Jump to content

The Future


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ said:

~snips~

Stop hitting Protectorates when you fight their protector. Nah, that's some delicious salt and drama.

I agree with the sentiment Kastor lays out in the OP, but I think Shifty is right in his counterpoints. Proper political change and dynamic moves will only occur if other alliances or groups are worthy of it. I don't think it'll be a problem though because most players and communities left standing are operating in good faith and just want to have fun, but encouraging change is always good.

I do think 100/100 taxes are fine though. They're the best way to have control over an alliance's growth and maximum efficiency in resource distribution. You only don't see it more often because of the human element; people don't like having all their stuff gone. The happy middle ground to this was tax farms (rip) or having 100/100 days. 

I'm quoting this part of Shifty's post because I do think attacking a protectorate is fine while you're hitting a protector. It's good loot, but I also do enjoy the drama and tears it brings and those things are a big reason why I play this game. I'm a dramanaut, I guess you could say.

  • Like 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Justin076 said:

The whole taxing your members 100/100 and essentially having total utter control over every move they make in this game is quite frankly disgusting and develops into your NPO/BK alliances. What is the point of playing the game if your leadership consisting of 5 people have total control over you and your fellow alliance mates. NPO members were literally robots, they were farmed and instructed to log in and complete a task as instructed by their leadership. No independent thought, no way to develop into a government member or a influential member of this game. 

There's no reason alliances cannot have reasonable taxes where members can collectively contribute to helping smaller nations grow or saving up for a conflict. But indefinitely having total control over your entire memberships city building, infra building, improvement layout and resources is a bit much. Time that we off with this type of shit. 

Summed up my thoughts exactly.

11 minutes ago, Thalmor said:

I agree with the sentiment Kastor lays out in the OP, but I think Shifty is right in his counterpoints. Proper political change and dynamic moves will only occur if other alliances or groups are worthy of it. I don't think it'll be a problem though because most players and communities left standing are operating in good faith and just want to have fun, but encouraging change is always good.

I do think 100/100 taxes are fine though. They're the best way to have control over an alliance's growth and maximum efficiency in resource distribution. You only don't see it more often because of the human element; people don't like having all their stuff gone. The happy middle ground to this was tax farms (rip) or having 100/100 days. 

I'm quoting this part of Shifty's post because I do think attacking a protectorate is fine while you're hitting a protector. It's good loot, but I also do enjoy the drama and tears it brings and those things are a big reason why I play this game. I'm a dramanaut, I guess you could say.

The issue of 100/100 isn't efficiency since I think most people would agree that 100/100, if performed correctly, is the more efficient econ model. 

The real drawback to 100/100 is that it essentially wrecks a community and really allows only a few people in gov to assume all control over all facets of an alliance's actions. Members are given no scope whatsoever to have any any sort of independent thought and even if they did, they don't have the cash to enact it. You end up with basically an alliance serving the whims and goals of the few.

It's basically a balancing act between economic efficiency and having a vibrant and innovative community.

  • Upvote 4

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

The issue of 100/100 isn't efficiency since I think most people would agree that 100/100, if performed correctly, is the more efficient econ model. 

The real drawback to 100/100 is that it essentially wrecks a community and really allows only a few people in gov to assume all control over all facets of an alliance's actions. Members are given no scope whatsoever to have any any sort of independent thought and even if they did, they don't have the cash to enact it. You end up with basically an alliance serving the whims and goals of the few.

It's basically a balancing act between economic efficiency and having a vibrant and innovative community.

I recognize that 100/100 is viewed poorly by most people who are under it, but I don't think it's that fatal to a community. GPWC was just a tool, not a real community. NPO's culture enabled it's creepy automation of its members. 

I don't think KT will ever do 100/100 outside of maybe some 100/100 days in the future, but I think KT's community would be largely unchanged by a 100/100 economic policy.  It would be used to rush cities and stockpile other resources. Others can probably pull it off too. 

new_forum_sig_2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I recognize that 100/100 is viewed poorly by most people who are under it, but I don't think it's that fatal to a community. GPWC was just a tool, not a real community. NPO's culture enabled it's creepy automation of its members. 

I don't think KT will ever do 100/100 outside of maybe some 100/100 days in the future, but I think KT's community would be largely unchanged by a 100/100 economic policy.  It would be used to rush cities and stockpile other resources. Others can probably pull it off too. 

Even NPO suffered from 100/100 in terms of a community aspect though. Do you really think roq and his cronies could have stayed at the helm defeat after defeat and all throughout this past war if he didn't have almost total control over NPO's finances? 

100/100 generally leads to leaders doing as they please and who freely impose their will upon an alliance with almost zero accountability.  If NPO had an upper tier with say 20% taxes, do you really think NPO's upper gov would have been able to do as they please much like they did? I think not.

There are exceptions of course but generally if we look at alliances who utilise 100/100, certain trends are readily evident. Autocratic oligarchies with power centralised in the hands of a few, heavy use of bots and scrapers and a membership who largely don't understand game mechanics and are forced to rely upon a central bank for all funds and direction when it comes to nation building. It can even extend further in certain instances where members dont even know how to communicate and collaborate during wartime and are pretty much clueless without whatever automated targeting system they use.

There are always exceptions naturally but personally, I don't see why anyone would want to be a member of some 100/100 oligarchy where they are expected to dedicate the entire sum of their nation's productive output for no other reason than to enable some upper gov circlejerk's goals.

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

A lot also just boils to "Dont take it all too seriously and dont go overboard being a douchenozzle'.

 

Also if you decide to be a douchenozzle, at least be a funny one.

Thanks, friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kastor said:

-Stop hitting Protectorates when you fight their protector. 

This is important, don't blitz the protectorate

At the same time don't ask to your protectorate to join the war

This rule doesn't apply to alliances who stay protectorate forever even when they are big, after some month you should upgrade them or let them go

If the protectorate decide to join the war should be considered an automatic upgrade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leftbehind said:

Players shouldn't feel obligated to help a mirco get exposure. When you create a mirco you should be self aware. It's up to you to choose a nurturing protector and understand your limitations. We cannot create a culture for you nor should anyone hold your hand. Just don't be another Sean Anthony and learn from your mistakes.

The thing is most micros aren't that, and most of them deserve to die. Hell, most new alliances just form because somebody thinks running an alliance will be fun.

Which, I mean, it can be, but it's more stressful and like a second job than fun. Unless you're a weirdo who likes being under fire constantly, it won't be fun. ?

Maybe that's just me, but if your only goal and purpose as an alliance is to exist, that's what you should probably stop doing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kastor said:

Then NPO came, and soon slowly the game got worse and worse, NPO used PnW reasons to roll MI5(tS)

Absolutely disgusting.

 


Also, do any of you really want paperless back? Really?

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there's a pretty easy balance between 100/100. My econ is basically a mix of BK, Odin's TEst, and my own bullshittery. Before the war, we partial granted a guy his c20. Partial grants are 80/0 taxes btw. Nutcase had 100m+ sitting on him after building all his infra and crap. He'd have had more if he didn't buy warchest for himself.

My econ low gov literally started, helped fund, and ran 2 businesses while on our 100/20 full grants. The guys technically richer than I am, as long as you don't consider I started this alliance with 600m of my own cash, making the entire thing gains from invested assets. ?

the partial grants coverage is itself progressive, so as to grow you faster without straining the bank too much, and right now is having Odin get the 25+ econ system running now that we're getting c25s. 20/0 taxes, gonna need loans and other programs for them.

Tl;Dr best econ system is a progressive command econ that taxes hard enough to give reliable growth faster than a low tax alliance, but gives the guides and breathing space to still experiment with your own finances, while not constraining them to a tier and paving a bright gold path right into upper tier after they learn financial Independence and management along the way, and give access to loans and investment opportunities.

Nobody will convince me otherwise. My only wish is that I could've gotten to slowly build this beautiful thing in a bigger alliance. But all you old people complain about high taxes >:c

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zed said:

Absolutely disgusting.

 


Also, do any of you really want paperless back? Really?

Considering most just use it as 'Secret treaties' not really. I am fine with arrgh, KT, Mythic doing it who clearly just jump into whatever they feel benefits them.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to continue "toxicity on both sides", but NPO never changed leadership once during their entire time in PnW. Roquentin was alpha and omega of the NPO foreign policy, the NPO grudges, and the NPO directive of isolation.

He isolated communities, manipulated the information they had access to in order to foster grudges and hatred, and ultimately formed a suicide cult where they all deleted in a ragequit response to fair moderation.

 

NPO as a whole had the same people in charge the entire time, never changing their minds on anything, allying vast swathes of the game and creating an unplayable political field.

 

The warning signs were there, the people who decried NPO back then were told to give them another chance. Even after the "For Steve" BS war in CN, NPO were given chances. This wasn't a case of "be nicer to both sides" this was a clearcut case of an alliance that should've been rolled out of existence but the warning signs were ignored.

 

edit: I'm hopeful for the future of PnW without the blight that NPO represented. Sorry to their members who were just following orders.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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