Tag limits mean you trade one set of problems for another.

Clan: La Cosa Nostra (LCN)
Average Networth Rank: 11 of 27

So no one has presented a logical argument for the statement that "a double tap is too much", right?

Huh, from the way some people in this thread are talking you'd think that SOL hasn't made a career out of hitting netting alliances not prepared for war and that SOL was somehow forced into this war.

I wish gregg would come back, he was a hero

Fixed, thank you.

I tried reproducing this and could not.

The cache takes an hour to clear.

No, it's clearly because imag is fighting SOL. SOL is so outnumbered!

Destocking seems kind of important.

dies in a stonewalling accident

qz already did a fairly good job, but it should be pointed out that the spy success formula was developed from scratch.

As for war formulas, stuff like the spy result ones are kind of trivial to find. Someone from SOL was the most helpful out of anyone and pointed out a few odds and ends that we didn't have. If you're curious about what formulas aren't exact and what we found difficult to find, here are a few examples:

-How exactly did readiness work under 70%?
-What was the precise probability of a "1/2 mehul hit" happening?
-if country A bounces an attack on country B, what is the exact distribution of B's military losses?

The tough guy attitudes displayed in this thread are completely contrary to what's good for the server. To be perfectly frank, many of you are acting like children.

Let's get a few things straight here: turns come at a rate of one every four minutes, the reset lasts a total of five days, and there are around 100 countries on this server. How can you possibly claim that "one hit on me only" is a good standard when it's possible for one country to double tap every single country on the server in a single day? If that happened, should the rest of the server band together to kill him?

The diminishing returns window is still 24 hours. In express, you are awarded more protection from grabs than on other servers. Perhaps you should consider why your country is getting grabbed multiple times. Did you play all of your turns but buy low levels of defense? That is the risk you take. Did you save 600 turns and get grabbed by someone who played all of them? That is the risk you take.

As of right now, the only feedback we're getting is that this server isn't fun to play because many people use it as a suiciding playground. So suicide away, but only if you want express to become a monthly event or to disappear completely.

3k acres with 15k nw, interesting.

Fixed now, sorry.

Sorry, fixed this.

So let me get this straight: players save up lots of turns then get angry when they get "bottomfed"? That's one of the risks of saving turns. What do you expect, no one to grab you at all? If you want to minimize attacks on your country, play your turns as they come in. You can't have it both ways.

http://wiki.earthempires.com/...ogy#Maximums_and_minimums

Tech effectiveness is based on exponential decay, so it would be rather difficult to "not have a maximum".

I'd rather see one country get killed with no justification than a whole tag.

Standard is a heavy defense CI to early TMBR.

I didn't say that I was necessarily capable of doing it, did I? I know players who are capable and some who have done it. It wasn't meant to be some kind of bragging point: as an untagged you are a weak country. That's how it is.

You seem to be slightly misinterpreting what I'm saying. I want alliances to interact with each other in meaningful ways. Landgrabs should be viewed as part of the game instead of as some problem to be solved.

Also, just because I posted the above doesn't mean that we're not taking steps to reduce some of the problems, but the main cause of it by far is player attitudes.

L: Dragonlance

This one is for Dragonlance only.

There's a distinction between "game" and "server". The majority of players on alliance only play alliance, which is fine with me, because it's always sad to see 1a entitlement attitudes moving to other servers.

As far as I'm concerned, excessive hits on untaggeds are only a symptom of the problem. It's possible to do well as an untagged: you just have to be a very good player. Is there necessarily a problem with that? No, it's a clan server, so part of your country's strength is going to be dependent on your clan. As an untagged, you chose to put yourself in the weakest position possible.

And it is indeed a choice. When is the last time a player wanted to join a clan but was unable to do so? Anyone can get recruited, even if they promise to cause nothing but trouble but for the clan that takes them.

Players hit untaggeds because there are too many forces at work that make clan to clan interaction pointless or impossible. Untaggeds don't make the server great. No one says, "Remember that awesome untagged from five years ago?" Clan to clan interaction is what the server is all about, yet most people only care about their countries if they get landgrabbed a few times and treat it as if it is some problem to solve.

Hopefully we should have this for you guys by tomorrow. It's actually a more difficult problem than it seems, so we need to tie up a few loose ends first.

Did you PS any units? Please PM me your country name and number.

Forgotten, please shut up.

In team, simply ally everyone in your team, then use the "message all allies" link. Alliances are free in that server, so there's no reason not to.

Brigades only return on the minute. That page should return the exact time of return now (no more negative numbers).

Rules violation reports are generally not answered. JAT understands as much: he even said that he "doesn't require answers". Rebel has receive three replies.

I think we need babysitters instead of moderators for some of you people, damn.

Why don't you try stating exactly what the problem is that you'd like to be solved. I don't like the fact that I wasted my time checking ingame appeals and emails to find zero unanswered ones.

The only difference in success rate between harmful and non-harmful spy ops is that spy DR is not applied to non-harmful ops.

Sounds like you were declaring war instead of suiciding?

When has an alliance ever changed their policies because of suiciding? At best, you can probably get one alliance to put on you DNH for the set. What about all of the other alliances? What about next set?

I don't like having to waste my time moderating the forums, so knock it off Hellz X.

I'm sure you won't see things differently, because you certainly sound like one of the True Believers with that enormous essay that no one asked you to write. I called your post bullfluff because you combined a bunch of different types of suiciding and used that to draw incorrect conclusions. I suppose the best way to go about this is by telling a bunch of anecdotes.

Suppose you started late in primary and another country starts farming you. I mean actual farming instead of the "3 hits in 72 hours" nonsense. You message that country asking him to stop and buy more defense so the other countries near you are better targets. Even after doing that, that country still continues to grab you. Your best way out of this is by warring the offending country. I didn't say suiciding because it's not suiciding. You're using special attacks to solve your problem by hitting the country responsible for them.

But wait! That completely goes against the theories posted by suicide aficionados such as yourself. Clearly FULL FORCE RETALIATION is needed here! Hitting the country that hit you isn't enough. You should drop land so you can suicide on that country and on all of his allies. That's the primary equivalent of clanmates, after all. You don't want to solve your problem. You want to send a message!

Most of the country to country conflicts in this game can and should be settled between countries. If you're an untagged on an alliance server that happens to get landgrabbed by country X from tag Y, suiciding on tag Y will not solve your problem. Your problem is that you're not good enough to play untagged. FULL FORCE RETALIATION against a clan won't do anything. Besides, what's the difference between getting grabbed one time from nine countries or getting grabbed nine times from a single country? Your country ends up in the exact same state.

Unfortunately, the game rules currently allow one country to ruin the sets of many countries. I tried it once. It was shockingly easy. Suiciders don't seem to understand what mass suiciding leads to, or they do and they simply don't care. When rival disbanded and spend several sets suiciding on laf, laf responded by killing their untagged countries before they had a chance to suicide. Imo it was the correct play for laf. It's impossible to buy up enough defense to protect yourself. Unfortunately, many innocent countries were killed. Suiciders forced LaF's hand though. After all, if every untagged country is potentially a threat, shouldn't you farm them or kill them until they are no longer a threat?

Suppose LaF beats EVO in ANW and EVO feels like they can't compete. EVO then sends a few members to suicide on laf and they take out 20% of LaF's TNW. Is that the type of gameplay we want to encourage?

All of the above, perhaps with substituted names, has happened before. Suiciding almost always makes the game worse for everyone. It's a form of griefing and the game mechanics which make suiciding so effective are not needed for 1v1 conflicts or for alliance:alliance wars, so we're going to do everything we can to shut this behavior down.

I could go on but it's honestly not worth it. If you think that I'm "scared of my perfect little netgaining boat being rocked" you are completely ignorant.

This entire thread is bullfluff.

Well that was more of a side remark. I don't see why we'd want to make tyranny more useful for war than it currently is.

All of those missiles might have a non-trivial effect on PCI. Not sure.

Warfare production currently starts at 0.2%, so I have no idea what he meant.

10/3 < 5, so I'm not sure if they would be more effective.

I have a few objections to this. Giving countries 4% warfare off the bat will have a chilling effect on landgrabbing and will directly reduce the land pool on the server. In addition, suppose that we increased the number of missiles while keeping their efficacy constant. This would make tyrannies stronger and make SDI less valuable.

It would also make cash starts better, though I'm not sure if I have a problem with that.

no leave me alone

0% PCI doesn't cause PCI kills.

Dead allies don't provide any type of support. Why do you think we allow removing them early in the first place?

You can cancel them now, you just have to wait for a scores update.

I copy and pasted a table that I made a few months ago.

It probably works now as it should.

There's a level of DR past 0.15.

Yeah, but it was changed back when I redid auth_country. I'll get to this soon.

If you wish to play as a small tag, ally up with other small tags. If you don't wish to play as a small tag, try recruiting.

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?

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.