DEFCON 1 is back rising up from ashes like Phoenix

[Felkey]

There's also an argument to be made that the people paying the majority of the taxes tend to be the longest standing and most reliable members who will see little if any real return on those taxes. You have to be able to balance taxation with not making your core members feel like they are being taken for granted and just treated as tax farms. So when you asking your oldest members to give half their income to someone else and they won't see any tangible benefits for it and then they get upset and leave, is it really superior? You could probably get away with 20-25% depending on what type of alliance you have, for example a mass recruit alliance that is used to a lot of turnover could do it. In the end I don't really think you can say one system is inherently better than the other. Really, as with many things in life, it just depends. Now don't get me wrong, some of the whales who !@#$ about things like a handful of tax days to rebuild the other people who do most of the fighting (which usually ends up protecting said whales from extended combat periods themselves) need to have some sense knocked into them because that is a fair exchange imo. 

[Roquentin]

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Uh, what? Look, low/no taxes can and do work for alliances that want to allow their members to grow on their own individual merits without being slowed down by a tax burden. Now, there's much to be said for pulling new players up to the range of the rest of the alliance so that they can contribute to and be defended in war, but it is equally possible to have a solid presence on multiple tiers and thus enable everyone to contribute and/or be defended that way. More importantly, the latter model allows people to feel their progress, and have pride in it; merely being given grants doesn't feel like an accomplishment, and it doesn't encourage people to feel invested in their progress. Honestly I can't imagine how horribly dull it must be to just mindlessly follow orders and have nothing of your own... what's the point of even trying, in that case? You've got to encourage and cultivate excellence if you want excellent members, there is simply no other way to do it. While a command economy may be able to tightly standardize strategy and score range, it certainly doesn't foster excellence and it fundamentally precludes innovation. This is why NPO is sitting around at 14 cities while other alliances are growing far faster, despite NPO using a strict command economy and the other alliances using what you call 'an inherently inferior model'.

Now, of course one should be in an alliance that one feels friendly with and that doesn't have an incompetent government... obviously... what kind of statement is that?!

There isn't a way to have a solid enough presence in multiple tiers. If you're too spread out someone's getting smashed short of overwhelming coalition odds.  If people need to feel their progress, how are they going to feel when it's no longer fast or if they have to go through multiple periods of low infrastructure through warring and get set back a lot?  The more attachment you have to your individual nation and its progression, the worse it'll be when times are difficult.  The whole achievement angle is a romanticizing of the game since I'm pretty sure if there was an alliance that offered infinite grants to any city level or even just 25 they would have no shortage of members.  There isn't really any innovation. Any big econ or war thing is usually pioneered by a particular individual and the members listen to it, be it growth circles, types of builds, etc.  Everything ends up being standardized at some point.  Buying a new city isn't being innovative.  People that are good members will shine through in any system. I'm pretty sure the situations aren't really comparable. It also assumes we have the same goals/material factors as they do and growing certain individuals as much as possible isn't our goal.  I'm pretty sure if they implemented their own centralized system and had it agreed upon they could see  results with the alliance goals they have in mind since all the resources they have would be directed to the goals they have in mind.  It might require some sacrifices though.

Ironically even though Defcon 1 is going no taxes, they would be a perfect fit for a centralized system because they have people who have stuck together for years so the issues of worrying about people bailing because of it wouldn't be as much of a factor as it would with most alliances.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Roquentin

[Sir Scarfalot]

9 hours ago, Roquentin said:

There isn't a way to have a solid enough presence in multiple tiers. If you're too spread out someone's getting smashed short of overwhelming coalition odds.  If people need to feel their progress, how are they going to feel when it's no longer fast or if they have to go through multiple periods of low infrastructure through warring and get set back a lot?  The more attachment you have to your individual nation and its progression, the worse it'll be when times are difficult.  The whole achievement angle is a romanticizing of the game since I'm pretty sure if there was an alliance that offered infinite grants to any city level or even just 25 they would have no shortage of members.  There isn't really any innovation. Any big econ or war thing is usually pioneered by a particular individual and the members listen to it, be it growth circles, types of builds, etc.  Everything ends up being standardized at some point.  Buying a new city isn't being innovative.  People that are good members will shine through in any system. I'm pretty sure the situations aren't really comparable. It also assumes we have the same goals/material factors as they do and growing certain individuals as much as possible isn't our goal.  I'm pretty sure if they implemented their own centralized system and had it agreed upon they could see  results with the alliance goals they have in mind since all the resources they have would be directed to the goals they have in mind.  It might require some sacrifices though.

Ironically even though Defcon 1 is going no taxes, they would be a perfect fit for a centralized system because they have people who have stuck together for years so the issues of worrying about people bailing because of it wouldn't be as much of a factor as it would with most alliances.

If people aren't invested in their progress, then A. why would they bother putting in effort in the first place, and B. when hard times come, their lack of investment should if anything be amplified; if their motivation was already fragile, what could possibly be keeping them engaged then? And yeah, if there was an alliance that just gave away infinite money with no caveats then of COURSE they'd have no shortage of members; the question is what kind of members would they have? I shudder to think.

There isn't really any innovation...? Maybe not from you, but look at Fraggle, look at Arrgh, and (at the risk of sounding conceited) look at me. Our builds and strategies are very different from anything that could be called 'standardized', and are very different from each other, but each and every one of them is innovative and works. Sure, we're not trying to do the same things you're trying to do, but then again what are you trying to do? What do you hope to accomplish, what are you playing this game for? Loot? Destruction? Cities? Wars? You've none of those things to any special degree.

Talented members can definitely shine in both individualist and command systems, sure, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that if you want talent and excellence, you need to cultivate it and encourage it. Simply giving people a script to follow doesn't allow them creative freedom nor any opportunity to excel beyond the limits you've artificially imposed. So why would anyone talented and capable submit to such limitations when they could potentially do so much better? And why would anyone that doesn't have the skills and experience to excel put in the effort to attain excellence if they're just going to be exactly as limited as they were prior?

All of this said, communal systems can indeed work. I've run alliances under that sort of model myself many times; the thing is that it works best on a smaller scale, where each player can develop a tight bond between each other player over time, and ensure that everyone understands each other and is willing to contribute to each other. If you just give 200 people a script to follow and punish any deviance from that script, then they're no better than serfs, and they'll know it. But if you give people what they need in exchange for what they have, then they'll be happy. Having everyone feel invested in the group is of the greatest importance; if they don't feel valued, then they won't be motivated. So if what you say is true, and Defcon 1 does indeed have a solid internal rapport, then they probably could work under a centralized system. However, they could work equally as well under an individualistic system and get the same results should the need for a fundraising campaign arise; why force it, when the willingness to contribute is already there? Taxes aren't the only way to apply funding towards an alliance goal.

[Alexandros o Megas]

You cannot buy integrity. Practice your values every day instead of just talking about it.

[Shadowthrone]

13 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If people aren't invested in their progress, then A. why would they bother putting in effort in the first place, and B. when hard times come, their lack of investment should if anything be amplified; if their motivation was already fragile, what could possibly be keeping them engaged then? And yeah, if there was an alliance that just gave away infinite money with no caveats then of COURSE they'd have no shortage of members; the question is what kind of members would they have? I shudder to think.

There isn't really any innovation...? Maybe not from you, but look at Fraggle, look at Arrgh, and (at the risk of sounding conceited) look at me. Our builds and strategies are very different from anything that could be called 'standardized', and are very different from each other, but each and every one of them is innovative and works. Sure, we're not trying to do the same things you're trying to do, but then again what are you trying to do? What do you hope to accomplish, what are you playing this game for? Loot? Destruction? Cities? Wars? You've none of those things to any special degree.

Talented members can definitely shine in both individualist and command systems, sure, I'm not denying that. What I'm saying is that if you want talent and excellence, you need to cultivate it and encourage it. Simply giving people a script to follow doesn't allow them creative freedom nor any opportunity to excel beyond the limits you've artificially imposed. So why would anyone talented and capable submit to such limitations when they could potentially do so much better? And why would anyone that doesn't have the skills and experience to excel put in the effort to attain excellence if they're just going to be exactly as limited as they were prior?

All of this said, communal systems can indeed work. I've run alliances under that sort of model myself many times; the thing is that it works best on a smaller scale, where each player can develop a tight bond between each other player over time, and ensure that everyone understands each other and is willing to contribute to each other. If you just give 200 people a script to follow and punish any deviance from that script, then they're no better than serfs, and they'll know it. But if you give people what they need in exchange for what they have, then they'll be happy. Having everyone feel invested in the group is of the greatest importance; if they don't feel valued, then they won't be motivated. So if what you say is true, and Defcon 1 does indeed have a solid internal rapport, then they probably could work under a centralized system. However, they could work equally as well under an individualistic system and get the same results should the need for a fundraising campaign arise; why force it, when the willingness to contribute is already there? Taxes aren't the only way to apply funding towards an alliance goal.

 

There really isn't any innovation when it comes to city builds/ economics in this game. For the most bit, its standardised across most alliances and if it isn't, its just inefficient. An alliance functions as a whole, and its silly to argue for allowing inefficiencies to exist. A successful nation does not a successful player make. Despite our similar builds and 100/100 economy, we have many successful/active players in whichever area they wish to take part in. Seeing how to be successful in this game usually does not involve in game mechanics outside of war and discord. 

 

Its a huge misconception that 100/100 eliminates individuality or does not cultivate excellent players. The confidence of knowing that all of us will always have each other backs literally when war comes around, allows us to play the other aspects of the game/community which is a great win tbh. Also I can't really argue "growth" as I have no clue what are the factors that you involve in "growth", but we're one of the top 3 alliances in the game for cities, and been constantly growing. Wonder if having almost 2,000 cities isn't "growing" lol. 

That being said, good luck D1  Hopefully all goes well! 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Shadowthrone

[Insert Name Here]

It really depends on the alliance. For alliances like NPO or BK, command economy makes sense. For alliances like TEst for instance, it doesn't make much sense.

TEst, however, is far from selfish. We've ran 5 100% income tax days since reforming (and those of us who have commented on it were willing to have run more of them). We've been boosting our 2 small nations and will continue to do so till they reach the 18 city mark. Several of our members also give interest free loans and make hefty donations to alliance colleagues on a regular basis.

I agree with the sentiment that low tax alliances tend to attract selfish players. But it depends on how you run the alliance. If you encourage selfishness it'll obviously be a recurrent issue. But if you foster team spirit, it won't be an issue. Even better is knowing the people you recruit and that they're willing to put the alliance's interests above theirs.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Insert Name Here

[Shadowthrone]

22 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

It really depends on the alliance. For alliances like NPO or BK, command economy makes sense. For alliances like TEst for instance, it doesn't make much sense.

TEst, however, is far from selfish. We've ran 5 100% income tax days since reforming (and those of us who have commented on it were willing to have run more of them). We've been boosting our 2 small nations and will continue to do so till they reach the 18 city mark. Several of our members also give interest free loans and make hefty donations to alliance colleagues on a regular basis.

I agree with the sentiment that low tax alliances tend to attract selfish players. But it depends on how you run the alliance. If you encourage selfishness it'll obviously be a recurrent issue. But if you foster team spirit, it won't be an issue. Even better is knowing the people you recruit and that they're willing to put the alliance's interests above theirs.

At the end of the day it’s where you can run the most efficient economy which is determined by your game play tbh. At lower tiers, especially when our game style is dictated by externalities like constantly building for war and the like, having larger numbers it’s more efficient to run a command economy. At upper tiers I can’t really comment since I’ve never faced the conditions with a high tier nation. 

That being said, anyone who argues that 100/100 somehow fails to provide for individual excellence or stems growth isn’t really looking at the whole picture outside of subjective preferences

[Sir Scarfalot]

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

At upper tiers I can’t really comment since I’ve never faced the conditions with a high tier nation.

That being said, anyone who argues that 100/100 somehow fails to provide for individual excellence or stems growth isn’t really looking at the whole picture outside of subjective preferences

Log in once a week, have a mid-tier nation.

Put in effort to excel, have a mid-tier nation.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Mad Hatter]

Moved to Alliance Affairs.

[Kiru Kobayashi]

Something something, I told Valk to be patient with WU?

[Alexandros o Megas]

8 hours ago, Kiru Kobayashi said:

Something something, I told Valk to be patient with WU?

Not a problem related with Valk in any way. Valk is a great guy. He anyway after merging left OP to search his own needs and he is still a friend with D1. The problems have arisen elsewhere ...