Nail head.

He didn't make it. He enabled it. Due to the fact the game has become so toxic due to inaction I do not play anymore.

I continue to post because this game has a great base of players and such potential but someone is asleep at the wheel.

Pan left LaF and is helping the newb friendly alliance PDM.

His political replies are almost gone, and he is an active poster in the bug/suggestion forum, what else do you want exactly?

Slagpit is trolling and insulting people, at the very least he isn't an admin anymore, so no one can fluff like they used to do.

"This game just isn't worth talking about anymore."

Isn't the server supposed to fry itself if Nukevil makes a good point?

And you trolling on the forums like this lamenting about the same banal things over and over, without providing any constructive criticism to improve this "hopeless" game, is meant to help the game improve? You talk about toxicity, but there has not been a single positively geared post from you this entire thread.

Seriously, please stop this now.

Wait does this mean I need to buy tanks?

Also Dagga, if you can't be a positive influence on this community you need to leave. We don't need a troll like you around you're toxic. Not saying you're not a good guy or you could be, but the way you act now is really annoying.

If you don't like this place/game then leave. There are a million other games you could enjoy.

Want to improve the game? Make killing harder

However, a few fail safes need to be eliminated.


People quit the game when their effort of several weeks is gone in minutes (sometimes seconds), that is what we need to tackle.

Use Detmer civ kill formula, to remove country kills of the game.
Remove Spy DR (make so only your Spal gets a *6 boost or something).
Make GS capable of steal/destroy cash/food besides also killing civs.
BR kill civs and level even more buildings than before.
AB destroy 10% more CS than BR.
Land Grab DR is 50% weaker.
The minimum amount of acres a nuke destroys is 20.
Cruise missiles can be focused down on a single type of military for 80% the effect.


Etc.

Oh I have tried to suggest plenty of things to improve the game.

http://forums.earthempires.com/...-things-to-make-ee-better

Note the post by pang.

And the new suggestions thread:

http://forums.earthempires.com/...gs-to-make-ee-better-v2-0

KingKaos some comments on your suggestions;

Use Detmer civ kill formula, to remove country kills of the game. - The ability to kill a country is very important. The biggest problem is having to start again from absolute scratch. Give restarts incentive to play on. Give them 10% of everything the last country had and allow them to keep their bonuses.

Remove Spy DR - hmm it should limit the DR to a point, I think that is where you are going with the * 6 thing..

Make GS capable of steal/destroy cash/food besides also killing civs. - Good in theory but LaF will use GS as a strategy to FA their members late in the set. That is why it was removed. If internal clan hitting was removed, great idea.

AB destroy 10% more CS than BR. - Yep, should differentiate it.

Land Grab DR is 50% weaker. - Don't mind it
The minimum amount of acres a nuke destroys is 20. - Like it

Cruise missiles can be focused down on a single type of military for 80% the effect. - I like the Cruise missile. It just needs to kill more military. The readiness killer is great.

dagga i don't agree with most of your flames (of course)

but some your war based ideas to improve your game aren't half bad.

but this "Good in theory but LaF will use GS as a strategy to FA their members late in the set. That is why it was removed. If internal clan hitting was removed, great idea."

is some major bullfluff right there. we all know it was removed because alliances like LaF were getting their food stock STOLEN by suiciders from GS to snowball into others.

let's not play dumb for the sake of spreading propaganda and lies

i might just have to file that under c:/documents/hypocrisy/bile

Spot the one posting under Windows 3.11...

it can't be windows 3.11

documents is 9 letters :D

spot the one who doesn't own or use a windows os.

Meh I could say the same to you considering your account is only made to argue and cause controversy. Perhaps you should listen to the 5-6 other people posting from various alliances saying they are tired of seeing the same crap argued about and enjoy the game or the forums the way some groups like PDM seem to.

More war plxz

(bonus)

hehehehehehe
long live Forgo the leader of the creationists!

I said make GS destroy/steal cash and bushels.

Something like reciving 5% of the amount destroyed

@Armadillo

I could pull a hanlong and just say "cool story bro" and walk off, but I'll at least try to respond to you. Can you specifically show where I am lying? Things LaF posted on AT: voiding/breaking the pact (not interested in arguing the semantics of the pact again, regardless LaF voided it) which could then be handled in several ways. The way LaF chose was to blind-side FS Evo. Most Evo countries had 0 troops and 0 SDI and had no reason to think that LaF was war-prepping for them. Even if LaF rightfully ended that pact (and I'd argue that's a big if), they could have told Evo they had 3-7 days to prepare or whatever because LaF had such and such an issue with them. As it was, LaF did everything that they say they hate about some war alliances (Pang had many diatribes on blind-siding netters and specifically LaF stated that SoL doing this to LaF over a year ago was one reason for their current war).

Keep in mind in my previous post on this thread I said: "That said, from prior grievances, this war with SoL seems totally reasonable even if one-sided," so I am obviously not referring to SoL in this example.

I have no clue what you think is such a lie, it is all on AT and has been there for some time. Between various leaders of LaF they didn't even agree on what pact they had with evo, they attempted to trick diez in to confirming their suspicions, but he even stated his answer was taken out of context (it seems reasonable he was responding to the question prior, as anyone who chats regularly knows you can answer one question just as another is asked), and then instead of trying to challenge evo to a war over some dispute, they dropped the pact and surprise FS'd a non-war prepped alliance because they have no honor (my opinion, but seems pretty damn dishonorable by general community standards), I mean even SoL would just not pact them, not pretend to have a pact in the hopes they could get out of it just to hit someone, that's just cold.

So Armadillo, please correct any "lies" I have told. If I am misinformed, inform me. I go through a lot of effort to make honest and reasonable posts on AT and am more than happy to be called out if necessary.

Why would you type all of that up Tertius? The guy isn't going to respond to you.

Most of what you said is correct except for one important detail. We did have reasons for hitting Evo last reset. The last time we hit Evo (while SS was Don) we hit them for the same reason.

H4 "I never tell a lie" lying on AT? I refuse to believe it.

So you figure that you know more about LaF's decision process (both recent and historic) than I do?

No, I figure you'll say anything on AT to try to make LaF look good. We're so impressed with your argument though. Lots of supporting evidence and facts.

And you'll do anything to try to make Laf and yourself look bad. No one is impressed with you either.

Tertius:

as an old Evo vet (even though you don't play there right now as you already point out, we know where your loyalties lie) you have a different view of how things go than from the LaF's perspective.

while you are entitled to them, you also have to realize in the past 2-3 days i spent countless hours nailing down the differences and trying to settle the bad blood and give genuine reasons for why everything was done the way it was.

we all came to an agreement on both parties that we both deem to be fair.

let's just leave it at that.

if all we want to do is to say the same fluff again on AT over and over again, please spare us all =)

So you call me out for lack of strong "evidence" for my claim, yet the only evidence you provide for your counter claim is "I figure you'll say anything on AT to try to make LaF look good".

Congratulations, you managed to be hypocritical within a 2 sentence statement.

That's pretty easy on AT.

@Hanlong, Yeah, my loyalties lie with truth and fair, fun, and competitive play. I'll just as easily ream Evo on AT if they endorse similar actions.

I assume in your response you are referring to spending countless hours to better relations between LaF and SoL? My posts have been in response to TAN which is not really about SoL so much, so I'm not sure why your post is addressed to me as it doesn't seem that relevant.

My entire point is that in my post, I have removed the fluff, there are some simple facts that both sides agree on (and no one seems to dispute them), and in my opinion given those facts, it seems outrageously dishonorable that LaF would let an alliance think they had a pact, ask that pacted friend to help them in a gangbang against an enemy, and then when refused blind-side FS said friend in a manner that they publicly stated was bad for the game a year ago.

Obviously there was some dispute between the two alliances, but isn't there some better way you could have gone about warring? You could have had discussions on ending the pact, and then suggested that they prepare for war in the next several days. You would obviously still have the advantage of war prepping all set, you could still have the FS, and you have the added benefit that it doesn't promote bad blood and leaves the possibility that the war would have been enjoyable for both sides. That's my point. Biased I may be, but I do not think any of this is factually incorrect.

If LaF players want to call it all "lies" I would just like to have some reasoning. This is obviously old hat, it's not like you can go back and change things now, but considering that LaF on the receiving side of a blind-side FS hit SoL again an entire year later over the same issue seems indicative that LaF and Evo will have long lasting future issues as well.

Laf and Evo will have long lasting issues for man reasons. That war wasn't needed to create them and every reason for any Laf/Evo conflict has been debated 100's of times already so if you want reasoning go find one of those threads imo -_-

LaF sents FA to a few of their top rankers
Evo Talks fluff on AT

LaF seems to be sending Untagged suiciders to Evo
Evo talks fluff in AT

Evo talks fluff of LaF in AT for days
LaF declares on evo

Evo talks even more fluff on AT



That is how i understand this whole thing went on, I could be wrong as I haven't played that many sets :/

The part that cracks me up is the notion that its supposed to be 'fair' when you war somebody. Please, if you find yourself fighting in a lot of fair wars, your war department needs to be fired.

Mongol - "Conan! What is best in life?"
Conan - "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Mongol - "That is good! That is good."

When you fight for fun, you can fight fair. When you are fighting for survival, you do everything in your power to stack the odds in your favor.

LaF and EVO are not blowing netting sets and hemorrhaging members for fun, they are doing it to preserve their way of life. The only way they could preserve their right to netgain is to end the blindside attacks by warring alliances. At one time, LaF and EVO were willing to set aside their differences to form an anti-Sol coalition - it did not work out, but the very existence of the pact shows the level of desperation. You can hate them all you want, but the smoke has cleared and LaF is still standing, thats a clear win in my book.

i talked to both SOL and Evo actually.

i was referring to talking to Evo part obviously here, because it was pertaining to the subject that was being discussed.

Chaoswind and archaic both hit the nail right on the head.

The last 2 times we've declared war on Evo it is because they were trashing us way too much in public. We consider public relations to be relatively important, so we are always going to react very badly to that sort of behaviour. Evo generally has bad things to say about LaF on AT (and vice versa) but war has only come about when Evo spiked the level of flaming (both in frequency and magnitude).

Evo can argue against this all they want, it doesn't change the fact that this is why we FSed them (both times), to continue to ignore that only increases the odds that it will happen for a third time in the future.

Archiac was also dead on when it comes to why we've been treating SOL the way we have for the last year. LaF spent a long time trying to build a coalition out of the netting alliances that were tired of SOL's "randomly pick someone to FS" tactics. (and by a long time, I mean these discussions were going on back when we were still playing e2025). Evo was involved in these discussions at various points, but their involvement always flucuated based on the at-the-time relationship with LaF (Since the coordination of the netters was a LaF project).

But I thought everyone knows 90% of AT is just pure BS...

Nice try bro

LOL @dagga,
childish

What claims have I even made in this thread? That LaF is full of liars? Considering that your reason for FSing changes every month, of course you're fluffing liars.

Blather on all you want, I'm not going to make real arguments against you because I know that I'll never manage to break through your psychosis.

Since locket is apparently so desperate to hear for my opinion on LaF, I guess I'll indulge him.

I'm pretty sure that SOL could claim that some of the alliance leaders of the alliances that they FSed were talking trash on AT, which is the same pathetic excuse that LaF is offering here. So which is it?

1) LaF is just as evil as SOL and the rest of the server should band together and kill them off every set by their own arguments.

2) LaF's whining about "unfair blindsiding of netters" was total bullfluff. They weren't upset that it was happening. They were upset that they weren't the ones doing it. They wanted to be the ones FSing smaller allinaces for no reason. They wanted to be the ones arranging gangbangs.

The sad thing is you people think you're so clever. You're not.

Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth.

<3 Thanks for the fakts!

*eats popcorn*

More please

only if you share your popcorn with me

/me humps bertz

/me humps bertz

I love how Slag makes his statements so matter of factly, meanwhile they better resemble conspiricy theories.

I guess he fails to realize that since half of the server has been engaged in these conversations with LaF for over 2 year now (inlcuding at some points in time Slagpit himself) that people already know that what he is saying holds no water.

But of course I could be wrong, since Slag obviously knows more about LaF's motivations than I do.

What statements have you made? You've stated that I'm lying in this thread (twice now). Point to me where I have ever provided a different justification for our wars?

I have never said anything any different than what I said above, and I've said it publically and privately many times (public IRC channels, ICQ conversations etc).

I can't be accountable for what others say, only me, and I have always been blunt and forthcoming as to why these events occured.


And yes, trashtalking always occurs on AT, I recognized that in my initial post. I also pointed out that LaF FSing evo occured during periods where the trashtalk elevated well above what is considered "standard discourse" for AT. But I'm sure you'll ignore that important detail in your next reply just as you did with your previous ones.

the trashtalking isn't the reason for war according to your superiors, h4. We do FA contact outside of AT you know..

So I take it your post is one of those 90% trash posts on AT... It's all good bro.

Actually we don't have FA contact outside of AT. LaF and Evo haven't had meaningful contact in private for some time, as we dont' seem to be able to do so civilly.

Contact once per reset to confirm whether a pact is being renewed is not "maintaining contact". I'm the head FA and I haven't had a convo with Evo in ages. I hadn't had one in ages when I was still President of LaF either. Hanlong and I communicate very regularly on the conversations with have with others, and it doesnt' seem to me that he talks with Evo leaders much either.

The main interaction LaF has with Evo is through intermediaries. Aka Pang talking to Qz about LaF/Evo issues (where Pang will inform Qz about LaF's thoughts on things). We HAD to take this approach because we weren't able to get Evo leaders to engage with us with any sort of open mind. Unfortuantely getting Pang to talk to Qz didn't seem to help either, so that method was eventually discontinued as well (plus he isn't in laf anymore).

Hanlong very much agrees with the reasonings I posted above, perhaps you should try messaging him and asking, I'm sure he won't deny it.

Same with SS, if you ask him about why he FSed you back in the day I'm sure he would agree as well (assuming he provides an honest answer and doesn't allow his Evo hatred to lead him astray in his reply).

I thought LaF FSed Evo, because they couldn't beat Evo in avg nw without detagging members in the last second.

It stands to reason when you get spanked in netgaining (as an alliance) reset after reset, year after year, that you'd change the rules of the competition.

If you can't net, then war. It's a fine motto; however you are forgetting something. Evo are going to wipe the floor with you at netgaining for many a reset to come, without cheating, without FAing to the top, without breaking game rules, without pact breaking, without sitting at a computer for more than two minutes a day and without suiciding.

I really am perplexed about the "maintaining of contact". There were no problems when we (evo) were busy buying your (LaF/hanlong) butter wouldn't melt act/crusade against gangbangs and wars created by SoL (to destroy the game). You had to FS Evo, because we refused to speak to you on a civil level? Where are the logs of these attempts at private contact? If you are going to talk fluff, then at least clean up after yourself.

I repeat: Everything you add to the truth subtracts from the truth.

Wow, you mean all I have to do to confirm that you aren't lying is ask a bunch of people who are known to lie? I didn't realize it was so simple!

or you could provide, oh i dont know, maybe evidence of some kind???