Is NPO Proof Communism Doesn't Work?

[Donald Trump]

Discuss.

 

NPO should be a lot bigger with a lot larger average nation strength.

 

Yet the're vastly behind far less aggressively competent alliances such as TKR.

 

Is Communism a failure in game as it is IRL? (They should try a more socialist modal and see if that works, if they believe in Communism like 50% tax rate)

[greatkitteh]

Discuss.

 

NPO should be a lot bigger with a lot larger average nation strength.

 

Yet the're vastly behind far less aggressively competent alliances such as TKR.

 

Is Communism a failure in game as it is IRL? (They should try a more socialist modal and see if that works, if they believe in Communism like 50% tax rate)

We're not behind. We're intentionally stiffling development and as shown in the early days can grow ALOT faster than most of the alliances here

[Buorhann]

lol

[Keegoz]

I mean, I feel like you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of TKR's nations are a lot older than most of NPO's.

[Eumirbago]

NPO will never be a factor as long as BK is on the other side. They will be irrelevant until that day.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Jacob Moore

[Hooves]

NPO is proof that members can put the alliance before themselves.

[hidude45454]

I'm assuming a lot of NPO nations are inactive in-game but active in the community. They usually come on pretty quickly after responding to raids, so I'd say communication there is alright.

[Buorhann]

I'll second hidude's statement.  I don't think it's more of a "Members put the Alliance ahead of themselves", but more like "We're inactive and don't care until leadership says for us to log on and press buttons."

 

Most likely playing other games.

[Dalinar]

I mean, I feel like you're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of TKR's nations are a lot older than most of NPO's.

It's not that big of a difference, NPO had a lot of older nations come over from their Vanguard merger (note: my numbers include applicants, so that'll screw things up a tad, but the general idea should remain the same):

 

 

If you adjust for TKR's higher member count (not even sure that'd be a valid adjustment due to differences in attrition between high/low tiers and NPO/TKR specifically, but w/e):

 

 

I'd say the main reasons for differences between TKR/NPO tier distribution would be the difference in outcomes of the wars we've participated in and NPO intentionally stifling growth like kitteh said. I think communism actually works better for an alliance like NPO, who has an active core/community from another world that will stick around regardless of any growth inhibition. If I thought my members would be happy with 100% taxes/still have fun playing PnW day to day, I'd probably do it as well heh.

 

Edit: Fixing tables

Edited February 20, 2017 by Dalinar

[ComradeMilton]

Easy way to check for communism: Is there a government? If so, it's not Marxism. NPO works perfectly fine, I love their model and that they're doing something radically different. I'm sure if they need some very bad advice you'll be available to supply it.

[Ole]

NPO v. TKR only proves that it matters if you win or loose...... 

[Edward I]

I'm just enjoying that someone thinks "aggressively" is an appropriate modifier for "competent".

[Donald Trump]

I'm just enjoying that someone thinks "aggressively" is an appropriate modifier for "competent".

Do you want me to start speaking like my RL counterpart? 

[PackAnimal]

Communism is flawed irl as it removes most of the incentive to be productive. In-game that's never a issue as nations all work at 100% efficiency. If the economic model was different NPO would have very good growth rates, instead they choose to keep infra and cities low to maximise war capabilities, still works very well for their aims. If Rose or tS had 100% tax and fully motivated members like NPO have, then 100% taxation would work incredibly well

[Buorhann]

Communism is flawed irl as it removes most of the incentive to be productive.

 

You're right that in-game it's "not an issue", but it can become an issue with player retention.  However, like Dalinar stated, as long as you're playing other games (Being occupied elsewhere), then it shouldn't hinder you too much here.

 

 

Still, I'm not a fan of the 100% taxes model.  As an individual, you're not really playing the game.  You're loaning your time and your email/account to someone else for control in a pseudo way, literally.

 

If you're an incompetent player, it works out to completely do what someone else tells you to do, otherwise - there's no real incentive to get involved with the gaming community if someone else controls all your resources, your time, and your build.  You're just a simple little cog.

[ComradeMilton]

The members absolutely love it and do a lot of their own stuff between wars.

[greatkitteh]

I'll second hidude's statement. I don't think it's more of a "Members put the Alliance ahead of themselves", but more like "We're inactive and don't care until leadership says for us to log on and press buttons."

 

Most likely playing other games.

WE WILL FOLLOW DEAR LEADER ROQUENTIN TO OUR DEATHS! HE PUSHED AWAY THE MAELSTORM, COMRADE ROQUENTIN!!!!!!! WE CANNOT SURVIVE WITHIUT HIM! COMRADE ROQUENTIN!!!!!!!!+!

 

please dont banject and roll me

Edited February 21, 2017 by greatkitteh

[Ishmael]

We're not behind. We're intentionally stiffling development and as shown in the early days can grow ALOT faster than most of the alliances here

 

Why are you stiffling development though? Genuinely curious.

[Apeman]

Less to destroy

[Buorhann]

Why are you stiffling development though? Genuinely curious.

 

 

Staying out of range from being rolled.

[Charles Bolivar]

Communism is flawed irl as it removes most of the incentive to be productive. In-game that's never a issue as nations all work at 100% efficiency. If the economic model was different NPO would have very good growth rates, instead they choose to keep infra and cities low to maximise war capabilities, still works very well for their aims. If Rose or tS had 100% tax and fully motivated members like NPO have, then 100% taxation would work incredibly well

Depends on how you view "efficiency" I suppose. Personally I view having policies which lead to a large percent of a membership below the level where an ITC can increase revenue to be inefficient but that's just my opinion.

[Insert Name Here]

Staying out of range from being rolled.

 

 

Which is stupid because our side also has alliances with a strong lower tier presence, such as BK, TKR or Chola. NPO is just falling behind in terms of average city count when compared to their traditional enemies.

 

If they stay this size they'll have to compete with the likes of BK, TKR or Chola, if they grow they'll have to deal with the likes of Mensa and t$. Staying small won't prevent NPO from facing strong opposition when tensions rise. It will probably just get them rolled by a different set of alliances.

 

I'm sure NPO's system has its advantages, but it turns their players into mindless drones who end up giving their gov more influence on their nations than it should have. Even in logistical terms it's weird, as I imagine NPO's gov must have their hands full allocating resources in wartime. Plus I'm pretty sure their nations' inability to generate substantial income has caused NPO nations to be caught with their pants down when war erupts, due to the difficulty to accumulate enough resources.

 

At the end of the day you should be responsible for managing your cash and resources the way you see fit (based on your game style and alliance needs). It ain't rocket science - you just need to make warchest your number 1 priority so you're ready for an unexpected defensive war.

 

Jess is hands down the most talented player in this game, as far as economics is concerned. So if she doesn't believe high taxes for a long period of time is sustainable and efficient (with the sporadic contextual exception of course), then I have no reason to believe NPO's system is the way to go. But if their members are happy with it, hey... good for them!

Edited February 22, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Keegoz]

Jess is hands down the most talented player in this game, as far as economics is concerned. So if she doesn't believe high taxes for a long period of time is sustainable and efficient (with the sporadic contextual exception of course), then I have no reason to believe NPO's system is the way to go. But if their members are happy with it, hey... good for them!

Doesn't she often have high taxes though?

 

I'm going off what ex-tS members have said on-regards to your economics.

[greatkitteh]

Which is stupid because our side also has alliances with a strong lower tier presence, such as BK, TKR or Chola. NPO is just falling behind in terms of average city count when compared to their traditional enemies.

 

If they stay this size they'll have to compete with the likes of BK, TKR or Chola, if they grow they'll have to deal with the likes of Mensa and t$. Staying small won't prevent NPO from facing strong opposition when tensions rise. It will probably just get them rolled by a different set of alliances.

 

I'm sure NPO's system has its advantages, but it turns their players into mindless drones who end up giving their gov more influence on their nations than it should have. Even in logistical terms it's weird, as I imagine NPO's gov must have their hands full allocating resources in wartime. Plus I'm pretty sure their nations' inability to generate substantial income has caused NPO nations to be caught with their pants down when war erupts, due to the difficulty to accumulate enough resources.

 

At the end of the day you should be responsible for managing your cash and resources the way you see fit (based on your game style and alliance needs). It ain't rocket science - you just need to make warchest your number 1 priority so you're ready for an unexpected defensive war.

 

Jess is hands down the most talented player in this game, as far as economics is concerned. So if she doesn't believe high taxes for a long period of time is sustainable and efficient (with the sporadic contextual exception of course), then I have no reason to believe NPO's system is the way to go. But if their members are happy with it, hey... good for them!

TSphere has a strong low tier but we have somewhat better numbers in the low range, especially since our low range is more experienced and coheise which serve as unit multipliers. 

 

NPO gov forces you to build a certain way so we all generate alot of income. We get it back by war aid, and if you are seriously suggesting you'll do a ship-blitz I question your own competence. Blockades come AFTER a few days and gives ample time for war aid. The goverment is not all tied up  micromanaging thanks to Roquentin literally never sleeping.

Us being "mindless drones" isnt true and I learned more in NPO than democratic UPN (sorry). The gov telling us what to do lets me have time doing other NPO things like diplomating so I dont care either if they do.

 

At the end of the day, if prince henry can micromanage me far better than I can on my own and that let's me do shit i actually enjoy while he enjoys micromanaging me (he's a weirdo ), he should be responsible for it. It ain't rocket science - you The goverment  just need to make warchest your number 1 priority so you're ready for an unexpected defensive war.

 

Jess Steve is hands down the most talented player in this game, as far as economic everything is concerned. 

[Buorhann]

TSphere has a strong low tier but we have somewhat better numbers in the low range, especially since our low range is more experienced and coheise which serve as unit multipliers. 

 

 

"more experienced"

 

Citation please.  It took 4+ Alliances JUST to handle BK.