Jump to content

Edward I

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

486 profile views
  1. Edward I

    $yndicate placeholder Dow

    While these aren't unreasonable fears, I think you're missing several important distinctions. Pre already pointed the first out, namely that IQ has yet to become EMC. While the possibility exists, it is wrong to conflate the two groups. One has a history of being a bad actor, the other has the potential be in a position to become a bad actor. The second is that not all hegemonies are created equal. It is much harder to challenge a concentrated upper tier than a middle tier for mechanical reasons, specifically the sheer cost and time it takes to build up to the 25-30+ city range and the profits a nation already in that range garners from its size and comparative lack of war-associated expenses (at least historically). Groups of middle tier nations are also far less stable. Even though fewer nations enter the whale tier than enter the middle tier over any given period of time, fewer leave the whale tier as well. Middle tier nations are more likely to quit, go inactive, or change alliances than upper tier nations are. This is partly because middle tier nations have less invested in the game, but it's also partly because they have less social cohesion as a group. They're more likely to be newer nations or in less exclusive, less tight-knit mass recruitment alliances like the ones in IQ. The third distinction is that, unlike EMC's upper tier or upper tiers in general, low- and mid-tier mass recruitment alliances benefit PW as a whole. Alliances with explicit or de facto minimum city requirements for their membership don't teach new nations how to play or socialize them into PW. The fact that they get new members at all is because other alliances have done that work for them. This is a positive externality that makes mass recruitment alliances in particular and low- or mid-tier alliances in general less suspect than upper tier ones. They take on the risk of training and building new nations even though many will eventually leave for other alliances. The prosperity of such alliances isn't without its potential downsides, like you said, but the health and well-being of mass recruitment alliances is a necessary condition for the health of Orbis as a whole.
  2. Edward I

    Destiny Arrives

    Yeah, first TheNG, then Auctor, now greatkitteh. Someone's been using BK's cocaine on the job.
  3. Edward I

    Name this war! - October 2018

    Please. If we're going that route it should at least be the Mismatched Socks War.
  4. Edward I

    Horse-Based War Cry of the Apocalypse

    Glad to have you with us!
  5. Edward I

    $yndicate placeholder Dow

    Does the harem get to join you on vacations?
  6. Edward I

    Terminus Est: When whale's collide!

    Happy hunting TEst, may your harpoons find their marks.
  7. Edward I

    Shifty News Network-So far, so good, so what?

    Patience. NPO will be merging into BK soon.
  8. Edward I

    Paperless Treaty Web - Upper Tier Alliances

    Paperless treaties and secret treaties aren't synonymous. Secret treaties are necessarily paperless, but paperless relationships as they were originally conceived were meant to be well-publicized. The point was to promote ongoing cooperation and trust over legalism, not hide relationships in the hopes of gaining a strategic advantage.
  9. Edward I

    Alliance relevance rank!

    IQ is a hivemind. TheNG is the sys_admin. Draw your own conclusions.
  10. Your solution wouldn't do what you're describing. What you're implicitly saying is that new/small/unaffiliated nations drag down the income, but old/large/affiliated nations don't. Mikey's point was that almost any new nation - regardless of income - would drag down the bonus on Lime. The issue isn't that the bonuses aren't high enough (that could be fixed by multiplying the whole equation by a constant greater than 1); it's that the way they're calculated discourages being on the same color as other nations, almost regardless of their income. The only real effect of this change has been to slightly pad the incomes of large nations who don't need the money and penalize anyone who is on the same color as small nations who could use it. This is toxic for gameplay and almost unambiguously detrimental to the long-term health of the game.
  11. Edward I

    Shifty News Network-Gallup Poll

    Yes! Money is an illusion. The proletariat should give all of its money to the Capitol to rid itself of this evil forever.
  12. Edward I

    An Orbis Chronicle: The Fall of Buorhann

    Guinea pigs are revered as living gods in Roqovia. Hamsters are used exclusively to power the computers in our smart bombs. Please bear the difference in mind when composing future posts.
  13. Edward I

    Propaganda time

    His Highness Lord Roquentin is grateful for TKR's concern for his physical safety. However, he also reminds his servants not to give in to temptation: beiging is a sin which no amount of loot can cleanse.
  14. Edward I

    Continuing death of democracy

    "Backrooming" is inherently exclusive and undemocratic. The whole point of backrooms in FA is to have only the essential leadership present and to avoid informing others until after a decision has been made. Alliance governments exist to be effective, not to maximize conflict, and especially not to maximize internal conflict, which is the kind democracies are are best at breeding as compared to autocracies. Yes, member engagement is important, but it is balanced against the need for self-preservation and operational effectiveness. The primary reasons for the slow-moving nature of inter-alliance politics are the need to see positive returns on infrastructure investments and the necessity of building large stockpiles of resources and money for waging war. This is wrong. Most rank-and-file members of alliances would be interested in additional control, but most are also not prepared to commit the time necessary to make effective and responsible use of that control. My alliance, for example, could tell its members to build their nations however they like in the hopes that some of them learn more about nation-building. We don't, though, because we already know what the optimal builds are. Any additional activity this spurred would be better spent on tasks that need doing rather than tasks that were done months or years ago. The material benefits of alliances are two-fold: alliances provide safety in numbers and they allow players to benefit from expertise beyond their own. "Competency" is measured at the alliance level, not the individual level. Giving every member of an alliance the same expertise and experience is a waste of time and resources that are better spent diversifying. Alliances don't exist to "benefit the world as a whole". They exist to benefit their memberships. Pivoting away from autocracy would put alliances at a competitive disadvantage against those that remained autocratic.
  15. I'm not sure whether the suggestion is worth the effort, but it wouldn't preclude vacation mode players from viewing the forums; it would only prevent them from posting. All they'd have to do is log out and they'd be able to see everything.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.