"resuscitate"

I agree with what SG says....

if you want to push these policies, you need political backing on a broader sense or be prepared to fight for it. We saw this in 1a, where we had two sides both willing to fight for their ideals (cross retalling vs non cross retalling) and the same sort of thing could happen here.

what we need is country:country retals!

marshall i was using LaF as a representative of all of the alliances of the era. the only reason it is LaF and not someone else being mentioned is that this thread seemed to be about LG policies and specifically laf's LG policy. I am trying to say that it's not necessarily an alliance's LG policy, but more the general apathy towards cheaters that existed in the game in the past (fairly deep past now!)

By not fighting bots/cheating, and by netting away peaceful and pacting cheater alliances, you contributed to the problem by legitamizing them, regardless of whether cheaters played in laf or not.

"what we need is country:country retals!"

I really think that would make the game much more fun (provided alliances reduced their number of pacts). The game would become much more dynamic, and there'd be many more facets to an individual country that could make or break a reset.

The thing is, doing that served iMag's objective at the time. And worst come to worse, you just can war over it, which imag loves. :P

Different tags, different objectives, different standards.

I think one big problem sticks out like a sore thumb. For you academic types, I did an observational study in fact.

New player makes an account, and logs in for the first time.

New player looks at the following screen at 6 different server types. New player looks at me and asks "Which one is best?" If new player didn't have someone looking over their shoulder, they're bound to just randomly pick one that sounds most appealing. Queue the replays of new players getting raped, and they're out of here.

Since we now have "Accounts" with which we can make countries from. How be we make a "New Player" server (pretty self evident for new players) and restrict who can join the server to Moderators, Game Helpers, and accounts who have been in the community for less than x days.

The game can even have automated "New Player" messages explaining the different servers, basic tutorials, and links to wiki info, etc so they can learn the game without getting assraped.

Bright idea I hope.

I've had a discussion with an alliance leader about revamping policy within our alliance and he basically acknowledged that the members within the alliance wouldn't want it because that'd require too much work/time within the game.

He asserted that people prefer playing single player mode and exploring without worrying about being landgrabbed than infusing drama and making things fun again.

I guess if this is the case game-wide, we're all but destined to slowly die.

Actually, rick, the game will "die" for the players that like to make landgrabs. A lot of them are very opinioneted, though, I will concede you that. Hence this type of thread comes up every other week.

People that prefer the status quo (and anyone that have done FA in the game can tell you that being landgrabbed is unpleasant and it is a fluffing headache to everybody in the hit side) quit for different (and other) reasons.

Only thing that could really be blamed for the game "dying" since EE came up, if we even can make that claim, is the lack of advertising, which actually is on purpose now.

Unless you code in the pacting system, this is all pie in the sky.

LAF was far from the only tag that wanted land:land and wasnt the only enforcer of it either

Eric:

I understand what you're saying, but no landgrabbing makes a MULTIPLAYER game SINGLE PLAYER. The only associative variables left would be the market and alliances.

Thats a far cry from a multiplayer game by any standards. People who jump into games want drama, a storyline, some kind of excitement. Too many people (those included who do not see community value in landgrabbing) are apathetic and are happy logging in for their 41 seconds of Earth goodness. This is a cultural change that stemmed from FA policies, period.

Change it, make it more enjoyable and active/dramatic, and it may turn itself around as a multiplayer web game. Until then, we're playing an advanced version of the (all exciting) Excel and Calculator games you can find on most computers.

Good game. Good riddance.

"Server" is not synonymous with "game" though.

Despite the policies which some deem game-killers, literally all the other servers died or were shut down while we, policy and all, remained here. At one point there were people playing tourney who played tourney as their primary server, but they're gone. Nobody in 1B or the Random games were allowed to play on 1A also, yet they're long gone too despite no retal policies being present there.

Face it - the game died because the game sucked/sucks, not because of the policy of a few alliances on one of what was at one point one of the games half dozen+ playing options. Text based games were popular in 2000 because it was basically this or Starcraft. It's a whole different internet now than it was when this game was fun/peaked. I think the devs realize that and are going in the right direction.

^ totally agree

diablo , starcraft and earth2025 =p