Originally
posted by
H4xOr WaNgEr:
and that in of itself makes this dicussion moot.
You are asking people to change game mechanics in order to support/remove behaviour that has occured due to alliance policy, not game mechanics.
There is no rule that says you have the right to attack someone back after they attack you. By extension there is no rule that says you can't farm landtraders because you don't like landtrading. Etc.
I think all the talk after your post was pretty pointless. You're right that it's a political problem and not a programming problem. What's amusing to me is that folks continue to think L:L policies are the solution rather than the problem.
Having L:L policies means grabbing most other alliances is absolutely pointless. Bottomfeeding only can get you so far. So people will move toward landtrading as PDM and RD have in a more formalized way.
I'm probably making the argument for nothing, but I would seriously advocate a political solution with everyone returning to the 2:1 days or 1:1 without a pact. From where I stand it would probably hurt my alliance. I think it's better for the game and more interesting. The movement toward everything must be account for (we'll soon have L:L plus some ratio of military lost:L) makes the game more stale and even tempts me into running an untagged country that stockpiles like crap and then spends half the reset disturbing the big boys.
EE Patron