Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

638 profile views

BelgiumFury's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (4/8)



  1. I think having more "crops" for farms seems like an interesting mechanic from a purely mechanics standpoint. Just randomly introducing just hemp tho seems to not fit in with the rest of the game. I have no idea how to add more crops with each slightly diffrent effects in a balanced way.
  2. The problem is that Alex is one guy. And you just gave Alex the vaguest advice in the world. I think working out something a lot more concrete has a much higher chance of getting a real response from both the community and alex. ~~Belgium
  3. It's not unlikely. The game is competitive, i know of people who have bots to snipe trades and even high value raids, i'm sure this would not be unlikely at all. Ill do you one better, if this mechanic came out I'd have a bot made for me to do exactly this. SRD made a great point which would need adressing before it can or should be implemented. (it would be funny though)
  4. Personally I don't know if there is any serious alliance that does not require discord, except The Knights Radient (TKR). TKR uses slack, and TKR forums. If you can use those, it might be the place to go. @Adrienne can you confirm this for me?
  5. I took a quick break from this game, what do I see when I log in to end my VM? Well I see this: I think it is fair to pause them aging when you are in VM. Even more importantly, i think it will make sure there is more mechanical consistency, and who doesn't like mechanical consistency. That's all folks.
  6. Homie, this game is basically literally unplayable without an alliance. Find one that floats your boat, aargh sounds like something for you. Don't play this game if you're not in an alliance you will be everyone's play toy.
  7. It was banned exactly for this reason. Color innactivity used to last two weeks iirc. But then NPO just summoned a tax farm. This is a great ideo imho. I hadn't tought about this solution, but i love it.
  8. I don't agree with this. It is also there to not tax war ravaged nations, to "punish" alliances during wars. I don't think we should change this.
  9. Because after all, they are "nations" not "governors submissive to the great state". I think giving players some agency is completly fine. You can opt out of being taxed (being on gray). If you opt out of a war you are useless to your alliance. Both would be opting out as far as im concerned. I think a project like this is important. If it is truly this strong however it does remove the point, and nerfing it a bit more seems like a correct way to go there. I wouldn't "delete" it, just make it not good enough to care or make a big diffrence for big nations. I hadn't taken this into account untill i read your comment.
  10. 1 Makes sense, private alliances don't need it. 2 I missed ASM, they indeed do. Edited the original post. 3 The point was never to attack ASM, e$+t$, TKR, Rose or any other alliance directly. Mainly that "leading alliances in orbis" aren't doing it. In the top 30 at least 66% (probably more) do not list their taxes. I'm happy we can both agree that this is problematic. 4 Clarifying taxes for members is a tough thing right. It is ceratainly something to think about but many diffrent things can throw of averages and medians.. Rebuild etc.. Your other points have been handled on discord or earlier in this thread. But just to be clear: I was wrong, ASM does clearly list it and make it clear before the interview on the alliance page itself. (and I am sure they do it in the interview as well). But on the cited point. Let me first clarify: what I am about to say isn't about TKR, but about "most leading alliances in orbis". I think it is completly fair (and needed / valid) to state this in interviews. I do however not think this is enough. After new people have already invested time to join an alliance (in their eyes they are in the weaker "negotiating position"), I doubt they will just change their alliances because of taxes. Being transparant before members actually apply (like ASM is), is in my opinion very important. And I think it is usefull to think about how we should best do this. This game could be the most interesting game there was, if all your funds went to the alliance, and they decided what you could use funds for, that still wouldn't make it very interesting. Now of course this game itself also has many flaws (which isn't worth a debate because you are right). Alliances compensate for this with events and a lot of interestign stuff ofcourse and that's positive. I think this would be a partial soluition to a far bigger problem, and not an end all be all solution.
  11. Well I know one alliance that does this 😛 Credit where credit is due. A+ for transparancy. When are you starting "Grumpy young bastards"?
  12. I literally do not know a single alliance that does. I checked out your alliance, ASM, TKR, Rose, and T$. It just doesn't happen, there is no transparancy to players untill after they applied or even joined. Which in my opinion is pretty unacceptable. Maybe. Would this be enough for transparancy though? Alliances have diffrent tax brackets for diffrent members. Because many people don't "play" this game. You and I know both know this. A lot of people join an alliance and either wither away and only do what someone dm's them to do (or for gods sake maybe even a bot). And because new players do not have any indication what an alliance will ask of them before you join them, and if they do they often have a severe lack of understanding of what this actually means. Most new people will join one alliance, if that alliance doesn't work for them, they'll just never play again. Not a lot of new people leave their first alliance to find one that suits their ideals better. "How do I know?" you might ask, well i've handled hundreds of applications. Let's unpack this. 1: I am not and will never vouch for 0 taxes, this clearly is not what i asked for. I do realize taxes are important. 2: I have never been in rose econ. I coudln't tell you how we tax lower tier nations right now. But I make the same point here that i made earlier. Every alliance tries to be good. The current game mechanics allow and encourage command economies in all but the most active and competent players. I am asking if that's the right thing to do? Should a game encourage alliances to take gameplay away from their members? 3: Yeah (most) alliances should run taxes. The question was if you can make it more interesting than playing the game for your members (at 100/100)for the sake of pure efficiency. And that is a question everyone should ask. Optimal growth is achieved trough pure efficiency, but is fun also realized in that way? I get why alliances do it right now, the current rule set encourages it. I just wonder out loud if the current rule set is a good one. I agree low taxes are an issue too (once again mainly for new players). I think there should be some solution for this problem too, but this issue seems a lot harder to fix. I would however also be open to listen to solutions here :). Yeah. I agree. Sadly enough I can't fund an alliance by myself! And inside of rose I don't have the position or placement to change this. This solution depends on the goodwill of alliances, and as much as i love goodwill, there isn't always enough. Edit : ASM clearly has their taxes on their page. I didn't see this when I looked this up. This is my fault and I think it's very good to have transparency like them.
  13. Homie, you're in for a treat. Disclaimer one: I am currently in VM but plan to return in a few months. Disclaimer two: I used to be very active in Rose's IA untill a few months ago. Disclaimer three: Everything here is in my own name, I don't speak for anyone else. Now that we got that out of the way, I completly agree with you. Let me start off by saying I understand why @Alekomityens and @Suyash Adhikari defend their system, within the current rule set it isn't a bad one. I'm not blaming them (or anyone else with very high taxes)for what they are doing. But I too have wondered for a very long time if the current rule set is the right one. Do we want alliances to remove that much player agency? I have seen the econ / grant system of many alliances (because of friends, leaks etc..) and most of the time it involves a mandatory plan that lasts anywhere from weeks to months (or maybe forever). Do we want new players to be forced trough a 100/100 (or 90/90) tax rate? Do we want to remove all ability to do with their money as they wish? If they want to market flip (with varying succes mind you), is it fair to let alliances say no simply because of efficient growth. Do we want this game to be a pure efficiency machine in a way that makes it so new players can't play the game, but just have to watch it be played for them? I wanted to propose a "solution" for this a while ago, it would tie into the reworked "public opinion". The idea was "would the populace of a nation be happy that they are taxed 100/100 if they aren't given back enough in return". That public opinion rework never materialized so I never proposed my idea. I do think we should find a way to make 100/100 playing less efficient. I am not sure how or what, but i'm sure if we brainstormed about it, we could find some interesting mechanics that aren't just "cap tax at 20%". Next up, I think being more public about tax rates would be good yeah. In practice it would be hard because alliances have many diffrent tax brackets depending on how big or small you are, or if you wanted the alliance to pay for rebuild or what not. There are very few alliances with one tax bracket. That was my rant of the day.
  14. First of all, roleplaying as something doesn't make you something. Second, your information was wrong (as mentioned by @Zim). Lastly I want to quote the game rules to you: And just so this paragraph doesn't give you any wrong ideas about me: [email protected]#$ actual real fashists.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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