Essenia Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 This was true 2 years ago and is true today. This point is actually quite low relatively speaking, where nations max out their income-generating capabilities at about 14,000 infrastructure. Even before this max-out point the point at which increasing your size leads to increasingly-diminishing return on investment is reached long before this point, closer to 8000 infrastructure. Nations max out their income generating capabilities at 14k? I would not advise going beyond 14k, but that is not true in the slightest. Nations that were big 2 years ago make the same amount of money after bills now as they did then. In fact probably less, as the Weapons Research Complex had yet to become the must-have military wonder which correspondingly jacks up your bills tremendously and thus reduces large nations' income in this day and age even more. WRC increases bills tremendously? Good to know. Also, your main argument is terrible beyond belief. Around 21 months ago when I was clearing 9 million post bills I had the richest nations in all of Cybernations (save maybe 2-3 people). Now, my new nation (14 months old) takes in around 8.8 million post bills. I was in the top 10 with 9800 infra; today that nation would not even be in the top 1000. Yes, big nations see their income increase slowly. However, many, many nations have become big nations in the last two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 No nation other than those forced to leave, may leave the AA for a period of 90 days, doing so is subject to attack until they return to the AA. Many nations stay in the NPO due to a fear of the PG, with the removal of this threat then they will want to leave and they should not be stopped. It will probably be the first freedom many of them have known. An apology to each and ever alliance the New Pacific Order has taken part in the destruction of. This is a given, The NPO will need to apologise. Isn't this the point of a surrender? Require demilitarisation of all military wonders, improvements, tanks, plans, navies, and 30% military soldier cap for a year. Only if some other alliance(s) makes them a protectorate for this period. Removal of Emperor and the IO's from the alliance. Removal of the leadership is a pretty standard term these days. Move the NPO to the Grey sphere indefinably. What would this accomplish? This would cause difficulties for many unaligned red sphere nations who are in trade rings with the NPO, and they should not be punished for anything. Only 15 nations may be in peace mode at one time. An alliance that is a protectorate has no need for peace mode. Limit the Alliance to 10 nuclear weapons. Pretty standard terms here. Required to repay all reparations ever accepted to the still existing alliances. This should be the financial terms, all the reps the NPO has ever collected should be repaid to those alliances that still exist, with the highest priority. Then the remainder will be divided between all the karma alliances including those that never had to pay the NPO anything along with the reps from this war. Pay the victims first and best then share what is left amongst everyone. My opinion is that it would not violate the GPAs neutrality if they got paid back the reps they paid as a "gift" to promote goodwill. But this is just my opinion and a suggestion, but ultimately it is up to the GPA to decide about this matter. Cancellation of all military treaties and forbid the signing or upgrading of any military grade treaties for one year. Pretty standard terms here. Charter must be rewritten and approved by all alliances currently at war with the NPO. The NPO thought that this was a good idea for the GPA so it must be ok. For a period of 1 year the NPO is not permitted to be a sanctioned alliance. Yes, if the NPO comes close to sanctioned status then they must split their AA into two or more to prevent this (NPO1, NPO2, ect...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The fact that people make more money leads to the fact that the goods they purchase will be purchased more. I'm talking about "real value" not actual cash amounts. Thus, the real value of tech is decreased by this large increase of income. A unit of tech is also less useful than it used to be because there is much more of it now than there was in 2008. Your conversion of cash to tech is also inaccurate to say the least because tech is still considered worth more than the actual money payed for it through tech deals. Also, converting money to tech takes a far longer time in terms of aid slot usage than just sending money since 3 mil and 50 tech can be sent simultaneously. Trying to figure in the money in as tech is biased at best. In conclusion, converting the reps to pure money based on the prices in 2008 ignores the real value of the tech in previous years and also ignores how much more real value tech held in years previous to 2008 also. You do not understand. We're not talking about the "real value" of tech, we are talking about its cost. And it's cost is about the cash amounts, because that is what it is purchased for, and that is what it would cost to replace it. Trying to determine the underlying usefulness is both hard to calculate, and most importantly; not really relevant. We're not the ones getting the tech, so how useful it is to the ones that do is not the point of contention. What IS important is its cost; and cost =/= usefulness. I think at this point it is fairly obvious that each of us is arguing about different things, so I will say this again: The point of my analysis is that using "inflation" to claim these reps are proportional to past ones is inaccurate; because to do so would in fact decrease the amount of tech an alliance has to send as time goes on (which is counter-intuitive, for the very reasons you mentioned). I am glad you agree with me on that count. Using total tech as a measure is much, much better than some abstract concept of inflation. And seeing as the war, after 2 weeks of additional damage, would leave us with 250k tech, paying the reps figure of 533k tech (300k + 233k from the money converted into tech), you can see why some of us think it is not exactly "proportional". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 You do not understand. We're not talking about the "real value" of tech, we are talking about its cost. And it's cost is about the cash amounts, because that is what it is purchased for, and that is what it would cost to replace it. Trying to determine the underlying usefulness is both hard to calculate, and most importantly; not really relevant. We're not the ones getting the tech, so how useful it is to the ones that do is not the point of contention. What IS important is its cost; and cost =/= usefulness.I think at this point it is fairly obvious that each of us is arguing about different things, so I will say this again: Trying to use real money without trying to understand the actual utility per unit of a good also ignores the underlying reason that good exists to be purchased. For example, GPA's terms were considered harsh back then, but if GPA were given those terms at their previous size today, it would be considered light reps. This stems from the underlying utility per unit of tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I have one question about a poll choice - For a period of 1 year the NPO is not promitted to be a sactioned alliance. - NPO terms are for "teaching them a lesson" or whatever Karma alliances attacking NPO wants to call it, my question is: For those who voted this option, do you really think NPO shouldn't be allowed to GROW for an entire year? That seems extreme, so are you serious about choosing this poll choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 For those who voted this option, do you really think NPO shouldn't be allowed to GROW for an entire year? That seems extreme, so are you serious about choosing this poll choice? It can be taken several ways, what it's really asking is "do you dislike NPO, or do you HATE NPO". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Trying to use real money without trying to understand the actual utility per unit of a good also ignores the underlying reason that good exists to be purchased. For example, GPA's terms were considered harsh back then, but if GPA were given those terms at their previous size today, it would be considered light reps. This stems from the underlying utility per unit of tech. If you would bother reading my post rather than looking at the NPO tag you might realise that we are saying the exact same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 If you would bother reading my post rather than looking at the NPO tag you might realise that we are saying the exact same thing. I'm arguing in terms of terms of real value rather than pure cash inflation as you were using. You said cost doesn't equal usefulness wherein I said cost fluctuates with utility. I'm pointing out that the terms are proportional if you add in utility per unit tech deflation as it relates to cost. On the contrary, I rather enjoy your posts in relation with many of your alliance mates. I'd appreciate you not falsely accuse me of such nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerius Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Wow, that bitter and hatred must really eat away at you. Funny, the statistics page would tell us that its actually eating away at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 This stems from the underlying utility per unit of tech. What is the underlying utility per one unit of tech? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 An apology to each and ever alliance the New Pacific Order has taken part in the destruction of. that would do fine & maybe a nap in there charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 An apology to each and ever alliance the New Pacific Order has taken part in the destruction of.that would do fine & maybe a nap in there charter. I like this idea. We can force them to be neutral, like they tried to do to GPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I like this idea. We can force them to be neutral, like they tried to do to GPA. NPO forced GPA to be what they were founded to be? Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 NPO forced GPA to be what they were founded to be? Interesting. That's not the point. You infringed in someone's sovereignty. Even with the terms now offered to your alliance, such an attempt at a take over was not made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 That's not the point.You infringed in someone's sovereignty. Even with the terms now offered to your alliance, such an attempt at a take over was not made. As a note, I was not part of NPO at this point and was in fact on NPOs war lists as I had forgot to change my in game AA after leaving GPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 As a note, I was not part of NPO at this point and was in fact on NPOs war lists as I had forgot to change my in game AA after leaving GPA. 'You' = NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Considering NPO's own policy of tripling reps, they should just do that. 900,000 tech, 21 billion, and no nations in peace mode for 6 weeks. I think NPO would approve since they think tripling everything is fair, otherwise they never would have had that rule, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Considering NPO's own policy of tripling reps, they should just do that.900,000 tech, 21 billion, and no nations in peace mode for 6 weeks. I think NPO would approve since they think tripling everything is fair, otherwise they never would have had that rule, right? Never heard of this, elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Never heard of this, elaborate? They have a "policy" that any damage you do to them unintentionally (or intentionally, I guess) has to be repaid at 3 times the cost. If you destroy 5 tech, you have to reimburse them 15. If you accidentally send their enemy 3 million, you have to send them 9. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 They have a "policy" that any damage you do to them unintentionally (or intentionally, I guess) has to be repaid at 3 times the cost.If you destroy 5 tech, you have to reimburse them 15. If you accidentally send their enemy 3 million, you have to send them 9. etc. Good to know, I'll have to keep that in mind for those people that cancel trades on me and cost me collections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) On the contrary, I rather enjoy your posts in relation with many of your alliance mates. I'd appreciate you not falsely accuse me of such nonsense. I am sorry about that. My patience unfortunatelly wasn't as good as I wanted it to be. I'm arguing in terms of terms of real value rather than pure cash inflation as you were using. You said cost doesn't equal usefulness wherein I said cost fluctuates with utility. I'm pointing out that the terms are proportional if you add in utility per unit tech deflation as it relates to cost. The relevant cost in this situation is how much it would cost the alliance paying reparitions to get the tech in question. This cost would either be how money it takes for a nation to actually buy it from scratch (if it is sent by 0 tech nations) which is a static value (baring gameplay changes), or how much the replacement cost is if it is sent from a nation with existing tech reserves (i.e, the value of a tech deal) which has increased. Utility is something that is only felt by the alliance receiving the reps. Now, if this were a market transaction, then utility would come into effect in price; but it is not a transaction: the tech is given out for free. Therefore how useful it is to the people receiving it does not make a difference. It's not as if any amount of reps can come near to replacing the damages in any war, so profit is not the design of terms. Reparitions terms are meant as damage to the alliance receiving them. Therefore, the only relevant cost is how much it costs the alliance sending reps to get it back. It does not matter how useful the tech is to that alliance; it will still cost the same to get back. And since tech is more expensive (for nations getting it from deals), then a static amount of tech would cost more to replace today than it would have cost back when it was cheaper. Of course, this higher cost also comes with a greater capacity to buy tech; but that increase in production capacity is not an inflationary effect, and it is best measured by taking, as we've both said, a percentage of total tech or something along those lines as a proportional comparison. Edited June 19, 2009 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 They have a "policy" that any damage you do to them unintentionally (or intentionally, I guess) has to be repaid at 3 times the cost.If you destroy 5 tech, you have to reimburse them 15. If you accidentally send their enemy 3 million, you have to send them 9. etc. GOONs was 5x and you had to post a plea for it to get accepted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 GOONs was 5x and you had to post a plea for it to get accepted I hope you don't think that it makes NPO look like saints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) Current terms are right, though i dont recall the exact details of them off hand. i'd like to see military treaties cancelled and all secret terms rescinded (dont tell me they dont exist, those at NpO would beg to differ) Also no peace moders, at all. Ninja Edit to add: Once terms are accepted and a 'grace period' of however long to come into compliance with terms has passed. the terms should be strictly enforced.. if the terms, like IRON's, call for no military then give these violators one chance to drop the military then help them drop the military with yours Edited June 20, 2009 by wickedj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Ugh. I couldn't have said it better myself. 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.