For me it started on the day of the international IPv6 day. I'll be happy to contact them about it....

Dead for me too.... 3rd time in a week. And I'm on a dedicated ADSL line. Presumably it's something to do with IPv6, as this started around the time fo the global IPv6 test.... But it's darned annoying. Any chance we can do something about this ?

Free ? Really ? Then I want a ferrari. Preferably new, but as long as it's pretty and paid for, I dont really care.

What is it with everyone and his mother complaining about something can be abused.... So can the current market: Noone complains. So can the FA system: Noone complains.

Agreed, the abuse should be minimized, but trust the mods and admins to actually make sure that doesn't happen, and then lets have som more marketable goods and something more to fight for. As it is, the game is pretty much about crunching the same numbers every set, because you get EXACLY the same number of everything as last time. Aside from a minor variation in prices and your luck in exploration and missles creation, everything is already fixed.

My One and only point is/was that there are no less than FOUR (4 b100 h04, qadre, etc) bonuses that does EXACTLY the same thing, and each and every one of them favors the farmer, oiler etc. strat.

By having just ONE bonus, call it a general boom for all I care, that boosts ALL of the stuff at the same time, the noobs with the rainbow strats wont be so dissapointed when they pick it. And done right it may even encourage some cross strat choices, like a farmer/oiler, or whatever....

I was wondering, the Boom bonus(es). Why have 3 ? This favors all-X strats, and booming everything at the ame time would be imo, just as beneficial. So I'd like to suggest that the boom bonuses be replaced with one generic boom bonus that does "all of the above".

If we need to replace them with someting, then how about something like a tech boom ? Double tech points next turn teching ? (ok, I admit that should probably be in the same boom category)
Then how about a building speed bonus ? Or a max tech effect bonus ? This could be used to offset the downsides to the dict or theo government types....

@Papasmurf: True.... IF all we accomplish is having a bit more to buttom feed on for a week, before people quit, that's not a good FB app...
New poeple need to be more easily joined with the current clan environment. Perhaps some of the clans would like to make a facebook app for the alliance server ?!?

Those are clickable ? I thought they were decorative.....

In that case, can you put the search link to somewhere more.... Logical ? Like next to the logout or something ?

I know the bonus affects bushels on hand. But does it also affect cash after the 2BN ? Or PM units leaving the Private market if not purchased ?

In essence, exactly what types of decay are affected by this bonus ?

There's like a zillion posts in the forums atm, and sometimes it's REALLY hard not to double post, because something is laready avaialble if you dig for a million years.... A nice little search engine would be neat.

I have never played the team server, but even I believe that removing the membership cap would pretty much make it a duplicate of the alliance server.

However, I can see several ways that will make it possible to hide the tags from eathother, but none that would make life easy for anyone ;)

But ideally: Assign players a new random name/numer daily, allowing only the members of the tag to see eachothers current tag affiliation and number. This would I admit make warring another tag very difficult, but not entirely impossible.
There'd ofcourse have to be ways to ensure that retals will be possible, f.i by not assigning the new random number within 24 hours of a hit being made, or by allowing the person hit to see the current number assigned to a player for a certain period of time.... OR another way... But no way is this gonna be an easy fix ;)

What spy op (if any) will tell me how many bonus defense % a potential target has ?

Personally, I dont think that it's wrong to give paying customers something for their money.
And the idea of being able to trade the VIP mode should offset the unwillingness of others to buy the days, as they can trade them instead and get the same bonus (but ideally the gains should be so small that its not what tips the scale).

Not having played the limited server ever, I dont know what that deal is, but yes, this game has a lot of swingdoor activity, and very few people who hang on for longer periods of time. This is however, quite normal for most games, as they're often populated by people, the majority of whom have this little weird thing called "a life" ;) So while more players are welcome, I doubt the percentage of "returning customers" will increase no matter what we do.
I also doubt a payment option that is not required to play, that can possibly be bought with ingame funds, and that has very little effect on your result would deter anyone from beginning to play anyway (bottomfeeding is a MUCH bigger deterant in that regard).

I admit that a balance needs to be struck, to ensure that the non-paying community still plays, but that is merely a question of offering the right incentives in the package.

From experience, however, I know that if transferable bonuses (such as this is) are incentivised enough that they become valued, some players will, in local terms: stock them in one set to get a boost in the next one (essentially transfering NW from one set to the next). This is also why I suggest that only ONE server can trade them. But ofcourse people will play the numbers. This IS after all a numbers game.

I think Earl is right about the information level.
Even if some people do not want to ENFORCE any pacts ingame, forcing the members to click an "attack even though your clan is pacted" button would seem like a good idea.

That said, IF your word is good, then why argue against an enforcable embassy system ? Surely, noone would think about putting a knife in the back of someone they're pacted to ?!? ;)

A short while ago, Qzjul said he'd think about a sponsored mode/option.

Here's a few ideas to how this can be made viable (there are a few holes, that will ofcourse need to be plugged before implementing)

Howabout VIP days as a payment option ? You can buy x number of VIP days for y amount of dollars (make 'em cheap enough that people will want them)

Offer VIP benefits like:
Option to display banner as signarure in forum
A little star next to your name in forums AND in games with your linked account
Automatic collection of bonus points (or even doubling them)
Access to a VIP only forum
Extra daily bonus acres (or cash or turns or something else)
Lower salestax, expenses etc.
In alliance, it'd even be possible to limit the ability to create a clan to people who have VIP days.

I'm sure more options could be thought of if we want to.

Now here's the kicker: Not everyone wants to PAY for these VIP days, but everyone wants 'em, so make one of the servers (alliance or primary for instance) able to trade these days on a market for ingame cash (or donatable like a sort of FA) This way people with no cash can buy/get them from people who do have cash to buy 'em.

Can I trade this post for IRL stuff ? I'd love an EE coffee mug ;)

Alternate revenue streams have been discuessed in the past, and they're still a good idea. The question still reamins though: What can the game offer that we want to buy ?

And with the cost of server sapce etc, I'm sure that there are other priorities than advertising. But admittedly, spedning money on that purpose might be useful. A simple link excahnce program with the players might also help (could be a bonuspoints gaining thing).

I like the idea. But rather than making some of the information unavailable, how about introducing some random elements.... Because otherwise we will have people bithcing about everything, and for a startup country, possibly with no access to clan information levels, like a site for uploading ops to etc. (maybe a private repository of spy info could change that), a non usable spy op could be very detrimental.

Randomness would also make the attack calcs a little more guesswork, and would force people to oversend to ensure a victory.
Assume for a moment that ALL spyops succeed, but the degree of success is what's being determined. The more spies you loose in an op, the more inaccurate your data is. Say you loose a few spies, we add 0-3% randomness to the data, then maybe 4-6% etc. up to 50-60% or whatever is reasonable (could be server dependant).
Ofcourse this would also mean that ALL spyops, including sucessfull ones would cost a few spies, AND it would mean that we'd need a scale transposing the number of lost spies into a "randomness factor", so that we at least know if the info is likely to be wildly inaccurate or less so.

10minutemail.com ;)

But I agree that whatever is made, should be made with some emphasis on being reasonably cheat proof. The game should never be about the easiest way to avoid the rules.

This is why I think an anonymous bonds market might be possible, but I admit it will be difficult. And the first superwar we see, everyone will have their bonds shot to crap ;)

Maybe you already figured something out.... But wouldn't the simple math be: amount of NW destoyed/number of turns used to do so ?
Now, this number would ofcourse be on a clan scale of things, not individual players. Ofcourse this also wont take into consideration that a large clan would have more turns to screw over a smaller clan, and thus hampering their ability to actually do any damage to the larger clans infra structure if a war drags on for an entire set (or two, or three)

case in point: I remember a war back on swirve, where a large clan was nearly untouchable by this measuring standard, because they had 3-4 players way out of range of the clan(s) they were fighting. They could FA their clans mates to breaker status without even breaking a stride in their NW gaining.

So presumably a "good" number would have to consider the number of players in the clan as well as their NW. Say one clan is 3 times the NW of the other, In that case the smaller clan would need to have some sort of multiplier to offset their inability to permanently cripple their opponents infrastructure or ability to strike back.


Scenario: Assume a clan of 30 people (avg. networth 3 mil totalling 90 mil NW) save up turns and go FS a clan of 60 people (avg networth of 4 mil totalling 240 mil NW). They spend 3000 turns in the first 24 hours dropping their own NW to 80 mil, and their opponents to say.... 160 mil.
A size diff of 2:1 in members and 2,5:1 in NW.

Example of a calc could be something to the effect of:
(ownNWloss-nmeNWloss*someconstant)/num_turns_spent ^ memberratio ^ sizeratio

Now, the above would favor smaller clans FS'ing on larger clans and trying to end the war quickly. But if short, organized wars are what we want, that wont be so bad. Constants could be moved around to favor one or another preference. Larger clans would also have to commit more resources to score an equal amount of points to the smaller clan, so a war against a smaller target cannot be left-handed work.

Panel, center frame... whatever, potato - carrot. Same difference ;)

If there's a "usual issue", then why not resolve it so that it WONT happen to anyone again ? If it's a cookie problem, then simply let the cookie expire or something ?

I found this weird bug, whereby when I was trying to log in (or displaying the server rules), I had the main page "welcome to Earth Empires" page displayed in the panel.

I resolved the issue by clearing browser history and cookies.... But it's still weird....

How about making the number of acres gained from exploration slightly random (like an interval) ? This way, luck could more easily factor in ?

How about a bonds market ?
Players could offer bonds on their own future earnings. Like say 10% on your production for x amount of turns (days would seem unprofitable due to the fact that people might not PLAY for days to save on costs of repayment). The value of these bonds would then be evaluated by the players themselves, thus setting a fair price that involves risk assesment (inlcuding suiciders).

The major problem would be giving enough information about the issuer of the bonds that a buyer can fairly evaluate the value of the bond, and not enough that the player can be identified, so this could be used as a cheating alternative to FA.

@Enshula: Any way you put it, you HAVE to give whomever pays something to make it worth their while to pay, if you get nothing, then it's not payment, it's a donation.
Removal of adds is one way to go (but not a profitable one I'd wager). Auto bonus another.

The point isn't to NOT give paying players an advantage, it's to give an advantage small enough that it wont affect gameplay, and big enough that people will want to pay.

@Aponic: I agree, that new players would be beneficial, regardless of the revenue streams.

BUT, as it stands, I'm fairly certain that the add revenue of what ? 6-700 active players isn't enough to cover the costs of the servers, and even less so turn a profit making the admins wanting to continue developing the game.

So if we can generate alternative revenue, like for instance by selling "booster packs", bonuses, or something that wont seriously affect the game dynamics, then I think that is worth exploring.

A more developed game is also likely to attract more people. Say an android or Iphone app for the game ? I'd bet that'd attract some people. But that costs money too....

I realize this is a radical suggestion... But in order to regulate the market. Why not make the regeneration rate of the private market dependant on the number of MBs averaged for ALL players on a server. Thus a higher number of MBs in play would make the regen slower, thus compensating for the higher number of MBRs playing.

This way it's impossible to play the numbers. Because your gains will depend on how many other people will choose the same strat. A basic supply and demand implementation really.....

@Drunck: But if the other servers are free, wouldn't we need some sort of incentive to pay to play to begin with ?

True.... The gains would need to be small enough to not be the deciding factor in a war or netting scenario. But given that this might be obtained by limiting what you can get, or how often or how much, it should be possible to find some sort of bonus you can charge for.

Maybe even limit it so that the bonus is inversely larger in relation to how small your country is ? This way it could be a way for later starters, or restarters to catch up ?

There is potentially a LOT of packages you can sell to people, once the right ones have been identified.

Just a thought... But with bonuses being available and all..... Why not also add the option for players to buy bonus points with cash ? Like say 20 points for a dollar ? (possibly up to a preset maximum that admins determine likely wont make it impossible to win without buying bonuses)

And/or accept micropayments for other services, like extra cash, acres, population, tech points, missiles, military, stuff like that. Make the items cheaper or offer more of the item(s) as the game nears the end of its cycle.