One of the fundamental problems/truths of the game as is would lie in the fact that, when push comes to shove, there's really not much that can be done against a dedicated opper.  I described the problem in another of your threads, but it's applicable here.  Why... do we want to make this worse by allowing the already one-sided opping war, if successful, to be able to completely lock down banking?

You just claimed to accomplish the feat of proving Loth's theory wrong.

> Einstein wrote:

> Politician #1 *smirks* "of course, I used to be a lawyer as well!"

Until he took a nomination to the knee? 

That does, however, create a problem of scaling.

If, for example, we are interested in preserving the one op/tick regeneration equivalent, it would mean the average op would take away 5% morale, which would mean you could get 22 ops off against a target in the surprise attack, as opposed to the current 7 ops.  If I hit a banker with 22 successful hypnos, I would reduce that guy's population to .04% of its original population (Not 4%... .04%.  So if I had 100 million pop, it would be reduced to around 40,000).  That's not just bad.  That banker might as well pass his planets to someone else.

However, if the objective in scaling is to preserve the current ops limit (so 110% morale lost would be about equivalent to 7-8 ops), the amount of ops usable per day would be less than half the current amount, and would only even come near 1/tick after grabbing 5 morale planets.

So the real problem here is mathematics.

> AnarchyAngel wrote:

> I don't think balance would be an issue. If a small partax can get spells across on a larger banker then more power to him. The larger player has the advantage of building more wizards more quickly.

Absolutely untrue.
1: The opper chooses the moment of the strike.  If a family, for example, just jumped a resourcer, the opper can choose that moment to take advantage of the resource dedication.
2: Considering relative science burdens, a wizzie opper will generally have smaller research requirements, and therefore more construction science (needing only construction and perhaps resource science depending on whether they produce their own octo), compared to the pop banker (income, construction, welfare).  Result?  The opper will most likely be building wizzies quicker (from a time sense) than the banker.
3: Banker wizzies have to sit there idly for defense.  This has a couple implications:
A: It means it can be actually slightly cheaper to unleash an offensive army than it is to build a defensive army, depending on other circumstances.  If the banker wants to defend himself against attacks that would be stopped by 2 million defensive wizards, I would need to buy the 2 million wizards (expensive in itself), then have them sit around while I pay 2 million in upkeep for them every tick (that's 48 mil per day lost just on upkeep).
B: It means my defenses are relatively known.  Let's say you've got infils on me, and have had them for the past 4 days.  You would have a good idea of my wizard defenses and, as a result, could calculate whether or not you could successfully undertake the attack.  Even if you don't have infils, though, you could use the soft op trick (soft ops require half the wizzies that hard ops do to be successful, generally, so if you can successfully hit a soft op at 40% of your wizzie count, you can probably get the hard op through).  So you have an empirical method of determining what is a proper wizzie count to build.  The banker, on the other hand, is more or less guessing.
C: Worst case scenario, you're a bluff.  I'm a banker, and my fam is about to go to war.  We get spy on targets on your family, and see that you have enough octo for 4 million wizzies.  Assuming our opper doesn't want to fight, and assuming I'm our family's biggest banker, it would probably be a good idea for me to put somewhere between 2 and 3 million wizzies for defense, which would be enough to give you plenty of trouble getting through (I'm not sure on the exact ratios, but let's assume that's true for this purpose).  You, however... don't really need to do a damn thing.  Sure, you have the octo.  However, you could just as easily sit the war out, letting the other pop banker waste 2-3 million gc per tick in upkeep, plus the gc required for those wizzies to build, for a relative daily loss of 48 mil gc for the banker to... 700k octo decayed.  Or better yet, jump your wizzies, scaring their banker into jumping his own defenses... then spend your ops closing attacker portals!  The attackers will give that octo-hoarding pop banker the dirtiest glares ever!  So the opper doesn't actually need to op in order to beat a banker.

Plus, if you had to set up a tracking system for a developer who you thought may use his developer powers to gain an advantage... you'd have to ask... the developer... to develop... the tool... to make sure he didn't develop a cheat.

Prison guard: "Hey, I'm going to grab coffee.  Here's my gun.  If prisoner #1 tries to escape, shoot to kill!"
Prisoner #1: "No problem!  I'll watch him like a hawk!"

Not to mention that it pretty much forces big families to farm.

Scenario: A random small banker explores in or near your family.
Before this, players would either attack, or would sometimes allow the planet to sit around ("It's alright... it's just a banker.")
With this change, any banker planet could become an attacker planet, and thus spread, within a single tick.  So there's absolutely 0 chance a player can simply allow the banker to hold a nearby planet, because that planet could suddenly be a staging ground for a surprise attack.

has de-evolved into pikachu

If you have a problem with the workings of our Human Resources Department, you can email the Human Resources Department with your complaints.

First thing's first: If you have a specific issue, please cite the issue with the specific rule as you see it.  If there was a rules problem, it shouldn't be too hard for those complaining about said rules to cite specific instances in which specific rules were abused due to poor wording choice in said rules.  Meanwhile, anyone who was interested in correcting the rules would simply be left sitting in their room, speculating on as many hypothetical situations as possible when empirical examples of the complaints already exist.

Second: I just want to take a moment to say...

STOP NOMINATING ME FOR RANDOM CRAP, DPENG!

*shakes his ghost chains at you*

*puts an arrow in everyone's knee*

Yay, I stopped IC Mafia!