With all the threads going on, a similar point can be found in almost every thread. People complaining of an even and fair war.

So for discussion sake, why on earth would anyone want an even war?
Every war has purpose, to be the victor, period. I mutual 1on1 is the only war where the end goal is bragging rights, that is the only war where a similarly sized fight could or should be fought.

If you want something, why try to make the fight even, you do what you can to win. So, how is calling in an ally unfair? There's no such thing as unfair. The next few posts can be the reasoning behind the complaint. No need to troll, I would honestly love to hear why a war should be fair.

Your actually correct

People want to prove their skill. It's too easy to win when you have an overwhelming numbers advantage. going in slightly disadvantaged numbers wise, or roughly even means that the RESULT of the war will be a demonstration of whose side is more skilled at warring, rather than who can simply throw the most bodies in. it's easy to win a war when you have a massive numerical advantage, or if your opponents are all restarts, or if you have someone waiting in the wings to jump in and do the heavy work for you, and demonstrates no real skill.

Right but the only purpose of war is to win. Why does skill, outside of a prearranged 1on1 matter at all.

1 side wants to destroy the other, the faster you get the tagkill the better. My question still stands.

Many people have started to become concerned about the state of the game. There has been many talks about the concept between leaders, and I have found that most people would rather have an even war vs a war where it just drags more and more alliances into the mix (aka kitchen sink wars) where multiples allainces (netting allainces mainly) start to become fatigued. This wouldnt be an issue with a fully populated game, but with so few alliances, its a HUGE strain on netting alliances.

Another reason for even wars is to help other alliances not be dragged into these wars too. With many leaders creating grudges with one another, it can be very easy to have multiple alliances war set after set because one or the other allaince was called into a war.

The purpose of playing this game is to have fun, and with multiple leaders attempting to strive for the 'even war' ideals amonsts themselves, they can more easily find themselves having even wars occuring where one or the other sides do not get into a situation where they are either forced to restart over and over again, or have thir reset ruined because they honored a pact with an ally.


To sum it up, to try to retain players in the game, to give netting allainces a chance to net, and too also make wars be based on skill rather then 'how many members you can call in'.

Because in the end, if an allaince really wants to win no matter why, they will simply gang bang who the hell they want OOP every dam reset. Does anyone really want that?

Even when you beat a numerical superior opponent after they fs you, ppl stil have a long list of excuses.

You were geared for war, we were netting, well then you shouldn't of FSed tis that simple
Members on holiday etc etc


Always an excuse for defeat

Lets just start FSing with as many members as possible, and drag every alliance in to wars every single set. I am sure the netting alliance would love that.

As a war allaince, i doubt sof or sol would mind warring every single reset. For the netters though, I am sure they would want a break once in a while.

Again, with a small game its much easier to get everyone involved in a war then when there was a bigger player base.

Even SOF would like to net every so often, just to prove we can

I am in a "war" alliance and I take NO honor/pride winning an uneven war. That's why I want to win an even war.

That as well.

There is no point in wanting a war without the goal of winning it.

Why would clans FS other tags and then tell them that they want even wars, not a prearranged one? what's the point of hitting people and then expect them to follow your own terms? made me remember the topfeed made by SoL on rival last set. lol.

at current war, SoF/SoL vs SoL/PDM/Evo/MD is doing fine but people just can't expect other tags not to jump in for some valid reasons (mentioning RD for that matter). on RD's shoes, i'd also think of doing the same considering their numbers compared to MD.

I do think that players should not have to worry about even wars.

We as players should not have to be concerned about the state of the game and the well being of our enemies, but that simply isnt the case.

It is a major flaw in this game. The current game rules rely on a bigger player base.

perhaps we can add meaning back to this game? No more dps? 3 sets of unap only? Then tags would actually have reason to war.

This is not a war game, You win this game by being the biggest. Wars are supposed to be fought over ideals within the netting community. War tags are just tags that forgot purpose. No dps for 3 sets, lets get this game back in order. Gangbangs and coalitions shoulx be the for a mutual war goal. An even @on1 will never be a war goal held by 2 tags. Lets stop warring in groups just because these sides have existed for 15 years. Lets redefine the game.

People are talking as if this war is a gangbang. Its roughly around 200 vs 180 and the 180 being a collection of alliances down to their vetran core, oppossed to the 200 mainly made up of two larger alliances, which are bound to have more inactive/new countries. Add to that the 180 side got the initial FS when they chose it...

Flamey: it's SoF side calling it a gangbang. the 200 side also had ~15% of their numbers wait until the 180 were heavily worn down before jumping in.

I'm not calling it a gangbang, and until that extra alliance was called in, the war was decent, and it was genuinely all about tactics. Admittedly at that stage of the war, our side was starting to lose some momentum, and SoF/LaF was catching up, but it was a war where everone was getting their grievances out and off their chest. if our side had lost, we'd have had no excuse, beyond getting out-warred.

That said, this time we got out-politicked.
It happens, but I suspect the result is detrimental for the game as a whole. SoF/LaF/RD have demonstrated that they can and will dictate the rules of the server to everyone else, and that they can and will pick on whoever they want, whenever they want, and that this will most definitely be whoever decides NOT to play by SOF/LaF's rules.
Remember all the fluffing about tyhe stuff going on in the team server? SoF/LaF is doing the same here.

LAF and SOF have been given numerous chances to fight wars where the numbers could have been kept even. At every post they have chosen the fluff option and called anyone they can coerce on their ally list to provide extra numbers and win the war.

No one wins in this situation. The war is over in no time, the alliance who can grovel the best wins due to the fact skill is not rewarded in EE as much as numbers and the vicious cycle of revenge and retribution continues.

It is so lame and so weak that the so called top alliances are that gutless they keep hiding behind the hanlong doctrine of calling in the kitchen sink just in case they OMG lose..

It is a sad reflection on the morons in LAF who can't spot a cheater if they adjusted their troops to 10m and an indict
ment on SOF who are now a shell of what they once represented. Both are a laughing stock and the sad fact is they are doing so in a dying game.

rofl @ dagga.

why are people not answering Marco's question but instead goes on trolling?

Troll? Easy to say when your malformed brain can't think of a response to one question:

What has SOF got to be proud of in 2 years of EE?

Beating up on PDM? Lol.. GO SOF

I attempted to answer it.
People are no longer satisfied with the easy 'kitchen sink' win.
They want it to be seen that they won because they are genuinely better.

Edit: Also, because no one wants to be seen as the guy in the playground who brings 50 mates along to steal the wallet and kick the crap out of a single person walking alone at night.
Brutal comparison, but true.

hatred much? lol. sorry can't answer that coz i stopped playing 2009.

i'll shoot you back the question: what has SoL got to be proud of in 2 years of EE?

Beating LAF twice 1v1, beating Imag/LCN/icn without calling allies, beating LCN/Imag after taking their first strike.. There are 4 exceptional wins. You tend to post a lot of dribble considering your knowledge is nil.

Rubbish...

It was our side that offered genuine peacetalks sets back, which were undermined by SoL/Evo/MD.

It was your side who chose the arbitary period of 6 months to drop LaF and planned to kill them until they were less relevent to the server (plenty of logs exist).

It was also your alliance that choose to FS SoF 2/3 sets.

It was your alliance who chose to ally SoL, the biggest bullier of alliances in the game, despite previously refusing to on principle. Sacraficing your principles because you felt wronged that we didn't stand for your policy, which some alliances on your side also disagreed with. I don't know if you saw our pacting conversations, but we went a long way to offer compramises for a policy which we have with every pacted alliance in the game. PDM was too high and mighty to compramise, whilst we were even able to work our differences with RD via the diplomatic route.

And even this set, it was only our recruitment and LaF retaining their size that kept us from being slaughted by an offensive from your side. You fail to see our motivation, this was a war for our survival, highligted by the fact an alliance on your side threated to FS us oop for multiple sets at the beginning of the war.

You need to wake up and expand your horizons from the SoF/LaF is evil narrative.

The fact that SoF has rebuilt itself from under 30 members to over 80 in the last 2 years is something to be proud of, SoL and SoF were close allies at one stage in the last 2 years also how quickly Dagga forgets

yeah, i admit. alin has a higher IQ than me. and i'm not telling anything about sets where i haven't played. i guess you should not ask me about it then unless you intentionally want it.

i'm waiting for people to confirm/deny what you just said. truth is, i really doubt your every statement in EE. sorry about that mate. i believe most people do too.

(as i was saying last set, i'm very disappointed at the current status of SoL the moment i returned to the game. SoL has grown more crybabies and whiners.)

Flamey: SoF refused to pay reps initially, said they would, then didn't then finally started to do so a set AFTER they were of any use. You then tried to push pact terms on us, in a move to dictate to us how we could and couldn't interact with other alliances.

SoL on the other hand at least negotiated, and even adopted some of our policies, c:c or 1:1 in particular.
I haven't seen any of the logs, as the only thing posted to the command tower for PDM leadership to see was the pact you tried to push on us.
Further, the only reason RD pacted you is because they were too scared to stand up to you. After we discussed defensive plans for war with them, expecting you to attack us for landtrading, in which if you attacked us, they would stand with us, as landtrading affected BOTH alliances, they told you that we were planning to FS you (oop is what I've heard) along side them, and that they didn't want to do that.
That's not diplomatically creating a solution, that's 1 alliance hanging another out to dry.

We didn't refuse the reps, we agreed, but leadership was so inactive at that time that we just didn't impliment it. It was the set after that our whole leadership/midleadership was being rebuilt. Pang then demanded we pay the 1b+ reps in the first week of the set... right... impossible, but we paid it eventually (and that amount of FA is much more useful at the beginning of the set than the end of the set).

I don't get how 'we pushed terms on you'. We had gone many sets without a pact, but it was you who approached us for one. We said we would like these terms, but you refused. We said we would like to compramise, but you refused. You also directed suiciders at us at the beginning of that set, which would have been enough for me to FS if it was my decission.

I also believe SoL adopting C:C;L:L, was more to do with it being agreed in the 'peace talks' with LaF, rather than any peacetalks. They renounced it on LaF last set, and reverted back to old with their bullying of Rival over retal policies.

PDM's alliance with SoL just demonstrates your flakey principles, and is especially ironic as it would have been SoL tagkilling PDM and other netting alliances at will as they always have, had SoL's coalition had defeated SoF a year back and had control of the server.

Flamey: I can't dispute that you are probably right on that last point.
Now however, it's SoF/LaF tagkilling PDM and other netting alliances. Bad times call for strange bedfellows.
TBH, I don't particularly see this coalition lasting all that long, the viewpoints of all on our side are far too removed from each other for it to last. Sadly, when it does break up, I won't be surprised when all 4 alliances get isolated and buttraped by SoF/LaF one after another at some point soo thereafter.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

anyways, I am leaving this here, I've derailed the thread.

Apologies Marco.

to clarify my overall thoughts for your OP.

people want to win an 'even' war because then they can honestly say they won because they were better, not because they brought more mates, or cheated to gain info, or whatever.
No one is satisfied with the easy 'kitchen sink' win anymore.
No one likes being known as the one who kicked the other guy when they're down, or being known as too scared to fight on their own.
No one wants to be known as a member of a group that goes out with 20 of their mates, to kick the fluff out of someone on their own for a mobile phone and 50 bucks.

Until you get rid of your very one sided stance on things there wont be a point in having peace. It is that exact paranoia that will cause a war dude :P

my take on even wars. yes its fun. but there is almost never a even war for 1 reason the FS's if done right are massive.. if u take 2 80 country clans and they war each other whom ever gets the FS. can possibly have a 20 kill FS in 24 hrs.. then it makes it 80 vs 60... even at the start yes.. even after 24 hrs.. not even close.. if proper targets are picked.. the best countries and the biggest potential threats by production are dead.. lets not forget if a couple of those countries who got hit had 0 sdi... 50-65 chems to kill a country could be done by 2 guys for readiness.. its not hard to get a huge advantage.. the only way u will ever have a even war. is u setup 2 clans or 2 sides.. and have the #'s close roughly 1-3 country difference and have a mutual FS day and time..

Damn trolls, why is there a sol vs laf fight in this thread.

It is impossible to have even wars. There are to many factors that go into it to really have a perfectly balanced war.

Assuming they are competent when selecting targets and active. A first strike is way to overpowered and grants the aggressor a major advantage.

Also country builds play a huge role in outcome of WAR. If one is war prepped the other is out there netting even if number are even at start the builds will have a huge impact over time.

You only ever get a real even war in prearranged wars with agreed upon start point. Even then people recruit like mad to try to get their numbers up and it normally doesn't end up all that even.

If the war isn't a prearranged or friendly war about bragging rights but about a disagreement over policy or genuine issue with he other alliance, then really why does it matter if it is even or not.

Whatever your goal is be it get ride of land trading, punish cheaters, get ride of L:L, Get L:L, ect... you care about the outcome not that both sides are even. You are fighting for the best interest of your alliance not trying to have as good a war as possible.

regarding to the number of members? the question is why it is that you are few, is it a fault of other alliances? the very basic psychology is that why would people be joining you if they dont like you.

Raf stop copying what i said.. and making sound more readable... :)

I don't read your posts Boltar I assume they all are elaborate ways of saying BOLTAR WANTS BATTLE AND CHEEZZBURGERS! :p

lol well no cheezzburgers this time.. and a battle yes.. but the same way u said only a even battle would be

There has always been war tags. -_-

to the OP. I've played a lot of games. In every one as soon as there was no challenge to the game, it became boring, as soon as it was impossible to progress, it became boring. This isn't life, we're not here for anything but to have fun. Win or lose, I still have my house, my car, my family, my job, none of us are fighting for anything tangible where winning at all costs is important. The only thing I have to lose is having fun playing a game. No matter which side I'm on, terribly unbalanced fights become boring quickly. To me at least.

No such thing as an even war. Somebody always has an excuse. Even if it's the same numbers, somebody got the fs. S

The game is flawed to begin with. The side with larger numbers are usually going to win in a war

I understand Jiman is trying to "fix" this problem with a band-aid, where if every leader only agreed to have fair wars, it will make the situation better. But really, its just a work-around to go around a problem, a problem that exists with the game in its core game design.

Basically, I'm asserting that the "workaround" for even wars is just a temporary stop gap, animosity and revenge and things like that are simply going to get in the way and it is not a long-term solution.

Besides this, there is no such thing as an even war if the FS isn't mutual, and there is no such thing as an even war unless both sides have the exact same amount of preparation time, on top of having even numbers.

What we need is an actual game mechanics change of some sort to discourage gangbangs. The Team server in concept would have worked out great, but it didn't work out because coalitions formed.

From a game design perspective, from the viewpoint of a game designer or game admin, you don't fix a game by letting the player base find a solution - you fix the damn game by changing the game mechanics.

allowing kills of any kind in team makes absolutely no sense i cant believe it was implemented like that

would have been a perfect test bed

People want even wars so they have a chance to win. No one wants to go into a war knowing their going to lose(except maybe imag). People want even wars so after they can know they won or lost due to nothing else but leadership and activity rather than untagged suiciders, number advantage, ect.

Even if every war was somehow perfectly even people like dagga would find some reason to claim it was unfair. Some people cant admit they got outplayed. Alliance is a very big political server and thats part of the game. You make enemies youll pay for it at some point.

I said that already :O So ya i agree with you 100% :O

the problem is to get an even war you have to hit someone bigger than you

a lot bigger if they are less prepared

but if they notice and get prepared or hit you first you lose

the tempo is too high

walling/killing needs to be changed to reduce the bottleneck on numbers required to guarantee kills, make it more casual friendly and also make it so kill:country ratio is lower per day

that way wars wont spiral out of control so fast and a blindsided alliance will have time to come back

even in the old days when allies got called in it tended to be once things got bad, these days wars spiral so quickly that you basically have to have anyone whos going to come in already ready before the war starts for them to be effective

lol, Sol has always gangbanged and destroyed other alliances. So people got enough, our goal is to drive you out of the game so you can sit on your trailerpark with your methlab and play banjo all day. Those two 1v1 Wins Dagga is talking about, is a "blindslide" tyrr techer "faststart" vs LaFs 50 republics. We all remember that war. It kind of sucked. Set after myself left the game togheter with some other vets, well LaF survived for a year, and here we are back to fluffing rape you all. Wait? I think SoL has lost every set from then ? HAHAHA Oh it sucks to die every set? oh go play mars or someething. there is a Facebook app called fairyland, try it, maybe it is something for SoL. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Various logs exist? Post them then. As for peace - your side don't want peace, particularly when you and your clan mates are running around saying x, y and z won't be netting for a year.

The fact that you are so deluded as to thinking our 4 alliances collectively wanted to war laf for 6 months is a joke. Cheating scum don't deserve pacts and once upon a time having no pact with an alliance wasn't an indication of war. Your conspiracy theories and false logs are a complete and utter joke. If you put your brain into gear once in awhile then you'd maybe.. Just maybe have a clue as to our intentions.

We ran fast starts expected sof to Fs. You failed several spy ops on us, so we preemptively took action. You wanted a war and now you have one. Quit the whining. Your clan carry grudges over years until you are ready to exact revenge. This isn't about Laf - this is about you wanting to get your piece of war.

You can't stand to lose, which just shows the childish mentality you have.

P.s. Any logs (you only have md/sol/evo chat, which wasn't even enacted) you have were gained via illegal means. I'm not talking about just illegal within game rules, but illegal in terms of internet laws. If I were you I'd feel embarrassed for bringing up information gained through hacking/illegally accessing somebody else's property.

Stop spouting your crap please and thanks. The only people saying you should die for another year are the people messing around or trolling. You have PLENTY of people on your side saying the same crap. You coming here as a leader of your alliance and saying things like you do is a very good way for us to not find peace.

Maybe its you who should put 'your brain in gear'. Your whining, aggressiveness and downright public flaming motivates our leadership and membership to kill you. It is partially right that we were going to come after SoL/Evo no matter what, but what do you expect when you spend most of the set flaming us and proceed to drop our pact at the end of the set. Instead of blaming war alliances for state of the server, maybe you should look closer to home. If you cannot toughen up your membership to withstand a few sets of war; if you cannot increase your members via recruitment, maybe you shouldn't trashtalk to an alliance that can war everyset and is getting stronger every set.

Some logs are from that chat. Others from different chats, which I assume were found out via boxcar access. Others direct to SoF leaders and some to me. I'll have to dig around, wont be too hard and I don't give a flying fluff about you being on your high horse regarding hacking-gate. Like it hasn't been going on since the start of this game... and the information is out there, you don't see the US government denying the contents of wikileaks and infact you see most people ejaculating whipped cream over the act.

Have to say the funniest thing on this thread is Drow's stance on even wars, since he is the only person ever to jump the gun on a completely even war and FS 6 hrs early on a prearranged war.

Just kidding drow but damn that country I had which died first was awesome lol

Where's the love?