Loan Markets - coding loans into the game

[Placentica]

SoS's topic on interest on saved cash had me thinking.

What if we had a formal loan market similar to our trade market?  So you have buy/sells for loans at terms you specify?  The loan repayment would be hard-coded into your income collection.

 

A number ways you could hard-code it into someone's collection:

 

1) They simply pay back interest and can submit a principal payment which would lower their daily interest payment.  They choose when to pay back the principal.

 

2) Specifiy the loan, the total to be repaid and the % of your income.  Paypal has a loan project like this.  You get loaned $10,000, for like $11,000 and they take 20% of your sales volume until it's paid off (or in this case income collection).  PW:  You loan $1m with a $1.3m payback with 30% of your income.  Seller gets a estimated payback timeframe based on current net income.

 

3)  The usual loan amount and daily payback.  Seller gets to offer loans, but approval buyers (to see if they can afford the loan).

 

So people can bid on the best interest rate and the interest rate becomes similar to the $ PPU of a resource.  People put out buyers for $5m@4% and anyone can loan him $1 to $5m to get that rate.  You have a loan tab with all your pending loans.  Add in a daily principal repayment to it want. 

 

Sellers could put out loans in a simlar way.  I have $3m in cash and I can throw out an offer that I'm willing to lan $3m@6%.  If no takers or someone under cuts my interest rate, then I can remove loan, and reoffer one at say [email protected]%, etc.  Say war breaks out, I'd expect loans to get real pricey real fast similar to resources.  Might add a fun element to the game.

 

To prevent someone from taking all kinds of loans, you could have a FICO like score based on your net income and outstanding debt.

 

I know we have people loaning money, but their has to be a way to code it and make it like the trade market.  A guaranteed way to get paid back, taken right out of your income collection.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Placentica

[MRBOOTY]

Hey Mr Placenta, this is a good suggestion

I remember this was proposed a while ago, in the very beginning, when there was much congestion

But now Sheepy might have the means to make it come true

The only problem is that it kind of cuts into enterprises like the Cirrus bank, which would make them rue

But I think it'd be interesting, to say the least

A bit complicated to program with all those variables, but once it got started I think it would rise like yeast

I think alliances would still be the most successful lenders,

especially ones with low loan interest rates, two of which you and I are members.

Edited February 12, 2015 by MRBOOTY

[Placentica]

I would think that simple loans with 2-3 variables wouldn't be too hard to code.  Loan amount, Interest Rate, Daily repayment.  Final screen shows the numbers and then when you accept, your daily net income goes down, and the sellers goes up by the loan details (and he loses the cash, similar to when you buy/sell a resource).  It would be a regular resource trade - but only with your net income and a time period.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Placentica

[Dwemyrn]

There is no point, if you donate to Politics and War you can get the money you need.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Great Idea, would love to see this in effect.

[fistofdoom]

Errr, wouldn't this undermine player-run banking?

[Hereno]

sheepy has already said "no" to this because it's a lot of work for something unnecessary that might be more trouble than it is worth

[Ashland]

Do you just want to take the food out of Sheepy's mouth? For shame.

 

This would eliminate the demand for donations by making loaning players money almost completely risk free.

 

Also, everything I said in the previous thread about this:

1: Easy to take advantage of players. You know how some people occasionally trick players into buying really bad trades using gimmicks? This could have the potential for that but be INFINITELY worse. A player could see "Oh, gee, a hundred thousand dollars? Awesome!" Click accept, and then find out that all their revenue is taken forever because, look at that, the 100k was actually a loan that had 2000% interest. You'd have to implement an expansive array of mechanical and moderation-based tools to prevent !@#$ like that.

2: How would this deal with embargoes?

3: Computer programs can't be reasoned with. What if you go to war while you have a loan out? I, as a human being, can defer the debtor's payments until after the war. A program couldn't do that. So you'd have to implement another mechanism if you wanted any kind of flexibility. Oh, look at that, more coding, more things that could go wrong.

4: Makes setting up multis more profitable. Way more profitable. And it makes it easier to get money from your multis to your main without it being suspicious. Nothing to see here, just a guy who borrowed money from me and then went inactive! It's okay, though. I get first dibs on his revenue (before anyone can even attack him to take it) from now until he ceases to exist.

5: The general inflexibility of a program that automatically does anything would have to be compensated for with more complex, nuanced features. And with each additional feature and nuance it becomes easier and easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting player.

 

Sheepy: Your Game currently has a player run financial sector that is made up of myself and several other players. Your choice is simple. You either let a robust, innovative aspect of the game (which is UNIQUE to your game) continue to grow and evolve into who knows what or you destroy it. Any game can code mechanics in and force things onto the system that way. That's nothing to brag about. It's much more impressive to create an environment where those things happen organically. Nobody else can say they've done that. It's something that makes your game unique. It makes it yours.

 

And it adds variables to the political and economic climate that wouldn't otherwise exist! I understand where Guardian is coming from. They want predictability and uniformity. But it's the individuality that you allow to thrive that makes politics and war so great. If everything cool should be coded into a game then there would be no players. They would all be code.

 

I'm kind of dismayed by players that continuously pay lip service to allowing more and unique organizations to germinate in politics and war when they try to crush player made organizations just such as those at every turn.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ashland

[Phiney]

Just based solely on Ashland's reply, I say put it in the game.

[Ashland]

That's the best logic in favor of it that this thread has seen.

[Prefontaine]

Just based solely on Ashland's reply, I say put it in the game.

 

I wonder why Ashland would be against something that would make his bank worse.

[Ashland]

I wonder why Ashland would be against something that would make his bank worse.

I admit that I have an interest against this.  My points are all still valid.  Me having an interest doesn't make me wrong.

 

EDIT:

 

Ftr, Prefontaine, your prediction of my bank failing doesn't count as correct if you guys MAKE it happen by trying to get the game changed in a way that makes it impossible.  You kept saying over and over on your radio show and on IRC that my bank is a horrible idea and is doomed to fail.

 

Did you just get tired of being wrong, Pre?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ashland

[Placentica]

The reason I haven't bothered with a loan system is it's right now, very unregulated and I like the simplicity of a hard-coded loan system like our resource markets.  And I love new features that allow new nations to grow and find new ways to grow vs. just boring infra buying.

 

I think it would be extremely easy to implement a Lending Tree like loan system.  And it auto-takes out of your net income and a simple FICO-like score (your net income for example) would determine if the lender approves the loan.

 

1: Easy to take advantage of players. You know how some people occasionally trick players into buying really bad trades using gimmicks? This could have the potential for that but be INFINITELY worse. A player could see "Oh, gee, a hundred thousand dollars? Awesome!" Click accept, and then find out that all their revenue is taken forever because, look at that, the 100k was actually a loan that had 2000% interest. You'd have to implement an expansive array of mechanical and moderation-based tools to prevent !@#$ like that.

2: How would this deal with embargoes?

3: Computer programs can't be reasoned with. What if you go to war while you have a loan out? I, as a human being, can defer the debtor's payments until after the war. A program couldn't do that. So you'd have to implement another mechanism if you wanted any kind of flexibility. Oh, look at that, more coding, more things that could go wrong.

4: Makes setting up multis more profitable. Way more profitable. And it makes it easier to get money from your multis to your main without it being suspicious. Nothing to see here, just a guy who borrowed money from me and then went inactive! It's okay, though. I get first dibs on his revenue (before anyone can even attack him to take it) from now until he ceases to exist.

5: The general inflexibility of a program that automatically does anything would have to be compensated for with more complex, nuanced features. And with each additional feature and nuance it becomes easier and easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting player.

 

1. And if someone has a 2000% interest loan and you take it, then jokes on you.  99.9% of players don't fall for those $1 resource scams.  Lets not ruin a good suggestion based on .1% of players stupidity.  You'd still have to be able to repay the loan based on your current net income, so that would limit say a 5000 infra nation from getting a $20m loan or something.

 

2. If a loan was in place embargoes wouldn't change the loan.  If you were embargoed you wouldn't be able to accept/create new loans.

 

3. If you were in a war where your infra was destroyed, then you'd just set a cap like 50% of your total net income until the loan is repaid.  The math side is quite simple, just a few formulas and guidelines.  If Sheepy can make a really awesome resource market, he can add one more "resource" like a loan drop down menu.  Instead of steel it's loans.

 

4. You know what.  Nothing will change the multi-issue.  A loan system wouldn't even matter.  If someone wants to do a multi-ring, they can funnel money right now.  If you see some guy who just got 100M and 5-10 nations who took out huge loans (and how could they even pay that back), don't you think that would be a huge warning flag to everyone?

 

5. I personally like an automatic system that doesn't rely on me having all kinds of interactions with buyers/seller.  If I had to do trades manually I'd spend 10 hours a day trading.  I like it's all automatic, I put my trades out and see my notification screen.  I'm sure you like doing your loan system and that's cool.  More power to you.  Those who want more flexibility and options will still loan from you.  Those of us who want guaranteed, easy-automatic guidelines, would prefer something coded into the game.

 

If I'm honest having a loan ingame would provide boost your business as people would be more aware of it and how cool it is to loan/offer loans, but want the flexiblity you prob. offer.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Placentica

[SoS]

We all need and want something along these lines.

 

Making small, frequent payments is a hassle. For starters, I'd settle for a "debt servicing" trade. Make it so you enter the amount to be repayed and the length of time and payments are automatic.

 

Small steps in the right direction.

[WISD0MTREE]

There is no point, if you donate to Politics and War you can get the money you need.

Some of us can't go around donating money to every website they see. 

 

Before anyone says anything, I disabled my ad-blocker for PaW so Sheepy makes some dough from me. 

 

We all need and want something along these lines.

Apparently, not all of us do. 

[Dwynn]

I'm for it. However, not currently. There are many other things that I feel are more of a necessity before any sort of loan system was created and added to the game.

[Prefontaine]

I admit that I have an interest against this.  My points are all still valid.  Me having an interest doesn't make me wrong.

 

EDIT:

 

Ftr, Prefontaine, your prediction of my bank failing doesn't count as correct if you guys MAKE it happen by trying to get the game changed in a way that makes it impossible.  You kept saying over and over on your radio show and on IRC that my bank is a horrible idea and is doomed to fail.

 

Did you just get tired of being wrong, Pre?

 

I think I've only said it once or twice. Been wrong before, will be wrong again. Jury's still out on this one

[Ashland]

Jury's still out on this one

I'll take it.

[Atzuya]

I really don't see what's so bad with this kind of automated loan... I mean, I would love to take a six million loan, but I don't want to bother my alliance too much about it, and I'm kinda too lazy to keep up with the daily payment plans if there would be any. Not everyone have the time and wisdom to carry out an effective banking process, this system would nicely bridge the gap between the upper tier and the lower tier.

 

Big people get something out of their money and some nice reputation, and small people who's actually dedicated to the game would be able to advance without bull@#@#!ng someone just to borrow money. Everyone wins, except the ones that are currently running a bank

[Ashland]

Lol. "We need a system that rewards the lazy and unskilled."

How do you even exist?

 

Placentica, you said these things:

 

"1. And if someone has a 2000% interest loan and you take it, then jokes on you.  99.9% of players don't fall for those $1 resource scams.  Lets not ruin a good suggestion based on .1% of players stupidity.  You'd still have to be able to repay the loan based on your current net income, so that would limit say a 5000 infra nation from getting a $20m loan or something."

 

So this point and this point:

 

"4. You know what.  Nothing will change the multi-issue.  A loan system wouldn't even matter.  If someone wants to do a multi-ring, they can funnel money right now.  If you see some guy who just got 100M and 5-10 nations who took out huge loans (and how could they even pay that back), don't you think that would be a huge warning flag to everyone?"

 

are contradictory.  You can't say on the one side of the philosophical fence that players can be tricked into taking outrageous loans and that's fine and then on the other side of the fence that we'd be able to enforce multi abuse (which has huge potential) by looking for such unfair loans.  Who's to say that someone tricked into taking an unfair loan isn't a multi?  Or that a multi wasn't just someone tricked into taking an unfair loan?  It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're wrong on: You have to be wrong on one side.  They are inherently contradictory.

 

Your inability to avoid this contradiction is a perfect demonstration of the inherent flaws with this suggestion that simply cannot be avoided.

 

"3. If you were in a war where your infra was destroyed, then you'd just set a cap like 50% of your total net income until the loan is repaid.  The math side is quite simple, just a few formulas and guidelines.  If Sheepy can make a really awesome resource market, he can add one more "resource" like a loan drop down menu.  Instead of steel it's loans."

More things we get to add, more things that can go wrong, more things that can be used to trick the unsuspecting player with a bunch of gobbledigook.

 

 

"If I'm honest having a loan ingame would provide boost your business as people would be more aware of it and how cool it is to loan/offer loans, but want the flexiblity you prob. offer."

 

Oh, come on.  You know that's ridiculous.  Even so, it doesn't matter.  I could still definitely recognize that this suggestion is bad for the game as a whole.  Sheepy gets less money to develop with, more players get scammed, it makes cheating pay, it makes people use the forum and interact less.  It's just a really bad idea.  Like... all around.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Ashland

[Dwynn]

Lol. "We need a system that rewards the lazy and unskilled."

 

How do you even exist?

 

Placentica, you said these things:

 

"1. And if someone has a 2000% interest loan and you take it, then jokes on you.  99.9% of players don't fall for those $1 resource scams.  Lets not ruin a good suggestion based on .1% of players stupidity.  You'd still have to be able to repay the loan based on your current net income, so that would limit say a 5000 infra nation from getting a $20m loan or something."

 

So this point and this point:

 

"4. You know what.  Nothing will change the multi-issue.  A loan system wouldn't even matter.  If someone wants to do a multi-ring, they can funnel money right now.  If you see some guy who just got 100M and 5-10 nations who took out huge loans (and how could they even pay that back), don't you think that would be a huge warning flag to everyone?"

 

are contradictory.  You can't say on the one side of the philosophical fence that players can be tricked into taking outrageous loans and that's fine and then on the other side of the fence that we'd be able to enforce multi abuse (which has huge potential) by looking for such unfair loans.  Who's to say that someone tricked into taking an unfair loan isn't a multi?  Or that a multi wasn't just someone tricked into taking an unfair loan?  It doesn't matter which side of the fence you're wrong on: You have to be wrong on one side.  They are inherently contradictory.

 

Your inability to avoid this contradiction is a perfect demonstration of the inherent flaws with this suggestion that simply cannot be avoided.

 

"3. If you were in a war where your infra was destroyed, then you'd just set a cap like 50% of your total net income until the loan is repaid.  The math side is quite simple, just a few formulas and guidelines.  If Sheepy can make a really awesome resource market, he can add one more "resource" like a loan drop down menu.  Instead of steel it's loans."

More things we get to add, more things that can go wrong, more things that can be used to trick the unsuspecting player with a bunch of gobbledigook.

 

 

"If I'm honest having a loan ingame would provide boost your business as people would be more aware of it and how cool it is to loan/offer loans, but want the flexiblity you prob. offer."

 

Oh, come on.  You know that's ridiculous.  Even so, it doesn't matter.  I could still definitely recognize that this suggestion is bad for the game as a whole.  Sheepy gets less money to develop with, more players get scammed, it makes cheating pay, it makes people use the forum and interact less.  It's just a really bad idea.  Like... all around.

 

Wait wait wait... How is Sheepy going to get less money? And how does your in-game version of the bank not already do that? Is it because an coded version of the game would of course be more efficient? And how can anyone take your complaints about the suggestion seriously when you obviously have a biased opinion on the suggestion because it would kill your "uniqueness".

[Ashland]

Wait wait wait... How is Sheepy going to get less money? And how does your in-game version of the bank not already do that? Is it because an coded version of the game would of course be more efficient? And how can anyone take your complaints about the suggestion seriously when you obviously have a biased opinion on the suggestion because it would kill your "uniqueness".

Because it would reduce the demand for donations.  Given that there was a risk-free way of loaning money.  That's... pretty intuitive.  People are going to opt for things that are free/comparably free over things that are not free.  Swing and a miss.

 

And no, what I do doesn't do any of those things because it's not automated.   Another hard miss.

 

And having an interest doesn't make my points less valid.  Be intellectually genuine, address what I've said, or you essentially admit that you know you can't refute what I've said and your position is untenable.  Given that you love "efficiency" maybe you should just admit that this is all a crock of BS anyway given that that's clearly where this is headed.  That's three strikes.

 

And on the topic of efficiency, why is that necessarily better?  Just having automated programs instead of players would be more efficient.  Why don't we do that?  Why don't we just replace all player functionalities with code?  So many strikes.  If we're arguing by bowling rules you're doing great!

 

Can we really say that Kappa Kappa Guardian's motives are pure in this matter, Malone?  After you and Guardian's leader have repeatedly said that my bank is a disaster and more or less called for its destruction?  Who's to say this isn't a see-through attempt to bring that about?  The Guardian members are certainly out in force to defend it!  It's quite a coincidence.  Prima Facie it appears to be an attempt to meta-game by lobbying for changes to impact the politics of the game in a favorable way.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Ashland

[Dwynn]

Because it would reduce the demand for donations.  Given that there was a risk-free way of loaning money.  That's... pretty intuitive.  People are going to opt for things that are free/comparably free over things that are not free.  Swing and a miss.

 

And no, what I do doesn't do any of those things because it's not automated.   Another hard miss.

 

And having an interest doesn't make my points less valid.  Be intellectually genuine, address what I've said, or you essentially admit that you know you can't refute what I've said and your position is untenable.  Given that you love "efficiency" maybe you should just admit that this is all a crock of BS anyway given that that's clearly where this is headed.  That's three strikes.

 

And on the topic of efficiency, why is that necessarily better?  Just having automated programs instead of players would be more efficient.  Why don't we do that?  Why don't we just replace all player functionalities with code?  So many strikes.  If we're arguing by bowling rules you're doing great!

 

Can we really say that Kappa Kappa Guardian's motives are pure in this matter, Malone?  After you and Guardian's leader have repeatedly said that my bank is a disaster and more or less called for its destruction?  Who's to say this isn't a see-through attempt to bring that about?  The Guardian members are certainly out in force to defend it!

 

First.. How is me addressing the fact that you obviously have a vested interest in this NOT happening not intellectually genuine. I mean, you could continue to insult people. You're right, I am a fan of efficiency, and I think the loan system that you've created is a handy thing that the game could benefit from on a larger scale. Why? Simply because not everyone may trust you. Not everyone trusts each other. It's alright, if everyone got along this world would be much more boring than it is.

 

I've never once criticized you for your bank, so before you continue to sling insults and lies you should get your facts straight. 

 

Now, back to the matter of the suggestion, and why I think it would be a interesting addition to the game. Part of the reason I feel it would be a good addition, is there are many low-level nations who are struggling to rise up. The amount of money a nation makes at lower levels is quite measley. Obviously you know this because of your setting up of your program. But, and if you deny this we will know you're lying, your investment practice is limited. I literally watched you the other day say that the most you could loan at the time of request was 9mil. For low-level nations, that's awesome. Having an in-game system where players could deposit funds to be used for loan, would be yet another step that a larger nation could use to gain money in the long tredge upward.

 

At the same time, that money then has an immediate benefit to lower-level nations who can use that money immediately.

 

To bring donations into the argument, you're attempting to use a scare tactic. Donations and risk-free method of loaning money have nothing to do with each other. And there is no "risk-free" method. The borrowing nation can still go broke. I said the idea had merit and deserved more fleshing out, but there are many more things that need to be done beforehand.

 

Now if you'd like to talk about being genuine and not trying to scare Sheepy away from the idea by saying "your wallet won't like it", we can continue having a discussion about the idea. Or, if you'd like to simply stick your fingers in the air simply because I'm from Guardian and supporting something that you disagree with, more power to you. However, I'd watch the swagger you're walking with. How's that for a strike?

 

Edit:

And to address your scare tactic of "OH NOES NO MORE DONATIONS!"

 

People will support the game whether they want to or not. I for one, am against the fact that donations have such a heavy in-game effect. So yes, I disagree with you there. Have I donated? Yes, multiple times, and not because I needed an influx of cash.

 

Have I stopped donating? Yeah, and it again has nothing to do with my cashflow.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Micheal Malone

[Ashland]

First.. How is me addressing the fact that you obviously have a vested interest in this NOT happening not intellectually genuine. I mean, you could continue to insult people. You're right, I am a fan of efficiency, and I think the loan system that you've created is a handy thing that the game could benefit from on a larger scale. Why? Simply because not everyone may trust you. Not everyone trusts each other. It's alright, if everyone got along this world would be much more boring than it is.

 

I've never once criticized you for your bank, so before you continue to sling insults and lies you should get your facts straight. 

 

Now, back to the matter of the suggestion, and why I think it would be a interesting addition to the game. Part of the reason I feel it would be a good addition, is there are many low-level nations who are struggling to rise up. The amount of money a nation makes at lower levels is quite measley. Obviously you know this because of your setting up of your program. But, and if you deny this we will know you're lying, your investment practice is limited. I literally watched you the other day say that the most you could loan at the time of request was 9mil. For low-level nations, that's awesome. Having an in-game system where players could deposit funds to be used for loan, would be yet another step that a larger nation could use to gain money in the long tredge upward.

 

At the same time, that money then has an immediate benefit to lower-level nations who can use that money immediately.

 

To bring donations into the argument, you're attempting to use a scare tactic. Donations and risk-free method of loaning money have nothing to do with each other. And there is no "risk-free" method. The borrowing nation can still go broke. I said the idea had merit and deserved more fleshing out, but there are many more things that need to be done beforehand.

 

Now if you'd like to talk about being genuine and not trying to scare Sheepy away from the idea by saying "your wallet won't like it", we can continue having a discussion about the idea. Or, if you'd like to simply stick your fingers in the air simply because I'm from Guardian and supporting something that you disagree with, more power to you. However, I'd watch the swagger you're walking with. How's that for a strike?

1: Because it doesn't make what I've said more or less true.  You evaluate arguments based on their evidence and logic.  Not who is making them.

 

2: Fair enough.  It was just the guy in charge of your alliance, then, and I got your voices mixed up.  I'm sorry to have slung insults during an argument with Guardian; something that they would never do!

 

3: How will this not inherently disproportionately benefit larger, more developed nations with more cash on hand?  Such as... Guardian.

 

4: Oh my God.  So say I'm a new nation and I need money.  I now have the choice between making a donation to get five million dollars or taking a loan for five million dollars.  How the !@#$ is that a scare tactic?!  That's just... logic!

 

5: Well then address my other points.  The donation point is still just true!  But so are the others.  And I love the irony that you accuse me of scare tactics when you basically just threatened me in your post!  Prefontaine just made such a huge point of yelling at me in the main chan for acting like Guardian bullies people.  And then you say something like "However, I'd watch the swagger you're walking with."?  Dear Lord!

 

And yeah, I'll admit I'm emotional about this.  Just two days ago Prefontaine more or less shook me down in the main channel, got me to promise I wanted to leave Guardian alone, he promised Guardian would leave me alone, and I wanted to stand by that.  And then I log in to see a topic that's more or less, "Hey, let's all talk about ruining everything that Ashland built!"  And Guardian makes up the !@#$ trumpet section!

 

This is my baby.  I'm going to get emotional about it.  If I proposed a suggestion limiting your ability to do your PWtools or something that you loved you would get emotional too.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Ashland

[Dwynn]

1: Because it doesn't make what I've said more or less true.  You evaluate arguments based on their evidence and logic.  Not who is making them.

 

2: Fair enough.  It was just the guy in charge of your alliance, then, and I got your voices mixed up.  I'm sorry to have slung insults during an argument with Guardian; something that they would never do!

 

3: How will this not inherently disproportionately benefit larger, more developed nations with more cash on hand?  Such as... Guardian.

 

4: Oh my God.  So say I'm a new nation and I need money.  I now have the choice between making a donation to get five million dollars or taking a loan for five million dollars.  How the !@#$ is that a scare tactic?!  That's just... logic!

 

5: Well then address my other points.  The donation point is still just true!  But so are the others.  And I love the irony that you accuse me of scare tactics when you basically just threatened me in your post!  Prefontaine just made such a huge point of yelling at me in the main chan for acting like Guardian bullies people.  And then you say something like "However, I'd watch the swagger you're walking with."?  Dear Lord!

 

And yeah, I'll admit I'm emotional about this.  Just two days ago Prefontaine more or less shook me down in the main channel, got me to promise I wanted to leave Guardian alone, he promised Guardian would leave me alone, and I wanted to stand by that.  And then I log in to see a topic that's more or less, "Hey, let's all talk about ruining everything that Ashland built!"  And Guardian makes up the !@#$ trumpet section!

 

This is my baby.  I'm going to get emotional about it.  If I proposed a suggestion limiting your ability to do your PWtools or something that you loved you would get emotional too.

Did you really, in point one, talk about addressing the argument and not the person making them, then in the next point make yet another attack based on alliance affiliation?

 

3. It benefits everyone, and you're assuming that I support no-risk, high interest bank loan system. I'm honestly, again, NOT in favor of that. I'm in favor of an in-game loan system. Quit assuming what I support and simply take me at face value.

 

4. A new nation, brand new to the game, is not going to go "oh hey, I should donate to support a game I just started playing and I have no clue if I'll like it or not." However, a new nation in need of funds, would turn to an in-game mechanic to get an influx of cash. Why not have a system that benefits not just the new nations but the larger nations as well? Seems a bit lopsided to me if you think about it.

 

5.  I did address your other points, by pointing out that your bank system does exactly what you seem to think is so wrong. Just because you're small scale doesn't mean that it doesn't do all the things that you're clammoring about being wrong. And yeah, I told you to watch your swagger, because you're throwing insults and making up points. You're welcome to interpret it how you see fit.

 

I get that you're getting emotional about it, because it's how you make your money in-game. Comparing what you do to PWTools however was a bit of a stretch. PWtools is a free tool that I let everyone use. It provides the data that's available in-game in a manner that many find handy. If Sheepy eliminated the need for it by adding stuff like it to the game, more power too him. The difference is I'm not making my livelihood of my nation on it.

 

As I said, I can see why you're emotional, and why you're ranting insinuating things that are untrue. Which does nothing but add to the point I made that nobody can take your criticism seriously because you've a vested biased interest and cannot have a reasonable conversation about it.