About Latest Beige Nation Taxes

[Raphael]

7 hours ago, AntMan said:

A game is made by its players. So if multiple players says "this is bad for me", it translates to "this is bad for the game". However, I will not tread into that territory right now. 

This sure makes winning wars more appealing. But it also makes losing them equally unappealing from an alliance perspective. You are literally forcing people to get off beige so that someone can roll them again. 

Losing wars should be unappealing in more ways than it currently is. Wars shouldn't be able to continue ad infinitum that's unrealistic and it's silly in a nationsim game to never actually "win" or "lose" a war.

4 hours ago, Akuryo said:

Blind idiocy and symbolic action that does nothing are against my religion and highly offensive to me. The two typically go hand in hand, the latter going to the former.

This update simply makes logistics a slightly more important aspect of the game for the normal alliance and gives a small buff to a raiding playstyle. You're exaggerating the effect for... I'm not sure what purpose? You enjoy throwing tantrums, is my guess.

This war North Point went broke and was forced to peace out. I fail to see how this update changes or even really worsens the outcomes that you're crying about.

 

HOPEFULLY other changes will be coming for the war system but crying about anything else Alex does until a complete overhaul happens is silly.

[Alex]

13 hours ago, AntMan said:

A game is made by its players. So if multiple players says "this is bad for me", it translates to "this is bad for the game". However, I will not tread into that territory right now. 

This sure makes winning wars more appealing. But it also makes losing them equally unappealing from an alliance perspective. You are literally forcing people to get off beige so that someone can roll them again. 

A handful of players disliking a change is a lot different than all of the players disliking the change. I imagine most players are going to be happy to actually have more cash in their nation and some autonomy over their alliance leaders making all of their decisions for them.

And no one is being forced to get off of beige - that's ultimately still a choice. Nations that are on beige are going to have more money now; that's a good thing. If they're worried about the money just being taken in other wars, they can spend it on infrastructure and military units to help them actually compete in their wars.

[MonkeyDLegend]

On 11/24/2019 at 11:56 PM, Alex said:

I removed taxation on beige nations for two reasons: one, because alliances were systematically abusing the fact that beige nations get taxed (but gray nations do not) to raid applicants, beige them, and then move them to members to be taxed. That was an abuse of the mechanic and was corrected by this change. The other reason I made the change was the thinking that if you're beiged, you're trying to rebuild. Having your alliance take all your money and resources away doesn't help you do that. The beige bonus ($50K/turn, $600K/day) could go a long way to helping a nation actually recover from the war they lost which is the point of the Beige Color Trade Bloc bonus (not to give the alliance a free $600K/member/day.)

The fact that this also makes winning wars more appealing and better aligns incentives was an unintended side-effect, but a positive one.

All of these complains I'm hearing about this change aren't "this is bad for the game" it's "this is bad for me." I'm not particularly sympathetic to the latter argument.

While i can see that there could be some missuse of the old system, i find this new change bad, instead of being able to be taxed 100% and not losing any cash or rss when i'm raided and beige, I now lose cash and so does my alliance.  This just opens up for a continuous beige cycling where you can bleed an alliance dry just by keeping their members beige 24/7.

I applaud you for trying, but i haven't seen much abuse of "the old system". 

Edited November 26, 2019 by MonkeyDLegend

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

A handful of players disliking a change is a lot different than all of the players disliking the change. I imagine most players are going to be happy to actually have more cash in their nation and some autonomy over their alliance leaders making all of their decisions for them.

And no one is being forced to get off of beige - that's ultimately still a choice. Nations that are on beige are going to have more money now; that's a good thing. If they're worried about the money just being taken in other wars, they can spend it on infrastructure and military units to help them actually compete in their wars.

The majority of players don't even know what or if you did anything or what it affects. 

If your goal mine is a silent, clueless majority not saying no, then you should go into American politics. I can guarantee you my membership doesn't know this even happened and even if they did they'd ask me what it even means or does because they don't understand the point of it.

So please, cut this repeated bullshit charade of saying "huuuurrrrr a minority" when it's actually the majority of people who actually know what's even happening. I can guarantee you, as this majority is largely gov and leadership, that if they inform their members you'll find your majority suddenly goes from silent to against you.

Because shocker, they won't like something that pointlessly harms them over paranoia of a bunch of weebs using a hilariously inefficient econ directive. Which is exactly what their gov would tell them, because that's exactly what it is.

 

[Arawra]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

A handful of players disliking a change is a lot different than all of the players disliking the change. I imagine most players are going to be happy to actually have more cash in their nation and some autonomy over their alliance leaders making all of their decisions for them.

Nations that are on beige are going to have more money now; that's a good thing. If they're worried about the money just being taken in other wars, they can spend it on infrastructure and military units to help them actually compete in their wars.

If a member is upset with how their alliance uses their beige funds, they have the autonomy to leave. The way I see it, alliances that tax members on the first 14 days of beige, beige during war time without sending war aid, or beige after a war without sending reparations, is just a bad alliance and that member should make the choice of whether to stay or not. I think you should have opted for taxation to cease after X days inactive like the OP suggests, because nations being taxed on beige can inquire about the whys with their alliance leadership, and should they not be satisfied with the answer they receive, they can leave on their own volition.

Ultimately, I agree with Akuryo that you've made beige cycling even more destructive, to the point it can be dangerous to the game's health by killing off helpless players that find themselves trapped in the cycle; and like they had also mentioned, it incentivizes 'winning wars,' but not in a manner that you probably want or intended. Three people sitting on a nation, 1 of them 'win the war' and beige that nation, while 2 other nations are still holding their defensive slots, preventing them from rebuilding. When the beige expires, a new nation will fill the third slot, while one of the other 2 nations 'win their war' and beige again, then the cycle continues and the nation never actually gets a chance to rebuild, all the while their captivators syphon their production which is no longer being sent to their alliance. Also occurring far beyond the point where the outcome of the war is already determined so the victor can just cease all taxes being sent to their opponents' alliance by endlessly beige cycling them, granting alliances the power to completely kill other alliances.

Regarding the second part; Spending their meager amount of beige money on infrastructure and military would be utterly pointless since infrastructure will never see a return on the investment, and alongside bought military units, will be shredded in the next attack, not even mentioning that resources cannot be spent (and so, will be stolen), keno is no longer an option, baseball has a hardcap on investment, and land can only go so far. I think you had the right idea with this change, but the wrong approach.

Edited November 27, 2019 by REAP3R

[Zim]

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

-snip

I feel sorry for your members, i really do. Do you really have so little confident in their abilities, that you think they won't understand a change to the game mechanics on their own? a browser game? If they been here for more then a month, they would know what it means. 
That ego of your aren't healthy, i feel you really need to do some self reflection, and a good read of the Law of Jante. 
Don't assume you better then other people, don't assume you smarter then other people, don't think you are anything special.

Give your members more autonomy, and they will surpise you, with what they able to do. You most likely alreadry promoting th people that do go against you. The ones trying to change stuff, does that take the initiative.
You need to see that people as a general rule are good people, that they try to do good even when they do bad. 
Let your members self-organize. Give people the opportunities to learn and grow, the means to keep themself informed. 
If you think people are good…you let them figure it out.

Your job isen't to give your member opinions to follow, your job is to give them the ablitity to create their own opinions. 

40 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

snip

I hate to be that guy, but several alliance don't allow their members to leave. I would have thought a well travel guy as you would known that? 
I know of atleast one alliance that have openly said so on the forum, that they would beige-cycle anyone leaving their alliance. They not the only one. 
Another alliance, that i have fairly close ties to would do similar unless they are a paid 180 mil by the nation leaving. 

And disgreements over tax policy is often not enough for most players to turn their back on an alliance. 
You do know the biggest reason we stay in this game, is the community. 
The friends we make and have here. 
Most of the time the game only require people to log in a few times a day. But we still have people that spend several hours just hanging around on discord and talking. 
It why people are willing to stay up in the middle of night to cordinate attacks, it why players blow real money away, or are willing to suicide their nation into a stronger player. And even the reason why people spend a shit ton of time creating memes and comics about the game. 
While the war system is in need of a revoke, i don't particularly have a problem with beige cycling, when it comes to the cost in pixels. 
It not that devasting in damage to a nation, normally it even cost more for the people attempting it. 
And i mean attempting, try to actively fight against person long enough for the war to exspire, i dare you. Either he will be beiged, or you will be. 
Then imagine trying to that against several hundred nations, you will fail. 
Beige cycling is a problem because of it inpact on moral and wear down it causes on a player. 
If you gotten to a point where an oppenet can effectively beige -cycle you, you will already have lost. And just a reminder IQ is still not able to do that our coalition. 
Players won't delete because their alliance bank lag money, they delete by the wear down it cause mentally to be beige cyclied, specially for newer players. It is a tactic that is devastating for the game health, but not by it's cost in pixels. 
For alliance that is in a state they being beige-cycles, basely where they have stopped fighting anyhow. An alliance no longer have any expenses either. Why send money to nations not fighting, plus they probably blockade anyhow. 
So just maintain the alliance stockpile, what you going spend it on, if your members aren't able to use it?

When it comes to your own income, you can now spend it on infra. You don't maintain infra to see a return on an investment, you need to have it built up to a level where you can fully recuit your units that is what it is for, millitary units.
If this is their second or third attempt at circle-beiging you, the new nation declaring on you, they will have quite alot less cities then you. 
A double buy here, and you can make them the ones being beiged. You need to be tactical on when you buy and use units. You can still get outside souce of ressource and money by attacking other nations, inactive or smaller members of the alliance trying to circle-beige you, that they have carelessly pushed you range of. 
It seem to me you exaggerating the economical problems it might cause. I can probably understand why, this seem to be a problem for North Point, as you are the only alliance to left war because of economic reasons. 
 

[Edward I]

17 minutes ago, Zim said:

snip

This is an OOC forum. Your IC views on alliance management don’t belong here.

Yes, nations can always leave their alliances because that’s how game mechanics work.

No, tax rates aren’t a community issue. If you think other alliances should set theirs differently, take it up with them in-game.

 

@REAP3R pretty much covered everything else I was going to say.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

@Zim If you were well travelled yourself you might know there's no alliance in the game that does that. They can't physically stop you from leaving. Try being in another alliance in arrgh and learning how the rest of the game functions instead of trying to comment on it while never having experienced it. This is like if i told LoL players how their game should be changed while only vaguely understanding it.

[Arawra]

7 minutes ago, Zim said:

-snip-

It was a bit hard for me to make out your argument, but I'll try to address what I can.

Regarding my travel, I've never encountered any problems with leaving as many alliances as I have, so long as, I did the right thing and paid back money that the alliance would otherwise count as a loss. When you say there are alliances that will attack you for leaving, I assume you mean alliances that pursue you for not paying back what you owe, in such cases, I'd say that is justified. If that is not what you were getting at, then I've not heard of, nor been in, one of those alliances, however if I was, I would simply flee to a strong alliance that would not tolerate their chasing me down and get them to back off.

You are correct to say most players would not break off with their alliance over minor tax policies such as this, which is why it's a non-existent problem, it can't even be justified as a quality of life improvement because the people that feel the effects of beige cycling now, and in the future, will have a worse experience. To the point, that, it actually does more harm than good, in my opinion. For perspective, it might appease the few people who do mind beige taxation, but not enough to leave, but it will make beige cycling even harsher, which is far more dangerous to a player's retention if they're unable to function within their alliance, and as an individual nation, they might as well not play the game since they effectively contribute nothing except some resources and money to their captivators.

I think you missed the point on this next part; by the time you're getting beige cycled, the war's conclusion is already assumed, the victor would be the one doing the beige cycling en masse, which nullifies Alex's point that it 'incentivizes beiging opponents, allowing them to rebuild,' because the opponent cannot effectively rebuild and free themselves from the cycle unless assisted by an ally, or by a screw up on the behalf of their opponents.

Spending your daily bonus and turn bonus on infra will be ineffective, even when you get to the point that the people holding you down have many less cities. You will not scrounge enough money in your bombed out nation to make an effective double buy on your opponents. If your infra is destroyed, you probably don't make any income from commerce, you might possibly even make negative income, and get bill locked. More on that, you cannot make any money prior to day change to build your infra substantially enough, same with buying the physical soldiers.Your money will run dry too quick, especially for larger nations, meaning you will never pull off a successful double buy if your opponents play smart.

I understand the benefits that this change has for raiders, stopping beige nations from being taxed means that their money will stockpile within the nation to be raided, rather than be sent to the alliance bank, but please realize this change has more dangerous effects that needn't even exist.

 

[Guest Frawley]

So rather than winners beige cycling their opponents and getting no loot (aka a cost of war), now we can beige cycle with a loot subsidy from our opponents.

Thanks for being on the side of Coalition B!

[Zim]

7 minutes ago, Edward I said:

snip

I took offends to @Akuryo  comment about the "clueless majority", which is more a bacis on our different in real life philosophy, rather then ingame alliance politics. And basely me seeing him as being in the wrong, that the majority of people would be against a politic that gives them more anatomy. 

You also seem to be hung on game mechanics standpoint for people ability to leave an alliance, rather then the reality of people facing. Being attacked for leaving an alliance is a thing that happens, fairly often with alliance that give alot of grants to a members when they join. 
Arrgh have in past received people like that. 
 
I never brought up tax rates, at anytime doing my argument, i get the feeling you just skimmed it thought, which is fair as it did get a bit longer then i intended. But somehow i can't help to feel a bit disappointed by it comming from a man of your reputation.

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

snip

I been in 3 alliance, including Arrgh. The second alliance i was in attacked me for leaving, admittedly that was more a single guy, that took personal offends rather then the alliance as whole. But several players have arrived on Arrgh doorstep, having their counter slot filled out with members from their former alliance. 
Arrgh open door policy, and no waiting time for becoming a member. Have in peacetime made us rather popular place for refugees. Even if they only are here temporarily. 
You yourself seem to have bit of vague understanding, only going after one of my points that that was already addressed by another person.

 

1 hour ago, REAP3R said:

Isnip

Good man! i applaud you for spending the effort. 
Now to your points, you are correct that the main one we get are nations getting attacked by people chasing after lost money. 
But it also quite common for alliance to demand quite a bit(lot) more then what that person got in grants, and often ignore the part they paid throught taxes. 
Even thought we have also seen more personally reasons in the past for attacks. Many mircos do have happit of taking things a bit personally. 
Fleeing to a strong alliance, is often not possible, simply because most of the top 40, with a few exceptions have rules against 
"war-dragging."
 Wars that was declared before a nation joined, will normaly not be countered. I am speaking for expereince here, as an attacker of players that have done as you suggested, when they got raided.  
Of course strong alliances will counter follow up attacks or beige cycling(within reason). 

That alliance is unable to tax beiged nations is quality of life improvement for raiders. We been hit hard over the years with several nerfs. You have well noticed that the number of raiding alliances left, is rather small. Most have simply deleted, or they have changed away from raiding like Typhon and Empyrea.

Beige taxing of inactives have negatively effected our income. By taxing inactive nations, that really shouldn't be able to get taxed in first place. 
While i can see this being a great stepping stone in the direction of rebuilding the war system that hopefully should leave raiders in a better position afterward.
I can't see how people in a beige cycling can end up with a worse experience, for having extra cash in their nation? 
Plus beige cycling is hard to pull of, i haven't seen it work on anyone fighting back, beside a few new players. Like i have alreadry explained in my previous answer with beige cycling is not a thing that happens that often. And in any case it is temporally. 
Paying taxes is probably not seen as what keep a member in an alliance by the member themself either, so i don't see how this will remove them form the alliance community. 

Your point about doing the beige cycling en masse, when the victor have basely been decided, falls apart because of one thing: "nation score" 
Nation that declare on you get gradually weaker, with no effort on your part. To a point where a simple double buy, let you crush them. Or atleast bring them in a position where the cost for an airstrike is more then the cost for stuff it blows up. 
I feel like i am repeating myself here a bit, when i keep having to mention that there is ways to fight against beige cycling by the nations being attacked. 

 

1 hour ago, REAP3R said:

Spending your daily bonus and turn bonus on infra will be ineffective, even when you get to the point that the people holding you down have many less cities. You will not scrounge enough money in your bombed out nation to make an effective double buy on your opponents. If your infra is destroyed, you probably don't make any income from commerce, you might possibly even make negative income, and get bill locked. More on that, you cannot make any money prior to day change to build your infra substantially enough, same with buying the physical soldiers.Your money will run dry too quick, especially for larger nations, meaning you will never pull off a successful double buy if your opponents play smart.

I understand the benefits that this change has for raiders, stopping beige nations from being taxed means that their money will stockpile within the nation to be raided, rather than be sent to the alliance bank, but please realize this change has more dangerous effects that needn't even exist.

 

Sorry for quoting you directly here, but this is not true. Arrgh member here, we have member functioning at 400 infra and still have a netincome. 
We are able to win wars being after being zeroed. 

You sell of most of the commerce building if they not generating an income, even thought they also work nicely as an extra stockpile of steel and alumnium, that can't be looted. If you nation can't generate an income you raid nation that can. 20-50.000 infrantry you can put in the feild is more then enough to raids 5 inactive. Get a couple of mil, rebuild infra to 700-1000 infra. Doublebuy what you need, and then fight back against aggressors. 
 

1 hour ago, REAP3R said:

but please realize this change has more dangerous effects that needn't even exist.

Please, all the problems it causes is more work for a few gov members. While giving players the option to think a bit more for themself(i know someone see this as a problem).
While it prevent one of the ways alliances is able to abuses game mechanics to effectly cheat. 
Beige cycling, or attempt at it anyway is a problem for the game health, but you are seriously blowing it out of proportion. It isen't going be an alliance ender, more then it already was(not at all). 

I enjoyed your response @REAP3R even if i had to repeat myself. 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

@Frawley Confirm what ZIm says here, is NPO losing the war now because of the losses from beige cycling? He seems to think so, lmfao.

[Zim]

@Akuryo So what i am getting form you, is that you can't read? Your add ons to this thread have mainly been repeating the point of other people. Not really addressing question given to you, and to finish of, you sumed up a longer post, with a laughable wrong conclusion. 

Thanks for letting me know you not worth the effort of addressing. 

 

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 11/24/2019 at 2:24 PM, Alex said:

It seems to me that this does fix the issue wherein certain alliances were systematically raiding and farming their inactive players by beiging them to tax them, and also it seems that there's more propensity to beige players in wars (i.e. win the war) which is how it should be.

The only negative consequence I'm really seeing here is it's less convenient for alliance leaders to redistribute money and resources. While I understand that that's creating a lot of outcry, that's not really a huge concern for me. As stated, you can have beige nations deposit their money/rss into the alliance bank. If they're blockaded, they probably shouldn't be able to pay alliance taxes anyway (another hotfix?)

No, the negative consequence is that it becomes profitable to engage in permanent war, when there should instead be an unaffordable cost to doing so. The current mechanics of paying taxes while under blockade is absolutely necessary in order to allow embattled alliances and nations to compete; without that, the game will collapse. As it is, it's only the difficulty inherent in pulling off a real blockade cycle that's keeping us from that situation right now.

Amongst other things, you implemented this change during a global war without even announcing it for discussion let alone testing; you know better than that!

If you want to get rid of KT/etc's beige tax farming, then it's as simple as making anyone over a week inactive not pay taxes; then you're not at all affecting the warfighting ability of the few active players willing to keep the game going. Without whose efforts the game will simply not be playable at all.

Even Frawley gets this, and I've upvoted his post. That's two eternally opposed, active and partisan players both making the same argument, which is a really good sign that it's worth listening to.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

25 minutes ago, Zim said:

@Akuryo So what i am getting form you, is that you can't read? Your add ons to this thread have mainly been repeating the point of other people. Not really addressing question given to you, and to finish of, you sumed up a longer post, with a laughable wrong conclusion. 

Thanks for letting me know you not worth the effort of addressing. 

 

I mean, your posts have been you talking out your ass about shit you don't understand. You've never left Arrgh in your life, you have no clue how to do anything but be in arrgh, so shut your damned mouth when it comes to being anywhere else, because you don't know. Instead, you'll run your mouth.

I've made my own points, i was on the first page of this thread. My post is the one that changed Skitz's opinion on the matter, because he didn't consider it.

Now instead of running your mouth again, try reading, and learning about the game, before speaking.

[Zim]

9 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Arrogant nonsense

Thanks for ones again proving you can't read. Arrgh wasen't my first alliance, which you would know if you actually read my previous post. And "in your life", really? This 'game' seem to have consumed you an unhealthy degree.
I talk daily with people form other alliances, people who able to read, and actually able argue their point veiw, without having to fall back on attacks on a person character, but i suppose you find it easier to dismiss people, then argue against their points, because you simply are to simple. 

This is a game, and a not very complicated one at that, pick up Elite Dangerous if you wanna see complicated game design. 

That elitist attitude of yours is fairly unhealty, i would really recommend you to read the Law of Jante(you need it)

 

44 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

i was on the first page of this thread. My post is the one that changed Skitz's opinion on the matter, because he didn't consider it.

You proud to have changed the opinion of one your own low gov members, that i had to track down to find out who was? 
But do tell which of your "nobody cares" post did that? i am curius now. 

But before you answer please learn this is a game, before speaking. As learning about the game seem to be a lost cause to you. 

[Clarke]

On 11/26/2019 at 2:45 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Losing wars should be unappealing in more ways than it currently is. Wars shouldn't be able to continue ad infinitum that's unrealistic and it's silly in a nationsim game to never actually "win" or "lose" a war.

Losing wars is pretty unappealing assuming the enemy does the most powerful attacks to destroy maximum infra. The problem is if the enemy can not outright win a war which is what is happening then no side will be outright winners and the war will continue with both sides winning in their own ways. 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

14 hours ago, Zim said:

Thanks for ones again proving you can't read. Arrgh wasen't my first alliance, which you would know if you actually read my previous post. And "in your life", really? This 'game' seem to have consumed you an unhealthy degree.
I talk daily with people form other alliances, people who able to read, and actually able argue their point veiw, without having to fall back on attacks on a person character, but i suppose you find it easier to dismiss people, then argue against their points, because you simply are to simple. 

This is a game, and a not very complicated one at that, pick up Elite Dangerous if you wanna see complicated game design. 

That elitist attitude of yours is fairly unhealty, i would really recommend you to read the Law of Jante(you need it)

 

You proud to have changed the opinion of one your own low gov members, that i had to track down to find out who was? 
But do tell which of your "nobody cares" post did that? i am curius now. 

But before you answer please learn this is a game, before speaking. As learning about the game seem to be a lost cause to you. 

"Learning seems to be a lost cause for you" Says the guy talking about parts of the game he's never played. I've been in arrgh before btw, I've been a member of alliances, gov, I've couped, been couped, and I now lead. You haven't experienced anything, and therefore know nothing. It's that simple.

[Zim]

6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

More arrogant nonsense

OK, Boomer. 

[Raphael]

On 11/27/2019 at 5:57 PM, Zim said:

OK, Boomer. 

I put him on ignore tbh. He just flames people and never actually contributes to conversation.