Been away awhile. Looking to run a country this set.. can't guarantee I'll be 100% active, and would prefer a netting group.

Miss my Clowns, RAGErs, and Lust'ers.

If you call your friends panks.

Adding chrome to your rusty trumpet doesn't make it better.

Hiding?

A long long long time ago I came in uniform, saw you guys, and left.. but I got pulled out. It wasn't my doing. Ever since, I've only said I'd go if LD shows up again.

:P

Ahahaha..

Stocking I do just fine. Destocking I do just fine. But grabbing is making me ill. I need immediate help.

I'm willing to buy you a keg if you teach me how to landgrab effectively in this new landgrabbing era.

I used to pick on bots and bottomfeed when I could, but for the last umteenth sets I've pretty much been all-x.

Any takers?

I really don't like the fact that you can check FA packages or spy ops. It removes the 'interaction' that has made the 'game' of this community. Spy ops to check allies is what should be the only way to determine (or guess) whether a country has been aided, in conjunction with NW fluctuations. I don't for a second believe that everyone still sticks around (in majority) because they enjoy inputting text into fields and clicking buttons. The gameplay here is as basic and primitive as it gets.

The external interaction that alliances create for themselves is what creates the community feel - its what fuels wars, and its what keeps a lot of us here.

These two changes go against this, and it's (as someone else said) too big brotherish. I think changes that encourage MORE political leveraging and bargaining is more attractive than trying to piggy back those functions into the game itself.

Just my 0.02.

Goodjob Cats.

I love SPAL.

Nostej will always be the best war planner, hands down.

Who is finshing this set netting? Seems no one!

Boom, nice rankings...

Bingo. Smart post, please follow it.

Against. Keep things natural.

Sex

I can't find it in the wiki.

Hi all,

Can someone post the explore rates for rep and non-rep?

Thanks!

First one to respond gets me. Looking to apply ASAP for the new set.

Cheers

Haha murf..

Since I have ... exactly... 20 minutes/day to devote to text based games.

Looking for a new home - very loyal, sometimes ornery, been around since 98.. will net, will fight, but prefer peacefulness. Must have at least 25 members or be CWG, RAGE, Lust, WoG, TIE, or Arrow.

Cheers

Detah!

For those of you proclaiming that Carwin has more experience than Lesnar; I don't know what you measure experience from but Lesnar has twice as much ring time as Carwin.

One shotting cans is not more experience.

Predictions please.

Eric:

I understand what you're saying, but no landgrabbing makes a MULTIPLAYER game SINGLE PLAYER. The only associative variables left would be the market and alliances.

Thats a far cry from a multiplayer game by any standards. People who jump into games want drama, a storyline, some kind of excitement. Too many people (those included who do not see community value in landgrabbing) are apathetic and are happy logging in for their 41 seconds of Earth goodness. This is a cultural change that stemmed from FA policies, period.

Change it, make it more enjoyable and active/dramatic, and it may turn itself around as a multiplayer web game. Until then, we're playing an advanced version of the (all exciting) Excel and Calculator games you can find on most computers.

Good game. Good riddance.

I've had a discussion with an alliance leader about revamping policy within our alliance and he basically acknowledged that the members within the alliance wouldn't want it because that'd require too much work/time within the game.

He asserted that people prefer playing single player mode and exploring without worrying about being landgrabbed than infusing drama and making things fun again.

I guess if this is the case game-wide, we're all but destined to slowly die.

Well if circumstances played themselves in such a positive way and you played the markets with friends and stuff, I suppose you're right.

Not withstanding market manipulation, FAing, and farming inactive players or ex-alliance mates, and your assertion that commies are likely not possible to finish first place anyways; I think it clearly says C/I is not a viable netting strategy. We probably subscribe to different philosophies; but I just want to have all main strategies balanced to a point where it is actually (within normal, common, etc) strategy to compete for the top spot. Nothing is ever going to be exactly equal, but I would argue vehemently that there is a gap between being where we are today and where we'd be "sort of balanced".

The changes you reference above are a great step in that direction but I hope this is revisited at the end of this set for example so we can continue to narrow that gap.

Cheers

Your explanations I figured were common sense for ALL strategies in that they all have strengths and weaknesses. I didn't mean to irritate you in my seemingly lack of comprehension. I reread the thread and apologize.

But under the current climate (this set and past sets) it's still relatively impossible in comparison to other strategies - if all things equal - to make a top NW country with a commie indy; would you agree?

Whoa,

Retract the claws please. I hope I didn't say anything to jab you, but I'm definitely feeling a jab back.

I understand commies quite well thank you. I'm trying to get some kind of discussion on the issue and you're capping it as if there is no need. How would you suggest a CI destock without going TMBR? Maybe I am missing a very basic strategy note so please do elaborate.

You are absolutely right politics play a big role in C/I's failing given the land-reliance C/I's have in finishing strong. Barely any grabbing goes on and we're kind of stuck.

But if such is the case, and you realize this as an administrator; don't you think adjusting a variable in your database to make us more viable could at least be discussed further without absolute dismissal? Hell, if things changes 6 months down the line you can readjust the % for a new set with new political landscapes.

As an unrelated note; I finished top 10 several times, but none in recent history because of the land restrictions. I believe the last time was when GoSu and I hit 100k acres eons ago. Clearly, that cannot be replicated again here unless something changes. So, in lieu of that, perhaps my suggestion could go through some more scrutiny.

Regards

I think one big problem sticks out like a sore thumb. For you academic types, I did an observational study in fact.

New player makes an account, and logs in for the first time.

New player looks at the following screen at 6 different server types. New player looks at me and asks "Which one is best?" If new player didn't have someone looking over their shoulder, they're bound to just randomly pick one that sounds most appealing. Queue the replays of new players getting raped, and they're out of here.

Since we now have "Accounts" with which we can make countries from. How be we make a "New Player" server (pretty self evident for new players) and restrict who can join the server to Moderators, Game Helpers, and accounts who have been in the community for less than x days.

The game can even have automated "New Player" messages explaining the different servers, basic tutorials, and links to wiki info, etc so they can learn the game without getting assraped.

Bright idea I hope.

Well of course.

But you're not going to see commies taking the alliance server unless people are all at war. If the game is still just going to rank you based on NW, then I think an effort to make most main strategies viable to take a top title should be done.

Most hardcore commies do *tons* more work in relation to other strategies and will never actually realize any sort of netting accomplishments.

I play Alliance; triple/quad sell each day and have been stocking like a mad man. I'm still half to a third of my techers' stock levels.

I'll update on my progress, but I think I'm going to be lucky to be top 75 this set even with a TMBR finish.

Thanks for the update. It's still not enough unfortunately.

Any way we could consider a 40% sell rate in conjunction with your tech increases?

Cheers,

Rick

Confirmed.

- Collab aFA

I think we need a steeper DR rate. Being able to rape a country 4x before any considerable differences in gains kicks in is playing right into the hands of people who take advantage of untagged new players.

Hi all,

I've been a stout Commie Indy for the better part of 13 years and I've always dreamed of making the top 10 one day in total NW. It is my belief that we've had little love over the years in making my dream come true, but I believe I have the answer to help fix that.

We should raise the amount of military you can put onto the market from 25% to something around 40%. In today's era, I'm still unsure 'why' the 25% rule was in effect. A 40% sell rate would allow us to earn approximately 60% more income per sell. This would still set us lower than your typical techer/farmer, but at least be a step in the right direction. I think the per-turn losses we experience even when triple/quad-selling each day would even the playing field.

Please consider it.

Signed,

The Commie Coalition for a Positive Future

I'm also hung quite well.

I'm in now.

It hung for quite awhile.

It's not loading for me.. I keep timing out.

Anyone else?

That sounds about right.

Absolutely. We'd need the game to be an express-mode. Instead of an express mode lasting 3 days, we make it 10+ days, or even a full month.

As for the leadership and coordination, I think letting those things develop organically with time is best. Eventually you'll get people operating properly with time because the same few people will always step up with their strategic thinking, etc. Much like alliances started out in Earth over a decade ago.

I think it'd be a fun 'new style' for the game. And I think if people could join the game and instantly be part of a team working towards a common goal, people may stick more often than not.

Ahahaha.

No one in the same faction could hit each other; you'd hardcode that one in. And your identities wouldn't really be known if they didn't want to disclose it. You'd just be known as

i like fluff (#xxx)

!!!!

You could even call it "Elimination" or "Deathmatch".. it would attract a particular part of our population and may resonate with younger players who want to give the game a try and see the 'action' that lacks in the Alliance server.

Nah, you don't get it galleri. Let me explain:


You signup for the server. It puts YOU into a random faction. There are no alliances to speak of. YOU are just a member of x or y faction for the duration of that set. And your goal is to destroy the other faction(s) or beat them in total NW. Each 'faction' would have a forum at their disposal, but the people assigned to each faction would change each set hypothetically.

= win

FTW

I'd rather see a "Domination" server be created where you're randomly slotted into "Red" or "Blue" team and the object of the game is to wipe everyone else out as fast as you can, or have the biggest NW at the end of the time.

Could be 10-day express style game.

Would be fun.

Hey Jon,

I'm US West Ladder... 88 sorc atm. It's always fun to come back to D2.. LOL

Those 6.4's SUCK.

http://widro.com/throwpaper.html

Whats your best score? Be honest.

47 here.

It's true.

Alright.. here goes..

Did you know HAMSTERS can outdrink HUMANS? I'm not even making it up.