Jump to content

The Offshore Culture and its Side Effects


Theodosius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems like solid stuff. I would impose the $20m fee on any nation though, since people are just gonna have younger nations create the alliance for them otherwise.

Edited by Dryad
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome set of plans. But once again, the vast majority of the community agrees that (the current) offshores are no hazard to the game’s health. It seems that only Alex finds so due to moderation issues. An extra moderator could resolve that.

Edited by Jack Daniel's
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this suggestion but will add on I and some others suggested in Alex's original thread. You should have to unlock the alliance bank based off the score of the alliance. 5k - 10k score should be enough to not hinder legitimate micros from starting but is enough to guarantee that an offshore has large enough members for the average player to raid. 

  • Upvote 2

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Theodosius said:

Hi y'all. In the light of bank shenanigans we've been recently witnessing with the cheaters, along with the fact that ever since it was made possible to create alliances super easily -- therefore practically keeping your bank untouchable, and after seeing @Alex's bank caps suggestion going down in flames, I've had some thoughts on how to handle the issues that have surfaced and decided to share it here.

Some of you may know me, yeah - I'm that guy that loots offshore banks. So why the hell would I want anything changed, you're probably asking yourself now.

As someone who has been juggling bank funds for the past few months from offshore to offshore, I dare say I am enough of an expert on it (and as any kid from elementary would quickly be able to claim their expertise on the subject as well), to say we gotta face the facts and recognize how gamey this deformed feature has become. You declare your wars, get your 8 slots filled, send the bank away, remake the alliance, voila, you are safe again. Not a penny lost. It's OP and it's gamey, and I believe we need to change it. So, here are my suggestions on how to effectively make offshoring obsolete, but still possible, without removing bank looting or any other mechanics, along with other suggestions that could help prevent shady or rule breaking bank shenanigans in the future.

 

  • Forthwith, one nation can make a new alliance every 45 days. This eliminates the never ending cycle of declaring wars and remaking your offshore immediately. The purpose is clear and it can not hurt real alliance creation in anyway, as I doubt anyone except Sean Anthony is going around and making new alliances every 2 weeks.
  • Further, for all nations one year or older, creating a new alliance should cost something. Lets say, $20M cash. The profitability behind remaking offshores in an endless circle of several government members functioning outside the alliance would be questionable, at best. I've included nation age so we do not impede on micros. (could be exploited as pointed out by ArcKnox and Dryad, better to make it a universal cost) And for an actual, real alliance creation - if you are not ready to invest $20m into your alliance creation, you should probably not make a new alliance. Also the actual figure is just an example, if the consensus in the thread deems it, it can be easily increased to 30, or 40, 50m.
  • To prevent this from happening, as you must have 1000 score to make a new alliance, the same principle should exist for promoting leaders of the alliance. So, 1000 score for creating the alliance and 1000 score for being eligible to be promoted to the leader of the alliance. Further, to prevent abuse of setting wide bank usage permissions to circumvent this mechanic (ie, someone 1000+ score makes an alliance, invites a 0 score nation over, sets member, officer or heir-wide bank perms and leaves), if you are the only member of the alliance and you are not the leader, you should be locked out of using any bank mechanics.
  • If there are 2 or less members in an alliance, and you are blockaded, you should not be able to use the bank. But alas, salvation would still be at hand - you can invite someone unblockaded over to help you send the funds away. This further makes offshoring complicated and creates more offshore hunting possibilities, but I can see why some people would not like this change.
  • Nerf the bank loot formula. For example, on a bank worth $10b cash and 5m resources each, if on an average nation max looting was up to, say, 0.005-0.01% ($500K-1M cash and 250-500 of each resource, on the aforementioned example) of your entire bank, in the face of increased difficulties of maintaining offshores, your average alliance would see this loot as inconsequential, and they would likely move their bank operations back to alliance HQ. Current bank looting formula is (RAND(0, (player score/alliance score)))/3, which can be easily adjusted.
  • However, on one man alliances, I believe the 33% max loot should still stay. You could still offshore, but with increased risks of being blockaded and completely pauperized by good raiders, etc.
  • As the bank looting formula would be severely nerfed, the compensation towards raiding is necessary. The best way to do this is to increase nation cash beige loot percentage from 10% to 15%.

 

I believe this is all easily implementable, it only uses already existing mechanics, and most importantly, it does not eliminate any existing mechanics, meta or impedes on players in anyway. The goal of these suggestions is clear - make offshoring obsolete by making home banking the most viable option, while *still* allowing offshoring and saving every penny at an increased risk.

Tell me what you think and share any insights you have yourself. I believe there should not be any loopholes in my suggestions, but if there are, kindly point them out.

The looting formulas and one-man AA's are not the problem.

 

The problem is the way war works in the game. It's too easy to lose, even if you're winning.

 

Resistance, multi-day buy times for military, MAP's generating in real time and capping at 12... etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 hours ago, Theodosius said:

Current bank looting formula is (RAND(0, (player score/alliance score)))/3

I just want to point out that this is not correct.

The current alliance bank looting formula is a random value between 0.01% and (Target Score / Alliance Score), with a cap of 33%. There is no division by 3.

For a large alliance, you could well get the full (Target Score / Alliance Score) value currently.

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

2 minutes ago, Viselli said:

I like this suggestion but will add on I and some others suggested in Alex's original thread. You should have to unlock the alliance bank based off the score of the alliance. 5k - 10k score should be enough to not hinder legitimate micros from starting but is enough to guarantee that an offshore has large enough members for the average player to raid. 

But then what if some nation creates an offshore and has good score? It could happen, and then they might have enough, though the 20M cost is a good idea @Theodosius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is definitely one of the better thought up ideas good job!

The Coal King approval has been granted I shall endorse thy with 5k coal

@Theodosius

Just DM me friendo and I'll endorse ya

PS the hell did this large text come from ?

Edited by Nokia Rokia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Viselli said:

I like this suggestion but will add on I and some others suggested in Alex's original thread. You should have to unlock the alliance bank based off the score of the alliance. 5k - 10k score should be enough to not hinder legitimate micros from starting but is enough to guarantee that an offshore has large enough members for the average player to raid. 

A better idea would be to limit the size of the alliance bank until the alliance has a certain score rather then disabling the bank completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, lightside said:

A better idea would be to limit the size of the alliance bank until the alliance has a certain score rather then disabling the bank completely.

Bu what about starting alliances, some of them might have a good amount of stuff to start off, but then they'd have a strict limit imposed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Epi said:

All this does is restrict the number of new alliances. 20mil, 50mil. 1 credit, 10 credits. 45 days, 100 days.

These things don't matter to the large alliances. If we implement this TKR, BK and NPO will set 3 gov. members each to be semi-permanent bankers and they'll rotate the bank around beiges. And again, smaller alliances won't have to, because most of them store their money with the chief member of their sphere.

Also the time restriction is rather pointless, as i'd just have one of my members form the alliance. Even if i can't be leader, i could set banking perms to member. ?

Another consequence would be storing banks with neutral spheres/alliances. Sure it might create politics if they're caught, but knowing the risks it'll be unlikely.

The issue rn, is we have a handful of banks holding all the wealth in the game and being virtually untouchable. That's not gonna change, we can find new ways around any impediments we create except a cap on bank contents. Forcing us to bank for ourselves. Forcing us to actually risk our savings when going to war.

If Sheepy's trying to end the era of swiss bank accounts, it might be a good idea to let him ? 

Yeah, that's true, how would you stop it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, GeneralB said:

Yeah, that's true, how would you stop it then?

Not really. Theo suggestion does not stop creating new alliance. Since players will only set up an alliance once they’re experienced enough and fulfills the requirement of ingame money/credit.

that established alliance bypassing this new suggestion can be easily fixable with setting the limit of 100 days per nation for alliance recreation and require higher level of coordination on beige cycle/discipline once the war is won militarily.

he can set his member to create a bank beforehand but i hope that said member wont turn out akuryo, epi or other unidentified bank stealer.

Forcing us to risk ourselves with banking will only hinder great war plans coz there is a fear of losing too much with no hope of making a comeback since losing sphere will continue to get looted and the only option would be a treaty cluster and thus Rebranding of game to “Politics and Discord”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Limbuwan said:

Not really. Theo suggestion does not stop creating new alliance. Since players will only set up an alliance once they’re experienced enough and fulfills the requirement of ingame money/credit.

that established alliance bypassing this new suggestion can be easily fixable with setting the limit of 100 days per nation for alliance recreation and require higher level of coordination on beige cycle/discipline once the war is won militarily.

he can set his member to create a bank beforehand but i hope that said member wont turn out akuryo, epi or other unidentified bank stealer.

Forcing us to risk ourselves with banking will only hinder great war plans coz there is a fear of losing too much with no hope of making a comeback since losing sphere will continue to get looted and the only option would be a treaty cluster and thus Rebranding of game to “Politics and Discord”

Even if there's a 100 day barrier, that really wouldn't stop larger alliances, and can be unfair for someone who's alliances falls apart on day 7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TBH, the end response of the changes suggested is that offshoring will become harder, but not impossible. The end result is that the quantity of offshores considered good further decrease, while experienced bank looters get more offshore loot, and good offshorers are just as invulnerable as ever.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Epi said:

All this does is restrict the number of new alliances. 20mil, 50mil. 1 credit, 10 credits. 45 days, 100 days.

These things don't matter to the large alliances. If we implement this TKR, BK and NPO will set 3 gov. members each to be semi-permanent bankers and they'll rotate the bank around beiges. And again, smaller alliances won't have to, because most of them store their money with the chief member of their sphere.

Also the time restriction is rather pointless, as i'd just have one of my members form the alliance. Even if i can't be leader, i could set banking perms to member. ?

Another consequence would be storing banks with neutral spheres/alliances. Sure it might create politics if they're caught, but knowing the risks it'll be unlikely.

The issue rn, is we have a handful of banks holding all the wealth in the game and being virtually untouchable. That's not gonna change, we can find new ways around any impediments we create except a cap on bank contents. Forcing us to bank for ourselves. Forcing us to actually risk our savings when going to war.

If Sheepy's trying to end the era of swiss bank accounts, it might be a good idea to let him ? 

The idea behind my suggestions is to make offshores economically unprofitable, not outright impossible. If an alliance is willing to pay 150M for 3 offshores, then have those offshores blockaded and slotted by Arrgh only to be forced to make another offshore, that is their prerogative. Is it possible? Yes. Is it profitable? No.

The second point has been addressed on the 1000 score abuse-prevention ideas. Also makes no sense as the cost of creating the offshore would still fall on your shoulders.

The third point, I see nothing wrong with that. Some alliances have been doing that for years before offshores were made a possibility. The idea is not to make prevention of bank looting impossible.

The ideas I've brought forward induce a way of natural decay of resources, through minimal inconsequential bank loots that would happen upon beiges. It would also bring forward a difficulty to defend offshores, creating new raiding possibilities. Bank caps are an artificial way of handling this problem and they would require constant changes and balances as the game grows.

Edited by Theodosius

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like a lot of the ideas. Not sure if it should be as simple as just having another person come from off AA onto it in order to transfer the funds or it should be a little harder; such as those with bank access needing their blockades broken if they want to send anyting before day change.

Could maybe have it if a new person is added for bank access; if everyone else is blockaded they don't gain access to the funds until day change. Almost feel like just having someone not already at war join the AA to send it instead would be a similar loophole; in it being possible to make banks unlootable just by coordinating some people to switch AAs. Inviting somebody who isn't blockaded already isn't complicated at all, just requires having somebody you trust with it like the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

Well @Alex made it clear that once you place cash within the alliance bank it is no longer owned by that nation, so my question is why beating that nation in a war enables someone to steal from the alliance bank they do not own it.

I personally would like to see loot based of alliance wars lost,

So lets say Alliance A has 100 nations this is how you would loot the bank.
1) You have to beige more than 50% of the alliance to reach the loot
2) Every 1% over the minimum cap gives you 2% of the maximum possible loot,
3) if you beige 80% you would get 60% of the max 33% loot able.

Now you are wondering what about world wars, well lets take the current was well lets say Alliance A beige 45% and Alliance B beige 20% then no one will be able to get any bank loot, this means alliances who want to loot the banks have to work better together and plan, it will also make beige people important.

Yes this would mean a rework on beige as right now people are not beige due to the fact it helps the person losing more than those winning, As for the offshore well that's a simple fix in truth Anyone who leaves an alliance has a 7 day cooling off before they are able to make another alliance, sure they could join one but they will not be able to make one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Theodosius said:

The idea behind my suggestions is to make offshores economically unprofitable, not outright impossible. If an alliance is willing to pay 150M for 3 offshores, then have those offshores blockaded and slotted by Arrgh only to be forced to make another offshore, that is their prerogative. Is it possible? Yes. Is it profitable? No.

The second point has been addressed on the 1000 score abuse-prevention ideas. Also makes no sense as the cost of creating the offshore would still fall on your shoulders.

The third point, I see nothing wrong with that. Some alliances have been doing that for years before offshores were made a possibility. The idea is not to make prevention of bank looting impossible.

The ideas I've brought forward induce a way of natural decay of resources, through minimal inconsequential bank loots that would happen upon beiges. It would also bring forward a difficulty to defend offshores, creating new raiding possibilities. Bank caps are an artificial way of handling this problem and they would require constant changes and balances as the game grows.

Yeah, you're right, it'd be better just to make them unprofitable, but what about existing one, wouldn't they just be able to stay profitable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo's got some solid ideas there. I've honestly looked for a problem or an exploit, but he's covered it all, and in a way that doesn't entirely remove banking as a critical balance factor. I'm down for these changes.

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.