new people to come play Earth, you tell them to come join your alliance. They're very beneficial the game and shouldn't be devalued because the dynamics on the server aren't perfect; their responsibility is to their members and not to the game as a whole.

Trying to get alliances to agree on anything is like herding cats. That the major tags were able to come together to agree on the EWPP was nothing short of amazing, in my opinion. If there's a problem, complaining about alliances is not likely to ever be a solution as no one really has the power to change their behaviour; it is something that has evolved over more than a decade now and is firmly entrenched.

Really, the things you're saying now are many of the same things that were being said 15 years ago; none of these criticisms are new and none of them are really relevant. If you want to make the game better, the people to pitch ideas to are the admins.

There's definitely room to argue that some of the things suggested don't make the game better, but I honestly wonder how much of that is due to people's commitment to a particular viewpoint instead of actually examining what is happening on the server.

Well I wouldnt say its backwards, but I do see your point. Idk, I just think that if hey clans did think about what is also good for the game as whole at least once in awhile, it really is in the best interest for their members as well sometimes in the long run. Most of these things are obtainable, yea might be nothing short of amazing as you put it, but they are possible to be done.

I see why you would say that, but I don't know if I agree (which is fine, having different opinions is allowed, and having reasonable disagreements is a nice change).

I think that a large part of what makes the alliance game appealing is that alliances are aggressively competitive with each other, and try to find advantage over others on the server rather than playing nice. That's the dynamic that creates all of the drama, and pushes alliances to do things like recruit, train, and retain members; that's what makes the game interesting.

If alliances are getting to the point where they're able to come together and do things, I worry a bit that they're getting too soft to remain entertaining; we start moving to a server where too much is cooperative and not enough is competitive. I'm already rather scared by the prevalence of all-x strategies and land trading, and while I'm optimistic about the EWPP if it leads to alliances being left in limbo (which appears to have happened to some this 'set) then it'll decrease rather than increase activity.

still roflmao...

TBH I would take a contradictory view to most of you. The reason the game is dying is because people dont care about their alliances as much as they used to. New members haven't been what was keeping playing numbers up for about a decade. A lack of caring for someone's alliances, also increases suiciders because you get these tards playing untagged just to ruin other peoples resets.

The whole EWPP thing was just another way for leaders to put even less time into their alliances over anything else. The only thing that would appear like a challenge at the moment would be to attain rank 1 untagged, and in all honesty that looks entirely possible, which is incredibly sad. Probably wouldn't be possible for me since the admins would leek my country # faster than you could say boo, but that's another story.

Should I show you my news where I was suicided as an all explore casher? By a country that was never hit by ANY tag, let alone my tag? While I play in Rival who netted peacefully last set and have never been the biggest farmers of untagged countries in the world at the worst of times?

Sometimes it rains heavily on the Farmers. Guess you shouldn't farm someone who can retal you

but if they retal once you for your 17 hits you can kill them for attacking though right ? is that how justice works ?

locket, you are blinded by partiality, son. Go to the news and punch in rival, you will see a typical set of multi tapping bottom feeds.

You will also see an untagged player hitting back. Good for him I say.

Here is a small sample

SS Nov 10, 19:32 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Pandalerium (#523) 65 A
SS Nov 10, 19:33 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Pandalerium (#523) 64 A
SS Nov 10, 19:33 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Pandalerium (#523) 63 A
SS Nov 10, 19:33 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Pandalerium (#523) 58 A
SS Nov 10, 19:36 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) onemoretime (#446) 89 A
SS Nov 10, 19:36 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) onemoretime (#446) 77 A
SS Nov 10, 19:36 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) onemoretime (#446) 66 A
SS Nov 10, 19:37 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Algae Bloom (#433) DH
SS Nov 10, 19:38 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Algae Bloom (#433) 73 A
SS Nov 10, 19:38 Bugger (#5) (RIVAL) Algae Bloom (#433) 59 A

wait what? retaliating from getting killed by MD last reset?

MD was at war almost all of last reset. Unless he was stocking a war built country, I dobt it was just some random kill for no reason...

And yet you go whining to mommy when someone does the same thing to you. Interesting logic there.

Cry me a fluffing river. Please please PLEASE bring it up again how people are leaking numbers. I'm sure martian would LOVE to waste his time investigating this bullfluff again.

translation: "I don't have the skill to do it, so I'll blame the admins being corrupt so I don't have to fail!"

The reason the game is dying is because there is no advertising of the game. How are new players suppose to find it? It isn't even a app on Iphone. If you can make a mobile site, you can make an app. If people had the app and had links to the forums etc... the game would be doing better.

That being said, I know that it takes time to make it a phone app, but that is the biggest thing this game needs IMO. I am not a programmer, so sadly I have no services to offer there :(

you're over simplifying, Bombay.... and assuming this is a commercial quality game. xin will be here in a bit to discuss why it's impossible :p

but anyway, it's not about attracting people to the game, it's about retaining them. retaining them is difficult given the lack of training materials and the toxic community environment in some servers. the training materials are something the community has been asked to help with a couple of times in varying levels of seriousness and it's never amounted to anything.

I don't think you've done any user research to back up your comments, whereas we have, so I'd suggest you don't make broad oversimplifications like that. :)

in the end, it's a cost-benefit thing for me and the benefits aren't worth the cost. straight up that's the bottom line. i've been somewhat active on the forums lately while waiting for meetings to start, but that's it.

ruining your set.. did you lose a ton of stockpile or something? You're still the fattest country on the server..

all the crying made me think of this broad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-WK2k7m0zE

What kind of training materials are you looking for, out of curiosity?

Pang, is the Wiki functional? I have several times tried to add One Man's Army to the Alliance Directory w/o being able to do so. Could well be me being inept but I have a feeling that I need to be able to log in there to do anything and that I certainly can't do.

I have noticed retal policies are out of date so I suspect others have had problems as well as me.

I am mainly concerned to add OMA and our retal policy but if I get access I would happily also add a step by step Idiot's Guide to a simple start up, a step by step guide to making a land grab and possibly a short Idiot's Guide to what drives the basic strategies and what each is like to play. Maybe also something comparing the servers and saying what the various different sorts of fun each offers.

the wiki's totally functional. you have to log in, and you have to use your forum account. it's possible that if you did some fluffery on the wiki in the past that you've been banned, because i don't like having to revert fluff.

i don't believe that forum accounts and game accounts are the same thing yet, so that's probably where you're running into problems.

Is this the thread you mean, Iccyh?



but isn't that just silly?

You're in a reputable alliance and your contention is that that should count for something. Well, it does count to the other alliances in the server, but do you think untaggeds care? Untagged players likely don't care what % of whichever demographic they are a part of. So long as untaggeds are allowed to play on the alliance server, the alliances of course have to deal with them. You of course have to adjust your strategy and maybe carry more than 100k turrets on 20k acres. You're dealing with a wildcard, adjust your strategy to persuade a suicider to look elsewhere for targets. That's how it goes.

You're in a reputable alliance and your contention is that that should count for something. Well, it does count to the other alliances in the server, but untaggeds do not care.

If your alliance is farming the crap out of someone, it is up to you to monitor that country's behavior and adjust your defenses accordingly, because he or she is going to lash out at the easiest target that carries your tag.

We've got different experiences on different servers. Just as there are no alliances allowed on solo servers, I don't see why we should automatically assume that untagged players should be allowed on the alliance server as this server is about alliances.

I don't think the experience of those playing in alliances should be lessened by those who have no intention of following the spirit of the server.

The difference is that its not against the rules to play untagged here. You disagree with it, but it's not against the rules like it is for formal alliances on solo servers.

You can disagree with it all you like, but until its against the rules (which it shouldn't be) you have to adjust for it.

If we're not going to find common ground i'm ok with scrapping the conversation, I really don't care much about it, I just find some of the logic and entitlement (not singularly yours) silly.

There's no way to properly account for the risk of getting hit by a suicider since it is so random. Maybe it is approaching the point where it is over the 1% mark these days, but the vast majority of people will never be hit by an untagged country for any reason.

They simply aren't worth taking into account. You may think this is entitlement, but this is more a reflection of the realities of the server. As I said above, untagged countries are less than 2% of the land, and less than 1% of the NW.