Is NPO Proof Communism Doesn't Work?

[Eumirbago]

Doesn't she often have high taxes though?

 

I'm going off what ex-tS members have said on-regards to your economics.

Nah, before I left it was ~6-8% adjusting to ~20% depending on alliance ambitions.

[Insert Name Here]

Doesn't she often have high taxes though?

 

I'm going off what ex-tS members have said on-regards to your economics.

 

 

Basically what Eumir said. Only based on necessity does our tax rate stay high for a long period of time. And even then there's usually discussion with the membership. I'm just talking about income tax. I'm pretty sure Jess thinks resource taxation is counter-productive.

 

But yeah, usually t$'s tax rate isn't high. Obviously some people are selfish and are just looking after their own interest. So having a 25/0 tax system would be a bridge too far for them. Now our tax rate is even way lower than that and the tendency should be to remain low as we basically have no lower tier to boost.

 

I'm fairly confident this isn't supposed to be highly confidential information, but if it then someone please feed me to the crocs.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[greatkitteh]

"more experienced"

 

Citation please.  It took 4+ Alliances JUST to handle BK.

Citation - for this and last war its cheating, but since our low tiers will never grow we'll get used to low tier warfare while new recruits are not. 

 

And lul it only took 2 micro alliances "JUST" to take out Mensa. 

[Sylvia]

Do you want me to start speaking like my RL counterpart? 

Please, no.

 

I'm sure NPO's system has its advantages, but it turns their players into mindless drones who end up giving their gov more influence on their nations than it should have.

 

At the end of the day you should be responsible for managing your cash and resources the way you see fit (based on your game style and alliance needs). It ain't rocket science - you just need to make warchest your number 1 priority so you're ready for an unexpected defensive war.

 

 

The players seem rather talkative - far from "mindless drones" when I visit them on their forum and/or Discord.  If they want to be in an alliance that has the economic system that NPO does then more power to them.  They do not seem to be lacking in membership.

[Insert Name Here]

The players seem rather talkative - far from "mindless drones" when I visit them on their forum and/or Discord.  If they want to be in an alliance that has the economic system that NPO does then more power to them.  They do not seem to be lacking in membership.

 

 

Mindless drones because they trust almost every aspect of the game to their government. And even though they have plenty of members, the % of inactivity is quite high. But whatever floats their boat, I guess... 

[Buorhann]

Citation - for this and last war its cheating, but since our low tiers will never grow we'll get used to low tier warfare while new recruits are not. 

 

And lul it only took 2 micro alliances "JUST" to take out Mensa. 

 

 

lol, you're !@#$ing stupid.  Somehow 2 micro alliances blitzing is more embarrassing than 4 major alliances blitzing in your world.  Hahaha...  oh man.

 

"We'll get used to low tier warfare while new recruits are not"

 

NPO confirmed for being terrible scrubs here.

[Holton]

I would postulate that the value of NPO's economic model will vary widely based on what metrics you use to determine said value.

 

Since we're using Syndicate as an example for an opposing system:

 

Syndicate has a variation of ~100 score every 5 members after you get past the huge discrepancies in the highest score members. It appears that there is no artificial upper limit on how far members will grow.

 

NPO has about half that variation every 5 members along with an apparent upper limit of ~2000 score.

 

 

So even if we exclude political reasons and war results from affecting the data (which we shouldn't), Syndicate is growing apparently faster and better than NPO on the surface but Syndicate is also growing further apart.

 

NPO has their entire membership residing in the middle/lower tier (with the vast majority being sub-2k score and about half being above 1k)

 

Syndicate has a huge spread with the majority of their membership residing in the upper/middle tiers with the majority being above 2k and almost the entire alliance being above 1k.

 

 

 

This means that Syndicate is forced to rely much more heavily on allies to fill in the gaps in an offensive war - or almost fight their wars for them entirely in the case of NPO...

 

Conversely, should NPO seek to effectively battle the Syndicate - they would have to seek the aid of alliances that could effectively combat the 70% of Syndicate that would likely remain untouched in a 1v1.

 

 

 

So again it would depend on your metric. The Syndicate is a self-titled "Dominance through Economics" model, NPO is a self-titled "military alliance". They both seem to be excelling in their self-imposed categories as far as I can tell.

Edited February 23, 2017 by King Foltest

[Spaceman Thrax]

The direction of this thread is kinda weird to me because I consider both NPO and The Syndicate to be demonstrations of the strength of a communist approach.

 

To the actual question though NPO's lack of (recent) growth has everything to do with their political positioning/the global climate, and virtually nothing to do with their internal communist approach. NPO was able to grow quite quickly when they started and while some of this was due to investment by allies, I really do think it's hard to argue that their nation builders aren't efficient.

 

@ Keegoz we've run anything from 0% to 80% as far as I recall, and we've really only ever taxed cash, not resources. Probably an average around 15%. We don't really have a set policy for what the rate is... when we need to change it we do so, and put up a blurb for members saying why.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Manthrax

[Eumirbago]

I would postulate that the value of NPO's economic model will vary widely based on what metrics you use to determine said value.

 

Since we're using Syndicate as an example for an opposing system:

 

Syndicate has a variation of ~100 score every 5 members after you get past the huge discrepancies in the highest score members. It appears that there is no artificial upper limit on how far members will grow.

 

NPO has about half that variation every 5 members along with an apparent upper limit of ~2000 score.

 

 

So even if we exclude political reasons and war results from affecting the data (which we shouldn't), Syndicate is growing apparently faster and better than NPO on the surface but Syndicate is also growing further apart.

 

NPO has their entire membership residing in the middle/lower tier (with the vast majority being sub-2k score and about half being above 1k)

 

Syndicate has a huge spread with the majority of their membership residing in the upper/middle tiers with the majority being above 2k and almost the entire alliance being above 1k.

 

 

 

This means that Syndicate is forced to rely much more heavily on allies to fill in the gaps in an offensive war - or almost fight their wars for them entirely in the case of NPO...

 

Conversely, should NPO seek to effectively battle the Syndicate - they would have to seek the aid of alliances that could effectively combat the 70% of Syndicate that would likely remain untouched in a 1v1.

 

 

 

So again it would depend on your metric. The Syndicate is a self-titled "Dominance through Economics" model, NPO is a self-titled "military alliance". They both seem to be excelling in their self-imposed categories as far as I can tell.

As I said before, as long as BK (and/or TKR) are on the other side, NPO will always be irrelevant.

[ComradeMilton]

Oh, I bet they were hedging their whole system on getting user Jacob Moore's positive opinion. This will crush them and they'll have no choice, but to disband and leave PW forever.

[Eumirbago]

Oh, I bet they were hedging their whole system on getting user Jacob Moore's positive opinion. This will crush them and they'll have no choice, but to disband and leave PW forever.

If they did that then they played themselves.

 

I hope not, they're the only ones from the other side that can give da bois at TKR/BK a decent time. The rest are incompetent.

[Holton]

As I said before, as long as BK (and/or TKR) are on the other side, NPO will always be irrelevant.

 

It's a rather fragile system to depend on, was my point. If you break down NPO against TKR or BK, the numbers remain similar.

 

TKR more than gives up its numerical advantage entirely against NPO, so far as to give NPO the numbers advantage because they won't be able to reach them. BK is much closer to a 1:1 scenario but they're growing very fast. In another couple of months BK could very well begin to slowly grow further and further out of a 1:1 match up with NPO.

 

 

 

NPO is probably one of the most clustered AA's in the game and it can be assumed that they're achieving their goal of being a dominant military force - within the tiers they purposefully inhabit.

 

Just to continue the intellectual conversation - what happens in a war where both sides can't meaningfully impact the other? NPO can't reach the majority of Syndicate's membership and Syndicate's lower tier are too overwhelmed to present a resistance to NPO?

 

I've seen arguments that the upper tier nation's income will simply balance out / overcome the smaller nations losses. But does the promise of a rebuild negate the fact that the lower tiers are effectively abandoned to their fate?

[Eumirbago]

It's a rather fragile system to depend on, was my point. If you break down NPO against TKR or BK, the numbers remain similar.

 

TKR more than gives up its numerical advantage entirely against NPO, so far as to give NPO the numbers advantage because they won't be able to reach them. BK is much closer to a 1:1 scenario but they're growing very fast. In another couple of months BK could very well begin to slowly grow further and further out of a 1:1 match up with NPO.

 

 

 

NPO is probably one of the most clustered AA's in the game and it can be assumed that they're achieving their goal of being a dominant military force - within the tiers they purposefully inhabit.

 

Just to continue the intellectual conversation - what happens in a war where both sides can't meaningfully impact the other? NPO can't reach the majority of Syndicate's membership and Syndicate's lower tier are too overwhelmed to present a resistance to NPO?

 

I've seen arguments that the upper tier nation's income will simply balance out / overcome the smaller nations losses. But does the promise of a rebuild negate the fact that the lower tiers are effectively abandoned to their fate?

They will be destroyed every war as long as BK/TKR are on the other side. As long as NPO allies are bad, NPO is irrelevant.

 

This has happened to the Syndicate before and Alpha ate shit while Syndicate was able to buy hundreds of cities in their faces. Prolonged war in that scenario will just ease the hegemoney's rebuild.

 

Aka NPO is !@#$ed if their allies don't get their shit together.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Jacob Moore

[----]

It's a rather fragile system to depend on, was my point. If you break down NPO against TKR or BK, the numbers remain similar.

 

TKR more than gives up its numerical advantage entirely against NPO, so far as to give NPO the numbers advantage because they won't be able to reach them. BK is much closer to a 1:1 scenario but they're growing very fast. In another couple of months BK could very well begin to slowly grow further and further out of a 1:1 match up with NPO.

 

 

 

NPO is probably one of the most clustered AA's in the game and it can be assumed that they're achieving their goal of being a dominant military force - within the tiers they purposefully inhabit.

 

Just to continue the intellectual conversation - what happens in a war where both sides can't meaningfully impact the other? NPO can't reach the majority of Syndicate's membership and Syndicate's lower tier are too overwhelmed to present a resistance to NPO?

 

I've seen arguments that the upper tier nation's income will simply balance out / overcome the smaller nations losses. But does the promise of a rebuild negate the fact that the lower tiers are effectively abandoned to their fate?

There is a solution to this paradox, New Pacific $yndicate! Lower tier cohesion, upper tier superiority, and discipline make for an unstoppable coalition!

 

In all seriousness, the idea is fascinating. I would be curious to see what the world would look like if NPO paired with the $yndicate against other large alliances like TKR and the Black Knights.  

[greatkitteh]

Mindless drones because they trust almost every aspect of the game to their government. And even though they have plenty of members, the % of inactivity is quite high. But whatever floats their boat, I guess...

Seeing you were in argument-filled UPN when it collasped, I think you would like that.

[Charles Bolivar]

Basically what Eumir said. Only based on necessity does our tax rate stay high for a long period of time. And even then there's usually discussion with the membership. I'm just talking about income tax. I'm pretty sure Jess thinks resource taxation is counter-productive.

 

But yeah, usually t$'s tax rate isn't high. Obviously some people are selfish and are just looking after their own interest. So having a 25/0 tax system would be a bridge too far for them.

The issue has always been what benefits are larger nations who foot the bill for most taxation actually receiving in return for funding largely lower tier growth. Rebuilding can't be used as a reasoning since larger nations who fund rebuilding via taxation are pretty much rebuilding themselves since taxes used for rebuilding are their own taxes paid over an extended time period.

 

On that basis, I wouldn't deem a person to be selfish simply for looking after their own interests but more so disgruntled because they are largely funding programs which provide little actual benefit to themselves coupled with having very little if any choice in the matter.

 

It's why we are seeing a larger amount of alliances who are focusing on upper tier exclusivity with low taxes simply to avoid the trap of having to pay larger taxes to fund lower tier growth with there being close to no benefit during a war since these nations are largely out of range. I know a long time ago we proposed in tS to have some benefit passed back to upper tier nations and we tossed around a few ideas but nothing ever came of it besides higher taxes for an increasing variety of reasons. It was a problem since the early days with the issue of upper tier nations feeling neglected being a recurring factor particularly after every war so I would be most interested to hear if that particular issue has been solved by any new insight Jess perhaps may have gained into the matter.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Nemesis

[Aragorn]

Communism is proof communism doesn't work.

[Big Brother]

Communism is proof communism doesn't work.

 

= Proof your brain doesn't work.

[Bezzers]

NPO's communist approach is based on a larger amount of trust and community sense than actual real world communism. They are not proof that communism works, because the way of making money in game has absolutely zero effort if you start it off right, and so it's not like they really worked hard to get that cash and are still willingly giving it to the government like we would see in real world communism.

[hadesflames]

like we would see in real world communism.

False. Eventually, and this is actually going to happen sooner than you probably thing, the majority of all jobs will be fully automated. INCLUDING skilled labor. At that point our society will live in excess, and no one will have jobs because they're all automated. In that scenario, not only would you have a similar form of communism possible in the real world as you described NPO does, it would actually be necessary.

[Big Brother]

NPO's communist approach is based on a larger amount of trust and community sense than actual real world communism. They are not proof that communism works, because the way of making money in game has absolutely zero effort if you start it off right, and so it's not like they really worked hard to get that cash and are still willingly giving it to the government like we would see in real world communism.

 

"Real world communism" has literally never existed. We have seen many countries under the control of communist parties but that simply does not mean those countries were examples of communist societies, that's a very common western misconception. It means that they (supposedly) sought the establishment of a global and stateless communist society in the future. You're right that NPO's approach proves nothing but I have no earthly idea why you think money or taxes would have any part to play in actual, real communism. If you were familiar with the ideology, you'd know better.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Big Brother

[Holton]

The issue has always been what benefits are larger nations who foot the bill for most taxation actually receiving in return for funding largely lower tier growth. Rebuilding can't be used as a reasoning since larger nations who fund rebuilding via taxation are pretty much rebuilding themselves since taxes used for rebuilding are their own taxes paid over an extended time period.

 

On that basis, I wouldn't deem a person to be selfish simply for looking after their own interests but more so disgruntled because they are largely funding programs which provide little actual benefit to themselves coupled with having very little if any choice in the matter.

 

It's why we are seeing a larger amount of alliances who are focusing on upper tier exclusivity with low taxes simply to avoid the trap of having to pay larger taxes to fund lower tier growth with there being close to no benefit during a war since these nations are largely out of range. I know a long time ago we proposed in tS to have some benefit passed back to upper tier nations and we tossed around a few ideas but nothing ever came of it besides higher taxes for an increasing variety of reasons. It was a problem since the early days with the issue of upper tier nations feeling neglected being a recurring factor particularly after every war so I would be most interested to hear if that particular issue has been solved by any new insight Jess perhaps may have gained into the matter.

 

I think this attitude is due to a lack of competition that has resulted from the stagnant politics. Hopefully now that all other exterior threats have been effectively mitigated, the Syndisphere will begin to split up and politics can move out of the quagmire of their present state.

 

The short-term payback from taxation is seen by the alliance as a whole benefit. Alliances provide the security in which economies can flourish. Without the competition to fuel the need for security, people begin to question why their money is going to other nations.

 

The long-term is fairly obvious but the issue is that the concrete payback will only come after a long term period. Once everyone is decent sized, alliances can then afford (and advised) to refocus on making sure their upper tier continues to grow. It's like an inch worm. The smallest members grow to then fuel the larger, then the cycle repeats.

[Insert Name Here]

The issue has always been what benefits are larger nations who foot the bill for most taxation actually receiving in return for funding largely lower tier growth. Rebuilding can't be used as a reasoning since larger nations who fund rebuilding via taxation are pretty much rebuilding themselves since taxes used for rebuilding are their own taxes paid over an extended time period.

 

On that basis, I wouldn't deem a person to be selfish simply for looking after their own interests but more so disgruntled because they are largely funding programs which provide little actual benefit to themselves coupled with having very little if any choice in the matter.

 

It's why we are seeing a larger amount of alliances who are focusing on upper tier exclusivity with low taxes simply to avoid the trap of having to pay larger taxes to fund lower tier growth with there being close to no benefit during a war since these nations are largely out of range. I know a long time ago we proposed in tS to have some benefit passed back to upper tier nations and we tossed around a few ideas but nothing ever came of it besides higher taxes for an increasing variety of reasons. It was a problem since the early days with the issue of upper tier nations feeling neglected being a recurring factor particularly after every war so I would be most interested to hear if that particular issue has been solved by any new insight Jess perhaps may have gained into the matter.

 

 

I wasn't really talking about former, old guard t$ members like you, Partisan, Critters, Seb, Cuzzelle, W, Katie or Eumir. t$'s old guard has always been mighty generous. I'm talking more about the occasional pixel hugger who wants low taxes but has even benefited from high tax rates in the form of aid programs.

 

Don't get me wrong, I totally get why some people want low taxes after spending a lot of time funding the growth of smaller nations. You're more than entitled to that. So much so that I'd just do it myself if I was in a competent alliance (like t$, Mensa, Guardian, BK, TKR or Chola), capable of putting my tax money to good use.

 

No way I'd pay lots of taxes in an alliance that I saw as incompetent and poorly led. There's only 1 thing I ask from the alliance I'm in: competence. If I pride myself on being a good player who does his best for the alliance he's in, the least I ask is that the rest of the alliance doesn't hold me back. Fortunately I'm in a tremendously competent alliance, which is why I couldn't give two shits about taxes, seen as I'm sure the cash will be put to good use.

 

On the other hand, and as I mentioned before, I understand why some people may reach a point where they felt they've already contributed enough (in some cases more than they should have - I know for a fact that you willingly left a lot of money in t$'s bank before leaving). So I really wasn't talking about you, fam.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Bezzers]

"Real world communism" has literally never existed. We have seen many countries under the control of communist parties but that simply does not mean those countries were examples of communist societies, that's a very common western misconception. It means that they (supposedly) sought the establishment of a global and stateless communist society in the future. You're right that NPO's approach proves nothing but I have no earthly idea why you think money or taxes would have any part to play in actual, real communism. If you were familiar with the ideology, you'd know better.

I'm aware that real world communism doesn't exist, I think I just muddled my point up when typing xD rip I tried Edited March 1, 2017 by Bezzers

[Kadin]

Discuss.

 

NPO should be a lot bigger with a lot larger average nation strength.

 

Yet the're vastly behind far less aggressively competent alliances such as TKR.

 

Is Communism a failure in game as it is IRL? (They should try a more socialist modal and see if that works, if they believe in Communism like 50% tax rate)

I admit that I have not been a member of PW-NPO in many months, but based on what I saw when I was, I would say that the state of NPO says nothing about communism in this game.

 

I'm not trying to bash them, but they were not being run particularly well while I was a member there. Organization and communication were very limited. They did not offer a whole lot of bang to go along with the buck that their members provided. Opportunities to contribute to the alliance in ways other than as a farm were few and far between, and the culture of the alliance itself was not one that really seemed to encourage it.

 

Again, not bashing them, but my honest assessment is that they could have done much more with what they had.