So forgive my ignorance, and ignore the rest of my post if I'm wrong, but I'm working under the assumption that land trading means mutually agreed to land grabs that result in positive acreage for both countries involved due to ghost acres.

People have an issue with this occurring within a tag. My question is why? Personally I think it would be pretty sick to have a reset where the average country had 50k acres. When's the last time that happened? Would certainly add a twist to strategies. The market would be affected. Wars would be affected. Strategies would be affected. Lets have a server wide mutually agreed upon land trading set where every alliance is allowed to land trade amongst themselves. Hell - lets add Average Land and Total Land to the alliance rankings system.

Here here!

It just that most of the higher ups in alliances believe it to take away from what the game originally was. On top of that, it does actually violate every retal policy anyone has.

Sure, it's possible to have 60-90k acre countries, which is kind of awesome, but also remember that by being greedy in that sense will actually take away from the game, make some people angry(leading to them quiting) and ultimately killing the game.

I see the retal policy violation as an argument often.

Individual pacts over ride general policies all over the place. The policy is subservient to the Pact. Just make a Pact with an alliance that spells out the exchange patterns, and there is no conflict.

Nor are the details of any private pact the concern of the masses.

I know it pisses people off but I don't know why. How does it take away from the game? It certainly changes the game, but in my opinion land trading is far better for the game than boring all-ex stats. More land to be had meaning LGing between non-pacted alliances will yield even higher returns. Why do people get angry? Also, retal policies only address what to do when your alliance is LGed. Retal policies don't apply to LGs that don't involve one's own alliance. As an example, let's pretend that IX and WoG have an alliance that provides for only 1:1 retals. Why would a third alliance care - say Tiger, if IX and WoG grabbed each other at 1:1 or if IX and WoG grabbed within their own alliances for 1:1?

Oh of course. There are individual pacts that are essentially land grabbing agreements. Something along the lines of "We're friends, but we also recognize the limited land available, so we'll open each other to LGs that follow these specific limitations in terms of quantity, frequency etc. in such a way that we both benefit from it." So if what I just said there isn't a problem, why is it suddenly a problem when it goes on within an alliance?

The third alliance might care because so many alliances actually have L:L policies that apply in certain cases. As well, it would require that everyone on the server were doing it to be ok. But, since that is not the case and never will happen, it's more of a stance of exclusivity.

Example:
Those people are land grabbing, I want to grab them, but since our pact states L:L on all grabs, it starts to piss me off. What do I do about it? I change the pact next set to only allow 1:1 against land traders. I grab them, that alliance then getts really angry that they weren't allowed to continue land trading, and then gets pissed off and decided to FS us.


That's pretty much the jest of it. It's easier to enter a pact with multiple alliances as a friendly pact that enables land grabbing, but forbids land trading(or says, do at your own risk).

Keep in mind, it's still possible to get big land numbers by only grabbing.

The game is quite boring at the moment nothing has really changed in years. This would shake the game up a bit. If it doesn't work it doesn't work but its worth a try. I remember land trading in omega years ago and getting hit by I think it was the fist it has its own risks but allows the game and the strategys we use to evolve.

Friendly grabbing pacts are starting to come about and they should shake things up a bit.

ima run a 5k techer and topfeed the crap out of everyone on 90k with low defense

lol Chevs.

it would be fun for one set, like have everyone trade up to week 5, then do a mass server war with 60k dictators. That would be epic, but trading is kinda lame too, i don't think it's the answer to alliances current land problems.

lol @ chevs, I like your style ;)

thats what I'm talking bout... you go have your land trading.. I'ma run all jets, and watch and wait.

What is the answer?

hell if i know, i thought the neutral bot idea showed some promise, not sure where that went though.

Straight L:L and land trading have made this game worse.

topfeed policies, land to land (even you guys with 80% l:l), organized trading.

is all still trading.

The only difference between it being semi orginized is you communicate with the other side more than just a "sorry for the grab" and "retal, good luck".

it's the natural progression of things.

In what ways?

one hit each way every 24 hours works with at least a few retal policies ;)

TBH, I wish the old style of smart grabbing and epic retals was still around. However, I do what I can by exploiting the 80%L:L policies. 79% on the first grab? don't mind if I take another.

TBH, nothing has changed. Raping someone on a retal is still right there out in the open waiting for you to do it.

Well, L:L essentially killed grabbing for the most part, as the ghost acres you gain from the grabs isn't always worth the military lost, time spent rebuilding and the CS lost etc. Unless you are very skilled or very lucky, as there are times when you're going to get raped on a retal and gain nothing from the exchange. L:L made it so that no matter how bad the retallers were, they always got their land. I've seen it where a guy makes a legit non-topfeed grab on a country and gets retalled 4 or 5 times before they get their land back. What skill does that take? It basically screams mediocrity.

Organized trading abuses the ghost acres. Ghost acres was supposed to encourage grabbing, it wasn't meant for organized trading. Now you have guys in RD and PDM grabbing each other back and forth (and they aren't the only ones), amounting 80,000 acres and having great finishes. Whereas before they weren't capable of doing so. It isn't illegal, but is it ethical? I don't think so. It goes back to skill. Is it as equally difficult to finish top 10 by grabbing the traditional way as opposed to organized grabs? If not, then you're obviously at a much greater advantage.

That's one of the main reasons I stopped actively playing. The game continues to evolve in the wrong direction. Whereas it was supposed to grow and introduce new players, you have tags killing each other repeatedly, pushing people out the door, and people finding other ways to have finishes that aren't legit. NA was chastised for how long for their oil buyouts and mass FA? I don't see this being any different. You can't put an asterisk next to one group's name and turn a blind eye on another groups actions.

If none of that made sense, think about it from a realistic standpoint. We each run countries, would you see countries today attacking each other back and forth, and having both sides benefit from it? facepalm

I agree with L:L. Makes no sense that someone has to put up with 5 attacks worth of military losses, stock losses, CS losses just so some idiot can get their land back.

I'm not sure I agree that land trading makes the game easier. You asked if a top 10 finish using traditional grabbing was easier than a top 10 finish based on land trading. My answer is that it depends on what others are doing. Landtrading is analogous to steroids in baseball. At the time they weren't illegal. In hindsight, many think they were unethical. However, at the time, if the pitcher was on roids, and the batter was on roids, and the centre fielder that he hit to was on roids, was there really anything unethical going on? Sure, it make it easier to do more than you could have done in the past, but did it make the game easier? No. The reason it wasn't easier is because your opponents were also afforded the same "advantage." There is a skill to land trading. Matching net worths. Calculating military losses and rebuild costs. Defending your acres. If it's only one alliance doing it then sure, it takes a lot more skill to win using traditional grabbing than organized grabbing. But if we open it up to everyone then it evens the playing field.

Thomas. What's the difference between intra-alliance land trading and this:

http://forum.earthempires.com/...en-list-grabbing-with-pdm

Trolling a bit here, but the advantage still exists in some degree when you factor that more hits could be home runs, in which case the roid-raging centerfielder is irrelevant ;p

haha. true

I think the general problem with intra-alliance landtrading is that they've got simpler access to break information, saving themselves many turns, as well as coordination, since they're all in one place.

Other political reasons include the fact that you could essentially pact out, and landtrade in your own bubble... which is something I know many alliances will not accept. Some people may say "hey, if you cant beat em, join em." The problem with that is that if everyone adopted this idea, we'd inevitably end up with most, if not all, tags either trading within their own ranks, providing no interaction between alliances(and removing one of the most valid reasons for war), and probably generate a bunch more untagged suiciders.

This game doesn't need less interaction between tags- if anything we need more. That being said, though, I feel as though you keep the douchebaggery to a minimum with your "grabbing agreements" or what-have-you, it is perfectly acceptable, and has the capacity to generate significant amounts of goodwill between tags.

That is, as long as there's a clearly defined, server-accepted definition as to what "abusive land trading" is. Anyone else remember the outcome of one of the last landtrading threads? Nothing. We need to work on that. For me, it would be having more than one exchange of hits within a 24 hour period- anything more than that and you'd have to handle standard ROR escalation.

Well put so I don't need to further comment on that. I just feel it takes away from what this game used to be. Obviously this game, along with the current alliances, are shells of their former selves. But using tactics like this, and allowing it to happen, doesn't make this game any more enjoyable. I can understand a grabbing friendly pact with an alliance, but when a single country goes back and forth with another country, it's just sad.

I remember when grabbing used to be fun. Where it was a challenge. Now it's just a "here is what my defense is hit me once, then I'll hit you once". We've evolved to the point where there are no rational issues over grabbing or FA. It's usually a bunch of crap that gets spun around to make it seem like a big deal. Especially with all these grabbing pacts and land trading deals. How is that ever going to spark controversy? The only way that will happen is if a group of alliances stand up to the issue. But then you're guaranteeing yourself to be warring for at least 2 full resets, if not more and a lot of people can't commit to that, unless they call SoF or SoL their home.

Just like the stale politics. It's always the same thing. You have Evo and LaF hating each other. You have SoL and SoF having to pull shady tactics to try and make the game interesting again, only for it to go back into the same routine. Someone screws up, everybody in EE gangbangs that tag, and then 2 resets later everybody has forgotten about it.

I just don't see any direction for this game, through the game mechanics, player interaction, alliances. It seems stale, dry, boring. It's the same thing every reset. I just find it funny how things like these landtrades and grabbing pacts are "acceptable" now, only because alliances don't want to bother fighting wars over it. I mean, this is a war game, isn't it? Isn't it?