Should point out that any one of the 3 suggestions is enough on its own.

SOI and stance changes affected everyone, you're not the only one who was affected. Anyone can be allies with anyone now... but they have to have territory close or they are meaningless. A Nation like JApan can't be involved in a siege in Africa or North America now unless they siege forts to hold SOI All across Asia and into Africa, OR capture one of the movecraft or PVP regions. Same for Floritania in Asia or Australia. Arguably the nation most harmed by this is EPF, they have to win regions or build new forts to become involved in sieges again, anywhere. Similarly nations with one fort like Ironwood Federation are limited in their ability to be involved as well, they're stuck within their own area and can't support or attack anyone outside of South America.

Neutral nations can still be a thing, there's nothing preventing you from being allies with whomever you want, or preventing people from defending you if needed, as long as they have the range to support your fort. Buffing Neutrality in any of those way's doesn't make a lot of sense. If you are truly neutral, why would anyone attack you in the first place? and any of these could easily be abused by someone taking a neutral stance during the week and switching for sieges on the weekend.

Additional, since SOI has already been stated to be a test feature, it may not be permanent, and the old buffs for your neutral stance would return.

I think it makes sense to wait and see how the mechanics work as it stands now before rushing to provide buffs that only matter for a single nation, and could easily be abused.

Aight since you clearly didn't understand/read what I said here is why you are mistaken.... and please read the suggestion again AND this:
1. If you note what I said: diplomatic stances and dp removal helped every nation who isn't neutral, not the SOI itself which clearly limits who can join what siege(which is actually a really good balance for ccnet). Why? Because before you had to balance your alliances with sieges, as you would need 10 dp for making an alliance and 15 dp for joining a siege.... this makes nation limit themselves as to who they can ally as they need to keep free dp points to join sieges. Meanwhile we can ally who we want with no care cz it cost us much less to make an alliance and if ever we are siege we will always have free dp points to make more allies, this luxury was available only to neutral nations. You can agree with me that the removal of dp allows now any nation to spam out allies(even if they can't reach). So on your first point we now proved you are mistaken... and to make sure you understand why u are mistaken I will even provide you with an example:
Greenland could make only 6 allies before they had to stop cz they will run out of dp points and won't be able to help out their allies in sieges as they won't have enough dp to join the siege, now greenland can have 30 allies with no drawback, meanwhile valinor had also 6 allies with the option to add more when we wanted but we are neutral so we never had to think about keeping free Dp as we would only need to join if needed liberation sieges (cost 0 dp).
So your first point is irrelevant and wrong
I will follow this with more disection of your other points to further prove how making a neutral nation isn't worth it

Point 2: addressing the idea of "neutral nations still a thing"
Eh idk who you are or if you are a leader of a nation, but making alliances in ccnet isn't free my man, no one will ally valinor and help us out in time of need if we don't have something to offer back.... As we are NEUTRAL and can't join any siege by the laws of our peace agreements we have to compensate that by giving allied nations favourable prices and trade(thank God for the t.t.c) this used to be fine as we were the nation with the most number of allies, but now it's clear from the previous explanation that it is not beneficial for us anymore, as what we give for allies now is useless because not everyone can help us out in time of need.
AND YES, multiple nations across the history of valinor had straight out threatened us with a siege for no reason other than we are neutral(ik it's hard for some to belive, but some players in ccnet are not what we consider "a chill guy").
And to remind you again, changing stances would take time(7 days if I remember) and it doesn't stop anyone from siegeing you... it stops US from sieging anyone.....
So point 2, wrong again....

Point 3: Soi is temporary for now,
So what? As long SOI is here valinor is exposed, we still have to give our and hold true to our ally agreements, wherever it means that we have to sell dubs of biofuel for 10k(very cheap) to allies or lend out the t.t.c shipping service to them. Having soi as a temporary feature doesn't mean our agreements are on hault.... and yes server should 100% accommodate for valinor at this point, I single handedly proved not only you can make a neutral nation, but that it can strive and flourish while not getting sieged. I got threatened with a siege in the past week 2 times.... if that doesn't say enough I don't think this conversation is worth having.....
As a final note I say this again: it is 10x times harder to run a neutral nation than a normal one, the amount of hoops I have to jump every week just to keep this nation with 5 towns independent would probably break most ccnet players.
Oh! And point 3, wrong again

there is no game mechanic that allows a nation to be neutral any more - this would require constant staff monitoring and intervention which won't and shouldn't happen. Why should you be rewarded for not having allies?

Lads can we read?
1. Suggestion is aimed at getting back a mechanic which allows nations to benefit from being neutral
2. No need for staff monitoring or intervention... I realise most here don't know what even non interventionist did but wiki is there u can go read :)
3. Wdym rewarded for not having allies? We have allies.... while OE helps out their allies in the actual sieges by joining them and fighting with them, valinor helps out their allies by economic means

You can hate this idea as much as u want, but in all ccnet history there was only 1 consistent shop, and 1 actual neutral nation. Both were made by me,the smartest minecraft player to touch ccnet, and both now severely handicapped by a sudden change to the most basic ccnet mechanics. I know how to QA programs and the equivalent of the SOI change is dumping a revamped code live on server and attempting to debug it there with 0 safety net measures for unique users.
This and everything I stated so far are not personal opinions, these are hard cold FACTS!

And yes I am true to my word, if no buff is given to neutral nations: valinor, the t.t.c and the one of a kind global delivery service will be all shut down on April 1st.
Rivendell alongside it's massive powerhouse production will be forced into joining an existing nation even tho it is not my wish to do so

Staff doesn't need to care about your unique nation. You can do your thing all you want, they don't give special treatment to anyone. Why does staff care if you shut down your nation? Threatening staff if you don't get what you want is the most unhinged thing I've ever seen on CCNet.

You're asking for special treatment on a server that's focused on fairness and balance. All of your suggested "buffs" aren't balanced, the taxes are intended to contribute to taking money out of circulation, just like town upkeep, and a resource bonus is just giving you more free stuff. Additionally, Why should Neutrality be rewarded on a server that has a strong basis in pvp and conflict? I could get behind providing you some form of benefit that fits in with the rest of the server mechanic, but free economic benefits make no sense for a neutral nation. Come up with something that actually has something to do with neutrality and not letting you make and keep more money and then I'll take you seriously.

Holy dude I realise I triggered you with my explanation but at this point I am astonished.... all I can say to your point is read what I said again, I am not asking for anything more than what we had. And again you are wrong.... staff shown before clear favouritism to certain towns and nation duo to unique situations..... much like what valinor currently is going through.
Take your anger and emotions our the window for a second and think.... you realise your own nation is the 2nd biggest customer of mine....
And please read what I said again..... at this point I believe you are trolling me as no way you read what I said and still believe what you believe... mainly cz what you just said is already addressed in my previous statements... I will address you for the final time in this thread as the people who will decide valinor fate are the mods who I hope will read my explanation fully.
1. One of the buffs is all that needed to bring back neutral nations to the status they were before SOI
2. Neutrality is 100% should be rewarded... it takes a very diplomatic person to make a neutral nation and judging by human history and ccnet history it is needed....
3. Free economic? Seriously read what I said because this is embarrassing for you at this point


And in case people doubt, yes I was on a national debate team and can and will break apart any argument you or any ccnet player have, don't feel bad about my explanations, you lack both the means and thought process to hold a meaningful conversation with me....

NOW BACK TO YOUR CAVE TROLL

Side note for mods, yes I can't hold valinor at it's current status for longer than April 1st, I ran the numbers and it is costing me around 11k a week to hold status quo, I have reserve of 50k on hand so by April 1st it will run dry and I will never accept being in debt. So ye math checks out
And sorry for all the yapping but ccnet shows unless the idea is not 100% explored it will never even be considered. I might add a few more explanations and examples.
If any mod wish to verify my numbers before giving out their rule on my suggestion they are welcome to dm me on discord

This is a well thought out suggestion

I'm going to reply one final time. I am not a troll. I never have been, nor will I ever be. I simply thing your proposed "Buffs" are not in line with the former buffs to a neutral nation. Your superiority complex remains larger than your actual abilities. I'm sure the two people from my nation who use your services will never be able to replace what you give them from anywhere closer. It's not like we don't have our own farms and abilities.

And yes, I will call them free economic benefits. because replacing

-25% DP cost of alliances and truces
+50% DP cost for other nations to start a siege on this nation
Cannot start conquest or suppression sieges, nor join them as attacker

with any of your proposed "Buffs" for a neutral nation becomes an economic benefit rather than a military/diplomatic one. Additionally, it still does nothing to deter sieging you, as you'd still pay upkeep to the occupier, and they could still tax your resources. The old buffs deterred attacks on neutral nations because they had a higher DP cost and could have many more allies. You're suggesting replacing that deterrence with an economic benefit for Neutrality instead.

What would make more sense is some form of penalty on attackers if someone attacks a neutral nation, and that's also more in line with the prior neutrality bonus. Or make it so allies defending a neutral nation could not fall under the restriction of SOI (defensive ONLY). This also is far more in line with the neutral nation bonus that existed under the DP system.

I understand managing to stay neutral on a geopol server like CCnet isn't easy, but that doesn't mean that a defensive buff should be replaced by an economic boost just because the system changed.

Insulting people doesn't make you any friends, nor is it constructive. I was not trying to insult you nor your town/nation. I feel like your proposed buffs are not in alignment with the buffs that you used to receive, and would be better off as more defensive based like they were rather than Economic focused.

I think for this you probly need a mix of making it harder to seige you / easyer to defend and economics. The dp cost to seige you made it alot harder to keep ocupping you because it would severely limit the number of other seiges you could do. Soi also makes people alot more likely to just siege you because they need the soi range. So we need to do something that just makes holding on to you alot harder or reduces the benifits of occupying you.

What if the nation occupying you has there soi range reduced? A autocratic nation already gets reduced soi so one that goes and attacks a neutral nation having the same thing happen would make sense.

Then for the easyer to defend

Either you could have your allies able to join in defensive sieges from anywhere or they don't need to be as close. Maybe something like if there soi range overlaps yours they can join.

I hesitate to just have it be infinite range because it kind of defeats the purpose of soi.

Then on the economic side. It does make sense for you do get economic buffs what else are you going to be doing if you can't siege anything?

I lean towards the no shop taxes its not something people can just swap to this stance for and get it (like upkeep reduction would just be free money for anyone to swap to and gain. Offensive sieges are well planed out so you would have plenty of time to swap to and from this) directly helps with trade. I really like what it would do on ah you would be selling stuff for just bit cheaper than everyone else.

You make a great point Plant, I wasn't thinking about the infinite range with SOI, I was more thinking about still being beneficial while remaining a defensive focused boost.

Overlapping SOI for defense range for neutral nations seems like a good buff, and having occupation of a neutral nation be a penalty on SOI seems like a fair addition too, and both fit with the former buffs and penalties as well.

Then of course there would need to be penalties for being neutral

The same can't join any offensive siege. But I was also thinking possibly reduced soi range this would have a synergy with the occupier having reduced soi from holding you because it would make your forts alot less valuable. But it also introduces an interesting dynamic do you increase your soi with democratic status to make it easy for allies to defend you(need to touch your soi range to help you) or keep it low with autocratic to make your forts less valuable.

Neutral nations really do need something though. This update flips you from being difficult to hold on to. To being a prime target for increasing your soi range. Soi seems to have been intended to make things a bit more regional would be really sad if it killed the one or two nations that where accully not part of the mega alliance slug fest

Actually very nice suggestion plant, it could be molded into a perfect solution:

1. Keep the ah at a lower tax and no shop tax
2. Nation who occupy neutral nations get reduced SOI range, say 15% non stacking (1 Neutral nation occupied-85% SOI range, 2 Neutral nation occupied-72% SOI range)
3. Allied buffed siege joining range, a bit tricky I think to implement. Best option would be in my opinion basing the range of joining a Defencive/liberation siege on time spent allied, this will reward nations who manage to secure alliances for a long continuous time(no reason to ever really unally a nation as no more DP) as this is what being a neutral nation is about.

Drawbacks are obvious, can't join an offensive siege of any kind, can't HOLD any theater and a nice addition would be decreased resource for occupation nationsless towns(nerf the only way

All in all a fine solution. And I will rally for this. As plant stated I believe neutral nations and specifically Valinor are now sitting ducks waiting to be gobbled up, and unlike what SOME players want to believe, the fact the SOI might not be permanent isn't really meaningful... what use is it if SOI is reverted in the future but we can be sieged any day now.


And for rocketcat..... you were never insulted G, you just think you were because I kept pointing out your mistakes repeatedly in public blast, which ik doesn't feel nice. But again you are mistaken because there needs to be an economic instinctive to neutral nations as stated above... and yes like it or not t.t.c has 3 workers in OE alone, with shipments multiple times a week. So I won't publicly air our OE economy publicly but have the respect for your own nation and acknowledge I am intertwined with it's economic now, (maybe this is why you are considered a troll among non OE members?)
Final note: it's not a superiority complex this will sound egotistical but I am better.... I don't even have to prove anything at this point. The fact valinor exist says it all. So please just stop, I love a good counter argument or a valid change like plant did, but what you say is untrue, inconsistent and quite frankly feels like the same OE propaganda you guys used when rallying against me after kicking me out of nation

Why does there need to be economic incentive when it never existed before? literally none of the benefits you had from being neutral before gave ANY economic benefit. You've also been begging for buffs for non-interventionist alone. Presumably buffs will be added back in at some point, when they've been worked out for ALL of the stances.

Additionally, you're complaining about a change that was focused on changing how sieges work, before siege have even happened. The best policy would be to see how this actually affects things before asking for changes.

You claim to be intertwined with my nations economy when a grand total of 2 players in the nation are involved with your company. We'd be fine.

I made the suggestion before plant did that the bonuses should be defensive rather than focus on economic benefits, love the selective reading there, Just because I challenged your high and mighty stance as the "sole successful company on CCnet" doesn't make me a troll. I'm someone who is capable of looking for balance and fairness. If you want the buffs back I understand, but they should be consistent with the intent of the buffs that existed before, which were focused on making it hard to siege you, and easier for allies to support you. There was no buff for your economy, no upkeep reduction, no "don't pay taxes" benefit, purely defensive. If you want upkeep reduction, try some form of democracy for your nation, do a coleader or something, it get you upkeep reduction for 3 days around elections, it's kinda nice.

Gloves off, pitchforks up

Yes you are a troll, I do not respect your opinion much like most of the server, you blatantly disregard everything that was stated to try to dig yourself of a hole you dug yourself..... Last 2 orders for OE this last 3 days!!! Was 2 dubs of biofuel for new Drakensberg and 1 dub of ducttape, I.e. 30k of OE economy was sent straight to valinor. And no it was not some 2 randos, it was bluefire and havader. Very high commanding players in OE who could not source these good from anywhere in oe or it's allies at these prices.... and again IN THE LAST 3 DAYS!!!!!!

Why do we need economic Insensitives? It was clearly stated before but as you have a hard time reading facts and somehow twist everything you see into this soup of propaganda I'll happily explain again :)
Before, you know when there was dp and no SOI, sieging a neutral nation meant you had to deal with it's allies immediately at the siege, and it would be a high cost for you to hold it as suppression siege would cost 50% more dp. Meaning neutral nation (stay with me here buddy) like valinor could make allies from all around the world and take their pick based on favourable terms, now(don't lose focus almost done) with SOI neutral nations are very limited on who can be their allies, so we have to pay a premium to less than optimal allies to have less protection than we used to
how can I predict this you might naively ask? BECAUSE THIS ALREADY HAPPENED!! As any leader with a brain cell immediate saw the effect of SOI.
I'm not done here

Once again you turn into the same argument :"SOI might be temporary" which we covered already as a meaningless statement as in the matter of the next 3 4 weeks minor nations and us... will suffer the wrath of any nation who wants to expand their SOI, I do not know how to make this simpler to understand for you....

OLD BUFFS ARE MEANINGLESS NOW!!! Even if a nation gets it's SOI reduced by occupying us they still can occupy more and more(at a slight inconvenience) to get more SOI, so Neutral nations deserve a buff both to its economy and deplomacy to counter act this.

And you don't need to be the best player to predict this... (even tho there is no need to predict as we already got threatened with a SB after SOI changes) you just need to know what is 2+2.
I'm not done

You are still stuck in the same OE Mentality.... not everyone needs money like u guys. We are economically fine on our own, and will never run out of money, but if I need to keep paying for ship escorts, bribes across nations and lower prices for allies when I didn't have to do this before SOI, WHY SHOULDN'T I GET A ECONOMY BUFF AFTER I WAS FORCED INTO THIS.
You still might hate me and fear me for what I did to oe and how easily I can dismantle your arguments, but just accept that you are mistaken here, apologies for the masses for wasting their time with your meaningless threads and be on your merry way.

I don't think you are going to reply to this but if u do I'll let you be this suggestion after plants changes is perfect and further destroying your arguments is pointless, I won't beat on a dead horse.