DireMage
Sergeant Major
Reged: 02/17/03
Posts: 264
Loc: Imperium Of Man
|
Negative cash on hand means surrender
#132008 - 06/04/06 08:57 PM (66.229.193.94)
|
|
|
With the new additions to war, I'd like to respectfully suggest that 0 or negative total cash in an empire causes it to surrender immediately.
--------------------
- Live for honor
- Die for battle.
- Strive for light.
|
Cecil
Lieutenant
Reged: 07/09/02
Posts: 467
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: DireMage]
#132010 - 06/04/06 09:27 PM (69.167.128.217)
|
|
|
I like the idea, but what happens if you surrender with a little cash on hand, and the surrender payments force you into negative? would you stay surrendered until you can pull positive income?
|
Wayward_Son
Major
Reged: 07/05/02
Posts: 1287
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: Cecil]
#132021 - 06/05/06 01:21 AM (24.117.200.100)
|
|
|
That is an interesting idea, particularly with costs going away, but there are a lot of potential abuses there that I don't like. It would have to come at the expense of defectors and perhaps city riots that destroyed your buildings.
WS
|
DarkRune
Sergeant
Reged: 01/23/03
Posts: 163
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#132026 - 06/05/06 07:20 AM (24.57.100.103)
|
|
|
"but there are a lot of potential abuses there that I don't like"
We are really glad you like the SoI exploits and abuses tho..
But, hey! there is a new idea! you get hammerred because of stupid new war rules, funds are exhausted because of losses and now you want to consider defectors and riots that destroy buildings.. i love the way this game is going! hey maybe we can off-set riots by having 'stand-by' DP only riot police - i dunno just an idea 
When are we going to see changes or better still... ADDITIONS that the bulk of Neveronians actually like ?
|
Cecil
Lieutenant
Reged: 07/09/02
Posts: 467
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#132035 - 06/05/06 01:20 PM (65.219.8.30)
|
|
|
Thinking about potential abuses, here's my take on them:
- Empires can essentially be made un-hittable by being in a state of surrender for potentially forever, but that empire is also stuck in a state of stagnation, i.e. the empire either has no funds, is losing funds (and going into the negatives), or at the end of the surrender period, will have very little funds. This alone may be deterrent enough from staging fake DoWs.
- Players must still pay in order to DoW another empire, so empires surrendering due to zero or negative income will be unable to afford DoWs until they get more money. This can be potentially extremely damaging to a surrendered empire which cannot raid to recoup any monetary losses. This essentially forces an empire in this situation to be on the defensive until enough money can be saved up.
If there are other abuses, let's share them.
|
Wayward_Son
Major
Reged: 07/05/02
Posts: 1287
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: Cecil]
#132037 - 06/05/06 02:49 PM (216.19.47.79)
|
|
|
"Players must still pay in order to DoW another empire, so empires surrendering due to zero or negative income will be unable to afford DoWs until they get more money. "
Well if you are surrended you can't declare war anyway so the real issue getting them OUT of negative income, not being able to DOW.
WS
|
Cecil
Lieutenant
Reged: 07/09/02
Posts: 467
|
Re: Negative cash on hand means surrender
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#132054 - 06/05/06 10:29 PM (69.167.128.217)
|
|
|
A valid point. In your eyes, how do you see it being abused WS? Your view may help other in coming up with suggestions because a lot of us view abuse as some potential loophole to give their empire an unfair advantage.
I can see how this suggestion could trigger easily repeatable surrenders by keeping empires in a near-constant state of negative-income-triggered-surrender, but other than that, I'm not sure I see what you see as being abuseable.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
