Rule Against Storing an Alliance's Bank in Beiged Nations

[Callum]

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.

Unless you're a brain dead illiterate you should be able comprehend what I'm saying. I have that much faith in you.

 

But for you're actual response. 1m is hardly an Alliances bank. We're talking in the range of 750m+. Though you're correct to a degree that would be a loop hole. but saying that, for a nation holding the same amount as a bank would not only be rare. It would also be targeted for their funds regardless, No?

Edited October 1, 2016 by Callum

[Auctor]

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.

 

Those all sound like issues that could be quickly resolved by being good.

[greatkitteh]

I think that we should put Strum and Jessica as the new mods. Also remove everyone else.

[Guest Frawley]

Those all sound like issues that could be quickly resolved by being good.

 

It's called 'git gud' you moron.

[greatkitteh]

It's called 'git gud' you moron.

 

Auctor was clearly spamming

[Kastor]

On the contrary, rebuilding is done after a war, which means you have no reason to remain on beige.

 

You can rebuild during beige to fight. Many alliances do this. Bad idea is still bad.

[Guest Frawley]

Auctor was clearly spamming

 

I was clearly taking the piss out of the 'git gud' crowd.

[Dalinar]

I don't see any problem with hiding a bank in beige nations. There are in game solutions to get at it and prevent it, no reason to make it easier. 

[Fronin]

in real life, transferring resources and money from one place to another isn't free

[Flanderlion]

in real life, transferring resources and money from one place to another isn't free

Good point. Let's stick a 85% tax on all transactions and trades.

[greatkitteh]

Good point. Let's stick a 85% tax on all transactions and trades.

 

But I heard NPO has an "!@#$' economy

[Shakyr]

Unless you're a brain dead illiterate you should be able comprehend what I'm saying. I have that much faith in you.

 

But for you're actual response. 1m is hardly an Alliances bank. We're talking in the range of 750m+. Though you're correct to a degree that would be a loop whole. but saying that, for a nation holding the same amount as a bank would not only be rare. It would also be targeted for their funds regardless, No?

Ignore the numbers in my post, it wasn't relevant how large or small the amounts are. Also, to small alliances, 10-20 mill is a large amount for their Alliance Bank, just saying.

 

In order to implement your idea properly, each incoming transaction for a nation that was from an alliance bank would have to be be placed in a "buffer account" (with a timer for x days, per transaction) and kept separate from the main funds for that nation. Any outgoing transactions to alliance banks or for purchasing resources would be from the main nation account only. Any purchases of infrastructure, land, improvements or projects would come from the main nation account first, then pull from the buffer (oldest transaction first).

 

I would also put a cap on resource trade prices, of +/- x% of the current average. This would put a halt to using resource trades to transfer large sums of money between nations directly.

[Dr Rush]

I would also put a cap on resource trade prices, of +/- x% of the current average. This would put a halt to using resource trades to transfer large sums of money between nations directly.

 

And, also completely muck up the market & prevent player to player bartering.

[hadesflames]

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.

You're right, get rid of the mechanic, because the mechanic makes absolutely no sense. Take raiding for example. How is raiding one nation with 0 military that's inactive equivalent to destroying an entire alliance therefore deserving to raid the bank? That would be akin to some garbage nation in the real world raiding Guam and then the US saying "Ah shit. You got us. Here's a portion of our entire bank."

 

Makes literally 0 sense. And then to prevent people from being able to boot out people that get raided, if someone gets raided and then leaves the alliance AFTER the declaration, the alliance still takes a loss if the person loses. I get what you're trying to do here, but not every case of this is just someone getting kicked to avoid the loss. It makes no sense for someone that's not even part of the alliance anymore to take a loss for the alliance...Besides, I can avoid the mechanic anyway by sending myself the cash, beige or not.

 

The entire mechanic is just stupid and makes having a bank a PITA. Individual nations already get looted during ground attacks and if they lose a war. That's enough. It makes absolutely no sense for AN ENTIRE ALLIANCE NO MATTER HOW BIG to lose money itself as an entity for the war of ONE SINGLE NATION NO MATTER HOW SMALL. Just ridiculous.

[greatkitteh]

You're right, get rid of the mechanic, because the mechanic makes absolutely no sense. Take raiding for example. How is raiding one nation with 0 military that's inactive equivalent to destroying an entire alliance therefore deserving to raid the bank? That would be akin to some garbage nation in the real world raiding Guam and then the US saying "Ah shit. You got us. Here's a portion of our entire bank."

 

Makes literally 0 sense. And then to prevent people from being able to boot out people that get raided, if someone gets raided and then leaves the alliance AFTER the declaration, the alliance still takes a loss if the person loses. I get what you're trying to do here, but not every case of this is just someone getting kicked to avoid the loss. It makes no sense for someone that's not even part of the alliance anymore to take a loss for the alliance...Besides, I can avoid the mechanic anyway by sending myself the cash, beige or not.

 

The entire mechanic is just stupid and makes having a bank a PITA. Individual nations already get looted during ground attacks and if they lose a war. That's enough. It makes absolutely no sense for AN ENTIRE ALLIANCE NO MATTER HOW BIG to lose money itself as an entity for the war of ONE SINGLE NATION NO MATTER HOW SMALL. Just ridiculous.

If I (Guam ) get raided NPO would cry.

Your argument is invalid.

[Azaghul]

Trying to move beyond the specifics of any individual alliance, having to shuffle the bank around to prevent looting is annoying.  A lot of alliances do things that just barely above what NPO did and got punished for, and I think more clear guidance from Sheepy about what is not abusive would be helpful.  I like the idea of a 7 day minimum on sending money/resources back to the bank after receiving it, at least over a certain amount.