Yes, those are the parts of the game that will be changed by this feature.

The first 4 or 5 pages of this thread are discussing the subject and possible side effects and it will all be ignored anyway. So what's the point?

FTFY

Yeah that was an overreaction to pull Greinke so quickly, he was doing great

Astros lose!

This guy fluffs

what the fluffing pidril, the Pindos unfinished - there wasn’t enough mind for more ???? Rockets toss the country and merge, fluffing sucker! If the last hasn’t fallen off and not the scumbag - be called in the next set as well - let's see who will be there "I can’t laugh" - fluffer.

-google translate

I see the merit in getting rid of the restart bonus but I know personally one or more of my returns to the game were ended by dying and starting from zero. Made me lose interest and disappear for a while.

Here's a starting point for a list of ways to reduce suiciders:

Eliminate/reduce restart bonus. Maybe eliminate on the second kill?
Require all countries to join a tag
Remove ability to do special attacks as untagged unless you are provoked
Clearly identify bots (different colors in scores list?)
Reduced attack effectiveness for smaller countries as mentioned earlier

There are many more ideas better then clan GDI as proposed currently, I'm sure the community can add to my quick/short list

If it were left here I don't even know why there would need to be a cost and MMR associated to protect tagged players from untagged ones. This is alliance server and having a tag of x amount of players should afford you that protection unless you are hitting said human/untagged players.

[SUG] Require players to join an alliance in Alliance server

I quickly skimmed the thread and looks like only one person is against applying the protection versus untaggeds. The issues raised are the ones separating relations between clans.

Red left gnv, rip 2019-2019

"TBD on what that will entail, but I'll be working on it then. I may turn it on mid-round so consider this your warning." - Pang

What exactly were we supposed to complain about here? If there were complaints imagine the response- "he hasn't even said what clan GDI is yet!"

I don't care. Besides, I bet I was in Laf well before many current members.

Tigress, that is an extremely well thought out post and I think more aligned with improvements to the game that would actually help grow our player base and also increase player retention. More ideas like this are what the game needs. Your manual is probably more useful than the wiki in the state it currently exists.


But have you thought about what would happen if one of these new players grabs Laf??? What rules should be put in place to prevent that?

Come on now. A reset is what, 2 months? Conservatively, let's say it takes 2 resets (it won't) to get this done right (it will never) then that's 4 months to play by the rules haphazardly put together and implemented in the first place. The system will be abused to negatively affect the ones intended to help by those choosing to stick it out and many will have left by then.

As much as I hate to break kayfabe here on the LaF stuff I know it's not one tag but it's obvious and stated by many over and over that the changes are extremely one sided. It essentially breaks up the server without physically separating it. It was presented like a Trojan horse to reduce "greifing" but out came the real intent to split the server up and change the game on layers that effect the core of the game, specifically the Alliance server.

Or pangea could listen to the community instead of one tag.

Under The proposal suggested by pang alliance A would get decreased returns as well as some other averages to alliance B that I didn't bother paying much attention to as I realized this was just a way to isolate netters.

As far as being allied to untaggeds I think everyone tries to exploit bots as much as possible so if that runs into a human player that could be the case there. I'm just a regular member in SoF but confident any known suicider would be banned if exposed.

Clan GDI in the form it is proposed would be the death knell to the game as we know it. Long live bot masturbation!

Is this speculation or facts? Please share the evidence. And even if (nobody from sof did) someone did that, your clan GDI can protect you from the untaggeds.

I had a suspicion of what this was going to become but I waited for it to actually come to light. This is just a guise to implement isolation of netters.

First of all, props to Derrick. This is more than I've written on AT in my whole playing career and I'm already exhausted!



Wrong. I don't have to prove my motivations to play to you, I have been playing on and off for 18 years and we have probably never crossed paths so pick someone else to make your assumptions of.

Pang wrote a lot but I don't see much of significance or that I haven't spoken to already in this thread. The tl;dr I get from it is that netting tags want to be able to net freely just as war tags want to war freely, and that this is a supposed vehicle to grow the game. My point is you dictate the direction of your clan by alliances, pacts, and game politics. LaF won two wars against SoF and is in the midst of a second set of peace since, what's wrong with that? If the netters that want to be left alone are capable of building superior countries they will win every time and a war tag won't sign up for that repeated beatdown.

Regarding growing the game, I really don't see how Clan GDI or even the new UI will do that. I think there is a lot of potential in growing the game just by simply marketing it better, the focus is in the wrong place in my opinion.

Second comparison you've made to another game that is not relatable. You have to take these things as a whole and not piecemeal aspects of different games you like.



Agreed, not enough players to fragment the user base. I just don't understand why netting tags want to even coexist on a server with people who want to war other than to have someone to buy/sell goods. The threat of being hit is one of the risks in netting in this game.

It's funny how this started as being protection versus untagged suiciders, and you even defended the clan interactions as a "what if" of multies tagging up and abusing the system if tags were excluded.

Have to give it to you Gerdler, you wait for me to respond to a post that is away from my actual suggestion and then ask me questions as if I am championing creating a secondary server.

I am all for Clan GDI if it is limited to actual suiciders and not real tags. I want us all on the same server with the potential for tensions to rise at any moment, I was just replying to Requiem's point knowing Pangea will do as LaF directs him either way.

I've never played WoW but my understanding is that PvP and PvE exist on separate servers, am I right? If that is the case why not just create another server where alliances can net freely? The counter argument may be that there is not enough player base to support playing on another server but look at team server and tell me that an alliance netting server is not worthy of that space.

Earth has always been about the dynamics between alliances, whether they net or war. The fact that war can break out at any moment over reasons more than just in-game, country vs country interactions is one of the most appealing parts. If I want to have boring, meaningless wars there are plenty of games out there that offer that opportunity.

It's glaringly obvious that this change will happen no matter what is best for the game, but I'm glad this post and the discussion is here to be looked back on. Don Pang lives to please La Famiglia.

You are repeating yourself since it's the convenient argument. Limit the protection to be against untaggeds and very small tags and your problem is solved.


I don't even like this solution but putting out there as a possibility because you all seem hell bent on reducing attacker effectiveness - then make it relative to tag size. For example if the war is even numbers no reduction, if it is a small tag of 5 vs 30 non-GDI vs GDI make the reduction a relative number. Sounds silly to me even suggesting it that a 30 member tag needs protection versus a smaller one.

Still waiting to hear how untagged suiciders have anything to do with limiting the ability and effectiveness of one tag going to war with another.

This post sums up my feelings very well

Derrick, there were a few other ways to nerf a non-clan GDI clan declaring on a cla using GDI that pangea mentioned on discord but I'm 1: lazy and 2: not going to copy/paste without context

Essentially my understanding is if clan A is non-gdi and wants to war clan B, which is in GDI there are several disadvantages applied to clan A.

I don't post much so forgive my poor editing to relevant portions. I returned to the game after something like 7 years so only example 5 is relevant to me. Maybe politics did not cause this but they definitely have caused a majority of the politics since. The next set each of these tags drew 40+(I think) players each as we had a real reason for war. Since then I'm sure many have noticed those numbers have steeply declined. If the war was more competitive maybe a higher percentage would have stayed around but what it tells me is that the arranged wars are not interesting enough to draw old players back into the game.

Laf won that war and the next set as well, and earned the right to essentially dictate the actions on the server in the next two resets. That's how it has worked in the past and should in the future as well.

To the other point there, do you really think telling people they can only participate in arranged wars is the way to grow the game?

I'm convinced

What a silly reasoning to say multies may tag up together to get around the mechanics. If they get far enough to create countries, build them up, tag them together and attack then someone is not doing their job.

Gerdler, relations among clans should be driven by politics, pacts, and alliances. Not admin intervention.

How many mid/large size tags do you consider griefers? I don't understand why you can't leave normal tags out of the protection.

This is valid but pang also mentioned nerfing returns for the attacking clan if it's non GDI vs GDI. I just see this spiraling more and more to protecting netters.




Arranged wars get stale and will drive warmongers out. Also, I think it's time to find a new joke.

If the main concern is to protect against suiciders this should be protection only against untaggeds or small (3 or less) tags. Otherwise I view this as another step to remove warring tags from the game

I'm excited to see this vague feature be implemented!

ok

Even older than these emails are ones from an E2025 fantasy football league, anybody in one in 2004?

I support this cause

You can get a better used phone for $50 or less

Or Sui could've bought you a new phone if you were nicer to him

your irc client is so ugly

Sui don't let one person work you up, as you can see you don't need to defend yourself

Leave the snowflaking to the snowflakes