id like to propose a basket of metrics to allow people for themselves to decide who is how legit after a set finishes on various servers

some servers id prefer if FA was disallowed, perhaps on non tag servers, and express as the most beneficial to disallow but forcing people to be legit is a seperate issue to 'shaming' those who arnt

after a set finishes allow all t10, preferably all t100, and possibly all countries on clan results pages to be clickable

once a country is clicked on show:

FA sent during a reset (possibly totaled to NW value, sending oil when its $20/barrel is differant to $500 obviously so could be done in a rolling 24 hour daily average sale price, 3 day average would be easier but less accurate)
FA received during a reset
possibly individual packets sent and received
possibly the counterparty for individual packets
possibly a modified networth

land grabbed
land lost
ghost acres grabbed
ghost buildings grabbed
land explored
possibly sources of land, untagged, same tag, other tags (possibly by tag) and perhaps same by loss

and some more metrics that are more for fun but would also be useful for 'legitness'

averaged $/acre income over whole set
averaged $/acre expenses over whole set
gross income whole set (with breakdowns for cash, food, tech, mil, oil)
gross expenses whole set (with breakdowns for allies, land expenses, mil purchase, oil purchase, food purchase, mil upkeep, corruption, decay)

turns spend doing x
cash (extra gained and average), explore (averaged), attack (specials, and win/loss records) , build (csites and average), sell, recall, tech (average), FA, lost turns to overflow, lost bonus turns


the simplest and first thing that could hopefully be done would just be to save all FA news relating to a country in a text file then make that text file clickable after the set is over, from there things could get more complicated and fun

i would also like to see ways to choose a leaderboard to view which ranked by other criteria for a reset, such as unaided NW

express already disallows FA.

thats good, fed land would be the easiest way to aid in express probably

I like this suggestion,


Wish we had the feature here where you just press "like this" icon to express our interest on that certain topic.

All strategies are legit if they are not a form of cheating. Therefore, FA chains, market buyouts, clan wide help, are all forms of strategies that are allowed in the game, and are there for legit, just like how stocking is part of a strategy to get the highest NW possible.

So, in conclusion, this post is retarded =P Its not the strategist's fault that you do not like there strategy that beat your strategy to win, and for you to then call there strat not legit.

Amen to that

...now keep telling yourself that after a few resets of alliances using buyouts and FA to put their member(s) in the top 10, forcing your country out of the top 10, simply because the other alliance is larger than yours.

In the case of what's happening on Alliance, having a war alliance trying to change the overall status quo of netting just because the war alliance can't net simply isn't going to work ;)

if there's a problem with the way an alliance nets, it's normally solved through war, right? so.. go war teh war clans over their l33t netting ability

I don't see what your complaint is here NukEvil.

If you want to play independently and get a top 10 finish without being pushed out by people working together -- play on the Primary or Tournament server.

If you want to work cooperatively, but don't like being pushed out of the top 10 "simply because the other alliance is larger than yours" -- play on the Team server.

The alliance server is for people who want to organize as large groups to achieve the best possible finish. That organization is part of the competition, so it makes sense that alliances who are able to organize in such a way to gain more members would be able to do better.

To me, it sounds like you want the alliance server to offer the exact same sort of competition as is available on other servers. Why don't you just play there? We don't want the servers to be clones of eachother.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Then I suggest you read all the threads in AT dealing with the buyout issues to see what my complaint is. You're just regurgitating what everyone in favor of market buyouts has already said.




You'll find my rebuttal to that statement in one of those threads. Or probably in all of those threads; I can't really remember.

Well then they will be unable to perform as well in ANW.

And that's just it. The skill (or lack thereof) of alliances, or groups of members in alliances, participating in buyouts just to get one or two members in the top 10 will be reflected in the alliance rankings--ANW and TNW. I'm not saying that buyouts should not be allowed at all; I'm only saying that countries who reach the top 10 via a buyout that the owners of those countries orchestrated shouldn't be counted as legitimate because, as I keep saying, it takes away from the rest of the alliance, while at the same time, pushing countries ran by players with actual skill out of the top 10.

It's why we looked down on Llaar back in Earth:2025, and it's why we'll continue to look down on others doing it in Earth:Empires.

I know you mentioned you had an argument against it hidden somewhere in the forums - but why is a good effort done by an alliance not legitimate in an alliance server?

I'm sorry, did you accidentally post the answer before you posted your question?

the one with the highest net wins.

"Regurgitating" the opinions of others?

That strikes me as nothing but cheap hyperbole, trying to undermine my argument on the basis that there are many others who agree with me. The fact that I'm not alone in my opinion on this subject speaks to the strength of my point-of-view, it's certainly not a weakness.

I certainly won't claim to have been the first person to point out that other servers offer non-alliance game play experiences. But that doesn't mean I'm merely parroting off the views of others. I arrived at my opinions in direct response to statements like the one you made here -- it's such an obvious rebuttal that it's ridiculous to suggest that it couldn't have been arrived at by multiple people independently.

Perhaps I flatter myself in saying this, but I would also like to think that I've earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to independent thinking on these forums. I'm rather vocal on many issues, and (while many disagree with me) I hope that it's clear that I do just just espouse the views of others.

As for searching for your posts. I will not. Defend your argument yourself. If you like, you can copy & paste a previous statement or even provide a link. It is not, however, my responsibility to develop your argument for you.

I understand if you don't want to discuss this topic again... but if that's the case, you should not have posted in the thread to begin with. To enter into a discussion, then (when challenged) simply say "go find my response to that elsewhere" is stupid. Either participate in the discussion or don't. Sending someone off elsewhere to find your arguments for you is worse than any form of regurgitation could be.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

...and here we go again with the long diatribe about how to conduct a debate on these forums. When you have any real substantial contribution to add to the discussion of a game change that'd probably help the political aspect of the Alliance server, then we can argue some more.

As to you not wanting to find where I said what I said earlier (even though you've already read the threads where I've posted about this), it's not my responsibility to do your thinking for you. But, because you asked for it, here's a link just to show you that I'm willing to compromise just a little for you:

http://forums.earthempires.com/...Search.php?forumset=Earth

If you're talking to me - it is clear by my word choice that I am not going to start digging through threads to find your opinion since it is very clear to me that it is invalid.

Umm...that's not really saying much, I'm afraid.

Well I have offered the reasons why my view is right. Your defense of your view is "go find it if you can". It is pretty clear that your argument holds no water, metaphorically speaking.

So because you won't take the negligible amount of time to find and re-read my posts on the matter, my argument 'holds no water'?


Ya know, I think I should just stop right now and start trolling. What needed to be said in this thread has apparently already been said.

Only reason why you wouldn't take the time post your opinion as far as I can see.




It has: in an alliance server, alliance tactics are fair and legitimate.

Yeah, golly gee -- imagine someone wanting you to actually give reasons for your point of view. It's almost as if some of us like to to participate in discussions above a second grade level.

I must admit though, you've finally impressed me. It takes a lot of balls to accuse me of not making a substantial contribution to the discussion when your most recent post was effectively "I replied to that once... but I can't remember where".

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Like I said before: You've read the threads where I posted my reasons, you know my reasons behind what I posted here already, so I don't need to post them again. Anything else that's said on that subject is just fluff.

Although, I'm still wondering why market buyouts, while looked down upon by some of the people posting in this thread during the Earth:2025 end days, are suddenly being touted as 'legitimate' by those same people when a war alliance suddenly puts a few in the top 10.

Who's done that?

I can't think of anyone who was vocally against market buy-outs before but is now in favour of them.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

i can't think of anyone who has vocally posted on this forum at all. don't even think they used Hooked-On-Phonics to post.

market buyouts are looked down on because llaar and his cronies abused them by using multies to do it. some people don't think that sane rational people will buy up a bunch of junk to help a team-mate get a better networth.

I seem to remember Detmer posting something about market buyouts not being legit, but since neither at-archive nor Jolt's search 'feature' is currently working, I guess I'll have to retract that statement until I can actually post a link to it or something.





Yeah, there were definitely lots of posts about multis and buyouts going hand-in-hand, but, again, nothing's working correctly, so bleh.

you need to develop a better attitude if you want to market this game.

"nothing's working correctly, so bleh."

"We understand that people have taken advantage of unforeseeable holes in our product, but we are devoutly in pursuit of closing such holes so that people will fully enjoy our product"

Neither at-archive nor Jolt's cesspool they call a forum has much to do with Earth:Empires.

fine, evo is full of a bunch of lunk-heads...

I didn't play at the end of Earth: 2025, so it definitely wasn't me.

we can haz both

leave plain networth as the default ranking
but if people want to see other rankings why shouldnt they be allowed to as well?

after the set make things transparent and everyone can still play how they like, but now the people who try to net completely unaided can compare themselves to others who do likewise, or what they think aidees would have got

another reason id like to see FA packets shown after the reset is Armadillo #242 in alliance was killed by sol for allegedly interfering in the Sol/Laf war via pacts and aid

and i think any information we can provide showing pacts and aid after a country is dead or the set is over will in the future mean things like that will only happen if an alliance really believes it, then afterwards we can all find out for certain

as to buyouts thats trickier

what would need to be shown is how much stuff and when was bought/sold at prices varying too much from the averages

bought isnt a huge issue since everyone can place orders, but at least in FFA i was picking up some cheap oil people were still trying to transfer (if you want to do it the right way sell multiple packets at the same price and use 3 orders of the same price)

but for sold you can get large multipliers for tech late in the set, up to 3x multiplier on a lot of networth for countries that have already jumped on military, large multipler on food and pretty much no blocks very late in the set but limitied public market, very large multiplier on oil but probably large blocks right to the end

and probably my favourite concept, the $1 food buyout

buy and sell a pile of food at max demo private market price, keeping it on route to market so people cant clear it out of the game

sell it all to a demo (doesnt need mil tech) at max private, have that demo sell it at max private +1 and repeat, for 100% netowrth transfer

bit of an off topic rant, just wanted to provide proof of concept for an impossible to block networth transfer

so to provide 100% guarantee of legitness maybe news should be viewable after the set ends, not sure how storage requirements would be

but it could be brought in just for the t10 to start

Do you think all spy ops should be revealed at the end of the set? I don't know that complete transparency is in the best interest of the game.

im not overly concerned about buyouts, i think its better to start with FA and see how it goes

spy ops could be netting if you stole food/money/tech from people who condoned it but i dont think its the biggest problem, and would have more downside than just FA news in and out and market news

if its necessary the aid in and out could be summed and the amount countries paid over and under market averages summed as well

but i would like the option for transparency at least since then armadillo/242 could turn on his and everyone could see what happened

enshula:

As per armadillo, as far as I know nobody has claimed armadillo sent FA. Thats not the reason for killing him. The fact he *may* have sent FA (as part of the larger issue of him not immediately dropping pacts when asked to is what caused issues)

As for your general idea of more transparency I don't like it one bit. I think something could be said for removing research alliances as well as FA from individual servers, but on alliance servers individual NWs aren't really supposed to be the point...

And that's why we should go on base clan victories by ANW and TNW in clan based servers. I mean what would be one guy finishing 100m networth if the rest of his clan mates finish just 10m or so.