I am genuinely curious as to how the people that were once anti trading are continuing to do so. I feel like almost every argument is cut and dry that it is not a bad thing as a netter anymore. I'd love it if someone(particularly the Laffers in the techer clique) would enlighten me of their opinions. I'd much rather Laf and others gave up on the anti landtrading though. I do love converts.

My thoughts from another post:

The funny thing about land trading is that it isnt even overpowered anymore. The changes have made it MUCH worse than before and everyone in Laf and elsewhere knows it. Trading might carry some lower risks to it but why bother outlawing it or trying to do so? Bottomfeeding if done properly doesnt exactly have a huge risk either unless you are greedy. There are better solutions than to simply take a stand against them completely.

A techer is currently without a doubt the best strat in the game. Before trading got popular it was the best and now with the rule changes the Laf style techer is even more powerful in comparison to others than it was before because it doesnt rely on 70k acres to build up.

Do you want everyone to only bottomfeed? There are only 5 or so countries who can do that each set with this limited amount of untaggeds there are. Do you want them all to WR farm? That wont work out for more than a couple with the rest failing and fluffing up. Topfeed? Laf sure doesnt want that. A good techer or a well played non trading Laf country can EASILY beat a land trader with these changes. Stop being scared of having a small challenge and take it on!

Other benefits of trading I and others noticed when Laf did it was that our activity went up and we had players who were just running half assed all explores who will quit at some point in the near future actually caring about their country and enjoying the game. What is wrong with that? Activity should be one of the biggest things for you to promote in this game and within your own clan.

Perhaps I'll think of more to rant about later. Oh and btw I was anti trading in its old form because it was grossly overpowered. Now it isnt and I have updated my opinion.

fluffing activity man! <<<----------------

And the post that inspired me to make this post myself... I tend to assume he wont mind me crossposting it to here :P


Mr.Silver
Member
Posts: 597 Jun 19th 2013, 8:00:38
just my own personal opinion but....


What is the point of being against Landtrading now?

- The game has been changed so that Landtraders can't compete with Techer/bottomfeeders (even Xin commented that a landtrader has been nurfed to the point that it's no longer competitive with the techer strat and I'd say he's probably near the tops of the calculator mafia types)

- It's interactive, promotes activity, and gets players communicating (more likely to keep playing)

- provides something different from bottom feeding/all exploring

The game mechanics were edited so that landtrading is no longer the dominant strategy. It needed to be fixed and it was. So really I don't understand the big kafuffle about it now.

if someone wants to do it, good on them, they can't win if a techer that even somewhat knows how to play is playing.

Bottom feeding is crappy, and is almost to a luck of the draw for most. There are a few players that have self texting notifications when untags gain acres or come out of DR. Then there's the group of semi inactive players that go all explore.

Rather than trying to figure out how to block a few way that has emerged that promotes activity and also doesn't prevent the "purest" text bot notified players from winning.... why not try to accept it, bring it in and do it better?

:P

Oh and Eug I only really put your name there because you are one of the anti traders that I knew and you are the Don so yah...

Well, I think the answer is simple, because they can, and because they are the best at old school play. Why allow a new strategy that will allow other alliances to perform better when we don't have to? A big problem for LaF is that we have so many people who wants to do it and are generally good at getting fat so that we will often lose out to other tags in exchanges just because we run out of targets. This is another reason for us to be against it. LaF has always been about winning, so if something gives us an advantage and others a disadvantage we will go for it.

Personally I'm 100% for land trading, because I think it makes the game a lot more fun than bottomfeeding or all exploring. I am a LaFfer through and through though, so I will respect the argument that we should fight it to win more, but that is the only argument I will accept after the nerf.

I don't like it because I don't think people should be able to use war relations and military units and BOTH come out on top.

As Erian said, I don't think LaF are "anti" trading so to speak. We demonstrated a few sets ago, that if we trade, we win. And as a result we got it nerfed. I think there is a lack of trading targets for players in laf, and as a result we don't do it currently.

Why make your countries worse, and your competitors countries better when you dont have to?

Given the above set of quotes... "If we come out ahead and we win, we favor it" and "we're the best and nobody to trade with", etc...

Wouldn't that suggest LaF would FAVOR internal land-trading?

i.e. LaF members landtrading with other LaF members?

It sounds like you'd be the best at it and always win... and thus would favor it?

Kanye West said it best - No one man should have all that power.

Not really Atryn. That is a very easy strat, and it would make a cookie cutter strategy closer to par with a well run techer, which is bad for LaF if everyone did it.

I just think it's silly when people play the "unethical" or "illegitimate" card in regards to land trading. As long as it's ok within the games rules, it's no unethical IMO. The admins can and will change things that are proven overpowered...

Take land trading as smoking.. its bad for health, but people do it anyway.. just so.. that's why.. no reason to say why they should not.. there are people against it but they cant stop others from smoking.. and hence if you're being anti smoking, in the eyes of smokers ure a douche..

so same goes for land trading.. u may hate it but hey, everyone now is doing it.. haters gonna hate..

After the nerfs, I'm not particularly against land trading.

HOWEVER, I still do not agree on the principles of it - that 2 people can attack each other and both come out ahead in a win:win scenario. (I would bold the word *principles* if I could.)

Warring (aggressive action) in any game should only result in a win:lose, lose:win, or lose:lose conclusion for the 2 parties involved.

This comes down to game design, and gaming philosophy.

Your second-hand trading is killing me Iamminghui..

Herrrooooooooo

My experience with doing it in Laf and my experience watching it is simply this. laf actually uses the land they get well. Getting that land will give them an advantage. Even if they do give land to other people like PDM for example, PDM will not know what to do with the land. Thus Laf benefits more.

And I get that Xin, but does it change if someone wins more than the other?

i just see land trading as an abuse of a policy that was created to artificially generate land because too many people were yelling about the lack of it. oh lookie! free land! crap i should've made sure i was wearing my Depends before I got all excited.

@locket No. I just don't like the outcome of win:win, because the ghost acres system wasn't even designed for this to begin with. In my opinion, this is categorically an abuse of game mechanics that eventually became accepted, because the admins do not think it is a problem.

What's the abuse? The game has since been changed to make it at par and even less than other strats. If you notice building costs have dramatically changed, ghost acres were also edited... They needed to be, but now they are.

Calling it an abuse would be like calling teching military cost tech late game is an abuse because it always goes up :p

I think rather than 'abuse' a correct term will be it's different and provides a much needed change to the game.


Much like when new govts were added, bushel prices changed into double digits, oil added, etc
All changed the game and helped it evolve, with the lack of players in the game and activity waning... Even though it wasn't directly the original goal.. What's evolved is a new off shoot in the game that adds to the game

I'm glad that you are happy with it. why would i notice building costs, i left the game entirely and simply use this forum as a convenient place to post when I'm getting drunk and obnoxious. because they done bent the game all to heck and back.

It was an abuse UNTIL the nerfs - which then officially recognized it as a strategy that is properly balanced. Did nobody see how overpowered it was? For a whole year, I called for nerfing it, nothing happened, so I pushed for LaF to abuse it one reset instead.

Exactly,

It "was" unbalanced, but no longer is.

Which is why I find it so funny seeing alliances trying to stomp it out with pacting and the like (laf included if you've seen the additions to laf's pacts)

Currently it would be like me trying to pact saying I will grab anyone bottom feeding and expect 1-1retals no topfeed allowances.

Or trying to ban countries from building milt bases... It's goofy.

It needed to be nerfed and it was, but I really don't understand the big push to ban it now that it's already been nerfed

its a military action, it should not result in net gains for both sides...

its quite simple really, you take military action to ensure your country gains and the other guy suffers, to do anything different is against the spirit of the game.

The spirit of the game is whatever each person determines for themselves Scode. Thus why there are so many varied clans and why two netting clans like Monsters and Laf can be so different.

Well Silver, you missed the part where I said "After the nerfs, I'm not particularly against land trading." way up in my first post.

However, the very principle of a win:win conclusion is still wrong in my opinion, and like I said, it comes down to my game design philosophy.

oh, it's kinda like the pothead issue. can't seem to keep them from abusing it, so they try to find ways to keep track of all of the morons who use it so they can have an emergency pothead face-eating zombie response team in the neighborhoid.

So why try to stop others from doing it? Why not just not do it yourself? It wont stop anyone from winning a set anymore, unless of course you flat out dont deserve it.

same reason that Christians try to convert people to follow the teachings of Christ. they are bound and determined to achieve the Armageddon that they so fervently desire. wonder if i used fervently in the right context. wonder why they can't just be happy with their own flatulence, err, flagellation. one of the effing f words.

Scode:the reason you're against it has very little to do with anything you've posted. You've netgained .. Err never since I started playing earth again therefor landtrading influences you in no way shape or form. (other then you like to topfeed)

The real reason you're against it is to find a war partner and it has nothing to do with anything else . contrary to what was written you actually don't have much more an interest in 'what's good for the game' or promoting activity, game play, or wnyrhing.. It's only to be able to war someone and fight over and over again. Your spirit garbage is about as believable as firebrick doing his cheerleaders spirit fingers impressuon

Xin:i know you're not personally against it currently however lockets question I believe was for those that are against and adding it in pacting

Um, I'd like to say that the current nerf is not enough to make it balanced. When done effectively, landtrading still outperforms post-war farming, still outperforms bottomfeeding, still outperforms all exploring. Case in point, Sodawater was slated to win last reset before he was killed by SoF. I'm not against landtrading per se, but I don't believe it's been nerfed enough.

From my perspective, the proper order in terms of ease to excel and finish at the top is:

1. warfarming
2. bottomfeeding
3. landtrading
4. all-explore

Those who put in the most effort should have the best chance at winning the game.

A good litmus test is if locket stands a reasonable chance to t10, then the game mechanics are probably broken. Before all the landtrading began he was merely a t100 player.

trololololol

Soda water was slated to win, but what alliances and players were not competing? The networth he would have got netgaining all reset wasn't much higher than warred half the set abed to nothing countries that finished at the top.

Currently

It is what you think it is..

Wargaining techer
Bottom feeding techer
Landtrading farmer
Landtrading casher
Explorer

WHERE IS BOTTOM FEED FARMER!

I'm not being strat specific, but I don't think it's fair that someone who pours in hours to camp news and hit DR targets finishes below a trader who plays 5 min a day and gets ahead because he has the most trades lined up.

Any bottomfeeding strat should outperform a trading strat imo and this includes farmers and cashers. In my view, as long as a trading strat can net accumulate land at a faster rate and get to the same stocking goal quicker, then I think something mechanics are broken. Landtraders should grow faster than explores, and slower than bottomfeeders, on average, which I don't think is the case in today's game.

Everything would be fixed with the introduction of bots into the game. I remember the bots, back... back in the day and those were great days. Even a good netter had a chance to finish well on a fluffty clan.

Wars, and excessive farming pisses of people who become disgruntle. Those people in turn hold grudges and troll clans with their attacks.

Land trading is stupid because it gives a competitive advantage to those who trade their land. There is very little skill to land trading. Land trading creates insane records that undermine legit records by those who don't participate in it.

But everyone wants an easy top finish and they will continue to exchange land.

mehul already purchased a coffe shop with his webby award money. why we need bots now?

To eliminate the unfair trading of land. In my eyes, it doesn't mater if the land trade is perform within a clan or if it's done between clans. It's the same fluff...

You tag a few members in a different clan and there, you bypass the taboo of self farming.

A well played bottom feeding farmer? Above trader too.. Simply due to building costs and ghost change. There's a bunch of other strats too.. I guess I simplified my list :p


Once again it breaks down to who's playing.... Let's say you cancel out all variables.


You have xin playing on a ghost server and what networth can he post with different strategies.

I suspect landtraders ones aren't in the top 5 for networth the likely a ways lower.



If you start editing who.. Ie scode netgaining against bakku.. With bakku landtrading and scode bottom feeding, of course there will be a different result

But the result has very little to do with the limitations of the strategy

Once again confusing past and present.. There was a distinct unfair advantage before but now that's gone..


And even within the strat there are those able to play it well and those that don't. Those that put time into it and those that don't.


There is a reason why prior to the changes the networth were much higher the reset laf and rd traded nearly exclusively for. Or last set soda water was doing it better than others.


If everyone last set that was netgaining all resets were running all explores, including soda water it's likely soda water would have still been near the top or at the top of the list too.

If you have a semi inactive playing a trader his networth will still suck.

Trading in itself isn't a shoe in for a rank..

Landtrading is unique to this server because it is a strategy that requires tag protection (to run low defense). You can't employ this on other servers, except maybe FFA. Can't really compare playing it on other servers as a consequence.

Just out of curiosity , if it was not to the advantage of those doing land trading, why are they still doing it?

how long did they allow it to go unchecked before they decided to balance the gamevto accommodate land trading? must just be politically correct to modify it at this time. it's still junk that was only implemented to make up for the loss of bots. i don't see any reason to even experiment with this nonsense. i done been getting hit by people over the past two to three years who gained 3x what i lost, and I'm supposed to bother with teying to keep up with them? keep it unbalanced and let it die. Pang will have more free time.

More so requires cooperation.

You could do it on another server if you gs afterwards but it's a hassle given the number of partners you need to have.


Team server it could be done too

fyi I had the best prewar country in the game imo this set and if the Sol war didnt happen I could have won ;)

There is more skill to landtrading than to bottomfeeding. You have to know how to balance things a lot better and you have to make sure you come out on the better side of things if you want to win. Bottomfeeding all you have to do is avoid getting missiled. I do agree with adding some angry land bots though.

Oh and to reply to your other comment it is because it is better than all explore and more fun as well, and bottomfeeding isnt fun at all and only a select few can ever get a hit in... so that leaves land trading for most, which is more interesting than either of those two methods.

Land Trading.

get op from other person cause u guys are working together
Grab 3 hits, build land, repeat.

Bottom Feeding

Guessitmate breaks to avoid using turns to get ops
sometimes fail ops then have to spend more turns
grab, build, have to buy more tech (SDI, weapons, military)
have to keep more military (expenses)
less effective from the get go,



OH NO, YOU POOR LAND TRADERS HAVE TO BUILD MORE!

Oh wait, IT COST A BOTTOM FEEDER JUST THE SAME AMOUNT TO BUILD.

it is NOT a legit point when it's the SAME for both sides

I agree with Candyman. WTF?

Lies, I had the best pre war country :P

also it only stands to reason that one will do better landtrading vs bottomfeeding, all else being equal.

You can obtain your land on less turns (less grabs required to obtain the same amount of land). This is a distinct advantage no matter how you slice it.

that's like a landtrader saying "Oh no, you have to upload your spy op to boxcar and send what it tells you :P

also building costs aren't close. consider number of acres grabbed and lost in both strategies.

Maybe pre your war but mine was better before ours started ;)