Arawra

The answer: there is no point; This thread is an attention grab, wasting people's time.

Someone asked a similar question on the official Discord server and this was the response they got from Alex: Although odd, it appears to be intended. Context:

Ming Empire just left big brother Rose.

Our coalition partners can exit on their own volition, even more so without the threat of being rolled by said partners afterward. I mean, we all saw the Ming and House Arryn post right?

@Durand More targets, amirite?

Prosper well in your time of peace

I mean you did say Soup was the uncool bunch in Chaos sphere, that hurt our feelings probably™

Apparently your friend didn't get the memo.

I R O N I C

I think I can safely say nobody cares about your perception of alliances, your digging isn't helping the fact.

Dig far enough and you might find me in the land down under, Noctis.

You're misinformed if you think losing has any relevancy to having connections, then again, Fark sphere I guess.

Huh, mine have been very Soup related, but I don't see any correlation. ?

I think Miller's point was moreso to debunk what Tarroc said in his quote than it was to make a big deal about the amount of nations against us, but I agree with what you said regardless.

IQ bloc stronk

Please revert his language from gibberish to English, thanks in advance.

I'm sure they'll cry rivers over that 124 mil negative net. /s

Now I understand why Yakuza cut direct ties to BK. All part of the plan.

Caps were crossed out in the OP

The offshore bank would have the same amount of storage as if the nation had chose to reside in its primary alliance, due to the cap being based on cities.

I don't think they will have the score capable of reaching those rich players, and their chances of beating them are even worse. What this change might do is push all the bigger players into their own alliance, so they can all grow without fear. Not saying it will happen, but yeah.

Cities cannot be destroyed, the people at the top, will stay at the top.

As a side suggestion: Counter offshores by capping alliances' banks if that alliance doesn't meet certain criteria i.e member count, score, cities, whatever you would think most appropriate.

Raiding is not viable if the raiders have no place to store their earnings. I know you said they can store it into a nation that is not going to get raided, but having that kind of money will just put a target onto their back next. To be completely honest, I don't think a lot of people would throw a huge fit if you removed bank looting entirely because like you said, it's usually worth pennies to most, but capping alliance banks almost nullifies their purpose. EDIT: Chances are, people would start storing their alliance banks in nations similar to the one you already posted, the one having 0 score.

Alliance bank loot is one factor that plays into whether or not someone would be a viable raid target. As for the caps, I don't think you could ever put a multiplier that will appease everyone, either they will be too small or too large to make a difference. Keeping it unlimited would be the only forseeable compromise imo.