Re: TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

by Steveanaya Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:18 pm

As for LI's part, I like it, but I wish I had another 2 mil population. There's a HUGE gap between 4-5 and 5-7. This NEEDS to be fixed.

30%? that seems pretty high! What if someone has 300,000 defense supers but only 10,000 weps? You attack them and you both had a similar counterpart, however, this hit was just a few kuwal from being profitable. That would mean you'd have to pay a LARGE amount of kuwal.

Or, no offense to WR players, but their techs are undeveloped and they take massive losses and your hit would've been profitable if they had a few million more out in the open.

I also kinda liked the idea about 800 kuwal per 1 pop.

That is all for now:)

by Lord Ishurue Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:58 pm

ian wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote: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

[/color]

There's a possibility that could be adopted.... however if it were to be adopted I would like it under the condition that it be for a 28 day trial period (from whenever we allow normal farming/ raiding to happen), after which the T.O.C & TIE leadership meet again to discuss whether the policy is adequate (while discussions are underway we d stick to the policy) and to enact any changes which having seen it in practise... they may feel need to be adopted (after discussion between the respective parties).

Excessive Military Clause:

No more than 9 days worth of economic generation (Unit Production x UU rate decided by the leaders + daily income) invested into strike - if you have more than 9 days your not permitted to farm TIE/ TOC.

No more than 40% of army size invested into military - if you have more than 40% your not permitted to farm TIE/ TOC.

Those with less than 3 days economic generation invested in defence are not covered by the above policy - meaning hits on those members merely have to make a minimum of 150million profit on those members.

Breaches:

ALL breaches get fully compensated in terms of kuwal for training & weapon costs + kuwal stolen, and the UU lost by the defender directly replaced + a 30% fine on top of that i.e. if you kill/take 1billions worth of resources between kuwal stolen & the training/ weapon costs and kill 1000 UU, you compensate 1.3billion kuwal & 1300 UU.

All leaders agree to meet and discuss problematic members who consistently breach the policy and to discuss alternative methods of punishment and whether or not they should be used & under what conditions any agreed alternative punishment should be conducted.

A couple of examples (this list is not exhaustive) of possible alternative methods of punishment:

- Increased fine % (i.e. up from 30% to 60% for example)
- Farming sanctions (not allowed to farm for XXX days, or only allowed to farm in a limited sense etc...)
- Limited sabbing based on a % of weapons to be destroyed I.e. take out 30% of the breacher's weapons - leaving 30% of his supers unarmed which will effectively cripple his ability to profitably farm.
- Limited Assassination.
- Limited Assault (i.e. 50% of defence wiped out) + increased farming of him under a special policy (conditions would be discussed) for XXX days.
- Limited Assault + destruction.
- Complete massing

A discussion would be necessary (rather than pre-defined punishments for breaches) since each member/breacher should be treated on a case by case basis - so basically making sure any punishment fits the crime....

UU rate:

Leaders meet to discuss every month (i.e. set the date at say.. the 25th of every month for example) the UU rate to be adopted by TIE & TOC to enable working out of profit margins, compensation etc...

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

Incidentally I feel we ARE making progress in the peace talks... so in the event (we may finish the talks before) we haven't finished the talks before the ceasefire is due to expire... would TOC be willing to extend it further?

Whats TOC's thoughts on the above... or indeed whats other TIE member's thoughts (I haven't had chance to discuss the above with TIE yet).

Thanks

I cleaned it up a bit . 1 part that should of had some feed back was unoticed . Realm Strength . nerfed some of the tiers to try to simulate weapon upkeep .

Farming Policy .
1. Defense clause - minimum of 3 days economic investment in defense to be covered/protected .
2. Excessive Military clause . A maximum of 9 days of economic generation in strike , with a maximum 40% of your population in military .
3. Realm strength . You can not farm a target player if your army size is 5X smaller or larger then his/her account .
4. If you meet those conditions you must also be with in the tiers.

Tiers by population/ profit ratio per 10 Attack turns . ( 1mil1 = 1,000,001 , and so on )

Army/population________ minimum profit per tier
0 army - 1million army - 200million profit ( high profit , reason why damage an active account when there are plenty of 0 defense farms with same amounts out )
1mil1 - 2million army - 300mil profit
2mil1 - 3million army - 450mil profit
3mil1 - 4milion army - 600mil profit
4mil1 - 5million army - 850 mil profit

5mil1- 7million army - 1.1bil profit ( this is were our old policy cut off . )
7mil1 - 9mil army = 1.3bil profit
9mil1- 11mil army = 1.5bil profit
11mil1 - 13mil army = 1.7bil profit
13mil1 - 15mil army = 1.9bil profit

15mil1 - 18mil army = 2.3bil profit
18mil1- 21mil army = 2.7bil profit
21mil1 - 24mil army = 3.1bil profit
24mil1- 27mil army = 3.5bil profit
27mil1 + = 4bil profit .

The Realm Strength idea behind it . In DWs a term called vulturing exist . ( an uninvolved alliance farming a massed/ player in War).

I guess in a way we could call Farming a player who is to small to farm you back , as well as a small player building up to attempt to farm you while a big player will not be able to farm the heavily armed small player ... Crowing .

A Crow feeds on Weak prey / carrion and at the same time a Murder/ Flock of Crows can Scare a way a Bird of Prey .

Maybe the numbers for the Realm Strength need a bit of tweaking .

by seaborgium Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:06 pm

It happens in all games. Most alliances note names and mass them after the war.

This is retarded...
3. Realm strength . You can not farm a target player if your army size is 5X smaller or larger then his/her account .

by Lord Ishurue Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:33 pm

seaborgium wrote:It happens in all games. Most alliances note names and mass them after the war.

This is retarded...
3. Realm strength . You can not farm a target player if your army size is 5X smaller or larger then his/her account .

instead of saying it is retarded you could post suggestions .

ok . ill give an example.

10million army size . with a strike of 1billion . 5billion defense .

He farms a 2million or even a 1mil army size player .

what are the chances of the 2mil army size player and 1mil army size player building a 5bil strike to be able to farm him and still be with in the Excessive military clause ? nearly impossible.

by Kira Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:23 pm

ian wrote:
Kira wrote:I'm not responsible for any attacks. I never joined curumo as officer and Jiro confirmed my logs as clean. Nice try.

I m afraid publically lieing isn't going to help you (assassinations = attacks) - especially when your supposed defence of "Jiro confirmed my logs as clean" is actually "Jiro confirmed I assassinated at least 1 TIE member - i.e. Viper"

You actually have no proof nor do you know that I attacked more than 1 member.
I see no reason of you posting that. And on top of it Jiro did confirm 1 member. Didn't he?
Oh wait - it wasn't only Jiro. Hmm.. that would mean that you're assuming?

(offtopic) Did you notice that you speak as "TIE" most of the time? Talking about rights.. Did you now notice that buhcore, whose words you do not trust, did not do that?

Hey, If that's all wrong.. would that mean you have no other reason to attack me? Hmm..

ian wrote:
I m well aware your logs before the TIE/ TOC war were wiped by a "divine power". I also fully appreciate and understand why they were wiped - because of the hack done to the game which resulted in your account (like mine, Kenzu's, LI's etc...) being hacked into and whoever was responsible for the hack abusing that access - whether it be disbanding the alliance (in my, kenzu & LI's case), or in your case - making what should be secret information (assassinations/ sabbings) public knowledge via creating that thread:

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f1/kira-hide-anything-much-t1631.htm

Had the hack not happened, that information would not have been public... and you wouldn't have come under as much suspicion by TIE & FIRE. Thereby the only way to *partly* correct the damage done to your account would be for the deletion of the logs by the divine power, hopefully thereby clearing you.

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Did admin add potions or something..? I'm missing something.

ian wrote:
- You assassinated Viper at the start of the war - without ever actually being in the war, having anything done to you to be in the war, or making it known you were in the war - and you ve never made it known you were in the war right up untill this very second at typing.

Wasn't it before war?
Tricky me.. I was in war. O_o
It seems a bit inhuman to think of all that as maybe.. let's say a "plan".

ian wrote:
- The assassination hits would probably have appeared as ??? in TIE's logs - and in a war, the logical TIE conclusion would be they were by TOC - not by you.
- Consequently the logical conclusion is you attacked TIE secretly, hoping we d interpret the attacks as being by TOC - thereby preventing yourself being caught and avoiding any retaliation.

I attacked TIE? I though I attacked Viper for war experience like someone from TIE.
How come I did so much damage so I should be massed right over the peace - Didn't I attack him only 9 times?
Of course I'm willing to pay that back. But it is strange.

Plus I had no clue Viper was part of TIE at that time - TIE was hidden.

by jerry1 Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:34 pm

I can't believe I just read all of this - 17 pages....

What is there to show for it! A cease fire that ends in, what, 5 days...
Continued arguments about who did what to whom and when. A few personal vendetta messages, and a shed load of snipping an pissy remarks.

And as far as I can see nothing else...

If a farming policy is required to secure peace between TOC and TIE I highly suggest you make it as simple as possible.

15 tier policy... lol sorry no, I aint gonna spend half an hour before I do a farm hit to see if its in a tier and profitable only to have it skewed by % after the hit or, more likely, for some one else taking the res 1st.
Or, % of force vs % defence * profitability or however its put I'm mean what??? Half the time I got no idea what these numbers mean let alone how to follow them.

I, for one, would like to see a policy that just says you need to make x profit after the hit for it to be profitable across the board; with added no more than x hits by any 1 player over a 7 day period (standard so far being 3) on active players. Does not apply to 0 defence... Basically I'm lazy and all I want to do is look at the screen and know if I press the strike key for a kuwal hit it'll probably be profitably if its above 'x' in range else don't hit the strike key. Now if I gotta sit here with an exel spread sheet first or a page full of math I really dont care about it aint gonna happen an I'm probably gonna start an alliance war by accident lol.

As for mistakes - I recon a small window of leway should be given. 1. because of game mechanics and %'s of hitting a player , 2. because I doubt I'm alone in being lazy an not wanting to spend ages working out if a hit is profitable or not but just want to guage if it looks about right. I'd say 3 reported errors acceptable within a resonable margin of profitability before action should be taken to try and minimise these errors (and so it can't be abused as a farming trick!)

((*personal opionion here: I didn't agree to this cease fire - it just kinda happened and since I'm in TIE alliance I'm following it. I have yet to see any reason to actually do so thou, and the continued arguments an counters are doing nothing to change my mind about continuing this war. However I listen to Command and will abide by what is decided here.*))

by ian Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:40 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
seaborgium wrote:It happens in all games. Most alliances note names and mass them after the war.

This is retarded...
3. Realm strength . You can not farm a target player if your army size is 5X smaller or larger then his/her account .

instead of saying it is retarded you could post suggestions .

ok . ill give an example.

10million army size . with a strike of 1billion . 5billion defense .

He farms a 2million or even a 1mil army size player .

what are the chances of the 2mil army size player and 1mil army size player building a 5bil strike to be able to farm him and still be with in the Excessive military clause ? nearly impossible.

TIE won't be agreeing to *ANY* realm clause. Ever.

Why? Because that effectively rights of a very large chunk of TOC from being farmed by a large portion of TIE - while players like yourself and a small minority of Mujengen can and will happily farm the majority of TIE. Its basically economic sanctions on TIE... albeit unintentional.

If a small player gets farmed by a larger player and can't farm back... tough luck on the small player. For him to get farmed it means he's had the kuwal out to satisfy the required profit under the proposed policy in the first place - THAT is enough protection. As long as he stays active enough & has a reasonable defence to make it so he doesn't have enough kuwal out to satisfy the profit requirements... then he's protected - just like as long as a large player doesn't have enough kuwal out to satisfy the profit margins he ll be protected from being farmed by another medium/ large player....

As i said though - this is one massive economic sanction which will cripple TIE. Its not the small players in TOC who are the main farmers of TIE - its the larger TOC players... meaning your farming of us will go mainly unaffected... while at the same WR & the smaller members in TOC make up a sizable portion of TIE's targets for farming we do on TOC - meaning this will effectively cripple TIE's farming of TOC.

Any clause which seeks to do the above... will get shot down without a 2nd thought....

by ian Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:29 pm

jerry1 wrote:((*personal opionion here: I didn't agree to this cease fire - it just kinda happened and since I'm in TIE alliance I'm following it. I have yet to see any reason to actually do so thou, and the continued arguments an counters are doing nothing to change my mind about continuing this war. However I listen to Command and will abide by what is decided here.*))

Summary of the below: You ve all read about T.O.C's plan and its involvement in leading up to this war - that plan was to create a 2nd superpower able to effectively economically & militarily challenge The Imperium, and depending on who you talk to - to actively attack and topple The Imperium with the aim of permanently breaking our own economic and military domination of AW. This is documented in Kingofshibobis (Mujengen's former 2i.c and LI's trusted right-hand man) and Vesper's revelations here: https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f1/truth-of-tie-vs-toc-t1735.htm

Below is how the First Great TIE-TOC war fitted into The Imperium's plan.

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

For the record: Myself and the other TIE High Command members ended the war because we felt it was damaging the game in terms of encouraging players to quit - and because if it continued T.O.C inevitably would have been damaged beyond repair (bare in mind multiple groups of strong players were prepared to enter on the side of TIE... which given TIE alone was slowly winning the attrition war... would have been very bad for T.O.C).

I m a realist - and as such I m realistic enough to know TOC's leadership would never contemplate surrender, regardless of what we did to them or the suffering sustained by their members - they have drawn a line against TIE, and will hold it no matter the cost.

I m also realistic enough to know a large portion of T.O.C believe blindly in what they are told (I.e. Kenzu's messages to WR saying how they are winning the war) and ignore all evidence to the contrary - such as the sheer difference in member experience between TIE & TOC (remember - TIE had virtually the same experience as Mujengen alone at the start of the war.... while we had more players! Now we have less players and have about 6/7's of TOC's total member experience), the vast drops in TOC membership, the vast drop in army size, the vast drop in power... and the ever growing list of players with zero or low defences along with the massive farming differences in favour of TIE compared to T.O.C etc...

TOC is many thing's - but above all they are determined and dedicated (take this as a complement please guys lol). They would choose to fight & die than surrender - and the war would have dragged on & on - all the while more and more players involved in it would have left AW or become ever more inactive due to loosing enthusiasm to play it.

THAT was my main concern - the health of the game. Since the war began the "active users online" has plummeted from regularly being 60+ at the start of the war to often being below 45.

There's also the secondary consideration that i know just how boring it can be if TIE is left unchallenged during peace-time and just how easy it is for our members to become complacent and loose focus - not putting as much effort into growing etc... if there is no visible threat or competition to encourage them. If TIE continued this war and eventually beat T.O.C into submission - what then? There wouldn't be anyone left to oppose us really.... so believe it or not we (TIE) have a vested interest in ensuring TOC's survival/ that they remain a threat to TIE in order to act as the encouragement to our own members to put maximum effort into growing etc... in peace time - as if we loose focus... when T.O.C inevitably seeks revenge at a later date they might just succeed.

TOC being still semi-intact now means they are enough of a encouragement to TIE to rebuild to ever greater heights & strengths. Likewise... anger, resentment and hostility towards TIE is enough to ensure TOC's members will also put maximum effort into their accounts in peace-time so as to make a successful revenge possible - which in turn will spur TIE on even more into become even greater than we were.

If you think back to the interval where TIE had crushed WR completely in the 2nd war, and before Mujengen had really become a major power - what happened? We became ever more bored with AW - both myself and the members. Our forum activity and alliance activity slowly dropped due to nothing "exciting" happening, and many of our stronger members became highly complacent and didn't really bother farming/raiding due to not many other players really coming close to them.

Simply put: TIE was dieing due to boredom. Then Lord Ishurue & Mujengen increased their farming of TIE... so myself and the HC made the conscious decision (the day after Vesper messaged me asking what the hell had happened to TIE while he had been banned lol) to actively start enforcing the farming policy knowing it would lead to tension and war in the long-run - making things more interesting thereby reawakening TIE. The result? The day after I sabbed Ayayai (which btw was a cold and calculated move to encourage FIRE to speed up its plans to challenge TIE) for her farming of myself FIRE & WR announced their defense alliance - laying the seeds for this war.

They then proceeded to water those seeds by contacting several other alliances (i.e. Emperors) and began planning the formation of T.O.C - all the while in which TIE slowly but surely awoke from its 9+month slumber and hibernation with a careful diet of increased farming of our members by TOC, an increasing awareness among our members that they aren't so strong/in-front of the server as they used to be (thereby some increased their farming, activity and effort) and an increasing desire among our members to rise to the challenge of TOC and the desire to ensure that The Imperium's dominion of Aderan Wars doesn't go out with a whimper... but with a very loud bang - or even better to ensure it continued regardless of the best efforts of those who sought to challenge it.

T.O.C's growing hostility and aggression to TIE was the defibrillator which brought TIE back to life. Had it not been for their efforts to get into a position to eventually challenge us, we would have become ever more inactive and bored... and more and more of our members would have become ever more complacent and become ever more disinterested in AW.

Lord Ishurue & Kenzu's desire to topple/challenge TIE ironically actually saved TIE. Without the threat and competition posed by them... we would have declined in activity and interest until we d have reached the point of no return - where even massive effort & activity would not have been enough to regain lost ground. This isn't opinion - its a fact. As TIE's leader I watched as many of TIE's farming & raiding dropped over those 9months after the 2nd WR war, and as our forum became ever more quiet - though granted my interest in AW dropped massively as well so ultimately I failed in my responsibilities as leader (to keep TIE interested and active via whatever method i could I.e. competitions, targets etc...)

People fail to understand that the greatest challenge isn't becoming the strongest or becoming number 1 - its finding the motivation and will to keep pushing forward and keep going on at the same rate when you ve already become number 1, and when nothing else seems to come even close. The temptation to relax and loose focus is irresistible... and from there onwards you fall into a habit of ever less motivation and interest.

Its no coincidence that The Commonwealth's greatest growth and achievement era's were when we were actively pushing ourselves to catch Black Watch and Dynasty on Dune-wars... and actively pushing ourselves to catch The Company, World Republic and Geto-dacii on Aderan Wars - we achieved what we did due to having a target (becoming the best) to focus on, and the necessity of high motivation ingame to achieve that target. Its also no coiincidence that The Commonwealths "fall" on Dune Wars started the moment Dynasty died and Nexus was crippled - from there our members became ever more bored and disinterested due to a lack of threats/ competition untill Sinath and TOIF came along - by which point it was too late to reawaken the fire of growth and interest.

Its also no coincidence that Mujengen's greatest growth and achievements have been when they ve been striding to catch up to The Imperium - because they (like TC) have/had a target to focus upon and tp set-tangible (touchable/ seeable) targets to reach (i.e. total army size, power, economy or whatever). When your the largest its a lot harder to set targets and remain focused - since often such targets are hypothetical and lack motivational stimulus (I.e. there's nothing quite as motivating as catching and exceeding someone is there? - such as catching and overtaking the leading power - but if your already the leading power, there isn't the same sense of urgency or need to meet set targets).

This time on AW I won't make the same mistake as i did on Dune Wars - for TIE to remain the most powerful and strongest alliance we need competition to ensure maximum focus & motivation. If all the competition is small/irrelevant by comparison... or is dead... then that motivation will not exist and our focus will be lost. If by chance (since we ve ended the war before terminal damage has been done to TOC) we cease being the stongest or most powerful alliance... then its not a problem - for we then will have a clear objective & target to achieve (retaking our former position) to motivate our members and ourselves towards.

Either way... TIE's long term prosperity and probably even survival, is linked to that of T.O.C's (or any other power which may rise up to meet TIE). Likewise... TOC's continued survival and prosperity is linked to TIE (or any other power which may rise up to meet TIE) - for without the threat of TIE, how long would it be before TOC breaks apart (likely so Mujengen could farm WR) or otherwise its members start to "relax" more and become less focused (i.e. become less strict with what they spend their resources on etc...) - thereby setting the deadly cycle of "relax, spend less time/effort on AW, thereby loose motivation/interest and consequently spend even more less time/effort on AW" starts?

The above is why I m interested in peace lol - though if the peace-treaty can't be agreed upon or if the terms are unsatisfactory, given the majority of TIE are happy to continue war... the option to continue war does remain distinctly possible.

And yes... incase your wondering - LI, Kenzu and all the other's played their planned roles perfectly in reawakening & saving The Imperium from what would have been a long, painful and drawn out death and decay as our members would have continued their steady decline of a loss of interest,motivation and activity - something I desperately sought to avoid when I rediscovered my own interest in AW (the day after Vesper contacted me asking what the hell had happened to TIE) - since thats EXACTLY what happened to The Commonwealth on DW (albeit we rose one last time, too late for ourselves though, to hold the line against TOIF for 3months, buying BW time to close the gap and eventually with TC help beat and break TOIF)/

TOC really did shoot themselves in the foot by seeking to challenge TIE... since without their (Very much welcomed by me btw) attempt to do so - TIE's fall was all but guaranteed and they d have inherited/become the strongest by default. Mujengen ultimately lost out the most though - since TIE's decay would have continued had they not challenged us & allied with WR... meaning they d have become the number 1 power (probably around about now actually) without needing to ally themselves and be bound to WR, or without sacrificing countless 10's of millions of UU and trillions of kuwal in a war which resulted in more damage to themselves than TIE. All they had to do was to do what they had done for the 9months after the 2nd WR/TIE war... and thats to remain quiet, bide their time, keep growing strongly and try to be friends with TIE. In this... they happily made the worst decision possible and sought to confront TIE, thereby reawakening, motivating and inevitably saving TIE Smile

I always get a warm glowing feeling in my chest when our enemies plans tend to fit nicely in with my own plans/requirements... TOC always thought I had a grand plan - except they always thought it was about the destruction of themselves... when really its always been about reawakening and saving The Imperium... namely by sitting back and letting them do what they ve always planned all along (to challenge TIE) - something which means they are now single-handedly responsible for awakening and thereby saving The Imperium.

T.O.C... the great and effective defibrillator - delivering shots of life into otherwise bored dead alliances (Literally). My thanks to each and everyone of TOC - without you TIE's activity rates would be no where near as high as they are now, and around about now Mujengen would be rank 1 Wink

by Zar Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:58 pm

Instead of talking and talking and talking you all should just join the reset server. Atleast with a reset server there can be a clear winner, and then it starts over and gives the other side an equal chance to win the next one.

by Jiro Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:09 pm

Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

by ian Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:21 pm

Jiro wrote:Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

Let me clarify. Is what your suggesting the profit should be X times the defence?

I.e. Profit = 0.8 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.8billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.6billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 2.4billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 3.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 4billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 4.8billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 5.6billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 6.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 7.2billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 8billion profit needed

I think it could actually work - especially if you expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

That actually was TIE's main problem with the old WR policy btw... that all their members had huge defences vs. their income and thereby the policy requiring XXX profit basically in terms of the affects it had was a No-Farming policy. If you can eliminate the possibility of people building huge defences vs. income which makes it impossible for someone of poor activity to be farmed getting the profit levels required of a policy... then I have no problem with it.

by curumo Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:27 pm

As a heavy farmer myself I'd refrain from such policies really - why? Mostly because of the random attack modifier which CAN and sometimes WILL change a VERY well looking hit into a completely non-proffitable hit :S

For me it's mostly like - if I make a proffit hitting you above 200-300 I will ... and I think it's rather reasonable and a lot less work. People just need to wake up and realize that there ARE ways to lower their income and that instead of complaining about getting farmed (if the hits are proffitable, ofc) they should think again and ask themselves one small albeit very important question - WHY are they being attacked? Is it because they have too much kuwal out? Or is someone trying to piss them off? If it's the first - then said people DESERVE to loose their kuwal to someone who is actually active in this game. And yes I do get farmed myself and no if the hit is proffitable enough you won't hear me complain - just ask the people who farmed me.

My two cents.

by Lord Ishurue Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:00 pm

curumo wrote:
yes I do get farmed myself and no if the hit is proffitable enough you won't hear me complain - just ask the people who farmed me.

Ye Curumo is real cool about farming . I farmed him when he was in the middle of a farm run once . He sent me a message saying something like ah Ish you couldn't of waited for me to rain the units Wink

. nice hit .

also in this War. Curumo is the #1 person who has stolen from me . he took 45bil from me this war.

The policy i posted the 15 tiers . minus the Realm Strength . Your farming gains would not be severely reduced .
The main Theme so to speak of my policy is If you do not want to get farmed, Nerf your income and build a decent defense .

Where as a defense based policy requires a player arm 16 days worth of economic generation into defense .

For example. lets Say a player who is top 10 ranks joined u as an officer . u guys agreed to a 200k rate . but u pay him 40% of your income which ends up to a 400k rate . he then brokers u the the difference to prevent farming while still keeping your economy in tact .

on defense farm policies . TIE, Mujengan , WR, Emperors , each have a different defense regulation/ suggested account build . as long as those 4 alliance have different defense regulations/ suggested account build , the farm policy will always be unbiased .

by Lord Ishurue Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:20 pm

ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

Let me clarify. Is what your suggesting the profit should be X times the defence?

I.e. Profit = 0.8 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.8billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.6billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 2.4billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 3.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 4billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 4.8billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 5.6billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 6.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 7.2billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 8billion profit needed

I think it could actually work - especially if you expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

That actually was TIE's main problem with the old WR policy btw... that all their members had huge defences vs. their income and thereby the policy requiring XXX profit basically in terms of the affects it had was a No-Farming policy. If you can eliminate the possibility of people building huge defences vs. income which makes it impossible for someone of poor activity to be farmed getting the profit levels required of a policy... then I have no problem with it.

hmm . So an Excessive Defense Clause ?

which would make excessive defense useless ?
I doubt it will go through . Which is why i have been strongly for The army size one with min defense .

I was in favor of an excessive defense clause months ago . I doubt it will now pass , best of luck .

by Jiro Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:43 pm

ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

Let me clarify. Is what your suggesting the profit should be X times the defence?

I.e. Profit = 0.8 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.8billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.6billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 2.4billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 3.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 4billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 4.8billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 5.6billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 6.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 7.2billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 8billion profit needed

I think it could actually work - especially if you expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

That actually was TIE's main problem with the old WR policy btw... that all their members had huge defences vs. their income and thereby the policy requiring XXX profit basically in terms of the affects it had was a No-Farming policy. If you can eliminate the possibility of people building huge defences vs. income which makes it impossible for someone of poor activity to be farmed getting the profit levels required of a policy... then I have no problem with it.

That's exactly what I meant, though I think that 0,8 is too high. It'd mean that for a 800M defence, I'd need 800M * 0,8 = 640M (profit) + 100M (attack turns) + 1000 * (150000 (training) + 175000 (UU) + 308000 (MBT) = 633000) = 1370M Kuwal stolen in order to farm profitably. For a 10B defence this would be 8B (profit) + 0,1B (attack turns) + 6,3B (losses) = 14.5B Kuwal stolen. 0,5 is more in line with the older tier systems.
If all parties think this is workable, then we can haggle about what the number should be. If the consensus is that it needs to be based upon army size, the magic number should be something different. (Like 200(number) * 5M (army size) = 1000M Kuwal profit.) I like defence strength however, not army size.

by Kingofshinobis1 Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:50 am

Jiro wrote:
ian wrote:
Jiro wrote:Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

Let me clarify. Is what your suggesting the profit should be X times the defence?

I.e. Profit = 0.8 times the defence?

So:

Defence of 1billion = 0.8billion profit needed
Defence of 2billion = 1.6billion profit needed
Defence of 3billion = 2.4billion profit needed
Defence of 4billion = 3.2billion profit needed
Defence of 5billion = 4billion profit needed
Defence of 6billion = 4.8billion profit needed
Defence of 7billion = 5.6billion profit needed
Defence of 8billion = 6.4billion profit needed
Defence of 9billion = 7.2billion profit needed
Defence of 10billion = 8billion profit needed

I think it could actually work - especially if you expand the excessive military clause to cover BOTH strike & defence. I.e. someone will be unable to farm TIE or TOC if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 9 days economic generation invested into strike.

Someone will fall outside of the above policy and consequently be able to be farmed (simply requiring a 150million profit) if:

- They have 40% of their army size invested into military
- They have more than 18 days economic generation invested into defence

Basically it means for someone to have a high defence they ll need a high economy & thereby should still be farmable under the above system. If you simply base a policy on defence with no clause for excessive defences though you ll end up with people having a huge income vs. their defence, making them unfarmable.

That actually was TIE's main problem with the old WR policy btw... that all their members had huge defences vs. their income and thereby the policy requiring XXX profit basically in terms of the affects it had was a No-Farming policy. If you can eliminate the possibility of people building huge defences vs. income which makes it impossible for someone of poor activity to be farmed getting the profit levels required of a policy... then I have no problem with it.
That's exactly what I meant, though I think that 0,8 is too high. It'd mean that for a 800M defence, I'd need 800M * 0,8 = 640M (profit) + 100M (attack turns) + 1000 * (150000 (training) + 175000 (UU) + 308000 (MBT) = 633000) = 1370M Kuwal stolen in order to farm profitably. For a 10B defence this would be 8B (profit) + 0,1B (attack turns) + 6,3B (losses) = 14.5B Kuwal stolen. 0,5 is more in line with the older tier systems.
If all parties think this is workable, then we can haggle about what the number should be. If the consensus is that it needs to be based upon army size, the magic number should be something different. (Like 200(number) * 5M (army size) = 1000M Kuwal profit.) I like defence strength however, not army size.

This is what I talked to ian about. Mainly the 80% of the defense thing. Now I could understand that if that was the AMOUNT TAKEN but not the AMOUNT OF PROFIT. Its ridiculous imo but I do like the idea.

by melonhead Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:05 am

this tier policy is dumb, if a hit is profitable you should take it....

limiting attacks and trying not to be farmed defeats the whole purpose of this game.. and if someone cant attack cause they decided to mainly build there strike and hit others instead of playing like everyone else...thats dumb...

by Kingofshinobis1 Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:07 am

melonhead wrote:this tier policy is dumb, if a hit is profitable you should take it....

limiting attacks and trying not to be farmed defeats the whole purpose of this game.. and if someone cant attack cause they decided to mainly build there strike and hit others instead of playing like everyone else...thats dumb...

your in the wrong game then bud. politics run this game lol

by seaborgium Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:18 am

KoS, I can show you how 15 players can fix that.

by Zar Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:27 am

Play it as a war game, all this peace is unbecoming and dull. I really dont think anyone in their right mind cares to read 20 pages of talks about confusing farming policies that have no place in a game that is heavily based in military.

If you wanna hit sombody hit them, if they wanna hit you back they will. Thats as simple as it should be.

by Kenzu Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:00 pm

Jiro wrote:Has anyone farmed lately? With attack turns priced at 10M a piece, any hit below 100M Kuwal means a loss for the attacker.
I think that this 100M Kuwal fixed cost per hit already protects the smaller players (who generally have smaller amounts of Kuwal.)
So a simple rule where the profit should exceed a factor times defence already means that you'd hit for 100M Kuwal + a * defence strength, where a is the factor agreed upon.
Let's say that we agree on a=0,5, then you'd have the following minimal amounts of Kuwal stolen if you never lose a unit:
defence | Kuwal stolen
10M | 105M
100M | 150M
1000M | 600M
10000M| 5100M
There are no tiers and the calculations are easy to do. Just estimate how many units you'll lose, add a base amount for attack turns and a percentage of the defence.

I like your suggestion. Would be a good idea if people would stop blabering arround making complex proposals, when it has been proven so many times that a simple proposal can be a good one.

@people supporting ammount of hits per day/week
I dont want any restrictions on ammount of times to farm someone. If someone doesn't bother spending his kuwal and keeps low defense on purpose, he can be farmed even 10 times a day.

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

I continue to suggest a simple farming policy:

Minimum 25% profit required on each hit. That's 25% of total kuwal stolen.

by LurantMaximus Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:16 am

I will be sending a pm to alexei shortly but this is to alert all TIE HC that alexei has violated the ceasefire agreement by farming a WR (TOC) player, Spiracy2con. If compensation isn't given within 48 hours TOC will take whatever action it deems fit for this violation (including but not limited to massing his Strike). This is a generous time span to give alexei seeing as all alliance members were notified of the ceasefire and it hasn't even reached the final day of this agreement. That is all.
LurantMaximus

by ian Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:05 am

LurantMaximus wrote:I will be sending a pm to alexei shortly but this is to alert all TIE HC that alexei has violated the ceasefire agreement by farming a WR (TOC) player, Spiracy2con. If compensation isn't given within 48 hours TOC will take whatever action it deems fit for this violation (including but not limited to massing his Strike). This is a generous time span to give alexei seeing as all alliance members were notified of the ceasefire and it hasn't even reached the final day of this agreement. That is all.
LurantMaximus

Alexei doesn't have SS. The hit: 188,019,576 Kuwal Stolen, 62 enemy dead. Spiracy2con hasn't got SS either, so I compensated him directly.

62 x 112,000 (APC) = 6,944,000 kuwal
62 x 150,000 (training cost) = 9,300,000 kuwal

Total: 16,244,000 + 188,019,576 = 204,263,576 x 1.3 (fine) = 265,542,648.
62 x 1.3 = 80.1 UU - call it 81 UU.

[22 Jul] 20:05 You sent Spiracy2con 81 untrained units.
[22 Jul] 20:04 You sent Spiracy2con 265,542,648 Kuwal.

Compensation Given Smile

by LurantMaximus Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:17 am

Thank you. I will pass it onto WR.
LurantMaximus

by Beldar Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:59 am

jerry1 wrote:
If a farming policy is required to secure peace between TOC and TIE I highly suggest you make it as simple as possible.

15 tier policy... lol sorry no, I aint gonna spend half an hour before I do a farm hit to see if its in a tier and profitable only to have it skewed by % after the hit or, more likely, for some one else taking the res 1st.
Or, % of force vs % defence * profitability or however its put I'm mean what??? Half the time I got no idea what these numbers mean let alone how to follow them.
As for mistakes - I recon a small window of leway should be given. 1. because of game mechanics and %'s of hitting a player , 2. because I doubt I'm alone in being lazy an not wanting to spend ages working out if a hit is profitable or not but just want to guage if it looks about right. I'd say 3 reported errors acceptable within a resonable margin of profitability before action should be taken to try and minimise these errors (and so it can't be abused as a farming trick!)

Amen :p

I trully not gonna use anything further than the little time i have to hunt for gold to check if a hit abides to any kind of policy or not...

I usually hunt 0 defense inactives but sometimes i might hit an active player with huge gold on whom i THINK i will have a better profit than the inactives... I base my view on my experience and if the hit proves to be inactive, i will not hit the same player with the same ammount of kuwal but only for much much more... So far it works for me and i have not hear any complaints...

by Sponsored content