Bank raiding / cap?

[Avruch]

I see that bank raiding was turned back on, and ran the calculation for the maximum risk to Mensa if I was defeated... Unless I miscalculated, an opponent could raid over 7% of my alliance bank by defeating me. Doesn't that seem pretty high? It wouldn't take many catastrophic raids to wipe out an alliance in a major war. Posting poll to see if others think there should be a hard cap on bank raiding. 

 

Worth noting that in alliances where one or several top nations make up a disproportionate share of the total alliance score, beating them could nearly wipe out the alliance bank in one go - as long as there is no cap. 

 

--EDIT--

 

Looks like I may have read the formula wrong, depending on Sheepy's choice of order of operations... - I did max%=(score/alliance score)/3. Max%=score/(alliance score*3) returns much smaller numbers. A cap is still reasonable, though, because even as is an alliance like Alpha could lose 3% or more of its bank in one defeat. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by Avruch

[Clarke]

Since Sheepy loves caps, this shouldn't be a problem for him to cap. 

 

I thought it was the nation score in relation to the alliance score, where is this retarded "x3" calculation coming from. 

It's just retarded. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Clarke

[LordRahl2]

I like the element of strategy in it.  And thanks for fixing this btw.

[Clarke]

I'm reading the formula from the changelog and it looks different than the one edited in. 

Unless I'm using some odd math but division is before multiplication. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Clarke

[Godfrey]

I'm reading the formula from the changelog and it looks different than the one edited in. 

 

Yeah, can we get some clarification Sheepy on the actual formula with an example maybe?

[Alex]

I'm reading the formula from the changelog and it looks different than the one edited in. 

Unless I'm using some odd math but division is before multiplication. 

 

Division isn't inherently before multiplication. You just do multiplication/division in the order they appear. In any case, here's an example for how it works.

 

Player A is in Alliance X. Alliance X has a total score of 21,000. Player A has a score of 350.

 

Player A is defeated in a war, and his bank is going to be looted. The % taken is:

 

(RAND(0, (350/21000)))/3

 

The minimum value in this instance would be 0%, the maximum value in this instance would be 0.55% (0.0055)

 

Also, for the record, there is a hard cap in place of 33%. You can't loot more than that much.

 

These numbers and the 33% hard cap are existing from long, long ago. I didn't change any of the numbers when re-enabling this feature, Malone and I simply went through the code and determined the cause of the issue and got it back in operational shape.

[Alex]

Since Sheepy loves caps, this shouldn't be a problem for him to cap. 

 

I thought it was the nation score in relation to the alliance score, where is this retarded "x3" calculation coming from. 

It's just retarded. 

 

It is, but the value of Nation Score/Alliance Score is divided by 3 so that you're not looting so much from banks. Like I said in the last post, it's been there for months and months and months, and isn't anything new.

 

I see that bank raiding was turned back on, and ran the calculation for the maximum risk to Mensa if I was defeated... Unless I miscalculated, an opponent could raid over 7% of my alliance bank by defeating me. Doesn't that seem pretty high? It wouldn't take many catastrophic raids to wipe out an alliance in a major war. Posting poll to see if others think there should be a hard cap on bank raiding. 

 

I realize that 7% is potentially a lot of money/resources (and also that you may have done your math wrong when coming up with 7%) but alliance bank looting exists to discourage people from stashing things away in alliance banks. They're not the end-all-be-all that you throw your money and resources into to keep them safe from attackers. They exist as a tool for collecting and distributing funds; not hoarding them, and that's why there's a 33% cap on looting and not something much lower. The idea is that alliances shouldn't keep so much stuff in their banks.

[Alex]

Also, just for example's sake, here's the numbers for Avruch's nation.
 
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15421
 
Nation Score: 1116.20
Mensa HQ Score: 44,345.90
 
(RAND(0, (1116.2/44345.9))/3) = 0.00839010295

So if Avruch were defeated, Mensa HQ's bank could lose between 0 and 0.839% of its inventory. Let's use a hypothetical of $50,000,000 in their alliance bank, that's between $0 and $419505.15

And for the record: (1116.2/44345.9))/3) = (1116.2/(44345.9*3))

[Avruch]

It is, but the value of Nation Score/Alliance Score is divided by 3 so that you're not looting so much from banks. Like I said in the last post, it's been there for months and months and months, and isn't anything new.

 

 

I realize that 7% is potentially a lot of money/resources (and also that you may have done your math wrong when coming up with 7%) but alliance bank looting exists to discourage people from stashing things away in alliance banks. They're not the end-all-be-all that you throw your money and resources into to keep them safe from attackers. They exist as a tool for collecting and distributing funds; not hoarding them, and that's why there's a 33% cap on looting and not something much lower. The idea is that alliances shouldn't keep so much stuff in their banks.

 

Can you help me here with your thinking on the 33% cap? Why would wiping out 1/3rd of an alliance bank in one defeat be a reasonable outcome? What proportion of ns/as would be necessary to get to a maximum of 33%? (Also, thanks for clarifying the math and correcting my example). 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Avruch

[WISD0MTREE]

Can you help me here with your thinking on the 33% cap? Why would wiping out 1/3rd of an alliance bank in one defeat be a reasonable outcome? What proportion of ns/as would be necessary to get to a maximum of 33%? (Also, thanks for clarifying the math and correcting my example). 

I'm assuming that it is also to encourage conventional warfare, since missiles are overused. 

[Dwynn]

Can you help me here with your thinking on the 33% cap? Why would wiping out 1/3rd of an alliance bank in one defeat be a reasonable outcome? What proportion of ns/as would be necessary to get to a maximum of 33%? (Also, thanks for clarifying the math and correcting my example). 

 

 

If I recall, the 33% cap was added to assist small alliances so they weren't held at a disadvantage. It's been a long time since it was added though so I'd have to go searching through year old threads to find the reasoning.

[Greatnate]

Can you help me here with your thinking on the 33% cap? Why would wiping out 1/3rd of an alliance bank in one defeat be a reasonable outcome? What proportion of ns/as would be necessary to get to a maximum of 33%? (Also, thanks for clarifying the math and correcting my example). 

 

1/3rd is if it's a one man alliance. 100% ns/as and a good RNG roll is what it takes to loot a full third, i.e. extremely rare.

[Alex]

Can you help me here with your thinking on the 33% cap? Why would wiping out 1/3rd of an alliance bank in one defeat be a reasonable outcome? What proportion of ns/as would be necessary to get to a maximum of 33%? (Also, thanks for clarifying the math and correcting my example). 

 

As others have pointed out, the only way you're going to hit 33% is if it's a very small or one man alliance. And in that case, yes, I think taking 1/3rd of the bank is acceptable. Imagine this scenario:

 

I want to go rogue and leave my alliance. I create my own, one man alliance, and put all my extra money and resources in the bank. I go and attack everyone and no one can loot my warchest because it's tucked away in the alliance bank. Finally, someone defeats me, and loots my bank for your proposed cap of 0.5%. I lose basically nothing, and get to keep going and going.

 

If that cap is 33%, and I lose between 0-33% (let's say 20%) that's a significant blow to my warchest, and a few more people defeating me in war is really, really going to put a hurting on me and force me to stop or wither and die.

[Bored now Leafing]

Welp back to MFG Hording.

[Clarke]

Oh ok, the changelog had no use of brackets so I wasn't sure. 

[Alex]

Oh ok, the changelog had no use of brackets so I wasn't sure. 

 

That was my mistake, I've updated it now

[Dan77]

The current formula seems good to me.  No need to make any changes to it.

 

Also, there should be an option on your poll for "Leave it alone FFS".

[LordRahl2]

Yeah, this poll is fundamentally broken.  Please disregard it.

 

/////

 

Current formula seems very reasonable.  Thanks Admin!