Jump to content

Timmy

Members
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Timmy

  1. 1 minute ago, Dryad said:

    Banking strats will always exist. Bailing out Emerald bank isn't saving the banking playstyle but this particular bank.

    100% this - it’s foolish to assume that these nations deleting would be the end of banking. It would suck for Seb, but this is not the solution. 

    • Upvote 2
  2. 6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

    People talking about precedent here, in this instance don't know how precedent actually works. 

    First, the problem has to be the same. Okay, bank defaulting. Now the context has to be the same, or very close. The context here? 1/3 of the game just left and mass deleted. A third, mind you, who typically ran command economies that were extremely good at leveraging and using debt, and one of these alliances even reportedly took debt it didn't need to keep liquidity of other assets.

    You're not talking about some tinpot micro defaulting or even disbanding, merging and defaulting, you're talking about 1/3 of the game literally quitting, with whatever wealth they add scattered to who knows where. 

    Again, mind you, very large, command econ alliances, with a reputation for using debt to leverage growth. NPO alone probably had enough out to cover it's liquidity to cripple multiple private institutions if it borrowed them, and this is counting the biggest of those private institutions as the ones being crippled.

     

    There's no precedent to even set here. Anyone who lost significant sums because of this and can prove it, should bring it to Alex, and in keeping with what he's said, he should then return half. That's as simple as it gets, no fire and brimstone, no usable precedent unless you think 1/3 of the game will delete again.

    Ah, how about this then for a fun hypothetical so if as a result of this moderation action t$ decides to delete and leave the game - we easily meet that same criteria where we have regularly taken loans of substantial numbers to help growth while not impacting internal capital. 
     

    If we left and had 40bil in outstanding loans would that also constitute a need for repayment? 
     

    Or is your argument that just because a lot of people rage quit the value of numbers involved is more relevant?

    edit: nothing about this would have killed in game banking and making leaps that alliances not even affected by the moderation action directly are also eligible just seems ridiculous. It sucks don’t get me wrong, but this does not feel like an appropriate way to fix the (non-existent) problem... 

  3. My biggest question around these questions is that implementation would be incredibly complex as we already have alliances with much more than their cap in either their main bank or an offshore. 

    How would that possible be implemented? Will it be that what currently exists will be grandfathered in? In which case people will just stock up their offshore in advance and then only pull out what they need basically allowing a level or circumvention. 

    The alternative would be forcing the money out of the bank above the cap which would go into presumable the oldest leader or something along those lines. All that would do would allow raiders to know exactly who they need to hit and when to guarantee a lovey prize package and potentially globally derail alliance economies. 

    The limits either would need to be high enough that they aren’t worthwhile, or there would need to be a way to manage the implementation without making it pointless to do so. 

    That being said I don’t see a need for this sort of fix at all. If the issue is invulnerable offshores then make a limit for alliances, either score or city wise. If leaving an alliance would cause what remains to drop below it should ask for confirmation and if confirmed anything in the bank is transferred to the nation remaining (oldest seniority leader if multiple) and the alliance is dissolved.

    Edit: The 1n growing bank cap is actually a pretty cool idea that requires alliances investment and makes offshores much more unsustainable. 

    • Upvote 2
  4. On 6/4/2019 at 8:32 AM, Dio Brando said:

    Yeah. This applies to wars as well. It was a well known fact a while ago that if you somehow managed to launch wars at exactly the same second as other players, you'd be able to get more than just 3 wars on one target. Practically that only really meant 4 wars, but theoretically it meant as many as requests the server could handle in one second.

    t$ did this back when Jess was around and we proved up to 5 I believe (that was our testing pool). 

    When it was reported to Alex I believe the suggestion was to implement a random time delay of 2-5 seconds on each war declaration to remove the ability to plan it out. I can't recall off the top of my head if that was implemented but don't recall seeing this used for war dec's anytime recently. 

  5. 5 hours ago, Flame of the Flawed said:

    I should clarify that t$ is led by a 3-man Executive Board rather than any single executive, and hence there is no 'head of t$'. This change pertains to the position of Chief Strategic Officer (and everyone knows the real power lies with the Chief Operations Officer ;) ).

    I call BS ?‍♀️

    I'm so glad sad to see you go Chaunce; does it still count as dropping the soap if it's liquid soap?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.