Jump to content

End off-shore banks for Alliances


Recommended Posts

Honestly, I didn't read most of this thread so I won't know if this got mentioned yet, but wouldn't removing alliance bank looting just encourage alliances to keep their inactives in the alliance? Right now, keeping around inactives is a risk to the alliance because if they get raided then the alliance bank will get looted (unless moved), regardless of the nation getting moved to applicant status after the fact. This would then make it harder to find inactives to raid since they'd all be couped up in alliances being useless, and only serving as pseudo-score for their alliances whom are hoping they might one day make a return to the game. Really, there's more damage in this change towards raiding than what's shown on the surface.

  • Upvote 2
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

Others have covered most of what I have to say in the matter (Mitsu, Scarf, Nizam etc). But I gotta comment on this... presentation that solo AA banking is somehow difficult to pull off. It isn't. All you need is a decently active individual whom you can trust. If he's cautious even the better. Keeping a bank safe that way is no rocket science. Even then, one man AA isn't the only way to do it. Having an ally hold it for you, for instance, can work in certain circumstances. Apeman held TRF's bank when we blitzed them, for instance.

Furthermore, I'll go ahead and say that the amount of leaders who went like "Uhm, we shouldn't war in part because our bank AA might get looted during the war." in the pre planning of a war is 0. It's not a frequent enough occurrence (practically 0 if you picked the right guy to do the job) to ever be considered as a factor, nor is it a factor you should even be weighing in to conclude whether you should war or not. Your main concern is seeing if you can even win. If so, you'll be too busy reaching out for potential allies, organizing the coalition and sorting out who hits what to be concerned about such a minute detail.

I also don't see the issue of scoring a big hit with proper coordination if you were presented an opportunity, given that such opportunity always pops up as a result of the banker's slip up, be it inactivity, overconfidence or others. I think that we should be aiming to have everyone be more competent and capable, rather than dumbing things down.

As for the "transfer of wealth". AA bank loot can be nullified if you're reasonably competent. Individual/nation loot can be greatly mitigated if you properly manage the amount of resources sent to nations in between and manage your tax policies. We learned that when we bled loot like crazy in the first weeks of 69, but after a couple of weeks it basically went down to nothing. Part of it was natural thinning out, but we noticed that it decreased greatly after implementing our countermeasures. Obviously, everything is a tradeoff, but that's just part of the game. As Scarf said, nothing is without risk. 

@Venom

It would be a double edged sword for raiders. In one hand, yes less loot. But on the flip side, their bank held loot would be far, far safer. This is particularly more important for solo man raiders than for other raiding AA's.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Venom said:

Honestly, I didn't read most of this thread so I won't know if this got mentioned yet, but wouldn't removing alliance bank looting just encourage alliances to keep their inactives in the alliance? Right now, keeping around inactives is a risk to the alliance because if they get raided then the alliance bank will get looted (unless moved), regardless of the nation getting moved to applicant status after the fact. This would then make it harder to find inactives to raid since they'd all be couped up in alliances being useless, and only serving as pseudo-score for their alliances whom are hoping they might one day make a return to the game. Really, there's more damage in this change towards raiding than what's shown on the surface.

It's not a risk at all because most alliances move their stuff when they get raided. It's already easy enough to keep people and let them get beiged. Most people don't want their score bloated unless they're getting something out of it. If this was a real issue, it'd be easy to set the formula for the bank loot to minutes inactive of the nation getting beiged and 0 for the rest.

Alliances already raid their members instead of giving them up for grabs when they have loot. The people that are actually dedicated to raiding expect to get countered when doing so. There's a death of unprotected raid targets as is. 

Right now, all it does it mean if someone doesn't make a bank alliance or have a different one to send it to,  is they get looted. That's it.

2 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Others have covered most of what I have to say in the matter (Mitsu, Scarf, Nizam etc). But I gotta comment on this... presentation that solo AA banking is somehow difficult to pull off. It isn't. All you need is a decently active individual whom you can trust. If he's cautious even the better. Keeping a bank safe that way is no rocket science. Even then, one man AA isn't the only way to do it. Having an ally hold it for you, for instance, can work in certain circumstances. Apeman held TRF's bank when we blitzed them, for instance.

Furthermore, I'll go ahead and say that the amount of leaders who went like "Uhm, we shouldn't war in part because our bank AA might get looted during the war." in the pre planning of a war is 0. It's not a frequent enough occurrence (practically 0 if you picked the right guy to do the job) to ever be considered as a factor, nor is it a factor you should even be weighing in to conclude whether you should war or not. Your main concern is seeing if you can even win. If so, you'll be too busy reaching out for potential allies, organizing the coalition and sorting out who hits what to be concerned about such a minute detail.

I also don't see the issue of scoring a big hit with proper coordination if you were presented an opportunity, given that such opportunity always pops up as a result of the banker's slip up, be it inactivity, overconfidence or others. I think that we should be aiming to have everyone be more competent and capable, rather than dumbing things down.

As for the "transfer of wealth". AA bank loot can be nullified if you're reasonably competent. Individual/nation loot can be greatly mitigated if you properly manage the amount of resources sent to nations in between and manage your tax policies. We learned that when we bled loot like crazy in the first weeks of 69, but after a couple of weeks it basically went down to nothing. Part of it was natural thinning out, but we noticed that it decreased greatly after implementing our countermeasures. Obviously, everything is a tradeoff, but that's just part of the game. As Scarf said, nothing is without risk. 

@Venom

It would be a double edged sword for raiders. In one hand, yes less loot. But on the flip side, their bank held loot would be far, far safer. This is particularly more important for solo man raiders than for other raiding AA's.

It's an unneeded hassle and benefits mainly people who don't have to frequently shuffle it, which will be the ones who are on the winning side short of really bad mistakes like declaring and getting beiged due to overconfidence. It happened on the losing side with Reaver too. In addition to the strain of fighting everyone, it added the unnecessary insult to injury by costing them that much.  Even if they felt it was down to Reaver's inattentiveness, it was still a huge blow to an already defeated group. What if someone had made an AA and then they weren't able to get online? You'd say it's inactivity, but losing billions because of an emergency event would be ridiculous. It is far more likely that an alliance that is losing will lose more of its bank to looting than one that is winning. They either have to continuously make more alliances or put it on beige nations. It's essentially a system that is mostly circumvented by those with the best position to do so.  Most of the incidents where bank looting led to big loots was when someone moved it to a specific nation to avoid bank looting and the alliance was unable to counter. This is a gray area and Alex has to intervene and investigate each time it happens, so it's not exactly a positive phenomenon. 

 

1 hour ago, ShadyAssassin said:

alliance bank loots are a thing. ending it is going to end piracy

How would it end piracy? Most raids are based on getting the 10% of resources/cash as loot from the nations. The main times where banks are looted in vast numbers are the cases I outlined above and I gave a compromise solution to discourage keeping inactives. If there's some perceived right to easy loot from booted nations, however, then it would make far more sense for Alex to code in some pinatas that spawn on none once a day than the current system where much of the  viable inactive loot is already secured via hits by other members of the alliance if people want targets on none that carry no risk of counters.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It's an unneeded hassle and benefits mainly people who don't have to frequently shuffle it, which will be the ones who are on the winning side short of really bad mistakes like declaring and getting beiged due to overconfidence. It happened on the losing side with Reaver too. In addition to the strain of fighting everyone, it added the unnecessary insult to injury by costing them that much.  Even if they felt it was down to Reaver's inattentiveness, it was still a huge blow to an already defeated group. It is far more likely that an alliance that is losing will lose more of its bank to looting than one that is winning. They either have to continuously make more alliances or put it on beige nations. It's essentially a system that is mostly circumvented by those with the best position to do so.  Most of the incidents where bank looting led to big loots was when someone moved it to a specific nation to avoid bank looting and the alliance was unable to counter. This is a gray area and Alex has to intervene and investigate each time it happens, so it's not exactly a positive phenomenon. 

Yes, the losing side has to do it more often. That's simply part of fighting a losing war. Again, with enough activity (log in twice a day) and caution you can avoid the looting. The losing side should be more cautious with it's spending and management either way.

Depositing it in nations, beige or otherwise, is always a bad idea, as nations provide no benefit over AA's. Especially since those records are visible while bank to bank aren't.

And I wouldn't say unnecessary, as it entirely disregards the potential for gain that comes with it. Can the risk be deemed not worth of the risk? That's up to each individual. But it's still a factor that exists and shouldn't be disregarded on it's entirety.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alex said:

While I agree, it would be nice to eliminate this weird mechanic, I don't really know how to go about it in a meaningful way.

I mean the simplest answer would be just to eliminate looting of alliance banks altogether. While that's not ideal, and basically makes funds/rss untouchable, that's more or less the de facto status quo anyway. It would eliminate all the extra 1-3 nation alliances clutter, and there's be less of a penalty to some nations/alliances for not being clever enough about hiding their stuff.

The mechanics would more or less be the same as now; you could hide all of your money/rss in a bank (your alliance bank) and if you got Blockaded you'd be screwed. I don't know, I don't like it, but it wouldn't really make anything different than it is now.

I like the idea of making the alliance bank unlootable. Would make the first attack be a naval battle to blockade, and because of it requiring an extra turn to pull off, would reward people who react quickly and deposit all in the AA bank before a blockade can be set.

inb4 new spy operation “Plane Hijack”

This is the 21000th post in this subform and I'm fine with it.

TRI-poloski.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ivan Ivanov said:

I like the idea of making the alliance bank unlootable. Would make the first attack be a naval battle to blockade, and because of it requiring an extra turn to pull off, would reward people who react quickly and deposit all in the AA bank before a blockade can be set.

Blockades can be set immediately without requiring extra turns and people's WCs have almost always been safer in the bank, particularly if that AA is on top of protecting it. Making the alliance bank unlootable doesn't really change what you've just talked about because it's already the case.

  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Everything in a PVP game (which is what PnW is) should be lootable

Well, other than things which are balanced around exponential cost increases; cities land and infra mustn't be lootable or people would circumvent the increased costs by "buying" through deliberate losing wars. Though you probably only meant resources anyway, I just felt it had to be specified here.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ivan Ivanov said:

I like the idea of making the alliance bank unlootable. Would make the first attack be a naval battle to blockade, and because of it requiring an extra turn to pull off, would reward people who react quickly and deposit all in the AA bank before a blockade can be set.

Just noticed this right now, but if you attacked someone who is on fortress, and your opening move was a naval, I can assure you, if they respond to their milcom calls quickly, you would get fcked over really quickly as they would dogfight(or GC, and then dogfight) you to smithereens. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about opening with a naval in an alliance war. Or don't, I am fine with that either way. ?

 

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

I was thinking on this topic some more.

While I don't have a "fix" for the offshore alliance bit, I do have some small suggestions for the community to think over.

 

Why not put in a Loot System where it starts off at a certain percentage (Say 5%) as a base, and each loot beyond that degrades it further and further.  As time goes by, the degrading is slowly removed back up to a base of 5%.

Example:  Player A beiges his target first, gets whatever loot from the player plus 5% of the alliance's bank the target was in.  Player B then loots second, but only receives 3% of the alliance bank.  Player C finally loots, but only receives 1%.  (And it continues to drop till it hits 0%  Of course it'd go into decimals between each.  Maybe 5% to 4.5% to 3.5%, to try and spread it out further)

This would do two things - First, it would reward the first player who beiges first.  Think of it as a way of encouraging them to beige, to beat the rest of their own war mates to the loot at the end.  This would also prevent an alliance being overly looted when in a total rout, as the degradation means less and less loot is leaked out per beige.

My second suggestion is to establish a way of putting a "cooldown" when a bank ships off resources to another alliance bank.  While this won't completely solve the issue of offshore banks (An alliance could just move the resources to a player, he can create an alliance, then deposit it) - it would put more of a risk to it (IE: players can be blockaded and prevent the deposit of massive resources into a AA bank) and force alliances to be more creative, both with the timing and coordination of pulling it off effectively.

 

These two suggestions would go hand in hand in my opinion.  While not the most optimal, considering everybody would like easy money and easy methods of NOT losing the money, there has to be a form of balance in the game that has little to no risk in it as it is now.

 

Otherwise I'd say we'd have to add more into the war system, such as creating Transport units in order to ship off resources elsewhere, but that could get overly complicated for a system so simplistic.  (If interested, I could elaborate more on this, as it is pretty vague)

Edited by Buorhann
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Feel free to discuss, @TheRebelMan and @Shadowthrone.

I like the percentage of bank looted thing, I am all for it.

But the other idea is what I am against. I guess it boils down to me just plainly despising the cooldown time idea. And honestly, I think the status quo as it relates to offshores is completely fine. For those alliances who move their banks to offshores, leave them in their respective alliances, which get looted in the time of war(like Panth, or Rose last war), well, that is fine for me. The game should benefit those who do try, which is indeed every competent alliance. KT, TGH, and TCW come to mind when they were getting rolled. As for those who screw up like TKR in the 69DW, and GoB in Knightfall? Well, that is the risk of having an offshore, isn't it?

Just to come back around, I don't believe the status quo is in need of a change. And even if the community does want to change it, which I believe it does not, the idea you gave I am against. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2019 at 6:32 AM, ?ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™? said:

Perhaps capping an alliance's bank capacity by 20k resources and 50 million in cash per member would address this?

On 5/6/2019 at 7:56 AM, Keegoz said:

Other issues I see, what if you were say at the cap and then you have a splinter and half the alliance leaves. Does excess get deleted?

If so I could see some pretty big exploits and if it doesn't then the cap is pretty exploitable. I don't think there is much of a fix here that won't be easily worked around or cripple the alliance banks to be basically useless.

If you wanted to implement a cap on resource stockpiles, it would have to incorporate both alliance banks and nations. For example, a cap on each resource determined by:

max alliance stockpile = (resource tax rate)*(a*(total alliance members)+b*(total alliance cities))

max nation stockpile = (1 - resource tax rate)*(a+b*(total cities)) where a and b are constants.

This would be calculated separately for each tax bracket. Alliances' tax rates wouldn't affect the maximum effective warchest they could have between their banks and member nations.

If such a system were implemented, I don't see a problem with deleting resources at the end of the next turn when alliances lose members. It's not an exploit because it doesn't benefit the actors (nations leaving alliances), doesn't increase the total potential stockpile (stockpiles would be recalculated when resources are next accumulated at the end of the turn) and doesn't prevent players from forming new alliances (as long as you don't hop alliances 30 seconds before a turn ends, you've got ample time to shift bank resources around).

47 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I was thinking on this topic some more.

While I don't have a "fix" for the offshore alliance bit, I do have some small suggestions for the community to think over.

 

Why not put in a Loot System where it starts off at a certain percentage (Say 5%) as a base, and each loot beyond that degrades it further and further.  As time goes by, the degrading is slowly removed back up to a base of 5%.

Example:  Player A beiges his target first, gets whatever loot from the player plus 5% of the alliance's bank the target was in.  Player B then loots second, but only receives 3% of the alliance bank.  Player C finally loots, but only receives 1%.  (And it continues to drop till it hits 0%  Of course it'd go into decimals between each.  Maybe 5% to 4.5% to 3.5%, to try and spread it out further)

This would do two things - First, it would reward the first player who beiges first.  Think of it as a way of encouraging them to beige, to beat the rest of their own war mates to the loot at the end.  This would also prevent an alliance being overly looted when in a total rout, as the degradation means less and less loot is leaked out per beige.

Neither of those things would "fix" offshoring alliance banks. If looting is still impactful enough to matter, offshoring will continue. If it's not, then this would be only marginally different from removing alliance bank looting altogether: few if any people would care enough about it to actively attempt to loot or actively attempt to hide banks.

I don't really have an opinion on the potential effect on beiging independent of bank looting right now.

Quote

My second suggestion is to establish a way of putting a "cooldown" when a bank ships off resources to another alliance bank.  While this won't completely solve the issue of offshore banks (An alliance could just move the resources to a player, he can create an alliance, then deposit it) - it would put more of a risk to it (IE: players can be blockaded and prevent the deposit of massive resources into a AA bank) and force alliances to be more creative, both with the timing and coordination of pulling it off effectively.

A player wouldn't even have to create another alliance before depositing. They could give it to their own nation first and then deposit it, either in an existing offshore bank AA or in the bank of an allied alliance.

Quote

Otherwise I'd say we'd have to add more into the war system, such as creating Transport units in order to ship off resources elsewhere, but that could get overly complicated for a system so simplistic.  (If interested, I could elaborate more on this, as it is pretty vague)

I think a better way of implementing this would be a per-unit cost to transferring or trading resources between nations and banks. Less simulation, similar effect.

Edited by Edward I
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheRebelMan said:

Just to come back around, I don't believe the status quo is in need of a change.

So you'd rather keep a status quo that encourages stagnation, ok.

As for the cooldown period, it is easily exploitable to hide your bank.  A cooldown would stiffle the exploitation.  While yes, it is a unpopular idea, it is one that is needed if we want to encourage economic growth in the long run.  Being able to hoard resources and cash, and SAFELY MOVING IT, is what's really hurting the economy.

3 minutes ago, Edward I said:

A player wouldn't even have to create another alliance before depositing. They could give it to their own nation first and then deposit it, either in an existing offshore bank AA or in the bank of an allied alliance.

A blockade stops it.  Hence the "added risk" part.  That's how Syndicate got their bank looted twice by Arrgh members, and how TKR got their bank looted by KT/TGH as well.  They mistakenly moved their bank to a nation to deposit it, instead of doing a alliance-to-alliance transfer.  You add the cooldown period on the alliance-to-alliance transfer.  Maybe not a huge one, but definitely enough of one to prevent constant hot potato in a single server day.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

A blockade stops it.  Hence the "added risk" part.  That's how Syndicate got their bank looted twice by Arrgh members, and how TKR got their bank looted by KT/TGH as well.  They mistakenly moved their bank to a nation to deposit it, instead of doing a alliance-to-alliance transfer.

Technically you're right, but unless someone blockades a banker seconds after the initial transfer takes place that won't happen. And I'm generally not a fan of encouraging speed-based play that benefits from scripts that frequently access the API.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Technically you're right, but unless someone blockades a banker seconds after the initial transfer takes place that won't happen. And I'm generally not a fan of encouraging speed-based play that benefits from scripts that frequently access the API.

That's entirely situational, afterall, a smart coordinated group would find someone that isn't blockaded in a battle, and have them move the bank.  Still, it is far more of a risk to get that moving than what it currently is in the game right now.

 

In it's current state, there is absolutely nothing to stop a player to separate from an alliance, create a new alliance, and have a alliance-to-alliance transfer.  Even if that player is blockaded, he can still move alliance funds since it is not part of his nation.  You can create multiple 1 man alliances and play hot potato with your resources.  There's no cooldown on creating alliances, no cooldown on transferring between alliances, and there's no cost to creating alliances either.  It's instantaneous.

It's a HUGE issue.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I was thinking on this topic some more.

While I don't have a "fix" for the offshore alliance bit, I do have some small suggestions for the community to think over.

 

Why not put in a Loot System where it starts off at a certain percentage (Say 5%) as a base, and each loot beyond that degrades it further and further.  As time goes by, the degrading is slowly removed back up to a base of 5%.

Example:  Player A beiges his target first, gets whatever loot from the player plus 5% of the alliance's bank the target was in.  Player B then loots second, but only receives 3% of the alliance bank.  Player C finally loots, but only receives 1%.  (And it continues to drop till it hits 0%  Of course it'd go into decimals between each.  Maybe 5% to 4.5% to 3.5%, to try and spread it out further)

This would do two things - First, it would reward the first player who beiges first.  Think of it as a way of encouraging them to beige, to beat the rest of their own war mates to the loot at the end.  This would also prevent an alliance being overly looted when in a total rout, as the degradation means less and less loot is leaked out per beige.

My second suggestion is to establish a way of putting a "cooldown" when a bank ships off resources to another alliance bank.  While this won't completely solve the issue of offshore banks (An alliance could just move the resources to a player, he can create an alliance, then deposit it) - it would put more of a risk to it (IE: players can be blockaded and prevent the deposit of massive resources into a AA bank) and force alliances to be more creative, both with the timing and coordination of pulling it off effectively.

 

These two suggestions would go hand in hand in my opinion.  While not the most optimal, considering everybody would like easy money and easy methods of NOT losing the money, there has to be a form of balance in the game that has little to no risk in it as it is now.

 

Otherwise I'd say we'd have to add more into the war system, such as creating Transport units in order to ship off resources elsewhere, but that could get overly complicated for a system so simplistic.  (If interested, I could elaborate more on this, as it is pretty vague)

 

Well the problem that exists is the loot system itself. Presently it presents an unnecessary headache that further sets losing alliances back. Offshore banks is a caveat, where under your second suggestion, a coalition of overwhelming force, can continue to harass single man bank AAs with no real means to keep moving the money around, in effect ensuring that a large bank loot is unfairly possible. Yes a more coordinated alliance etc can find ways to go around it, but folks need to figure out that during war time, people aren't always available. If offshore banks are to remain, I'm fine with the present system over trying to further penalise alliances and players for not being easily available at all times for a game. Its not a matter of easier game play, as much as streamlined game play that doesn't always give further undue benefits to the victors, especially if coalitions of overwhelming force are created. 

I'm more of the belief to get rid of bank looting since it creates a system which gives undue advantage to victors and is counterproductive for the overall meta of the game. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

Well the problem that exists is the loot system itself. Presently it presents an unnecessary headache that further sets losing alliances back. Offshore banks is a caveat, where under your second suggestion, a coalition of overwhelming force, can continue to harass single man bank AAs with no real means to keep moving the money around, in effect ensuring that a large bank loot is unfairly possible. Yes a more coordinated alliance etc can find ways to go around it, but folks need to figure out that during war time, people aren't always available. If offshore banks are to remain, I'm fine with the present system over trying to further penalise alliances and players for not being easily available at all times for a game. Its not a matter of easier game play, as much as streamlined game play that doesn't always give further undue benefits to the victors, especially if coalitions of overwhelming force are created. 

I'm more of the belief to get rid of bank looting since it creates a system which gives undue advantage to victors and is counterproductive for the overall meta of the game. 

Not quite seeing your issue with my suggestions then, perhaps re-read what I suggested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Not quite seeing your issue with my suggestions then, perhaps re-read what I suggested?

 

The second suggestion essentially is setting a time limit of sorts for when folks can shuffle around bank AAs. Thats hugely problematic as I pointed out in the earlier post and where my disagreement lies. Adding further risk to the whole process to me seems to unduly favour winners, especially in extremely large coalitions, since any slip ups would essentially allow folks to loot banks because they can't transfer it out. Its something I would prefer not added since it could hurt a wide variety of alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2019 at 2:22 PM, Alex said:

If you're in a war and all your money/rss are protected in the bank, being blockaded means you no longer have access to them. Your warchest doesn't do you much good if you can't use it.

What do you think would improve the system?

I've had an idea on having alliance based projects one of them being something called Secret Vault that could hold 30% of total assets of those in the main bank and is non-lootable. This way even if the main bank is looted you can't put any more money into the Secret Vault until the base bank funds exceed the previous total at deposit. Also you could take it further and put limits on how many times it could be accessed per day.

I thought i already made a suggestion about it but maybe not I'll probably add it sometime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 5/6/2019 at 1:13 PM, Alex said:

While I agree, it would be nice to eliminate this weird mechanic, I don't really know how to go about it in a meaningful way.

I mean the simplest answer would be just to eliminate looting of alliance banks altogether. While that's not ideal, and basically makes funds/rss untouchable, that's more or less the de facto status quo anyway. It would eliminate all the extra 1-3 nation alliances clutter, and there's be less of a penalty to some nations/alliances for not being clever enough about hiding their stuff.

The mechanics would more or less be the same as now; you could hide all of your money/rss in a bank (your alliance bank) and if you got Blockaded you'd be screwed. I don't know, I don't like it, but it wouldn't really make anything different than it is now.

This makes sense, people being used to finding exploits or ways around their bank being looted by doing things which might not be easy or obvious to everyone & thinking it should remain awkward & not user friendly to play the game competitively at all seems ridiculous. Pretty much encouraging people to use any exploit they can find to their advantage until its banned, when people are expected to find a way around (with just VM banned for hiding it atm, rule which would be pointless if the banks were unlootable w/o people needing to find exploits or methods other than their bank to keep funds secure.)

Since those who don’t use a workaround to banks bring looted which isn’t banned yet will lose all their bank money & can’t rebuild. Game should be user friendly & fun; rather than a proper guide telling people they have to find work arounds to the beige & bank system to be competitive at all with those who already have a system to keep funds secure (which currently keeping them in the alliance bank doesn’t)

If I have 2 or more AAs swapping names; in order to manipulate which gets looted due to the game mostly just looking at the name; would that be breaking the rules? If so, why would it more than people throwing the funds around like a football while alternating turns on beige to prevent looting or people using the naming exploit to stack a bunch of treaties? If someone found a full proof exploit to prevent their bank from being looted & used it just for their benefit; would that be encouraged with current system? 

Bank is faulty by design, so players are encouraged to come up with new ways to keep funds safe in ways not initially intended when programming the game. Think both beiging & banking should change so people can play the game more fluid. Don’t think a guide should need to tell people not to finish off opponents & finding workarounds to the banks being lootable is only way for new alliances to be competitive. Although people can still be looted for what they have on them & people can just take everything out of the bank right before someone beiges; so this would barely effect piracy.

Even if you blockade all gov in an alliance; pretty sure there is no way to stop them from transferring the funds from the bank to anywhere not blockaded. If banks are going to remain lootable, members of Gov who are blockaded shouldn’t be able to access the funds. Personally I assumed they wouldn’t be able to, until I learned different & almost by design a loophole let’s blockaded nations still use the bank to send out funds; making lootable banks completely pointless when it relies on noobs not knowing any better to ever come into play.

Although might as well make it unlootable if impossible to trap the funds & they’re mostly just lootable to make the game require a higher learning curve & more alliances fail before realizing its expected they find an exploit to the banking system to keep up.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
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.