War Branding Law

[Meliva]

Assisting in the rank up process via loyalty/honor points would encourage participation.

It doesn't matter how many hits it would take to drain it. It's still a tool intended to drain the treasury.

No, its a tool intended to enourage hitting an enemy nation. Your point of saying it can be used to raid a nations treasury just doesn't work out unless the nation goes and puts the payout way too high, in which case they deserve whatever they get.

And why not make multiple war laws, or allow the nation to decide what to reward attackers with? A person already fully ranked wouldn't need more loyalty/honor and might prefer more gold. Regardless as this law stands it would be a fine addition in my opinion.

[Lachlan]

Assisting in the rank up process via loyalty/honor points would encourage participation.

It doesn't matter how many hits it would take to drain it. It's still a tool intended to drain the treasury.

No, its a tool intended to enourage hitting an enemy nation. Your point of saying it can be used to raid a nations treasury just doesn't work out unless the nation goes and puts the payout way too high, in which case they deserve whatever they get.

And why not make multiple war laws, or allow the nation to decide what to reward attackers with? A person already fully ranked wouldn't need more loyalty/honor and might prefer more gold. Regardless as this law stands it would be a fine addition in my opinion.

yeah. Stipends drain the treasury, skirmish insurance drains the treasury and we have them. This is no different.

[Meliva]

Assisting in the rank up process via loyalty/honor points would encourage participation.

It doesn't matter how many hits it would take to drain it. It's still a tool intended to drain the treasury.

No, its a tool intended to enourage hitting an enemy nation. Your point of saying it can be used to raid a nations treasury just doesn't work out unless the nation goes and puts the payout way too high, in which case they deserve whatever they get.

And why not make multiple war laws, or allow the nation to decide what to reward attackers with? A person already fully ranked wouldn't need more loyalty/honor and might prefer more gold. Regardless as this law stands it would be a fine addition in my opinion.

yeah. Stipends drain the treasury, skirmish insurance drains the treasury and we have them. This is no different.

exactly. By dez's logic loan insurance can be used as a way to launch a treasury raid. But just because something could be used in such a way doesn't change what its meant for-and again, its a law-if your nation doesn't feel like its needed to implement it, then simply don't. But honestly I feel like this would be a nice law to have-especially since at the moment wars have no effect-this would at least give some meaning to them until more development comes.

[Dejanira]

I am in favor too. This seems something that adds importance to diplomacy among Nations, which is a side of this game that could be expanded.

[PFH]

Expanding on this law, do you guys think a skirmish payout and plunder payout should be separate since they are two different risk factors?

Such as, for example:

Skirmish wins against United States of America earn 10,000 gold coins
Plunder wins against United States of America earn 50,000 gold coins

[Meliva]

id say so. Perhaps a nation can also decide to only pay for one and leave out the other.

[DezNutz]

Assisting in the rank up process via loyalty/honor points would encourage participation.

It doesn't matter how many hits it would take to drain it. It's still a tool intended to drain the treasury.

No, its a tool intended to enourage hitting an enemy nation. Your point of saying it can be used to raid a nations treasury just doesn't work out unless the nation goes and puts the payout way too high, in which case they deserve whatever they get.

And why not make multiple war laws, or allow the nation to decide what to reward attackers with? A person already fully ranked wouldn't need more loyalty/honor and might prefer more gold. Regardless as this law stands it would be a fine addition in my opinion.

yeah. Stipends drain the treasury, skirmish insurance drains the treasury and we have them. This is no different.

Yes there is a difference. Stipends are a one time daily limited payout. Skirmish insurance is limited by a hard limit on the number of times someone can be skirmished. And unless your carrying GBs, the skirmish value is most times below 25k.

It doesn't encourage anything more than what a stipend currently does except the payout is tied to plunder and skirmish action. It's serves no purpose but to drain the treasury.

Loan insurance is not a drain on the treasury. The fact that it is even mentioned shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Meliva]

Yes there is a difference. Stipends are a one time daily limited payout. Skirmish insurance is limited by a hard limit on the number of times someone can be skirmished. And unless your carrying GBs, the skirmish value is most times below 25k.

It doesn't encourage anything more than what a stipend currently does except the payout is tied to plunder and skirmish action. It's serves no purpose but to drain the treasury.

Loan insurance is not a drain on the treasury. The fact that it is even mentioned shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Says the one who has yet to actually address any of my points aside from repeatedly stating this serves only to drain the treasury, despite that not being the case.

A stipend is just a daily payout simply for being in a nation. There is no requirements to get one aside from having a rank. This law would require someone to actually perform a successful attack on an enemy nation. If they hit and lose or don't hit at all, this law won't pay them a cent. That alone is a big difference.

And As I repeatedly mentioned-it serves a purpose in providing a little extra incentive into hitting a nations enemy. So long as said nation isn't stupid and puts the price at a reasonable limit, the possibility of the treasury being drained would be nearly impossible. Back to my previous example, at 250M reserve, placing a 25K per hit bounty it would take 10K hits to drain-and honestly if some group managed to hit your enemy 10K times in one day, your enemy probably lost far more gold in those attacks then you did.

And as for loan insurance, the point I was making was that if a group were to want to raid a treasury and said nation had loan insurance, they could easily just give out loans with no care in the hope that some would fail and drain the treasury. Since your making the point a group might join JUST to drain the treasury for this law, I was pointing out another way they could do so. But both options don't make sense as both options are incredibly ineffective and it would be far simpler to just get a large group, rank up and steal the treasury in votes.

[DezNutz]

Yes there is a difference. Stipends are a one time daily limited payout. Skirmish insurance is limited by a hard limit on the number of times someone can be skirmished. And unless your carrying GBs, the skirmish value is most times below 25k.

It doesn't encourage anything more than what a stipend currently does except the payout is tied to plunder and skirmish action. It's serves no purpose but to drain the treasury.

Loan insurance is not a drain on the treasury. The fact that it is even mentioned shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Says the one who has yet to actually address any of my points aside from repeatedly stating this serves only to drain the treasury, despite that not being the case.

A stipend is just a daily payout simply for being in a nation. There is no requirements to get one aside from having a rank. This law would require someone to actually perform a successful attack on an enemy nation. If they hit and lose or don't hit at all, this law won't pay them a cent. That alone is a big difference.

And As I repeatedly mentioned-it serves a purpose in providing a little extra incentive into hitting a nations enemy. So long as said nation isn't stupid and puts the price at a reasonable limit, the possibility of the treasury being drained would be nearly impossible. Back to my previous example, at 250M reserve, placing a 25K per hit bounty it would take 10K hits to drain-and honestly if some group managed to hit your enemy 10K times in one day, your enemy probably lost far more gold in those attacks then you did.

And as for loan insurance, the point I was making was that if a group were to want to raid a treasury and said nation had loan insurance, they could easily just give out loans with no care in the hope that some would fail and drain the treasury. Since your making the point a group might join JUST to drain the treasury for this law, I was pointing out another way they could do so. But both options don't make sense as both options are incredibly ineffective and it would be far simpler to just get a large group, rank up and steal the treasury in votes.

I've addressed your point by stating that honor/loyalty points would better serve to get the newer and less likely to participate get involved as it would help them complete nations missions. Completing nation missions is the best way to get players involved in the nation. Sending out money doesn't do anything.

Then there is the fact that the author of the suggestion acknowledged the intent in post 3 of this topic. You can claim whatever you want.

This suggestion is pointless. Stipends already provide gold coin enticement for players to participate. If you need another enticement feature, than you are admitting that the enticement brought forth via stipends doesn't work, thus this isn't going to work, thus is nothing but a drain to the treasury.

[Meliva]

and I addressed your point that a nation could perhaps choose what to reward its players with. What's stopping us from making it to where they could decide to reward loyalty and gold for plunder? Plenty of current laws are customizable, so why can't this one be the same?

I also read his 2nd comment as more of a joke then actually agreeing with you-hence the emoji. And again, even IF his intent was to make a new way to raid a treasury, I have repeatedly explained that unless a nation was stupid, they could implement this law in a way that such a tactic would just be ineffective and pointless.

As for your third point-why say no to extra gold? I am quite happy with my stipend payment. But if my nation went to war, and there was a gold incentive for plundering, I might very well join in for some extra profit.