For Alliance especially. This has probably been brought up several times, but with their only being 5 tags with 10+ at this point it just seems silly. Yes I suppose it's incentive to recruit up to 10 members, but it's also discouraging for the smaller netting tags (Omega, Monsters, RAGE, EVO, LCN, PDM etc) who are often just below 10, when the listed ANW and ranking is nerfed so hard. For ex. Omega at 7 members right now should have almost 200m anw but is listed at only 127m.

I guess it might be silly to allow one man tags to win ANW, but at the same time that would be impressive if a one man tag could pull that off.. unless they just retagged at the end, eh. Maybe make it 2+?

5 seems more reasonable than 1 or 2.

But at the same time, recruit. there are far more pressing concerns that need to be fixed before this and the problem is that none of that is being done or even attempted.

this has been discussed before (years ago) when some1 whined in FFA when 1 player tag took anw (luck with finding that thread).

doesnt have to be the same for FFA.

here's 1 "discussion" about same subject.

http://earthempires.com/...x-anw-on-alliance-26029?t

Well, it should be 5 on Alliance, maybe 25 on FFA. It obviously shouldn't be 1 on either as they are not solo servers, they're clan servers, but the game is getting thinly populated and there aren't that many big clans left. Pretty unfair that a clan of over 10 on alliance will almost always take ANW if they're netting at all, and an clan of 1 on FFA will almost always take ANW if they're netting at all.

And yeah I know Omega's won it a bunch recently, though, most clans over 10 members are warring every set now and they're just well above their other competition and to win ANW on FFA now all I have to do is detag 10 of my countries into my own tag and I'll win every single time. I don't even have to be as good at the top clans worst netter to do so.

some1 suggested some years ago that member limit per tag should be 40.

Marshal, we're making suggestions for right now not years ago. Player base size has changed enough that any suggestion not made recently shouldn't be considered.

i know.

A fluffing lie. You did not know. If you did then you wouldn't have said, and then sinistril would not have needed to correct you.

You are dumb. Stupid. Uneducated. You lack the ability to contemplate idea. You are marshal. Now used as a verb and noun and adjective. Don't marshal that idea; don't be as dumb as a marshal; you wouldn't want to marshal that easily understood concept.

When I meet somebody in toronto named marshal I ask where their helmet is.

lol braden

I agree with the topic though, it's annoying having to manually calculate averages for the netting clans just to see how everybody fares. Or I just do an estimate in my head, and I hate inaccuracy.

few years more and no need to think that much since only 2-4 tags left.

I really like median networth

Another option could be to set it up as an equation so that only the clam/appliance with the most members receives 100%. All other tags receive a nonlinear penalty to anw based on how far they are away from total members. The greater the disparity in members, the greater the penalty to anw. The current gaming climate could dictate how severe or how forgiving this penalty would be at various levels.

Winning anw with 10 members has always been easier and less impressive than winning it with 100.

fluffin clams. :P

In a way I agree with Viceroy, but you also have to remember that you still have the TNW measure, that gives the largest membership alliances a big advantage.

I would take the middleground and make an equation that punishes every tag that is below say 10 members (or the number of members in the largest membership alliance) but not by as much as today.

ANW=TNW/(Members+(x-Members)/c)

where x is the largest alliance membership number and c is a constant between say 3 and 10.

It also lowers the incentive for all tags not to drop members, not just the small ones.

Another option for clans consistently missing out on Average NW rankings to 1-2 players is to kill them

And you think that is a good option for the game? You think that is how family people from across the world wants to play? A large constituent that has left or are leaving this game are the ones who wants to be able to log in once a day after family dinner and run their turns in 15-30 minutes and try to win based on being smarter, not more active. People who don't live for EE, but have stuck around because they like the game and/or their friends here. So many things have been done to drive these people away from the game and its why we are ~300 players left who are fueled by hatred for one another.

Your proposal is terrible and even joking about(I really hope it was a joke) it made 4 players quit the game forever. Thanks!

1) If your argument is that these players are playing due to established friendships, I would find it odd that they were consistently blocking larger alliances from winning AVG NW with 1-2 person tags.

2) Unless you took a poll from each person, your whole statement is just a vague opinion... And a flawed one at that. I would argue that more people have left the game for other reasons. Further, I would argue that more people have left the game over the years due to the culture change rather than being killed in a war-based game. However, I will say that it is somewhat easy to make such a claim since the players that do leave because of the loss of their country are often the most vocal about their departure. I will also say that I have very little sympathy for people that choose not to play this game because of a result of a mechanic that is built into the game itself.

3) I was not necessarily trying to make much of a point beyond it is an available optoin to alliances that may be upset over continuing to lose out on top spots in AVG NW. Sometimes to be the best, you have to beat the best. There is a reason that this game contains troops, jets, turrets, tanks, and missiles instead of silver, gold, coal, ore, and other tangible items that may be popular in other games.




Earthempires.com homepage:

"Earth Empires is a free browser based strategy game where you take control of your nation's military and economy. Command your country's military to attack and defend against your enemies. Execute attack strategies to relieve opponents of their resources and land. Strategically invest in technology to outpace the economies of other countries. Ally with your friends or make new friendships by joining a clan. Conduct military operations, govern your country and build your empire.

Continuing the legacy of Earth:2025 - one of the first massive multiplayer browser games - Earth Empires brings a fresh new spin to a classic style of gaming."

Obviously, I was refering to people being forced to do KRs instead of joining their familiy dinner or sleeping. not the 1-2 players who try to steal ANW which cant be done either way with todays ANW method.

Also it is not just vague opinion that a very large constituent of this game want to log in about as much as they need to to play their country, answer some friendly ingame messages, forum posts on their alliance boards and perhaps check in irc once or twice a week for some friendly banter. You got maybe 1/3-2/3 of all the players in this game on this wavelength... I personally know, and I can name them for you, several dozen of these and another dozen or so that no longer play because it is too hectic for them. And I surely don't know all the players that fit this description. It is by far the largest group of players that I know.

Many have played the game for 20 years and they don't get excited for a kill run, they get annoyed that they can't play the game when it fits their schedule.

Netters having to KR griefers lategame for yet another reason is not the way to go. Let the netters net and the warrers war, or soon the griefers will have no one to grief and the warrers will have no one to war but bots.

I continue to be curious who brought that term to earthempires and why it is so commonly used by a select few.

My original statement stands. One option is to kill the 1-2 man tag standing in your way.

This community is far too toxic as it is, both in game and out. Changes to rules ought not increase toxicity. Killing countries for crappy reasons ought not be encouraged.

killing countries due crappy reasons or no reasons at all exists atm.

The term was not invented for EE but per its original definition it is why a select few play this game, per their own words.

All major online games work very hard punish griefers. They do this by changing mechanics or objectives such that common griefing practices are made more difficult or impossible in conjunction with banning repeat offenders out and punishing seldom-offenders in such a way that they will want to reform.
League of Legends is a war game of sorts too, it does not mean you can't identify and punish griefing which both in LoL as in EE is, albeit sometimes with difficulty, identifable practices that the more successful of the two games has been working against for years. LoL has about 10000 times more players than EE, they might be doing something right.

Marshal, I'm talking specifically about incentivization.

Apples and tangerines.

And attaching a new word to something doesn't make it anything of concern for game developers or the majority of the community. But carry on, I guess.

The original topic rarely affects me.

Griefers are most definitley a major concern for the majority of the community. If you can't see that you are in a bubble.

The suiciders are talking about how to save team server from all the suiciders. Do you know how far it has to go for that?

Removing the 10-man limit for anw altogether would create a new mechanic to grief, which is exactly what we should not do, as it would force people who play the game for other reasons to make lategame warchats that are only a burden. That helps this game to the grave faster.

At no point did I suggest that the 10-man limit be removed. I actually support it being lowered. My statement was only presenting an option for clans to take. For instance, I really only play FFA these days and my clan recently takes the top spots for Total Members and Total NW. If a 16-country tag was consistently blocking us from also winning AVG NW, there are a few routes to take to change that outcome. Killing the countries in that tag would not be my first, or even my second option... But it would be an option to consider.

In regards to the whole attacking, killing, "griefing", whatever argument: I'm playing devil's advocate here mostly. Unfortunately we are separated by time and culture so much so that we are too far apart for me to continue to argue the point.

But if putting in additional time and effort to win a particular area is a burden to someone, then that should also tell them something.

I support a 5 member ANW

I like this!

well you got some work to do =p