C:C
L:L

This doest not change existing pacts , but will impact all new ones from this date.

Praetor

yay

wait

C:C = L:L till 80% right? otherwise the only way to hit sol and not get Raped is to hit them when they are down and broken, and we can agree no one finds that honorable :/

SOL accepting land:land finally after ten years?

i think SOL needs to clarify a bit more. Praetor is being a little bit shy.

L:L retals for C:C only until 80%.

the standard policy a lot of people use.

he's probably not used to uttering those words, give him some time :D

What happens if the defending country takes 79% of land back in one (or more) retals and then does a fully optimized final retal?

from what i understand thats how evo expects their members to retal. make sure the first hit is no more then 79% then max out strat tech/match NW and make another.

i would guess technically you could take another retal on that, but youre a docuhebag if you do (unless they deserve it).

WAR





see? there's legit reasons for warring alliances to war netgaining ones even with L:L in place.

the netgaining alliance can easily get their land back and netgain if they wanted to, but if they want to be a douchebag and go 79% on your ass to squeeze more land out, then by all means rape them a new hole =) it sounds fair to me heh

Why do you war someone for respecting your retal policy? It's not a legit reason.
If you warred you'd say, 'yeah, you did exactly what we said and agreed but we arbitrarily decided that it's a cause for war'. That's not legit.

Besides, where's the limit? At 78%? 75%? 70%? Who determines the limit?

What if it happens unintentionally?

Pain, you are a douchbag if you do take another retal if you got 79% already? Again, where's the limit of douchebaggery? 70%? Then why not just say 70% to begin with?

i believe we are all smart to figure out if someone genuinely is trying to be a douchebag and abuse your pacts or not.

we have friends who dropped retals for us, and enemies who squeezed every inch out of it.

it's pretty obvious when it comes down to these things.

If the first hit is for 79%, you are already net positive on the trade when you include the ghost acres. It's quite clear that taking another retal at that point is simply asking for war. There's a reason that "taking advantage of all possible terms" has another name : Machiavellian. He was not a man of peace.

I see the 79.999% thing as skill! Excellent use of maths if it's done right.

If you are going to risk getting retalled by C:C-L:L, make damn sure that country cannot retal you.

I hate to post this, and as I haven't made a landgrab in what? maybe 10 years? What's C:C?
*hangs head* lol

Country:Country

This.

We had tags who take the entire 400% L:L on accidental RoR, tags that retal our accidental GS, tags that let go of accidental BR, and all are good, because it's in the pact we signed. If u think first hit at 79% is bad, don't sign 80% L:L. Simple.

lol?

What I'm trying to say is that it is completely up to you to declare one action 'friendly' and another 'hostile' and another 'neutral'. The clan that does the retals has no real way of knowing (they can only guess) what the retals will be perceived as.

The policy does nothing to regulate attacks between two clans, it only serves to set a 'guideline' that can be easily abused by one side.

It is, on one hand, allowing the retaler to be lazy and not care about doing a good retal and still come out better than the attacker, and on the other hand it allows the retaler to maximize his gains within the rules set by the policy with the only repercussion being dependent on a subjective view of the retaling alliance's leaders.

Which is perfectly fine, the stronger alliance can dictate whatever they want. But it is not a policy that protects netters form 'douchebag' grabs because it labels all non-crappy grabs as 'douchebag' grabs and on top of that allows the netter (defender) to do a much worse 'douchebag' retal.

The leaders of a stronger alliance make the decision of what is 'douchebag' because it is in no way defined in the policy. It is a case by case matter and because of that the policy is incomplete and basically useless.

What it does in reality is saying 'we will retal for L:L or more' and does nothing to limit the 'more' part. It only creates the minimum. As such it inherently prevents grabbing since the grabber has no protection in this policy (unlike 1:1 where he knows he will get hit once and only once). With this policy the defender (retaler) can manipulate his NW and make numerous 'retals' for one original grab (with less gain individually yes, but in sum he would get much much more back).

I realize that the primary concern of the policy is to protect netters (non grabbers is probably a better term) but the policy is in fact reducing grabs dramatically to a point where only bottomfeeding becomes viable. Again.

If that is the goal of the policy then good, it is successful imo, but if it is not then it needs some heavy rethinking.

Personally, I can, as I am sure many other players can as well, manipulate NW ratios so that I get 75-79% of the land lost in one or more retals, and then make an optimized retal for roughly 12-15% of 'attackers' (country being retaled) land.

I really do not see the incentive for any player to be that country if he will lose so heavily in the exchange.

If you plan to take 79% repeatedly dont be surprised when they get mad and kill you ;)

Give and take. Fair policy no?

What if I take 78% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 77% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 76% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 75% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 74% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 73% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 72% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 71% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 70% repeatedly?
If the answer is the same then what if I take 69% repeatedly?
etc etc

What is an acceptable amount to get?
Whatever the answer is, how did you come to that number?
Do you think all clans that signed that pact will agree with you?
Is the number mentioned in the pact?

Either 79%-80% is black and white or its not. Clarify or its your problem.

bujke... <3

i get what you mean.. and I agree

This is a clause so you can land trade, without saying you land trade. This "claus" is the back bone to land trading

omg. if you call everything land trading, we may as well get rid of ghost acres.

i'm quite SURE that ghost acres were implemented, partly, to encourage player interaction. if there is going to be land trading of a sort, i'd much rather it was done like this, between clans, than internally. those internal grabs bother me..

and don't get me wrong, i can see how even 'land trading' as you call it can be easilly abused between good friend clans, but i think this is their whole server policy, not just their policy for their best pal clans. this kind of 'land trading' can also be good for relations between clans.. both sides seem to win something.

player interaction is a good thing

and.. now that i think of it.. if i retal for 79% (before ghost) and then retal again.. how is that really land trading? surely land trading would be 80% after ghost?

good logic

Zarcon its 7am, I'm not gonna get into it, this just sounds like a way to impose land trading on those who don't want to land trade. 79-80 claus is just to make the losers feel like there making out when theyre getting. nailed

80% hard ar. not inc ghost. lets say you got grabbed for 1000 ar. you want to grab your first one so you are close to 80, but not quite like : 700 (278)ar - now you are back to where you started ( inc. ghost ar ) then you match nw, strat up and PS another and you make out again and you just gained around 1000 ar. wow i will be running a dict with little defence next set, so please grab me!! I will let you all know my #

I think a little judgement is needed if you gain 79% back in one hit you should let that go.

how about 78% ?

how about 77%?

i like 76% better

In my opinion if you gain back within 5% of the 80% you should think about letting it go. Let's say its a 2000 acre grab and you gain back within 77%. That 3% that you didn't get is only like 60 acres.

Just some food for thought. People will attack in this game, that's the point. So let's not try to rape people over it. If you get back the majority of your land and ghost acres account for the rest... let it go.

That is one reason why people feel land grabbing is dead in this game.

so sign a 77% L:L pact?

Then again people will moan if someone takes 76% on the first hit then take a second, no?

Vicious cycle eh?

No, sign 80% and don't try to punish everyone who hits you. Encourage some game play rather than retard it because "How dare anyone attack us."

But in any case C:C L:L otherwise 1:1 is far superior to plan L:L even if you try to play the 79% so you can get another attack.... At least its C:C.

exactly, the reason why it's C:C so that people will be able to grab more competitively instead of hoping for the other party to be "lenient" to them. Alliance-wide 80% L:L is fluffed.

Grabbing with 80% C:C takes some real skill to do and benefit from. It's just not many people know how to properly grab... yet.

Squeeze more land after 79%. What's wrong with that?
If the pact says 80% then get one more retal on 79%.
It will send them some message that says "DONT fluffIN GRAB ME COZ I PLAY ALL-EX! I'M A GOD DAMN LAZY VET!"

Nothing, technically. You're going to create enemies though.

bertz are you a robot? Do you have no descression or judgement? What if you get 79.9999999999% you still going to take another hit?

Like Son goku said "Technically"... Everything isn't black or white...

That's my opinion.

But the whole point is moot anyways because it has to be C:C which is better even if you want to be a prick and take way more just because you fell short by .2% on your grab, but you won't make any friends doing that kind of stuff.

which friend? if the tag isn't happy people taking what the pact states, then they shouldn't have signed it in the first place, no?

any top player that knows how to grab won't ever lose out in 80% L:L exchange even if they're the offender.

anyway this is going nowhere, so I suggest you guys to start improving your grabbing skills and knowledge before complaining about the pact :p

So... SOL policy change...

diez are you sure you can grab as good as me?

I never lose out on 80% L:L, try me :p

wheeee. this convo keeps goin round in circles.


What about 75%?

I kissed a girl once

nope, but nothing stops them from not renewing your pact the following reset and then FSing you.

or this policy is for unpacted people, they can still FS you anyways because you are clearly trying to take advantage of others

my point is any number is going to have disputes, which is why there will naturally be war.

True hanlong, but I am sure the majority of clans would like to agree to a pact that will allow grabbing but not have such terms that make the other clan an enemy.

And I am sure that most leaders won't go from one member to another and tell them,
'yeah the pact says you can do another retal but please don't cuz we want to be friends with [clan]',
mainly because the member will read that as
'yeah the pact says you can do another retal but please don't cuz we are pussies and don't want to be raped by [clan]'.

And even if they do, how are they to know when to drop it? The retaled clan can say 'hey, you got 75% back, hitting more is douchebagary' and tomorrow they can say 'hey you got 70% back, hitting more is douchebagary' and tomorrow they can say... etc etc

The clan doing the retals has no way if them taking 60% back was fine or if they are to expect a war. They could come check everytime but isn't that a bit degrading?
'Hi, I'm just here to ask you if you are ok with us doing even less than what we are entitled to by the policy terms? We really dont want to upset you. Thank you so much.'

The way you (pro this policy) are putting it, it's all about common sense and etiquette and that's nice, but if you can argue that it's expected from a clan to drop a hit they are entitled to by the terms, one could argue that it's expected from a clan to drop the retal for a grab.

It can be avoided by making a clear and defined policy that is easy to read and not open to subjective interpretation.

Saying, 'you did a douchebag retal so its war, even though it was within the agreed policy rules', is no better (and not much different) than saying, 'you did a retal so its war'.

Threat as you would like to be threated

If you raped someone on the retals, then don't expect others to threat you well.

No one will declare on you for following retal policies, but forget about getting that clan to police for you, or help you with FA durring war.

If you want to be an asshole then so be it, but don't cry when others turn into bigger assholes when dealing with you.

bingo, if you want to be an asshole and go 79.999% on everyone, don't expect others to treat you nicely either

The whole point of this is to encourage land grabbing, not nitpicking. People who exploit this policy are not your friends and won't get re-pacted. The point of pacting should be to avoid silly wars, not to smother grabbing.

ibujke belaboring the exploits to this ad-nausum sort of misses the point anyway, iMag is never trying to avoid silly wars - they live for them and thats fine, but some of us would like to make it through a set without one once and a while.

The whole 79-80% thing is what FA is for, if one side thinks things are getting out of hand, they talk about it and sort it out. If it cannot be sorted out peacefully, then it will be sorted on the battlefield.

I applaud Sol for this progressive step in altering their longstanding retal policies.

80% as a policy was already established to account for what you are talking about Requiem.

80% was set in order to avoid people getting to 99% and then taking another hit because "I didn't get all my land back yet". Which is the exact problem you are highlighting.

That is why people are firm on the 80% though, because 80% isn't the real target, 100% is. 80% is only used to address the problem you are trying to say still exists (but it doesn't, because 80% already addresses it)