i'm not saying change the game. i'm just saying same game, with some flashy upgrades and hook it up as a fb app, etc. so it doesn't look outdated to convince people to try it.

i think once people play the game, they will realize the depth/etc. of it, the problem is no one will give a complete text based game a fair shot anymore.

its a trend amongst all text-based games. they all have an aging userbase who used to be acceptive of trying out a new text-based game 15 years ago and are still clinging on.

i've been active this reset for the first time in years, and the only people i could get back to playing this game are longtime LaF vets who used to play alongside me and are coming back for old times sake.

my point is that isn't really recruiting, i'm talking about fresh faces. ones that we can train to become the next generation of leadership for our alliances (like what happened when we were back in high school/etc. being all enthusiastic about leadership in your alliance, etc.) and take the workload off us so we can just run a half-assed country like a old retired vet should be doing instead of trying to juggle a RL job while keeping your old alliance alive for old times sake...

by the way its looking like, in LaF's case for example, when i get burnt out again, it will be time for h4x0r to come back from his sabbatical from running LaF. that's not what i consider "recruitment" or "growth"

i think what a lot of us have to realize is 10+ years ago a game like this is much more appealing than now.

this is a text-based game. it's kind of outdated.

if we converted this same game and spice it up with some graphics (like when you send jets out, you drag 50k jets and select PS, etc.) something like what's in those zynga games (mafia wars, etc.) then it will work better.

as of its current state this game is a relic. i do applaud the efforts of SOL/SoF and their recruitment, but you have to realize despite the best recruitment efforts as a collective whole, the game population has been decreasing steadily for the past 10 years.

i don't see this trend reversing without a revamp of this game. from a pure game design perspective i can see a lot of ideas that would make this game more friendly to access... and if i had time i would've gladly help the devs to do so (i remember offering some time to pang in the past but my real job was sucking most of my time...) i think changing the game from a developer standpoint is probably more effective in terms of reviving this game in the right direction than say pure recruitment

dealt with?

damn it i was getting ready for grabbing some popcorn for a FS or something ;)

i'll kill him for free if you can FA him into my humanitarian range ;)

ok TAN/pang stop arguing about past things ;P

ooh

i <3 public AT FA drama!

country:country only makes sense if we put back the 3rd d allies like the old days.

2 d allies and 3 o allies doesn't cut it when you are going C:C because you can always get retaled successfully, leading to abuse

i see escalating conflicts between two alliances leading to war.

let's move along kiddies

its okay ruth ;P let deerhunter declare his moral victory ;)

NINETY NINE BILLION DOLLARS!

oh de1i as much as i would love to discuss history lessons with you, just leave LaF out of it ;)

you are trying to make us all like dell customer support? :P

..

i'm confused ;P you guys ended up killing 310 yourselves anyways

BiffBuff: you are right that a lot of other alliances farm just as much as SOL does on countries.

my own country was retaled with nukes and PSes by an untagged country this reset also. that country didn't really retal other people, just me. i don't think it is because he hates me more than the other guy, he just chose one that he feels farmed him the most to retal (and one he can actually break) since there's no possible way he can retal everyone who farms him.

in my case he chose me, in this case he chose that SOL country.

however, unlike what you guys did, i didn't tell my alliance to kill run him, i did hit him ~15 times with a SS so i just sucked it up, bought some turrets/SDI and moved on.

it's all about context. that guy actually hit me harder than prima did on SOL (he sent me approximately 20 nukes along with 3 PSes) so in reality we had more of a reason to kill run him than 3 PS retals, but still i was the one that initiated the farming so i let it go. can't be hypocritical about our policies..

i feel so discriminated against :(

i just find it funny that i recall some specific alliance were claiming that the netting alliances are "driving the untagged people away from the game". ;)

another reason i forgot to add why netting alliances have to be more careful/selective while recruiting is that you need to recruit guys who will stick around when war does come. it hurts more when people leave/tagjump when you are in war because they want to net, than people leaving when you are netting because they want to war.

and i know SoF is stereotypically not a "recruit members at all costs" type of alliance either.

you guys value quality also. that's why historically you guys were never the biggest. quality and quantity historically don't go together (you need to boot the low quality ones that are around for a few resets and still don't learn, can only take in at the rate which your training staff can teach, etc.) mergers (like RAGE/SoF) usually change this quite a bit, because you get a quick injection/influx of already skilled vets who aren't going to tax your training pipeline.

LaF has historically optimized its training program to try to allow it to be as efficient as possible when bringing new members up to speed, which is why LaF has always been amongst the largest of the netgaining alliances. and that's why i do see the value in size, but as i have indicated, there's no way a netgaining alliance will ever reach the size of a war alliance

i don't think i cried that SoF are too big ;P and i already said earlier that if i was SoF i'd do the same, so i'm not the one that needed convincing.

i'm just pointing out the truth. when i meant the ANW hit, i don't mean "complete n00bs pull down our ANW". check LaF's tag and look at the bottom guys if you want to know what i'm talking about.

we do accept complete n00bs, especially if they are friends of a current alliance member, or they pass our interview (it's the mindset that we're looking for, not past accomplishments exactly). i'm not going to lie and say that LaF accepts all members into its ranks with no regards, we have a few requirements (like they need to be active, no cheating, willing to learn and follow rules, etc.) we don't want "only the best", but we definitely people who "want to be the best", even if they aren't currently.

for example, if a war alliance has someone who's very hotheaded and/or goes against the grain a lot and/or doesn't want to learn minmaxing because its boring (which is a requirement for netting) and just wants to hit the explore button all day and do war hits when asked, it is ok. but for a netting alliance his mindset is wrong (he wants to start wars, he never wants to improve his networth so one day he would be a high quality netgainer and help train the next generation, etc.)

however, the reverse isn't true really. if i love minmaxing my networth, as long as i promise i do war hits and be active in wars (which i do), i would actually be a very valued member in a war alliance no? (because i can be a good breaker, etc.)

that's what i meant when "the ANW/TNW chase" makes netgaining alliances take in less members. and the biggest alliances aren't usually netgaining alliances, and from my firsthand experience this is why i'm seeing this happening.

its not that we go "oh we don't want to be the biggest", but a more selective recruitment process probably doesn't help matters if you really want to be the "biggest alliance".

just ask RAGE when they hit 500, they accepted anyone with a heartbeat pretty much.. no netgaining alliance will ever do that...

hehe chevs i meant they want members but not at the rate of war alliances :P

they would take 1 rank 100 country over 2 top rank 200 countries. but no way a war alliance would do that. obviously all alliances want to take as much members as they can, but the rate which they will accept members is lower...

i'm just saying that's why you typically see the war alliances having more members.

that's because if netting alliances had 100 members, they wouldn't blindside FS random alliances. somehow netgainers don't necessary want the most members to also have a chance to win ANW as well as TNW because the double crown is what those alliances aim for, while war alliances usually want more members so they can dish out more hits/more powerful FS/etc.

but i'm giving you guys props by asking for a war civilly on AT. we all know that at 100 members a well prepared blindside SoF FS will annihilate the average netgaining alliance, and i think all sides agree we don't want less alliances/members in this already dying game =)

haha ivan, i know a prearranged war has its benefits and i do agree with the points you indicated, but usually in my experience the trash talking is more subdued in those wars :P

part of the fun of war is reading/participating in the heated flame wars between the two alliances on AT ;P

you know if you guys can all have a gentlemen's agreement where we all war every other reset regardless of whether you prefer to net or war (so someone like SOL/SoF wars half the time and nets half the time, and someone like NA/EVO wars half the time and nets half the time, etc.)

in other words, if a fighting alliance wants to war a netting one, the netting reset must have netted the reset prior, and the fighting alliance also. that means the fighting alliance took a break from "pushing more netters out of the game", and the netters got their netting in, so they can stop complaining and get their war on ;P

obviously if a warring alliance has an willing opponent a second reset even tho they just fought, they can surely get that fight.

and the reverse is true, if no one wants to fight a netting alliance that already netted the reset before, they can net.

but somehow it sounds kind of lame in some aspects. we used to be 15 year old kids getting nerd rage at each other trying to compare our e-penises, and some of us want to continue that tradition instead of having orderly fun ;) just kidding on that part, but i do think if everything is completely arranged the game will lose a lot of the suspense...

lol believe me phamtom, i was suckered into this again ;P this isn't by choice

and pang why didn't you convince TIE to join LaF instead of LCN? this is what happens when you try to be all righteous and try to "balance the game".

maybe you think too much from a dev standpoint ;)

i can completely see it from an alliance leader standpoint. if for instance SoF wants to merge into LaF (not that they would, but this is just purely theoretical) and form this gigantic 160 member super alliance, i wouldn't be turning them down. but obviously it will ruin the game... but from an alliance leadership perspective the angle is a bit different... you'd probably figure once you bully enough alliances the other guys will recruit/merge back/form a coalition/etc. to fight back.

it only gets bad if like the top 5 alliances merge to the point where they can FS every single alliance at once and still win. then the game would be completely dead ;P i don't think we're at that point yet...

wow NM is stepping up the plate..

it does make the rest of us look like fluffy pansies ;)

calling pang a woman is an insult to women ;)

jk <3 u dave

LaF hit its peak when i was Don back 6-7 years ago at 170. it didn't fit LaF well tbh, because there's just too much FA headaches especially how aggressive LaF loves to landgrab. traditionally LaF is usually in the top 5 in membership count but about 20-30% smaller than the biggest/traditionally war based alliances.

with that said though, from my own experience there's nothing too big about 100 members. its not too hard to manage an alliance that size. traditionally SoF had 120-ish members on average and LaF hovered around 100. so from a management issue its not like RAGE's 500 member alliance or whatsoever.

that was what made it fair though, because there was a lot of 100-200 sized alliances (which can be relatively lean and efficient) and the ones that try to go above 200 get inefficient so there was a check and balance there. the overall user base was close to 10k users, so as a percentage even 500 wasn't overwhelming.

now i think what is scary is that a 100 member alliance is considered super big and yet it will not have the problem of inefficient membership because its relatively easily and proven many times how to run a lean 100 member alliance. except nowadays that is 10% of the server.

i don't think of it as a problem though, i think of it as the other alliances need to step up. i give SoF props for what its doing, if I was in their shoe, i wouldn't do anything different. They want to the premier dominant fighting alliance and you need the size and the quality which they are trying to pursue.

but one thing that i am afraid is that this precedent that SoF is going to set is that other alliances might have to merge to keep up, and if that is the case it would be unfortunate to lose even more alliances in this game...

ICQ 36923162

or tell me which IRC to go to and i'll find you there

ask not what earth has done for you

ask what you have done for earth

and he was programming for the QA team last time i remembered.

i left blizzard in 2008, so he might have gotten a promotion... didn't keep in touch with him after i left

yah i used to work with zeratul, he's still over at blizzard :P

uh... maybe this will get us more players in this game?

it's also me and my gf's 7 year anniversary today, so can we chat tomorrow actually? :P

yea i'm busy at work today, i'll be online later

detmer: you are right.. i retract my statement

this has been highly entertaining.

maybe we should all start to do our FA on AT now ;)

if you want to be treated as a clan, do your FA talks with EVO on ICQ/IRC instead of on AT ;)

w00t i started the could've would've game :P

yay, we spied you throughout the reset BobbyATA, but you had just enough retal power to deter us from helping you part with your sacred acres ;P

wow.. that's crazy... =/

actually chevs i was going to farm him with LT to bring him down, but i got suicided by someone just around that time so i spent my mini stock/cash building up again instead of hitting him ;P

heh... we didn't run the guardian idea ever since the only reset we tried it because we pissed so many people off that reset... :P

it is now filled with filth and stupidity because you posted on it eug ;)

i like patron

its a little bit overpriced though. jose cuervo is cheaper..

i still think C:C is the way to go, but that goes against the "alliance" policy as a lot of people complain about ;P

oh of course i knew your post was sarcasm, but i find it interesting that you included a point that you could arguably be debated as true.

i thought "hey wouldn't it be cool if there was a market buyout for me" about 10 minutes into this game, but outside from running tons of multies myself, there was no reason why anyone would do it for you.

except your alliance. and you were the recipient of the first large scale alliance coordinated market buyout :P

ponderer: or i actually meant the first one that made a real impact :P i'm sure there were other mini buyouts that didn't result in a rank 1 showing that doesn't really matter...