T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

by ian Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:27 am

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:

Lets say a 1.9million army size player (100% AE). He can have max of 35% of that army size in military under the policy - 665,000 units. This leaves a total of 1.235million income units he could have. 8.5% population in defense = 161,500 defense supers.

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 (plus 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 15-20hours 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....

by Kenzu Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:33 am

ian wrote: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:

Lets say a 1.9million army size player (100% AE). He can have max of 35% of that army size in military under the policy - 665,000 units. This leaves a total of 1.235million income units he could have. 8.5% population in defense = 161,500 defense supers.

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 15-20hours 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....

Signed on behalf of TOC (World Republic, Mujengan, Emperors)

by seaborgium Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:19 am

Kenzu wrote:
ian wrote: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:

Lets say a 1.9million army size player (100% AE). He can have max of 35% of that army size in military under the policy - 665,000 units. This leaves a total of 1.235million income units he could have. 8.5% population in defense = 161,500 defense supers.

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 15-20hours 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....

Signed on behalf of TOC (World Republic, Mujengan, Emperors)

Just bc I hate seeing ppl change there post.

by buhcoreTheGreat Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:15 pm

what i see here is 3 guys making server based policy which will be avoided by many people because of its complexity. Or maybe is just me, too lazy to read even the 1st sentence.

by seaborgium Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:18 pm

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:what i see here is 3 guys making server based policy which will be avoided by many people because of its complexity. Or maybe is just me, too lazy to read even the 1st sentence.

Oddly enough I have to agree with him confused

by Lord Ishurue Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:58 pm

We forgot to add in The Minimum defense clause to be covered .

lets not forget to include that when the trial run is over .

by ian Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:04 pm

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:what i see here is 3 guys making server based policy which will be avoided by many people because of its complexity. Or maybe is just me, too lazy to read even the 1st sentence.

Server based policy?

This policy only applies to farming done *against* TIE & T.O.C

If someone wants to profit via farming from our members hard work in developing their accounts, then they have to play by our rules....

by buhcoreTheGreat Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:08 pm

ian wrote:
buhcoreTheGreat wrote:what i see here is 3 guys making server based policy which will be avoided by many people because of its complexity. Or maybe is just me, too lazy to read even the 1st sentence.

Server based policy?

This policy only applies to farming done *against* TIE & T.O.C

If someone wants to profit via farming from our members hard work in developing their accounts, then they have to play by our rules....

1 The.Imperium.Empire ian 251,945,992,507 6,275,246,557 - 37
2 Mujengan_(TOC) Lord_Ishurue 136,955,323,478 3,531,428,322 - 41
3 World_Republic_(TOC) Keinutnai 150,926,645,905 2,564,022,598 - 55
6 Emperors_(TOC) Aworon 46,910,042,894 1,205,788,017 - 8

no need to point out the obvious huh?

by Capt_Blood Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:10 pm

Arrr, well I started to read it but gave up like buhcore so I gave it to me cabin boys pet monkey to look at.

The poor monkey was soon rolling about the deck and throwing a fit an it took three tankards of rum and a large bunch of bananas to calm it down enough to be able to get any sense out of it.

The monkeys analysis of this policy was that it was not worth the paper it was written on. The monkey believes it to be nothing more that the three largest alliances trying to use their size to force a server wide policy on everyone that is beneficial only to their lazy members who are to self-centered and filled with their own importance to build and play in such a way as to manage and protect their own resources.

Having said this the monkey then screwed up the said policy and stuffed it down in the bilges with all of the foul smelling slime where it belongs, drank another three tankards of rum and was last seen hanging from a yardarm by it's tail.

Having listened to the monkeys analysis I've given some thought to the matter and taken into account that these lazy landlubbers are known to have problems when it comes to saying exactly what they mean.

This here policy has come from a discussion around peace between TIE and TOC after the little tiff that they have just had (you cant really call it a war unless you want to call it a war of words). As such I will take it as being badly written and that it is only relevant to the members of the TIE and TOC alliances.

Just in case they feel that they can ram this down the throats of the rest of us I'll have me crew start sharpening their cutlass's

by Lord Ishurue Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:03 pm

ian wrote:
buhcoreTheGreat wrote:what i see here is 3 guys making server based policy which will be avoided by many people because of its complexity. Or maybe is just me, too lazy to read even the 1st sentence.

Server based policy?

This policy only applies to farming done *against* TIE & T.O.C

If someone wants to profit via farming from our members hard work in developing their accounts, then they have to play by our rules....

Both TOC and TIE in the past have always been fair when it comes to our Farming of players outside of TOC & TIE .

by LurantMaximus Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:17 pm

Capt_Blood wrote:Arrr, well I started to read it but gave up like buhcore so I gave it to me cabin boys pet monkey to look at.

The poor monkey was soon rolling about the deck and throwing a fit an it took three tankards of rum and a large bunch of bananas to calm it down enough to be able to get any sense out of it.

The monkeys analysis of this policy was that it was not worth the paper it was written on. The monkey believes it to be nothing more that the three largest alliances trying to use their size to force a server wide policy on everyone that is beneficial only to their lazy members who are to self-centered and filled with their own importance to build and play in such a way as to manage and protect their own resources.

Having said this the monkey then screwed up the said policy and stuffed it down in the bilges with all of the foul smelling slime where it belongs, drank another three tankards of rum and was last seen hanging from a yardarm by it's tail.

Having listened to the monkeys analysis I've given some thought to the matter and taken into account that these lazy landlubbers are known to have problems when it comes to saying exactly what they mean.

This here policy has come from a discussion around peace between TIE and TOC after the little tiff that they have just had (you cant really call it a war unless you want to call it a war of words). As such I will take it as being badly written and that it is only relevant to the members of the TIE and TOC alliances.

Just in case they feel that they can ram this down the throats of the rest of us I'll have me crew start sharpening their cutlass's

If you had taken the time you put into creating this ridiculous pirate roleplay and actually read the whole thing maybe you'd actually understand it unless your mental capacity is that of your fantasy monkey.

by Capt_Blood Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:04 am

Oh, I read it all right and I saw much the same as my fantasy monkey saw.

This policy has come from the TOC / TIE war, but instead of just addressing issues between the waring parties you've come up with a policy that covers everyone.

Now there were whinges and complaints from those involved in both the war and treaty discussions when others wanted to have some input so out of courtesy those not involved kept out.

What we see here is a decision by the largest groups on a farming policy that includes everyone but has not had input or discussion outside of TOC / TIE and is ridiculously complex and is nothing more than an attempt by them to not only maintain their own positions but also dictate the style of play that suits them and informs everyone else that if you don't abide by our rules then tough. break our rules and we will mass you.

There has been talk by some that this policy is fair to all which is rubbish.
At no time have I seen any of these alliances put up anything that shows anything like them being and acting like a team other than to say they will mass those who breach the policy.

Now if they were to post something better that shows that they are more than a group of self centered people they might actually get some respect.

by melonhead Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:56 am

i agree with capt blood, i didn't relies how boring this game was until this whole treaty bull crap started... you cant hit A cause your def is too high and you can be hit by B because your strike is too high,

you say this isn't making people play your way, but your the strongest empires with a majority of the strongest players...so in essence that is exactly what your doing... im a t.i.e member but now im just going to put my self in vac mode..cause this crap is ridiculous, ill go find a different game to play.. and keep having fun in reset where there are no bullies enforcing their rules and boring guidelines on everyone

by seaborgium Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:24 am

And I was asked why I left. Rolling Eyes

by ian Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:53 am

@ Capt-blood. Your free to play how you like - just if you want to farm TIE meet the requirements, or otherwise just avoid TIE. As for T.O.C... thats none of my business.

@ Melonhead. Do you honestly think I personally like this policy? I miss the days where The Imperium didn't have to actively enforce a policy - because we didn't have people who figured they could take us for a ride and try to farm us dry, instead being farmed by people who exercised their own judgement and restraint - ensuring peaceful coexistence and no need for a policy to be actively enforced.

I d also ask where have you been the last 2 - 3 weeks of discussion, and at what point did you make your views known to myself or TIE? We have a forum for a reason - not to mention a ingame message system. Whining AFTER something has been agreed it a bit late.

@ Seaborgium. Yes I know your views well enough - to have no policy and simply act like DDE (from SGW) i.e. hitting those who farmed us, was I believe your suggestion for TIE's farming policy?

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

Frankly I m also very tempted to have no policy and just act on a case by case basis with regard to farming of T.I.E.

But think of this - if TIE abandons a standing policy, there will be some T.O.C members who think thats a free-pass to farm T.I.E members as much as they want, without consequence for their actions - much like happened before TIE started actively enforcing its own policy.

Then when T.I.E hammers those problem farmers in response, T.O.C will get severely upset and probably declare war - or otherwise expect T.I.E to try diplomacy to resolve the problem farmers (which would have become a problem *after* their farming i.e. after the damage is done) even if we issue a warning that those who farm TIE and do it in a unacceptable manner run the risk of being neutralised.

Then on the other hand without TIE having a say in T.O.C's farming policy - the odds are WR at the very least will adopt a policy designed to offer complete protection from farming to their players who ve gone literally 16-17+hours without logging in and banking - i.e. protecting very low activity members- which has the side effect of making every active player unfarmable, and making the ability to farm the low-activity players a very rare occurrence - all the while in which you can be assurred some of T.O.C will be actively pushing T.I.E's tolerance of farming done to it, to its limits.

In such an event - if TIE doesn't have a policy in all honesty we d be inclined to back up our own farmers conduct on a case-by case basis i.e. unless we don't think the farmer's conduct is out of line - then they d have the fully support & protection of TIE should anything unfortunate happen to them (i.e. getting massed for breaching another alliance's policy). So if for example WR adopted a policy and a TIE member breaches it, and we (TIE) feel their farming was acceptable and the TIE member gets nuked in response to his farming.... The Imperium Empire almost certainly would fully mobilise and retaliate in force against WR.

Thus... TIE adopting no policy on farming will in short lead to:

- Increased farming of TIE by people who think No policy amounts to a free-pass to farm without consequence

- Increased uncertainty i.e. a farmer wont have any set boundaries to say when farming is acceptable and when its not acceptable to gage his actions by.

- Likely increased tension between the alliances (I can guess pretty accurately T.O.C wouldn't like it if TIE decides its just going to ignore any policy they adopt and instead decide for ourselves whether our members actions are acceptable or not) which inevitably will lead to increased subterfuge and diplomatic "manoveuring"

- Probably an increased frequency of crisis's (i.e. if TIE massed a problem farmer, or if T.O.C threatened to mass a TIE member for breaching a policy & TIE garantee's that player's protection since we feel the farming is legitimate)

- Inevitably a increased risk of war.

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

From a personal perspective I have no problems or issues with frequent brutal wars. To me AW revolves around them - and the peace period is merely the time where you arm and get ready for the next war... and consequently that translates into TIE's basic standing policy - with everything we do as a alliance aimed at improving our performance in war.

As such... having no farming policy at all appeals to me - as does the effects it will have of making TIE unpredictable and uncertain - not to mention all the side effects of tension, crisis's and alliance-diplomacy will have an affect of making AW a lot more interesting and fast-paced.

However.. what about the rest of TIE - some of which may desire for a stable "garanteed" period of peace without constantly having to worry about having 1 or 2 days notice of a imminent war? Unless we are happy just to rely on the game mechanics to restrict farming (i.e. "defences") - something which simply doesn't do it to an effective level now since admin purposefully changed the mechanics to encourage more farming (to encourage more wars), then we need to rely on "influence" (I.e. personal or alliance) to top up the protection against farming offered by defences - and this will require a agreed policy if there is to be a stable relatively "safe" period of peace.

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

Anyway, I welcome the input & discussion. Something you all should consider (and especially people like Melonhead who apparently ignore important bits of information). This policy is on a TRIAL period of 14 days.

Trial = If for whatever reason its unacceptable i.e. in practise it is unworkable, found to be too complex etc... - or alternatively if TIE's (or T.O.C's) members make it known they dislike the policy... then in 14 days the policy ends and doesn't have to be renewed.

Frankly Melonhead going on vacation-mode is pretty stupid when you consider a.) No complaint was raised before b.) The policy's on a 14 day trial period in which its already been said if its found unacceptable it won't be renewed...

by melonhead Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:01 am

Ian.. I dont blame you at all.... and as to why I havnt said anything? because im a smaller newer member of tie and frankly to you guys my opinion doesn't matter, as i have noticed a few others from tie have felt the same as i....
its just teh way it is as you said you liked the peacefull co exististence.. me i dont... i prefer to be hit and to hit others it keeps stuff interesting...

its boring just gaining and banking and building..i thought this was a war game i guess i was wrong ohwell...no big deal yo u guys play how you want...ill find a new game

by curumo Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:42 am

Melonhead I'm a smaller, newer member of TIE, at least I was before the war and I have NEVER had a problem with Ian, SA or Sea listen to things I had to say. I'll let in on the little secret as to the why:

I ACTUALLY TALKED TO THEM DIRECTLY OR ON THE FORUMS ABOUT ISSUES I WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH THEM.

Sorry for the caps, again just making sure people don't misunderstand or misquote me.
As for the peaceful coeqistance part - you have any idea how expencive wars here are? I mean, truly? How much have you sacrifices in this war for TIE? :S This isn't SGW... if you want to play brainless buttonsmashing games that would be for you. But enough about the ranting part.

I do have one thing to point out with the policy, or rather question:

So what happens if I have a 2 b strike and want to farm a 2 b def player who has 2.2 b kuwal out.

I need a proffit of 550m which would be easily attainable if the attack modifier doesn't mess too much with me. (2 k losses x 630 m = 1,2 B kuwal = 1 b proffit).

So what happens then if I get 1,5 b strike (due to the modifier) and he gets a 2,5 b def and I take only 1.1 k and loose 2,4 k uu? My hit isn't proffitable but that's not something I can 'influence' either. Opinions?

by Steveanaya Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:45 pm

I say if you're so bored melonhead, find someone that's willing to have a 1 vs 1 against you.

by Kenzu Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:06 pm

melonhead wrote:its boring just gaining and banking and building..i thought this was a war game i guess i was wrong ohwell...no big deal yo u guys play how you want...ill find a new game

If you came 2 weeks earlier, you could have taken part in the biggest war of all times.

by Vesper Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:30 am

I have a challenge for TIE and ToC. Create a policy that can be read in 15 seconds or less by any average person.

The average person reads like 200 words per minute on a computer so I would think 50 words or less gents.

by curumo Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:54 am

Vesper you're right ... it's VERY confusing ... it even managed to confuse me ... and I'm not stupid :S

by Lord Ishurue Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:57 am

Vesper wrote:I have a challenge for TIE and ToC. Create a policy that can be read in 15 seconds or less by any average person.

The average person reads like 200 words per minute on a computer so I would think 50 words or less gents.

curumo wrote:Vesper you're right ... it's VERY confusing ... it even managed to confuse me ... and I'm not stupid :S

assuming the current one goes .
Farm Policy
Population x 150 = minimum profit .

population under 1,666,667 you must make 250 million profit .

Excessive strike and defense. get handled by a case by case basis .

minimum defense to be protected higher then 0 . Case by case basis

by Vesper Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:24 am

now the case by case thing for the minimum defense got me puzzled. Can't you just say like have 2% - 7.5% to be protected?

I do like that summary much more then what ever you guys were talking about on the last page with your triple quoting.

by Kenzu Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:53 pm

I SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE FARMING POLICY
namely since TIE is hidden, it's impossible for many players to tell who is part of TIE and thus protected by the policy.

Since TIE is hidden, there is the problem that most people don't know which players are TIE, and so they don't know to which players TOC-TIE farming rules apply.

Therefore I suggest that players post the TOC-TIE policy in their MOTD or that TIE makes itself visible, otherwise problems may arise if TIE members will ask compensation from TOC players, who didn't know that they are TIE.

Please solve this problem ASAP!

by curumo Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:02 am

While I acknowledge this as a problem I do know that you guys know who our members are and not Wink

Out of courtesy to someone I respect I put it up even before I saw this - just to avoid conflicts. I'll suggest that to TIE as well.

by Sponsored content

T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Minimum Defense Clause

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy

Re: T.O.C & TIE Trial Farming Policy