Server Agreement new

WilD GuN
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon 07 Sep, 2009 23:22
Reputation: 9
Guild: Ixion - WL now [DL]

Server Agreement new

Postby WilD GuN » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 06:48

As too much bla bla on original topic, im reposting here, so it wont be like... "lost"

Here are DL thoughts about this in green.

1. 1v1 wars( max guild fleet difference of attacker must not be above 25% of declared total fleet size ), Declaration and TOS needs to be made. Clarify: is a formal declaration necessary before launch? No more surprise attacks?

2. War guilds (OP guilds ) are allowed under the following rules :
2.1 war guilds cannot declare war against guilds that has less than 115% of the war guilds total fleet size
2.2 if Levis are part of the war guilds the limit is 120 %
Why even have 2.1? Every guild/op is going to have levis at this stage of the game. It's also ambiguous as titans and/or death stars can both do the same thing as levis and this technically leaves the door open for exploitation of that loophole

3. No perma occ-ing except at times of war, once time duration ended, leave 1 FT
We are removing the "no permaoccs" rule, we do not give no1 a license to build free jumpgates in our stronghold.

4. Raiding is allowed under the following rules
4.1 total Fleets in a system below 5% of total target guild fleets can be attacked anywhere without declaring war
4.2. a total of 15 bases in a single galaxy can be occupied without having to declare warThis is irrelevant and contradictory. It is already stated above that there will be no perma-occing except in times of war. Tho we said already, what we think about that

5. Guild size max 100
Does this apply in all cases or is this only for all standard guilds belonging to this agreement? ie. can this number be exceeded for war guilds?

6. NAP -max of 2 no mdp.
Need to elaborate with details. For example, if guild "a" attacks guild "b" can guild "c" attack guild "a"? If the answer is no, then this potentially means that by declaring war on guild "b", guild "a" can protect itself from attack from guild "c". I just think the rules here need to be defined better.

Suiciders = account becomes a farm account. (please don't give excuse saying account is hacked, if you are worried about it, change your password and keep it safe) Don't think this is a rule as no one likes suiciders
Always a good policy

breakers of rules = 2 guilds zerg against the breaker
Why stop at 2 guilds. I say all guilds zerg against the breaker. Otherwise how do we decide which two guilds get to reap the benefits?

Regards,
DarK TemPlaR

Certains disent que le meilleur c'est mille croiseurs
D'autres disent que le meilleur c'est mille croiseurs lourd
Nous nous disons que c'est ce que tu désires. Désir d'éternité
Genjitsu
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed 22 Aug, 2012 00:16
Reputation: 0
Guild: Dark Legacy
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby Genjitsu » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 08:47

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Points to be understood before saying " Yes " or " How about ___ ? "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the currently proposed agreement actually reads as ( means ) in it's current stage, that you need to visualize, and try to improve before anybody can sign ( some of it doesn't make much sense as it is, it's not complete for signing ) :

1. 1v1 Wars with some kind of limit =

( People who decided a war get a "Vacation mode" shielding from other guilds, because its 1v1 and has a rebuild period ? ) Additionally, nobody is mentioning the rebuild period anymore ?! , but in this system the wars can be tailored to potentially "farm" a guild, rebuild back up with the profit IN 100% SAFETY, leaving a weaker guild to recover with nothing, while the winning guild moves to farm the next food target ( having also lowered their total fleet in derbing the other guild and perhaps *not rebuilding on purpose* to become eligible to eat #3 ). also scrapping the rebuild period means that Guild 1 fights Guild 2, and wins or loses, allowing Guild 3 to attack asap, and gear down the original guilds power step by step, until the last major guild in the chain hits them and they are nothing anymore.

2. War guilds =

( any rules determining max size and "who does or doesnt apply to the pact" is irrelevant ). Wars are only ever about fleet, if the fleet sizes are not a problem, neither are the *number* of players... I just means that THAT guild REALLY needs to pull its own weight with many more coordinated players to do a launch / be online to fight a more powerful smaller guild. ( this in effect puts the proper handicap on top 100 players, by allowing more players to band together for a chance at their super fleets. )

3. No Permaoccing =

( no strongholds due to free gates everywhere, corvette producing bases next to everybody's blobs, no occupation income and everybody thinking only about simming because you've disabled the largest part of astro empires as it was meant to be played, "manipulating guild power by attacking their production and reducing their resources/build times/JG access" )

4. Raiding is allowed =

( see point 1 about guilds getting to have 1v1 wars only, the future doesnt look bright for raiders, in the case that we might protect the *entire* warring guilds fleet, and perhaps pointless then to have a rebuild period because that nullifies any chance at this point for raiders, who are not allowed to hit a guild in a rebuild period ?. ) As a suggestion, change the whole thing to "any members not on their blob" *OR* something like "any members who are outside the galaxy range", are free targets to raiders. rebuild period even, could be something like rebuild period is respected as long as the guilds fleet is on guilds bases, but then there are occ steals, they cant be helped ?

5. Guild size 100 =

( again see point 2 about it only being fleet size that we use to determine targets for war, it just means that guild needs so many more people to be active and launch to fight back, the guild in question surely doesnt prefer to be like that, its just the way they are at this time, so penalizing them to get ahead in rank is pointless )

6. 2 NAPS, no MDP =

( no MDP but War guilds, am I right ? pointless loophole ) NAPS are personal, they dont affect wars (if you prevent what would be NAP'd Raiders from being allowed to raid on either warring guild's Blobs or galaxy ranges...) but anytime you go swapping members for extra gates, that looks like a MDP, therefore if a war is declared, at this point no members can be swapped from guilds after the war starts (though I believe before too, unless that person is now a permanent member of the new guild), because that goes beyond simply NAP's not hitting each other ). and Irrelevant of who signs the pacts, the major guilds sign it meaning THEY cannot accept other members, from people inside OR outside the pact, because the signing member major guild is the one manipulating the other members and bound by the rules.)


7. Suiciders & 8. Rule breakers : =

(to be kicked and farmed, since its individual... if they know they will lose their guild, they will not go giving even their boss any trouble by not following their orders. A rule breaking guild, is gonna get hated and therefore attacked anyway, theres no need to assign who gets to hit them, they will just be smashed by all anyway.... Ultimately its the individual members, who get kicked and farmed, that keep all guilds and their members in line.)

----

A wall of text is a wall of text, but try to see through general human error, and build constructively from here on.

*Something you can sign that works*

gazzy
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri 13 Nov, 2009 00:40
Reputation: 4

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby gazzy » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 11:31

People always perma occ in their Strongholds. So that rule is ridiculous. Also any rule that is based on percentages or variations of numbers in comparsion to various guilds can be manipulated by having people switch in and out of guilds. Overall some of the ideas are interesting. But people are still going to zerg even under various tags. So for example on the ticker you still do not see MD hitting UCY players nor do you see GORR hitting DL bases. Consequently the politics are still the same, its just the guild tags have changed. So the server is still a zerg now though instead of having two large blobs we have seven blobs. To make the server interesting be specific. Instead of limiting the number of pacts each guild can have, make it so traditional allies can not be allies. So the first rule before the 1 v 1 rule is that MD can not pact with UCY, XXX can not pact with UCY or MD, PETS can not pact with $$$, GORR can not pact with DL, and that people can't switch guilds to get around these rules. If you can do that you will make the server fun and unpredictable, if you can not do that the server will be the same zerg blocks even though the guild names are different.

User avatar
thedarklord187
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu 19 May, 2011 21:51
Reputation: 7
Guild: [-Z-]vgm
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby thedarklord187 » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 14:35

Reputation points for gazzy , I agree ucy is still mdk in my eyes since they are allied with half the server currently :nonono

Image
<><><><><>Guild:{-Z-}<><><><><>
User avatar
mimozine
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon 13 Aug, 2012 20:04
Reputation: 1

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby mimozine » Wed 22 Aug, 2012 21:31

i like this new one better already.

i dont think anything can be decided though while ucy is still attacking z. i think they should withdraw and return to this table.

by the way an agreement is just that. i never agreed to the last one yet it seems people are rolling about the server like its law.

User avatar
thedarklord187
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu 19 May, 2011 21:51
Reputation: 7
Guild: [-Z-]vgm
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby thedarklord187 » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 00:13

mimozine wrote:i like this new one better already.

i dont think anything can be decided though while ucy is still attacking z. i think they should withdraw and return to this table.

by the way an agreement is just that. i never agreed to the last one yet it seems people are rolling about the server like its law.


Agreed ucy prematurely declared war and invaded our stronghold before the talks were even signed off the cf shouldve extended until all parties signed off on it just my 2 cents

Image
<><><><><>Guild:{-Z-}<><><><><>
elementalest
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed 12 May, 2010 03:37
Reputation: 2
Guild: $$$
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby elementalest » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 08:39

+1 to gazzy

As i posted in the previous thread this kind of agreement was tried in kappa and ultimately failed.

It needs to be simple and it cant be restrictive. I think currently there are too many rules and restrictions, and in the end as gazzy said the politics is still the same.


So i think the rules should be:

max 100 players per guild

No NAP's or MDP's

1v1 wars with no interference by any other guild. Only size restriction is a guild cannot declare war on another guild 70% of its fleet size. Also no temporary recruiting players from other guilds.

suicide rule as described above (i think everyone agrees with that)


This would bring some drastic changes to server politics. But thats whats needed to make any agreement possible that will actually work and benefit everyone.

Disclaimer: Any opinion expressed in my posts are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the guild i am in.
User avatar
thedarklord187
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu 19 May, 2011 21:51
Reputation: 7
Guild: [-Z-]vgm
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby thedarklord187 » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 09:30

Agreed

Image
<><><><><>Guild:{-Z-}<><><><><>
User avatar
jamesdev
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue 25 Aug, 2009 01:38
Reputation: 21
Guild: G [FEAR]
I [$$$]
Galaxy: Gamma

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby jamesdev » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 10:50

Before we move forward this needs addressed.


UCY DNH list

MD
Lycan
Kor
XxX



It was allowed to slide the movement to 40s before CF ended. I know movement orders were not inclued in CF terms,but by moving early to the 40s WH, that allowed them to have a sucky sync and still be allowed to land safely in Z SH. Now this nonsense of still having 4 DNHs is not acceptable. I will not stand by and let Phiman create another MD just under a new tag. If it means we go back to zerging so be it. Because one guild has already been formed with most of the servers main accounts and looks like they will have no regard for the pact they agreed to.





Also,

Charley 4 suicided on Bulldog, he is not to be given refuge under any other tag.

Ingame name: jd/Mumm-Ra

$$$
User avatar
-V-endetta
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu 23 Aug, 2012 15:07
Reputation: 1
Guild: -Z-
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby -V-endetta » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 15:26

From my point of view, UCY just disrespect all server with them move to Z SH + Lycan/MD recruit players + the negotiations are still not finish + DNH list + .......................
UCY do what they want and not what the server wants.
Why any guild tries to start invade the others? Probably, because we r still on talks to find out what’s good for IXION.
In my opinion this negotiations will not arrive to anywhere and should fall down NOW; unless UCY will start cooperate and have good sense.

That’s ALL
-V-

User avatar
Bulldog-R-
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu 12 May, 2011 23:11
Reputation: 6
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby Bulldog-R- » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 16:06

tbh the whole concept of these talks has been lost from the start
most guiilds were still trying to figure out who there napped too ect
except the "MD zerg" (ucy/md/xxx/lycan/kor).....323 players WTF!

1v1 wars my backside

nothing was signed but ucy launched reguardless even before CF was ended
no declaration was made till they were parked in our SH
ucy declare war on us .....fine
kor steal all our occs ...act of war imo
lycan provide ucy jgs....act of war imo
pets launch on one of our bases (recalled when fleet was moved and trades dropped ect) ....no biggie i suppose
$$$ vgm kills half a mil -z- fleet in 50s (i tell guy off for having fleet in 50s he then suicides me lol)....or mabey he was spai anyway :paranoid:

all this is resulting in confusion and fighting across of half the server except the "MD zerg" ofc
well done MD leadership;)

User avatar
SlightlyMoldyBread
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu 28 Jul, 2011 17:51
Reputation: 0

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby SlightlyMoldyBread » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 16:47

I'm a fan of:

a) Random NAP selections, or no NAP's. All of the old alliances need to go.

The issue here is guild size & zerging. Limit the guild size, and the alliances and then just let everyone fight it out however they want.
______________________________________________________________

As for UCY & Z:

Can't you guys just let us fight it out just for the sake of it and forget about complaining? No other guilds will step in. It's been the first fun thing to happen on the server in a while, and the sides are matched evenly enough. If we go back to a CF or zergs I think that would be the end of AE for me. I'll join some other MDK refugees playing Star Wars or something.

User avatar
thedarklord187
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu 19 May, 2011 21:51
Reputation: 7
Guild: [-Z-]vgm
Galaxy: Ixion

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby thedarklord187 » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 17:07

SlightlyMoldyBread wrote:I'm a fan of:
I'll join some other MDK refugees playing Star Wars or something.

Lol if this all goes south they just announced the new starwars swotor mmo is becomming free to play now ;)

Image
<><><><><>Guild:{-Z-}<><><><><>
User avatar
Critor
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun 10 Sep, 2006 13:42
Reputation: 6
Guild: CRY
Galaxy: Drako

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby Critor » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 17:17

SlightlyMoldyBread wrote:I'm a fan of:

a) Random NAP selections, or no NAP's. All of the old alliances need to go.

The issue here is guild size & zerging. Limit the guild size, and the alliances and then just let everyone fight it out however they want.
______________________________________________________________

As for UCY & Z:

Can't you guys just let us fight it out just for the sake of it and forget about complaining? No other guilds will step in. It's been the first fun thing to happen on the server in a while, and the sides are matched evenly enough. If we go back to a CF or zergs I think that would be the end of AE for me. I'll join some other MDK refugees playing Star Wars or something.

hmm i was actually just thinking about a random pact generator .. i believe that could be programmed real quick :)

also this :
Lol if this all goes south they just announced the new starwars swotor mmo is becomming free to play now ;)

very very nice :) can't wait !

ImageCo-GM of MD/ Founder of CRYON, Retired Co-Founder of CRUEL
User avatar
jamesdev
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue 25 Aug, 2009 01:38
Reputation: 21
Guild: G [FEAR]
I [$$$]
Galaxy: Gamma

Re: Server Agreement new

Postby jamesdev » Thu 23 Aug, 2012 18:50

Bulldog-R- wrote:$$$ vgm kills half a mil -z- fleet in 50s (i tell guy off for having fleet in 50s he then suicides me lol)....or mabey he was spai anyway :paranoid:



He let his 3m go. That Charly dude has been occ whoring in 50s for long enough mate. KG5 knocked him off a few in 57 today. All occs he had a titan parked on it.
Daniel is another pushing it a bit. He insists on sending scouts into sensitive areas of our SH, once the scout is popped, he resends.

I do think you are getting the raw deal in all this though. The server wide CF should have been extended by 10 days or so until all guilds had agreed to and signed the terms of agreement.

I do think UCY should do whats morally right now and pull back to their SH until we have a concrete server agreement in place to which all Guilds have signed.


Regarding server pact, I think all guilds need to declare a SH consisting of a max of 5 galaxies and only have a maximum of maybe 10 players based outside that area.

Ingame name: jd/Mumm-Ra

$$$

Return to “Ixion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest