Applicants bleeding banks(seems like a bug to me)

[ELPINCHAZO]

We had someone that was an applicant for a day or so that went unnoticed. He was attacked while and applicant,the result of his losing war ended in our bank being hit for resources. This should NOT ever happen as the player was never accepted into our alliance. This seriously needs to be fixed ASAP or it is going to be a cattle call for a new wave of multi abuse.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=19073 our example.

 

there should probably also be options to set alliances to open or closed,etc.

[Phiney]

Great catch El P good work. Notifications on someone applying would also help this situation. 

[Solomon]

Sheepy already knows about this issue.

[Alex]

Right, I'm aware and still have yet to come up with a solution. I'm open to suggestions. The issue is simply that if applicants don't affect the alliance bank when they lose a war, an alliance could have all its members as applicants to protect the bank.

[Grillick]

Have applicants unable to receive the color stock bonus, make it impossible to make someone else an applicant, and have applicant status automatically removed every x days.

[Ayayay]

Have applicants unable to receive the color stock bonus

I'm against this, sometimes it takes a few days to approve someone. I also know some alliances like having applicants for a few weeks before accepting them to make sure they are actually active.

 

I do agree, however, that alliances should be unable to move status to applicant.

[Ollysho]

That being said, I really do think that applicants alliance leaders/the rank chosen to have this power should get some sort of notification that there is a new applicant.

 

Although I think the colour stock bonus is the best idea. Sure some alliances like to keep people on the application list for a while but then that just means that the alliances doesn't get the bonus until the nation is a full member. It's not like the alliances 'loses' anything per se, just postpones what it 'gains'

[Ayayay]

-snip-

The problem is it will hurt the applicant, not the alliance. The applicant is already on a color and thus the other members of the color are already benefiting from it. The applicant will only suffer as they would be forfeiting this bonus. (And knowing the average user, they wouldn't even know they were forfeiting the bonus) Even if Sheepy changed the system so that applicants didn't affect the color stock, a more activeish applicant could switch AA to none before the turn change and reapply, still getting the color stock bonus. (Remember, when not in an alliance a player gets any color stock bonus they want) Edited September 16, 2014 by underlordgc

[Prefontaine]

Simple: Make it a rule of the game one cannot abuse the applicant system to avoid bank loses. If someone sees it done it can be reported and you can manually drain the alliance bank of a larger % than that would have been lost.

 

It's a fairly obvious thing to notice. It was noticed by many that VoC was kicking members to avoid bank losses in Alpha.

[Ayayay]

It's a fairly obvious thing to notice. It was noticed by many that VoC was kicking members to avoid bank losses in Alpha.

I thought it was obvious that Bgorre raged and kicked half the membership before being reported to the authorities by Ragnar.

[Toxxikation]

Conversely: Suppose TEst and EoS got in a war. I could leave TEst, have someone declare on me, not fight back, lose the war, and TEst could steal money directly from EoS, as well as capturing my resources to fund the war effort, AND I'd be the 14th biggest member of their alliance. All it takes is someone who doesn't care about pixels to really abuse this system.

Suggestion: Have a set up where applications can be "Sent" or "Pending". Sent would be someone who just applied for the alliance, pending would be applications that are "under review" indicating that that nation is under the protection of the alliance they're applied to and count against the bank. If anyone is an applicant to an alliance they were a part of previously, they count against the bank. If they are a new nation or have a "sent" application (to an alliance they weren't previously a part of) they don't count against the bank.

[Ayayay]

-snip-

But then why would an alliance ever set an applicants status to "pending?" They could just leave it on "sent" and not bother to change it. Also what happens if someone leaves an alliance and joins another one then months down the line the two alliances fight each other, the one that left could apply and have funds stolen that way.

Edited September 16, 2014 by underlordgc

[Phiney]

Sorry under I disagree with your initial points. !@#$ applicants. If an alliance can't approve or disapprove you in a day and you really want that colour bonus, start looking elsewhere for an alliance that's more active or faster to act. Sorry but I don't see why applicants should get any special priveledges, they're not in the alliance so they shouldn't get the alliances colour bonus and they certainly shouldn't cost the alliance their bank. I don't see why they wouldn't get the same colour bonus a user with no alliance would get.

[Phiney]

Also, to stop the 'alliance making all members applicants' thing,

 

A. Have applicants not show up in the alliance members list. It would then be harder to track them and the alliance would dramatically drop in the rankings e.t.c.

 

B. Have banks only able to send money to alliance members or other alliances.

 

C. I presume This is already a part of the game but is still a reason not to do this, alliance applicants don't get taxed.

[Toxxikation]

But then why would an alliance ever set an applicants status to "pending?" They could just leave it on "sent" and not bother to change it. Also what happens if someone leaves an alliance and joins another one then months down the line the two alliances fight each other, the one that left could apply and have funds stolen that way.

 

As stated earlier in this thread, some alliances like to have applicants for days or weeks to monitor activity. Most alliances aren't going to try to cheat the system this way.

 

To counter your second point: If TEst and EoS get into a war, and I've switched from EoS to TEst, I would have to leave TEst and go back to EoS for someone to get to the bank. Likely, I wouldn't switch like that, but also, I'd still be a target of EoS members, who would then be...stealing...from their...own bank.

[Vincent]

I would say applicants do/should not enjoy the colour bonus. Applicant cannot remit anything into the alliance bank and applicants are not subjected to alliance tax. And at the same time applicant losing war should not affect the alliance bank as technically applicant is not part of an alliance yet. their application may or may not be accepted at the end of the day. until then what an applicant does or losing a war should not affect the alliance that it is applying to.

And to prevent exploit of the alliance kicking its member to applicant status to protect its alliance bank, maybe what we can do is once the member is kicked out by the alliance or leaves it, they cannot reapply to the same alliance for a period of time ( 2 weeks or so?) maybe that will solve the problem . no one will want to be unaligned just to protect the alliance bank.

To address what prefontaine said, VOC kicking members to protect the bank, maybe what we can do is, once war is declared on the nation, no matter what the alliance do, kicking it out due to it being inactive or etc, the alliance bank is still going to be looted when that nation loses the war. So if the alliance want to protect its bank from the raiders by kicking /expelling inactive, they need to do it before the raider declare war on those inactive member and not after.

Edited September 17, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Ollysho]

Sorry under I disagree with your initial points. !@#$ applicants. If an alliance can't approve or disapprove you in a day and you really want that colour bonus, start looking elsewhere for an alliance that's more active or faster to act. Sorry but I don't see why applicants should get any special priveledges, they're not in the alliance so they shouldn't get the alliances colour bonus and they certainly shouldn't cost the alliance their bank. I don't see why they wouldn't get the same colour bonus a user with no alliance would get.

 

Exactly this. If you want to join an alliance and you REALLY want your colour bonus then simply find another alliance with a shorter application period. I feel like this is just arguing for argument sake, if I choose to apply to an alliance that has a long application period then I've made that choice. I mean honestly the highest bonus right now is 9-10% New nations WILL survive without it if they chose to make that decision.

[Ayayay]

Exactly this. If you want to join an alliance and you REALLY want your colour bonus then simply find another alliance with a shorter application period. I feel like this is just arguing for argument sake, if I choose to apply to an alliance that has a long application period then I've made that choice. I mean honestly the highest bonus right now is 9-10% New nations WILL survive without it if they chose to make that decision.

I think your missing the point, new nations barely understand the Beige mechanics, I doubt they will know they are forfeiting their color bonus as an applicant.

 

 

Also, to stop the 'alliance making all members applicants' thing,

 

A. Have applicants not show up in the alliance members list. It would then be harder to track them and the alliance would dramatically drop in the rankings e.t.c.

 

C. I presume This is already a part of the game but is still a reason not to do this, alliance applicants don't get taxed.

These already exist, applicants do show up when you look through the alliance member list but they don't contribute score, military, or to the total nation count of the alliance.

 

B. Have banks only able to send money to alliance members or other alliances. 

I feel that is absolutely useless. You're saying that when alliances need to pay off members of other alliances (for raiding repayment or other personal reasons) it should instead be withdrawn by a member of that alliance and then sent as a personal trade? Why wouldn't people do this to send money to applicants?

 

 

 

To counter your second point: If TEst and EoS get into a war, and I've switched from EoS to TEst, I would have to leave TEst and go back to EoS for someone to get to the bank. Likely, I wouldn't switch like that, but also, I'd still be a target of EoS members, who would then be...stealing...from their...own bank.

That was your own point

Conversely: Suppose TEst and EoS got in a war. I could leave TEst, have someone declare on me, not fight back, lose the war, and TEst could steal money directly from EoS, as well as capturing my resources to fund the war effort, AND I'd be the 14th biggest member of their alliance. All it takes is someone who doesn't care about pixels to really abuse this system.

Edited September 17, 2014 by underlordgc

[Toxxikation]

-snip- Also what happens if someone leaves an alliance and joins another one then months down the line the two alliances fight each other, the one that left could apply and have funds stolen that way.

Posting for your reference.

 

My point: I leave my alliance, apply for your alliance, have my old alliance mates attack me and steal from your bank.

Your point: I leave my alliance, join your alliance. Your alliance and my old alliance go to war. I leave your alliance, reapply for my old alliance, have my new alliance attack me, and steal funds from my old alliance bank.

 

Your point is just a convoluted expansion of my point.

[Demon]

OMG!

 

Kick applicants. case closed.

[Vincent]

so says the chief of raiders.

[Ayayay]

Your point is just a convoluted expansion of my point.

Everything I say is a convoluted expansion of someone else's point. 

[Ren]

What if there was some a restriction on people leaving and immediately rejoining an alliance? If alliance leaders can't demote someone to applicant, and a full member can't leave and reapply as an applicant without waiting 5-10 days, then applicants could be exempt from bank looting in a defeat and still keep their color bonus. Very few would be willing to leave their alliance and wait a few days sans alliance protection just to keep raiders from looting the alliance bank. It would also keep trolls from immediately reapplying to an alliance after being forcibly removed by alliance leaders.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Ren

[Odin]

How about removing the applicant-rank.

And just make an automatic message "xx wants to join the alliance" @ alliance-chef

[Dwynn]

I thought this was fixed ages ago when looting went in Sheepy, we talked about it. The best way is to log with each war what alliance that person is a member of. Then when defeated THAT alliance bank gets looted, whether the member is with them or not.

 

I know people are going to cry, "BUT WE KICKED THEM OUT CAUSE THEY WEREN'T A REAL MEMBER". Well... they were a real member because they had a member mask.

 

Applicants shouldn't be considered a member mask, so that wouldn't have the effect of "apply to this alliance to screw with their bank". It would avoid people trying to abuse bank looting in that fashion.