Verified:

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 25th 2019, 22:29:23

Subject to change, but here's a first pass of what I worked on today:

What I've done so far:

Joining/Leaving clan GDI:

- Clans that join ClanGDI can't leave for 72hrs
- Clans that leave ClanGDI can't rejoin for 48hrs (lengths are subject to change)


Attacking:

- If either the defender or attacker is in Clan GDI, all attackers must declare war on the defender
- If the attacker is in clan GDI:
-- The defender must have attacked the attacking country sometime during the round OR the defender must have attacked the attacker's clan within the last 72hrs
-- OR the defender must be untagged
- If (the attacker is not in clan GDI OR the attacker/defender relationship meets the above criteria) AND the defender is in clan GDI:
-- The defender must meet the minimum military requirements (TBD, stubbed for now) or they don't receive protection


Haven't built this, but I need to add it:
Spyops:

- Countries in clan GDI can't do or be subject to harmful ops, period. This is a bit of a technical limitation in how we store spyop data and will need to be revisited :(


Detagging/leaving tag:

- Countries who leave or are booted from a tag that is in clan GDI cannot join or create a clan for 72hrs of the detag event


Note: no restriction on types of attacks you can do

Also I need to add the costs for being in clan GDAI

Edited By: Pang on Oct 25th 2019, 22:36:05
See Original Post
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Requiem

Developer

5698

Oct 25th 2019, 23:07:57

I would suggest that no limits be put on bot countries and they they be attacked as per normal.

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 25th 2019, 23:14:23

Originally posted by Requiem:
I would suggest that no limits be put on bot countries and they they be attacked as per normal.


The thought is that we make most bot countries tag up (something we have an API for now) and then you can declare war on tags while in clan GDI.

The theory would be that clan tags will auto-declare war back. We need to understand what the declare war mechanic will be first.

But that's a V2 thing :)
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Original Skywise L

Member

399

Oct 25th 2019, 23:32:32

If you are at war within clans, must you declare on each individually country, and can one retal outside of this declared war on another clan...say two smaller clans on one large clan? Is the larger clan automatically at declared war on both clans whom have declared on the larger clan?
Is a suicider stronger by just having a tag?
Skywise

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 0:05:02

If the main concern is to protect against suiciders this should be protection only against untaggeds or small (3 or less) tags. Otherwise I view this as another step to remove warring tags from the game

Savage

Member

226

Oct 26th 2019, 0:15:55

Originally posted by tfm0m0:
If the main concern is to protect against suiciders this should be protection only against untaggeds or small (3 or less) tags. Otherwise I view this as another step to remove warring tags from the game


Don’t enter GDI as a war tag, or plan 72 hours in advance of FS.

The only spot it would make much difference is if you blindsided an alliance that was in GDI and didn’t want to war. At that point everyone could still declare but you’d have to kill the country so walling could be super fun/effective in that case.

Requiem

Developer

5698

Oct 26th 2019, 0:16:46

Originally posted by tfm0m0:
If the main concern is to protect against suiciders this should be protection only against untaggeds or small (3 or less) tags. Otherwise I view this as another step to remove warring tags from the game


War tags can war other war tags?

galleri

Game Moderator
Team & Express
10,766

Oct 26th 2019, 0:28:02

Originally posted by Requiem:
Originally posted by tfm0m0:
If the main concern is to protect against suiciders this should be protection only against untaggeds or small (3 or less) tags. Otherwise I view this as another step to remove warring tags from the game


War tags can war other war tags?

This. Because it has been pretty much-arranged wars for the last few years now. Until you all came back thinking speedkill (TM) was still champion hitting scene. (no offense lol <3)


/R'amen



ninong
Member Sep 7th, 2006 3:22
i sure hope this galleri person isn't anoniem on drag *cringes*
Derrick to macdaddy:
I believe I could fluff Scarlett Johansson but that dont mean I actually could.

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 0:44:15

Originally posted by Savage:

Don’t enter GDI as a war tag, or plan 72 hours in advance of FS.

The only spot it would make much difference is if you blindsided an alliance that was in GDI and didn’t want to war. At that point everyone could still declare but you’d have to kill the country so walling could be super fun/effective in that case.


This is valid but pang also mentioned nerfing returns for the attacking clan if it's non GDI vs GDI. I just see this spiraling more and more to protecting netters.


Originally posted by galleri:

This. Because it has been pretty much-arranged wars for the last few years now. Until you all came back thinking speedkill (TM) was still champion hitting scene. (no offense lol <3)

/R'amen


Arranged wars get stale and will drive warmongers out. Also, I think it's time to find a new joke.

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 26th 2019, 0:55:15

Folks complaining about warmongers not being able to hit clan GDI tags -> wouldn't clans that want to fight self-organize into a situation where they're not in clan GDI if they're looking for a fight?

When I read some of those response, the read like "why do netters get to decide if we can hit them or not?" when the last 10 years that this game has been around has, largely, been folks who want to fight a war holding the cards over folks who do not

I think there's a lot of room for some cool mechanics around declaring war between clans, including escalation mechanics that would ramp up tensions'

I think one thing that everyone can agree on as we've seen more folks leave the game over the last 10 years is that the status quo isn't the best path forward. These changes will create a new equilibrium in which both folks who prefer war and folks who prefer netting will need to adapt. If we were to make a change that has a group of folks saying "this is perfect!" and another group saying "this is absolute crap!" then we failed.

What we want is a situation where everyone thinks it kinda sucks. :p
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Red X

Game Moderator
Primary, Express & Team
3881

Oct 26th 2019, 0:56:25

Taggs of a a set size should be able to declare war on another tag for harmful ops etc. This kills allies and what not if 2 netting tags are having issues and a allie war tag wanted to step in.
http://nbkffa.ghqnet.com

Jeffery Epstein did not kill himself.

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 0:59:13

If you are sentient, you understand that suiciding is overpowered and the main problem in this game right now. If it was as easy to balance it as it was to remove it without encroaching on other aspects of the game it would be preferable.

I guess we could also try and appeal to the good nature of the earth community to quit griefing instead. :P

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 1:01:24

Originally posted by Red X:
Taggs of a a set size should be able to declare war on another tag for harmful ops etc. This kills allies and what not if 2 netting tags are having issues and a allie war tag wanted to step in.

What would cause these issues?

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 1:28:46

Originally posted by Gerdler:
If you are sentient, you understand that suiciding is overpowered and the main problem in this game right now. If it was as easy to balance it as it was to remove it without encroaching on other aspects of the game it would be preferable.

I guess we could also try and appeal to the good nature of the earth community to quit griefing instead. :P


How many mid/large size tags do you consider griefers? I don't understand why you can't leave normal tags out of the protection.

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 26th 2019, 1:43:46

the problem with arbitrary numbers is that it creates an incentive to just get to that amount through multies etc so you can get over the threshold to opt out of the mechanic

I favour solutions that won't create those sorts of situations
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 1:50:54

tfm0m0, that depends what they do; if they greif then they are griefers. However, if they don't, they are not griefers. So in the case that they are not griefers then they are not affected by clan GDI unless they join it.

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 2:06:25

What a silly reasoning to say multies may tag up together to get around the mechanics. If they get far enough to create countries, build them up, tag them together and attack then someone is not doing their job.

Gerdler, relations among clans should be driven by politics, pacts, and alliances. Not admin intervention.

Z [Post Script]

Member

50

Oct 26th 2019, 2:25:08

Intent here makes a lot of sense! Thanks for taking the time off work to make it happen!

I do hope that we have a chance to collectively think through unintended consequences before locking down. Or remaining holes that griefers can get through.

As it is, it seems like a single suicider can ruin a top country in clan GDI simply by declaring war. Is that correct?

It also seems like a defending alliance in GDI wouldn’t be subject to missile dumps for readiness of attackers?
-Z (Post Script)

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 2:52:22

tfm0m0 thats not what has happened tho in any of the cases that would be prevented by this.

Politics didnt make:
1) Elders war LaF for a year.
2) MD declare war on the server.
3) Imagnum blindside LCN to drive them from the game.
4) Imagnum blindside Paradigm, which lead to the server war a few sets later to be messed up for everyone since PDM and Imag was supposed to be on the same sides but PDM instead FSed Imagnum.
5) SoF blindside LaF their first set back.

All of these instances had one motivation: "I am gonna stick a screwdriver in their eyes to watch their salty tears."
Some of these might have been prevented by this mechanism and that is great as well, tho this for me wouldnt be the primary benefit.

PS war on Evo last set or SOLs war on Evo a few sets back are some rare examples of wars that were started because of diplomatic issues.

Also, you speak of politics as someone who doesnt dabble in it. With so few alliances around these days and everyone knowing everyone its come down to pretty much a case of 'We won't pact you because we are planning to hit you'. The real art that still remains is being friendly enough with everyone to be able to create even wars that are interesting for both sides.

Savage

Member

226

Oct 26th 2019, 2:56:08

Originally posted by Z [Post Script]:
Intent here makes a lot of sense! Thanks for taking the time off work to make it happen!

I do hope that we have a chance to collectively think through unintended consequences before locking down. Or remaining holes that griefers can get through.

As it is, it seems like a single suicider can ruin a top country in clan GDI simply by declaring war. Is that correct?

It also seems like a defending alliance in GDI wouldn’t be subject to missile dumps for readiness of attackers?


The way I read it is only if you’ve attacked the suiciding country at some point.

Shweezy

Member

779

Oct 26th 2019, 3:01:47

Why dont you just kindly ask all the war tags to quit the game?

This seems like LaF put you up to it so we (war tags) wouldnt FS them.

Thank you kindly, WeeZy

- Anti-GDI/Anti-more Pro-Netter changes
Catch me on ir c

DerrickICN

Member

3701

Oct 26th 2019, 3:07:43

Hmmm. I donno about that gerdy. I largely agree with your point but nah.

Sol have blindsided us 2x for politics reasons. We hit cubans pdm for politics reasons. Elders vs sof when we were with you was also to some degree the result of poor politicking by sof. WFS set was a poor politics war. It's absolutely still a thing.

In terms of the clan gdi element, id need to see how plays tbh. If clans can declare war on other clans, then i wholeheartedly believe this change JUST mitigates griefers. And people who wanna join elders to war but think topfeeding netters their first set is chill etc. To me, FA gets soooo much easier for stuff like that. And i think if its like regular gdi, if i wanna war laf, it seems like i still can.

I don't think i understand it tho if tags cannot declare war on a whim. I think any non-solo should be able to declare war and hit a tag. Is that built in or no? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding and tags will not be able to declare war for poor politics. If this is the case, i don't think it's the proper means to an end.

Z [Post Script]

Member

50

Oct 26th 2019, 3:08:10

[quote poster=Savage; 47925; 918254]
Originally posted by Z [Post Script]:
Intent here makes a lot of sense! Thanks for taking the time off work to make it happen!

I do hope that we have a chance to collectively think through unintended consequences before locking down. Or remaining holes that griefers can get through.

As it is, it seems like a single suicider can ruin a top country in clan GDI simply by declaring war. Is that correct?

It also seems like a defending alliance in GDI wouldn’t be subject to missile dumps for readiness of attackers?


The way I read it is only if you’ve attacked the suiciding country at some point. [/quote]

I’m reading it as that rule only applies it attackers clan is in GDI. I’d hope it’s more of what you see though.
-Z (Post Script)

BigP

Member

16

Oct 26th 2019, 3:19:22

Originally posted by tfm0m0:


relations among clans should be driven by politics, pacts, and alliances. Not admin intervention.


I agree with this.

Savage

Member

226

Oct 26th 2019, 3:23:31

[quote poster=Z [Post Script]; 47925; 918258][quote poster=Savage; 47925; 918254]
Originally posted by Z [Post Script]:
Intent here makes a lot of sense! Thanks for taking the time off work to make it happen!

I do hope that we have a chance to collectively think through unintended consequences before locking down. Or remaining holes that griefers can get through.

As it is, it seems like a single suicider can ruin a top country in clan GDI simply by declaring war. Is that correct?



It also seems like a defending alliance in GDI wouldn’t be subject to missile dumps for readiness of attackers?


The way I read it is only if you’ve attacked the suiciding country at some point. [/quote]

I’m reading it as that rule only applies it attackers clan is in GDI. I’d hope it’s more of what you see though. [/quote]


Re-reading it I think you maybe right. That does seem far less effective. Basically just focuses a suicider on one country instead of multiple. I believe it also makes that country a bit more difficult to kill

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 26th 2019, 3:28:05

The mechanic works such that if a clan is in clan GDI, a member can only be attacked by countries that member attacked previously in the round (at any point) or members of a clan they attacked within the last 72hrs. The latter part of that is to allow retals when a clan joins clan GDI.

Clan GDI countries cannot attack anyone in clans at all unless it's in that same retal paradigm (until we have a way to declare war on clans, etc)

Untagged players can be attacked by clan GDI countries, but cannot initiate attacks on clan GDI countries unless it's a retal.

So this creates situations where clan GDI country A attacks an untagged country X on day 6, that country could theoretically launch a bunch of missiles at country A on day 40. But country B in the same clan as country A cannot be attacked by country X. If country X tags up to another tag that also joins clan GDI, country X can still attack country A in the same way but the new tag can not retal on country X's behalf. The country must be tagged at defend time for it to count as a retal.

-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

DerrickICN

Member

3701

Oct 26th 2019, 3:29:12

Thats how i read it too. Like we can still b-side tags but we have to declare on each country 1 at a time haha.

I kinda don't get it. It seems like it will focus and mitigate suiciders which im for but it seems i can get around anything else i think...

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 3:37:16

Originally posted by Gerdler:

5) SoF blindside LaF their first set back.

With so few alliances around these days...


I don't post much so forgive my poor editing to relevant portions. I returned to the game after something like 7 years so only example 5 is relevant to me. Maybe politics did not cause this but they definitely have caused a majority of the politics since. The next set each of these tags drew 40+(I think) players each as we had a real reason for war. Since then I'm sure many have noticed those numbers have steeply declined. If the war was more competitive maybe a higher percentage would have stayed around but what it tells me is that the arranged wars are not interesting enough to draw old players back into the game.

Laf won that war and the next set as well, and earned the right to essentially dictate the actions on the server in the next two resets. That's how it has worked in the past and should in the future as well.

To the other point there, do you really think telling people they can only participate in arranged wars is the way to grow the game?

DerrickICN

Member

3701

Oct 26th 2019, 3:44:24

^certainly not for war players.

But I'm struggling to see how the declare war option does not allow that. Can you not declare war on countries in clan gdi or something? It seems like you can....

I feel like all we are missing here is a clan declare war on clan option and we're only preventing suiciders.

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 3:50:37

Derrick, there were a few other ways to nerf a non-clan GDI clan declaring on a cla using GDI that pangea mentioned on discord but I'm 1: lazy and 2: not going to copy/paste without context

Essentially my understanding is if clan A is non-gdi and wants to war clan B, which is in GDI there are several disadvantages applied to clan A.

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5486

Oct 26th 2019, 4:06:51

I'm not sure if I'm not explaining it properly, but with the current mechanic I'm working on, countries in clan GDI effectively can't be attacked other than by countries they attacked in the past (or clans within 72hrs). so if some clan that has had no interaction with a clan GDI clan all round wouldn't be able to attack the clan GDI clan. the use case I use for this is if a clan has all it's members join the clan while in protection, goes into clan GDI and runs all-x it would be completely safe from all attacks. clans that run the risk of grabbing (by not being in GDI) and grabbing other tags gets the reward of more land (theoretically) but has the risk of getting hit.

that's what I've coded so far, if it sticks is another thing
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

Primeval

Game Moderator
Mod Boss
2473

Oct 26th 2019, 4:07:37

A handful of the supporters of this arent intending to just prevent suicides - They are looking to fortify themselves away from any other clan or country military action, big or small. They borrowed words like "griefing" from largely unrelatable games and use it here repeatedly in an attempt to both normalize its use for hopeful adoption and drive culture-altering game mechanic shifts, arguing that hundreds and hundreds of players left the game for this specific reason with little factual proof of their own to support such a claim. These same players typically make little distinction between single landgrabs and full war kill runs. They want a button that isolates them away to bot masturbation with as little penalties as possible as we continue to move further and further away from real player interaction and from the foundation this game was built upon.

AtticusRex

Member

149

Oct 26th 2019, 4:08:31

Easily abused as described.

AtticusRex

Member

149

Oct 26th 2019, 4:11:34

Originally posted by Primeval:
They want a button that isolates them away to bot masturbation with as little penalties as possible as we continue to move further and further away from real player interaction and from the foundation this game was built upon.


The game Earth 2025 was built upon. Since 'coming back' I have repeatedly been reminded that this isn't the same game.

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 4:20:59

Originally posted by Primeval:
bot masturbation


This post sums up my feelings very well

enshula

Member

1944

Oct 26th 2019, 4:36:13

one potential abuse i can think of is

clan A no gdi
clan B gdi
country 1 no gdi

country 1 farms clan A
clan B twosteps country 1

clan A is now unable to do anything to clan B
all they can do is kill off country 1

so efectively the suiciders should now grief war clans and troll them rather than netting clans

87Fresh

Member

67

Oct 26th 2019, 4:37:40

Ngl, this makes me want to stop playing after only 4 sets back lol. Primeval is 10000% correct in everything he said.

87Fresh

Member

67

Oct 26th 2019, 4:40:27

Why is the focus not on getting more players and instead on killing any chance for anything but an arranged war.

War is fun, but wargaining for 6 weeks gets a bit tedious

sinistril

Member

1953

Oct 26th 2019, 4:44:39

Sorry but this entire idea is terrible. Like, god awful. Just remove restart bonus and you'll take away most of the effectiveness of suiciders or create a nonpvp server.

I do love how you implicitly give permission for clans to have 1:kill retal policies with very little downside. How about you make it so if a clan joins clan gdi every member of a clan must pay a large sum like normal gdi? And since this is far stronger than normal gdi, I do mean a large sum. Like 3-4 times the amount of normal gdi. It will still be a terrible idea but at least it will have some balancing.

Savage

Member

226

Oct 26th 2019, 4:58:39

Originally posted by 87Fresh:
Ngl, this makes me want to stop playing after only 4 sets back lol. Primeval is 10000% correct in everything he said.


What exactly are you guys losing out on here? The only thing I can see is forcing netting clans to war you when they don’t want to.

If you don’t think forcing netting clans to war especially in consecutive sets forces people out you’re wrong. Spend a couple years in LaF and you’ll see it. Heavy recruitment posts were sent out for those sets. After these changes are ironed out and and an email blast goes out you’ll see numbers swell and perhaps greater retention. You won’t have people worrying about building a country for 2 months to have it taken apart one way or the other at the end of set by some dipfluff who’s only beef with you is he’s bored and just likes to mess with people.

These changes give some control back to netters and they mitigate suiciding. Both sound good to me. As Pang mentioned it’s the warring clans who’ve been more or less dictating terms for the last decade. Boohoo now that the shoe is on the other foot.


The Cloaked

Member

471

Oct 26th 2019, 6:59:31

Hmmm, i like it in theory. But despite your reasoning pang, i'd prefer a tag declaration with a penalty.


If PS needs to landkill Evo for breaking a pact then they should be able to. Maybe just give the declaring tag a penalty. Like no restart bonus.

ironxxx

Member

782

Oct 26th 2019, 10:01:11

Originally posted by sinistril:
Sorry but this entire idea is terrible. Like, god awful. Just remove restart bonus and you'll take away most of the effectiveness of suiciders or create a nonpvp server.

I do love how you implicitly give permission for clans to have 1:kill retal policies with very little downside. How about you make it so if a clan joins clan gdi every member of a clan must pay a large sum like normal gdi? And since this is far stronger than normal gdi, I do mean a large sum. Like 3-4 times the amount of normal gdi. It will still be a terrible idea but at least it will have some balancing.


Pang over the years I have definitely developed some serious respect for you and everything you do for this community but I find myself agreeing with sin on this one. I do not see this doing much for the overall player base. I do see it as an appeasement to some longtime whiny netters (you know who you are) who ultimately will probably still be unhappy and whiney because at the end of the day you can still hit their country in some way shape or form.

Xavier

Member

56

Oct 26th 2019, 11:31:15

"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."

May have to adjust this in the future...

#EconomySimulator2020

Red X

Game Moderator
Primary, Express & Team
3881

Oct 26th 2019, 11:33:34

Originally posted by Gerdler:
Originally posted by Red X:
Taggs of a a set size should be able to declare war on another tag for harmful ops etc. This kills allies and what not if 2 netting tags are having issues and a allie war tag wanted to step in.

What would cause these issues?


Just a breakdown in FA, 2 stepping anything really. The looked at you funny so you want to take there munch money. This will just kill wars imo.
http://nbkffa.ghqnet.com

Jeffery Epstein did not kill himself.

Hardy

Member

304

Oct 26th 2019, 11:41:07

Turning war game into tree hugging game

Gg

Neil

Member

255

Oct 26th 2019, 11:53:18

Are you sure you gave LaF EVERYTHING they wanted? They might need you to clean their house or do their laundry.

fluff this, LaF threatens to kill all untags, trys to ask for (I forget 2 or 3) 3 thousand euros from Xyle, Banks (fluff that guy what a fluff I cant believe he is still in your clan what a punk LaF is a joke to keep a punk like him in your fluff alliance) threatens physical violence and YOU GIVE THEM EVERYTHING.

This is the WORST change I've ever seen.

But it's going forward because it is what LaF wants.

Congrats, you killed the game LaF.

"If you are sentient"

Gerlder if you were as smart as you thought you would see how your condescension and arrogance make you look.

But I have to give it to you, you played the game outside of the game really well, you won, you killed wars outside of arranged wars and dictated politics outside of the game.

I'm sure im not the only one.

This is my last set, after this I quit.

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 12:27:51

The people who helped convince devs to do this are the griefers of the last sets. I can't take credit for all their hard work. :)

tfm0m0

Member

132

Oct 26th 2019, 12:33:37

Still waiting to hear how untagged suiciders have anything to do with limiting the ability and effectiveness of one tag going to war with another.

Gerdler

Member

2307

Oct 26th 2019, 12:54:34

Well its pretty easy to tag up and suicide if that is a loophole.

Remember what the purpose is and what has brought this on. I'm sure if after evaluation the implementation doesn't do what was intended it will be augmented.

Suicidal

Member

1042

Oct 26th 2019, 13:26:50

[quote poster=Xavier; 47925; 918291]"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."

^^ the further we move away from the original intent, the more folks that leave the game^^

K.I.S.S. : If you are looking for change, just eliminate the ability for single player tags and single players overall. After all, it IS "Alliance". I suggest a three-person minimum then, a three-person tag that rapes LAF would not be considered suiciders. Mebbe just warmngers that would force netters to be better strategist.
There would still be the person/clan that can claim highest NW. It just might be a lower NW number. Folks that do not have the ability to see a "bot list" would be able to identify bots as the bots would be the only "untagged" countries in a search.

I know, I know, you folks are thinking "why didn't I think of that".