[jerdge]

As it is now for Ground Attacks, "if the defending nation has been inactive for 13 days or more" there is no loot, but the spoils are destroyed instead.
IIRC this was introduced against the exploit of raiding inactives and not having to wait for the full 7 days for the war slot to be cleared. As now nations are deleted at 25 days of inactivity, and not at 20, I suggest that the limit is raised from 13 to 18.

[The Game]

Approved for Discussion

Just to note for the forthcoming discussion, that collection is still capped at 20 days

[SilverHawk]

No, we don't need to remove what little protection the defender has.

[Voodoo Nova]

I'd have to disagree with this because collections are still capped at 20 days. This means that the benefit is still capped at 20 days. The 25 day until deletion is only meant as a way for those that miss the 20th day to still have a few extra days to collect/pay bills and shouldn't be used as a way for raiders to get more of a benefit from raiding an inactive.

This post has been edited by Voodoo Nova: 14 August 2009 - 08:48 AM

[Aimee Mann]

Booo, raiding!

Do not support.

[Delta1212]

SilverHawk, on Aug 14 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

No, we don't need to remove what little protection the defender has.

The defender still loses exactly the same amount. That's not protection from anything.

Voodoo Nova, on Aug 14 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

I'd have to disagree with this because collections are still capped at 20 days. This means that the benefit is still capped at 20 days. The 25 day until deletion is only meant as a way for those that miss the 20th day to still have a few extra days to collect/pay bills and shouldn't be used as a way for raiders to get more of a benefit from raiding an inactive.

There is no "benefit" that's capped at 20 days that has anything to do with this. The system as it is now was put in place because people could raid a nation at 20 days inactive, have the nation delete so the war expired, and then declare on someone else. Declaring any time within 7 days of a nation's deletion would allow raiders to get extra wars in by exploiting the system and make more money/tech/land off of it.

As things stand, this is no longer a problem at 13 days because nations no longer delete until 25 days. This means that the window for the exploit doesn't open until day 18. This isn't about whether you like raiding, this is about a previous fix being updated to match the game mechanics as they stand now.

This post has been edited by Delta1212: 14 August 2009 - 12:08 PM

[Jinnai]

SilverHawk, on Aug 14 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

No, we don't need to remove what little protection the defender has.

This doesn't really remove the benifit as it doesn't help much the defender. If your already on the defensive side its better collect daily so you don't lose as much in terms of bills.

[Voodoo Nova]

Delta1212, on Aug 14 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

The defender still loses exactly the same amount. That's not protection from anything.


There is no "benefit" that's capped at 20 days that has anything to do with this. The system as it is now was put in place because people could raid a nation at 20 days inactive, have the nation delete so the war expired, and then declare on someone else. Declaring any time within 7 days of a nation's deletion would allow raiders to get extra wars in by exploiting the system and make more money/tech/land off of it.

As things stand, this is no longer a problem at 13 days because nations no longer delete until 25 days. This means that the window for the exploit doesn't open until day 18. This isn't about whether you like raiding, this is about a previous fix being updated to match the game mechanics as they stand now.

I know why the system is the way it is. The fix, in my opinion, doesn't need an update to it when there isn't the possibility for exploitation past 13 days inactivity.

[SleepiB]

I'd like to see this changed, or at least remove the loot immunity for people that have paid bills in the last 3 days.

Why should an active nation that's backcollecting get loot when the opponent does not?

[Delta1212]

Voodoo Nova, on Aug 14 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

I know why the system is the way it is. The fix, in my opinion, doesn't need an update to it when there isn't the possibility for exploitation past 13 days inactivity.

There wouldn't be a possibility of exploitation if no one could ever loot anything either. That's not the point.

[Voodoo Nova]

Delta1212, on Aug 14 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

There wouldn't be a possibility of exploitation if no one could ever loot anything either. That's not the point.

The system isn't broken, at least from my viewpoint. There isn't a reason to change it, except to just change it to match the current inactivity before deletion days.

[Delta1212]

Voodoo Nova, on Aug 14 2009, 03:37 PM, said:

The system isn't broken, at least from my viewpoint. There isn't a reason to change it, except to just change it to match the current inactivity before deletion days.

Yes, that would be the reason.

[SilverHawk]

Anything that makes war more profitable I am against.

[SleepiB]

The solution is simple:
If and only if you've collected taxes or paid bills in past 3 days, people get loot from you.

What problem does this not solve?

[iMatt]

SleepiB, on Aug 14 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

The solution is simple:
If and only if you've collected taxes or paid bills in past 3 days, people get loot from you.

What problem does this not solve?

That's a really very good solution, that people on both sides of this argument can agree to. Great work SleepiB!

[SilverHawk]

SleepiB, on Aug 14 2009, 05:40 PM, said:

The solution is simple:
If and only if you've collected taxes or paid bills in past 3 days, people get loot from you.

What problem does this not solve?

I can agree on this. Though only on the paying bills part.

[Kung Fu Geeks]

jerdge, on Aug 13 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

As it is now for Ground Attacks, "if the defending nation has been inactive for 13 days or more" there is no loot, but the spoils are destroyed instead.
IIRC this was introduced against the exploit of raiding inactives and not having to wait for the full 7 days for the war slot to be cleared. As now nations are deleted at 25 days of inactivity, and not at 20, I suggest that the limit is raised from 13 to 18.

Yes, this was exactly why it was implemented. There were nations declaring 5+ wars per day, targeting 20 day old nations and waiting for the deletion script to clear out their war slots. Admin specifically chose day 13 no loot so that nobody could exploit this. Since the deletion day has moved to day 25, then it fits with the original intent to move the no loot to day 18. It was not the intention to create a kind of defense against raiders, the intention was to remove an exploit.

As far as people's moral objection to raiding, there are plenty of people (and alliances) that condone raiding. Why is your belief better than theirs? This suggestion should be considered for its gameplay merits and the intentions of the original fix, not some peoples moral objections.

imatt15, on Aug 14 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

SleepiB, on Aug 14 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

The solution is simple:
If and only if you've collected taxes or paid bills in past 3 days, people get loot from you.

What problem does this not solve?

That's a really very good solution, that people on both sides of this argument can agree to. Great work SleepiB!

Not a chance that people on both sides agree to that modification. How exactly would somebody that condones tech raiding agree with it?

This post has been edited by Kung Fu Geeks: 14 August 2009 - 07:08 PM

[SleepiB]

It's not so much an issue of raiding as a full war. It means if someone can bomb and missile you, at least you can loot from them to try and recover some damages(which is not currently the case). If you want to raid, attack someone who's active. More risk, more reward.

[jerdge]

Kung Fu Geeks and Delta1212 already said almost everything that has to be said IMHO.

This isn't about making raids (which I IC oppose, anyway) "more profitable": the 13 days restraint is just a workaround to avoid an exploit, and has nothing to do with "morals". When he introduced the 13 days limit, Admin wasn't trying to shape the politics of CN, but just to adjust the game mechanics. The limitation to raids' profitability was just a "political" side effect (as such, it is even undesirable).

If you're against raids undertake some political action to fight against them, don't cry that Admin should insert/keep some "artificial" limit that had another purpose, and that can continue to pursue that purpose if changed according to this proposal, at the same time reducing its impact on the political aspect.

I don't even understand why we should really discuss this issue. (Maybe I should have posted in the bug section...)

[SynthFG]

Have to agree that this has nothing to do with raiding,
as has been said the 13 day limit was bought in to address a specific exploit, being used to harvest nations about to be deleted without tying up war slots

The fact that this opened up another exploit, fighting from 13 days + inactive, meaning that you can steal stuff but your opponent cannot, is immaterial

now that the deletion limit has been moved I support moving the 13 day limit to match