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.

Approved for Discussion

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

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

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.

Booo, raiding!

Do not support.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Yes, that would be the reason.

Anything that makes war more profitable I am against.

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!

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

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.



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

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.

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...)

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

Sounds good to me. The shield from theft can be seen as an exploit as has been mentioned. Attacking someone while you are 14 days inactive and knowing full well they can't raid your warchest is a little unbalanced.
Let's do it to it.

I'm fully in support of this suggestion.

There's really no reason not to.

I agree with this suggestion too... if a nation has gone inactive why let the resources go to waste id rather it go to raiders then just vanish when the nation gets deleated.

It may actually also help active nations from getting raided as often as if the pool of inactives that can be looted is increased then raiders will prefer to start raiding nations of greater inactivity, which seams fairer toward nations that are really trying to give CN a go.

This suggestion seem like a no-brainer to me. I never really liked the 13-day limit (even though I never raid), for reasons already mentioned (seems silly that a 13-day inactive can steal your stuff, but not the other way around). But I understand why it is there.

With the deletion limit changed to 25 days, the looting limit can be changed to 18 days without compromising the benefits of the looting limit, while at the same time minimizing the adverse effects.

Good suggestion.

^^ This is true.

Since the original rule of 13 days was implemented to prevent the war slot 'exploit', then why not also remove the ability of a nation to offer peace to an opponent then re-declare after the peace is accepted? This happens and is an 'exploit' on the same level as declaring on a 20-day inactive, having the war deleted when the nation is deleted, then declaring on another 20-day inactive. (This applies to the inactivity rule as it was before the 25-day rule came to be.)

I would prefer something along the lines of "If a player has no logged into their account for the last 5 days, ground attacks destroy, not steal" instead, since it is a good war tactic to simply not collect (if you are in nuclear anarchy this matters not anyways) allowing you to have soldiers/tanks and be completely active, yet take advantage of the "I'm inactive!" situation.

That would take time to code in, whereas changeing 13 to 18 should just as easy as changing 1 number. Also, i see no benifit to changing it to login time as there are many that would exploit that as well.

I'd prefer to change it to 20 if that's the case as there is a window of time before deletion whereas before there wasn't. This actually gives more incentive to wait till day 20 to collect as you still have a 5-day grace period.

then to avoid the exploit you'd have to move deletion day to #27 (which i think would also be acceptable)

Do it. Raiding is a part of the game. If it became more of a temptation, we'd have some crazy wars start up.