Yes I'm calling you out on the boards and don't care if I get flamed for it. This place needs some spice anyways.

Since you can't be bothered to return any of the messages that have been left for you, this is the only place I can apparently get through to you, since you do actually post on here.

You're a douchebag. Yep I said it. I'm sure others will agree.

You topfeed one of our guys, we retal L:L like we have the past two resets on topfeeds. So you, being President, and a great one I might add, decided to launch all your missiles at two of our better countries, hurting their final NW. Then you post a thread to make it seem like you're contacting us, but have no intentions on fixing the situation, since it's your country.

I hope you're proud for what you've done. Perhaps this is the reason RAGE is folding and merging elsewhere, since people like you and your infinite wisdom have done nothing to improve it.

We are working on arranging a war next set with SoF, and even though you guys will be playing there, that isn't enough. IF your tag ends up on it's own again, we might as well call it an arranged war as you will be set to farm.

Hope to see you soon.

Love,

Thomas

How do you define a topfeed? Isn't that really discourage grabbing by saying you will take everything away if the person gets good gains?

If the country you grab has 20% more land than you did at the time of the attack.

It's to prevent people from topfeeding others where even if they had max mil strat and tyranny they wouldn't be able to get all their land back. Especially if the country they hit has 200% more land than them. And L:L they would still benefit from Ghost Acres.

lol rage does it again.

Don't be a nub and protect your land

There is no such thing as topfeeding.

The concept of destocking works because you have high production and lowered expenses. If you continually buy defense, your production is stifled due to increased expenses. To protect your land with absolute guarantee from being landgrabbed, you would need ridiculous amounts of defense so that it would be difficult to stock.

The protect your land comment gets thrown around a lot, but in all reality, if someone wants to break you, they will break you.

And TAN - Yes, there is. You receive a set percentage of the opponent's land, based on NW, Government type and Military Strategy. If I have 30,000 Acres and you have 10,000 Acres and you grab me for 7% of my land giving you 2,100 Acres and, lets estimate Ghost Acres at 50% of land grabbed, 1,050 Ghost Acres, that gives your country 13,150 Acres. So when I retal I receive 921 Acres plus 460 Ghost Acres. So I lost 719 Acres out of the exchange, even with Ghost Acres being factored in.

I'm not sure if that was a fishing comment, but I figured I would clear it up anyhow.

No, Thomas, there isn't topfeeding anymore.

Topfeeding originally was based on someone lower in NW hitting a guy higher in NW with more land. That's why it's called TOPfeeding.

The new version of "topfeeding" is just another fluff way of saying "oh you took too much land, we want it back. kthxbai." It's so WEAK. Moreover, with the alliance:country land:land rules all of you guys use for "topfeeding" is just a greedy excuse to reclaim all your land back, because the defending country will either see only a small percentage of that land or nothing at all. This is why PDM has shifted to a country:country land:land deal -- if you're topfed, get your land back!

The term "topfeeding" is obsolete. It doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for awhile now. Come up with a new term for it -- or better yet, man up and do what we're doing.

Actually it exists as long as players wish it to. Man up and make them stop using it.

top feeding = a lower networth country hitting a higher networth country to get a higher percentage of land during the land grab.

The two countries can be at the same exact acreage before the exchange. however in a 1:1 retal the lower networth country would come out ahead. Usually accomplished by a jet heavy country.

It was done this way so if a larger networth country hit a smaller country then with 1:1 retals a smaller country would come out ahead. Specifically why bottom feeding grew (when ghost acres disappeared) to where it is now vs. exchanging land in or at the same networth.

Topfeeding originally was a mark of a great player if they could get away with it and keep a good portion of the land taken after the retal. hehe yes it upset people back then too ... meh the good old days :)

Has the land grabbing formula changed?? Also do not know if ghost acres would make it more even now.

Yes.

The only changes we did were adding ghost acres.

The only thing different between the old definition and the new definition is swapping out NW for Land.

Old definition:

- Being of smaller NW and landgrabbing a larger NW country.

Today's definition:

- Having lesser land and landgrabbing a larger land country.


It's the exact same concept, just that the formula isn't the same as it was with the old definition of topfeeding.

Well said Locket.
In a game such as this, a concept exists as long as people say it does. Topfeeding exists because we define it and enforce it.
RAGE's president, of all people, has severely impacted the finish of two countries for no apparent reason other than boredom. No wonder they're folding.

Well, it definitely is right up Ivan's alley. I guess the two of them can be pansies together.

Ivan has actually not acted that way in a long time, Jonathan.

So.. Top feeding is not encouraged, and bottom feeding is?

Flame more :)

We encourage our guys to hit countries with similar NW and Land.

Thomas, you are a tool. Topfeeding does not exist from a formulaic perspective. Topfeeding exists only in the mind of extremely land heavy players who prey on untags/small tags. They don't protest about the 100's or even 1000's of attacks they've done on small guys who cannot defend themselves, but are up in arms about the single digit hits on them.

Defending their right to not be hit is like defending Hitler for a humanitarian award.

Were my actions just? Not by accepted standards.
Did I hit anyone who wasn't a notorious bottom feeder or hadn't hit me? No.

You come on AT and trumpet this like I was a majestic dragon you've just slain. I was called by people about the attacks on my country, but unlike you, I have a life and a job which takes precedence, so I did not attempt to stop it. Perhaps you should investigate in getting yourself one also.

I'll get right on that. Any suggestions? Is there a "how to" guide on finding a life? I've never found one before. Is it similar to a scavenger hunt? Should I sign up for an Easter Egg hunt and hope that I find a life inside one of the eggs?

Oh, and by the way, I'm sure you know this because you know everything. But to have 20% more land (or more) is not difficult. It can be accomplished without farming untaggeds. Landgrabs on tags that retal, performing retals, batch exploring as a Rep etc etc.

I was a Fasc Farmer last reset that didn't farm untaggeds and I broke 30K. So the guy who has 20K as an All-Ex that didn't make any LGs or retals and stopped exploring early decides to hit me. That isn't a topfeed since I have 33% more land than he does? I'd be lucky to profit 200 Acres, if any.

You only see it one way. There are two sides to everything. Not everything is black and white.

I don't give a damn whether or not its a topfeed. What use is a retal policy if it doesn't punish someone for attacking me? A retal policy should deter hits.

Stop being a flaming flufftard Thomas

Quitcherfluffin and get the hell over it. It's a god damn game

Yes and no. On the one hand, you want to discourage hits to a certain degree -- but you don't want to kill the game at the same time by being douches about it.

And why is grabbing someone who can retal you a necessary part of the game?

Because there is effectively no one else to grab anymore.

And why should grabs be part of the game? Yet stealing tech from countries isn't part of the game (outside of war), and neither is missile retals or AB/BR/GS attacks (outside of war).

And pre-arranged attacks between countries isn't part of the game (unless you are RD). The one alliance trying to make it part of the game has made enemies merely by attacking themselves and not harming anyone else.

Interesting that attacking a target who is a willing victim is not acceptable, yet attacking a target who is an unwilling victim is considered acceptable.

And while untaggeds can be farmed, they are not allowed to attack any alliance back to generate more land.


Logic does not dictate why our current rules are the way they are. They are merely the whims of bullies, which are in no way linked towards fairness or what is best for the game.

I'm fairly sure that most alliances that do any farming of untaggeds WILL accept retals from said untagged, in which case it's the offending player's fault for hitting a country that can retal.

I loved your logic rockman :D Feels like a total mockery of Silent sentinels logic to me

Then break even and move on?

Rockman continues to = win.

I'm thinking rockman gave a fairly accurate assessment of the game's current condition ;)

Thomas, you are an asshat.

there needs to be accountability for your land. if you cannot hold it, you do not deserve to have it. simple theory, why do you clowns think you have thwe right to state otherwise.

if someone grabs me, if i cannot get it back, an no of my clan mates can, it sux, but that countr does not deserve to die because they can defend themselves.

Collab/Sanct among others have been too comfortable on their lil perches and you guys will be brought down a peg or two in sets to come. I may not be around to see it, but it will happen and my goodness won't you whinge when it happens... grow a pair and ensure your countries account for their own land.

I agree with Rockman's rant, but his Socratic line of questioning doesn't address how topfeeds don't exist anymore. Yes, they are just conventions and definitions people use, point taken, but a retal is intuitively obvious, while defining a set category of when too much is too much has no basis other than outdated and obsolete modes of thinking.

This argument should have ended when Godwins law came into play. But I think little of players who decide they can grab who they want for what they want, and then try and rub it in later.

Who are you again?



Correct.



Or curb the action.



#1: If someone wants to hit you, you'll be hit. You're saying nobody deserves to keep their land because at any given moment, 100% of the server can be broken?

#2: The country deserves to die if he knows his alliance's policy and our policy and neglects it. He's supposed to be the President and decides to dump his missiles on us. That's something a noob or unstable member does, not the Pres.

#3: Too comfortable? Bullying? You must have us mixed up with someone else. We don't bully, we like to net often enough where we can't bully anybody without being in constant war. Every bit of comfortability we have is because we earned it. If you have an issue with us, join SoF next set as we're trying to arrange a war. Otherwise shut up.

thomas = whino

You can interpret it that way. Or you can understand that my position requires me to not take any bullfluff from anybody. So that's the role I play.

That may lead to bad public perception of me but you take the good with the bad. If I didn't have full support from everybody in Collab, knowing what I do for Collab on a daily basis etc., then I would step down. :)

A lot of people get the negative view of me from posts and AT behavior etc. Anything someone says can be spun to something that was totally opposite of the intended message. Now as much as SoF may not like me, you can ask Chevs about our relationship as I believe he was surprised that I wasn't the asshole everybody made me out to be.

Toodles!

What happened to "Don't ask, don't tell"?

It was repealed.

All netgaining should be outlawed.

Only war strats, all set, every set.

Then no one would have these really emotional jags about landgrabs.

:)

And the winner of the best post award goes to GARRY OWEN!!!

/me flees to Mars: 2025