[Game Development Discussion: Colour Bloc Changes]

16 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Lime has a bunch of training alliances on it. As soon as the changes are implemented those alliances will move those aa's onto their own color.

The point of the proposal is to encourage multiple types of paths to a higher bonus, so obviously it's going to rescale how the colors currently are. Naturally a change in the way the color bonus is being calculated is going to result in a change in how some colors have their numbers work.

What's your core issue with the proposal?

 

https://discord.com/channels/446601982564892672/599998912128090133/1228407425510539274

[Game Development Discussion: Colour Bloc Changes]

On 4/10/2024 at 7:10 AM, Keegoz said:

Thanks for those who have given input. This is where we are at with the proposed changes thus far:

Colour Calculation Changes

Step 1:

Eliminate all people not in an alliance from counting towards the color bonus.

Eliminate all people city 10 and below from counting towards the color bonus. (Can still benefit from the color bonus).

Step 2:

Adjust the Turn Bonus formula from:

Turn Bonus = (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue / Nations)

To this:

Turn Bonus = ( (Average Daily Monetary Net Revenue * 0.75) / Nations)

Step 3:

Instead of raising the cap to 150k, change the cap to the following formula. Currently this is around ~111k with the above changes.

New Turn Bonus Cap = (Total Aggregate DNR/Total Nations)

Step 4:

Create a second bonus with the following formula:

Recruit Bonus = (Total Nations <c11 on Color/(Total Nations <c11/5)) * New Turn Bonus Cap

Step 5:

Add the revised Turn Bonus to the new Recruit Bonus. This is your final Color Turn Bonus.

What this accomplishes:

1. Removes the need to bully nanos off of colors. Gives nanos free reign to choose any color and receive it's bonus without impact.
2. Remove the need for training alliances that don't benefit from the main alliances bonus.
3. Creates value for lower tier nations and nanos for larger nations and alliances, giving them slightly more power. Larger alliances can court smaller alliances to increase their recruitment bonus.
4. Allows for multiple approaches to gain increased bonus without changing the system to benefit one style of play over another.
5. Create a cap that automatically scales over time as the game grows or shrinks, and pins the recruitment bonus to a value that adjusts to the ebb and flow of player count.

I'm not sure how you can look at a formula which accompanying chart has Lime skyrocket from lowest value bonus to highest value bonus, and go "Damn, this is really what we should be going with". I'd like to think that that alone would highlight the issue with the formula as is.

 

 

Quote

 

Treasure Changes

Treasures have increasingly become very rewarding to only large/wealthy alliances. To the point where treasure ‘sniping’ has made them almost an exclusively a mechanic for top 8 alliances and whale nations. The following is to try and balance that out a little. Further updates on treasures may come in the future that further link them to colour blocs.

1. Treasures now only spawn in nations with the same colour as their alliance.
2. A nation must be on the colour for at least 14 days for a treasure to spawn on that nation.
3. Removal of continent requirement for treasures.
4. The two treasures that spawn in any nation (Hoa Hakananai'a & Holy Grail) will now instead spawn in a nation on the lowest colour bloc at the time of its respawn.

 

A good portion, if not most of, whale nations can't even spawn treasures given the 15-65% range. The largest nation sits a 15035 score which caps it at 9772. While whalehood is defined by city count and not score (and with scores fluctuating as well), if you take Grumpy as a benchmark, most of their nations can't spawn a treasure. It similarly excludes Eclipse's upper cohort (C45 and up). Rose's a bit more mixed but their larger/largest nations are similarly excluded. t$'s largest nations are likewise excluded. At a glance, roughly 45 and up with fairly tall infra can't spawn it due to score inhibition. I imagine that this city count would lower as people presumably move back to 0350.

In most cases (whenever they didn't just happen to spawn in their alliance), alliances get those treasures by buying them from whichever smaller alliance spawned them. That's why there's a concentration of them along the larger alliances. This is doubly true given that the price floor for treasures tend to be fairly high (usually something like 300m), and becomes harder to justify paying for the smaller an alliance is. I recall being hard pressed to justify the cost for one in Requiem (a small upper tier, edging whale alliance), as it didn't leave much of a profit margin after the fact.

I struggle to see how your proposal is going to address concentration in the top alliances when it it doesn't affect why this concentration is happening (larger alliances/economies benefitting from having them, smaller alliances benefitting more from selling than keeping), or how this concentration is happening.

 

[Game Development Discussion: Generals]

A minor suggestion, but could extensions be given the same bonus as alliance mate training would give (and perhaps have MDP allies have some in between between randoms and alliance mates)?

[[Bloc] The House Always Wins]

1 hour ago, Denison said:

 

Enclave's called. They want their POTUS back.

[Diminishing returns on military units per building]

2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Probably worth noting that the second premise is my opinion. Not the one that was the prevailing opinion when the change was made back then under Village.

Nukes only damage one city. So they are more effective on smaller nations than larger ones. E.g. you nuke someone with 5 cities you have nuked 20% of their income whether a c10 is 10%.

They will therefore become less effective over time as the average city of active players increases.

Although it's true that smaller nations get affected more on relative terms due to city count, that's not the logic by which nukes are used. The logic for their usage is maximum damage inflicted, and larger nations tend to make for better targets due to taller infra. Nobody's going to nuke a 2250 infra C23 nations when (and if) they can nuke a C45 nation with 2800 infra.

Disproportionate impact on smaller city count nations is also a thing with all attack types. A ground attack launched on a C20 affects 5% of his cities. A ground attack launched on a C40 affects 2.5% of his cities. I'm not entirely sure why would nukes be singled out, their peculiarity of just deleting a city down to sub-1000 infra put aside.

[[BLOC] The Raxus Address]

Quote

CIS

[Diminishing returns on military units per building]

On 2/17/2024 at 9:34 PM, Keegoz said:

It was designed to ensure whales could not hide during wars as effectively. Nukes aren't that effective against whales anyway.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but yes. For people who actually tried to nuke them (by building up), it's been made easier. For those who didn't, it was made possible.

I have to question the point of the change, if nuking them doesn't have that much of an effect on them anyways (a premise I disagree with).

[Diminishing returns on military units per building]

9 minutes ago, MBaku said:

The limitless updeclare range is stupid. It just shifted the meta further towards nuke turreting. If it was supposed to make it easier to consolidate the low tier and climb up in conventional warfare, there are other things that would have to be added to make that a viable meta. 

 

It was proposed and pushed explicitly to make turreting easier, if I recall Keegoz correctly.

[Game Development Discussion: Update & Feedback]

Further buffing nukes and missiles seems unnecessary (even if by means of fairly pricey projects). Missiles in particular have already gotten several buffs over the years, and both benefitted greatly from the updeclare range increase.

Nukes and missiles have always destroyed a fixed amount of infrastructure in contrast to conventional militaries' always scaling infra destroyed (which I presume is what they're being contrasted to). I don't see the particular relevance of this given that they don't compete with each other in this regard; you use missiles and nukes exclusively when you're losing, while tanks/planes/ships either get used when you're winning (nukes/missiles wouldn't even be considered), or as suicide when you're losing (they'd either be followed up with nukes and missiles, or you would use the ones you recently built on the wars which you can't touch conventionally), or alternatively, flashing (you usually have a separate target for nukes/missiles, both due to how flashing works, and because MAP's would get tight if your flash target was also your nuke/missile target).

Fixed amount of infra destroyed doesn't mean fixed damage either. It depends on how tall your target's infra is. It was already the case that larger nations would have better targets than smaller nations by virtue of who they could reach (simply put, it scaled to some extent), but the updeclare range increase made it possible to hit targets with even taller infra which were otherwise inaccessible.

In other words, that formula change already addressed any potential scaling off, by virtue of letting you hit targets which were previously unreachable, with these not being people that you would be hitting with a conventional military anyways.

With that said, the other suggested changes do seem interesting; changing how color blocs work would probably be the easiest one to code with a more immediate impact on things, although nation/alliance decisions could be a neat little addition to change things a bit.

On perks: Would it be you either pick military or econ perks, or would it be a matter of mutually exclusive picks within those separate branches (as an example, Integrated vs Dispersed Fire Support, and Concentrated vs Dispersed industry in HoI4).

[[RoH] Truth and Honor]

50 minutes ago, Shockrider1 said:

While I'm aware we historically have not had much of a relationship, I reached out to try establishing one (at the suggestion of Shwin) before any of these issues popped up. SS is from T$ Discord. I won't try arguing that a relatively short conversation with a relatively unknown FA head was supposed to be enough to change your view of us, but the effort was there.

I mean, there was more chatter in that brief convo than there was in the embassy for the entirety of the past year.

While embassy chatter is hardly the defining aspect of a relationship, it does serve to show, alongside everything else, how glacial the relationship's been.

But yeah, a brief one-time exchange on the public channel in t$' main discord (the FA one is a separate one, for the record) doesn't amount to much. These sorts of things are a fairly constant undertaking, especially if the starting point is a strained relationship rather than a neutral one.

[[RoH] Truth and Honor]

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

As for the quoted statement, why?  It’s been done multiple times throughout the history of this game with no detriment.

In most cases, it's either the group doing the rolling or being rolled discussing those. Rarely, if ever, was it the case that there's a fully milled third party that one knows isn't on good terms with you.

Couple that with them already having an idea of what to do next (sign Singu) and apparently not getting along too well with Eclipse (cue Pascal's comment), and my wonder is why didn't they wait until peace to 72 (or otherwise notify).

[[RoH] Truth and Honor]

36 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

So you're agreeing on the whole "INTENTION" of future allying a hostile party is justification?

Your logic is...  weird.  "They declared on you because of the likely hood of you being a hostile party next war cycle"   What?  That's how you definitely make enemies.  Not just with the alliance you're suspect of, but of others as well who's watching your actions.

I'd agree with your viewpoint if an alliance was deemed as being neutral or friendly.

TFP was neither, and that's the point. There was nothing in that relationship suggesting that they would have acted as a restraining factor. What did exist indicated the opposite.

As for the last bit; I'll hazard a guess and say that most third parties are just baffled about TFP telling WEL that it wanted to go its own separate way in the middle of a war.

[2023 Player Award Nominations]

Player of the Year:-

Most Influential Player:-

Most Likely to Succeed in 2024:-

Best Alliance Leader:-

Worst Alliance Leader:-

Best In-Character Poster:-

Best Villain:-

Nicest Player:-

Most Controversial Player:-

Most Missed Player: Partisan

Best Nation Page:-

Best Fighter:-

Best High Government Member:-

Most Online/Likely to respond in 1 minute:-

Best War Criminal:-

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

On 1/4/2024 at 8:40 PM, Dr Rush said:

The timing of the score change was more or less my fault for forgetting the singu/hs war was happening and including it in a list of stuff alex could do during his streams. Really though its impossible for anyone to know when something will be added more than a week in advance, much less plan around it, something I personally lament because it makes my life much harder. The score change started the process of discussion before singu even formed and basically comes down to it being a legitimate issue for whales to be able to sit out the majority of a war by building up. And while the change had the broad consensus of the design team, no there would have know when it would be added. Anyways, mine and Alex's DMs are open if you have any concerns about this. 

I appreciate your clarification, Rush.

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

You realise it was implemented almost 2 months ago right? That it was delayed for the ODOO vs Eclipse war. You claim I obfuscated the reason for it being implemented.

I didn't, it was delayed because of the war. It was supposed to be implemented after the war was finished, but as we all know, this game's development doesn't exactly move at lightning pace. It took people reminding the development team and Alex/Village to push through the changes for it to even happen.

I'm aware that it was supposed to be done by Village, but was held up. As for the latter bit, and because it's better to clarify it right away; the thought isn't that Keegoz single handedly came up with the score change. He obviously didn't. The thought's that he pressed for it to be implemented sooner post-announcement because there was already a realization within Singularity that the next war was going to be a losing one.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Also it's funny you said there were "wars still ongoing" but conveniently ignored which war it was. Us vs House Stark. House Stark could have easily taken advantage of the change to build nukes at the time and do to us what we are doing to you.

There was no advantage to be taken of because Singularity was already expecting a rolling by that point, making any infra retaining concerns moot.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

You didn't bother to fact check the timeline before posting this stuff so allow me. The changes were implemented on November 14th. Singularity didn't begin building nukes until early December, almost 2 weeks later, and after our second run in with Aurora. There is a clear and very public record of our disagreements with Aurora all over RON that illuminates the timeline much clearer than your cobbled together attempt at a narrative.

The change was implemented on December 14th, two weeks after the order went out.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Also spare me with the "It's not part of the CB" shit. It's in the post your alliance made to justify your entry. It's part of the narrative you are building. You put it there in the hopes you could bolster your argument and slander people at the same time.

It's your right to think that. It's not within your purview to say what t$ is utilizing, or not, as a CB. Those were listed out at the beginning of the post, item per item.

"Singularity made it clear it wanted to roll us, made moves towards it, and we reacted accordingly" doesn't need any bolstering.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

And yeah, I responded to it in focus, because all of your other arguments are IC arguments about in-game things. I may not agree with most of them, but as far as I am concerned, t$ is not the focus or relevant party in this war, our beef here stems from Aurora and only Aurora.

Noted.

3 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Now stepping out of character for a moment. The game has enough problems without you trying to insinuate political narratives into the design team for your own political benefit. Many of the people in your coalition are in the design team, some of them were proponents of the change in question. I myself publicly opposed the change by the way, more than once.

I get that things get heated and people sling mud each other, but all of that is within the game context. I would think improving the game is one of the few areas of common ground most players should have and I find it rather insidious to inject politics into it. You know you don't have any actual basis for these claims rather than speculation. You personally Shiho, know me and Keegoz well enough to understand our priorities, so I'd have expected at least some level of restraint on your part on parroting this shit. If you think undermining what little development the game gets to win a few political points in a conflict is worth it, continue as is I guess.

My personal thought about the change itself is that I understood where it came from, and that increasing it slightly wouldn't have been a bad thing necessarily. Of course, it wasn't increased slightly because it was straight up doubled, but that's a separate matter altogether.

Improving the game is something that's easy to find support for. How to improve it, not so much. I think that this is reflected on the receptiveness of Quality of Life changes versus mechanical ones; the former tend to be met with widespread support while the latter are divisive. Part of that divisiveness has to do with the background people come from, which colors their perspective. That's simple human nature, and it'd be foolish of me to pretend that it isn't a thing.

Concerns about conflicts of interests and potential self-serving behavior is an old one. So much so that, for example, Prefontaine was sitting in his own one-man alliance when he was doing design team stuff.

Does everyone act in a self-serving manner or otherwise overreaches with the power/influence that they wield? No, and I'd be willfully lying if I made such claim.

Conversely, does everyone act in selfless manner, or at the least remove themselves from their IC context when weighing in? No, and I'd likewise be willfully lying if I were to claim that.

And with all due respect Sketchy, I never had much to do with Keegoz on a personal level. And I don't mean it in a scathing way; the closest I've had to do with him was during the TGH days while we were allied to KT, and even then we didn't talk much to each other because of our respective fields (if I recall correctly, Keegoz was FA and then Grand Master, while I was always Milcom high govt throughout). The main KT people who I spoke to then were Theo, Vince (the person who invited me to this game in the first place), Vlad and some others.

Outside of that, the second closest was when I was in Rose for the period of time Singularity still had an MDP with it, and then I had zero contact with him. I don't understand your angle here. 

And ultimately, I don't believe that it's going to impact anything game development related, as it doesn't impede said work. I'd likewise expect him to have gone into dev team stuff knowing full well that these sorts of concerns would've been aired sooner or later (if they haven't been voiced already by now), and it would surprise me if it was the case that such wasn't factored in prior to agreeing to it.

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

6 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Hmm only just noticed this. If you are going to lie and bring Dev team related things into discussion, you should at least get your timeline straight.

The changes to updeclare ranges were proposed during Village's time, not by anyone in SIN, and were slated for implementation before being delayed by the previous war. The code was already written, the change was already approved, and the only reason it hadn't been is because Alex/Village hadn't pushed it through.

Can't say I am surprised to see Syndicate alter facts in order to fabricate grievance about things not within game politic though.

...the reason it hadn't been pushed through wasn't "it just wasn't lol", it was "We're waiting for wars to wrap up". And wars were still ongoing when it got implemented. So yeah.

Attempts at lecturing while obfuscating the actual reason given for non-implementation doesn't work.

Neither does pretending that the rest of the DoW text, which explains why t$ is involved in this war (this 'manufactured grievance' not being one of those reasons), doesn't exist.

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

2 hours ago, Krampus said:

Really? You had so many possible better abbreviations to pick, and you went with Singu? 

Singu just sounds like a portmanteau of a sad penguin

Behold. i present to you, singularity: 

To me, Singularity is first and foremost a GFL event, and it's been abbreviated Singu for years now. So yeah, force of habit.

3 hours ago, Tartarus said:

I should note myself that this happened after, and only after, all other attempts at diplomacy with the rest of SAIL had already fallen through. T$ was the only party we had not directly spoken to.

I did acknowledge that it came after a pitch to the sphere as a whole had been made.

While I can't comment much on the specific substance of whatever talks took place, I don't think that they can be described as attempts at diplomacy. Reaching out at the 11th hour seeking for NAP extensions with little to none prior preparation is just a hail mary.

[[DoW] Standing on Business]

18 hours ago, Itachi said:

Leave it to The Syndicate to point fingers while conveniently ignoring their own track record! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Remember when they conveniently forgot their own treaty obligations? Classic case of selective memory! Maybe it's time for The Syndicate to check their history before preaching about bad faith! Shameful!

I mean, the record's there for posteriority. Whether it's relevant or not, that's another matter.

Given that it's an over year old act by a former FA head which Cataclysm and Paradise acted upon for the Fortune war (which, fair enough), I don't think that it is.

I should note that Singularity tried to get a NAP with t$, and only t$, after their attempt to have the sphere-wide one extended fell flat. Obviously, given the context, agreeing to it with any serious intent of honoring it would've meant reneging on the M levels, which I guess would've been approved of this time around by the Cata-Para people that make up Singu.

[NAP versus MDP, which takes precedence?]

4 hours ago, Sketchy said:

I'd argue you can use that same line of logic to justify basically anything. My ally wants to hit X alliance I have a NAP with, their CB is strong, I don't like X alliance because they say mean things to me, why not prioritize my ally over the NAP because I don't like them?

Yes I understand one is an optional aggression and the other is a mutual defense, but along this line of logic, there isn't actually any reason why that wouldn't apply to optional aggression. Or optional defence. Or mutual aggression if we ever see one of those again.

The reason preventing that happening is that NAP's are a tool that people want to have available to them for security purposes. There's no point in signing a NAP with someone who has a history of breaking them. If one is to be voided, a compelling enough justification needs to be provided to third parties to assuage any concerns they make have with signing a NAP with you in future.

"They said mean things so we're activating an oA to void a NAP" is not going to make the cut among those people. A solid CB doesn't expire, so people can just wait for a NAP's end to make use of it.

Not to mention that there's a bit of a difference between shit talk and that other party picking off un-NAP'd links.

As for oA, oD and MA; I don't think that anyone would take an oA activation as overriding a NAP. oA is optional by design (allies aren't entitled to your help on the offensive) and directly clashing with the premise of a NAP which is a promise not to aggress.

An MD activation, by definition and by contrast, is not an aggressive action; it is a defensive reaction, one that the alliance is technically obligated to carry out of activated. It's the polar opposite to an oA.

An oD would be an interesting case study. It'd also be a defensive reaction, but it'd be up to the NAP-bound party whether to carry it out. I think that the argument could go either way.

MA's; I'm pretty sure that people would say that it wouldn't override a NAP (an opinion I would share). Not that it's ever going to be put to the test.

[NAP versus MDP, which takes precedence?]

9 hours ago, Jacob Knox said:

Ultimately, however, your allegiance is to your M-levels so you should do what you gotta do if they don't cooperate.

Agreed. There's the paper and there's the relationship underneath it. Both are agreements, with MDP's being more comprehensive and binding than a simple NAP. A party that you MDP is also presumably and often usually, a party that you have a more fleshed-out and friendly relationship with. A NAP, by contrast, is simply a "We won't attack each other" with whichever party you signed it, which most likely is either just apathetic about you or may even harbor dislike for you.

So when you're presented in a case of an un-NAP'd MDP being hit by an alliance that you have an MDP with, you're being forced into a predicament of NAP versus MDP by said party, who put you into that predicament by what was an act of aggression (hypotheticals such as this one notwithstanding). As Niz said, while this isn't a technical violation of the NAP, it is a spiritual violation thereof, especially if done with the intent of baiting a response.

Beyond the paper, do you really care to prioritize an entity that you otherwise have no connection to and is putting you in a rough spot, and possibly provoking you, over your ally which you have actual ties to? The choice is pretty self evident.

I think that the paper alone answers the question, but the nuance drives it home, especially where third parties are concerned (which is critical, given that the whole question of NAP breaking has to do with how other parties would see it and react to it). Their main takeaway wouldn't be "Oh X alliance is in the wrong because it defended its M level against Y which it is NAP'd with.". Their main takeaway would likely be "Okay, we know Y alliance isn't above playing these sorts of games, so we better keep that in mind going forward.".

8 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Edit: After reading some more of the debates around RON and whatnot and seeing some examples/re-reading the above, I think I would agree that adding a clause saying "we won't attack your prots or [uninvolved/future] allies" is a fair/decent middle ground that clearly includes how people view this issue in the NAP, as it's not speaking for the allies - they're free to go about and do whatever they want still - because isn't actually including them in the NAP and binding them in the same way a signatory would be.

That's a fair compromise, and it reminds me of some talks held within Requiem and among its protectors of opting out of the blanket NAP signed after the Ouro-GGO war.

[Boutique Alliances and The Problem Therein]

This isn't much of a coherent post if I'm frank.

8 hours ago, Thalmor said:

A boutique alliance is a special type of alliance. It is generally characterized by a couple of factors:

1 - A low member count, typically either single digit or generally below 20.

2 - Most of such members, will be above-average in city count. These are hard hitters.

3 - Either the alliance as a whole, or key people within them, will be very focused on ideas/slogans of "changing the game," or being "dynamic." Overall, this is an alliance founded, to severely alter what is perceived to be the stagnation that plagues politics in P&W. 

The top two characteristics are usually outlines for the smaller whale alliances, which is definitely a fairly reduced niche to occupy. As for three, yes some attempt to change things politically. Stressing the "attempt" bit as it's the most relevant.
 

8 hours ago, Thalmor said:

Important Distinction: Some alliances may fall into the top 3 categories, but I would say that they're not "boutique alliance" because they've been around for a long time, and have a distinct alliance culture. A hallmark of boutique alliances is the lack of legacy they leave behind once they're gone. If an alliance leaves any kind of ~significant~ legacy behind that people remember for years to come, they are not much of a boutique alliance.

Such alliances are popular. Everyone loves an underdog that wants to do good. However, I have followed such alliances over the years, and I do not believe such alliances have a good legacy. Many seem to disband before they could do much, and many of the rest seem to just join an larger alliance at the hip, and do what the larger alliance wants. 

This isn't coherent with the first outlines. Those outlines don't discriminate how long they've existed, just their makeup and intended purpose. An alliance having an internal culture doesn't translate into legacy left behind; the latter is an external factor and far more related to how much power or influence that alliance can project for the period of time it did exist. A flash in the pan alliance that only existed for a relatively brief period of time that influenced politics for said brief period of time is going to have more of a legacy left behind than an alliance that exists for years and does little to no projection, even if the latter does (and probably indeed has) have more of an internal culture than the former.
 

8 hours ago, Thalmor said:

And such, that is my problems with boutique alliances. They seem to pull good members from existing communities, for ultimately no good reason. It is an unnecessary disruption. 

Below, I will address what alliances I consider to be boutique alliances, and which ones I do not. 

Alliances that ARE boutique:

Requiem was Partisan's project. It is my understanding that it was comprised of t$ members who were disgruntled with the state of affairs within t$. The alliance did absolutely nothing over its existence. It eventually reformed into The Golden Horse under BourKhan. 

The Golden Horde is Requiem, except under Bourhann. It has 16 members. It is entirely beholden to what Singularity wants (this is not necessarily a bad thing).

The Sword Coast is, as it stands now, a boutique alliance. It is headed up, largely,@Raphaelwho is a pretty significant P&W theorist. 

Here, you contradict yourself here on your stated issue with those alliances and the very first example. You say that they seemingly pull good members from existing alliances, then list Requiem being comprised of disgruntled with t$. In other words, they weren't pulled. They left.

People who leave alliances do tend to leave because they're dissatisfied with the then-state of affairs, that is true. Those newly formed alliances are one of the two possible avenues of departure, with the other option being to join another existing alliance. There are arguments for and against either options, but I don't think that them leaving can be blamed on the launching of these new alliances, whether they be 'boutique' or not. Those new alliances are just a potential outcome of said departures.

As for the examples you listed:

Requiem: I'll be the first to admit that it didn't pan out as an alliance building project (which it was, alongside its stated political purpose). I'll also admit that the political aspect didn't develop as envisaged, with people more often than not seemingly using ODP's as overglorified NAP's rather than as, well, ODP's.

With that said, prior to Requiem, ODP's were largely an unutilized meme treaty. Requiem was the first alliance in recent times to start using them alongside PIAT's, which then spread by other alliances picking up on the usage of O levels. It was also a proponent for alliance-based politics, which did have some buy-in for some time.

To be clear; I'm not claiming that Requiem single handedly did this. Rather, it starting it encouraged others to do it themselves as well, eventually leading to the sort of purchase/viability ODP's currently have at the moment. So to say that it did "absolutely nothing" when at the very least, it helped set a trend that your own alliance is making use of is, quite plainly, incorrect.

TGH: You don't know Buorhann if you think that he's beholden to any ally, let alone an alliance led by Sketchy. I also don't think that they have a stated political mission like Requiem's. Buorhann's focus is usually just doing something engaging for his lot, which means burning pixels.

TSC: Literally just formed a week or two ago. Their tiering is also a bit spread and I'm unsure necessarily fitting of the second characteristic. My understanding is that they don't intend to fill this small alliance niche either, but it's yet to be seen whether they are able to grow numerically.

I'd also note that labelling an still-existing alliance as boutique when your distinction talks that them being such based on the legacy left behind once they're no longer around is, well, incongruent. A far better term would be 'unproven'.
 

9 hours ago, Thalmor said:

Alliance that are NOT boutique:

Oblivion is not boutique as their own shtick has been that they're barely active people who just log in when it's time to wreck shit.

Knights Templar is not boutique as they've been around for many years now, has quite a member base, and have pretty much always been committed to unreasonably aggressive action. 

Yarr is not boutique as they are, functionally, a bank pretending to be an alliance.

Oblivion: I actually think that you're being a bit derisive here. Ockey is probably a bit more influential within his circle than suggested here. Hidude in particular is active in whatever coalition he's in.

With that said, "borderline inactive that shows up for war" is hardly much of an alliance culture (no, I'm not ignoring that they're an incredibly tightly knit lot), and if "down to war" is all it takes not to be boutique, then TGH by definition isn't boutique.

KT: Obviously not boutique, and I'm not sure why you felt the need to include them at all. Though, I will note again how apparently being down to wreck stuff makes them explicitly non boutique, but TGH is still boutique in spite of being war-oriented.

Yarr: I guess that in order to be a boutique alliance you indeed first need to be an alliance. 

---

With all of that said, there one thing I'd like to mention, since I think that there's a bit of a misplaced expectation.

If said expectation is that they be the primary cause for wars; knowing firsthand from Requiem, these sorts of alliances don't work too well at kickstarting (noteworthy) stuff themselves. Their size inherently inhibits it. And no, hitting an isolated WTF for the umpteenth time isn't noteworthy.

They're much better at adapting and navigating whatever follows the moves the bigger alliances make. They can also wield outsized influence given their size if they're packed with heavy hitters, and more importantly, if they're led by figures that are already well known, respected, or connected, even if this isn't visible.

All in all, and at risk of stating the obvious; smaller alliances handle differently compared to larger alliances. Their function, and subsequently sort of legacy (most likely less flashy of one) left behind is going to differ relative to their major/mainstay counterparts.

[You don't believe in peace!]

 

[[Disbandment] Farewells]

-
 

The Drauhts were gathered together, sharing a banquet which was unlike many held before. Outstanding both in lavishness and solemnity, it likewise stood out since it marked the last gathering that was to take place under Requiem's banners. Unable to properly interpret Father's teachings following the Vizier's fall into slumber, both followers and officers alike had decided that it was best to bring the organization to an end on good terms.

The bell's ringing to mark midnight went unnoticed, as the banquet lasted well into the early hours of dawn. A final meal was held during the afternoon, after which the followers packed up their belongings, and gathered to bid a final farewell to the premises that had served as their home for upwards to nearly a year. Most proceeded to leave as a group, set to join a new enterprise. A handful left on their own, seeking to chart a different path instead.

The sacred grounds soon fell silent. Only one person remained. The Harjis slowly walked around the now deserted premises, so as to make sure that everything was in order. After making sure that everything was as it should be, he withdrew to the small shrine. Originally a place where services were held, it had been repurposed into the Vizier's resting place in the latter days of the organization.

Somberness filled the air. Hours went by as the Harjis idly sat besides the Vizier, deep in his thoughts. He recollected what had happened in the past year, and pondered about what was to come; such thoughts blended and merged to produce a general bittersweet feel.

The Vizier was the person most apt to interpret Father's teachings. He was also a person with a sense of direction and leadership that was seldom matched. He had known how to rally countless people in times past. While tasked to divulge Father's teaching, he was still seen as a fatherly figure by many of those who continue to fly his banners of old.

Neither his dormant body nor his belongings could be safely moved, less so in the current situation. The bell rang to mark midnight in a cold and serene night. The Harjis still laid in wait.

A small but distinct noise broke the silence. He immediately stood up, instinctively laying his hand on his sword's grip. He walked outside and towards the gates. On the opposite side of the fence stood a man who wore a distinctive green tunic. From top to bottom, the uniform worn by this person was very familiar to him. 

After being presented with a letter and seal that confirmed the person's provenance, the Harjis welcomed him in. Following a night's sleep and a frugal breakfast, both men talked as they slowly walked around the premises, finally arriving at the shrine. The Harjis presented the dignitary with the master key, after which he shook hands with him, laid a final tribute to the Vizier, and left for the gates.

Now outside, Shiho watched as The Syndicate's banner was raised above that of Requiem's, signifying it's new status as an extension of the former. Raindrops gently began to fall in the middle of an otherwise sunny day. He readied his belongings, produced a map from his pocket, and set off for his new destination.

Such marks the end of Requiem.

-
 

Most set off in the pursuit of new glories under a new banner and vision. A handful decided to pursue their own paths. A many will have reunion, followed with closure.
 

May it be that all find happiness.

[The Drawbacks of 100/100]

1 hour ago, darkblade said:

I wanted to start a discussion today about a topic that has been bothering me for awhile now, 100/100 taxes. While taxes are an integral part of the game, I believe that setting them at maximum confiscation levels has some serious drawbacks that we should consider. Here's why  100/100 taxes are bad the user experience.

Setting taxes at 100% deprives players of the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of our labor. It discourages investment in infrastructure, trade, and technological advancements since all their hard-earned income is taken away. Without incentives to engage in economic activities, theywitness stagnant growth and miss out on the chance to develop their nations to their full potential.

The high tax rates greatly reduce player engagement and discourage active participation. Politics and War is meant to be an learning experience, where players can strategize, interact, and build their nations. However, with 100/100 taxes, they lose the rewards and benefits that come with economic success. As a result, many players may become inactive or even leave the game.

Implementing 100/100 taxes creates an unfair advantage for certain nations. Those who have alternative sources of income or significant reserves are less affected by these high tax rates. On the other hand, players who have worked hard to build diverse economies suffer the most. This imbalance disrupts the competitive nature of the game and discourages new players from joining your alliance.

The essence of Politics and War lies in the freedom to shape your nation and make strategic decisions. However, with 100/100 taxes in place, a player's agency is severely limited. They are stripped of the ability to use our income strategically and are left feeling disempowered. This lack of economic decision-making reduces the complexity and overall enjoyment of the game, potentially leading to player attrition.
 

So, I propose that alliances reconsider the use of 100/100 taxes. Instead, let's encourage alliance leaders to explore alternative methods that foster economic growth, promote player participation, and maintain a balanced and enjoyable gameplay experience. By creating a fair and rewarding environment, we can ensure the long-term success and engagement of our player community.

A vacation at Vorkuta will help you reconsider your thoughts, comrade.

[[ROH] Carthago's Guide For Dummies: Finance 101]

3 hours ago, Krampus said:

That's my point. They showed a clear unwillingness to negotiate, and just insisting on out of date figures. In response to your comment:

 "makes it quite obvious that they did try to negotiate first. ", which is demonstrably false. 

If they tried to negotiate for a reasonable sum they'd have already met us in the 4bn figure, and not blindly insisted on 8bn. 

I'm not sure how you can argue that with a straight face when Darth's offer, and the response to it, was made and is logged for everyone to see.