Jump to content

A cosigner option for large alliance withdrawls


Dusty
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, I am not that old of a player and have been in the game for about 4 months in that time, but I've seen about 5 diffrent alliances get robbed by a member who then deletes or throws their nation into vacation mode, this destroys months of work for alliance and ushualy costs the allliance a few members. A possible solution is to make a option that alliances can select where certain transactions need a secoundary gov member to co-sign a transaction when a person goes over a bank percentage in a transaction or a certian percentage of the bank the details would be up to question but i fill like it would be an improvment to the game, so stuff like the recent robbing of Syndicate's bank doesnt happen as commonly and has a form of red tape the may save alliance alot of money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coups, robbing the treasury, betrayal, these things happen. I'm sorry, but, i've been around half as long as you have, and i recognize that all those things are in the title. Politics and War. It's politics. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it is politics nonetheless. 

I'd actually consider preventing that to be making the game worse off. There's been a lot of talk thrown around recently about suggestions that would only really help those too incompetent to solve the problem before it came into existence. I see no reason the Admin should have to play cover for the incompetent decisions of others in picking whom has bank access, nor do i see a reason why anyone who manages to lure people into trusting them with such access should not be rewarded for being more competent than their opponents. 

If your bank is taken by a member, who, it seems, has a history of betrayal, among other unsavory things, that is your fault, your problem, and frankly - you deserve it. Mistakes should be punished, else you will never learn. 

Now, i'm not particularly enthralled that this thief ran into VM and seems to have no set plan for what he's stolen aside from stealing it. I feel that's a rather irritating waste of potential. Regardless of my feelings on his course of action though, he did manage to fool and rob an alliance which it seems most people did not previously consider particularly foolish, and my dislike of his apparent usage of his spoils is no grounds for making it mechanically impossible for him to do so. 
I suppose, true, you could still do it with an accomplice, but i don't see how that would improve anything.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lairah said:

Coups, robbing the treasury, betrayal, these things happen. I'm sorry, but, i've been around half as long as you have, and i recognize that all those things are in the title. Politics and War. It's politics. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it is politics nonetheless. 

I'd actually consider preventing that to be making the game worse off. There's been a lot of talk thrown around recently about suggestions that would only really help those too incompetent to solve the problem before it came into existence. I see no reason the Admin should have to play cover for the incompetent decisions of others in picking whom has bank access, nor do i see a reason why anyone who manages to lure people into trusting them with such access should not be rewarded for being more competent than their opponents. 

If your bank is taken by a member, who, it seems, has a history of betrayal, among other unsavory things, that is your fault, your problem, and frankly - you deserve it. Mistakes should be punished, else you will never learn. 

Now, i'm not particularly enthralled that this thief ran into VM and seems to have no set plan for what he's stolen aside from stealing it. I feel that's a rather irritating waste of potential. Regardless of my feelings on his course of action though, he did manage to fool and rob an alliance which it seems most people did not previously consider particularly foolish, and my dislike of his apparent usage of his spoils is no grounds for making it mechanically impossible for him to do so. 
I suppose, true, you could still do it with an accomplice, but i don't see how that would improve anything.

I would agree with you but I've seen it from people that were in their alliance for a while and worked up to the postion and decided to stop playing the game and just sent a screw you to the alliance, most alliances are picky as hell with their gov choice, I fill it would improve the game thou regardless of alliance imcompetence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like player run banks, choosing who has access to your bank is entirely the player's choice - and there's risks with that.  Especially so when there's THAT much money and resources on the line.  (Also why was there so much in one place?  Spread that dough out to keep risks minimal.)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lairah said:

-snip-

All of this is true, sure, but that's why IRL there are degrees of trust and layers of security interlocks that everyone responsible for considerable resources uses, if they're competent. It's pretty much not even a matter of trust at all at the highest levels of banking, cyberspace, military, and politics. and even with all the security arrangements, endorsements, validations and checks in the world, breaches still happen.

What matters here in the context of the game is that there are exactly two degrees of trust: yes and no. That heavily limits player options and requires everyone to play much, much more conservatively, and this hinders the formation of new alliances or changes in existing alliance governments.

Still, a better way to implement 'partial-trust' mechanics would be putting in the option to set withdrawal limits per nation, possibly similarly to or even connected to the tax bracket system. Then alliances can set up 'pay more in, get more out' growth circle management on a more automated level, and let individualists have low taxes and no withdrawals, or a bracket for total bank access 'cos a gov member decided to coup the alliance by throwing the bank doors open and letting whoever was quickest on the uptake to run away with it all, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems it wouldnt be hard to implement an approval of some sort for as bluedart said a certain percentage or maybe even a set amount. 

 

If someone tries to withdraw say more than 50million then it has to be approved by another member of government or something. But there would also need to be a way to prevent multiple smaller transactions. 

 

All in all I think alliances need to be more trusting in who they choose to have access. It sucks regardless but it adds another level to this game.

Proud member of Guardian. 

ComradeGeneralsig2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Comrade General said:

It seems it wouldnt be hard to implement an approval of some sort for as bluedart said a certain percentage or maybe even a set amount. 

 

If someone tries to withdraw say more than 50million then it has to be approved by another member of government or something. But there would also need to be a way to prevent multiple smaller transactions. 

 

All in all I think alliances need to be more trusting in who they choose to have access. It sucks regardless but it adds another level to this game.

It be something like the alliance selects the max percentage withdrawalble in a 12 turns so smaller transactions such as aids go answered without needing 2 gov members so then if someone trys rob the bank it's seen before to much is taken, the for big warsand what not where govs hide their banks they just need secoundary signer to move it efficiently, bank stealing would remain part of the game but it's much less of a hurt to the alliance so a bank like syndicate getting rob is only 5 billion vrs the full 34 billion worth in reasources, just an idea, really enjoy some of the input you guys have give thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod
On 5/14/2018 at 4:27 AM, Lairah said:

Coups, robbing the treasury, betrayal, these things happen. I'm sorry, but, i've been around half as long as you have, and i recognize that all those things are in the title. Politics and War. It's politics. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, but it is politics nonetheless. 

I'd actually consider preventing that to be making the game worse off. There's been a lot of talk thrown around recently about suggestions that would only really help those too incompetent to solve the problem before it came into existence. I see no reason the Admin should have to play cover for the incompetent decisions of others in picking whom has bank access, nor do i see a reason why anyone who manages to lure people into trusting them with such access should not be rewarded for being more competent than their opponents. 

If your bank is taken by a member, who, it seems, has a history of betrayal, among other unsavory things, that is your fault, your problem, and frankly - you deserve it. Mistakes should be punished, else you will never learn. 

Now, i'm not particularly enthralled that this thief ran into VM and seems to have no set plan for what he's stolen aside from stealing it. I feel that's a rather irritating waste of potential. Regardless of my feelings on his course of action though, he did manage to fool and rob an alliance which it seems most people did not previously consider particularly foolish, and my dislike of his apparent usage of his spoils is no grounds for making it mechanically impossible for him to do so. 
I suppose, true, you could still do it with an accomplice, but i don't see how that would improve anything.

Hit the nail pretty much exactly on the head here.

23 hours ago, Bluedart said:

It be something like the alliance selects the max percentage withdrawalble in a 12 turns so smaller transactions such as aids go answered without needing 2 gov members so then if someone trys rob the bank it's seen before to much is taken, the for big warsand what not where govs hide their banks they just need secoundary signer to move it efficiently, bank stealing would remain part of the game but it's much less of a hurt to the alliance so a bank like syndicate getting rob is only 5 billion vrs the full 34 billion worth in reasources, just an idea, really enjoy some of the input you guys have give thank you.

So effectively double the overhead of running an econ department in a lot of areas. This rather significantly hurts wartime/rebuild management and Dio forbid you try running a command economy. If you legitimately feel this is bad for the game you should petition Alex to make bank theft against the rules outright. That being said I agree with Lariah and the Hippo, bank stealing is a valid tactic, just ask kastor. This is ultimately a war game and there should be no assurity of safety in anything.

 

 

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 &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2018 at 5:24 PM, Epi said:

think there's already been a proposed solution to this issue, 

meh, i dont necessarily agree. when my account was jacked the first thing i did was get someone to demote me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a combination of several ideas I saw in here, I'd suggest put a 12 turn limit on bank transactions going through, and also providing an 'approve' option for someone of higher rank to do. This will give a 24 hours notice for anyone of government to notice and report (and hopefully prevent) while also not stalling any bank transactions for too long, so long as someone of higher rank can come on and approve the transaction. This also maintains that level of trust in picking proper government positions, since a Master and Sentinel could still coup together as a team. I don't agree that a member who becomes bored of the game, or disagrees with something that occurs in their alliance should be able to simply take all the bank's money and completely erase its existence. The power to destroy an entire alliance, is too much for one nation to hold alone.

Edited by Cianuro
  • Downvote 1
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and while we are at it - lets make it so that any wars declared on us (that could potentially steal bank loot) can be either approved or denied. 

Like, if someone declares on me - I can be like, yes sure you can attack or no you can't because my bank has loot in it and I'm just not ready right now.

I think that's only fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

Yes, and while we are at it - lets make it so that any wars declared on us (that could potentially steal bank loot) can be either approved or denied. 

Like, if someone declares on me - I can be like, yes sure you can attack or no you can't because my bank has loot in it and I'm just not ready right now.

I think that's only fair.

Imagine if Joshtopia, who looted CS bank during the war, and whom i raided, had the option to do this. I'd be out $80 million in loot.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lairah said:

Imagine if Joshtopia, who looted CS bank during the war, and whom i raided, had the option to do this. I'd be out $80 million in loot.

OMGOD JUST IMAGINE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

OMGOD JUST IMAGINE.

Do it Max, imagine it. Close your eyes, take deep breaths, become one with your environment, and imagine it. You're there, a little 7 city nation, raiding some overzealous shittalker, who has hundreds of millions in their alliance bank, and they're the only real member, when suddenly, they deny your attempt to raid them because it would steal the bank.

Feel the anguish, the soul crushing sorrow, then feel the pressure build, the heat comes on, the rage grows and explodes, as you buy yourself a plane ticket to whatever mental aslyum Sheepy lives in, and burn it all to the ground, laughing happily as you do.

Are you imagining it, Max? Do you see it?


My suggestion as always is to just allow people to loot banks if you're fool enough to let them.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lairah said:

Do it Max, imagine it. Close your eyes, take deep breaths, become one with your environment, and imagine it. You're there, a little 7 city nation, raiding some overzealous shittalker, who has hundreds of millions in their alliance bank, and they're the only real member, when suddenly, they deny your attempt to raid them because it would steal the bank.

Feel the anguish, the soul crushing sorrow, then feel the pressure build, the heat comes on, the rage grows and explodes, as you buy yourself a plane ticket to whatever mental aslyum Sheepy lives in, and burn it all to the ground, laughing happily as you do.

Are you imagining it, Max? Do you see it?


My suggestion as always is to just allow people to loot banks if you're fool enough to let them.

Im hoping you understood my post was intense sarcasm. 

people stealing banks and all that stuff that isn't related to game mechanics is what makes things interesting. Take that away and the game becaomes (more) shit than it already is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mad Max said:

Im hoping you understood my post was intense sarcasm. 

people stealing banks and all that stuff that isn't related to game mechanics is what makes things interesting. Take that away and the game becaomes (more) shit than it already is. 

I know it was, i hope you understand mine was just utter nonsense i was spewing, as i thought some might be amused by it, and i was bored.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lairah said:

I know it was, i hope you understand mine was just utter nonsense i was spewing, as i thought some might be amused by it, and i was bored.

I did indeed. 

Lets just go ahead and close this topic, topic closed everyone. 
(also moderators that last line was RP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2018 at 5:14 PM, Epi said:

I like the idea of leaders having that power over other leaders. it's specifically the heir role being a mirror copy of leader that i have an issue with.

couldnt a heir just promote themselves to leader? then demote the other one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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