Jump to content
Alex

Remove Alliance Bank Looting & Cap Alliance Bank Amounts

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Alex said:

To all the people downvoting my original post:

What about this? https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6045

Do you think this is fine? This is de-facto invulnerable bank looting anyway. Very rarely do banks actually get looted in the status-quo. Eliminating bank looting isn't going to change much in terms of gameplay, it's just going to get rid of a lot of the confusing offshore 1-man alliances.

Having the cap on alliance banks will ensure that you can actually loot more because nations will have to store a lot more money/rss.

So then just change alliance creation to require 10 or more cities. That fixes that. You're welcome

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex said:

I don't think that's a bad thing. Less hoarding of wealth ought to made it harder for anyone to "stay on top" indefinitely. It should make the game more viable for new players and alliances, and reduce game stagnation.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Codonian said:

So then just change alliance creation to require 10 or more cities. That fixes that. You're welcome

Why couldn't a nation with 10 cities create an alliance, have a 0.01 score nation join the alliance, then the 10 city nation leaves?

That doesn't really solve the problem.

Just now, REAP3R said:

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

If it's easier to take their wealth (which you can use to build cities) it will be much easier to catch up.

If they can hide and hoard their wealth forever, and use it to keep growing, then they certainly won't ever be caught up to.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the IDEA of the caps are fine, they just need to be increased. Despite this, there should still be some way for people to keep at least a large part of their wealth outside of their nation.

Basically, caps on alliance warchests are fine, caps on offshore nation wealth are not. @Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alex said:

Why couldn't a nation with 10 cities create an alliance, have a 0.01 score nation join the alliance, then the 10 city nation leaves?

That doesn't really solve the problem.

So then also add in a clause that removes an alliance that has sub 10 cities. You can't destroy cities ingame so that prevents genuine alliance getting deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alex said:

I don't think that's a bad thing. Less hoarding of wealth ought to made it harder for anyone to "stay on top" indefinitely. It should make the game more viable for new players and alliances, and reduce game stagnation.

Aside from the part where, ironically, in trying to help raiders you give them the ultimate Nerf yet. Making it impossible for them to safely store their loot. The loot wealth of Boyce alone would be well beyond Arrgh or their offshores capacity COMBINED even if you x10d the numbers.

Hell even a 'lesser' pirate like Di Vali might only barely fit his into that same space.

Congratulations, raiding now becomes completely untenable because when you get countered you'll just lose it all. And every raider with wealth now has to deal with sought vengeance while having bank on them. Rip arrgh is what that is.

And everyone taking the wealth of those whales who also gets attacked. You'd be funding people like me at best and other whales at worst.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alex said:

That nation has 0 score. Regardless of whether or not they could transfer if they were blockaded, no one can declare war on them anyway. So they could never be blockaded in the first place.

i see ur point but that's incorrect.
if a newcomer applies to an alliance and has one city, he can sell all improvements and infra, get to the same score as that nation you posted, declares, buys a few cities, then that nation can easily loot that bank. 

I'd be the first one to advise that nation and help him coordinate that bank heist.

Edited by MonkeyDLegend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So uh. The numbers in OP? Yeah, that renders AA banks 100% useless. Many make far more in one day's income than those limits would allow stored for their nation's share, so it's not even worth depositing anything ever. A City costs hundreds of millions, so it's not useful for nation growth plans, which hurts a lot of AA's. It's not enough for war rebuilds--maybe for 1-2 cities per nation I guess. It's also not enough to supply fighters. It's... Not enough for anything, really. Is this a joke or are you just that out of touch? Hell, what about AA taxes? When the cap is reached, do taxes stop being collected? Does the money disappear? Does it go over the cap? If it stops being collected, may as well set max taxes to something like 5% because otherwise no AA's collecting anyway. If it deletes, then that's crazy talk. If it goes over the cap... we'll just tax to deposit.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alex said:

If it's easier to take their wealth (which you can use to build cities) it will be much easier to catch up.

If they can hide and hoard their wealth forever, and use it to keep growing, then they certainly won't ever be caught up to.

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, REAP3R said:

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.

I mean that kind of already happens anyway so it'd get worse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kortanul said:

So uh. The numbers in OP? Yeah, that renders AA banks 100% useless. Many make far more in one day's income than those limits would allow stored for their nation's share, so it's not even worth depositing anything ever. A City costs hundreds of millions, so it's not useful for nation growth plans, which hurts a lot of AA's. It's not enough for war rebuilds--maybe for 1-2 cities per nation I guess. It's also not enough to supply fighters. It's... Not enough for anything, really. Is this a joke or are you just that out of touch? Hell, what about AA taxes? When the cap is reached, do taxes stop being collected? Does the money disappear? Does it go over the cap? If it stops being collected, may as well set max taxes to something like 5% because otherwise no AA's collecting anyway. If it deletes, then that's crazy talk. If it goes over the cap... we'll just tax to deposit.

Again, the numbers are totally changeable. The point of the suggestion is just that there is a cap.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a cap is the way to go. I would look for ways to encourage alliances to spend that money and resources. Maybe alliance wide projects? At the end of the day, we'll adapt to the changes. 

Edited by Redarmy
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Alex, the caps in general aren't a good idea in my opinion. They aren't going to encourage wars, just force a different method to safekeep belongings. And the example you pulled of an invulnerable offshore isn't the norm, most offshore don't use nations that small. It is hard to raid an offshore but not impossible. I think there have been at least three major offshore bank lootings during this war. I ultimately don't see why the current state of things is an issue.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alex said:

Again, the numbers are totally changeable. The point of the suggestion is just that there is a cap.

Sure. Just keep in mind that there are economically focused players and alliances, some making over 1M per city per day.

If the cap isn't quite high, and enough to cover war rebuilds and city buys, AA's will be capped throughout the game simply by existing and AA banks largely put into disuse.

A cap still doesn't solve the problem because many banks are already hidden/stashed in nations which are nearly impossible to raid, and not in an AA bank. Part of war intel gathering is to scour nations for all trade and bank history, in the involved AAs, those with known ties, and bank AAs, to determine where loot is stashed, specifically because nations are banks--including a nation taking their AA's bank to another AA to sit sheltered, rather than transferring holdings to that other AA's bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read every post but I don't seem to have seen the obvious problem Alex is trying to fix, capping each alliance bank will only make it so many more offshores are needed to hold the wealth in game. Thus even more 1 man alliances made. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers would need to be wayyyy higher. even at 10mil per city the bank would be useless. It would also give a huge advantage to mass recruit alliances like NPO, BK, TKR, and Arrgh. The whaling one. They could hold on to way more for less of a cost.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blink said:

I haven't read every post but I don't seem to have seen the obvious problem Alex is trying to fix, capping each alliance bank will only make it so many more offshores are needed to hold the wealth in game. Thus even more 1 man alliances made. 

That wouldn't work. The alliance bank caps are based on cities, so creating an offshore bank wouldn't increase storable capacity at all.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blink said:

I haven't read every post but I don't seem to have seen the obvious problem Alex is trying to fix, capping each alliance bank will only make it so many more offshores are needed to hold the wealth in game. Thus even more 1 man alliances made. 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, James II said:

The numbers would need to be wayyyy higher. even at 10mil per city the bank would be useless. It would also give a huge advantage to mass recruit alliances like NPO, BK, TKR, and Arrgh. The whaling one. They could hold on to way more for less of a cost.

Yeah because a city 4 has 3 more cities of capacity than a c1, but so does a c20 vs a c23.

getting a nation cities gets harder and harder progressively, so a c3 shouldn't get the same amount of space proportionally as a c25

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dryad said:

A logical consequence of this implementation is that alliances will try to recruit inactive players with no wealth to boost their bank capacity. As someone who leads a micro alliance with no inactive, that seeks out quality of members over quantity, I think it would be absolutely lame to see alliances with 300 inactives.

The biggest mood in the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the most obvious flaw I think. It would help bigger alliances wayy more because lower tier cities are basically free; and at the same time since it's making looting more viable for all players, especially upper tier who can't store much money in the aa banks anymore, the upper tier alliances with few members (Grumpy, CoA, et al) will be at a very disadvantageous position. Also the caps are too low. Maybe you could just cap the deposits that nations can make but not cap the banks themselves. So the taxes will stay safe but the deposits will not. So in this case, alliances will still have some money, but not a lot. Though I think this would just encourage higher taxes across the board :P

Also, thanks for trying to improve the game. Maybe I didn't like the suggestion, but I love that you care. Upvoted mate ❤️

Edited by Marlboro lalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marlboro lalo said:

That's the most obvious flaw I think. It would help bigger alliances wayy more because lower tier cities are basically free; and at the same time since it's making looting more viable for all players, especially upper tier who can't store much money in the aa banks anymore, the upper tier alliances with few members (Grumpy, CoA, et al) will be at a very disadvantageous position. Also the caps are too low. Maybe you could just cap the deposits that nations can make but not cap the banks themselves. So the taxes will stay safe but the deposits will not. So in this case, alliances will still have some money, but not a lot. Though I think this would just encourage higher taxes across the board :P

Also, I am a contrarian. Upvoted mate ❤️

Caps were crossed out in the OP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marlboro lalo said:

Maybe you could just cap the deposits that nations can make but not cap the banks themselves.

If im understanding you right, then nations could just make 20 deposits of whatever the cap is

unless you mean limit size in alliance banks dedicated to deposits, in which case I think it should be the opposite: limit alliance warchest, but allow individual nations to store as much as they want. This would theoretically achieve making wars shorter while not limiting nation wealth

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, thanks for pointing it out. Am slow, I was typing this for half an hour xD 

1 minute ago, Hughes said:

If im understanding you right, then nations could just make 20 deposits of whatever the cap is

unless you mean limit size in alliance banks dedicated to deposits, in which case I think it should be the opposite: limit alliance warchest, but allow individual nations to store as much as they want. This would theoretically achieve making wars shorter while not limiting nation wealth

The amount of cash a nation could put in could be capped per month or a reasonable period of time. Even if they got it in using another nation by trading them the money, it would still limit the money that could be deposited by nations in the alliance bank since all nations will have caps on their deposits

Edited by Marlboro lalo
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.