Notice how it's predominantly the battlehuggers that oppose the motion?

Using backwards logic such as "it will ruin diplomacy" or "we need blues to compete with boosters".

I for one am in favour of the motion. I can't tell you how many era's I've played where the wrong people won the era and not due to skill, strength or strategy but by what these miserable cretins call "diplomacy" - what, in my books at least, constitutes as cheating.

The most memorable one's being where GOON played in E3, my alliance was friendly with them in I think 2 consecutive era's ( we were rank 5 or lower and GOON consistently rose to 1st then fell to 2nd but held it due their skill - they weren't particularly active either).

The rank 1 alliance having made all it's deals would then use their diplomacy to try and talk GOON into settling for 2nd or 3rd without a fight. They were the first alliance I seen that turned the offer down and opted to fight for 1st rather than do what they were told.

Now if it had solely been GOON vs the 1st ranking alliance and their subs then I have no doubt in my mind that GOON would have won, holding all of the Americas, Greenland, Iceland and expanding into AA. Yet alas! When GOON and my alliance stood in Greenland to fight the rank 1 alliance we were faced with not 1, not 2, but 8 different alliances ranging from 1st, 3rd, 4th etc and so on ! Fair to say we were overwhelmed

The next again era GOON and FIST took a stand and the same scenario played out again. When the rank 1 alliance tried to invade by themselves FIST at this point rank 7, more or less fought them alone while GOON built and even FIST smacked the rank 1 alliance so hard they had to retreat out of NA for at least another 400 ticks until they could make their deals and gather their monopoly to win again.

I don't think it will ruin diplomacy, I think it will return it to how it should be. Treaties i.e temporary negotiations for short term mutual interests such as lower ranking alliances grouped closer together ganging up to take on a larger alliance taking their space or network deals, or isolation deals, counter intelligence, emergency relocation deals etc and so on.

It will change the current way of one alliance having a monopoly to smaller factions who for an x amount of time aid each other for mutual benefit before one takes the opportunity to absorb the other. This makes gameplay much more competitive, complex and in my humble opinion compelling since rather than playing battlehugs where your best friends for lyfff - you will have to consistently re-evaluate your partners, study their movement's, questions their motives, as well as your opponent's for at any times they may seize the opportunity to advance themselves. Meaning alliances will have to weigh up the short term benefits of having an ally with the long term goal of sustainable growth to be a larger player in the game.

Think of it like a Game of Thrones or for a better example the UN security council - nobody really likes each other, they spy on each other, undermine each others efforts from time to time and pursue their own national interests but sometimes they form factions where they veto other factions tipping the balance of power. Russia and China are such faction yet they have a vast number of disagreement's. As Russia is stabilizing as a free market economy backed with a long established military industrial complex China on the other hand is a new player to the game and is keen to assert itself as a real military power thus requires vast amounts of industry which in turn requires natural resources. This equates to one alliance in a coalition wishes to build a large military force but it's growth is stunted by it's surrounding allies, sooner or later one of them will try to eat the other to become the bigger fish in a smaller pond.

As for "competing with boosters" it's simple, if everyone is playing to win then the rank 1 alliance automatically becomes the prime target no? Meaning smaller coalitions are more likely to arise challenging the boosters at a much higher frequency than we are used to seeing - in the process slowing down their expansion and causing them to consolidate what they have in an effort to rebuild rather than impede on new territory before their ready.

Guys...i was first agnst this decison..bt after thinking Deeply i came to the conclusion that It Should be Implemented so that new players can learn to fight without running away.....So i am For this decison.....

Agree with the idea, bur there should be limitation to boost and transfer red also

Ex.
Max u can boost per era 3k red, also max u can transfer red to player 500 only and valid to all server ( once u got 500 red at e3, u cant get more at other server )

There will be more action as non booster have more fair chance to win era, and booster cant just boost without skills and activity, and more war will come.......

I agree with Prikitiew, especially with regards to the transfer of reds per server. It's too easy for boosting alliances to feed other alliances reds so they harass their opponents.

U're basically telling red boosters can't boost, so that non boosters can catch up.

It might be right, except that non boosters can already catch up with the boosters using acitivity and skills. U're basically telling others to be lowered while having no intend of becoming better at the game.

a good example about how this thing works should of been g2 last solo era
1 real active verry spending red booster - he lost fleets in an area far away from his relics together with his cristals
his buddy's didnt atack the relics or his relocation op but instead stil offered protection for those
i will not write something like he could of used his manipulation to offer ranks to others or even reds because this time i dont know but even if his fleets were killed 2 times he had enough resources to boost everything and recover his fleets
i dont know how manny non boosters can recover after loosing all in 300 ticks
so this is the advantage you bring to the table - get reds you can pay everything and stil do battle hug since if you pay 1 k reds to an unexperienced leader you can basicly get away with his friendship
put this idea of rank 1 geting prizes on some servers and run it for 2-3 eras - 1 for each eart mars fantasy and galaxy first then see if it can be implemented on other parts
every server is diffrent - also watch the boosting ( blue and red ) and make a comparison what will happen if you take away the blue's to second and third
it is simple to ruin the game for everyone with a simple idea but it will be next to imposible to save it after that - it is just a thought

A good example of players not using reds to boost back their armies right now is Kong e1. One of the best wars I've seen in a while. Both alliances have rebuilt their armies TWICE within 300 ticks, one team owns half of AA, all of NA/SA the other team owns Africa, Europe and Asia. And most of these players don't boost. Its an interesting war, mad props to both teams. Hopefully this gives you a little insight on that.

what a shock for me
i dont boost reds at all
i cant afford it
i boost hoards of blues
but can it work against red boosters??
i depend on the blues i get for being in top 3 alliance and voting

will just say one thing
by this u guys are drawing a line between rich & poor like the segregation which was done before 1994 in south africa

This kinda thinking will only hinder you. I've been told since I started playing that non boosters can't keep up with boosters. Guess what, it's not true at all. As people like me have said countless times, skill and activity trumps tokens. I've proven it in every world that I've played. To approach the game with a thinking like this, you've already defeated yourself and that is why you will never be able to overcome boosters. You are not defeated by boosters but by yourself.