Willam von Waldreich Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Sounds like a way to just control players actions and to limit the number of alliances being created. Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Sounds like a way to just control players actions and to limit the number of alliances being created.If he wanted to limit the number of alliances being created, he'd just announce a limit But yes, this is a way to control player actions, because some players cannot resist doing things they know they shouldn't, just because a loophole exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Here's all the proof you need that bank looting is a retarded feature: How is that even fair??? TEst's bank got looted for 28% just because ONE person lost a war?? Wtf is that. Get rid of this garbage. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 The formula works out such that smaller AA's get their bank looted harder than larger AA's. That's at least kind of balanced and it's a pretty reasonable way of handling this issue of hiding stuff in 1 man AA banks. Then again, if we just wanted to have people self moderate and work out the political implications themselves, leaving banks so they can't be looted and then leaving people to sort out political solutions like reps or other financial penalties has some merit too. It would get rid of the crazy incentives to juggle your stockpile around and obviate the need for these work arounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Coolidge Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) make fortify weaker, then they can beige the bank hider easier, otherwise i would just send a trusted guy on a one man aa, give him the bank, and let him fortify every time he can. Edited January 12, 2017 by Calvin Coolidge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Here's all the proof you need that bank looting is a retarded feature: How is that even fair??? TEst's bank got looted for 28% just because ONE person lost a war?? Wtf is that. Get rid of this garbage. That example is exactly why you shouldn't change it, Test tried to hide their bank behind one of their members, and that member was dumb/inactive enough allow himself to be beiged. This is the downside of trying to hide your bank behind a one member alliance. 95% percent of the time it works out in your favor, but if you screw it up, you pay dearly for it. If that dude had stayed in Test and lost, that SK member would have stolen around .5% of the bank, rather than 28%. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) That example is exactly why you shouldn't change it, Test tried to hide their bank behind one of their members, and that member was dumb/inactive enough allow himself to be beiged. This is the downside of trying to hide your bank behind a one member alliance. 95% percent of the time it works out in your favor, but if you screw it up, you pay dearly for it. If that dude had stayed in Test and lost, that SK member would have stolen around .5% of the bank, rather than 28%. The only reason it was hidden is because the feature doesn't make sense in the first place. How does 1 person losing a war signify the entire alliance getting looted? How can that be explained from an RP point of view? One person lost a war in the alliance so even if the alliance is destroying everyone else, they still say "Ah, damn. You got us. Here's a portion of all of the money in the entire alliance." The feature was apparently added to prevent people avoiding getting looted by storing their resources in the AA bank, but that's what blockades are for, and it also doesn't prevent that at all anyway. It's ridiculous that TEst lost all of this money as a result of flawed game design. Whether it could have been avoided if the person they entrusted their bank with had been more active or not is besides the point. Edited January 12, 2017 by hadesflames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 If that one person *is the entire alliance*, it does kinda make sense. This is not a very good example of the argument you are attempting to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I hate people bringing rl into these discussions, the game isn't even close to being realistic so please don't bring it into the discussion. I was going to back you on possibly outright getting rid of 1 man AA's having bank features Sheepy but after the TEst example I am pretty satisfied that the system is working well. Could maybe use a tweak or two but there are plenty of good suggestions in here to do that. I get where you're coming from but I feel like you're a bit off the mark on how to address this. Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 The only reason it was hidden is because the feature doesn't make sense in the first place. How does 1 person losing a war signify the entire alliance getting looted? How can that be explained from an RP point of view? One person lost a war in the alliance so even if the alliance is destroying everyone else, they still say "Ah, damn. You got us. Here's a portion of all of the money in the entire alliance." The feature was apparently added to prevent people avoiding getting looted by storing their resources in the AA bank, but that's what blockades are for, and it also doesn't prevent that at all anyway. It's ridiculous that TEst lost all of this money as a result of flawed game design. Whether it could have been avoided if the person they entrusted their bank with had been more active or not is besides the point. Blockades don't really do much if you know you are about to enter a losing war and dump your resources into a bank before it starts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I don't see the benefit in punishing half the game because a handful of players exploit the game. And why aren't muiltis allowed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Blockades don't really do much if you know you are about to enter a losing war and dump your resources into a bank before it starts. That nation will get rolled without effort so there's a consequence for doing that. That's a much better alternative to AA bank looting which is just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I hate people bringing rl into these discussions, the game isn't even close to being realistic so please don't bring it into the discussion. I was going to back you on possibly outright getting rid of 1 man AA's having bank features Sheepy but after the TEst example I am pretty satisfied that the system is working well. Could maybe use a tweak or two but there are plenty of good suggestions in here to do that. I get where you're coming from but I feel like you're a bit off the mark on how to address this. Alex has used RL to justify game features so raising RL is very important. Here are a few instances: military recruitment "it takes time to build up an army in real life, so it should also have to be over 6 days here". "A 1 ship attack should do 14 resistance damage as an immense triumph because one ship would look really menacing if you didn't have any." Things would quite different if RL wasn't being used in terms of the implementation of game features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendo Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 One man alliances are a clear exploitation, so I like the fact that this is being looked at. However, I'm not really sure blocking bank features for alliances smaller then 5 nations is the way to go. I can see valid cases for alliances smaller then 5 nations. I especially do not like the beige idea for reasons already stated. What I would propose is implementing a cap for what alliance banks can hold. The cap would be based on the Alliance Score. The higher the score, the higher the cap. This would reduce the benefit of a one man alliance that is just trying to hide money, but also not hinder legitimate start up alliances. I'm not sure what sort of formula you would use for that, or how much work it would take to implement, but I think that would be a cool way to go about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakyr Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 What I would propose is implementing a cap for what alliance banks can hold. The cap would be based on the Alliance Score. The higher the score, the higher the cap. This would reduce the benefit of a one man alliance that is just trying to hide money, but also not hinder legitimate start up alliances. I'm not sure what sort of formula you would use for that, or how much work it would take to implement, but I think that would be a cool way to go about it.The issue you have there is then people would just send their strongest nations out to create a single nation alliance. Or even top 2 or 3 nations. Only the top 48 alliances have a score more than the highest nation in the game. So do we tell the other 216 alliances 'As your alliance is tiny, we're not allowing you to keep more than $10 million in the bank'. You'd be better off implementing it by a formula based on 'Average Score' and 'Member Count'. The more members you have, the more you can store and the bigger the nations in the alliance, the more you can store. Personally, I prefer my original suggestion. Make people actually invest money and resources into improving their Alliance Bank. It will likely stop alliances being created for just a few weeks, to hide money. Sure, they could start a "Bank Alliance" and invest in it, but that alliance would quickly be known and come under heavy fire, along with the "Home Alliance". Also open up Alliance Bank records Alex, so we can track the money properly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted January 13, 2017 Wiki Mod Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) I prefer the don't screw with it idea. Politics is fully capable of handling this. Also since we arguing realism in a spreadsheet Nation sim, there are many RL examples of the losing side stashing shit away from their enemies. Edited January 13, 2017 by Dr Rush Quote 23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves 23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous 23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed 23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves 23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love 6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 It also penalizes alliances who choose a non-capitalist system to the point where i'd wonder why we even had a bank if we can't use it to suit our needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.