Petro Posted November 8, 2014 Report Share Posted November 8, 2014 Nobody gives a !@#$ about TOP's little pet project PECS. Not being in PECS I think is an additional reason to vote for me. Additional reason? Could you remind us of the first reason again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2014 Report Share Posted November 10, 2014 I really don't get all the overreaction to all these senate proposals. It always seems to come from nations with less than 1,000 infra too (which was you Methrage until less than a week ago). I don't know how more clearly to iterate this: the purchase of one bank would literally have more impact on your nation than any of these proposals and the relative impact these have on tiny nations versus large nations is astounding. For every negative event that costs these tiny nations a few thousand per collection it ends up being a multimillion dollar swing in the larger ranges, sometimes over 100 million. Again, all the financial 'damage' you insist you are taking can be negated with literally one tech deal. I'm also very glad that this needed to be published on the OWF, like anyone else gives a crap what is going on there. As I've stated on pink message boards, instead of publicly complaining you'd be far better off if you were actively doing tech deals, building infra and trade swapping when possible on backcollects. As a senator, I try to be as judicious as possible with regards to sphere-based proposals, but I see my efforts are being countered with irrational behavior. I expect nothing less from pink :awesome: If there are 50 nations losing 1/50th as much as you then they would have a point though. But then again those other 50 nations have options. They could not vote for you or they could switch spheres or they could do a lot of other diplomatic things. Perhaps we will see certain alliances switch to spheres that are controlled by nations their size. It's all a balance. Personally I couldn't give a shit anyways.. if I really cared about my nations economy I'd be 100% efficient with my aid slots and [ooc]donate[/ooc] and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblies Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 " Libertarian" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 Pink Senate fight. Round 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 12, 2014 Report Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) You seem to be mistaking trades/trade setups for the static immutable things they were in the past. In today's world a nation can freely adjust their trades to optimize themselves for a given situation. In the OP you mischaracterize the efforts required to take advantage of the burgers not war proposal: you describe the effort required as something tedious that requires intense micromanagement - this is hardly the case. A nation like mine carries multiple trades that were harmed by the proposal, trades which I only maintain while paying bills and I swap essentially once a month to collect. This requires barely any effort at all and garnered the full benefit of the proposal. Maybe you're right though, maybe I'm just a large wealthy nation and thus make for an unfair standard. In either case your position is still silly because there remains classic 3br's (FF/construction/beer) directed at growth which also benefited from the proposal as for each of the three resources they took a penalty on they had three others to offset- for them the proposal was a net gain. This includes most of our small growth oriented nations and tech sellers- smaller nations you purport to represent. It seems the only group who failed to benefit from the proposal were those whose circles included no economic buffs and were directed entirely at war capability. The only nations who in fact require such a circle are those at war, and as this is a period of relative peace I can't imagine why that tiny minority should exclude the majority of others from significant boosts to their income. This. It's easy enough to trade swap. If someone is hurt by the event from having a constant set of war trades that they use even when they collect, that's on them. They are being hurt far more by their own choices and unwilling to trade swap, and their insistence on using war trades all the time, than they are by any events. Edited November 12, 2014 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord bagel Posted November 13, 2014 Report Share Posted November 13, 2014 At some point it should occur to you that Pink is the last place for a small, developing alliance. Too many large, developed nations that have more or less stopped growing and set themselves up in max income producing trade sets. pretty much this. DBDC, TOP, Argent, Kaskus, and SPATR are not going to have similar economic interests as you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.