Jump to content

Edward I

Members
  • Content count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

About Edward I

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Edward I
  • Nation Name
    Seleucia
  • Nation ID
    15788
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

446 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Edward I

    Arrgh Public Service Announcement

    My only question is why this wasn't advertised with P&W Balls.
  6. Edward I

    Nightly News w/ Shifty

    It's sinusoidal behavioral convergence in preparation for both NPO and BK to merge into GoG.
  7. I see what you did there.
  8. Edward I

    Reduce Sub 20 City Costs

    Unless there's a limit on how big the gap will become, it will grow indefinitely and without limit. The unbounded nature of growth in these sorts of games is the main thing that kills them in the long run. It stifles interaction between new and old players and it redirects an increasing proportion of the player base's GDP towards saving for warchests in the short term and towards nation growth in the long term. Your first suggestion is an excellent idea. If both caps were tied to the number of nations rather than nation score - a warchest cap that isn't increased by nation score and an alliance bank cap that is tied to member count and not alliance score - then they would at least partly solve the problem. There would be a hard limit on the amount of cash and resources that could exist at any one time in the game. There would be a de facto limit on how large nations could become. Nations wouldn't be able to fund growth after a certain number of cities because they wouldn't be able to hold all of the cash necessary to buy another city in the first place.
  9. Edward I

    Make wars less uneven

    Not sure what you mean? If you're alluding to unreasonable surrender terms, to the best of my knowledge the last time a major CN alliance imposed any surrender terms beyond an admission of defeat on another alliance was early 2014.
  10. Edward I

    Suggestion to limit alliance bank hiding

    Tediousness doesn't amount to deterrence. If there is an in-game incentive to do something, the question isn't whether it will happen, but how and how often. Because hiding a bank to prevent looting losses yields a higher return than almost any other in-game activity, it will still happen. Perhaps. But outlining a single edge case to justify a blanket rule change isn't a very compelling argument. Perhaps alliances would ensure their bankers used the Fortress war policy (to prevent immediate, successive blockades and GAs) and that their bankers were in score ranges that were either all but unreachable by their opponents or in which they had such tier cohesion that attempts to attack bankers would be futile. Alliances could choose to hide the lion's share of their banks in vacation mode nations or find other ways of working around the proposed changes than I could in under five minutes of thought. You should also consider the unintended consequences of such a rule change. If what you've just outlined becomes the new war meta, then that would put upward pressure on the minimum sizes of alliances and coalitions. Small alliances would be at far greater risk of being pinned down entirely by blockades and small coalitions would have fewer nations to defend their constituent alliances' banks. I never said it would be as simple as what people can do currently; I outlined a much more complicated workaround that would have a similar effect. I'm telling you with a straight face that this proposal won't put an end to alliances hiding their banks. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There are plenty of ways to address incompetence already; no need to hard code a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
  11. Edward I

    Suggestion to limit alliance bank hiding

    You can hide banks in nations that are already beiged, which is how it's often done. The beiged nation sends out cash and resources as necessary and hands off the whole of the bank to another beiged alliance member when their beige timer runs out. Very few people are stupid enough to hide their bank in a nation that can get blockaded and looted. Inter-alliance personal trade restrictions don't stop this workaround because a it's usually easy enough to find at least one active beiged member per alliance and because nations can change alliances at will (meaning that it's trivially easy for an alliance to "lend" its coalition-mate a beiged nation to hide the bank). As a rule of thumb, assume that any existing best practice for gameplay represents a path of least resistance. If you want to end the widespread use of that best practice, make sure that whatever you do still leaves it as the path of least resistance. In this particular case, hopefully I've adequately shown how you'd have to revise half the game's mechanics to make your proposal a viable prevention for bank hiding. If an alliance can't get its members to spend money as instructed, it should kick those members or find a new government that's up to the task. There's no need for government members to exert further control over their members' economies and expenditures.
  12. Edward I

    Suggestion to limit alliance bank hiding

    This incentivizes bank hiding. Alliances will keep their entire banks in one or several nations and have the player(s) that control them distribute and collect funds to avoid the bank transaction limit. If the tax on withdrawals becomes large enough to deter the use of the bank even for membership taxes, alliances will move all their active members into 0% tax brackets and revert to the manual taxation system that existed before automatic alliance taxes were added to the game. Taxes would be sent to the designated banking nations outlined above. Inactive members would be placed in brackets with non-zero taxes because 70% taxation efficiency (or whatever 1 minus the transaction tax rate is) will still be better than 0% taxation efficiency. If the transaction tax is too small to make the reversion to manual taxation worthwhile, then it will be an ineffective policy that wasn't worth implementing in the first place. Furthermore, giving alliance leadership that degree of power over their members' spending is overweening, disincentivizes proactively teaching new players good gameplay, and will likely be a hassle to code.
  13. Edward I

    Tributaries

    What prevents this from happening already? If an alliance's government is too inactive, incompetent, or duplicitous to make a weekly transfer from one alliance bank to another, then they can either be dumped by their protectors or attacked.
  14. Edward I

    Question about IQ alliances

    Umm...no. Economics played at least as large a role as anything IQ did or didn't do. If you don't want to take it from me, take it from your own alliance's gov. Additionally, IQ has virtually no upper tier presence. It was said earlier in this thread that TGH had to sell down to hit IQ and its allies. Needless to say, buying up to hit opponents isn't exactly a viable strategy. It's telling that, despite the tiering of the bloc and all of its allies, it's still the cause of "stagnation". Why aren't Guardian, TKR, Rose, or Nuke Bloc the causes of stagnation? If the upper tiers of the game want to grow their nations like corn in peace that's their business, but don't try to spin this whole thing like it's exclusively the fault of a bunch of nations sitting at 2000 score. Also, why did it take everyone at war with us this long to get around to it? What, exactly, did "do something" ever mean besides break up - an obvious non-starter since the bloc's formation - or declare war on one of the former EMC alliances? If IQ being at war was what all of you really wanted all along, you knew how to make it happen. Again, acting as though no one in Orbis save IQ has agency is and always has been stupid. To be fair, you shouldn't discount the fact that you've been a uniquely odious public face for a major alliance. Trust or not, the only things I know about TCW are 1) it used to be GPA; 2) it latched on hard to a perennially-victorious power sphere; and 3) you're in a class of your own when it comes to being a blowhard. This is accurate. There's never been a plausible, let alone credible, explanation for what would happen to IQ's constituent alliances if it were to truly split other than get rolled piece meal.
  15. Edward I

    PROJECT PROPOSAL - Scrapyard

    You could also nerf selling units to only return 60% of the initial cost and keep the project at 80%, per Manthrax's suggestion.
×

Important Information

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