Re: Peace Treaty between World Republic and Imperium

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:09 am

Kenzu wrote:There might be some misunderstanding. You wrote:

Defence size : Profitability ratio.

In a nut shell - the attacker must make a profit (in kuwal's value) equal to 35% of the defenders defence size.

This means a 100million defence = the attacker need only make 35million kuwal profit.

This means a 400million defence = the attacker need only make 140million kuwal profit.

800million defence = the attacker need only make 280million kuwal profit etc... etc...

=>

I thought you mean
Defence size : kuwal steal ratio
for 1 defense, you must steal 1.35 kuwal.

we should stick with values which can be easily checked. profit is harder to check than defense and kuwal stolen.

Very well. 1 : 1.35 kuwal out it is.

So a 100million defence can have 135million kuwal out before it is farmed (any farming before then would be in breach of TIE farming policy) and a 1billion defence can have 1.35billion out etc.... If The Order's ok with that, then i m ok with that - and it will become part of the TIE farming policy.

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:34 am

ian wrote:
Kenzu wrote:There might be some misunderstanding. You wrote:

Defence size : Profitability ratio.

In a nut shell - the attacker must make a profit (in kuwal's value) equal to 35% of the defenders defence size.

This means a 100million defence = the attacker need only make 35million kuwal profit.

This means a 400million defence = the attacker need only make 140million kuwal profit.

800million defence = the attacker need only make 280million kuwal profit etc... etc...

=>

I thought you mean
Defence size : kuwal steal ratio
for 1 defense, you must steal 1.35 kuwal.

we should stick with values which can be easily checked. profit is harder to check than defense and kuwal stolen.

Very well. 1 : 1.35 kuwal out it is.

So a 100million defence can have 135million kuwal out before it is farmed (any farming before then would be in breach of TIE farming policy) and a 1billion defence can have 1.35billion out etc.... If The Order's ok with that, then i m ok with that - and it will become part of the TIE farming policy.

1.35 out in comparison to defense is too high , .
When I farm I only recon if it says High . Does this mean I will have to do a recon on Moderate and low ?

I would say 1.1 - 1.25
if a guy has 200 mil defense than he needs to have 250 mil out to be farmed ( with 1.25
200 mil defense 220 out to be farmed ( using 1.1 )

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:38 am

Well... its eithier 1: 1.35 kuwal out, or the 1: 1.35 defence profitability ratio. Anything less and its unacceptable.

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:58 am

ian wrote:Well... its eithier 1: 1.35 kuwal out, or the 1: 1.35 defence profitability ratio. Anything less and its unacceptable.

35% defence profitability ratio. I accept

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:14 am

Kenzu wrote:There might be some misunderstanding. You wrote:

Defence size : Profitability ratio.

In a nut shell - the attacker must make a profit (in kuwal's value) equal to 35% of the defenders defence size.

This means a 100million defence = the attacker need only make 35million kuwal profit.

This means a 400million defence = the attacker need only make 140million kuwal profit.

800million defence = the attacker need only make 280million kuwal profit etc... etc...

=>

I thought you mean
Defence size : kuwal steal ratio
for 1 defense, you must steal 1.35 kuwal.

we should stick with values which can be easily checked. profit is harder to check than defense and kuwal stolen.

I disagree , 35% defense profitablity is much better .

If a player cant estimate their average farm profit then they shouldn't be farming .
Those players are better off farming 0 defense inactives .

New Players if you do a recon and a guy has 123,457,981 mil defense . Use your calculator and multiply
123,457,981 X .35 = 43.21mil required net profit in order to farm .

If a player can not use a calculator then what the hell are they doing playing a game where Basic Math is a Must .

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:38 am

lol, well eithier way - you guys better make a decision quickly (its now the 1st of december, ceasefire ends 2nd of december). I personally think the 35% defence profitability proposal is fair and meets everyone in the middle ground (offerring some protection to imperium members, while at the same time enabling others to farm imperium members).

The Imperium has radically overhauled its proposed farming agreement (from 3 farms a week to this) so i don't think we can be accussed of not being prepared to compromise or meet on the middle ground... something i hope you guys appreciate.

As such - can an official for The Order Empire as a whole please make The Imperium Empire aware of the Order Empire's official position.

Thanks

by rflash Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:39 am

Lol .... now honestly has someone bothered to do some math or it's so damn hard (at least in Kenzu's opinion) ?

What are you trying to do? Make aderanwars the dullest game ever ??

It's so hard so imagine a graphical representation on this policy? It goes to hell at medium and high def. The graph has to be linear because the game itself is linear.

Because I'm sure some don't understand the last paragraph let's get to some clear numbers.

I made the following aproximations :
1. For lvl 11 weapons on average you'll get 30-32 points of damage.
2. For lvl 10 weapons on average you'll get 28-29 points of damage.
3. UU price is 110 mil / k
4. The attacker has a minimum of 115% attack tech and a maximum of 130%.
5. Attacker losses will be 0.75%.
6. 10 ATs are worth 7.5 mil.
7. The defender does not login for 18 turns.
8. The defender has 25% bonus (18.5 points).

A1. Attacker has 10k supers, lvl 10 weapons and no bonus points in attack. So he has 80 mil base strike and with bonus he will get between 92 and 104 mil. Repair point will be 1.675 mil.

So the attacker will lose on repair costs between 47 mil and 48.5 mil. Soldier losses will be 19.5 mil. Total cost will be around 75 mil.

35% out of 80-100 mil is 28-35 mil profit. If you add the 75 mil you get 103-110 mil he has to have out in order for the hit to be ok.

However, you rarely get 100% of what the defender has out so you'll have to hit at 115-125 mil.

So for someone with 6-7 mil income, if he is doesn't login for 18 turns it will be possible to be farmed if he has less then 100 mil defense. If he goes on relaxed for that period the income goes to 8-9 mil.

How much it costs to get that 80 mil base defense. 10k supers armed will do the trick and the cost for that is about 4 bil. Assuming a minimum of 1k UP for that income and a 3k as maximum and considering no other form of income the defensive cost is between 5 and 9 days worth of total income.

I'm not factoring spies and assassins because of a very simple fact. Those missions cost many STs and with those STs you can have a good profit by farming inactives. Even considering just 3 sabs which I would say is a bare minimum that's 30 STs so 15 attack missions. Given just 20 mil profit you get a minimum of 300 mil profit to be made safely. It's quite a clear choice.

Anyway .... I won't post the rest because no one will ever read it. I will finish my excel file that helped me with those calculations and post it here so that anyone can see for himself.

However .... the conclusion is quite clear : this policy it's unacceptable. At 800 mil and more for the defense you are almost invulnerable and if you go past 1.2 bil you can be safely bitten by the tse-tse fly every few days.

ANY farming policy MUST follow a linear graph.

by Sandwalker Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:13 am

I don't know exactly what you mean by linear, but 1.35 *X yields as linear a graph as any.

100 mil def, 135 mil stolen or 35 mil profit.
1 bil def, 1.35 bil stolen or 350 mil profit. (I don't know which of the 2 will be agreed upon.)

As you can see the ratio is the same, the graph is linear.

by rflash Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:56 am

It's difficult to translate into English some terms.

Anyway we start with y = ax + b.

What I was trying to say is that a must be 1.

Furthermore defense : amount stolen is wrong from the start because you get a bigger bonus in putting your points in defense then you do in attack and that the best case scenario. If you have your points in covert or income you have no bonus so farming would be almost impossible.

I also see no reason to relate profit with defense. If you get a good profit that's it .... why it should matter if the target has 10 mil defense or 10 bil def. Like demand and offer in a free market this will be automatic. Higher defense means a higher strike, bigger repair cost, higher losses so it's natural you have to attack for more. I see no reason to put an artificial limit as it would have the same effect like on the free market.

If you get a higher defense because of the costs involved you will lose more farms then you gain, so in order to get the same daily profit from fewer hits you will have to attack for more, plus you have to get what you invested in extra supers and weapons.

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:50 am

rflash wrote:Lol .... now honestly has someone bothered to do some math or it's so damn hard (at least in Kenzu's opinion) ?

What are you trying to do? Make aderanwars the dullest game ever ??

It's so hard so imagine a graphical representation on this policy? It goes to hell at medium and high def. The graph has to be linear because the game itself is linear.

Because I'm sure some don't understand the last paragraph let's get to some clear numbers.

I made the following aproximations :
1. For lvl 11 weapons on average you'll get 30-32 points of damage.
2. For lvl 10 weapons on average you'll get 28-29 points of damage.
3. UU price is 110 mil / k
4. The attacker has a minimum of 115% attack tech and a maximum of 130%.
5. Attacker losses will be 0.75%.
6. 10 ATs are worth 7.5 mil.
7. The defender does not login for 18 turns.
8. The defender has 25% bonus (18.5 points).

A1. Attacker has 10k supers, lvl 10 weapons and no bonus points in attack. So he has 80 mil base strike and with bonus he will get between 92 and 104 mil. Repair point will be 1.675 mil.

So the attacker will lose on repair costs between 47 mil and 48.5 mil. Soldier losses will be 19.5 mil. Total cost will be around 75 mil.

35% out of 80-100 mil is 28-35 mil profit. If you add the 75 mil you get 103-110 mil he has to have out in order for the hit to be ok.

However, you rarely get 100% of what the defender has out so you'll have to hit at 115-125 mil.

So for someone with 6-7 mil income, if he is doesn't login for 18 turns it will be possible to be farmed if he has less then 100 mil defense. If he goes on relaxed for that period the income goes to 8-9 mil.

How much it costs to get that 80 mil base defense. 10k supers armed will do the trick and the cost for that is about 4 bil. Assuming a minimum of 1k UP for that income and a 3k as maximum and considering no other form of income the defensive cost is between 5 and 9 days worth of total income.

I'm not factoring spies and assassins because of a very simple fact. Those missions cost many STs and with those STs you can have a good profit by farming inactives. Even considering just 3 sabs which I would say is a bare minimum that's 30 STs so 15 attack missions. Given just 20 mil profit you get a minimum of 300 mil profit to be made safely. It's quite a clear choice.

Anyway .... I won't post the rest because no one will ever read it. I will finish my excel file that helped me with those calculations and post it here so that anyone can see for himself.

However .... the conclusion is quite clear : this policy it's unacceptable. At 800 mil and more for the defense you are almost invulnerable and if you go past 1.2 bil you can be safely bitten by the tse-tse fly every few days.

ANY farming policy MUST follow a linear graph.

I d be prepared to impose a "max-out" point for that policy - somewhere in the region of 210million profit. That means anything above 600million (600 * 0.35 = 210million) and you d only need to achieve a 210million profit or above regardless of defence size. Regarding why it has to be related for defence.... if you make only 100million profit from an hit that takes 600million kuwal + inflicts about 150million repair costs on the defender - you ve overall just set that player back by somewhere in the region of 750million kuwal... for the sake of furthering yourself only by 100million kuwal. In the case of a larger player vs. a small player - the total defenders losses could amount to anything up to 10 - 12 turns income, while in the attackers case benefitting them by as little as less than 2 turns of income.

The losses for the defender vs. attackers gains is disproportionately high. While as the attacker this isn't your concern - it is of a concern to the defender, and those responsible for the defender. Everything should have at least some element of justice to it (i.e. the attacker getting a proportionately significant gain vs. the defenders loss - making it acceptable)... hence the proposal.

So... a max-out of 210million i think should help avoid the concerns you have when it comes to larger defences being virtually impossible to farm...

by Sandwalker Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:21 pm

rflash wrote:It's difficult to translate into English some terms.

Anyway we start with y = ax + b.

What I was trying to say is that a must be 1.

gotcha. well, what ian proposes could work.

p=profit, d=defense
--
p>0.35*d when d<600mil
p>210mil when d>600mil thus taking the form of a horizontal line graph
--

This form works for everyone, unsure about the actual numbers, just the function itself. Obviously, this should be subject to, say, monthly revisions.

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:50 pm

New farming policy proposal:

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:
50-60 mil / 100 - 120 mil / 150 - 200 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:17 pm

ian wrote:New farming policy proposal:

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:
50-60 mil / 100 - 120 mil / 150 - 200 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

theres 1 problem , small players
30mil strike farming 22 mil defense is going to be high defense for 30 mil strike
at 22 mil defense your not going to get 150 mil .

heres my idea for a tier structure

0 defense at least 20 mil kuwal minimum
1 defense - 50 mil 45 mil kuwal minimum
51mil - 100 mil - 90 mil kuwal minimum
101 mil - 200 mil - 180 mil kuwal minimum
201 - 300 mil - 270 mil kuwal minimum
301 - 400 mil - 360 mil kuwal minimum
401 - 500 mil - 450 mil kuwal minimum
501 - 600 mil - 540 mil kuwal minimum

basically each tier after 50 mil is 100 mil and the minimum amount out in order to farm is 10% less than the highest number of that tier .
its fair and reasonable , Profitable , easy for people who are not gifted in math .

by Sandwalker Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:32 pm

You're not addressing rflash's concerns, which is why ian proposed a cut-off point after which there was a constant profit margin to fulfill.

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:48 pm

Sandwalker wrote:You're not addressing rflash's concerns, which is why ian proposed a cut-off point after which there was a constant profit margin to fulfill.

Than for people with very strong strikes , than each farm they need to get 150 mil or 210mil profit .

I dont know linear graphs or anything like that .

Did that address Rflash's Point ?

by rflash Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:56 pm

You haven't understood what ian posted.

Low is ANY defense between 1 and 200 mil.

So a 30 mil strike is expected to get a 50 mil profit from a 20 mil defense.

Attacking at 500x below your strike or in 99% of cases at 0 defense is a special case and anyone is free to hit at any amount they seem fit, although I doubt it's worth attacking under 25-30 mil.

What we wanted is your opinion on the numbers, where do we draw the line ?

It's 50 mil a good minimum for low defense or 60 is better ?
You think low is well defined as max 200 mil or you want 150 mil or 250 mil ?
And so on ......

This 3 tier system is relatively fair and simple and we need both. While some people can do the math in their head in a sec others can't ... so doing 0.35 (or 0.25 or 0.3 or 0.33 or 0.4 or other number) * defense every time you farm can be annoying.

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:22 pm

New farming policy proposal:

Using Ians Proposal

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

the Minimum using 50 mil for low , 100mil for Moderate/medium and 150mil for high defense seems fair .

by ian Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:34 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:New farming policy proposal:

Using Ians Proposal

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

the Minimum using 50 mil for low , 100mil for Moderate/medium and 150mil for high defense seems fair .

lol, as far as i can tell thats virtually identical to the one posted by me in terms of the minimum amounts of profitability per group - except there were gaps between the profitability margins.... so, yeah thats fine by me. Everyone else happy with The Imperium making this our farming policy?

by Lord Ishurue Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:37 pm

ian wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:New farming policy proposal:

Using Ians Proposal

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

the Minimum using 50 mil for low , 100mil for Moderate/medium and 150mil for high defense seems fair .

lol, as far as i can tell thats virtually identical to the one posted by me in terms of the minimum amounts of profitability per group - except there were gaps between the profitability margins.... so, yeah thats fine by me. Everyone else happy with The Imperium making this our farming policy?

I did use your proposal lol . Instead of having 3 quotes attached to it i made a fresh new post

by Lord Ishurue Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:03 am

"Under this agreement, The Imperium and The Order empire - both in their entirety, agree to end the current conflict between both parties. An end to the conflict can be defined as no longer conducting any other forms of missions other than attack and raid against profitable targets.

Both parties agree that should there be any breach of this peace agreement - by eithier side - they will do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

Both parties agree to acknowledge the sovereign rights of the other, in deciding and formulating their own policies, initiatives and foreign affairs. Both parties agree to not attempt to influence or compromise these sovereign rights - whether by subterfuge or blunt aggression. In the event of both parties policies clashing with the others, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

In the event of a disagreement concerning one of the parties policies, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve this disagreement in line with the general principles of justice, fairness, honesty and peaceful co-existence.

Both parties accept and acknowledge responsibility for all membership of their party - whether individuals, alliances, or anyone else defined or actively dealt with as a member (including hidden members and informal members)- and consequently take responsibility for any benefits or disadvantages their members may bring to their party through action or inaction."

TIE Farm Policy
A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+?

the Minimum using 50 mil for low , 100mil for Moderate/medium and 150mil for high defense seems fair .

On Behalf of The Order Empire (O) I lord Ishurue Accept the Proposed Peace Treaty , and The Imperium Empire's New farming policy ( which is stated above ) .

May our Peace be everlasting .

To the Future

Regards

Lord Ishurue

by ian Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:12 am

On behalf of The Imperium Empire, i d like to officially sign the below peace treaty:

ian wrote:"Under this agreement, The Imperium and The Order empire - both in their entirety, agree to end the current conflict between both parties. An end to the conflict can be defined as no longer conducting any other forms of missions other than attack and raid against profitable targets.

Both parties agree that should there be any breach of this peace agreement - by eithier side - they will do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

Both parties agree to acknowledge the sovereign rights of the other, in deciding and formulating their own policies, initiatives and foreign affairs. Both parties agree to not attempt to influence or compromise these sovereign rights - whether by subterfuge or blunt aggression. In the event of both parties policies clashing with the others, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

In the event of a disagreement concerning one of the parties policies, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve this disagreement in line with the general principles of justice, fairness, honesty and peaceful co-existence.

Both parties accept and acknowledge responsibility for all membership of their party - whether individuals, alliances, or anyone else defined or actively dealt with as a member (including hidden members and informal members)- and consequently take responsibility for any benefits or disadvantages their members may bring to their party through action or inaction."

In addittion, i d like to announce the official implemention of The Imperium Empire farming policy:

TIE Farm Policy
A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+

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

As of this moment, both The Imperium Empire and Order Empire are officially at peace. Its been a pretty interesting and fun war... but now is the time for peace. Both sides should be proud of their accomplishments... so congratulations everyone!

Finally, i ll leave you with the following youtube clip for your cheesy-consideration Very Happy

: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7V6FAoTLc

Thanks

Ian - Senatorum Imperialis of The Imperium Empire.

by Lord Ishurue Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:16 am

On Behalf of Hachigan we will also adopt TIE farm policy as well

A 3 tier system:

low / medium / high defense
profit for each:Minimum
50mil / 100 mil / 150 mil

defence boundaries:
Low: 0 > 200million
medium: 200 > 500million
High: 500million+

Lord Ishurue

by Kenzu Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:46 pm

ian wrote:Ok.... i m also getting tired with peace talks now to be honest. Kenzu - many points in your original proposal can not be agreed upon by The Imperium due to internal constitutional safeguards, or otherwise due to our policy going against them.

So... i m going to keep the peace treaty very simple and deliberately vague.

"Under this agreement, The Imperium and The Order empire - both in their entirety, agree to end the current conflict between both parties. An end to the conflict can be defined as no longer conducting any other forms of missions other than attack and raid against profitable targets.

Both parties agree that should there be any breach of this peace agreement - by eithier side - they will do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

Both parties agree to acknowledge the sovereign rights of the other, in deciding and formulating their own policies, initiatives and foreign affairs. Both parties agree to not attempt to influence or compromise these sovereign rights - whether by subterfuge or blunt aggression. In the event of both parties policies clashing with the others, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve the situation peacefully and in line with the general principles of fairness, justice, honesty and peaceful coexistence.

In the event of a disagreement concerning one of the parties policies, both parties agree to do their upmost best to resolve this disagreement in line with the general principles of justice, fairness, honesty and peaceful co-existence.

Both parties accept and acknowledge responsibility for all membership of their party - whether individuals, alliances, or anyone else defined or actively dealt with as a member (including hidden members and informal members)- and consequently take responsibility for any benefits or disadvantages their members may bring to their party through action or inaction."

There we are... a peace treaty which resolves the conflict and establishes the rights of each party.

Now... i think the order generally accepts The Imperium's insurgency policy (rflash expressed his view it wouldn't work... but that is his opinion, and if it fails its on my head lol). The only thing is the farming policy.

Neither the insurgency or farming policy are part of this treaty (since Imperium policies are reserved for the Imperium to decide) - nor is any other policy of The Imperium's - however it would not make any sense to sign this treaty, only for 2 days later when The Imperium farming policy comes into effect the war to kick off again.

Consequently... i m defining the Imperium's farming policy now (with unofficial input from The Order) in order to prevent this eventuality.

I now have a very simple farming policy for The Imperium i would like people's thoughts on:

Defence size : Profitability ratio.

In a nut shell - the attacker must make a profit (in kuwal's value) equal to 35% of the defenders defence size.

This means a 100million defence = the attacker need only make 35million kuwal profit.

This means a 400million defence = the attacker need only make 140million kuwal profit.

800million defence = the attacker need only make 280million kuwal profit etc... etc...

And so on and so on.

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

Now... would anyone in The Order object to such a policy? I will stress, however - that The Imperium's policies are our own to decide (much like the order's are your own to decide) so we may change them gradually over time to reflect the situation (i.e. admin's update he has on the test server regarding farming means they ll have to be changed eventually when it goes live). That said.. if there's a conflict/ problem with a policy (whether WR or TIE), both sides if they sign the agreement would be bound to at least try finding a peaceful solution which is just, fair and honest... - which means hopefully in the future any conflicts can be avoided by meeting one another on the middle ground...

1:1.35
defense : kuwal out ratio

95.8% WR members were in support of this peace treaty proposal

World Republic signs this peace treaty.
Thus peace treaty between WR and Imperium is sealed.

PS: Since rflash raised concerns about high defense:kuwal ratios, I propose we agree on:

1:1.35
defense : kuwal out (for defenses up to 481 million)

but for defenses over 481 million it it is enough to farm 150 million kuwal more than defense value

These two rules all of us have agreed separately (but rflash didnt agree on the first rule because it is bad for high defense, and I dont agree with the proposed 50

150 rule because its against tiny defenses), so I would like to put them together so that it suits everyone.

Since peace treaty is signed, let us talk about farming policy in a new thread.

by Special Agent 47 Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:22 am

I would like clarification for 2 points, and I would like it from both sides, preferably all 4 so there is NO confusion.(TIE,WR, GD, Hachigan)

Point 1. 0 defense accounts.

0 defense accounts are free game in matters of kewal farming and UU raiding correct?

Point 2. Unidentified/unknown members of hidden alliances.

Unidentified and/or unknown members of hidden alliance are not covered correct?

by ian Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:47 am

Special Agent 47 wrote:I would like clarification for 2 points, and I would like it from both sides, preferably all 4 so there is NO confusion.(TIE,WR, GD, Hachigan)

Point 1. 0 defense accounts.

0 defense accounts are free game in matters of kewal farming and UU raiding correct?

Point 2. Unidentified/unknown members of hidden alliances.

Unidentified and/or unknown members of hidden alliance are not covered correct?

Our farming policy is *not* part of The peace treaty. However.. it was necessary to involve The Order in deciding our farming policy... since obviously they would never have agreed to peace had we had one which is unacceptable. By involving them and by having more than one viewpoint participate in the decision, we ve managed to come up with a fair policy which satisfies everyone's/ the majorities point of view - hopefully preventing conflict in the future. So... in answer to your last question about hidden alliances - it is not really relevant (i.e. TIE's farming policy applies to anyone - whether part of The Order or any other alliance or allianceless. If someone farms TIE in breach of our policy, and its reported on our forums - we ll act to investigate and deal with the situation regardless of their membership/ if any).

Consequently.. this also means TIE's policy regarding 0 defence players is up to us to decide. Me personally - if a TIE member has 0 defence.... they won't be a TIE member for long since they d obviously be inactive and/or very very very foolish. Regarding TIE farming others... i d say 0 defence players are fair game. Regarding TIE farming other players with defences... i d say we inturn should abide by our own farming policy when dealing with others (rather than demanding others follow our policy, yet when it comes to us being the aggressors/ farmers - we ignore it... this would obiviously be hyocritical and unfair lol)

by Sponsored content