Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

by Special Agent 47 Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:52 pm

seaborgium wrote:1. If I declare a vendetta with say Lord Ish, and he declines it then what? I have to deal with it? I don't think this will be going over well.
2. No alliance outside the treaty is bound by nor protected by the treaty, but all are welcome to sign or negotiate the treaty.
- How can an outside alliance negotiate the treaty?
3. How do things such as the MDT come into play? Or even NAPs?
IE: TG and Muj sign a MDT. then TG has issues with TIE. Does the treaty above get tossed out or is something else worked out or is there something I didn't see?

1. yes, exactly.

2. Ask if something can be amended either prior to or after joining the treaty.

3. Ask TOC, as they are the only ones relying on a system of multiple alliances so I guess that is their area to cover. Good question tho.

by ian Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:49 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:
seaborgium wrote:1. If I declare a vendetta with say Lord Ish, and he declines it then what? I have to deal with it? I don't think this will be going over well.
2. No alliance outside the treaty is bound by nor protected by the treaty, but all are welcome to sign or negotiate the treaty.
- How can an outside alliance negotiate the treaty?
3. How do things such as the MDT come into play? Or even NAPs?
IE: TG and Muj sign a MDT. then TG has issues with TIE. Does the treaty above get tossed out or is something else worked out or is there something I didn't see?

1. yes, exactly.

2. Ask if something can be amended either prior to or after joining the treaty.

3. Ask TOC, as they are the only ones relying on a system of multiple alliances so I guess that is their area to cover. Good question tho.

Regarding the personal policies issue - there is a reason i pushed specifically for the below:

Swearing/ Abusive language = good grounds for personal war. Empires remain out of it.

If person A contacts person B concerning a issue, and person B ignores person A & person A tries again and is ignored - Person A can then resort to force and empire's stay out.

If person A contacts person B, and person A & B then discuss things - hopefully a solution can be found. Failure to find a solution and the alliance leadership should be contacted before any action is taken to act as mediators and find a solution - or agree on rules of engagement between the 2 players.

My concern is if someone decides to start farming another player - call the farmer player B & the person being farmed player A. Not all members - TOC or TIE - appreciate being farmed. What happens if Player A contacts Player B asking to be left alone - and player B ignores the request? What happens if Player A tries again... and is ignored, so Player A then issues a challenge, and Player B declines. Is Player A then suppossed to put up with Player B's farming - despite Player B's completely ignoring Player A's requests?

If people farm there should *always* be consequences within reason. If someone asks not to be farmed and is repeatedly ignored... they should have the ability to force those consequences onto the farmer without risking being nuked by an entire empire in retaliation.

If someone makes the decision to farm an active player, and then makes several more decisions to ignore that active player's request - they should accept the consequences of those decisions... and not be able to call on empire support (though I think the leaders should have some room to set out the parameters for any "personal war" which results from a situation like this since under the proposed system where both players agree to a challenge, there would be agreed parameters... something which wouldn't be possible without a agreement between both players).

Edit: The amendment is good btw, I d just like some clarification on what happens regarding if someone rejects a challenge and continues doing whatever they are doing (i.e. farming) which prevoked the challenge in the first place - which would basically result in the challengers (i.e. victim of farming) rights being effectively hung-out to dry based on what the person being challenged wants to do... lol

So basically there needs to be something inplace where in a situation where you have someone being challenged for doing something (i.e. farming) continuing to do whatever the cause of the challenge is (i.e. farming) and continiously rejecting the challenge. - where the person issuing the challenge will be free to enact a personal war when it becomes clear he's just being ignored/ not listened to by the other player... lol - otherwise the other player can just reject the challenge each time and keep doing what he's doing.... and If he's massed point out he never agreed to a personal war, and therefore receive empire/alliance support - while the challenger will have been effectively ignored and have massed the person without his accepting the challenge, probably as a last resort after a extended period of time of trying to be listened to/ have his wishes respected.

For the challenger in this situation to then find himself facing a 1 vs. alliance/empire would be a pretty unfair situation.... Thats my main concern lol

by seaborgium Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:25 pm

Ian 25 words or less.

by Vesper Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:54 pm

seaborgium wrote:Ian 25 words or less.

His last post was 595 words Smile

It looks like TIE is discussing a treaty to end the war by themselves... scratch

by ian Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:28 pm

Vesper wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Ian 25 words or less.

His last post was 595 words

It looks like TIE is discussing a treaty to end the war by themselves...

LOL, i can see how that would appear that way.

For the record what SA47 posted was after talking to Lord Ishurue and Lurant Maximus.

by seaborgium Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:49 pm

basicly what Ian said what I was thinking, I juts bring my self to put that many words into a post

by Special Agent 47 Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:12 pm

What ever you and Lord Ishurue worked out still stands Ian. This is just an amendment set up for the correct procedure to challenge someone.

You will have to wait for Lord Ishurue or TOC to respond.

@ Vesper,,,,,, TIE is one, TOC is many so there is a communication time requirement so that all of them can give their opinions and they can make a group decision.

by Manleva Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:02 am

Just a quick point that I think all of you need to be aware of.

When you finally reach agreement and if you should publically share it then please be very specific as to who and what it applies to i.e. include alliance names.

As an outsider looking in it can be very hard at times to see exactly who is involved and who is being included

by Special Agent 47 Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:30 am

Manleva wrote:Just a quick point that I think all of you need to be aware of.

When you finally reach agreement and if you should publically share it then please be very specific as to who and what it applies to i.e. include alliance names.

As an outsider looking in it can be very hard at times to see exactly who is involved and who is being included

TIE and TOC

TIE = The Imperium lead by Ian

TOC = Mujengan lead by Lord Ishurue
The Emperors lead by Aworon
World Republic lead by Kenzu

That is who is involved and who is included

by ian Wed Jul 14, 2010 11:59 am

Any news from T.O.C on the above I.e. have you discussed it yet and what are your thought?

by Kingofshinobis1 Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:26 pm

I'm just curious to see how much longer this is going to last. I haven't seen much massing lately Razz

by Jiro Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:35 am

For what it's worth, I promise to accept invitations for one on one combat from anyone I hit during the war with war missions (assassination, destruction, invasion, assault, sabotage).

by Beldar Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:12 am

Jiro wrote:For what it's worth, I promise to accept invitations for one on one combat from anyone I hit during the war with war missions (assassination, destruction, invasion, assault, sabotage).

I will take this little challenge once i rebuild after the war - I am a guy who pays his debts after all Very Happy

by Lord Ishurue Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:13 pm

I have been trying to run through any holes we may have missed in the treaty .

The current personal war procedure . Lets try to keep it as simple as possible . Secret alliances new players who join secret alliance ranks etc .

The hours of income one hole i found is AE .

Another idea with farming is to do it by army size with excessive Military armament clause. These 2 things should reduce farming mishaps greatly as well as being fair to all players .

Base idea is . every 500k army size u must take 200 million kuwal . ( rounded up or down to nearest 500k . )

ian's army size is 15mil . (15mil/500k ) x 200milion = 6bil out needed to be farmed . 6bil = ~10 hours of ian's income .

Excessive Military armament Clause . If your military Unit percentage is 40% or greater u can not farm active players . ( Since it would not be fair for u to farm and not get farmed back with out demanding compensation . )

On the Sabbing and Assassinations .

Honesty System in very short .

if a TOC member gets sabbed &/or assassinated and we suspect it to be TIE . we contact SA47 and ask him to check sab/ assassination logs . If it was a TIE member TIE compensates full damage plus a 30% fine .

if a TIE member gets sabbed &/or assassinated and they suspect it to be TOC . They contact LurantMaximus , and ask him to check sab/assassination logs . If it was a TOC member TOC compensates full damage plus a 30% fine .

( on assassination logs if a player's defense was hit . only request to check logs on the stats that were hit )

What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

by Special Agent 47 Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:25 am

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Spoiler:
What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

We request clarification that all alliances in TOC are in agreement and acceptance of the ceasefire.

TIE does find the ceasefire acceptable and when clarification is made alliance messages will be sent and the ceasefire will go into effect at the designated time. TIE request and require that all alliances send out messages 24hrs ahead of time so everyone is informed. TIE request that ANY breach from either side is paid in full +10% no questions asked.

*Edit*
The breach payment is for the ceasefire only, and its "IF" TOC agree as well.

by Vesper Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:53 am

Lord Ishurue wrote:[color=indigo]

Base idea is . every 500k army size u must take 200 million kuwal . ( rounded up or down to nearest 500k . )

ian's army size is 15mil . (15mil/500k ) x 200milion = 6bil out needed to be farmed . 6bil = ~10 hours of ian's income .

Does that mean that if outside alliances signed this treaty anyone around 1mil army can be farmed for only 400mil kuwal? I feel that this should be reworded slightly but I like the idea. I think their should be more of a tier policy based on army size instead of defense size.

Increases by 1bil kuwal for every 2.5mil army
0 to 2.5mil must have 1bil out
2.5bil to 5mil must have 2bil out
5mil to 7.5mil must have 3bil out
7.5mil to 10mil must have 4bil out
After reaching over 10mil kuwal range increase by 2bil for every 2.5mil army
10mil to 12.5mil must have 6bil out.
12.5mil to 15mil must have 8bil out.
15mil to 17.5mil must have 10bil out
17.5mil to 20mil must have 12bil out
and so on...

Reason I think that both sides should consider having the spike after 10mil army is because of the AE curve. If you look at the curve the farther away you get the less 1mil army matters. If your 2mil army and got 1mil UU it would drop your AE alot. If your 12mil army getting 1mil more army will barely effect your AE.

This is just outside input. It will be up to both sides to pick their own policy and agreement but after speaking to king I hope to make this the policy for farming TheGenesis

by Kenzu Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:36 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Honesty System in very short .

if a TOC member gets sabbed &/or assassinated and we suspect it to be TIE . we contact SA47 and ask him to check sab/ assassination logs . If it was a TIE member TIE compensates full damage plus a 30% fine .

if a TIE member gets sabbed &/or assassinated and they suspect it to be TOC . They contact LurantMaximus , and ask him to check sab/assassination logs . If it was a TOC member TOC compensates full damage plus a 30% fine .

( on assassination logs if a player's defense was hit . only request to check logs on the stats that were hit )

What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

(if this is related only to the ceasefire, then ignore what I posted before.)

Honesty System => WHY?
All leaders including TIE and Mujengan have already agreed that if one member of TOC or TIE has been sabbed or assassinated, one member can be sent to each suspected alliance for 24 hours with advisor status to check if any member is guilty. At the same time, the alliance which is suspected is also allowed to send a member with advisor status to the other alliances, to make sure that this investigation will not place it at information disadvantage.

We could of course start by having a member of ones own alliance investigate if there is an attacker, BUT, if no attacker is found, alliances will send their own members to suspected alliances.

I agree with a ceasefire if all other TOC and TIE leaders agree as well.
PS: I dont consider hitting for kuwal against ceasefire, but if you dont want kuwal hits, I agree with it too.

Special Agent 47 wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:

Spoiler:
What does TIE think about a ceasefire that starts on Monday July 18th 2010 . @ 00:00 server time and last till Monday July 25th 2010 00:00 server time ?

We request clarification that all alliances in TOC are in agreement and acceptance of the ceasefire.

TIE does find the ceasefire acceptable and when clarification is made alliance messages will be sent and the ceasefire will go into effect at the designated time. TIE request and require that all alliances send out messages 24hrs ahead of time so everyone is informed. TIE request that ANY breach from either side is paid in full +10% no questions asked.

*Edit*
The breach payment is for the ceasefire only, and its "IF" TOC agree as well.

the ceasefire means sabbing assassinating and massing only?
or does it include also farming?

---------------------------------

My reply in green

ian wrote:Couple of idea's:

- Farming Policy = *Profitable* hits for 11hours income out are legitimate. You find the income via comparing the kuwal out just before a turn with it out after a turn.

No, thanks!
Reasons why not:
1) Most players don't want to waste time waiting for next turn and calculating the income for each single person they farm.
2) People who have tiny defenses don't deserve to be spared for 11 hours, especially if you can farm them with a profit already after 2 hours.
3) Since income can change drastically through realm alerts/working conditions/officer income/commander payout, it will require new income calculation for the same person each time he has to be farmed.
4) Farming policies which we had until now were very good, time efficient and easy to find out.

I.e. if someone has 1billion kuwal out just before a turn and 1.2billion kuwal just after a turn thats 200million income. 11hours = 22 turns. 22 x 200million = 4.4billion kuwal out.

Hits under 11hours = breach.

- Personal War's/ Personal Issues:

Swearing/ Abusive language = good grounds for personal war. Empires remain out of it.

If person A contacts person B concerning a issue, and person B ignores person A & person A tries again and is ignored - Person A can then resort to force and empire's stay out.

If person A contacts person B, and person A & B then discuss things - hopefully a solution can be found. Failure to find a solution and the alliance leadership should be contacted before any action is taken to act as mediators and find a solution - or agree on rules of engagement between the 2 players.

Swearing. If anyone swears, the person who received the message should report the player immediately and the player should receive a warning on first time, 3 day ban on the 2nd time, 7 day ban on the 3rd time, and a permban on the 4th time.
Then again, it's obvious that some players will be angry if they are farmed, so writing an angry or hateful message should not lead to use of force. Example: a player is farmed, he writes a message: "How dare you farm me? You will burn in hell!". If the attackers reaction will be to mass the player who sent the message, if the massed player was a member of WR, WR will mass the attacker.

Use words against words.
Use force against force.
Only this is acceptable.

massing for farming
and massing for words cannot be tolerated.
and everyone with a brain will realise that such behaviour can only lead to alliance wars.

------------------

Next, on "player A talking concerning some issue"
What issue?
If player A asks to be paid tribute and player B ignores it again and again, player A can use force?
Definitely not.

If i understand right, this clause has been written so that certain players can have a personnal policy of not being farmed and then mass people who farm them. If you don't want to be farmed, then you should quit this war game.

If you are being farmed it is because your defenses are too low, so build up more defenses or log in more frequently to bank.
There is also the possibility that you make a treaty with the relevant alliances with a farming policy which will be same for everyone and will give equal protection for everyone. Example: Current farming policies, or a global no-farming policy.

It is not acceptable that a player will threaten to mass smaller players only because they farm him, since these smaller players cannot enact same policies against him and other big players. This would be a clear abuse of the weak.
World Republic will never accept such unfairness, because we defend all players!

- Sabbing/ Assassinations. Both empires agree to be honest with one another. Sabbing & assassinations should be compensated plus a 30% fine imposed. I.e. if Person A sabbs Person B - destroying 1billion kuwal's worth of resources, Person A's alliance should admit to it and compensate Person B 1billion kuwal + 300million (30% fine).

If there's a disagreement (i.e. one thinks the other is not being honest), both empires will resolve it when it happens - peacefully.

OK, but honesty itself is not enough. There were a couple times alliances were not honest with each other, therefore if no alliance admits to having done a sab or assassinations, then both TOC and TIE will send a member to each alliance not only the suspected one, but the suspected alliance may send a member to the other alliances and all will be given membership and advisor status for 1 day.

- Castravate & Stars Issue. Both empires confirm that they were both following empire orders - and not acting on their own personal decision. If they weren't acting on their own personal decision, they should not be held personally responsible for their actions - and therefore should not be treated seperately from the peace treaty.

If any of TOC leaders organised or specifically allowed castravete to hit stars, then I assume this can be counted as following empires orders.

ian wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:
seaborgium wrote:1. If I declare a vendetta with say Lord Ish, and he declines it then what? I have to deal with it? I don't think this will be going over well.
2. No alliance outside the treaty is bound by nor protected by the treaty, but all are welcome to sign or negotiate the treaty.
- How can an outside alliance negotiate the treaty?
3. How do things such as the MDT come into play? Or even NAPs?
IE: TG and Muj sign a MDT. then TG has issues with TIE. Does the treaty above get tossed out or is something else worked out or is there something I didn't see?

1. yes, exactly.

2. Ask if something can be amended either prior to or after joining the treaty.

3. Ask TOC, as they are the only ones relying on a system of multiple alliances so I guess that is their area to cover. Good question tho.

Regarding the personal policies issue - there is a reason i pushed specifically for the below:

Swearing/ Abusive language = good grounds for personal war. Empires remain out of it.

If person A contacts person B concerning a issue, and person B ignores person A & person A tries again and is ignored - Person A can then resort to force and empire's stay out.

If person A contacts person B, and person A & B then discuss things - hopefully a solution can be found. Failure to find a solution and the alliance leadership should be contacted before any action is taken to act as mediators and find a solution - or agree on rules of engagement between the 2 players.

My concern is if someone decides to start farming another player - call the farmer player B & the person being farmed player A. Not all members - TOC or TIE - appreciate being farmed. What happens if Player A contacts Player B asking to be left alone - and player B ignores the request? What happens if Player A tries again... and is ignored, so Player A then issues a challenge, and Player B declines. Is Player A then suppossed to put up with Player B's farming - despite Player B's completely ignoring Player A's requests?

If people farm there should *always* be consequences within reason. If someone asks not to be farmed and is repeatedly ignored... they should have the ability to force those consequences onto the farmer without risking being nuked by an entire empire in retaliation.

If someone makes the decision to farm an active player, and then makes several more decisions to ignore that active player's request - they should accept the consequences of those decisions... and not be able to call on empire support (though I think the leaders should have some room to set out the parameters for any "personal war" which results from a situation like this since under the proposed system where both players agree to a challenge, there would be agreed parameters... something which wouldn't be possible without a agreement between both players).

Edit: The amendment is good btw, I d just like some clarification on what happens regarding if someone rejects a challenge and continues doing whatever they are doing (i.e. farming) which prevoked the challenge in the first place - which would basically result in the challengers (i.e. victim of farming) rights being effectively hung-out to dry based on what the person being challenged wants to do... lol

So basically there needs to be something inplace where in a situation where you have someone being challenged for doing something (i.e. farming) continuing to do whatever the cause of the challenge is (i.e. farming) and continiously rejecting the challenge. - where the person issuing the challenge will be free to enact a personal war when it becomes clear he's just being ignored/ not listened to by the other player... lol - otherwise the other player can just reject the challenge each time and keep doing what he's doing.... and If he's massed point out he never agreed to a personal war, and therefore receive empire/alliance support - while the challenger will have been effectively ignored and have massed the person without his accepting the challenge, probably as a last resort after a extended period of time of trying to be listened to/ have his wishes respected.

For the challenger in this situation to then find himself facing a 1 vs. alliance/empire would be a pretty unfair situation.... Thats my main concern lol

1) I would say that if you want to have a personnal war with anyone, and he declines, then you shouldn't do it. Because if you still mass him, it will be easy for him to rally allies against you, since you massed him and he didnt, and thus you are the bad guy.

3) Lets say there are 2 empires TOC + TIE and another alliance C.
IF C signs MTD with TOC, then obviously they will protect each other.
If TIE has issues with C then I recommend you resolve them peacefully, because it's clear that if you attack C, TOC will come to help them. At the same time if you attack both TOC and C, then you will damage your image since you will attack TOC for no proper reason, except for being allied to C. All in all, it would be a stupid idea to attack C if C is allied with TOC.

A clever leader can win a battle without firing a single shot.

Vesper wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:[color=indigo]

Base idea is . every 500k army size u must take 200 million kuwal . ( rounded up or down to nearest 500k . )

ian's army size is 15mil . (15mil/500k ) x 200milion = 6bil out needed to be farmed . 6bil = ~10 hours of ian's income .

Does that mean that if outside alliances signed this treaty anyone around 1mil army can be farmed for only 400mil kuwal? I feel that this should be reworded slightly but I like the idea. I think their should be more of a tier policy based on army size instead of defense size.

Increases by 1bil kuwal for every 2.5mil army
0 to 2.5mil must have 1bil out
2.5bil to 5mil must have 2bil out
5mil to 7.5mil must have 3bil out
7.5mil to 10mil must have 4bil out
After reaching over 10mil kuwal range increase by 2bil for every 2.5mil army
10mil to 12.5mil must have 6bil out.
12.5mil to 15mil must have 8bil out.
15mil to 17.5mil must have 10bil out
17.5mil to 20mil must have 12bil out
and so on...

Reason I think that both sides should consider having the spike after 10mil army is because of the AE curve. If you look at the curve the farther away you get the less 1mil army matters. If your 2mil army and got 1mil UU it would drop your AE alot. If your 12mil army getting 1mil more army will barely effect your AE.

This is just outside input. It will be up to both sides to pick their own policy and agreement but after speaking to king I hope to make this the policy for farming TheGenesis

making it end at 10 million is not such a good idea since the populations are growing fast and we would have to agree on a new cap each week or each month.

by seaborgium Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:56 pm

to me a ceasefire is for hostile actions. A hit here or there for Kuwal/UU to me would be fine, but if guys up stairs say other wise so be it.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:38 am

hmm . What about during the ceasefire we use it as a test run the farming policy suggestions ?

We could do something like first 3 days of the ceasefire we test out this farm policy , or this one etc .

Lets try the base idea out for the ceasefire

for 500k population u must steal 400 million kuwal rounded up to the next 500k . under 300k rounds down to nearest mil . ( 1.2million = 1million farm policy wise . 1.3mil = 1.5million farm policy wise .) 700krounds up to next million . 1.7million army = 2million farm policy wise. 1.55mil army = 1.5mil farm policy wise . )

What does everyone think about this ?

Quick Tier guide so to speak

Population size
500k = 400mil to be stolen
1mil = 800mil to be stolen
1.5mil 1.2bil to be stolen
2mil = 1.6bil to be stolen
2.5mil = 2bil to be stolen
3mil = 2.4bil to be stolen
3.5mil = 2.8bil
4mil = 3.2bil
4.5mil = 3.6bil
5mil = 4bil
5.5= 4.4bil
6mil = 4.8bil
6.5mil = 5.2bil
7mil = 5.6bil
7.5mil = 6bil
8mil = 6.4bil
8.5mil = 6.8bil
9mil = 7.2bil
9.5mil = 7.6bil
10mil = 8bil t0 be stolen .

etc .

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:47 am

Kenzu wrote:

I agree with a ceasefire if all other TOC and TIE leaders agree as well.
PS: I dont consider hitting for kuwal against ceasefire, but if you dont want kuwal hits, I agree with it too.

I agree with the ceasefire as well .

on farming for the ceasefire , we could use this time to test run proposed farm policies .

by seaborgium Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:02 am

Kenzu wrote:A clever leader can win a battle without firing a single shot.

An idiot can end everything with simple words.

by aworon Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:22 am

Emperors will abide by the ceasefire should TIE accept it.

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:53 am

Can TOC please communicate between themselves and find 1 single direction and follow it?

When you guys find that 1 direction let us know and we can move on. You guys apparently can't even agree among yourselves as to what it is that you want so there is no way TIE can accept or negotiate.

TIE is waiting on you guys, and communication is slow apparently. Its Friday night here, I hope you guys can come up with something by Sunday morning so we can enact the ceasefire by Monday morning. Then you guys have a week or so to hash out the exacts of the treaty.

Me personally, I feel trying to use the ceasefire time to test a farming policy is a BS idea as no one has defenses, and if your dumb enough to rebuild it, and peace is not found, then you lose it all again. If you want me hitting every TOC player every few hrs as I "test" farming policies I'm fine with that, but if you can't see the problems and exploits that is going to create then I fear for your ability to see issues before they happen.

At any rate, if TOC will come up with a "Unified" response/proposal, then TIE can and will respond in less then 24 hrs, we don't need days or weeks as TOC does.

Few basic points you guys need to address

1. Are you looking for a ceasefire or a full treaty.

2. if ceasefire then it should be a ceasefire, but if you insist on farming hits then do not complain about being farmed.

3. if its a full treaty then actually propose said treaty in its entirety so we can read, negotiate, or counter any parts we feel are unacceptable.

TIE has addressed ever issue given to us in 24 maybe 48 hrs at the most, so we are not the ones holding up the process.

by Beldar Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:00 am

well something similar with what sa47 said...

I got a question...

I got crap stats as i got massed, but i do maintain a good strike...

Means I can farm quite a few players with much much more total army than mine.

I farmed such a player quite some times, and most of these times I got about double the normal profit i get when i farm 0 defense inactives... Notice that this player before the war hit me for similar ammounts of kuwal with similar losses and he called his hits highly profitable...

Now since you propose a farming policy that totally benefits high powered players with low defenses, I will be considered to be breaking the treaty every time i hit with a hugely beneficial (for my standards) hit.

While he will still be able (since my total army is much lower than his) to farm me and call his hits "profitable" based on the suggested ideas above...

Sorry but I find the above crap, since he will be able to get the same profit as me on his hits, his hits will be considered fine, while mine will be considered hits that breaking a treaty...

Same final profit = same final treatment for me - you ask for double standards...

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:45 pm

I also agree that there should be no double standards.

by Sponsored content