Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted September 21, 2019 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2019 Hello everyone, This suggestion is inspired by the madness that is "offshore banks" and other gimmicks to avoid alliance bank looting. Alliance banks are obviously a very useful tool that we want to include in the game, but we also don't want to end raiding/looting by making their contents invulnerable. That was the inspiration behind the alliance bank looting mechanic (which doesn't often matter due to offshores, etc.) In the status quo, we have banks like this https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6045 with 0.00 score that are invulernable to raiding. I believe something needs to change so that we're not incentivizing this behavior in the game. My proposal is twofold: first, we remove the alliance bank looting mechanic. Alliance banks would be invulnerable to being looted. Therefore, no one would need to make these "offshores." It would simplify alliance mechanics a great deal, and end all sorts of weird moderation issues and gimmicks that players would agree with me are unfair or against the spirit of the game. Of course, we don't want to end raiding/looting. Therefore, as the second part of the suggestion, I am proposing a cap on alliance bank contents. This cap would be based on the number of cities in the alliance so as not to incentivize people to again make "offshores" to get around the bank limits. This restriction on total bank contents will require alliances to store more of their money/resources in their nations, such that they are still vulnerable to looting. To come up with an idea for proposed caps, I pulled the alliance bank contents of all alliances with 40 or more members and compared it to the total number of cities of their members. I came up with a multiplier for each alliance (Cities * X = Bank Contents) and then using all of the calculated multipliers for each alliance, took the 75th percentile to be on the higher end. Then I did some small amounts of rounding to make for nice, pretty numbers. These calculated figures would set an alliance bank contents cap for each resource: Money: Cities * 400,000 Coal/Oil/Uranium: Cities * 15 Bauxite/Iron/Lead: Cities * 10 Steel/Aluminum/Gasoline/Munitions: Cities * 100 Food: Cities * 400 Total cities calculated would not include Vacation Mode nations, or Gray nations. Per feedback, I agree these original proposed caps are way too low (they didn't factor in the offshore-stashed bank contents.) My intent is not to cap banks so low that they're unusable, but to find a reasonable balance between alliance bank/nation storage that doesn't eliminate the viability of raiding through removing alliance bank looting. You can also see data from the last 10,000 bank loots here - on average, they're very little anyway. Removing bank looting isn't going to change much, most banks are de-facto unlootable anyway. Another benefit of having caps on alliance banks is that it should make war cycles more regular. Commonly, alliances wait to stockpile resources before going to war. Limits on stockpiles will essentially set a cap on how long alliances should wait before going to war. Also, basing resource caps on number of cities should make it more-or-less fair for all types of alliances, from high-city alliances with low members to low-city alliances with lots of members. Let me know what you think, and of course the actual caps could be tweaked. But I think the concept behind this suggestion is good, and will improve gameplay and make things a bit more sensible. EDIT: Another note: I'm just looking for feedback here, and perhaps tweaking of numbers. I'd like to run a long-term (2 month?) tournament on the test server with alliance banks enabled, looting disabled, and the caps in place before pushing a change like this to the live server. 2 8 74 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Please do not remove alliance bank looting. Sometimes this is a key reason for raiding somebody, and it can yield good results to competent raiders and bank info for alliances considering a war. The caps are a good idea, although I don't see how this would remove offshore banks. All that considered, if you want offshores removed, just ban them. Along with this, implement the caps, and reduce alliance bank looting amount(but still keep it). 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post saeton Posted September 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2019 Those numbers are so low that the alliance bank itself would be useless. 16 Quote (TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) You must want to just destroy the game. If that's your goal why not do it? It's all you. Now this idea is not only horrible but you are not given any incentive to win wars other than a victory and the small amount of resources someone keeps on them. And how does this stop offshore banks, people can just send their money via trades to an offshore anyways and have it kept. I don't who whispered this idea in your ear but this is terrible. Additionally, you just ignore all other GOOD suggestions for this game??? Do you even read game suggestions? Edited September 21, 2019 by Deulos 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Potato Posted September 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2019 Alex, this would make all of NPO (the largest alliance in the game) only be able to hold 1 billion. 1 billion is literally pennies for them, it's enough for 2 nations to get city 20. 400000 per city is simply way to small for any alliance period 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Ye 400k per city when it costs 18-20m a city to rebuild post a war is far to small 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Daniel's Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Bank looting and offshores add other dimensions to the game, especially on the spectrum of politics. It let players anticipate on future events, and let them question whether they could trust allies with their fortunes. A cap would limit the freedom in the gameplay. It enforces you to do something with the money and resources, and removes above said fun dimensions. Furthermore, the mentioned caps are too low. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, Dusty said: Ye 400k per city when it costs 18-20m a city to rebuild post a war is far to small I don't know what infra you're building to, but it costs like 26-57 million to rebuild a city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, CitrusK said: I don't know what infra you're building to, but it costs like 26-57 million to rebuild a city. Dusty has low infra anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dusty said: Ye 400k per city when it costs 18-20m a city to rebuild post a war is far to small I have to say though, it would decrease the amount of time alliances are at war. Alliance's would only be able to afford going to war for less than a month at suggested alliance bank limits (unless they kept it all with-in their nations, which can get raided). Honestly, it's a double edged sword. It removes alliance bank looting, but it allows you to get bigger loot from any certain nation. It will allow the better raiders get their stats up (without having to Theo three banks). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Ok let's do a case by case study of this. 19 minutes ago, Alex said: Alliance banks would be invulnerable to being looted. Alliance banks being invulnerable to being looted will make it easier for alliances to hide things. We wont know who is hoarding stuff, making things like the Nova Scandal hard to spot(since you wont know how much stuff they have). 21 minutes ago, Alex said: a cap on alliance bank contents. This cap would be based on the number of cities in the alliance so as not to incentivize people to again make "offshores" to get around the bank limits. This restriction on total bank contents will require alliances to store more of their money/resources in their nations, such that they are still vulnerable to looting. A cap on bank contents will incentivize making more offshore. As a matter of fact, most of the money in banks come from taxes rather than individuals. If people can make alliances right now, what will stop them from making more alliances later on? A lot of alliances depend on having their stuff stored in safe places so that they can war without worrying about loot. Moreover, in most cases, alliance bank loots are larger than what one gets from beiging a person. What you need to address is people making lots of alliances rather than limiting banks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 @Alex make it so a blockaded nation can't send alliance funds away, so let's say there are 10 gov members with bank access, if a small group of ppl start a blitz and blockade all of those gov nation then the bank stays where it is and can't be trasfered. 1 5 9 Quote Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 21, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted September 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, saeton said: Those numbers are so low that the alliance bank itself would be useless. Like I said in the OP, the numbers could certainly be tweaked. 9 minutes ago, Hughes said: Please do not remove alliance bank looting. Sometimes this is a key reason for raiding somebody, and it can yield good results to competent raiders and bank info for alliances considering a war. The caps are a good idea, although I don't see how this would remove offshore banks. All that considered, if you want offshores removed, just ban them. Along with this, implement the caps, and reduce alliance bank looting amount(but still keep it). If nations have more money/rss on hand, raiding will still be viable. It would end offshore banks because there would be no point. An offshore bank would not have any more increased capacity than if they just stayed in the main alliance. Banning offshores doesn't seem feasible. How would I enforce that? Players would just claim that their offshore isn't really an offshore, it's "insert something else here." 8 minutes ago, Deulos said: You must want to just destroy the game. If that's your goal why not do it? It's all you. Now this idea is not only horrible but you are not given any incentive to win wars other than a victory and the small amount of resources someone keeps on them. And how does this stop offshore banks, people can just send their money via trades to an offshore anyways and have it kept. I don't who whispered this idea in your ear (looking at you NPO worshippers) but this is terrible. Additionally, you just ignore all other GOOD suggestions for this game??? Do you even read game suggestions or just follow whichever hegemonies have the most political power... With bank caps (but not nation caps) nations would have more money/rss on-hand to be looted. Also, lots of people in this thread are already complaining how bad this would be for NPO 1 4 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, CitrusK said: I have to say though, it would decrease the amount of time alliances are at war. Alliance's would only be able to afford going to war for less than a month at suggested alliance bank limits (unless they kept it all with-in their nations, which can get raided). Honestly, it's a double edged sword. It removes alliance bank looting, but it allows you to get bigger loot from any certain nation. It will allow the better raiders get their stats up (without having to Theo three banks). Yeah the only partially good things I can see about this are 1. Nations can't put as much money offshore(which seems good if you're a raider until you realize you dont have anywhere to store it) 2. Alliance wars won't drag on forever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: Also, lots of people in this thread are already complaining how bad this would be for NPO Yeah I deleted that part. ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: It would end offshore banks because there would be no point. An offshore bank would not have any more increased capacity than if they just stayed in the main alliance. Ah true I didn't think of that. Where would rich nations store their money during a war though? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: With bank caps (but not nation caps) nations would have more money/rss on-hand to be looted. Absolutely, not. Dangerous thing for your game. I'm convinced you trying to destroy it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted September 21, 2019 Author Administrators Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2019 To all the people downvoting my original post: What about this? https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6045 Do you think this is fine? This is de-facto invulnerable bank looting anyway. Very rarely do banks actually get looted in the status-quo. Eliminating bank looting isn't going to change much in terms of gameplay, it's just going to get rid of a lot of the confusing offshore 1-man alliances. Having the cap on alliance banks will ensure that you can actually loot more because nations will have to store a lot more money/rss. 1 6 3 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: Having the cap on alliance banks will ensure that you can actually loot more because nations will have to store a lot more money/rss. But where do you put the loot if you don't have an offshore or alliance bank to put it in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, Hughes said: But where do you put the loot if you don't have an offshore or alliance bank to put it in? Land. Duh 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Alex said: To all the people downvoting my original post: What about this? https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6045 Do you think this is fine? This is de-facto invulnerable bank looting anyway. Very rarely do banks actually get looted in the status-quo. Eliminating bank looting isn't going to change much in terms of gameplay, it's just going to get rid of a lot of the confusing offshore 1-man alliances. Having the cap on alliance banks will ensure that you can actually loot more because nations will have to store a lot more money/rss. i'll point to my former statement: 1 Quote Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 21, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, Hughes said: But where do you put the loot if you don't have an offshore or alliance bank to put it in? You'd have to store it in a nation, where it is vulnerable to being looted. 1 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critters Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 You could just leave the bank rules as they are and change the rules back to when raiding was profitable..... 1 1 Quote The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 If you are gonna remove alliance bank looting, do not cap the alliance bank total. I'm still against removing alliance bank looting, but the second part is extremely bad. 1 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 21, 2019 Author Administrators Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just now, MonkeyDLegend said: i'll point to my former statement: That nation has 0 score. Regardless of whether or not they could transfer if they were blockaded, no one can declare war on them anyway. So they could never be blockaded in the first place. 1 2 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link 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.