Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:51 pm

Here is TOC peace treaty proposal.
(All TOC leaders agree with it)

TOC-TIE Farming policy
TOC-TIE Farming policy is a two-way policy, which means that it protects not only TOC and TIE, but also all players who TOC and TIE farms.

You can be farmed if:
For each 1 population you have over 800 kuwal out
this is same as:
(For each 500k population you can have 400 million kuwal out)
(for 1 million, 800 million kuwal out)
There will be no exceptions to anyone. Same rules apply for everyone.

Exception: 0 defense players. They can be farmed for any amount of kuwal
Exception: all players who have less than 0.5% of population trained as armed def supers, can be also farmed anytime.

Additionally: Players can agree to personal policies with other players, but these agreements are not binding as the TOC-TIE farming policy has a higher importance than personal policies.

Same farming policy will be used by TOC and TIE against non-TOC, non-TIE players, and all players will also be protected by the same policy

For Future: If any alliances, existing ones or future ones will ever want to apply a farming policy with TOC or TIE, they have to persuade all alliances of these empires to agree with a new farming policy. Aderan Wars cannot work properly with multiple farming policies and highest efficiency and highest fairness is brought only with a single global farming policy. If an alliance adopts a different farming policy, or changes its current farming policy, this alone will have no effect on TOC and TIE members.

TOC-TIE Raiding policy
Raiding: Any raid, which is profitable is allowed.

Sabbing/Assassination
Victim's alliance can ask who it was, but if no alliance admits that one of their members has done it, then victim's alliance can send a member to each suspected alliance and he will get advisor status. To keep things fair, the suspected alliance can also send their members to the victim's alliance and their allies. if the guilty one has been found, he will repay 100% of all the damge he has done. all members sent to other alliances can be kicked out after they were member for at least 24 hours.

(This has been previously agreed on by all: ian, Lord Ishurue, Aworon and me)

Peace Treaty
The war ends at 19 July 12:00:00 gametime
As soon as the war has ended, all hostile missions are forbidden (sabotage, assassinations, assault, destruction, hunt assassins)

Those who engage in hostile missions after war ended, must pay a compensation equal to 100% of losses to the victim.

If he rejects, or doesnt start paying within reasonable ammount of time after being asked to pay (within 3-7 days), he can be massed by anyone.

Global Protection
To protect all players of the server, hostile missions are forbidden against any player in Aderan Wars not only against TOC and TIE. No one is allowed to engage in hostile missions. If anyone makes hostile missions, he has to pay a 100% compensation equal to all damage caused.

Conflict Resolution
both TOC and TIE will try their best to avoid war in the future, they will not use first strike against each other, and if a conflict arises, they will meet as soon as possible and to their best to end the discussion no sooner before a solution has been found, in order to prevent a new war.

TOC will protect smaller alliances against aggression and against unfair treatment

END OF TREATY

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:01 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Spoiler:

Cool with it

by ian Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:28 pm

Not cool with it other than last bit about conflict resolution. The rest removes alliances sovereign rights completely and utterly - in how we farm, who we farm, what we can do with other players and in the actual logs of the alliance. What's the point in being a alliance if everything is dictated?

TIE also wants a confirmation Castravete.was acting under TOC orders when he broke the 2 agreements we had with him... otherwise he still needs to be held personally responsible....

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:22 pm

ian wrote:Not cool with it other than last bit about conflict resolution. The rest removes alliances sovereign rights completely and utterly - in how we farm, who we farm, what we can do with other players and in the actual logs of the alliance. What's the point in being a alliance if everything is dictated?

TIE also wants a confirmation Castravete.was acting under TOC orders when he broke the 2 agreements we had with him... otherwise he still needs to be held personally responsible....

You are welcome to suggest amendments to our treaty.

Why don't you agree with "Sabbing/Assassination" this time?
You agreed with it before.

Please provide viable solutions and don't simply say: you cannot have this, you cannot have that.

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:25 pm

I can only assume the idea of a ceasefire is dead and this has moved to a full on treaty negotiation. I will act accordingly and pass along the information. I seriously doubt that the treaty can be fully negotiated in less then 2 days time as it is now July17th. I thought that was the entire point of the ceasefire. To allow 7 days for the treaty negotiations. All I can say to the date of the wars end is it should be left open. Setting a goal is fine but if negotiation fall through then war will carry on. I have responded to a few points highlighted in green. This is just my individual stance and not a reflection of the stance of the TIE alliance. When TIE has a chance to look over it then we will respond with an official statement.

Spoiler:

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:26 pm

Kenzu wrote:
ian wrote:Not cool with it other than last bit about conflict resolution. The rest removes alliances sovereign rights completely and utterly - in how we farm, who we farm, what we can do with other players and in the actual logs of the alliance. What's the point in being a alliance if everything is dictated?

TIE also wants a confirmation Castravete.was acting under TOC orders when he broke the 2 agreements we had with him... otherwise he still needs to be held personally responsible....

You are welcome to suggest amendments to our treaty.

Why don't you agree with "Sabbing/Assassination" this time?
You agreed with it before.

I assume its because of the exploits I have shown him and highlighted in my response to you guys, but I'll let Ian fully address it.

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:29 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:I can only assume the idea of a ceasefire is dead and this has moved to a full on treaty negotiation. I will act accordingly and pass along the information. I seriously doubt that the treaty can be fully negotiated in less then 2 days time as it is now July17th. I thought that was the entire point of the ceasefire. To allow 7 days for the treaty negotiations. All I can say to the date of the wars end is it should be left open. Setting a goal is fine but if negotiation fall through then war will carry on. I have responded to a few points highlighted in green. This is just my individual stance and not a reflection of the stance of the TIE alliance. When TIE has a chance to look over it then we will respond with an official statement.

Spoiler:

The ceasefire proposal still stands.

Let me address your other points:

Special Agent 47 wrote:
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.

1) We are looking for a ceasefire AND a full treaty, while the peace treaty should be negotiated before ceasefire ends, preferably much earlier than the final day of ceasefire.

3) As you can see we proposed a treaty. We can negotiate the details now.

by Beldar Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:30 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:
This means the bigger you are, the easier life will be for you here on AW, at least in my minds eye.

Exactly what i said above Smile

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:34 pm

If you want a ceasefire to negotiate the treaty the state the terms you seek for the ceasefire, you have failed to do so, or to counter the terms TIE proposed.

TIE proposed a FULL ceasefire with NO attacks of any kind during said ceasefire. We requested a 110% repay to make it very unlikely anyone should break it(this applies to BOTH sides), and asked for a 24 hr notice be sent via alliance wide messages so there is little to no chance of someone attacking before they get the message as we recognize the communication delays.

Lets do 1 thing at a time, if TOC wants the ceasefire to allow time for proper negotiation then lets set it, if not lets not waste time and go on with full treaty negotiations.

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:52 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:If you want a ceasefire to negotiate the treaty the state the terms you seek for the ceasefire, you have failed to do so, or to counter the terms TIE proposed.

TIE proposed a FULL ceasefire with NO attacks of any kind during said ceasefire. We requested a 110% repay to make it very unlikely anyone should break it(this applies to BOTH sides), and asked for a 24 hr notice be sent via alliance wide messages so there is little to no chance of someone attacking before they get the message as we recognize the communication delays.

Lets do 1 thing at a time, if TOC wants the ceasefire to allow time for proper negotiation then lets set it, if not lets not waste time and go on with full treaty negotiations.

In general I agree with a ceasefire that covers no farming allowed, but the problem is that both TOC and TIE will be farmed anyway, by non TOC non TIE members and how do you want to treat hits against TIE done by ex-TOC members? You will probably not be very happy about finding out that you still get farmed by players who were in TOC before. And also the same way round, ex-TIE members will farm TOC I assume.

Therefore I suggest we simply disallow hostile missions. Farming can stay as it is, because it's impossible to control it, since there are many players who are currently outside TIE, outside TOC. And we never know if some members didnt jump boat shortly before this agreement has been made. and what about people who leave the alliance in order to continue farming TOC and TIE?

by Kenzu Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:20 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:I can only assume the idea of a ceasefire is dead and this has moved to a full on treaty negotiation. I will act accordingly and pass along the information. I seriously doubt that the treaty can be fully negotiated in less then 2 days time as it is now July17th. I thought that was the entire point of the ceasefire. To allow 7 days for the treaty negotiations. All I can say to the date of the wars end is it should be left open. Setting a goal is fine but if negotiation fall through then war will carry on. I have responded to a few points highlighted in green. This is just my individual stance and not a reflection of the stance of the TIE alliance. When TIE has a chance to look over it then we will respond with an official statement.

Kenzu wrote:Here is TOC peace treaty proposal.
(All TOC leaders agree with it)
Aworon and the Emperors need to publicly state so. That way there can be no confusion later.

TOC-TIE Farming policy
TOC-TIE Farming policy is a two-way policy, which means that it protects not only TOC and TIE, but also all players who TOC and TIE farms.
I assume it is open for any other alliances to join if they want? 2 questions about this policy arise.
1. The Aworon and the Emperors state they will leave TOC at wars end. Does this mean they will no longer be bound by this agreement? I think each alliance should be posted separately as just saying TOC is vague and confusing. TOC can add or remove alliances from their ranks, but that does not mean those alliances added or removed are bound to this agreement.

2. What happens in the situation of an alliance bound by this agreement having issues with someone not bound by this agreement? You state this agreement binds all agreeing parties to do no hostile actions against anyone, so how are you as an agreeing and signed party to deal with someone not in the agreement?

You can be farmed if:
For each 1 population you have over 800 kuwal out
this is same as:
(For each 500k population you can have 400 million kuwal out)
(for 1 million, 800 million kuwal out)
There will be no exceptions to anyone. Same rules apply for everyone.

Exception: 0 defense players. They can be farmed for any amount of kuwal
Exception: all players who have less than 0.5% of population trained as armed def supers, can be also farmed anytime.
I love the way you say "NO Exceptions" and then list the exceptions LOL. The highly exploitable nature of this agreement is scary to me. You obviously have no idea what you are saying or demanding of others in the game. If it is based solely on size vs profitability with only that small of a defensive requirement then let me explain the exploit I see. At 30 mill army size 0.5% is only 150K defensive supers. That grants me a defensive action of roughly 3.75 bill. My income is over 400 mill a turn, but we will say 400 mill even for this example. At 30 mill army size I can not be considered a farming target unless I have 24 bill kuwal out. 24 bill kuwal is 60 turns of income or over an entire day of not logging in. This means I can go 24 hrs without logging in, can have 23.5 bill kuwal sitting out with only a 3.75 bill defense, and no one bound by this treaty can touch me. If they do they have to repay the full amount taken plus replacing the UU lost, training fees, and rearming fees.

This means the bigger you are, the easier life will be for you here on AW, at least in my minds eye.
And you have apparently not realised that these are only minimum requirements which are open to negotiation.

Additionally: Players can agree to personal policies with other players, but these agreements are not binding as the TOC-TIE farming policy has a higher importance than personal policies.
I am not sure I understand the meaning of this. A person will respect a personal policy before an alliance one, as it is just that, personal. If 2 people agree to not farm, or to hyper farm each other what matter is it to their prospective alliances? if you have a personal agreement you should tell your alliance and that's that.
Example: This means that if you and some friend make a policy that you can farm each other for any profit, or that you for example can never farm each other, then both of you can apply this treaty as long as both agree. If one person wants to end the agreement, he can end it at any time and then TOC-TIE policy is counted. During the time when both players made it clear to outside world that they have a personnal policy which allows attacks, then there will be no compensations for low hits.

Same farming policy will be used by TOC and TIE against non-TOC, non-TIE players, and all players will also be protected by the same policy
But what protection does any TOC/TIE member have against someone not in the agreement? See Global Protection below
"and all players will also be protected by the same policy", TOC and TIE members are also players, aren't they? TOC and TIE members are a subgroup of all players thus EVERYONE is protected by the TOC and TIE treaty, obviously also TOC and TIE members as well!

For Future: If any alliances, existing ones or future ones will ever want to apply a farming policy with TOC or TIE, they have to persuade all alliances of these empires to agree with a new farming policy. Aderan Wars cannot work properly with multiple farming policies and highest efficiency and highest fairness is brought only with a single global farming policy. If an alliance adopts a different farming policy, or changes its current farming policy, this alone will have no effect on TOC and TIE members.
I agree with this statement

TOC-TIE Raiding policy
Raiding: Any raid, which is profitable is allowed.
A single UU value needs to be set, and one that doesn't change daily as the market does. I suggest that every 30 days the value be evaluated and changed in need be. Otherwise who is to say what was or is profitable?
UU value is the value you can buy an UU at the market. I agree with the suggestion that we will announce the prices once every 30 days.

Sabbing/Assassination
Victim's alliance can ask who it was, but if no alliance admits that one of their members has done it, then victim's alliance can send a member to each suspected alliance and he will get advisor status. To keep things fair, the suspected alliance can also send their members to the victim's alliance and their allies. if the guilty one has been found, he will repay 100% of all the damge he has done. all members sent to other alliances can be kicked out after they were member for at least 24 hours.

(This has been previously agreed on by all: ian, Lord Ishurue, Aworon and me)
The issue with hidden alliances has never been addressed, if this effects hidden alliances then it negates the use of being a hidden alliance.
The issue with 3rd parties acting on behalf of either TOC or TIE for the sole intent of getting weekly "alliance updates" on each other has also never been addressed. Whats stopping TIE from having a 3rd alliance/group from doing 1 hostile sabb or assassination against our lowest member for no other reason then to get alliance adviser status to your alliances every week or so to gather all forms of information that can not be obtained from a spy report?
because the benefit is not worth the time and the benefits are negated by the fact that your alliance would also be checked. You can suggest better alternatives, because I still haven't seen a better solution.

Peace Treaty
The war ends at 19 July 12:00:00 gametime
As soon as the war has ended, all hostile missions are forbidden (sabotage, assassinations, assault, destruction, hunt assassins)
Why would you give yourselves less then 48 hrs to hammer out a full treaty is beyond me. I don't know if its stupidity or madness. What ever the reason all I can say is you have your work cut out for you.
And I don't know if it's stupidty or madness not to think about something as simple as changing the date at any moment when both TOC and TIE agree to it.

Those who engage in hostile missions after war ended, must pay a compensation equal to 100% of losses to the victim.

If he rejects, or doesnt start paying within reasonable ammount of time after being asked to pay (within 3-7 days), he can be massed by anyone.

Global Protection
To protect all players of the server, hostile missions are forbidden against any player in Aderan Wars not only against TOC and TIE. No one is allowed to engage in hostile missions. If anyone makes hostile missions, he has to pay a 100% compensation equal to all damage caused.
Well take this as you see fit, but if you guys want to play "The Sims" then by all means go play it. This entire treaty is being written in a way that give FULL advantage to those online the most and takes away EVERY advantage a less active player can possible build. It removes the usefulness of a defense as it is not even considered in the equation. It removes the only other way to stop a striker/farmer as you can not destroy the strike of the farmer Simply put as this agreement is written there is nothing stopping anyone from building a massive strike or one highly disproportionate to their army size and farming anyone they want the second they become a viable farm. The striker/farmer has no fear of ever having his strike hurt while people must accept their defense being damaged daily.

Additionally, what if a 3rd party alliance begins to abuse this very rule in a TOC alliance or in TIE? You have given no means For TOC or TIE to stop an aggressive 3rd party, nor one who will not respect the proposed farming policy.

You might want to read the farming policy again because you seem not to have realised yet how it works. Someone can have even 100 billion strike, according to our farming policy, he can attack a player only after roughly 10-15 hours earlierst, because there will not be enough kuwal sooner.
Besides, it was ian, who argued agressively against the strategy of players building big defenses.

Anyone abusing the system would put himself at an advantage, thus would have to repay compensation for all damage against the farming policy. Until now, an alliance would mass a player who broke the policy and would not want to repay compensation. Same method will be used in the future.

Conflict Resolution
both TOC and TIE will try their best to avoid war in the future, they will not use first strike against each other, and if a conflict arises, they will meet as soon as possible and to their best to end the discussion no sooner before a solution has been found, in order to prevent a new war.
If neither can use a first strike policy then there can be no war as without a first strike there is no war. "Sims" anyone?
Why would you want to make a peace treaty if you want to make war in the future?
sims = meaningless word

TOC will protect smaller alliances against aggression and against unfair treatment
What about when its TOC doing it? Keep in mind the most prolific farmer in the game is a TOC man and the reason this war is being fought now. Not to mention this agreement you propose does 2 things for said farmer.
1. removes any fear of his strike EVER being removed.
2. removes the usefulness of the defender/farmed defense as it has been removed from the equation, just as you have removed the need to even make a profit. Why is that not a condition? Why can a massive strike run around hitting with no profit and still considered a legitimate hit? And before you say "Who and why would anyone hit for no profit" its called war tactics. Its a tactic that you are leaving wide open for abuse. As long as you hurt the enemy more then yourself then you are increasing the "gap" between you.

I mean lets keep in mind that its TOC alliances who have the history of abusing farming and raiding tactics. I am glad to see you guys changing and all but facts are facts.
you mentioned there is some "prolific farmer". Well, then you should be happy, because this policy will prevent him to strike you for roughly 12 hours without depositing, meaning that if you deposit kuwal 2 times a day, he will never visit you. After 12 hours of not banking you will definitely hit for profit.

And again you provide no suggestion. Let me provide one:
We could suggest that there has to be some kind of profit, for example 10% of what has been stolen must be profit. Sounds good? If TIE agrees with it, I can ask if all TOC leaders agree with it.

END OF TREATY

by aworon Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:33 pm

Emperors leaving TOC means that if we make tie angry, we'll be left on our own.

In any case, if i makes the negotiations go quicker. Ishurue has my support and I will accept any treaty he signs.

Though one thing to note, as I already explained to someone (ian and seaborgium I think) I will not abide by any farming policy that has no justification for its existance.
That means, any farming policy which is not in the exact meaning of:
"Only hits are allowed where the attacker, assuming they deal 100% of his power (just so that stray hits dont escalate into war), makes a profit of x% over his losses (units, training, weapons).

I.e. if x = 50, then if my losses are 1 bil kuwal then I must steal at least 1.5 bil.
Maximum of 1 attack per target in any 7 day period where said profit was not achieved. If a second such attack happens, kuwal lost for BOTH attacks have to get returned."

I will not force any of my members to follow policies along the lines of "for X defense you must have Y profit" or "target must have at least X turns of income out", these are only mentioned because they seem to be the most popular ones at the moment.

by seaborgium Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:11 pm

oddly enough I agree with aworon lol. It should be you have to make so much % over losses.
I don't agree with the 1 hit thing, as stupid flux comes into play. I hit 2 players today and 1 i got 800m strike and the other i got 600m and i was only 750m at the time.

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:55 pm

Kenzu wrote:
And you have apparently not realised that these are only minimum requirements which are open to negotiation.
I'm just showing you how poorly thought out the proposed suggestion is. I mean it benefits me greatly since I would only have to bank 1 time every 24 hours. So I'll just leave that one for the negotiations.

Example: This means that if you and some friend make a policy that you can farm each other for any profit, or that you for example can never farm each other, then both of you can apply this treaty as long as both agree. If one person wants to end the agreement, he can end it at any time and then TOC-TIE policy is counted. During the time when both players made it clear to outside world that they have a personnal policy which allows attacks, then there will be no compensations for low hits.
I understand now and agree.

"and all players will also be protected by the same policy", TOC and TIE members are also players, aren't they? TOC and TIE members are a subgroup of all players thus EVERYONE is protected by the TOC and TIE treaty, obviously also TOC and TIE members as well!
I think you are being a bit naive here. No one other then TIE and TOC are bound to this agreement, but this agreement is written in a way that no TIE or TOC alliance can protect themselves from an outside party not bound by this agreement.

Hypothetical situation.
An alliance appears named "Lords of War". LoW begin attacking WR in a hostile manner. They, LoW, are not bound by the agreement, but you, WR, are bound and as it is written you can not attack them back. Is anyone else seeing the same thing? or is it just me?

To me the treaty should be between those who sign it and agree to follow it, but if you do not sign it or agree to follow it then you should gain no protection from it.

Now that said, as far as TIE/TOC goes I don't mind using it as a guideline as far as Offensive measures go, but I will not be bound to it in a defensive manner. Meaning if a 3rd party attacks me or TIE, I will not respect the agreement in dealing with the third party who is not in agreement to the treaty. Period.

UU value is the value you can buy an UU at the market. I agree with the suggestion that we will announce the prices once every 30 days.
Sounds good, I say all alliance leaders in the treaty get a say on price and majority wins?

because the benefit is not worth the time and the benefits are negated by the fact that your alliance would also be checked. You can suggest better alternatives, because I still haven't seen a better solution.
I disagree with you on the benefit, but that is just the differences in the commitment and tactics used by our alliances. You still haven't addressed the hidden alliances issue either. Will they be bound as well? As for a better suggestion I don't feel there is one. The idea in itself is far to flawed to even be saved. Only thing remotely close would be if both sides saw a player in the others ranks they would actually trust and take their word in honesty. Even that is exploitable and flawed.

And I don't know if it's stupidty or madness not to think about something as simple as changing the date at any moment when both TOC and TIE agree to it.
This just falls back into the ceasefire vs treaty conversation. Communications take time to filter through alliances. That's why TIE wanted a 24 hr advance notice to the ceasefires beginning and wanted a ceasefire for treaty negotiations. less then 48 hrs is not enough time when dealing with 4 different people with different goals and ideals. This thread shows the differences in the thinking of TOC already, but all that can be overcome, just not sure if 34 hrs is enough time.

You might want to read the farming policy again because you seem not to have realised yet how it works. Someone can have even 100 billion strike, according to our farming policy, he can attack a player only after roughly 10-15 hours earlierst, because there will not be enough kuwal sooner.
Besides, it was ian, who argued agressively against the strategy of players building big defenses.
You may very well be right, I'll try to run some scenarios using the information at my disposal to see the average time it takes for most to become "farmable". As for Ian and and his reasoning its a sound practice for a "war game" which it is arguable if this is going to be one with an agreement like this.

Anyone abusing the system would put himself at an advantage, thus would have to repay compensation for all damage against the farming policy. Until now, an alliance would mass a player who broke the policy and would not want to repay compensation. Same method will be used in the future.
OK this is what I have been asking. So you are saying that if anyone breaks the policy and doesn't repay then the use of force is allowed with no fear of retaliation nor reprisal from those signed to the agreement correct?

Why would you want to make a peace treaty if you want to make war in the future?
sims = meaningless word
Why do you want to play a war game with no war?
Sims = no war

Treaties between groups are fine, but your writing this to cover Everyone in the game, so if its followed by everyone in the game then no wars will ever happen and if no wars ever happen then it is "The Sims". Many like myself don't play these games to build stats, but for battles of fun and honor, be they win, lose, or draw. The boring times of endless peace is not what draws or keeps player in games like this, its the battles that do. Now I agree that to many battles to quickly are more damaging and dangerous as to few, but none at all will end this game. If you are all honest with yourselves you know I am right.

you mentioned there is some "prolific farmer". Well, then you should be happy, because this policy will prevent him to strike you for roughly 12 hours without depositing, meaning that if you deposit kuwal 2 times a day, he will never visit you. After 12 hours of not banking you will definitely hit for profit.
As I have already proven, I can not be hit for 24 hrs mate. Yes this policy is Highly profitable to me, that's one of the reasons I do not like it. To me its people like me who should be More at risk then beginners. Now I will do some testing and run some scenarios for reference, but if its true that it makes it so everyone isnt a viable target for 12 or so hours then I see this game getting very boring very quickly. I can't see the farmers of the game liking this very well.

And again you provide no suggestion. Let me provide one:
We could suggest that there has to be some kind of profit, for example 10% of what has been stolen must be profit. Sounds good? If TIE agrees with it, I can ask if all TOC leaders agree with it.
I never understood until recently why Laurent Maximus and Lord Ishurue always said 100 mill profit, or "roughly what you get from a 0 def inactive". Now I do and I agree with it. If you can hit a 0 def inactive and make 100 mill then you should hit a defense for no less then that out of respect for an active account. I'm fine with that, and it can be addressed periodically as the price of UU will be. How does that sound?

@ Aworon

Spoiler:

You just contradicted yourself greatly. In the bold text you say you will follow anything Lord Ishurue agrees to, and in the italicized line state thing you will not adhere to even if Lord Ishurue signs it into treaty.

I do like your ideals on a farming policy better then those of your TOC allies but that's neither here nor there.

by aworon Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:34 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:I do like your ideals on a farming policy better then those of your TOC allies but that's neither here nor there.

Difference between the system I've been using all the time and your current brainstorming (both TOC and TIE) is that mine leaves no room for misunderstandings and is yet very simple for everyone to understand. That and the fact that it's working and the only thing you'd need to agree upon is the % profit required.

You open the report and you can immediately calculate how much the attacker has lost and how much % his profit was.

About emperors being bound by this treaty. I dont really care but it'd only be beneficial for Emperors if we were, because then I can be sure my members will get compensated should they get sabbed.
Ultimately I'll let TIE leadership decide if they wish emperors to be bound by this treaty.

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:48 pm

aworon wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:I do like your ideals on a farming policy better then those of your TOC allies but that's neither here nor there.
Difference between the system I've been using all the time and your current brainstorming (both TOC and TIE) is that mine leaves no room for misunderstandings and is yet very simple for everyone to understand. That and the fact that it's working and the only thing you'd need to agree upon is the % profit required.

You open the report and you can immediately calculate how much the attacker has lost and how much % his profit was.

About emperors being bound by this treaty. I dont really care but it'd only be beneficial for Emperors if we were, because then I can be sure my members will get compensated should they get sabbed.
Ultimately I'll let TIE leadership decide if they wish emperors to be bound by this treaty.

Well the only fault I can place on your system is you have to actually make the hit first, then calculate if it was profitable. That means errors can occur due to the "random factor" in the game mechanics. I personal don't have an issue with that.

I do not see how TIE leadership can effect you. You sign this agreement or not. As far as I know, no other alliance nor alliance leader can force your actions. It is up to you, and you alone to decided to stay inside the agreement or to be excluded from it. Your TOC allies still seem to want to make this agreement server wide and stop any possibility for any wars ever on the game. In other words this decision is yours and yours alone, if you agree then be a part of it. If you do not agree then do not be a part of it.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:38 pm

Not speaken for TOC . For this post please pretend i am Neutral .

a suggestion for both TOC and TIE .

what about discussing 1 part of the treaty at a time . it seems like ....TIE makes a proposal then TOC nip picks it and breaks it down to 100 scenarios , then TOC makes a proposal and TIE breaks it down to 100 scenarios .

it seems like a great influence for this war was from Farming mishaps and Sab/assassination accusations .

What about writing one part of the treaty get that finished . then go to the next part .

The Farming policy can be TOC & TIE's new farming policy like what happened during the first Empire war . ( The Pinnacle of 3 tiers farming policy )

lets say for example

Subject TOC & TIE new farming policy

etc etc . TIE posts , TOC posts , etc etc etc etc TIE likes likes it , TOC likes it . It gets signed as the new farming policy ( this may update due to future needs but TOC & TIE will do their bests to share a similar farm policy to prevent war over farming mishaps ) .

Subject . Sab/Assassination/ Hostile action Policy
etc etc . TIE posts , TOC posts , etc etc etc etc TIE likes likes it , TOC likes it . It gets signed as the new sab/assassination/ Hostile action policy .

Subject Personal wars Policy .
etc etc TIE posts , TOC posts , etc etc etc etc TIE likes likes it , TOC likes it . It gets signed as the new Personal Wars policy .

Subject etc etc
etc etc .

Subject Finalizing Peace Treaty
TOC and TIE sign the peace treaty in which all the above policies make up the peace treaty . The peace treaty it self is a declaration of ending the first TOC vs TIE war .

u dont eat breakfast , take shower , get dressed , brush your teeth . all at the same time . u break it up into parts .

your not gona eat breakfast while your brushing your teeth at the same time .

your not gona get dressed while taking a shower .

a suggestion is treat this treaty the same way .

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:51 pm

Shouldn't that be done during a ceasefire since certain actions can definitely impede the negotiations? Such as massing key accounts, blanket attacks, breaking past promises, etc, etc, etc.

To me the question still is, ceasefire yes or no?

As for your suggestion Lord Ishurue it is a good one, but why post it as a neutral? You can post it as a representative of TOC just as well.

If the cease fire is bypassed then the fist order of business is the discussion of the farming policy itself.

Kenzu's proposal

Spoiler:

Aworon's proposal

Spoiler:

The only stipulation I know TIE really wants is a means to use force, such as but not limited to massing the offenders strike, as a means to protect itself from someone not following the farming policy.

So first ceasefire or no?

Secondly discussion on farming policy.

Oh and I think kenzu's posted FP is based on Lord Ishurues ideas, if you have something different for FIRE then please post it Ish.

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:23 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:Shouldn't that be done during a ceasefire since certain actions can definitely impede the negotiations? Such as massing key accounts, blanket attacks, breaking past promises, etc, etc, etc.

To me the question still is, ceasefire yes or no?

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

by ian Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:28 pm

I m happy to take 1 step at a time regarding a peace-treaty. If this is decided on... we need to have a ceasefire unless everyone's happy to stay in war for a while yet (If we take it 1 step at a time it could take a while... but will likely end up with a better result overall).

As for Kenzu's proposal's. My BRIEF thoughts on the points (if you want a detailed response, you ll need to ask me on msn):

- Global Protection Policy: I have absolutely zero interest in it. To me it represents a unacceptable loss of sovereignty (stating what TOC/ TIE can & can't do - which is inevitably their decision to make) - both to TIE & TOC, and its also pretty disrespectful to every other alliance & individual out there... since its basically assuming they are all idiots and incapable of diplomacy/ raising a problem themselves....

Also what happens if say.... TOC breaks the agreement by sabbing a third party (i.e. a good example would be sabbing of Ebduncan for instance).... this treaty would then hold TIE accountable to enforce this policy against TOC.... a failure to do so which would be a breach of the treaty by TIE..... and if we enforce it It could very well result in a deterioration in relations/ war over something not concerning us (and viceversa for TOC if TIE sabbs someone).

Thus I m against it.

- Farming Policy: The exact details need finalising... But I do like either the army size idea or Aworon's policy idea. Once again - I have absolutely zero interest in extending the policy to the server.

If individual alliances or player's want to form & enforce their own policies... thats their decision, not ours. Also by extending it to the server we are overriding their own policies (i.e. what happens if a TIE/ TOC member does a hit within our policy but outside of the other alliance's policy? The hit would be legitimate according to this policy... giving the other alliance absolutely zero rights or considerations).

Its also down to TIE & TOC to individually decide what rules they want their members to follow when farming others... and as such shouldn't be included in this policy (Loss of sovereignty!!!).

- Sabbing/ Assassinations. I was initially in favour of a ambassador system - however shortly before I went on Graduation Week after talking to Lord Ishurue and a number of TIE, I am no longer in favour of a ambassador system - since its easily exploitable to gain information on one another, as well as representing a HUGE loss of sovereignty.

Frankly if neither alliance can learn to be honest & trust the other then we don't deserve peace - as such I m all in favour of the whole "honesty" approach....

- Raiding Policy: Personally I think any raid which is profitable should be allowed HOWEVER - I m also aware none of the alliances have ever tried such a policy... I.e. such a policy may prove unworkable IF (it may not) it results in massive raiding of the members happening (much like there would be massive farming without a policy....).

So I think we should trial run a "any raid which is profitable" policy and see how it goes....

- Conflict Resolution: I fully support this bit.

- Personal Policy's: This need's sorting. Regardless of what T.O.C says if someone does something after being warned/ contacted several times and therefore knows doing something is going to lead to conflict... that person bares considerable responsibility in starting a conflict/ crisis for proceeding ahead with that conduct knowing it would result in conflict.

This isn't a opinion - its a fact. A good example would be Argentina & The UK. Currently the UK's drilling for Oil in the South Atlantic - Argentina has continuously issued its protests at the ongoing mining and has taken stricter diplomatic stances in more recent times (i.e. forbidding shipping heading to the Falklands from passing through Argentinian National Waters). The result is a deterioration in relations. The UK by making the decision to keep drilling (thereby ignoring the protests by Argentina) has played a significant and real role in the collapse of relations - just as Argentina has by making the decision to issue the protests. BOTH countries are to blame.

If Say (this is now fictional btw), In the next 2 years Argentina issues several more protests, which the UK ignores - and the UK then hits the jackpot with a huge Oil Find... there's a small possibility it could result in military action being taken by Argentina which would then result in a crisis/ escalation of the situation to a military conflict.

In such an event... the UN's response is VERY predictable. It will issue strong protests at the use of military force by Argentina - and immediately issue a resolution calling on the UK & Argentina to resolve differences as soon as possible (likely by a mediator). That resolution will go into detail of the causes of the conflict - and CORRECTLY identify BOTH countries are responsible for the state of affairs getting to the point where they are... (There are numerous UN resolutions concerning numerous situations between countries which follow the above pattern - you can check for yourselves on the U.N Website).

It will NOT become involved in using military force itself - nor is it likely to even resort to economic sanctions. Basically then: the U.N will do nothing physical other than apply "encouragement" to a resolution of the crisis as soon as possible.

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

If 200 odd nations of different cultures, religions, economic backgrounds and history's can establish a clear procedure for dealing with "personal situations" between 2 countries without the whole world blowing up in a major war... WE should be able to do the same on AW....

Personally I think we should just copy the U.N. If a personal war kicks off ALL alliances stay out and do their upmost best to encourage their members to resolve the situation peacefully as soon as possible - via acting as mediators and negotiating between the different parties etc... ONLY after it becomes clear that one of the parties isn't making any decent effort to find a (diplomatic) solution to the crisis should a firmer stance be considered... and ONLY implemented after the person not making the effort to find a solution has been informed that such a stance will be adopted, and thus given a chance to radically consider their position before being nuked into oblivion by a whole empire....

- Castravate Issue: So far T.O.C has ignored this point repeatedly everytime I ve raised it... so I ll make it a little less easy to ignore:

ANY Peace Treaty will require a public confirmation from T.O.C on whether or not Castravate was ordered to reenter the war (and consequently ask for peace/ surrender also) on 2 separate occasions.

If he was following T.O.C order's - he bares no personal responsibility and the situation is thus deemed resolved. If he acted on his own personal decision.... then we have a serious problem which need's to be resolved (mainly some form of punishment for his actions).

This point's critical to any peace-treaty... if its not dealt with there can be no peace treaty... so its no good just ignoring the request for confirmation on the above (as its not going to go away lol).

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

I Can't think of anything else at the moment.... But i fully support LI's point he raised about working through each point seperately. I m mainly highlighting the above just to give everyone a idea on my thoughts so far....

by Special Agent 47 Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:30 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:Shouldn't that be done during a ceasefire since certain actions can definitely impede the negotiations? Such as massing key accounts, blanket attacks, breaking past promises, etc, etc, etc.

To me the question still is, ceasefire yes or no?

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

Get Kenzu and Aworon to post here to confirm and alliance messages can be sent out immediately. Without confirmation form Kenzu and Aworon the ceasefire can not be enacted. We don't want 1 group to boycott the ceasefire or anything.

A copy of the message prepared to be sent as soon as confirmation from Kenzu and Aworon arrives.

Spoiler:

by ian Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:35 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:Shouldn't that be done during a ceasefire since certain actions can definitely impede the negotiations? Such as massing key accounts, blanket attacks, breaking past promises, etc, etc, etc.

To me the question still is, ceasefire yes or no?

Yes lets go with the ceasefire TOC has agreed to it .

Starts Monday july 19th 00:00 server time and end july 26th 00:00 server time .
No Farming or Raiding each other . all hits that occur will be fully compensated plus a 30% fine paid to the other alliance .

Get Kenzu and Aworon to post here to confirm and alliance messages can be sent out immediately. Without confirmation form Kenzu and Aworon the ceasefire can not be enacted. We don't want 1 group to boycott the ceasefire or anything.

Good point lol

by Lord Ishurue Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:51 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:

Kenzu's proposal
Spoiler:

Aworon's proposal
Spoiler:

The only stipulation I know TIE really wants is a means to use force, such as but not limited to massing the offenders strike, as a means to protect itself from someone not following the farming policy.

Secondly discussion on farming policy.

Oh and I think kenzu's posted FP is based on Lord Ishurues ideas, if you have something different for FIRE then please post it Ish.

hmm . My original thoughts were trying to incorporate all the past talks on farming as well as what im seeing here .

ian mentioned TIE has a bigger army size average then TOC so it would be unfair for TOC to have the same policy . TOC stance we have every right to have the same type of policy as TIE .

Lets find the balance point to each solution .

IMO points taken .

TIE : wants to have the right to use force if need be . wants a policy that does not damage TIE. wants to prevent layers from thinking TIE is their private atm and can arm any strike with out consequences .

World Republic (TOC) : wants a policy that is fair , that protects members of all activity levels , That is simple but yet efective .

Emperors (TOC) : They want a policy that has a reason of its existence not its the latest fad for farming policies . They do not want a tier like structure .

Mujengan (TOC) : I do not want any breech procedure . one of my members who was new , received only his first warning , and he thought he was in serious trouble. He was even considering re starting the game because, of it . The old policy seemed to work out nice , but it has holes in it , taken all the above points into account. lets find a balance point and make a real nice farm policy that will make all of us say . Put this on your MOTD and go have some farming fun . From the Mujengan forum and talking to some Members on MSN . they seem to all want a simple policy .

1. Making it simple
2 . balance point of agree-ability is to be achieved
3. dealing with trouble makers when fines do not seem to cut it .

IMO of a Balanced sample policy that addresses all issues .

( round up on numbers 300k and 700k )

Farm Policy . for the first 500k population u must steal 500million . plus every 500k u must take an additional 75million . 0 army - 500k = 825mil must be stolen .

equation 500mil + ( ( targets rounded army size/500k ) X 175mil )

10million army = 500mil + (10mil/500k )x 175million = 4billion needs to be stolen .
16mil army = 500mil + ( 16mil/500k) x 175mil = 5.6billion/236mil =
32mil army = 500mil +( 32mil/500k x 175mil = 11.2billion

Methods of preventing someone farming you with out even a chance of u being able to farm them back

(The excessive strike clause has 2 flaws . u cant see total up with out waiting for turn tick .

Excessive Military Armament Clause . From past recons as well as going over average Mujengan Income unit % , and looking at some TIE members and some WR members. i conclude that TOC & TIE's average income unit % is about 75% .

any person with more then 25% military units can not farm players who are covered by this policy . How ever it does take time to increase your income unit percentage . their fore if a player is in violation of this clause they have the right to state there reasons for the excessive military , and that they are sincerely working on improving their economic set up . Both TIE & TOC will be understanding of this and will be more compassionate for one an other if a player is with in violation , and they are sincerely trying to meet the policy guidelines. Other wise those players should stick to farming and raiding 0 defense accounts or farm an alliance who does not have an excessive armament clause .

Extradite Treaty in regards to farming .
All farming breeches will be compensated 100% ( kuwal stolen, UUs sent directly, Broker/direct send fees , Weapon costs ) . with an additional 30% fine to be paid to the alliance .

How ever is a Farmer is making excessive breeches The leaders or diplomats of each other's alliance will about handling the culprit . whether it be may be an increase fine for 6 months whenever that player makes a breech , or a partial massing . *** The alliance leaders& or diplomats are welcome to find a balanced solution to the problem .

Sample punishments

Probation - If that player makes another breech he will be partially massed . ( the stats that can be hit will be discussed between the alliance leaders etc ) The farmer may also join the victim's alliance leader as an officer for faster review of logs .

Disarmament . The farmer must sell all of his strike weapons except for one and can not have more then 1 attack weapon for a specifically stated period of time .

Insubordination fine . If the farmer continues to make breeches . the 30% fine will be sharply increase depending on the severity of the case it may go as high as a 100% or more fine .

Reasons this Farm policy or something similar should exist .

leaders , HC and members of TOC & TIE .

We all want a farming policy that fits everything just right . We all know deep down farming played a small role in the start of TOC vs TIE war . It has been since the beginning of Aderan Wars , farming is a non hostile action .

We have changed policies for farming too many times . Pinnacle of 3 tiers, 5 tiers, 5 tiers with sanctions, 5 tiers with restricted hitting .

When it comes to Farming I believe very strongly that TOC & TIE should use the same farming policy, or at the very least the same policy when they farm each other . TOC & TIE are rival empires . Yes the post in this thread have not been the most friendly , I know we all can say we fought & are fighting a cool & action packed war .

TIE's average army is ~1.5 times bigger then TOC's average army therefore TIE member's have a higher average income . a policy based around defense action will not be suitable for TIE & TOC to have at the same time .

TOC' farm policy wise . TOC's army army is smaller then TIE's , but TOC member's have every right to have the same protection as TIE member's , with out any sense of special restrictions .

The base Policy out line should address all points i saw from everyone's post and member's i spoke to on MSN .

we can narrow it down .

~~Defense action for policy~~
~~Tiers 1-3 etc u need 5 etc~~
Kuwal stolen by army size mentioned

Profitability per hit .

a recent farm i made . ( players name will be hidden ) 1,849,292,264 Kuwal Stolen 10 247 1511 1,670,129,596 1,968,716,851

he lost 247 defense supers with Main Battle tanks

i lost 1,511 supers with Main battle tanks .

his damage was significantly lower . lets use 175k UU rate for example sake

total cost for 1 armed super with Main battle tank = 633k

633k x 1400 = 957mil damage to me

damage to his defense . 247 x 633k = 157million DAMAGE DONE TO HIS DEFENSE .

1,849,292,264- 957mil = 892mil profit to his 157million damage .

minimum Profit for this policy can be something like . double the cost of the victims defense damage . with a minimum of 125million kuwal per hit . in this case i needed to make 320million profit

Edit : *****Minimum Defense action to be covered by policy****

Minimum of number of days of economic generation into defense or a minimum amount of units trained as defense .we dont want to see someone with 1 defense action and thinking they are covered by the policy .

by doxakk Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:56 pm

Does the ceasefire include no farming of zero defence accounts belonging to TIE/TOC?

by Lord Ishurue Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:18 am

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Spoiler:

I did not want to edit this post to add some things a second time . but looking back i saw Vesper was thinking of having an army size for farm policy . So if other alliances like this Farm policy/ & or Farm policy TOC & TIE decide to go with , they are more then welcome to make it their alliance farm policy as well .

by Sponsored content

TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion