rapmanej Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Yeah, sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but in order for the game to be stabilized, a bank cap is needed. Right now, large nations who avoid war could in the future be able to completely wreck the game's stability with their ability to send unlimited funds. What I propose: A system where there is an "appropriate" monetary cap and a limit to the daily transactions that can be sent from the bank (sending to the bank will be left alone). Just for example: 4,00,000 with 10 aid slots per day, which could be expanded by the use of donations, i.e. 10 dollars for each additional slot, and 10 dollars for each additional million that can be sent. The only drawback to this is that is will have to be updated in time to keep up with the game. A (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) type situation needs to be avoided, but so does an all out crapshoot that brought PN down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 How could unlimited aid wreck the game? And, $4 mil ain't shit. How will we trade/aid in the future if caps are set in infancy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) How could unlimited aid wreck the game? And, $4 mil ain't !@#$. How will we trade/aid in the future if caps are set in infancy? the 4 million is just an example for how a cap could be set up. I'm not suggesting a specific value, I'm just suggesting that a value needs to be put in place. Edited January 16, 2015 by rapmanej Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speaker Faris Wheeler Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Id ont agre wit tis, if you wan't t stahp otter ppl have highe scores ,yourr just jealoius Edited January 16, 2015 by Morgan Fraser Quote Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 No to the whole idea, especially the donation part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saeton Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Id ont agre wit tis, if you wan't t stahp otter ppl have highe scores ,yourr just jealoius is this an inside joke 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...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 is this an inside joke If it is, then I'm on the outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Plz no. 3 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 Plz no. Care to elaborate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Care to elaborate? no 2 Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Given that only one person here even tried to expound on their reasoning, I'm in favor of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 How could unlimited aid wreck the game? And, $4 mil ain't !@#$. How will we trade/aid in the future if caps are set in infancy? Clearly you haven't been in PN when an alliance of less than 10 players basically "broke" the game using this mechanic. I agree with this idea. Better do it now while the game is still relatively young. Unlimited aid caps are inherently problematic and can easily be exploited in the future. Think of an eternal war in the lower tier with upper tier nations funding them for the lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Clearly you haven't been in PN when an alliance of less than 10 players basically "broke" the game using this mechanic. I agree with this idea. Better do it now while the game is still relatively young. Unlimited aid caps are inherently problematic and can easily be exploited in the future. Think of an eternal war in the lower tier with upper tier nations funding them for the lulz. Isn't that why we have beige mode? If an alliance instigates some sort of functional eternal war then wouldn't they gain the enmity of Orbis for driving away players? Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Allow me to explain my reasoning: This is a bad idea because it may hurt me at some point in the distant future. So, yeah, it's pretty open and shut, guys. 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I think these games are inherently broken because we keep playing after it has been won. A reset every year or two is the only solution. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Isn't that why we have beige mode? If an alliance instigates some sort of functional eternal war then wouldn't they gain the enmity of Orbis for driving away players? It's just an example of the downsides of an unlimited aid cap that I thought of. Beige mode does not prevent an eternal war and no alliance may be willing to do it but that doesn't remove the fact that it is still possible to instigate given the mechanic. Moreover, there are more ways to exploit it in the future. Another one I can think of is when the game is old enough, we will have nations with enough income that can power boost small nations in a very short amount of time. The city build limit is helping prevent that as of the moment, but as far as I know there is no buy limit on infra. Even with 2-3 cities, we may see nations less than a month old nations already at 1000 infra or so. I think these games are inherently broken because we keep playing after it has been won. A reset every year or two is the only solution. How about patch updates? I know it's hard to do in these type of games and there will be expected incessant whining from the community every patch, but at least we are assured the game continues to adapt to changes. I'd rather have patch updates than resets or continue to keep a static game mechanic that will cause the downfall of the game in the long run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Allow me to explain my reasoning: This is a bad idea because it may hurt me at some point in the distant future. So, yeah, it's pretty open and shut, guys. You are arguing that you would rather not fix an inherently unstable system, because your nation will benefit from it, regardless if it hurts the game as a whole. You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind it's rather selfish to want to keep a system that destroys the game, only because your nation will benefit. Edited January 17, 2015 by rapmanej Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 You are arguing that you would rather not fix an inherently unstable system, because your nation will benefit from it, regardless if it hurts the game as a hole. You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind it's rather selfish to want to keep a system that destroys the game, only because your nation will benefit. Yes. 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) It's just an example of the downsides of an unlimited aid cap that I thought of. Beige mode does not prevent an eternal war and no alliance may be willing to do it but that doesn't remove the fact that it is still possible to instigate given the mechanic. Moreover, there are more ways to exploit it in the future. Another one I can think of is when the game is old enough, we will have nations with enough income that can power boost small nations in a very short amount of time. The city build limit is helping prevent that as of the moment, but as far as I know there is no buy limit on infra. Even with 2-3 cities, we may see nations less than a month old nations already at 1000 infra or so. ...then would you be suggesting a limit on infrastructure purchases within a set amount of time? Edited January 17, 2015 by fistofdoom Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 ...then would you be suggesting a limit on infrastructure purchases within a set amount of time? No. A limit on aid cap can already address this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Yes. How do you justify your opinion? I'm not sure if you are serious, I'm not going to lie, I have been playing these types of games for over 6 years. I have never come across someone like you, who would want to keep a broken system, just so their nation would have more pixels. Edited January 17, 2015 by rapmanej Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I don't like this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 No. A limit on aid cap can already address this problem. I'm currently not in favor of an aid cap. I'd much rather discuss the merits of some sort of infrastructure purchase constraints. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 How do you justify your opinion? I'm not sure if you are serious, I'm not going to lie, I have been playing these types of games for over 6 years. I have never come across someone like you, who would want to keep a broken system, just so their nation would have more pixels. I don't think he's serious about it. There won't be a nation worthwhile to keep when the game gets broken enough for people to start leaving. The survival of our individual nations is interconnected to the survival of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 I don't like this idea. Care to expound why? I'm currently not in favor of an aid cap. I'd much rather discuss the merits of some sort of infrastructure purchase constraints. infrastructure should be unlimited. I think in the future a hard limit on cities should be looked into, but an aid cap is currently the most pressing concern. If it is implemented soon, it won't have have too much of a negative shock. 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.