Greene Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Just noticed that an Applicant was attacked (while they were an applicant, and they still are an applicant) and when they were defeated, the bank lost some resources and cash. I thought only members being defeated could drain the bank? December 17: Scruffy is moved to Applicant December 19: Scruffy is declared on by Gredinov Timeline: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=26024 December 22: Scruffy is defeated by Gredinov, and the CU bank loses 0.27% of its stockpiles. Quote Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017) 7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 This isn't a bug, has been discussed before during beta and works as sheepy intended I'm afraid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Which makes one wonder if it's considered an exploit to hop onto an AA as an applicant then purposefully be defeated by a friend to gain bank loot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 This isn't a bug, it's intentional. I believe the logic is that it prevents an alliance from pushing all of their members to applicant status to preserve the bank. Alternatives have been discussed before, but it seems that Sheepy is unwilling to change this. Previous Discussion http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2824-applicants-bleeding-banksseems-like-a-bug-to-me/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted December 22, 2014 Administrators Share Posted December 22, 2014 This isn't a bug, it's intentional. I believe the logic is that it prevents an alliance from pushing all of their members to applicant status to preserve the bank. Alternatives have been discussed before, but it seems that Sheepy is unwilling to change this. Previous Discussion http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2824-applicants-bleeding-banksseems-like-a-bug-to-me/ I'll throw it on the to-do list. It just hasn't been a pressing issue. 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...
ELPINCHAZO Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 I'll throw it on the to-do list. It just hasn't been a pressing issue. it would also be nice if AAs had a ban list in regards to applicants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geronimo Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 it would also be nice if AAs had a ban list in regards to applicants. Definitely agree with this idea. I think this is should be add to Sheppy's to-do list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Do you mean ban list as in they cannot join the aa if they are on it? If so I am all for it. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I'll throw it on the to-do list. It just hasn't been a pressing issue. Then make it so it only applies to people who are actually apart of the alliance instead of just applicants. Just because it hasn't been a pressing issue yet doesn't mean it won't be. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollysho Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Yeah I definitely feel like it shouldn't apply to applicants. Sure certain alliances could mass move members to the applicant position but then it would just be that particular case that happened to be cheating. It really makes no sense that If someone were to apply to an alliance and get raided within minutes then the alliance will suffer. Quote [22:36:30] <&CMDR_Adama> I want to be spanked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Baraboo Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 It would be nice to be able to set your alliance to closed to applicants, or to invite only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 It would be nice to be able to set your alliance to closed to applicants, or to invite only. Yeah, would be easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 It would be nice to be able to set your alliance to closed to applicants, or to invite only. That's a good idea actually Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Yeah I definitely feel like it shouldn't apply to applicants. Sure certain alliances could mass move members to the applicant position but then it would just be that particular case that happened to be cheating. It really makes no sense that If someone were to apply to an alliance and get raided within minutes then the alliance will suffer. My recommendation the last time this was discussed was to not allow alliance leaders to move anyone applicant status (I dunno if that's possible now), then disallow anyone to reapply to join an alliance after leaving or being kicked for 5 or 10 days. No one would leave their alliance for 5 days just to reapply as an applicant to protect the bank. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 My recommendation the last time this was discussed was to not allow alliance leaders to move anyone applicant status (I dunno if that's possible now), then disallow anyone to reapply to join an alliance after leaving or being kicked for 5 or 10 days. No one would leave their alliance for 5 days just to reapply as an applicant to protect the bank.But think of all the people who leave an alliance to quickly make a joke one then return almost immediately! Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I was pretty sure that when this came up initially, the solution was to tag the alliance name that the member is a part of in the war. Then when the war defeat happened it still hit the bank that the nation was of. Applicants of course need to be excluded, which appears to not be the case. Was this not how things ended up being implemented (aside from the applicant portion)? Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Applicants should not be excluded...when someone is applying to an AA then they are put as a pending status for the alliance in question, they have an AA tag on their own nation, they are basically a part of it. if alliances cant protect their applicants thats on them......however: i do agree that we need more options for controlling alliances: invite/close applications/etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Applicants should not be excluded...when someone is applying to an AA then they are put as a pending status for the alliance in question, they have an AA tag on their own nation, they are basically a part of it. if alliances cant protect their applicants thats on them......however: i do agree that we need more options for controlling alliances: invite/close applications/etc Completely wrong. Just no. Hi, my name is George. I'm not a fan of SK, so I'm going to go engage in war, then apply to be part of SK. When I get defeated, SK bank gets looted, and then I pick up the loot from my friend. Thanks for the free money SK! Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Completely wrong. Just no. Hi, my name is George. I'm not a fan of SK, so I'm going to go engage in war, then apply to be part of SK. When I get defeated, SK bank gets looted, and then I pick up the loot from my friend. Thanks for the free money SK! if i remember right, didn't sheepy have a safeguard for this? something along the lines of a nation is in an alliance and is then declared on. alliance tries to kick them so as to avoid the defeat and bank looting. bank is still looted anyway as they were part of that alliance at the beginning of the war.... or did that get changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Right, but the fact of the matter is, as an applicant they don't count towards your alliance in ANY OTHER METHOD. Why should them being on applicant cause bank to be looted. Sounds simply as an oversight on Sheepy's part. They're excluded from alliance member count, totals, etc. They don't have access to alliance announcements etc. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 (edited) Right, but the fact of the matter is, as an applicant they don't count towards your alliance in ANY OTHER METHOD. Why should them being on applicant cause bank to be looted. Sounds simply as an oversight on Sheepy's part. They're excluded from alliance member count, totals, etc. They don't have access to alliance announcements etc. applicants have access to alliances banks to view, receive and donate, they can view announcements, market sharing, info, etc. they are members w/o the full title Edited December 27, 2014 by Jon Snow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollysho Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Exactly. The fact that they're an applicant doesn't mean they're in the alliance. Quote [22:36:30] <&CMDR_Adama> I want to be spanked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 applicants have access to alliances banks to view, receive and donate, they can view announcements, market sharing, info, etc. they are members w/o the full title Not really. When I see "applicant" I don't think "member". I usually just think they either are applying, or are pending. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollysho Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Not really. When I see "applicant" I don't think "member". I usually just think they either are applying, or are pending. Exactly this. Especially because an alliance does have the power to decide who can or cannot apply. Quote [22:36:30] <&CMDR_Adama> I want to be spanked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 applicants have access to alliances banks to view, receive and donate, they can view announcements, market sharing, info, etc. they are members w/o the full title If this is true, it needs to be fixed ASAP. Applicants are not part of the alliance. They haven't yet been accepted by the alliance. Why in the hell would they be given access to information intended for members only? That makes absolutely no sense in any shape, form, or fashion. 1 Quote 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.