Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

by Kenzu Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:14 am

Magnus wrote:I have thought it through and there will always be people who have a different playing style. Other alliances do not have these limits and will surely pass TOC and TIE up. That can be a major disadvantage in any future war. Plus I think that any player has the right to be able to judge himself what is good and bad for him. There have been many helpful hints and teachings by all leaders or players in this game. Yep I mean ALL PLAYERS including ISH and KENZU. Now does that not come as a surprise to some. I would just like to play and not always have rules to follow.

You are right. Too many rules not only lead to war, but also make the game less enjoyable for people.

Do we really want to have countless if statements when an attack is profitable, even more if statements telling us if someone is allowed to farm and even more telling us if they are even protected by the policies?

Obviously not having any rules won't do it, so why dont we follow the suggestion of Magnus and make the rules short and simple?

Please seriously consider the suggestion of percentage profit required.
There will be a certain percentage that will fit you. Work it out and then come back and make your suggestion how much profit should be required.

About the excessive strike clause and excessive defense clause
for all players who still support the clause, please read my long post at the previous page which explains why these clauses beat smaller players to the ground.

About a serverwide farming policy (its actually only TOC-TIE policy but other alliances can join the policy)
What I meant is that if you are using a farming policy to protect yourself, it will be fair if you give the same protection to people you attack (if they dont have a different farming policy).

Example: lets say TOC and TIE agreed on 20% profit required. You farm some allianceless little guy with only 5% profit, while he can't attack you until he has 20% profit. Isn't that unfair? of course it is.

We could also do it this way: the farming policy we agree to can be enacted by any player and any alliance by posting it in their MOTD (for allianceless players) and for alliances, they can agree to the farming policy on the forum and|or post it in their MOTDs. Everyone is allowed to join our farming policy without exception.

Another question: how do we treat alliances that have other farming policies? what do we do with people who brake our farming policy?

If we got a required profit of say 20% and they have 5%. Obviously if they attack us for 5% they brake our policy and will be asked to pay compensation. If we attack them, we should attack them for at least 20% profit, otherwise we would be treating them unfairly.

The biggest problem arises if they have a policy of say 50%. What should we do?
Any suggestions?

by Nomad Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:09 am

I kinna agree with alot said here on smaller versus larger players.

*Edit*
Wanted to say a little more or clarify what i meant here. I know smaller/ newer guys are often military heavy. I have told several to not even keep or train income units to sell them to the market and increase thier UP. Up to a point anyway, so I do see a need for a seperation between new/small accounts and established accounts, just don't know how to do that.

by seaborgium Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:10 am

Rules are in place by the ppl with the power. If they want a policy of 50% then they have to back it. If they can't back it then they won't have a policy of 50%.

by Special Agent 47 Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:12 am

Kenzu wrote:
Spoiler:

by Manleva Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:25 am

I have been watching this thread with interest and now that you are starting to talk about how you should deal with others outside of either TOC or TIE it think it timely to say something on this side of things.

This is supposed to be a Treaty Discussion between TOC and TIE therefore discussion about other alliances or individual players should have no bearing on your treaty.

I would say that really you need to settle your own differences before you worry about how you will deal with outsiders.

As for your farming policies, generally I have not bothered reading them fully because they appear to be to complex. If you want to have them then they need to be clear, simple and easy to follow.

As a player who has in the past farmed a few of your members then perhaps my perspective may help in your discussions on farming. the first thing that I considered was profit. If I could make more Kuwal by attacking an active player than what was available from Zero defense inactives them they were a potential target. (Quite a while ago there were plenty who fitted this but they appear to have learned and I seldom see any now)

Also there needs to be some responsibility placed on the person being farmed. They should be controlling and defending their own income.

As for your breach processes it appears that they are written in a way to remove responsibility from the alliance. I would have very serious doubts about joining any alliance that would allow one of it's members to be massed by another alliance because that member will not honor the agreements their own alliance has made.

As for a server wide agreement, I seriously doubt that you will ever get one and suspect that if you do then the number of player will drop quite considerably over time.

Ad finally but most importantly this is just a game and it should be fun.

by ian Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:03 am

Kenzu:

- Server-wide Agreement. Its simply not happening - ever. The Imperium will not police the server or be bound to certain ways of treating the server. If other's want their own policies or whatever - it is for *them* to decide and back them up.

- Excessive Strike Clause: Large players are large because they ve put the time & effort into playing the game. They ve been loyal to the game & likely their friends and trading partners to become large in the first place.

Why do you think TIE wants a excessive strike clause? Answer: Its PRECISELY to cut down the farming of our ranks by the smaller players and those who lack the economy or size to support a strike able to farm our ranks.

If Player A isn't big enough under TIE policy to build & support a strike able to farm TIE player B, then player A should come back at a later date when he is big/strong enough and with a legal strike to do so.

TIE's member's haven't spent the last 2 years playing Aderan War's so that some person who's been playing for 1 or 2months gets freedom to leach of them - and by leach of them I mean invest into a strike which they can't possibly support/ replace easily if they get massed, and then make comparatively (vs. their own income) huge profits from farming TIE's income which it has taken those TIE members months/ years of hard effort to accumulate.

If a player has invested 2 or 3 weeks worth of resources into a strike, and starts farming TIE - what possible incentive and reason should there be for TIE to tolerate that farming, when it would work out cheaper for us to eliminate the strike and cut out his farming completely?

Remember if Player A takes 2billion kuwal from Player B, and kills 300million defence resources doing it - thats 2.3billion kuwal damage inflicted on Player B. If player A does 50 hits like that over the space of a week or so on TIE... thats 106billion kuwal damage inflicted on TIE - the equivalent of a defence massing. The damage quickly adds up over a prolonged period by a singe player - let alone several players....

If someone wants to farm TIE - they need to have the right to do so - and the only way they ll get that right is by building a account able to support & sustain a strike able to do so without making themselves a easy target - much like the only way TIE's members will gain protection from the excessive strike clause is if their defence is large enough to mean a farmer will need to have comparatively large strike (which they d need to be large enough to support) to farm them...- keep in mind TIE has strict regulations on resources invested into defence, so TIE members will have to be pretty large themselves to be able to build a defence under our regulations which means most farmers to farm them would likely have a excessive strike.

I ll summarise this for you then: The Imperium's farming policy is inevitably our own to decide. We are at the moment happy to cooperate with T.O.C to find a future-proof farming policy which can be adapted for both sides in the hopes of helping avoid future tensions.

But that willingness has limits. If those limits are crossed - you ll find our willingness to cooperate on a farming policy stops. Trying to gather support to eliminate the excessive strike clause - meaning lots of small players can leach of TIE - is crossing the line - as is trying to bind TIE to being dictated to on how we interact with the server.

How we treat others is our concern - not T.O.C's. How we treat T.O.C is our joint concern - which is what this peace treaty should deal with. Anything else is merely taking the opportunity to try and bind TIE (& Other alliances in TOC) on how they conduct their own affairs - something which should *not* be this treaty.

As for the % profit suggestion - I ll have a think about it & let you know once I ve thought it through.

by Kenzu Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:15 am

You should know that without the ability for a compromise you will not get far in life.

You can't dictate what you want, you are in negotiations, and in negotiations you need a certain degree of adjustment towards the needs of all who are involved.

A 7 day strike clause is not acceptable.
Please be so kind and propose something better.

As you know I have already offered alternative solutions.

by Lucien Lachance Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:36 am

ok, ive tried to butt out of all of this, but now that you guys are mentioning excessive strike policies i feel i have a right to pose this to all involved.
if a player chooses to build a strike that is up to them, NOT YOU!
if a player begins escessively attacking your players THEN can you have a say until then you have no rights to impose these decisions. MY ACCOUNT IS MY ACCOUNT AND I WILL BUILD IT HOWEVER I FEEL IS NECESSARY! NOT HOW YOU WANT ME TO BUILD IT!

ian wrote:
But that willingness has limits. If those limits are crossed - you ll find our willingness to cooperate on a farming policy stops. Trying to gather support to eliminate the excessive strike clause - meaning lots of small players can leach of TIE - is crossing the line - as is trying to bind TIE to being dictated to on how we interact with the server.

and you saying to touch tie you must have your account set up a certain way...... now whos dictating ian?
bottom line is i will play how i want to play this game, and your whole approach of how an account is set up is pure tripe! we are all individuals here and have a right to play anyway we choose .
AND can i just point out that these regulations will only make it more difficult for either side to recruit new members, i want to play the game, not told how to play....

by seaborgium Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:51 am

Ian: Just drop the cluase, we can just mass the strike as it hits us.

by ian Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:41 pm

Kenzu wrote:You should know that without the ability for a compromise you will not get far in life.

You can't dictate what you want, you are in negotiations, and in negotiations you need a certain degree of adjustment towards the needs of all who are involved.

A 7 day strike clause is not acceptable.
Please be so kind and propose something better.

As you know I have already offered alternative solutions.

Actually Kenzu I would kindly point out its you who needs to compromise. From speaking to Lord Ishurue, Mujengen has no problems with TIE's clause (its infact them who suggested the bit of no more than 40% army size in military be added to it). So thats TIE & Mujengen without a problem - Emperor's haven't made their opinion known, and only you & WR complaining about it.

The Imperium won't compromise on it. If you think Small players are going to be free to invest weeks/months into their strikes and leach of The Imperium's incomes, causing untold damage on our members - you are *very* mistaken. If this means no peace treaty is reached before the ceasefire ends - so be it.

A peace where the Imperium's treated as crap isn't a peace at all.

I d remind you the only alliance who really has anything to gain from allowing players with more than 7 days worth of resources invested into strike is World Republic - since generally your members are pretty small. I d also remind you in the time many of your players have been playing Aderan Wars, The Commonwealth was formed, rose to be the 2nd largest alliance and then formed The Imperium Empire with The Company - and then Mujengen was formed, rose to become the 2nd largest alliance - again overtaking World Republic.

If The Commonwealth managed to catch and completely overtake World Republic, THEN Mujengen was formed and managed to catch, and completely overtake World Republic in the time of your existence - thats your problem, not ours.

Our members have put the time & effort into getting as large and strong as they are - there will be NO shortcut for your members which suddenly grants them the ability to leach from the efforts of other player's who ve put time & effort into growing themselves. If your members want to farm people who would be outside of their strike within the 7 days excessive clause... then they need to put time & effort into growing themselves - just like many TIE & Mujengen members have done.

This isn't open to compromise. I m dead serious concerning smaller player's leaching of other larger members - whether those be TIE or TOC members. I would rather see 6months more of war than a peace being established which allows small players the rights to quickly & easily pillage & burn players who ve spent a lot more time & effort into the game with strikes which can be quickly and easily neutralised.

Your right TIE can't dictate what we want - but we can make the decision on whether something is & is not acceptable - and what we d like to do about it. Right now we ve decided anything which allows player's to build strikes they can't support or sustain, and then leach of TIE's incomes - is unacceptable, and that unless changed - we d rather go back into a drawn out war than see a long-term peace established which treats our member's as crap and simply a cash-point for WR members which haven't bothered putting in their own efforts to build their own economy so that they can reasonably support a decent strike.

@ Lucient Lachance. Noone's telling you how to build your account. Noone at all. Feel free to build it how you want. HOWEVER - if you want to be allowed to farm The Imperium, you d better make damn sure your account meets OUR requirements.

The moment you make that decision to farm TIE, you involve us - since OUR members will be the victims of YOUR actions. If you don't want us involved - don't farm TIE.

by ian Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:54 pm

seaborgium wrote:Ian: Just drop the cluase, we can just mass the strike as it hits us.

We ll call that plan B.

I don't think Kenzu fully understands just how much I hate it when someone thinks they can build a huge-ass strike (vs. their size/economy) and then suck other's dry who ve put the time & effort into building their own account so it has a strong economy.

Its pure laziness and arrogance on the part of the striker to think he can ruin someone else's account's growth by relying on the income/ economy of another to supply him than take the time & effort into building his own income & economy.

If someone has a decent enough economy to support a decent strike - it means they ve put the time & effort into getting that economy established, and therefore are merely farming other's who ve put similar effort into their accounts for a "top up". They aren't relying upon it necessarily... and they would be farming someone who's put similar levels of efforts & time into their account.

If someone has a crap economy and has taken several weeks worth of their resources, invested it into their strike, and is now happily farming & pillaging other player's incomes & economy and haven't taken the time or effort to build their own economy so they can reasonably replace their strike if its neutralised - then they are taking a quick and lazy short-cut - one which harms their victims badly... all because they couldn't be bothered to invest into their own economy.

I have absolutely zero sympathy for people who don't put time & effort into their accounts. Anything which treats those who ve put large amounts of time & effort as being mugs for the people who haven't.... is unacceptable.

by seaborgium Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:59 pm

As I said before. if someone has a policy they need to have the power to enforce it. If they can't they need to come up with a new policy. So let someone with an over power strike compared to there eco visit me or my friends Twisted Evil

by Magnus Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:04 pm

seaborgium wrote:Ian: Just drop the cluase, we can just mass the strike as it hits us.

with that

by curumo Mon Jul 19, 2010 1:06 pm

Hope you three realize that I'm in as well Wink

by Lucien Lachance Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:00 pm

ian wrote:
@ Lucient Lachance. Noone's telling you how to build your account. Noone at all. Feel free to build it how you want. HOWEVER - if you want to be allowed to farm The Imperium, you d better make damn sure your account meets OUR requirements.

The moment you make that decision to farm TIE, you involve us - since OUR members will be the victims of YOUR actions. If you don't want us involved - don't farm TIE.

and i thought TIE were the good guys in all this, this whole thing smacks of legion regime.
so what your basically saying ian is we have a farming policy in place BUT ONLY IF YOUR ACCOUNT MATCHES OUR REQUIREMENTS! if it doesnt then we WILL mass it.
maybe the TOC were right to attempt to remove you as the dominant power as you are obviously the most arrogant person on here with your dictations as to how an account should be structured.
Heres a novel idea... read the main pages description of the game here you go,

Make friends, join or create alliances, improve your economy, trade with other players, construct buildings, research countless technologies, build up armies and air force, grow peacefully evading conflict, or mobilise your armies and go to war! Whichever path you take, the choice is only yours.
since you dont like the way some people play, why not make your own game and go play with yourself til your hearts content...

by ian Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:32 pm

Lucien Lachance wrote:
ian wrote:
@ Lucient Lachance. Noone's telling you how to build your account. Noone at all. Feel free to build it how you want. HOWEVER - if you want to be allowed to farm The Imperium, you d better make damn sure your account meets OUR requirements.

The moment you make that decision to farm TIE, you involve us - since OUR members will be the victims of YOUR actions. If you don't want us involved - don't farm TIE.

and i thought TIE were the good guys in all this, this whole thing smacks of legion regime.
so what your basically saying ian is we have a farming policy in place BUT ONLY IF YOUR ACCOUNT MATCHES OUR REQUIREMENTS! if it doesnt then we WILL mass it.
maybe the TOC were right to attempt to remove you as the dominant power as you are obviously the most arrogant person on here with your dictations as to how an account should be structured.
Heres a novel idea... read the main pages description of the game here you go,

Make friends, join or create alliances, improve your economy, trade with other players, construct buildings, research countless technologies, build up armies and air force, grow peacefully evading conflict, or mobilise your armies and go to war! Whichever path you take, the choice is only yours.
since you dont like the way some people play, why not make your own game and go play with yourself til your hearts content...

Actually for the record, since TIE's apparently so Evil.... it might interest you to know we ve NEVER EVER massed a player outside of the:

First WR/TIE war.
Second WR/ TIE war.
This war.

Not a single player has been targeted by The Imperium Empire outside of those war's. True.. some of our members have had their own little wars - but TIE itself i.e. as a organisation and group of players/friends - has never targeted anyone.

Why don't you ask TOC if they can claim the same?

Anyway... the point stands - TIE's only requirements when it comes to farming of us are that player's have an economy to support their strike, and that their targets have XXX kuwal out before they are hit. If you don't like it... go farm someone else.

Remember - players who CHOOSEto farm TIE aren't doing us any favours - they are hurting and damaging our members.... so why the hell should we be obligated to cuddle up to some small player who's invested weeks/months of resources into his strike and neglected his economy? He can basically farm many of TIE member's who will have spent the time & effort building a income & U.P etc..., while due to having such a crap economy himself - his victims will struggle to be able to farm him back.

How is being struck and farmed, and not being able to strike or farm back fair? Answer: It isn't.

If the small player wants to field a strike large enough to farm other larger players - he needs to take the time & effort to invest into his economy (whether that be income or UP) so that he can build a strike which won't be hard to replace.

In a nutshell then: If someone farms TIE with a strike which is equivalent to a large amount of resources (Daily U.P value and daily income) i.e. 7days+ - then he's damaging TIE & our members. I.e. 10 hits taking 2billion kuwal per hit and killing 300million resources in defence is 23billion damage. 50 hits 106billion damage. 100 hits 230billion damage etc...

Over the course of several weeks... such a player would probably do 100's of hits - and would inflict upwards of 230billion+ damage on TIE. Why should The Imperium sit and tolerate such damage when it would be easier and much cheaper to eliminate that player's strike - knowing it would take him a long time to rebuild it - giving us a reprieve?

If a strikes under 7 days worth of resources there is no incentive for us to remove it really... since its easily replacable and within a week we d be back to the player being farmed. If a player has say... 1months worth of resources invested into a strike, killing that strike will likely stop that player farming TIE to the same extent as what he did for at least several weeks before he can rebuild it....

As for Legion Regime.... I d be careful what you wish for. Myself & The Imperium's patience has long since expired with a large portion of this server - the constant "nasty aggressive TIE" crap is getting exceptionally tiring when you stop to consider just how many players we ve ever massed for farming (0), ever massed for threatening us (0), ever massed to farm/ raid them (0) and ever massed just because we could (0). The only player's we ve ever massed have been in alliances we are at war with.

If TIE's so evil... then what will we have to loose by adopting Legion's regime? - which was zero toleration of ANY farming of themselves AND their officers btw. I have serious doubts about T.O.C's ability to continue this war for much longer - especially given there's still ample targets available in their ranks while TIE have minimal targets left which can be massed with a *largish*difference in favour of the attacker between attacker vs. defender losses. I d especially doubt their ability to continue it if at least another 15 player's join in the side of TIE Wink

That said.... TIE has no wish to continue the war (though a large portion of our member base still do btw). But if people are going to keep calling us Evil, Nasty and aggressive and making unfair demands which will result in TIE being massively damaged AFTER the war by huge farming/raiding of our members.... then we WILL continue it.

by curumo Mon Jul 19, 2010 3:51 pm

Nobody should try to police the server and we don't tell people that they shouldn't farm us. In a nutshell what Ian has stated is that EVERY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST TIE HAS IT'S CONSEQUENCES and the EVERY PLAYER TAKING ACTION AGAINST TIE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. Sorry for the caps but I just want everyone to notice that. This is by no means a way of telling someone how to play. I hope the difference in here is obvious.

Wink

by seaborgium Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:31 pm

Let me help Curumo

curumo wrote:Nobody should try to police the server and we don't tell people that they shouldn't farm us. In a nutshell what Ian has stated is that EVERY ACTION TAKEN AGAINST TIE HAS IT'S CONSEQUENCES and the EVERY PLAYER TAKING ACTION AGAINST TIE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. Sorry for the caps but I just want everyone to notice that. This is by no means a way of telling someone how to play. I hope the difference in here is obvious.

by curumo Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:48 pm

Much oblige m8 Wink

by Lord Ishurue Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:07 pm

Farm policy . Current average army is ~2.5mil / 100% AE

Ok guys . I think this will also address Beldar’s, Lucien Lachance , ian's , & Kenzu's recent views , as well as hitting simplicity in the bullseye .

Minimum profit per hit should be 50% higher of what u steal from a 0 defense inactive account . So 300 mil profit on top of other conditions . ( 300mil is double profit from original 3 tier policy )

Hybrid tier / army size for farming
Also big accounts can not farm small accounts do to very high loses .

To address Nomad’s point on 1-499 etc ill post that to avoid confusion
0 - 499k army size . 550mil stolen
500k army - 1.499mil army 850mil stolen
1.5mil army - 2.499mil army - 1.4bil stolen
2.5mil army - 3.499mil army - 2bil stolen
3.5mil army - 4.99mil army - 3.5bil stolen
5mil army + 4bil stolen plus 20mil for every 1 mil population after the first 5million .

10mil army = 5bil stolen
20mil army = 7bil stolen
30mil army = 9bil stolen

30mil army/20mil army = 1.5

7bil x 1.5 = 10.5bil

20mil army is ~40% AE so im gonna assume 30mil army is about 35% AE ? If a player has 30mil or bigger army please send me a PM ingame to tell me that my AE guess is about right .

40/35= 1.14 answer - 1 = 14%

9bil x 1.14 = 10.26bil

So the 20mil per 1mil population is fairly balanced for much larger accounts .

10mil army AE is ~ 50% give or take 1 or 3 % . That means 1 farmer makes ~25 mil income per turn

25mil x 1million farmers = 25mil . Is what a 10mil army size makes from 1mil farmers .

20mil army AE s ~40% . 50income x .4 = 20 .
20 x 1mil farmers = 20mil per turn .

30mil army AE is prolly 35% ish .
50 income x .35 = 17.5

17.5 x 1mil farmers = 17.5mil per turn

Now
10mil army training 1mil farmers = 25mil per turn = 1.2bil per day
20 mil army training 1mil farmers = 20mil per turn = 960mil per day
30mil army training 1mil farmers = 17.5mil per turn = 840mil per day

Going from extremes . 10mil army size economic difference from someone triple his/her size is only 360mil . The 10mil army guys can easily farm 2 zero defense inactives to make up the difference .

Yes u can say he/she will still be behind 360mil . But it is only 360mil . At that size of an account 360mil is hardly anything to worry about .

The hybrid tiers offers fair protection to smaller players as well as making the very large accounts still farmable .

Looking at both sides for excessive strike clause.

Hmm . Seeing how in the war a lot of strikes were left alone at 80k armed attack supers with MBT .

What about making the excessive strike clause 8 or 9 days worth of economy with a max of 20% population in strike ? This way players who rely on their raw up as their main source of economy will still have to train *some income units * . Also this apllies when TOC & TIE farm others as well as when others farm TOC & TIE .

On the policy about profit % of kuwal stolen . Bad and unfair idea .

Reasons . It is pretty much saying if u want to be farmed then become a danning and max out your atack bonus . If u do not want to get farmed become a miraya and max out your defense bonus . Ntm miraya are strong against danning ( 1% for strike bonus , 1.35% for defense )

Lets assume a danning and miraya have 20% better techs then other races . ( they get a 20% discount on techs ) will assume Huala’s techs are 3% better then the kyora’s and the tech kyora has is 120% . Only the danning has an attack bonus and only the miraya has a defense bonus .

Danning and miraya have 30 points in their race main stat

For farming players
Danning has a 30% attack bonus has a 144% attach tech .
Kyora has 0% attack bonus 120% attack tech
Miraya has 0% has 120% attack tech
Huala has 0% huala has a 124% attach tech

Going with extremes

Danning total strike increase for techs and bonus 144% + 30% = 174% increase
Miraya total strike increase from techs and bonus 120% = 120% increase

174/120 = 45% . This means the danning with a stacked attack bonus can farm 45% faster then the races who do not get an edge on strike . Yes we can say if they want to farm become a danning . But isn’t that issuing demands to players who decide to make a hybrid account as they learn the game better ?

Now for Farming defense
Miraya 144% defense tech 40.5% defense bonus /30 points in defense . = 184.5% defense increase
Danning 120% defense tech = 120% defense increase

184.5/120= 53.75% = players with out a defense bonus and teched stacked account get farmed 53.75% slower then other races besides huala . In huala’s case ~ 48% slower .

Yes the math may be slightly off for the techs .but sure the math is very close .

Remember guys our goal is to make a farm policy that is fair to all playing styles, Players of all sizes , players of all levels of activity .

by ian Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:45 pm

@ LI.

TIE will not agree to any policy which binds our own farming of others. I refer to this bit you said: "Also this applies when TOC & TIE farm others as well as when others farm TOC & TIE" regarding excessive strikes.

I ve said it once - I ll say it again. What TIE does is of none of TOC's concern if it does not involve them. These discussions are about TOC & TIE's relations with one another - they should involve nothing else.

As for the rest - I m going to guess TIE can live with a maximum of 9 days economic generation in strike or 20% army size in strike... but thats as far as we ll be prepared to go.

I m still against Tiers - using your figures and assuming the army size is how many farmers the person has (which it won't be far off):

400k army = 100% - 50 per farmer - 20million income - 550million out = 27.5 turns

500k army = 100% - 50 per farmer - 25million income - 850million out = 34 turns

1.5million army - 100% - 50 per farmer - 75million income - 1.4billion out = 18.6 turns

2.5million = 100% - 50 per farmer - 125million income - 2billion out = 16 turns

5million = 75% - 37.5 per farmer - 187.5million income - 4billion out = 21.3 turns.

10million = 50% - 25 per farmer - 250million income - 5billion out = 20 turns

20million = 40% - 20 per farmer - 400million income - 7billion out = 17.5 turns

30million = 35% - 10= 17.5 per farmer - 525million income - 9billion out = 17.1 turns

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

Something which varies so massively between different players in terms of how many turns worth of income they can have out to be farmable - whether it be 30million+ army size players only having 17 (8.5 hours) income out, 5million having 21 (10.5hours) income out, 500k having 34 (17hours) income out - is not a good policy... especially when TIE on average will be mainly in a different Tier to most of TOC... so if there are differences between the tiers (which there are) there will be differences between how TIE & TOC are mainly treated....

by Kenzu Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:17 pm

seaborgium wrote:As I said before. if someone has a policy they need to have the power to enforce it. If they can't they need to come up with a new policy. So let someone with an over power strike compared to there eco visit me or my friends

Your reasoning might be nice and good at the first sight, but one day you might realise that people don't want to be treated worse than how you want them to treat Imperium. This method is only good if you want to undermine your own alliance. Why would you want even more people to hate you? Just because you can?

Just because someone isn't strong enough to enforce same rules against you that you force upon them, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't accept their wish to be treated the same way as you want to be treated.

Therefore everyone must be given the choice to join the farming policy that TOC and TIE will agree on.

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

good points ishurue, however, if we are to agree on an excessive strike clause it can not be composed of X days eco and Y % population in strike. It has to be ONLY percentage of population in strike. 20% sounds reasonable, even though it can still be problematic for a couple players, but I guess everyone has to adjust sooner or later.

TIERS?

It doesnt matter at all how much kuwal you steal. All that matters is how much profit you make. Why bother having rules on how much kuwal you have to steal from what person?

Let's make a compromise.
I will accept that only players who have less than 20% population in strike are allowed to farm.

but then I would also like to see a farming policy to be based on % of profit.

We need a simple farming policy.

I offer to provide everyone with an excell sheet for download which they can use for farming. All you need to type in is:

Enemy def
Your strike
ammount of your supers
weapon you use

and it will spit out what is your minimum and maximum profit.

I suggest 15% profit. Do you want more or less?

I think ian once mentioned that no one should be farmed for 11 hours of income, right? Let's take 14 hours as a base, and lets take a couple model examples of players, with different armysizes, maybe 500k, 1 million, 2million, 5 million and 10 million

Then we figure out how much kuwal and defense they would have after 14 hours, calculate the typical profit we would expect and then the calculated average would be used for our farming policy, which would be based simply on profit in terms of percent of kuwal stolen.

The number we are looking for is anywhere between 10 and 30 %.

PS: There would be 2 exceptions:
-no minimum profit for zero def players,
-players can have 20k strike units no matter their armysize (basically players with less than 100k, would be allowed to have more than 20%, but not more than 20k).

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

on ishurues post below my post, his new tier system looks good.
but why using tiers if we can use profit marigins?

Population tiers
0- 1,000,000 = 150mil profit ( profit is high because u can go hit a 0 defense account )
1million1 - 2million = 300mil profit
2mil1 - 3mil = 450mil profit
3mil1 - 4mil = 600mil profit
4mil1-5mil = 750mil profit

5mil1 - 7mil = 1.3bil profit ( This is where TIE and FIRE/WR old policy cuts off )
7mil1 -9mil = 1.6bil profit
9mil1 - 11mil = 1.9bil profit
11mil1 - 13mil = 2.2bil profit
13mil1 - 15mil = 2.5bil profit

15mil1 - 18mil = 2.9 bil profit
18mil1 - 21mil = 3.2bil
21.1mil-24mil= 3.5bil profit
24.1mil- 27mil = 3.8bil profit
28mil + = 4.bil profit

by Lord Ishurue Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:29 pm

ian wrote:@ LI.

TIE will not agree to any policy which binds our own farming of others. I refer to this bit you said: "Also this applies when TOC & TIE farm others as well as when others farm TOC & TIE" regarding excessive strikes.

I ve said it once - I ll say it again. What TIE does is of none of TOC's concern if it does not involve them. These discussions are about TOC & TIE's relations with one another - they should involve nothing else.

Point taken . still had to mention it after veiwing other players posts .

ian wrote:As for the rest - I m going to guess TIE can live with a maximum of 9 days economic generation in strike or 20% army size in strike... but thats as far as we ll be prepared to go.

k . but it was both . the 20% and 9 day eco combined is to prevent players with huge ups and no income
from farming TIE & TOC . yes up is economy but your relying on someone to pay a set amount . and if a war broke out in which TIE and TOC were not involved in ... their is a great chance the UU price would drop significantly .

ian wrote:I m still against Tiers - using your figures and assuming the army size is how many farmers the person has (which it won't be far off):

Yes the figures were off . i was trying to compare the profit from the 5 tier policy and doubling it into kuwal stolen .

Looking at the 5 tier . the same thing that happened to the 3 tier has happened to the 5 tier .
The 5 tier was a good policy but it has been out grown .

Mentioning damage . the 5 tier . highest profit was 1.2bil . So like the 3 tier . a player with 3bil defense getting farmed for the same profit as a 500mil defense is unfair , this they suffer a lot more damage.

You do like like seeing a player 25 times smaller then your account, trying to farm you . mainly cuz their is no chance of you farming them back profitably . ( Fairness sake ) Kenzu mentioned the same about small players trying to farm big ones .

in DWs you can not farm an account who is a certain amount of ranks weaker .

If your 30 times bigger then a player you can not farm them unless your at war or some type of personal battle etc . . 1mil army x 30 = 30mil army . how much profit is a 30mil army account going to make from a 1mil . even if the 1mil army had 500mil defense the 30mil army ( assuming they have a strike with 9 days of eco ) is going to be something like 240k attack supers with Mobile artillery . Resulting in billions of damage to their account . ( not as high if they farmed someone with a similar defense , but admin has since removed if your strike is 100 times bigger then the defense you take no damage )

If your 30 times smaller then a player you can not farm them unless your at war, or some type of personal battle etc . 1mil army x 30 = 30mil . ok the only way a 1mil army can farm a 30mil is if 90% of his account is in strike , and that would be in violation of the excessive strike clause .

players with 0 defense would not be protected by this . min of 3-5 days of eco in defense to be protected .

5 Tier policy: TIE's old policy . FIRE WR was very similar .

1power to 200 million defence power: Minimum of 75million profit needed . Who has 200mil defense 500k army size players ???
200million power to 500million defence power: Minimum of 150million profit needed 500mil maybe players around 1mil army
500million power to 1billion defence power: Minimum of 300million profit needed 1bil defense , hmm players around 2mil army
1billion defence to 2billion defence power: Minimum of 600million profit needed 2bil defense . players around 3.5mil army .
2billion+ defence power: Minimum of 1.2billion profit needed. 2bil + defense . players 4mil and higher .
Now 4mil army is 8 times smaller then the rank 1 army size. 4mil army is 5 times smaller then the 2 -4 ranked army sizes . 4mil army size is 3.5-4 times smaller then the 5 - 15 ranked army sizes .

FIRE & WR old policy .
1power to 200 million defense Action : Minimum of 100million profit needed
200million power to 500million defense power: Minimum of 200million profit needed
500million power to 1billion defense power: Minimum of 350million profit needed
1billion defense to 2billion defense power: Minimum of 600million profit needed
2billion+ defense power: Minimum of 1billion profit needed.

15 tier policy first 5 tiers increase by 1mil army , next 5 tiers increase by 2 mil army . next 5 tiers increase by 3mil .

Population tiers
0- 1,000,000 = 150mil profit ( profit is high because u can go hit a 0 defense account )
1million1 - 2million = 300mil profit
2mil1 - 3mil = 450mil profit
3mil1 - 4mil = 600mil profit
4mil1-5mil = 750mil profit

5mil1 - 7mil = 1.3bil profit ( This is where TIE and FIRE/WR old policy cuts off )
7mil1 -9mil = 1.6bil profit
9mil1 - 11mil = 1.9bil profit
11mil1 - 13mil = 2.2bil profit
13mil1 - 15mil = 2.5bil profit

15mil1 - 18mil = 2.9 bil profit
18mil1 - 21mil = 3.2bil
21.1mil-24mil= 3.5bil profit
24.1mil- 27mil = 3.8bil profit
28mil + = 4.bil profit

by Kenzu Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:07 pm

A good way how to prevent suspicion of sabotage and assassination attacks:

If TOC and TIE set peace on each other, then all players who are at peace cannot sabotage nor assassinate each other. If someone gets sabbed, he could be sabbed only by the people who are neutral or at war with him.

When farming you could set neutral, farm and then set peace again.
If something happens and someone was not at peace, only these people need to be checked.

What do you think?

by curumo Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:42 pm

Talk about a lot of work :S With what I farm this would truly increase my ingame time doing nothing :S

by Sponsored content