Earth Empires Logo


Verified:

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 17:16:40

currently?

Clan A, members B and C
Clan X, member Z

B hits C twice
C then hits Z (18 hours later)

Deerhunter Game profile

Member
2113

Jan 12th 2012, 17:18:16

I thought the 2 step was a dance?
Ya, tho i walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I shall fear no retals,
Cause i have the biggest, baddest, and toughest country in the valley!

ICe Man

Member
1398

Jan 12th 2012, 17:29:10

I know this isn't FFA. But FFA's standard was to kill countries involved. But FFA is a little less politic friendly :)
Thank God, for I'm a blessed man.

Akula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
4129

Jan 12th 2012, 17:30:52

i'd agree with ICey, kill in FFA :)
(bear in mind that was my FFA side replying there)
=============================
"Astra inclinant, sed non obligant"

SOL http://sol.ghqnet.com/
=============================

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Jan 12th 2012, 17:31:50

reverse two stepping?

sounds like a complicated dance to me!
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Jan 12th 2012, 17:37:08

using any country which has been farmed to grab with is bad, its similar to dropping land before or after a hit or putting a country in DR then grabbing with it

ive never really noticed it in alliance but i have noticed dropping land after doing grabs which is treated unfavourably

dicts in particular are known to topfeed then drop non built land and that tends to cause issues

the counterpoint to this is using aided countries in some way to grab people, be it mid bottom or top, which is also poor form

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 17:45:57

here is the real scenario. An FA allows a fellow clan member to take a LG on its country as Reps for an FA mistake. The country fails the original LG then grabs again to actually get the land.

Later (18 hrs later) The FA decides to make a LG. Later when the retal for said LG is taken the country is not in DR.

I dont see how what happens previous to the LG has any effect on the outcome of the retal. the retaler still netted 3500 acres gain on the exchange with a single retal.

There is no "reverse" two stepping happening in actuality. NA believes that the country should be retalled 2:1 and stated that you must wait 72 hrs before making a LG. My response is that waiting 72 hrs would not have changed the amount of land the country had when making the LG and would not have an effect on the returns for the retal, so what would waiting have accomplished? Nothing in my mind; same outcome same results.

Edited By: ld on Jan 12th 2012, 18:20:42
See Original Post

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 17:48:13

If anyone cares to see what happened take a look into Llarrs news his country is easy enough to find.

tells us what you think would be fair retaliation in this scenario.

Jiman Game profile

Member
1199

Jan 12th 2012, 18:11:14

*runs away*

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 18:19:47

hide!

madjsp Game profile

Member
412

Jan 12th 2012, 18:23:56

Ld always fluffes
-jonathan

joe3: bater sucks so bad imag could teach him a thing about war

Tertius Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1691

Jan 12th 2012, 18:38:11

C wasn't in DR for the retal and the land that player has doesn't directly affect how much he took. Player Z got all of his land back and then some in one hit, why would he take two?

The reason two-stepping is a no no is if it causes player C to be in DR or have much less land such that Z could not get all of his land back. In the case above, it is clearly not two-stepping, it's not even reverse two-stepping (that would be Z hitting B, who is then hit by C two times, and then B takes a retal, which wouldn't even make sense).

Llaar got all of his land back in the first hit, then he over-retalled without trying to contact anyone. In my opinion he should apologize and give up a hit for the over retal. *shrugs*

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Jan 12th 2012, 18:45:30

72 hours was always the standard ffa policy, if anyone was going to have that it would be NA

cgr4 Game profile

Member
207

Jan 12th 2012, 18:46:55

Originally posted by enshula:
72 hours was always the standard ffa policy, if anyone was going to have that it would be NA


what exactly does that mean?
cgr4

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 20:12:52

isnt NA's policy to use the attackers retal policy anyway?

KingKaosKnows

Member
279

Jan 12th 2012, 20:15:04

In that case L:L 100% would apply, anything more than that is unheard off in pacted alliances, and pacted alliances have their own terms (with involve rape).

So yeah Llaar overetaled.

KingKaosKnows

Member
279

Jan 12th 2012, 20:16:23

I mean is unheard of in unpacted aka non pacted alliances... Stupid auto correct.

ICe Man

Member
1398

Jan 12th 2012, 20:46:13

If the country has been farmed (grabbed) by your own clan any time during a reset and then it grabs. It deserves to die. Period.

Thats horse fluff moves, that i've used in the past mind you, that get you killed. :P
Thank God, for I'm a blessed man.

sigma Game profile

Member
406

Jan 12th 2012, 20:50:31

I'm not sure what NA's policy is....they don't have it posted anywhere. But if their doing the old 1:1,etc rules... why try and say it was reverse 2 stepping when it appeared to be more like topfeed?

ICe Man

Member
1398

Jan 12th 2012, 20:53:16

If a country is grabbed, by it's own clan, before it landgrabs, it should die. And land:land + 150%. Enforce that bull. In FFA we'd kill entire STRINGS to show that kinda bull don't fly.
Thank God, for I'm a blessed man.

Detmer Game profile

Member
4306

Jan 12th 2012, 21:00:10

In this scenario official PDM policy would be to take the land from someone else in the alliance. If the DRs were less than three though I am sure we wouldn't bother to take the land from someone else though.

Pang Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
5736

Jan 12th 2012, 21:02:44

i just wouldn't consider this any standard policy and immediately contact someone to get it resolved to my member's satisfaction.

i like detmer's, though, but it also makes issues snowball quickly!
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

sigma Game profile

Member
406

Jan 12th 2012, 21:06:04

Perhaps the solution is to create a suggestion in the bugs/suggestions forum and not allow any person grabbed by a person in the same tag to not grab again--ever.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:04:25

in FFA i always just kill, like the others above stated

in 1A i've generally auth'd 2:1, unless 2:1 doesn't get land back

that first hit will not get what it should have gotten back. So claiming L:L after first hit doesn't hold any weight. That first retal should have gotten more, but since his clanmate hit him, that first retal got less than it otherwise would have.

our policy is to follow other's policies. their policy didn't cover any 2 stepping at all (regular or reverse) therefore i defaulted what i perceived as standard

Detmer Game profile

Member
4306

Jan 12th 2012, 22:06:13

Originally posted by Pang:
i just wouldn't consider this any standard policy and immediately contact someone to get it resolved to my member's satisfaction.

i like detmer's, though, but it also makes issues snowball quickly!


Well, that is just the PDM blanket policy for self-DRs, independent of whether the hits come before or after the grab on PDM. It conveniently also deals with the two-stepping issue. The policy actually wasn't intended for that though and is too beneficial for the defender in its current wording when applied that way.

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Jan 12th 2012, 22:10:10

"the first retal should have gotten more" / "that first retal got less than it otherwise would have"... The problem with using that rationale is that it applies equally to a situation where C had been hit twice by an untagged country V. Yes, you wouldn't as much land as you would have gotten, but that doesn't entitle you to additional retals.

...I don't know what the conclusion should be in this matter, but the current argument you're making doesn't logically separate this particular matter from ones involving countries that have been hit by non-intra-alliance members.
Purposeful1

H4xOr WaNgEr Game profile

Forum Moderator
1983

Jan 12th 2012, 22:10:20

I don't think it is appropriate to reap retribution from country A due to actions committed after the fact.

It is equivilent to applying criminal law retroactively. It just doesn't happen, and philosophically would be ludicrous.

Edited By: H4xOr WaNgEr on Jan 12th 2012, 22:35:35
See Original Post

iScode Game profile

Member
5725

Jan 12th 2012, 22:13:21

What has that country giving up land with regards to an fa issue BEFORE he hit u got to do with you? you got grabed u retal, simple as that. I see no two stepping here. Would u complain if it was another alliance who made those grabs?
iScode
God of War


DEATH TO SOV!

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:21:44

Originally posted by Purposeful1:
"the first retal should have gotten more" / "that first retal got less than it otherwise would have"... The problem with using that rationale is that it applies equally to a situation where C had been hit twice by an untagged country V. Yes, you wouldn't as much land as you would have gotten, but that doesn't entitle you to additional retals.

...I don't know what the conclusion should be in this matter, but the current argument you're making doesn't logically separate this particular matter from ones involving countries that have been hit by non-intra-alliance members.


untag or other clan is out of your control

feeding land to your friend in your clan, and then going and grabbing me, for MY land, is not going to fly. ever

and, grabbing me without even trying to come to reasonable solution, that is an RoR and i just did retal you 2:1 on that.

case closed.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:22:43

Originally posted by enshula:
using any country which has been farmed to grab with is bad, its similar to dropping land before or after a hit or putting a country in DR then grabbing with it

ive never really noticed it in alliance but i have noticed dropping land after doing grabs which is treated unfavourably

dicts in particular are known to topfeed then drop non built land and that tends to cause issues

the counterpoint to this is using aided countries in some way to grab people, be it mid bottom or top, which is also poor form


exactly what enshula said

Forgotten

Member
1605

Jan 12th 2012, 22:23:46

can't wait till this gets abused next reset and causes major headaches for FAs.
~LaF's Retired Janitor~

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:25:42

Originally posted by iScode:
What has that country giving up land with regards to an fa issue BEFORE he hit u got to do with you? you got grabed u retal, simple as that. I see no two stepping here. Would u complain if it was another alliance who made those grabs?


so a 20k acre country has a bill cash stocked as food, lets his clan mates farm him to 10k acres then he makes a few hits with all that cash once the food sells and then goes and grabs 10k acres from other countries in other clans the same day his clanmates farmed him.

is that what you're saying should be allowed?

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Jan 12th 2012, 22:29:28

By the same token, then, when you retalled #131, a LCN member who hit you after he had hit another LCN member for a similar reason, you got more land than you "should have otherwise".

...does that mean you should have to give that up?

I mean, I don't know all the particulars of the situation, but it seems to me that this would be something that, like Pang suggested, would be something for which one should seek out FA contact first (even if the ultimate result was disagreement and the hits were taken).

Hm. Maybe you guys should have "gap-filler" terms for when the other alliance doesn't specify policy on a particular type of conflict.
Purposeful1

Tertius Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1691

Jan 12th 2012, 22:29:52

Detmer, take what land from another country? I assume it would be the land that you would be "cheated" out of by an attacker being in DR. For this case, the guy who attacked llaar was 1 hit in DR (which doesn't even reduce gains) for 6 hours. Llaar probably didn't even notice the hit until after then, and only needed to make one hit to get over 100% L:L. So not only was there no DR involved, llaar got all of his land back and then some.

It's not like the guy was put into DR or anything, this really is the same as if he had been retalled by some other alliance. And it's not even two-stepping in any sense of the word, so all of the FFA'ers who want to kill on principle don't really make sense to me for this situation.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:33:55

Originally posted by Purposeful1:
By the same token, then, when you retalled #131, a LCN member who hit you after he had hit another LCN member for a similar reason, you got more land than you "should have otherwise".

...does that mean you should have to give that up?

I mean, I don't know all the particulars of the situation, but it seems to me that this would be something that, like Pang suggested, would be something for which one should seek out FA contact first (even if the ultimate result was disagreement and the hits were taken).

Hm. Maybe you guys should have "gap-filler" terms for when the other alliance doesn't specify policy on a particular type of conflict.


no, if the attacker in the self farm situation goes and hits others, that is not taking away from what the defender can get in a retal. no problem with that

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:35:35

Originally posted by Tertius:
Detmer, take what land from another country? I assume it would be the land that you would be "cheated" out of by an attacker being in DR. For this case, the guy who attacked llaar was 1 hit in DR (which doesn't even reduce gains) for 6 hours. Llaar probably didn't even notice the hit until after then, and only needed to make one hit to get over 100% L:L. So not only was there no DR involved, llaar got all of his land back and then some.

It's not like the guy was put into DR or anything, this really is the same as if he had been retalled by some other alliance. And it's not even two-stepping in any sense of the word, so all of the FFA'ers who want to kill on principle don't really make sense to me for this situation.


interclan farming
Jan 10/12 4:45:40 AM PS If you smeeeellllll (#95) (KSF) The Hacksaw Jim Duggan (#151) (KSF) 2260 A (+1433 A)
Jan 10/12 4:43:22 AM PS If you smeeeellllll (#95) (KSF) The Hacksaw Jim Duggan (#151) (KSF) Defence Held

he grabs me:
Jan 10/12 10:50:20 PM PS The Hacksaw Jim Duggan (#151) (KSF) llaar (#538) (xNAx) 4079 A (+1935 A)


he had less land than he would have had, if his own clan didnt grab him

read my scenario about the 20k -> 10k situation... do you really want that to be allowed? any form of reverse 2 stepping cannot be allowed.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:36:31

if you're going to trade land with your clan mates, you shouldn't be allowed to also grab

any rep countries in NA are just that, rep countries

they don't go around grabbing clans right after they feed out reps. that would be terrible

Purposeful1 Game profile

Member
546

Jan 12th 2012, 22:37:54

Originally posted by llaar:

so a 20k acre country has a bill cash stocked as food, lets his clan mates farm him to 10k acres then he makes a few hits with all that cash once the food sells and then goes and grabs 10k acres from other countries in other clans the same day his clanmates farmed him.

is that what you're saying should be allowed?


This sounds like this could create problems for any alliance that's operating on a non-L:L-type retal policy. LCN's been debating whether to keep her 100% L:L policy recently.... This sounds like a good reason for not going to 1:1.
Purposeful1

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Jan 12th 2012, 22:42:29

i agree with purposeful1.

these reasons are exactly why L:L is more palatable than 1:1
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 22:49:08

llarr quit trying to spin fluff and say we are land trading or two stepping because you know it is bullfluff. you over reacted and took two hits like the greedy sack you are and are still complaining. Also since when is one successful LG considered farming? what planet do you live on?

I explained everything very clearly about how the hit was for reps for a mistake. I in no way cheated or wronged you we both came out ahead and then you over retal and now are RoRing. I have no issues escalating this with you but itd be much better for everyone involved if your FA would try contacting me because working with you is pathetic. As i see it we know owe you 3 retals :)

Edited By: ld on Jan 12th 2012, 22:51:41
See Original Post

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:55:25

I am the Head FA, and President

You reverse 2 stepped me: Your other member grabbed you. You then hit me. There is no way around that. That is unacceptable. My first hit got less land because of it. Therefore the 2:1. L:L does not apply in this case. Trust me, you don't want this policy you are claiming is ok. It is a terrible thing to allow reverse 2 stepping. The implications of which can only harm everything in its path.

You retalled my retal. That is also unacceptable. I 2:1'd that. As is normal for a RoR. We are even as it now stands.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:56:24

Your member hitting you is self tag farming/trading. That is what interclan hits are.

Tertius Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1691

Jan 12th 2012, 22:56:41

llaar:

That is not what land trading is.

That is not what two-stepping or reverse two-stepping is.

the 20k->10k situation does not matter so much if you do L:L.

You got over 100% L:L in your retal AND massive ghost acres. With just your first hit, you gained 3.3k more acres than when you started.

Even if he had 2k more acres, you would have benefited 300 more acres.

By bypassing FA talks and over-retalling, then asking for everyone's thoughts, ignoring those insights and further FA talks to over-retal again, I think you will wind up losing a lot more than what those 300 acres would have gained you. Just a guess.

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 22:56:51

we can agree that it was a interclan hit. that may be the only thing we agree on.

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:57:31

You've heard of farming down a retaller right? That retaller is certainly not allowed to be a grabber are they?

You in effect aren't even a retaller, but a grabber just letting your clanmate take land before you grab other people. That is not cool

llaar Game profile

Member
11,344

Jan 12th 2012, 22:59:00

300 acres tertius? i was a dict techer, that cost me more than a full day of building to recoup. Thats a lot of cash and a lot of turns, that I could have used for teching. No freaking way L:L applies to this case. 300 acres ain't worth that

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 22:59:01

your not cool

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Jan 12th 2012, 23:01:09

i don't get why we are discussing "reverse 2 stepping" anyways if both sides accept L:L as valid retals? am i missing something here?
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

Boltar Game profile

Member
4056

Jan 12th 2012, 23:03:29

if anyone is the retaller it is me with 21mil jets.. we almost all retal our own hits. ive gotten 2 retals given to me.. 1 by oden who owed me a favor.. look at the majority of our hits.. they are almost all if not 90% taken by the guy who got hit.. no one has given away land this set.. last set i took over 10 retals. this set 2

ld Game profile

Member
269

Jan 12th 2012, 23:03:43

no your not hanlong. thats exactly why we are confused at the issue from a KSF standpoint.