I'm looking to change the Team server into a casual clan-based environment, FFA into a more hardcore clan-based environment, and Alliance into something somewhere in-between. I'm inviting the community to comment on changes that may happen as part of change set #22 to accomplish part of that vision. More information here: https://www.earthempires.com/...hanges-49997?t=1618146293

For the Alliance server:

* Untagged countries will have a 90% gains penalty when attacking or spying any tagged country.

* A country cannot perform any attack or spy op 48 hours after a tag change.

* Clan admins will be able to mark other clans as DNH. Upon doing so, countries in that tag will only be able to perform harmless spy ops (spy, military spy, alliance spy, market spy) against the other tag. Some details:
a) Anyone in the tag can see who has been marked DNH and which tags have marked them as DNH.
b) A clan cannot mark another clan as DNH if it has attacked it within the past 48 hours.
c) If two clans have mutually marked each other as DNH then cancelling the DNH will only take effect after 48 hours. Both sides will be notified and both DNHs will be dropped at the same time.
d) A one-sided DNH can be cancelled at any time without a delay.

For the FFA server:

* Only the DNH tag change will be implemented.

I am hoping that the following benefits are realized by these changes:

1) Formalizing DNH relations will prevent accidental hits during war.
2) Formalizing DNH relations will make it less risky to recruit new players into a tag.
3) Adds a game mechanic to enforce rules around pre-arranged wars between clans.
4) Reduces the power of the FS and can prevent blindside wars in some situations.
5) Builds a starting point to add other types of relationships between clans in the future, such as allies or formally declaring war.
6) An attack/spy cooldown period prevents some tag change behaviors which are generally viewed as bad by the community including tagging up late to immediately join a war and detagging to suicide another tag.
7) Smaller tags who are viewed as untrustworthy by other clans can be more safely tolerated by them.
8) The incentive for larger clans to kill off all untagged countries has been reduced.
9) If a single person has a grudge against a tag it will be more difficult for them to wage war by themselves.
10) Some of the issues that cause negative tag utility have been addressed. I'd like alliance to be a place where clans compete with each other and there's more meaning and importance behind the tag that you choose.

I'm aware that number nine will be viewed as a disadvantage by some. To be frank, we've tried it the other way for the past ten years and the results have been predictably negative. With that said, none of these changes are set in stone and I invite all comments.

This is an interesting measure. It solves a lot of problems such as tags being forced to kill untagged countries instead of giving them a chance, and same with the accidental hits and especially reqruitment will be a lot less risky since no one can suicide from within.
Generally it will create a more new/returning player-friendly environment.

Theres an abuse I already see here:
"c) If two clans have mutually marked each other as DNH then cancelling the DNH will only take effect after 48 hours. Both sides will be notified and both DNHs will be dropped at the same time."

But:
"* A country cannot perform any attack or spy op 24 hours after a tag change."

Which means I will declare war with a small tag on whoever I want to suicide/FS later and keep that war going, then even if that tag is defeated the war is still ongoing so a tag in mutual DNH can tag over and suicide in a 24 hour window instead of a 48 hour waiting period.

Fair point, changed it to be 48 hours in both cases.

Dear Slagpit,

From a netting perspective it looks great.
It will be interesting to see what the warring alliances think.

My guess is the suiciders will tag up to 1 man tags and hit after 48 hours. How does it work for 1 man tags are they at 90% also or is it enough to only have 1 member to hit at full force?

One member is enough for relations.

If a one man tag exists at the start of the round, that tag can choose to try to establish mutual DNHs with other tags.

If a one man tag pops up suddenly in the middle of the round, other tags can choose how to respond. If the country looks suspicious then it may be in the best interest of the bigger tags to kill it. If the country doesn't look suspicious then perhaps relations can be established.

12 players by 2023

Hey Myerr! A discussion on what you would like to see in this vs the comment made would be a nicer and more valuable/valued input. :)

As long as war between tags is not restricted I think it's ok.

It would be restricted in that if tag A and B have a mutual DNH then they can't get into a war without 48 hours notice.

d) A one-sided DNH can be cancelled at any time without a delay.

so how does the one sided DNH work?

does it stop mifluffs? stopping tag members from making the hit or require an additional confirmation?

confirmation wouldnt stop suicides from your tag which you can be responsible for paying reps, but complete block complicates retaliating any hits coming the other way

48 hour lead time would work well as a starting gun for consensual wars

and be interesting in multi party non consensual wars

since say MD and UCN could declare drop pact with Rock but not their ally Elites at the same time, but elites wouldnt be able to hit back until they notice and drop pact in return, even 1 hour would be quite impactful in a late set missile FS

I've always been in favor of clan admins/leaders being able to force members thru game mechanics to behave a certain way. Ideally this would be a stepping stone to pacts being a part of the actual ingame mechanics.

Part of the reason new members struggle here is because there's a list of unwritten rules about multitaps, two stepping, topfeeding, etc. And I think that all comes back to the same feelings I have about collusion on the solos and such, which is to say:

"Anything you're not allowed to do in the game, you should actually be disallowed from doing in the game mechanically. Not have a moderator ban for it after the fact." That's why sots didnt work on team, and that's half the reason moderators get abused. There's too many judgement calls.

I think same goes for clan leaders. Our job gets significantly easier if rather than telling members "these are the rules," and having no way to ensure they follow them, and spending inordinate amounts of time vetting our members thru IPs and such, which assists the dox culture here. If I can just set the rules to join my clan on the front end, I wouldnt have to worry about that stuff.

And I actually think the popularity of warclans would increase due to the freedom in gameplay they will likely offer. i.e. a clan like elders would likely be popular as a result of lawlessness. I think a lot of players would vibe with that.

The issue is always because we have at least two dominant meta gameplay styles on one server. It will forever be a battle of the players or the admins as long as they try to foster all metas on one server IMO.

There is good reason games that have this conflict create separate environments that cater to one another.

The one thing i see issue with is that alliance politics take a hit with these DNH settings. Arent real wars started, for example, by accidental hits or over retailing? If ingame DNH setting prevent clan drama from starting then how do wars start that have real meaning and passion? Arrange wars aren't interesting for lacking revenge / gains in clan pride.

Looks like this takes away use of FR (FAs) going around trying to security different pact types (FDP, LDP, UNAP, etc) where terms can be fuzzy and abused to create this drama.

There have been 0 wars in 1a over accidental hits since I came along. There have been wars over misunderstandings/misgivings about what is considered fair retals tho, both on team and 1a.

Using wrong number hits or retal policy anger as a means to create drama is more work than it's worth. If people want a reason to hit someone they will be able to invent it even without these tools, trust me. And it saves a whole lot of time from boring FR work, which I think is a good thing (I don't understand how you cant agree with that tbf).

But the main take-away from these rules is that innocent untagged will be pushed into clans/teams and clans/teams will have incentives to take them in rather than as now where every new reqruit is more risk than they are worth.

You can still have normal wars. Just drop DNH and wait 48 hours. The difference is now you give the other side a fair shot at being somewhat prepared making a win even greater.

Can still have pacts just adjust them to the new gameplay.

All these super awesome changes, any chance we could get a realtime graph of current player retention and / or new player signup statistics? I mean if you need someone to draw some kind of a line with a massive negative slope heading straight towards the ground let me know...one of us morons in imp; that you are specifically targeting with these new features or changes or whatever you call these game killing ideas in this one sided discussion; anyways, we should be able to handle it.

What's next bubble mode?

Will bots be able to retal going forward?

I would like to participate in a organised conversation for where the game is headed as well!

Will bots be able to retal going forward?

Is anyone going to answer the question?

Maybe they will. It seems to be a plan down the line but there is no due date on that even right now. So hit your bots, they won't retal for now.