Jump to content

Remove Alliance Bank Looting & Cap Alliance Bank Amounts


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes 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.

Then why not change alliances minimum score to 1 instead of zero. Simple solution problem solved.

RIGHT?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Just now, REAP3R said:

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.

Why? I pointed out the benefits in the OP.

  • Downvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes 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.

It's a 1 city nation that is 25 days old. Assuming it's not a multi they have a really good chance of going inactive. At that point all of the funds in the bank would be impossible to raid back and fark would lose everything inside. This is why other alliances don't keep there bank in brand new nations

*edit, it is already 7 days inactive, obviously this isn't a good way to store your bank

Edited by Potpie99
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You took these numbers from alliances over 40 members...

While over 80% of them are at war and don't have their banks in-house. Brilliant decision making.

My alliance would be capped at 112m cash. Literally not enough to send out a c15 grant. A city we do infact grant. That's not even enough more than 1.5 days income. 

By these numbers we'd be full on aluminum and steel in half a week. This ignoring we'd already be 2-3x over the limit.

You do realize most high tax alliances, big and small, from myself to BK and NPO, favor alliance warchest over member warchest, right? Taxes are too high for them to buy it so the alliance gives to them what they need for whatever duration they feel is necessary before the next shipment.

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

1 minute ago, Potpie99 said:

It's a 1 city nation that is 25 days old. Assuming it's not a multi they have a really good chance of going inactive. At that point all of the funds in the bank would be impossible to raid back and fark would lose everything inside. This is why other alliances don't keep there bank in brand new nations

To be fair.

It's probably a re-roll or a cn player that they have access to (in the messaging sense.)

 

  • Upvote 1

You shouldn't fear anything, until you've lost yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Just now, Deulos said:

Then why not change alliances minimum score to 1 instead of zero. Simple solution problem solved.

RIGHT?

There are only 5 nations in the game that could declare a war on a nation with 1 score. You'd have to basically create a multi (against the rules) or re-roll to raid a nation with 1 score.

 

  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Alex said:

Why? I pointed out the benefits in the OP.

Alliance bank loot is one factor that plays into whether or not someone would be a viable raid target. As for the caps, I don't think you could ever put a multiplier that will appease everyone, either they will be too small or too large to make a difference. Keeping it unlimited would be the only forseeable compromise imo.

Edited by REAP3R

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Akuryo said:

You took these numbers from alliances over 40 members...

While over 80% of them are at war and don't have their banks in-house. Brilliant decision making.

My alliance would be capped at 112m cash. Literally not enough to send out a c15 grant. A city we do infact grant. That's not even enough more than 1.5 days income. 

By these numbers we'd be full on aluminum and steel in half a week. This ignoring we'd already be 2-3x over the limit.

You do realize most high tax alliances, big and small, from myself to BK and NPO, favor alliance warchest over member warchest, right? Taxes are too high for them to buy it so the alliance gives to them what they need for whatever duration they feel is necessary before the next shipment.

I mean... it would change the meta? 

You shouldn't fear anything, until you've lost yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

You took these numbers from alliances over 40 members...

While over 80% of them are at war and don't have their banks in-house. Brilliant decision making.

My alliance would be capped at 112m cash. Literally not enough to send out a c15 grant. A city we do infact grant. That's not even enough more than 1.5 days income. 

By these numbers we'd be full on aluminum and steel in half a week. This ignoring we'd already be 2-3x over the limit.

You do realize most high tax alliances, big and small, from myself to BK and NPO, favor alliance warchest over member warchest, right? Taxes are too high for them to buy it so the alliance gives to them what they need for whatever duration they feel is necessary before the next shipment.

Like I said in OP, the numbers can certainly be tweaked. That's not really the point of the suggestion.

  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alex said:

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.

that is a problem yes, but so is the score you get from infra to get troops, if blockaded nations can't send fund then someone could actually steal their bank and they wouldn't have 0 score.

Personally i'd send a newcomer on them and help the newcomer understand the game while he pulls of the heist. We have many new players each day.

ofc when they are blockaded they can't just promote other pplz to have bank access either.

Edited by MonkeyDLegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, REAP3R said:

Alliance bank loot is one factor that plays into whether or not someone would be a viable raid target.

Alliances store the vast majority of their funds in invulnerable offshore banks. Rarely does anyone actually get to loot a bank anyway.

With caps, you'd be more likely to get a greater loot from attacking a nation because they can't store all their money/rss in a bank, it would have to be in their nation.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes 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.

If you *don't* think this is fine, you could also change this particular case by implementing a minimum score for one-person-alliances or something along those lines. Using this as an argument in order to eliminate alliance looting just because you don't want to moderate the game (while also being unwilling to hire someone for you to do it), is so-so.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Alex said:

Alliances store the vast majority of their funds in invulnerable offshore banks. Rarely does anyone actually get to loot a bank anyway.

With caps, you'd be more likely to get a greater loot from attacking a nation because they can't store all their money/rss in a bank, it would have to be in their nation.

Raiding is not viable if the raiders have no place to store their earnings. I know you said they can store it into a nation that is not going to get raided, but having that kind of money will just put a target onto their back next. To be completely honest, I don't think a lot of people would throw a huge fit if you removed bank looting entirely because like you said, it's usually worth pennies to most, but capping alliance banks almost nullifies their purpose.

EDIT: Chances are, people would start storing their alliance banks in nations similar to the one you already posted, the one having 0 score.

Edited by REAP3R
  • Upvote 1

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, Mitsuru said:

If you *don't* think this is fine, you could also change this particular case by implementing a minimum score for one-person-alliances or something along those lines. Using this as an argument in order to eliminate alliance looting just because you don't want to moderate the game (while also being unwilling to hire someone for you to do it), is so-so.

Do you want me to make more judgement calls in moderation? It's my understanding that most people don't love it when important game decisions come down to my whims.

Reducing moderation ambiguity certainly makes my life easier, yes, but it's also a huge benefit for you (the players) who don't have to deal with human judgement errors.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

There are only 5 nations in the game that could declare a war on a nation with 1 score. You'd have to basically create a multi (against the rules) or re-roll to raid a nation with 1 score.

I understand that, he also has no multies though and hasn't made any large transactions. And due to him unavailable for about three days means Fark can't even send money to him with getting it back. He may go inactive and Fark lost that money. Certainly to high a risk for alliance of that caliber. Nice try tho...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, REAP3R said:

Raiding is not viable if the raiders have no place to store their earnings. I know you said they can store it into a nation that is not going to get raided, but having that kind of money will just put a target onto their back next.

My point exactly

forumsig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

Reducing moderation ambiguity certainly makes my life easier, yes, but it's also a huge benefit for you (the players) who don't have to deal with human judgement errors.

You should have left Grumpy mistakes alone. If they don't have the skill to fix their mistakes then they simply don't have it. They shouldnt have entrusted billions to someone that half plays every so often and they can't break rules trying to fix their mistake. The problem is you let them do it instead of saying no. If you did that nobody would complain and you wouldn't have moderation challenges.

Edited by Deulos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Here is data from the last 10,000 bank loots (8/13/2019 - 9/21/2019)

In my opinion, most bank looting is minimal anyway. I don't think that eliminating it is really going to change anything.

image.png

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side suggestion: Counter offshores by capping alliances' banks if that alliance doesn't meet certain criteria i.e member count, score, cities, whatever you would think most appropriate.

Edited by REAP3R

Denison-1.png

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

It's not merely trying to avoid hurting raiding you're basically forcing people to draw a target on their back. 

I don't think that's a bad thing. Less hoarding of wealth ought to made it harder for anyone to "stay on top" indefinitely. It should make the game more viable for new players and alliances, and reduce game stagnation.

  • Downvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

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.