Rule Against Storing an Alliance's Bank in Beiged Nations

[Alveron]

The ability to hide your alliance's bank in beiged nations lessens the incentive for people to be good at war.

 

When alliances are getting rekt and decide to store their bank in beiged nations, it lessens the incentive to be good at war. Those alliances have less to lose, and attacking alliances have less to gain.

 

What's really annoying is when the alliances that started the war do it, because they started the war without enough preparation and ended up getting rekt.

 

Don't start wars if you aren't prepared to lose your bank. Don't give people reason to declare on you if you aren't prepared to lose your bank.

[Jessica Rabbit]

I agree. Mechanic needs to get fixed, or replaced with something else (like control points   )

[Hooves]

Out of curiosity how do you propose to fix this?

[Alveron]

Out of curiosity how do you propose to fix this?

 

When people find this happening, they report it. For example: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=730&display=bank and https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=28502&display=bank

 

Sheepy looks, and if there is a violation he docks 25% of their cash and resources, and then transfers the remainder back to the alliance bank. They do it again during the same war? 50%. Ideally the loot would go to the alliance's victorious opponents, but if that is *too effort*, just delete the loot.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Alveron

[Kastor]

There's no need for this, especially when the POLITICS side of the game usually involves after war reps.

 

We've already fixed this when we started asking for reps. Not everything needs to be easy. This only helps winning alliances win more.

[Alveron]

There's no need for this, especially when the POLITICS side of the game usually involves after war reps.

 

We've already fixed this when we started asking for reps. Not everything needs to be easy. This only helps winning alliances win more.

 

No, reps are primarily to repair damage the war caused and replace depleted resources. You probably aren't going to profit from reps, they just cut losses a bit.

 

Also, if the politics side of the game worked so well when reps are involved, this war would have already been ended.

 

But you're right. Not everything needs to be easy. Like keeping your alliance bank as full as possible when you declare war but suck at war. That should be really difficult!

[Kastor]

People get beiged on both sides. This should definitely not be a rule.

[Jessica Rabbit]

The bottom line is the mechanic is not working as intended, nor is it working well. That alone warrants an update or removal of the mechanic. If reps fill the gap, then so be it. At least we won't have to shuffle banks around during war and punish alliances who don't do it.

[Alveron]

People get beiged on both sides. This should definitely not be a rule.

 

If anything this supports my argument. You lost some loot? Go win it back!

 

If fact, it would incentivize weaker alliances to attack stronger ones. The weaker ones have less to lose and more to gain.

Edited September 29, 2016 by Alveron

[Kastor]

If anything this supports my argument. You lost some loot? Go win it back!

 

If fact, it would incentivize weaker alliances to attack stronger ones. The weaker ones have less to lose and more to gain.

Gonna stop responding to you because you're probably tired and not this stupid.

 

 

The bottom line is the mechanic is not working as intended, nor is it working well. That alone warrants an update or removal of the mechanic. If reps fill the gap, then so be it. At least we won't have to shuffle banks around during war and punish alliances who don't do it.

Well, I did like how you couldn't loot banks. I think a good thing to do would be to make a max amount any one person could withraw from the bank.

 

I'll add more onto this idea later

[Guinevere]

You don't want them to hide their loot, first, don't beige them quickly, second, blockades prevent trades, use them. Not only that, but you can manage to pull off ground battles that aren't immense triumphs but still victories that'll pull cash, you just have to put in the effort of figuring out how much less of your military will it take to achieve that. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Jesse Custer

[Auctor]

Yeah, a huge issue with the game mechanics here is that alliances that aren't outright winning wars have entirely too many options at their disposal. Maybe add some option where if you beige a certain percentage of nations on an AA, you can force the alliance to disband and inherit their entire bank?

[Guest Frawley]

I think a mechanic that let's the winners decide the only acceptable playstyle would be fair.

[Alveron]

Gonna stop responding to you because you're probably tired and not this stupid.

 

 

Wonderful ad hominem with nothing added. Really helps support your point.

 

You don't want them to hide their loot, first, don't beige them quickly, second, blockades prevent trades, use them. Not only that, but you can manage to pull off ground battles that aren't immense triumphs but still victories that'll pull cash, you just have to put in the effort of figuring out how much less of your military will it take to achieve that. 

 

First: Not beiging them defeats the purpose of getting loot.

Second: Hard to blockade someone that is beiged. 

Third: You only get cash when you win ground battles. And you often steal all of it but the minimum $100k through attacking. But you get no actual resources without beiging. And when your opponent has 0 military because they need to lrn2war, it's a little challenging to receive less than an immense triumph for the purposes of getting cash.

 

Yeah, a huge issue with the game mechanics here is that alliances that aren't outright winning wars have entirely too many options at their disposal. Maybe add some option where if you beige a certain percentage of nations on an AA, you can force the alliance to disband and inherit their entire bank?

 

Reading this as sarcastically as it was intended, I'll respond to the first part. If you suck at both the politics and the war side of the game then yeah you should get rekt. Your only option to avoid getting rekt should be to "get good". 

 

I think a mechanic that let's the winners decide the only acceptable playstyle would be fair.

 

This would prevent anyone, winners or losers from hiding their banks in beiged nations. As noted above, people get beiged on both sides, so the effective players on the losing side would still stand to gain.

[Eric]

I think a mechanic that let's the winners decide the only acceptable playstyle would be fair.

Well, seeing as you guys lost, that's a little unfortunate. 

 

just kidding lol no hard feelings

[Auctor]

I don't know why you read that as sarcastic. I think it'd really add to the dynamics of the game, which I assume was the point of this suggestion and not just some politically motivated outcry for a rule change.

[Guest Frawley]

Also, if the politics side of the game worked so well when reps are involved, this war would have already been ended.

The fact that the war is not over is evidence for the fact that politics is working, when negotiations take place you should expect people to disagree.

[Kastor]

A problem people could see with this sort of mechanic is that it denies people attempting to grow their nations while on beige, like a post war regrowth, but even then it's not a problem. Unless a nation is on the initial 14 days, implement a mechanic that disables all bank transfers to beiged nations. If you want a grant, get off beige. That's my view on it anyway.

That's a bad view. Lots of rebuilding is done on beige and it's there to protect you. It's there to help you rebuild mate.

[Canik]

boohoo poor BK. As things stand now you'll only recover much much easier instead of much much much much easier. As things stand the gap between Paracov & Syndisphere only is arguably impossible to overcome (realistically) instead of undeniably impossible.

Never seen so many whiny people on the winning side, I swear.
 

[Peace and War]

We have alliance looting for a reason right? Takes the fun out of it when the alliance Bank gets shifted around. Don't know how'd you go about fixing that problem but if there where reasons to beige before, we don't have too many reasons now.

[Auctor]

I'm serious though. If game mechanics forced alliances that were defeated to disband and hand over their entire bank, then the guiding pressure on this game would be either get good or get dead. We wouldn't have to wallow in these crummy dynamics of having loser alliances sitting around gumming up the works. The pressure to succeed would be absolute. Naturally we'd have to put in place some kind of moderation means of making certain alliances didn't just reform, but it'd surely be just as easy to have moderation whack loser alliances from the game rolls than have them sort through every beige nation receiving any kind of bank funds so they can determine what the purpose of their receipt is. Prolly easier. Anyone in an officer position at a defeated alliance could be prohibited from ever holding an officer position in an alliance ever again, for instance.

[Dr Rush]

I'm serious though. If game mechanics forced alliances that were defeated to disband and hand over their entire bank, then the guiding pressure on this game would be either get good or get dead. We wouldn't have to wallow in these crummy dynamics of having loser alliances sitting around gumming up the works. The pressure to succeed would be absolute. Naturally we'd have to put in place some kind of moderation means of making certain alliances didn't just reform, but it'd surely be just as easy to have moderation whack loser alliances from the game rolls than have them sort through every beige nation receiving any kind of bank funds so they can determine what the purpose of their receipt is. Prolly easier. Anyone in an officer position at a defeated alliance could be prohibited from ever holding an officer position in an alliance ever again, for instance.

This is off topic & will be my only reply on this here. If your actually serious about this, start a separate thread. This is a really terrible idea.

 

1. Mensa lost its first war, like just bout every other alliance out there. Your proposal gives 0 leeway for new alliances to get it together.

2. Mensa & other got good AA routinely have 50% of the alliance in beige from nukes.

3. Nukes are the fastest way to beige someone so every war would be who could press the launch button faster. All other things being equal this will be the attacker 90% of the time.

4. RIP micros.  

5. Aren't you one the people who complains about hegemonies so much?

 

-----------------------------------

 

@OP, this is a complaint as old as the pixel hills, Sheepy is unlikely to ever actually fix it, broken though it be.

[durmij]

This change is completely unfeasible in the current banking setup. Making a mechanic change that restricts moving large quantities of money to one nation, beiged or not, would accelerate the damage caused by war, making world wars even more infrequent. If we want this too no longer be a mechanic, then we need a ground up re-imagining of banking and looting in it's entirety. You can't change a small part of a game system without knock on effects.

 

TL;DR: The whole bank system is broken, and removing this broken feature just makes it more broken.

 

@OP, this is a complaint as old as the pixel hills, Sheepy is unlikely to ever actually fix it, broken though it be.

Might as well just get this framed and point to it every time someone makes a thread.

Edited September 30, 2016 by durmij

[Callum]

i wonder if some form of tracking system could be implemented. and then "Freeze" those funds. in Bank to nation scenarios.

 

 

for example. X money is sent to nation. from bank. that money is marked as being received from bank. and is then unable to be sent out  again until x days pass. lets say 7 days. (can still be used by receiving nation so not to interfere with loans/rebuild)

 

This timer would only apply to sending to nations. so the Nation could return it to their own bank in case of a mistake. but prevent them from moving it around to another beige nation and abusing the beige system.

 

 

7 days would allow enemy nations at minimal 2 days to attack the nation and blockade them. which would hopefully dissuade alliances from abusing beige nations.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Callum

[Shakyr]

i wonder if some form of tracking system could be implemented. and then "Freeze" those funds. in Bank to nation scenarios.

 

 

for example. X money is sent to nation. from bank. that money is marked as being received from bank. and is then unable to be sent out  again until x days pass. lets say 7 days. (can still be used by receiving nation so not to interfere with loans/rebuild)

 

This timer would only apply to sending to nations. so the Nation could return it to their own bank in case of a mistake. but prevent them from moving it around to another beige nation and abusing the beige system.

 

 

7 days would allow enemy nations at minimal 2 days to attack the nation and blockade them. which would hopefully dissuade alliances from abusing beige nations.

A nation holds $2 million, receives $1 million from one alliance bank and then sends $1 million to another alliance bank. Which $1 million did they receive and which $1 million did they send out?

 

PS: Learn to use caps, punctuation and the enter key properly. Your formatting is horrible.