Most of us have been playing this game for years. We play because of the community here on AT, the community in our alliance, and the greater IRC community. Most of us get tired during long drawn out wars and it is worse when your alliance has lost and you are not winning either morally or in reality.

It is very hard to get the community to rally on any one theme. War alliances need to war and are constantly looking for opponents. Netters want to net and they are always trying to avoid wars and stay out of trouble. A few alliances are happy enough to mix it up, maybe even most. The problem is wars of attrition. A war alliance might ruin a netting alliances reset with a war, but this does not really hurt the player base. The netting alliance members know that there is risks in every reset and it is difficult to follow out their strategy to perfection. One of these risks is the risk of war and another is the risk of suiciders or the risk of another alliance grabbing you!

What really ruins a players experience is long drawn out wars. Even a warring alliance might get demoralized when fighting all reset with small boring little countries. For warchat leaders, two months of war can be brutal to your personal life.

So to shut up and get out with it, I am proposing that we make some general principles on when a war has been won. I am thinking that when another alliance drops below 1/5 of the opposing alliances networth that victory has been achieved. I arbitrarily picked this amount but it seems reasonable.

This type of victory would allow for the loser to possibly re-challenge later in the reset. It would also embolden smaller alliances to get revenge. If we as a community rallied to troll lame alliances and put our money where our mouth is, this could work very well.

Good post.

War is not won in my opinion until there is a tag kill all original countries are dead unless in protection or vacation

quoted for truth

I really don't see your point Bolt. Your method leaves the option open to simply disregard a few breakers and farm out an alliance. What about tiny originals? You would have to make a modified definition of a tag kill or it would really defeat the entire concept I have presented. Two 50 member tags are fighting; tag A and tag B.

Tag A has 20 breakers and 5x the networth of tab B.
Tag B has 2 breakers and lemmings tag A restarts for kills.

The negative:
If tag A gets the tag kill, Tag B cannot defend itself the rest of the reset.
If tag A gets the tag kill, tag B will be farmed for days until it happens.
Longer wars are bad for members.

The Positive:
Tag A gets to brag about a tag kill.

Ha. Ha. Haha. HA. Hahaha. Ha. No.

It takes a certain amount of turns to kill a country. Therefore, it takes a certain amount of time to kill an alliance, and that's assuming the alliance you're fighting can be killed with the resources at your disposal, with the time at your disposal (which is limited by the amount of time in each reset).

Also, the changes suggested by the OP seem to be based on how the community decides to operate in its environment. We have all witnessed the fallacy of depending on this game's community to correct massive wrongs perpetuated by certain elements within said community. Most of us have witnessed the inability of this community to stand up to vast cheating elements in the far past--be it due to cowardice, toleration, encouragement, or just plain impossibility.

Do you honestly expect this community to be able to agree on a new, fundamental change to how it works? Pretty much everything this community agrees on today (retal policies, nomenclature, etc) is based on events which happened in the distant past, and this seems to have more or less worked ever since. I find it very difficult to believe that this community--even (some may say 'especially') in its severely-shrunken state--has the capability to make such an agreement on how wars are won or lost.

This is a game based on numbers. These numbers limit the players on what they are able to accomplish in this game. The players will usually take these numbers, and do everything that they can with those numbers. You might have a community that decides on what to do with those numbers, what to call those numbers, and how to use those numbers...but the underlying system itself is what determines how this community acts towards itself--not the community itself.

If you wish to have multiple wars between the same opponents on a single reset, you will need to appeal to the game admins and developers to make that possible. Because the community is not able to.

I agree with the post in general and in a perfect world, but yes it would be hard to achieve anything as NukEvil says.

The other thing is, in many cases the losing side does not want a ceasefire. I know this set is the only set I have seen since my return where our opponents have even approached us to begin discussing a ceasefire.

So what happens when the losing Alliance refuses to ceasefire? Do we troll them for being lame in not agreeing to a ceasefire?

I myself do not find any pleasure in fighting a long and drawn our war that was decided weeks ago.

There is a way to do this, I've had some private conversations with a few people in regards and begun developing it.


Create a ethical war document......its a voluntary document, that allainces can sign, and is only applicable, when BOTH allianaces involved are in a war.


It also does not apply to server wars, and makes for allownaces in the cases of being called in by an ally.


Again, an allaince signing on makes it voluntary, and one only uses these guidelines with other allinaces that have voluntarily signed it.

It would be non partisan, have nothing to do with coalitions, as allainces signing it are just as likely to fight each other.

It'd take some work, but could be done by end of set, I personally think close to 1/2 the server would sign onto something like this.

No lemming of restarts. All original. And anyone can drop nw enuff for a kill if the enemy drops to much. Once tag kill happens the losing side should ask for it to be over or they deserve to be farmed

until it's (the whole declaration of war and stuff) implemented ingame, this will never take hold

so in other words, it's never going to happen

A war isn't won until all the opposition leaders start whining and offer me head as reperations.

^^^

good luck with that flamey.. both tie and md are run by dudes.. by sure if thats what ur into..

If you're receiving it doesn't matter as long as you have a good imagination.

i agree with this in principle, I just dont see it always working. but should work most of the time.


The ethical document servant mentioned is also a good idea, however it could end up a little bit like the UN / League of nations, built for a good purpose but in the end quite toothless, would take all top alliances in the game respecting it to work otherwise could deteriorate in to server wars and i dont know many people who want those.

self regulation doesn't work because there is always an incentive to deviate to obtain a competitive advantage.

I would like to see a server war - remember the last set of E2025? that was a fun set.

Honestly, right now there is so much hatred on this server that the winning side seems to take great pleasure in the long drawn out farming sessions. There have been very few wars in the last year or so where both sides were NOT trying to permanently drive members away from one another.

Additionally, the alliance with the FS has such a huge advantage right now that alliances are warring earlier and earlier just to assure that they are not on the receiving end of a FS. This leads to longer and longer wars.

Finally, there is very little incentive in the game mechanics for a losing team to ceasefire and fold up, especially when its only the 3rd week of the set.

Short of a code change the limits killing early in a set, I see no real inertia for change.

Self regulation in this regard would work because it's stupid and boring for the winners and the losers after the war is clearly decided.

DAMN! I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A THREAD ABOUT MIDGETS FIGHTING.

server war ! ! !

Maybe the admins can do something not completely stupid and make a meaningful change...

LIKE FORMALISING WAR DECS.

OR FIXING THE ATTACK BUTTON

OR ETC ETC

When they 'saved' this game they also have an obligation to either improve it or give it to someone else.

STOP TRYING TO IMPROVE GAMEPLAY WITH NEW, ORIGINAL, INNOVATIVE IDEAS THAT WOULD GENUINELY MAKE IT BETTER, PLEASE.

jeez. Just let me camp news for 18 hours a day an bottomfeed until I'm 60 years old. CHANGE IS EVIL!

He has also learned how to "receive" from the back end. :P (The wonders of a great imagination) haha

+1

what Red-X said

Maybe instead of getting the admins to fix everything for you, the server could actually try to make some of these changes themselves? You know, since it seems from this thread that iMag, MD and SoF heads all agree something needs to be done and that accounts for a majority of "war clans" on the server.

PP, they don't fight for the spirit of the game (well iMag sort of just fights for the lulz, so its good for their spirit), they fight because they want to punish alliances that their leaders have personal grudges against. They have no interest in fixing a gamethat they are 'winning'.

BOOM

Dying is winning!

How often has the winner had unreasonable conditions for surrender to the losing side? And how often has the losing side had unreasonable conditions for a mutual end to the war? It's reasonable for the winning side in a war to be allowed to enforce its policies on the losing side for more than just the remainder of the set.

Normally, the cause of wars dragging on has been the losing side, not the winning side.

If you lose a war, then you should be willing to agree to the winning side's terms. Either that, or you should not complain about the durations of wars.

If you're winning a war, and the losing side won't agree to your terms, then either you have unreasonable terms, or the losing side is unreasonably stubborn.

The back end is better than no end, especially during the cold winters.

All you really have to do to implement the change is code something that notifies both alliances that one side has achieved victory. Then it would be up the alliances to stop the conflict. Everyone here on AT could troll about how the war has been decided. I wasn't trying to get ethical here, just to focus trolling in a positive direction.

filipinocupid.com just came up as an ad on this thread...

LOL

Why don't you start telling us about what you are doing to fix the game?

Politics in this game has not changed much in the past decade, but somehow you think it is now all about personal grudges? Tell me what grudges I have archaic. Do you even know what grudges I have? My grudges have nothing to do with SoF and I keep them to myself.

Still actively playing it for one thing Sov.

And seriously, you guys are in the process of crushing a hopelessly outmanned TIE that never fired a shot at Sof and you have the stones to come on here and say that EE politics are not about grudges?

Look Sov, I appreciate what you have done for the game and especially the huge change you made to SOF since you've come back. But we all know damned good and well that Sof will be hitting one or more combinations of Sol, PDM, MD, TIE and Evo for the foreseeable future because we hit you guys two sets ago. None of them are viable threats anynore, but thats not going to change anything now is it?

And the truth is, you guys have won, and so your members have earned it. They get a never ending supply of fresh kills, you and helmet get the adulation of the troops, Laf gets to net unopposed for a year or so, and we fodder-folk will get a set or two off between beatings to rebuild and net a bit.

Its an orderly system to be sure, and an efficient one, but please don't insult our intelligence by insisting that your target choices are not based on past histories that are no longer valid. Its cool, we get it, just own it. We'd do the same if the tables were turned.

(Oh, and for the record, there are only about 700-800 active players on the server, we all know each other, so ALL politics ARE personal)

Not personal for me. Id kill my mother if she played

I do not know whether you actually believe what you are posting or whether you are trying to post sensationalist lies here to try and garner more support from neutral Alliances, but either way you are totally wrong and most of the leaders on the server know it.

Since the SPERM war we have not held any grudges which have been displayed by several actions, such as:-

1) Last set we signed a pact with MD which we did not have to
2) We pursued a friendly war because we had no reasons to pursue an unfriendly war
3) We are now DPed to SOL and are working far closer now with SOL in a positive and constructive manner
4) Many Alliance leaderships (including SOL and PDM) have access to the SoF site where I keep my members well informed of why SoF pursues certain courses of action
5) SoF could have made a move on Evo at any time in the past 2 sets but our relationship with Evo (while unpacted) is a healthy one and our dealings are positive. They know where we stand.
6) LAF members and leadership would LOVE to fight a war but they have no reason to pursue one and therefore have not.


MD and TIE leaderships know why we went to war with them. If you do not know why SoF hit TIE then you do not pay enough attention because most of the server knew we were gunning for them. It was even mentioned in Servant's Alliance ranking thread. MD got involved in the dispute and things went from there.



I am not out to insult your intelligence but you are quite simply wrong. Even your own leaders know you are wrong. So maybe you need to re-evaluate your misguided perceptions.

Maybe you and the others may have done things that way had you of won, but that also justifies my own line of thinking that none of you were very good leaders.

Sov, you are such a liar. Our relationship is NOT healthy.










You gave me herpes :(

That's just so you'll never forget me ;)

I think it is more an issue of SoF's size. It is very difficult to control a large number of members and there are certainly going to be different opinions within an alliance of that size.

The "reasons" SoF FS'd MD given were different from members vs. leaders of SoF. And some of those reasons definitely went back into the past. At the same time, I believe there were some members (even senior members) who didn't want to hit MD at all.

So it is really just a "who do we believe" game on what the real reason is. Not that it matters too much, it is what it is. It seems clear that absent a signed pact, you just cannot assume anything about "good" or "bad" relations anymore. Too many people lie and too many leadership changes happen for "good" or "bad" relations to be consistent.

With regard to the original post, btw...

A war won't generally "end" until the victor is confident their opponent won't be able to significantly harm them anymore. This could be because they have been beaten down so far that the victor can jump out of range, or it could be that a diplomatic solution is found. And this is still assuming that the two sides even "want" the war to end at any point. The victor may want to farm, and the loser may just want to fight out a grudge match.

If people want shorter wars, they should come to the table sooner.

I made the decision to FS MD when we did. I set the FS time. My reason is the one that matters.

You have a lot of history to overcome Sov. I wish you the best of luck, rest assured that I am not alone in my thinking - if you prove me wrong, you'll be making a LOT of new friends.

I'll be at the front of the line.