TOC & TIE Peace Treaty Discussion

Just me personally. Discussing reasons to mass people (excessive stats) seems counter productive for long term peace...

curumo wrote:I do genuinely have a question: If my army size is 3,5 m ... then I can have, what, approximately 100 k supers in strike so that I'm still within the policy, yes?

Otherwise it's a pretty simple and easy policy. If you're within it - farm - if not ... stay away I like

GJ Ian and Ish

3,500,000/100 =35,000 x 2.5 = 87,500. So no. lol. If you want to work out what your army size would need to be to support 100k attack supers, do:

100,000 / 2.5 = 40,000 x 100 = 4million lol.

Vesper wrote:Just me personally. Discussing reasons to mass people (excessive stats) seems counter productive for long term peace...

Its nothing to do with massing people. If people have excessive stats they won't be massed. I ll reiterate the previous post's main points regarding excessive stats:

- If your strikes deemed excessive you can't farm TIE/ TOC untill it ceases being excessive (if you farm you ll need to provide compensation + 30% fine, and repeated farms will result in getting massed)

- If your defence is deemed excessive, hits on you will merely need to make 250million profit (therefore there is no gain to be had from building massive defences under the policy, since it will result in you dropping out of the protection offered by the policy)

- If your military is deemed excessive, it means you can't farm TIE/TOC since your own income will be greatly reduced preventing you effectively being farmed back, and since your income is so greatly reduced attackers will only need to gain a 250million profit (therefore there is no gain to be had from building massive military/defences under the policy, since it will result in your dropping out of the protection offered by the policy).

Players are free to build how they like - just if they want to farm TIE/ TOC they need to not have a excessive strike, and if (if there's in TIE or TOC) they want to be covered by the profit requirements (army size x 150) they ll need to not have a excessive defence otherwise attackers will merely need to gain 250million profit per hit.

Noone will get massed simply for having excessive stats....

So what about mercs? If someone has 150k supers and 50k mercs and are 7mil army size. I think that your thinking 2.5% army as strike supers is permitted. That will let you have 175k supers. If you count mercs this person will not be permitted. If not he can farm. Same thing with defenses.

honestly, who's gonna use mercs?

A lot of us use them.

I use them

Even if 1 person uses them it will effect the policy. Best to mention them in the policy for when someone attacks and does have mercs.

This is my personal opinion: partly because of the army size proposal, I see a lot of rules concerning how to build your account. Some of them, for example raw UP, make no sense when global average army size or price of UU change significantly: if average army size goes up, AE goes up too for a given army size and the raw UP that makes sense to invest in goes down.
Also, if someone is Kyora for instance, it makes sense to rely more on covert, something for which you need relatively more units than for defence at higher levels of technology. Attempts to capture the allowable amount of spies in % therefore are doomed to fail.
Additionally, for me getting farmed is acceptable if I should have banked sooner or built a better defence. If I did both and still get farmed, I will consider that excessive. Nobody has a right to expect me to have a defence that would allow them to farm me from time to time. Or to farm me for as much as I farm them. And I don't have a right to expect to be able to farm other people for as much as they farmed me.
So for me an excessive defence clause is undesireable. Excessive strike I can live with, even based upon economy after weapon upkeep from defence.
And lastly, I would urge you to base farming upon the amount of effort someone put into preventing farming.

Jiro wrote:This is my personal opinion: partly because of the army size proposal, I see a lot of rules concerning how to build your account. Some of them, for example raw UP, make no sense when global average army size or price of UU change significantly: if average army size goes up, AE goes up too for a given army size and the raw UP that makes sense to invest in goes down.
Also, if someone is Kyora for instance, it makes sense to rely more on covert, something for which you need relatively more units than for defence at higher levels of technology. Attempts to capture the allowable amount of spies in % therefore are doomed to fail.
Additionally, for me getting farmed is acceptable if I should have banked sooner or built a better defence. If I did both and still get farmed, I will consider that excessive. Nobody has a right to expect me to have a defence that would allow them to farm me from time to time. Or to farm me for as much as I farm them. And I don't have a right to expect to be able to farm other people for as much as they farmed me.
So for me an excessive defence clause is undesireable. Excessive strike I can live with, even based upon economy after weapon upkeep from defence.
And lastly, I would urge you to base farming upon the amount of effort someone put into preventing farming.

Regarding excessive defence - I m fairly confident I speak for all of The Imperium Empire when I say we would rather remain in war for months more on end than to return back to what it was like before the war.

Incase you didn't know what it was like before the war - we had Mujengen (TOC) and several other large T.O.C member farming The Imperium Empire as much as they possibly could... literally waiting for the turn change which would make a TIE member have "legitimate" amounts out and then hitting them - and on the other hand we had the vast majority of World Republic and a large chunk of Mujengen building very large defences vs. their income - which meant those players were near enough unfarmable under T.O.C policy.

Why should a TIE member be farmed for 8 - 9hours income out, and a WR member be able to sit for 15+hours without being farmed? - all because the WR policy requires a certain level of profit per attack for the attack to be legitimate - which is what the WR policy became when they adopted FIRE's policy. WR's policy was nothing short of a no-farming policy - because thats the effect it had in practice.

Simply put: TIE's policy always reflected our accounts and allowed considerable farming of our ranks by non TIE member - mainly T.O.C. We may have fiddled with our policy occasionally, but you can't deny we never actively made any effort to completely stop farming of our ranks - any policy we ve had has always allowed considerable farming to happen. On the other hand T.O.C can't say the same - you *deliberately* adopted a policy which rendered farming all but impossible - deliberately because at the time when WR adopted FIRE's policy TIE repeatedly made our issues known and our view it was practically a no-farming policy - one which was completely & utterly ignored by both Mujengen (you supported their adoption of the policy) and by Kenzu/ WR. We won't be ignored this time... no matter the cost.

ANY attempt to go back to the old system of T.O.C farming T.I.E into oblivion and trying to block any counter-farming back by T.I.E will be rejected - there's going to be no free pass's to farm TIE without our having the opportunity to farm back.

Frankly my patience is almost out when it comes to the farming policy. We have different T.O.C leader's saying different things (often contradictory) which makes it next to impossible to reach a agreement. I m close to just saying to hell with it and shutting down discussion on the farming policy - since as we ve already said TIE views the farming policy discussions as separate to the peace treaty, and inevitably it is down to the alliances to decide their own policy. Our discussions are more a act of good faith than anything else....

ian wrote:Views/ Thoughts (Non TIE/TOC members input is also welcome, as it other TIE/TOC members input).

I just want to point out, why not abolish all farming policies? If the problem is that one side has an unfair farming policy as opposed to another, then why not just remove them all?

I'd like to think my account is pretty decent sized. I have about 8m total realm size, and 270k defense supers w/ MBT. That works out to be ~11.5 days of economic output. The people who are ranked close to me mostly have smaller army sizes, but that's because I'm not aggressive. I don't attack people and I don't get involved in fights, so I only need a large defense to deter farmers. That's why my defense rank is waaay higher than my other ranks. If I took the effort to build up my other stats, I could easily jump dozens of ranks, next to people who are closer to my total realm size. Therefore, I'd like to think my defense is easily attainable by other players my size,

I built my defense to what it is by a simple method of building more supers when people farm me a lot. I'm not in any big alliance, and I rarely get farmed. I have no farm policy, nor do I need one, simply because I have a large enough defense that it would inflict serious damage on any attacker. Therefore, the amount I can safely defend is what it takes to farm me profitably.

I recently had someone farm me when I had ~5.1b out. The attacker stole ~3.1b, but took 5k losses in supers and MBT. I was never attacked again, simply because it wasn't profitable to farm me. I needed no warnings, no negotiation. Simple market forces meant that there was no point to farm me, so no one did.

The way I see it, if you get farmed consistently, then you don't have a big enough defense to protect your income for the amount of time you need. Either build a bigger defense, or log in more often. If you don't have an adequate defense, then you have nothing to whine about when people farm you. I have no problem with people who can farm me. As long as it's just farming, I can accept that it's just the way the game is, nothing personal. I choose to take it and instead of restricting them, I strengthen myself.

When school starts again, I won't be on for long stretches of time. I know that I'll be building up my defense by however much it takes to protect my account. If I have a large defense, it's because I took the effort to build one large enough to suit my needs. Don't whine about "Oh, you don't have a big enough economy (if I'm able to build it in the first place, then yeah, I DO have a big enough economy)" or "Your defense is taking up more than 5% of your population (because I invested the resources to make it that large; it didn't happen by itself)". If you can't farm me with the strike you already have, build a bigger strike. If you can't build a big enough strike and more than 5% of your population in defense is unbalanced, then it's a game mechanic problem and take it up with the admin. It's NOT a policy issue.

@ A man from bob.

Yes building defences is part of the game mechanics. Being farmed is part of the game mechanics. Farming is part of the game mechanics... and the market, and the consequential market forces is part of the game mechanics.

But part of the game mechanics is also alliances - and part of the alliances is the alliance setting & deciding policies concerning its members - whether those policies be for how those members conduct themselves, or what the alliance will & won't tolerate on actions being done against its members.

Farming policy's consequentially is part of the game mechanics as well.

The problem we now have is PROFITABLE farming is insanely easy to do without policies - meaning every player will need to build huge defenses to make it not possible.

Even World Republic players - who in many cases had literally close to a months resources in defense - could & were farmed profitably without a existing alliance policy to protect them. I m sure Kenzu can testify to that - since when WR didn't have a policy I happily farmed many of them several times a day & my hits were mostly profitable (in some cases taking several billion kuwal, but only making about 200 - 300million profit... but as there was no policy stating this was unacceptable, they couldn't really complain).

If everyone is forced to spend weeks and weeks and weeks worth of investment into defenses to stop *most* farming happening... what then? How many will keep playing Aderan Wars, or will keep playing AW with the same motivation they used to have when the next war comes along and they loose that defense?

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

Believe me - part of me is very tempted to say The Imperium Empire will no longer have a farming policy, and instead will simply act against farmers on a case by case basis when we feel the need to do so (i.e. when we feel they ve crossed the line in terms of their farming).

This would certainly simplify farming - but it would also be pretty damn unfair on the farmer when he happily farms the crap out of TIE and then gets nuked in response - or on those who are overly cautious and consequently don't farm TIE as much as others (who get away with it) for fear of getting nuked - loosing out on opportunities.

Such a stance would make AW a lot more unstable and uncertain - with every farming hit done by every farmer carrying with it the small possibility of getting nuked by the targets alliance/empire - and its also fair to say the odds are peace would be among the first casualties of such a policy.

Consequently the ONLY reason TIE has a policy is to set out our commitments - both to the farmer (in terms of our committing ourselves to when we WON'Tact against them i.e. if they follow the policy) and to our members (in terms of the commitment we will make to protecting our members against attacks). Such a commitment helps to ensure certainty, stability... and most likely peace.

Vesper wrote:Just me personally. Discussing reasons to mass people (excessive stats) seems counter productive for long term peace...

I agree with that.

Jiro points out also a good thing, especially that excessive defense is something we can live that, afterall huge defense doesnt mean that the player is dangerous, a player becomes dangerous only if he arms a huge strike (lets ignore covert hostile missions for a while)


I think we shouldnt bother about huge defenses at all. Especially not if they dont farm active players.

A problem might arise with players who have huge defs and at the same time huge strikes and are very active at farming. Given that there are only very few players who are farming a lot of actives, we are talking here about "excessive clauses" which will affect 100-150 people, but actually the purpose of the clauses is only to stop 5-10 people (the people who farm a lot and are capable of arming huge strike to farm most actives AND huge def to prevent being farmed)

Therefore, if we want to make a clause, it should be a clause on excessive strike only, and it should affect only big players, or it should affect bigger players much more than a smaller player.



There is no need to force excessive clauses on players who have less than 1 million population, because a 100k or 500k player will never be dangerous to the huge players who have over 10 million population. The excessive clauses give priviledges to huge players at the expense of small players.

A 100k to 500k small player needs to invest up to 10% of his population in defense in order to be safe from farm attacks if he logs in 2 times a day. (A busy person who logs in only once a day needs to train 20% of population in defense), armed with IFV

A 5 million player needs roughly 4% def supers (200k def supers), if we consider his tech level and arming troops with tanks

A 15 million player like me needs roughly 2% of def supers (300k-375k) trained in defense in order to be safe from attacks and deposit only 2 times a day.

It's similiar with economic power.
A player with 100k farmers needs roughly 20k def supers armed with IFV
assuming he has 5k UP, his eco power is 990 million and required def is 9.000 million (10 days)

A player with 1 million farmers needs roughly 100k def supers with IFV
assuming he has 10k up, his eco power is 3.9 billion and required def is 45 billion (11.5 days)

A player with 15.000.000 farmers needs 300.000 def supers armed with tanks
assuming he has 20k UP his eco power is 39 billion (after AE probably 20 billion) and required def is 182 billion (9.1 days)

ian wrote:
Even World Republic players - who in many cases had literally close to a months resources in defense - could & were farmed profitably without a existing alliance policy to protect them. I m sure Kenzu can testify to that - since when WR didn't have a policy I happily farmed many of them several times a day & my hits were mostly profitable (in some cases taking several billion kuwal, but only making about 200 - 300million profit... but as there was no policy stating this was unacceptable, they couldn't really complain).

@ian
World Republic had the same farming policy that WR, Mujengan and TIE have agreed to long time ago. It was the TIER policy if you have forgotten. Meanwhile Mujengan and TIE altered their policies, but we havent. Our policies were known to everyone, and everyone received a message when WR policy has been breached, including you, ian, who was the only person of all Aderan Wars to breach WR policy multiple times. It's good to know that your attitude has changed and you work towards progress and peace and will not make invalid claims against World Republic in the future. In the sense of better cooperation I hope that I will not see such provocative posts against World Republic written by you.

Your claims are offensive for me to read. And don't contribute towards better understanding of each other.

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

I think we should draw a line now, stop arguing, test out the 2 farming policies we have agreed on without any excessive clauses, and see what they bring. I am pretty sure that they are likely to be successful.

If there will be ever a happy farmer, farming a lot of actives and at the same time having massive defenses, then we can talk to the person and make sure that the case is solved.

Let's sign the peace treaty and test out the income and population farming policies without the excessive clauses and see how it goes.

ian wrote:Me & LI have been discussing things - so I d like to hear Kenzu & Aworon's views on the below.

Those under 1million army size can have up to 7.5% of army size invested in defence and up to 4.5% of army size invested into strike. If you have over it your excessive.

Those over 1million army size shouldn't have more than 5% of army size invested in defence and 2.5% of army size invested into strike. If you have over it your excessive.

Those at 100% AE can have 30% of army size invested in military ( defence, attack, spies, assassins) in total, those under 100% can have 20%. Any more = excessive - meaning you can be farmed for a minimum of 250million profit and can't farm TIE/ TOC.

Minimum of 0.5% (half a percent) of army size trained in defence, any lower and any hits which make *any* profit is legitimate.

Those who have an excessive strike can't farm TIE/ TOC.
Those who have an excessive defence can be farmed for the minimum profit - 250million kuwal.

In addition, as well as meeting the % of army size requirement to fall within the policy, you ll need to have a adequate core Unit Production - based on the below chart:

1million Army size = 3k Minimum Raw U.P
2million Army Size = 6k Minimum Raw U.P
3million Army Size = 9k Minimum Raw U.P
4million Army Size = 12k Minimum Raw U.P
5million Army Size = 15k Minimum Raw U.P
6million Army Size = 18k Minimum Raw U.P
7million Army Size = 20k Minimum Raw U.P

If you don't meet the Raw U.P requirement (but meet the % of army size requirements) you ll be deemed as having an excessive strike/ defence due to having a weak economy.

So to summarise: A 3million army size player with 150k defence Supers, 75k Attack Supers and a 9k Raw U.P will not have an excessive strike or defence - and consequently be able to farm under the policy, and any farming done on them under the policy would need to meet the policy's profit requirements.

Farming Policy itself:

Profit = Army size x 150. I.e. 3million army size x 150 = 450million profit must be made.

The minimum profit ANY hit must make is 250million. I.e. a hit on a 500k Army Size player using the 150 requirement would be 500,000 x 150 = 75million profit requirement normally... however since you can farm inactives for 100million+ profits, any hits on actives must make at least 250million profit UNLESS the policy requires you make more than 250million profit (i.e. 3million army size = 450million profit requirement).

The farming policy would run on a trial period of 28days from the day it starts.

Views/ Thoughts (Non TIE/TOC members input is also welcome, as it other TIE/TOC members input).

As I have previously said players below 1 million need more than 10% in defense.
Players at 1 million need on average roughly 10-12% in defense.

If they bank only once a day, they need 2 times more defense.



I have following counter suggestion:
(I propose a very short and simple treaty, which is not too complex. Compare its simplicity and length)
(The raw UP clause is not necessary, people can always raid more UU, besides most people fulfill it anyway.)
Your farming policy is one page long, I altered it to have it a couple lines short.





SHORT FARMING POLICY

Farming requires profit of 60% of defense (1 billion defense requires 600 million profit)
But the minimum profit must be always at least 250 million

Those at 100% AE can have 41% invested in army
(If you trained more in the military, you are not allowed to farm TOC and TIE)

No more than 10.5% population in defense
(If your defense is bigger, there is no 25% profit requirement in farming you, merely a 250 mill requirement)

and no more than 10.5% population in strike
(If your strike is bigger, you are not allowed to farm TOC and TIE)

If you are forbidden to farm TOC and TIE, but you do it, you must repay all damage caused

END




PS: the 0.5 is added so that a player who has 99k population can still have 10k def supers, which is a good looking number. Some players like having nice numbers in their stats, and I don't want to see conflicts arise because someone had 50.000 def supers but was allowed to have only 49.500.

Having read Kenzu's comments, its clear TIE's concerns about a significant portion of T.O.C adopting a policy which makes them unfarmable is being ignored - AGAIN.

As such - we are terminating the farming policy discussion untill such a time as we feel happy to continue it.

I d suggest we work towards the other points of the peace treaty if your serious about peace - and a word of advice: any future farming policy T.O.C adopts had better not have the effect of rendering a significant portion of T.O.C unfarmable - otherwise T.I.E [[i]will/u] ignore it.

Perhaps one day T.O.C would be kind enough to start treating people fairly.

On one hand you guys want to have rights to farm TIE - and have said if TIE adopts a policy which makes us mainly unfarmable you won't go along with it.

On the other you want a policy which makes the vast majority of your membership able to build fortress accounts - rendering them unfarmable.

If this is the case.... the farming policy discussion is terminated.

Myself, Lord Ishurue & Kenzu have agreed on the following:

Profit Margin = Army size x 150. Minimum of 250million profit (0 defence can be farmed for any amount)

Those at 100% AE can have 35% of army size invested in army.
Below 100% AE can have 25% of army size invested in army (but at least as many units as 35% of 100% AE)
(If you trained more in the military, you are not allowed to farm TOC and TIE)

No more than 8.5% population in defense
(If your defense is bigger, there is merely a 250 mill profit requirement on hits done to you)

No more than 8.5% population in strike
(If your strike is bigger, you are not allowed to farm TOC and TIE)

If you are forbidden to farm TOC and TIE, but you do it, you must repay all damage caused + 30% fine.

Excessive defence/military = can be farmed for 250million profit
Excessive strike/military = can't farm TIE/ TOC

Breaches = full compensation + 30% fine.

Practical example of the above:

700k workers = 42million
535k farmers = 26.75million

68.75million income

1.9million army size x 150 = 285million profit required.

Say the defender has 161.5k defence supers (the other 425k units in spies, assassins & strike). Base power per super armed with MBT = 11,000. 161,500 x11,000 =1.76billion defence (minus techs)

A attacker would loose about 2000 supers farming a 1.76billion defence - 1.276billion kuwal.

This means the defender would need at least 1.561billion kuwal out. 1.561 / 68.75million income = 22turns worth.

If your factor in upkeep costs and that the defence may be larger due to techs.... then the defender if he max's out his maximum defense entitlements could probably (for most average players) have anywhere between 30 - 40turns worth of income out before he becomes farmable.

So it affords good protection to players while also ensuring fortress account-players can either be farmed for 250million profit if they have an excessive defence, or can be farmed probably after anywhere between 15-30hours income out on average if they have their defense maxed out but still NOT a excessive defense under the policy.

This will take affect on July the 30th 0.00 ingame time and run for a 14 day trial period, afterwhich T.O.C & TIE will meet to discuss how it went etc....

Well that's the same as testing out the policy? I thought that's in effect already from today on :S

I thought testing out the policy was in effect from Saturday gametime and we weren't allowed to farm until then? [Edit, I now see it was in effect from this morning]
Also, I thought we were at peace from testing the farming policy onwards? If we are not at peace, what issues remain to be solved?

Jiro wrote:I thought testing out the policy was in effect from Saturday gametime and we weren't allowed to farm until then? [Edit, I now see it was in effect from this morning]
Also, I thought we were at peace from testing the farming policy onwards? If we are not at peace, what issues remain to be solved?

I was wondering what you all were still talking about too actually

Lord Ishurue wrote:

lets extend the ceaseFIRE for 7 more days .

By CeaseFIRE i mean only profitable Farming is allowed . ( By the population x 150 = min profit ) ( Raiding on 0 defense players in TOC & TIE ranks .( by

Yeah ceasefire is extended.

As for the other points we need to discuss:

- Castravate issue - whether or not he was acting under orders by T.O.C to surrender and then reenter the war on 2 occasions. If he wasn't acting under orders, The Imperium will hold him personally responsible and punish such conduct as how we see fit. If he was acting under orders... then we won't hold him responsible and will just put his conduct down as being the consequence of atrick (to exploit something offered in good will to members of both sides to allow those who don't want to be in war a way to get out).

- What we do if there is sabbing/assassinating of one of the sides and one of the sides is suspected of being behind it.

Lord Ishurue wrote:

Extradition Treaty

Farming.

A. all farming breeches are paid 100% damage ( UUs, weapons, training cost , kuwal stolen) Plus a fine .
B. If Compensation & Fines are not enough to keep a player in line . leadership in TOC & TIE can communicate to discuss appropriate punishment . ( IE sanctions, use of military force, excessive breech fine, etc )

Assassination & Sabotage
A. Honesty System if a TOC or TIE alliance is secret. IE the secret alliance does not have to accept a player to be sent over to check logs and if the secret alliance suspects an official TOC or TIE alliance they can not send one of their guys over to check logs .

B . TOC & TIE have can send over one of their players to check logs between official alliances .



______________________________________________________________________________________________

Castravete & Stars thing we can get into that . but the 2nd cause of this war was sab & assassination accusations as well as excessive farming breeches .

Extradiction treaty TIE can agree to - as it doesn't really need more detail than it is now... since if we have to meet to discuss a problem farmer, whats decided will be done on a case by case basis and could literally be anything we d agree on at the time depending on the level of punishment needed.

As for the sabbing/assassination.

Its ambassador (sending a member over to the alliance to check the logs) vs. honesty system (taking the alliances word for it - via each alliance picking someone they feel they can trust).

I ll narrow the choice down - T.I.E whether visible or not won't be accepting the ambassador system after careful consideration and discussion between the SHC. It simply represents to much of a loss of sovereignty... and since this peace treaty is inevitably relying upon both sides keeping their word anyway.... I don't see that there's gonna be a real problem with simply extending that "word" a little further to encompass whether TIE/ TOC is or isn't responsible for future assassination/sabbing missions... lol