A Harmonious Society

[Juska]

So, I have an idea for the new Era on reg a bit of an experiment, so tell me what you think.

Traditionally the idea behind the game is to win and most usually this winning comes about at the expense of others, whether it be one group or an individual vs. the whole.

My suggestion is that we decide to play in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved and create rules that we will adhere to that will allow for this harmonious society.

Sort of like a clan, but not as structured and larger.

For example, we would leave on troop type low at all times by all members to facilitate land passing and we would establish land laws based upon what is fair for someone to hold.

The end goal of this being the creation of the most networth possible by individual's or small groups without hurting the growth of others.

And of course we would adequately punish anyone outside of the society or who broke societal rules.

I'll flesh it out more when I've got time, or hopefully by answering questions.

[Shadow]

It's a neat idea for a game with lots of players, but with a small member base, you will not be able to get new players on board immediately, which will make it look to new players like the current members are just ganging up on them.

On the other hand, if you manage to get new players in on it, then it would probably benefit them greatly, so your success will depend on your recruitment methods.

It's worth a shot, but I am not hopeful about its long term success simply because you need a very active member base to recruit quickly and keep on top of new players entering into the system.

[Peace Alliance]

Max productivity. Thats basically what i was doing with Blackfly... Volkov just got in the way with Woof.

You should look at my vengeance clan, i had this whole rule system set up and stuff. Would have been cool if it caught on

[Gen. Volkov]

So, I have an idea for the new Era on reg a bit of an experiment, so tell me what you think.

Traditionally the idea behind the game is to win and most usually this winning comes about at the expense of others, whether it be one group or an individual vs. the whole.

My suggestion is that we decide to play in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved and create rules that we will adhere to that will allow for this harmonious society.

Sort of like a clan, but not as structured and larger.

For example, we would leave on troop type low at all times by all members to facilitate land passing and we would establish land laws based upon what is fair for someone to hold.

The end goal of this being the creation of the most networth possible by individual's or small groups without hurting the growth of others.

And of course we would adequately punish anyone outside of the society or who broke societal rules.

I'll flesh it out more when I've got time, or hopefully by answering questions.

It seems rather at odds with your usual attitude.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

So, I have an idea for the new Era on reg a bit of an experiment, so tell me what you think.

Traditionally the idea behind the game is to win and most usually this winning comes about at the expense of others, whether it be one group or an individual vs. the whole.

My suggestion is that we decide to play in a way that is beneficial to all parties involved and create rules that we will adhere to that will allow for this harmonious society.

Sort of like a clan, but not as structured and larger.

For example, we would leave on troop type low at all times by all members to facilitate land passing and we would establish land laws based upon what is fair for someone to hold.

The end goal of this being the creation of the most networth possible by individual's or small groups without hurting the growth of others.

And of course we would adequately punish anyone outside of the society or who broke societal rules.

I'll flesh it out more when I've got time, or hopefully by answering questions.

It seems rather at odds with your usual attitude.

That's probably because it's integral with some other plot he has.

Give the damned server a few months to get started before you people start initiating all your crazy little plots... 

[Gorak]

no

[The Obliterator]

Yup like gorak i say no
You kinda lost me at the land rules.
Its a good idea but the whole premise of the indy strat is getting as much land as possible and keeping it for as long as possible.
Even if you get a majority of people to do it there will be people who will not want it.
Then eventually another clan will form and it will be another massive clan war again
On second thoughts...big war...ok lets do it!

[Juska]

Ha Volkov, yes it does seem a little out of character for me true. Honestly, I have no other agenda. The thought came to me in my economics class, we were talking about the ethics of short selling and the stock market in general, the thought being that basically when you short sell a stock you make money directly at the expense of someone else, which is out of line with classical economic theory. Hence this idea. Really I'm trying to see if true Smithian economics can be created inside the world of promisance.

PA understands what I'm talking about.

As for land theory.

Ideally Oblit with any strat you want to hold as much land as possible for as long as possible, problem being it's very hard especially in Reg. to hold your land from one turn run to the next, because people want to take it from you. So you try to defend you land.

Defending your land = cost
Taking defending land = cost

There are two costs that could be eliminated, because honestly it's not will you get broken, but when will you get broken (unless you join forces with a large group of people, which means those other players are sacrificing their productivity for the sake of that one = cost [look at the server now, Holbs has lots of land, but his mates can't take advantage of it] and/or store a lot of resources and storing resources is unproductive, so that = cost also ).

Every time there is cost involved that means lower productivity and thus lower networth in general.

The bonus to defending your land being that you will be left with more land than your neighbors (because the poorer quality players won't be able to afford the cost it would take to break you), that way you start your land on more land, which = productivity.

Personally, I'd rather start on 25k land than on 5k land if I could, but that costs me in some way.

On the other hand I could forgo the cost of defending myself and start from 5k, but then I cannot reach the levels of productivity I could have had I started from 25k, which again = cost.

So here's an example of productive land theory.

We establish a minimum land amount that any empire must be left with, based upon the maximum amount of land one empire can gain in a run.

The maximum amount of land one person can hit obviously increases proportionally with the overall amount of land in the game.

So say we decide that it's fair that no empire should be hit below 15% of the max amount of land someone can have assuming he gained it all in one run.

If empire A hits 100k land, then the limit is set at 15k land, so empires B,C,D,E,F,G will all be left with at least 15k land and will leave empire A with at least 15k after they hit him.

We also establish that every empire will leave weasels as an open troop type, so that any empire can easily gain the use of the land in the game.

This way you eliminate the cost of taking defended land and of defending your land, while reducing (yes, admitted not eliminating) the cost of not defending your land. Thus an increase in productivity.

And everyone is playing by the same rules means that everyone gains an equal benefit (relative to their skill of course).


This is not a plot of mine, I just want to see everyone hitting as high of nets as they possible can.

Obviously, there will be players who do not see the merit in working together and if they cannot be convinced of it's benefits, at least they can be deterred from opposing the players who do.










Really all you'd need in order to implement this in a basic and fundamental form would be this:

Establish a minimum land amount
Establish a land passing troop type
Agree to not use an harmful actions (as in attacks other than the land passing type and no variations except drive and no warring leader skills except espionage)

And then adhere to and enforce those rules.....

[Shadow]

look at the server now, Holbs has lots of land, but his mates can't take advantage of it]

That's just not true. Holby can make enough army and resources to give us anything any of us want, whenever we want. If I ask Holbs for a trillion dollars, I can have  in just a run or two.

Course, I don't need or want it, but the point is that we can and do take advantage of his land advantage. You cannot take down anyone in this clan, because any destruction you do costs Holby less than 50 turns to make again.

[Juska]

Yeah Shadow, but if everyone in your group could run on that land you would make 6x that amount.

With leaders yes, maybe a tad unproductive, but you'd be making up for some of that with all the loyalty you'd generate, plus you'd still hold lots of leaders, 20% of 2.7 mil is 540,000 so you'd still be holding 94.5 million leaders to cast on [ assuming 20% of land max], plus you'd never have to waste turns demoing and dropping because you could plan for the low land (demoing and rebuilding is extremely expensive on high land).

Imagine the troop generating power of 6 players with all that land, and even the leader potential because the networth penalty at every multiple of 10 networth. The loyalty is the biggest advantage of passing with leaders really, but still....

If the entire server was running all there turns on that land our networth would be ridiculous, enough so that it would eclipse anything Holby is currently generating..... 158 trillion or whatever would be the average....

What you guys have done with Holby is a great achievement, but imagine the entire server.....

[Gen. Volkov]

Ha Volkov, yes it does seem a little out of character for me true. Honestly, I have no other agenda. The thought came to me in my economics class, we were talking about the ethics of short selling and the stock market in general, the thought being that basically when you short sell a stock you make money directly at the expense of someone else, which is out of line with classical economic theory. Hence this idea. Really I'm trying to see if true Smithian economics can be created inside the world of promisance.

Ah, interesting. Very interesting actually, I'm in on this scheme of yours.

[Firetooth]

I'm not bothered to read that block of text, so I'll denounce this post as pointless and move on.

[Gorak]

Yup like gorak i say no
You kinda lost me at the land rules.
Its a good idea but the whole premise of the indy strat is getting as much land as possible and keeping it for as long as possible.
Even if you get a majority of people to do it there will be people who will not want it.
Then eventually another clan will form and it will be another massive clan war again
On second thoughts...big war...ok lets do it!

actually
my no was directed to Ungratt's post saying to wait a few months before plotting anything in Reg

but, I'm not big on Juska's idea either
it just sounds so boring

If everyone else is game for it, I'm willing to give it try, but it will probably not last long before I either get so bored I simply stop logging in, or else try to instigate something

[Ungatt Trunn II]

actually
my no was directed to Ungratt's post saying to wait a few months before plotting anything in Reg

Well in that case, there is only one way a proper gentleman could respond.

YES!