Jump to content
Keelah

End of Round XP Farming Not Allowed

Recommended Posts

Is there an award that land raiding would cause a win in an award category?

If not, that would be an exception to "no attacking same alliance nations."

TE is indeed a different beast in which attempts need to be made where winning an award is done by loophole is blocked as much as possible for fair game play. It is one of the reasons TE still only allows one nation per IP where SE allows multiple players from one IP.

There is a "Most Land" flag, and it seems theoretically possible to raid your way to that flag although you'd still need to work for it.  In order to get that amount of land only through warfare  a nation would need a huge warchest, a willingness to take risky fights (unaligned nations/micros are almost unheard of in the high NS tiers), and most likely a WRC to loot large amounts of land.  Even then, it's not a guarantee.  I would say that raiding for that using intra-alliance warfare would be inappropriate, but going outside one's own alliance to raid for land would be quite fair.  That actually seems like the hardest way to go about that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta echo nick here. I don't play TE so maybe I'm missing something here but why does it matter if its at the end of the round? Nothing carries over in TE right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason for that. you would still technically have to disable xp when fighting friends.

it really just depends on what the awards are given for as to what is scrutinised.

there shouldn't really ever be a need to fight alliance mates as there will almost certainly remain an alliance award that you could abuse by fighting eachother. think of the other previous awards like infra destroyed. I'd still question your strategy if you thought this was a sound idea. the reality is you can do more together.

I think keelah has kind of cleaned it up. slot filling is the primary enemy. and xp does not have to be disabled in end of round. that doesn't necessarily mean you can fight inter AA end of round if it could be perceived as attempting to win an award perversely.

also. can we please stop saying alliance casualties. it is soldiers killed. there is a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed soldiers killed....but one award is the most soldiers killed in the alliance with the most soldiers killed...so you can have the most soldiers killed but have to be in the alliance that has killed the most....so by declaring war on your own alliance mates you are inflating that count wrongfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if next round is starting out with 35mil that would be a good start too kill'en soldiers! lol   XP is great new edition to TE.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason for that. you would still technically have to disable xp when fighting friends.

it really just depends on what the awards are given for as to what is scrutinised.

there shouldn't really ever be a need to fight alliance mates as there will almost certainly remain an alliance award that you could abuse by fighting eachother. think of the other previous awards like infra destroyed. I'd still question your strategy if you thought this was a sound idea. the reality is you can do more together.

I think keelah has kind of cleaned it up. slot filling is the primary enemy. and xp does not have to be disabled in end of round. that doesn't necessarily mean you can fight inter AA end of round if it could be perceived as attempting to win an award perversely.

also. can we please stop saying alliance casualties. it is soldiers killed. there is a huge difference.

 

"If it could be percieved".  The devil is in the details there, Stevie - and in giving people ideas using your posts.  Let's do a thought experiment, in TE mechanics.  Say the United States and Russia are the biggest nations in an alliance.  They decide to have an end-round infra fire sale involving nuclear weapons.  A pariah state that wants some attention like North Korea can then accuse both nations of casualty farming, since they have enormous amounts of infrastructure, and enormous amounts of infrastructure results in a proportionally higher casualty count.  You'd only really need two or three pairs of enormous nations (>6k infra) going at it to produce a net gain of over a million casualties - and every single one of those casualties would be recorded as a soldier killed as both are in the same alliance.

 

That brings the draconian solution of introducing an optional "casualties disabled" checkbox with a game rule mandate for use in intra-aliance wars to the table.  This could be used for denial of casualties during legitimate alliance wars, and I can see that going a million different abusive directions right off the bat as an elitist-favoring "bet-hedger" for flag runner alliances, with no utilty to alliances not in it to flag-run.  So what do we do then?  Change the game mechanics to not record intra-alliance casualties?  That would be outright paranoia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder this is an in-character forum, so there are no nations called Russia or United States. OOC tags would need to be used in this situation as long as the whole paragraph didn't contain all OOC stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder this is an in-character forum, so there are no nations called Russia or United States. OOC tags would need to be used in this situation as long as the whole paragraph didn't contain all OOC stuff.

 

<ooc?>Really?  I've fought nations called either United States or Russia probably five times since round 25  Gotta admit, the political irony of a Corporation named after a cat dominating a nation with such a namesake.  I was trying to avoid self-promotion of my own wars to not seem braggy.  This whole topic is very meta-game and the line between ooc and ic has been blurry the whole time.<ooc?

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny story, this last round I found a nation called "United States" and thought to myself, yay!  unaligned and ripe for raiding!  Then I caught myself because I had 65k NS and they had like 200 NS.  That's what happens when the ruler is Bernie Sanders.  I should've gotten a screenshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed soldiers killed....but one award is the most soldiers killed in the alliance with the most soldiers killed...so you can have the most soldiers killed but have to be in the alliance that has killed the most....so by declaring war on your own alliance mates you are inflating that count wrongfully.


yeah correct. however 2 meaty nations would end up killing more soldiers by targeting 3 enemy nations each rather than fighting eachother.

regardless inter AA fighting should not be allowed. except for rare accidental circumstances. where it isn't allowed, but the fact that it may happen isn't automatic ban/warn.

like I could attack your alliance and then join your alliance. and your AA could then counter me before I got booted off. ghosts can easily be booted etc etc. perhaps the leader went inactive or forgot to boot a member before they attacked him or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah correct. however 2 meaty nations would end up killing more soldiers by targeting 3 enemy nations each rather than fighting eachother.

regardless inter AA fighting should not be allowed. except for rare accidental circumstances. where it isn't allowed, but the fact that it may happen isn't automatic ban/warn.

like I could attack your alliance and then join your alliance. and your AA could then counter me before I got booted off. ghosts can easily be booted etc etc. perhaps the leader went inactive or forgot to boot a member before they attacked him or something.

 

Not if two meaty nations collude, which is half the thesis for the arguments you made.  two 1v1's going for massive casualties would dwarf the casualties of two nations fighting three at random in a "true" war.  Two nations colluding is the main model of your whole argument against a "most destructive war" flag, isn't it?  Don't you think an agreement like this could be stuck between two top-tier nations in different alliances?  And if you adjust your tactics, you can pull a lot of casualties out of a war by sacrificing intent to do damage for intent to get people killed.  Don't act like this isn't the case, you exploited this serially last round without collusion for over 3 million casualties.  The fact that you didn't get a flag for it as it wasn't an awardable category that round is just thick enough a veneer of an excuse to evade being called an outright hypocrite.  If nations you fought were in on it, the losses would be that much higher and I suspect some were.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but someone you decided to attack NDO and then tried to join us, I'd give their tenure there a life expectancy of maybe 20 minutes and we'd sanction them from yellow (whether it had an effect or not) just to prove a point.  Then we'd raid said nation for the rest of the round, until they either gave up and deleted/went inactive, or there was nothing left to plunder, since that's the definition of off-AA roguing.  I think most other alliances would respond similarly.

Edited by Nick GhostWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×