Jacob Knox

I don't know, it all seems kind of sus. How do I know I can trust someone who can't even spell appalled correctly?

Come at me, bro. >:)

The alliance? Whack! This post? Whack! You? Whack! One of few things that can bring Kan out of his forum slumber: Rainbow being Rainbow. Lmao.

I mean... I do disagree with the suggestion, personally, for the reasons others have stated in this thread. But I wasn't trying to counter his suggestion with "well your allies are doing it." Rather, I was making sure he was aware that such a change would have the biggest impact on his allies. And don't get me wrong, I commend him for being willing to say that he believes it is wrong regardless of who is doing it (his allies included). Also, how is it derailing, per se, if we are still staying on topic (market manipulation)? Just because you think something is a flimsy response/counter to a point doesn't automatically make it derailing.

Now this... this is a truly amazing, beautifully worded, perfect example of what this forum needs. Thank you. I am truly moved.

Welcome to Orbis.

So, let me make sure I'm getting this straight... TKR, Grumpy, and Guardian arguably dominate a large portion of the market (don't believe me, just go look at who currently holds the lowest sell offers for food and most manufactured rss and the highest buy offers for most rss)... and you're saying that there are players who manipulate the market by consistently undercutting and whatnot. In other words, I just want to make sure that you're actually saying your allies manipulate the market and need to be stopped by limiting the number of offers they can post per day. That is what you're saying, right?

I agree. As it stands, the Top 100 players for money looted is approaching $2b (the proposed $1.5b would thus give > 100 players this project). In comparison, only 26 players right now have > $5b looted, which I think would be a better number for a rewarded project like this.

I have a perfect example of why it's a bad thing and a headache for gov (like me) right here: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=1256493. One of our members had 3K infra—really don't know how this wasn't caught before or how they haven't gotten wrecked before—and suffered $214,823,258.03 in infra losses from four nukes on attrition (each wiping about 1.8K to 1.9K infra). So while he was probably making more money and had more slots for stuff while he had the infra, you can see how expensive it would be to rebuild/maintain.

I like all of your logic and this tier list seems fairly accurate imo. I like the idea of giving Arrgh their own category, because I agree that they don't really fit any one category. I just ended up putting them under "Superpowers," because Arrgh doesn't need anyone to do what they do, aren't going anywhere, and are never forgotten (even though, as you mentioned, their actions are generally of little consequence to Orbis' politics).

That's unlimited defensive intel ops. The suggestion is unlimited offensive intel ops.

Congratulations to all recurring and new gov members of GATO!

I can tell someone is still a little salty that I beat him in a 1 v 1. Very based list though. I give it a 7.5 / 11.

I did my best to consistently keep in mind the exact specifications of what each tier meant as I contemplated each alliance's role in their sphere and in Orbis at large. I didn't think there were any alliances that Orbis would be "better off without" (F tier description), though I had a moment where I put Cam there :serious:, and I wanted to give my ranking of every alliance even if I'm not the most familiar with them (no hard feelings).

You want to reward people for building so much infra they put themselves at risk of getting wrecked? Nah. They did that to themselves. Also, this would be a hinderance to pirates by limiting the number of military improvements they can have per city and although pirates are annoying sometimes in my line of work, they do serve a purpose here in Orbis. Furthermore, your math is completely ignoring the score and war range factors. In your example, it would be like this: Player A 42,000 infra = 1,050 score 210,000 soldiers = 84 score 17,500 tanks = 437.5 score 1,050 aircraft = 315 score 210 ships = 210 score 14 cities = 1,400 score (now) Nation Score: 3,506.5 w/o projects, missiles, or nukes Player B 42,000 infra = 1,050 score 315,000 soldiers = 126 score 26,250 tanks = 656.25 score 1,575 aircraft = 472.5 score 315 ships = 315 score 21 cities: 2,100 score (now) Nation Score: 4,729.75 score w/o projects, missiles, or nukes Player B cannot declare on Player A since their war range is 3,547.31 - 8,277.06. Not withstanding the fact that the C21 is far more likely to have more projects, missiles, and nukes than the C14. Each project adds 20 score, each missile adds 5 score, and each nukes adds 15 score.

Nah, this ain't it chief. Gives attackers way too much power and can strip defenders of any chance of fighting back.

Generally that happens when a trade offer no longer exists (someone else bought it or the person took it off the market) or the person no longer has the resources or money in their nation to support the trade offer.

And I'm here trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty. Don't own a car? I'm calling homeowners about switching to solar power to save you money! Don't own a home either? OOF.

I like the post lol. Welcome to Orbis.

Do it. I'll upvote the hell out of it.

Dang. This post is whack enough to draw Rainbow out of the woods. Lmfao.

I am honored to have been remembered on the list while the likes of @Kan0601 were forgotten. Get wrecked. Here's to another however the hell long. Seriously, when will the torture end?

Interesting. #86 FSO prot. Good luck with everything!

Only downside to this is it doesn't show treaties the Top 50 may have with alliances not in the Top 50 (i.e. protectorates and extensions). But that's fairly easy to check on an individual basis.