Jump to content
Alex

Remove Alliance Bank Looting & Cap Alliance Bank Amounts

Recommended Posts

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

That's another thing. What happens to taxes once the bank hits cap? Do you just not get taxed anymore? Do the money/resources that get taxed get deleted?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes 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

3 minutes ago, James II said:

That's another thing. What happens to taxes once the bank hits cap? Do you just not get taxed anymore? Do the money/resources that get taxed get deleted?

If we follow what I'm suggesting, the tax income would not be capped, so it could accumulate and could be stolen by people or sent to nations. But that would not be as much as it is now because the amounts nations can deposit into the bank would be limited

Edited by Marlboro lalo

Share this post


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

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

why do you want to limit safe nation wealth?
the problem alex pointed out that the caps are trying to solve is not having as long wars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex I think you may want to make a distinction between cash and resources.  

 

For resources, I think you hit onto something really good about the frequency of war cycles.  We currently have a resource glut in the larger alliance banks that allows them to last in wars for practically indefinite periods of times.  Putting caps on the amount of resources storable makes a lot of sense in this respect to encourage shorter wars.  Another way to implement this could be some form of decay rate for resources stored in alliance banks versus within nations which in the real world makes sense because resources like gasoline and such have shelf-lives.

For cash, it might make sense to exclude this from the limits.  First, a lack of resources is enough to halt a war effort and enforce a regularity of war cycles.  Second, cash is used for rebuilding and growth which makes it essential for alliances to be able to store large sums in order to do these things.  Excluding cash from the caps will also resolve a lot of the other potential problems with the idea.  You could theoretically get the best of both worlds by increasing loot/attrition of resources while still letting alliances grow, protecting the health of the game.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Another way to implement this could be some form of decay rate for resources stored in alliance banks versus within nations which in the real world makes sense because resources like gasoline and such have shelf-lives

I think this has been mentioned before and I like the idea.

It is a much better way to solve the war length problem than caps which would also limit safe nation wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that whenever there is a discussion about game changes, half the playerbase flips out

Share this post


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

Why is it that whenever there is a discussion about game changes, half the playerbase flips out

In this case it's the entire playerbase and it's because Alex's suggestions tend not to take into account how the game is actually played and how his ideas for changes will not grant the change he desires.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tymeier said:

Why is it that whenever there is a discussion about game changes, half the playerbase flips out

Because it's a terrible idea.

All this does is slow down new player growth since the best way to grow in this game is to join an alliance. With alliance banks being capped it means that the smaller member count alliances get bent over the table as bigger alliances have more access to cash thus being able to grow members faster. Sure, I could create a system where I have a bunch of member holding cash that restocks the bank when growing members but honestly this is a game not a job and I don't work that hard at my actual job. 

Another thing it makes raiding a waste of time. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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 OP says that Vacation Mode / gray nations would not count toward the cap. So there wouldn't be much advantage to having inactive nations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How bout fixing the war system instead. Make beiging a way to win a war, rather than players having to avoid it because it rewards the loser.

As far as offshore banks... That adds a tactic to the game that players deserve to capitalize on if they deem necessary. Everytime you try to fit everyone into a cookie cutter scenario... You hurt ur game and this community. Let us think for ourselves and quit constricting our gameplay.

Edited by Mack g
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would completely destroy the game for me so everything I'm about to type is coming from a biased perspective. That said I have a few points to make as to why this is a terrible idea in general.

1: No nation, regardless of how low their score is, is safe from being attacked and looted. There seems to be an idea that a nation with a 0.0 score can't be blockaded. That's completely untrue. Here's how you do it. Step 1: identify major offshore Step 2: reroll. Step 3: declare war with a 0.0 score. Step 4: build infra, cities and military. Step 5: five minutes after declaring with a 0.0 score you can now blockade. 

2. How does this change off shores? It doesn't if we believe 0.0 nations are unraidable (they're not, but this is the false logic we're operating on). If you can't raid a 0.0 there will just be a lot more 0.0 nations pop up. Instead of alliances with a 0.0 score holding money, now nations with a 0.0 score will hold the money. We can pretend this is better if you like but it functions the exact same way. They may feel the need to diversify more but then the only thing that gets tricky for the major alliances are making sure they have their VPN turned on and they don't lose their spreadsheet with all of their passwords.

3. This doesn't fix anything it just creates a new work around. The idea that 0.0's can't be raided/blockaded is hilarious. It hasn't been done because no one has dedicated themselves to exploiting it. If you had two people working together, constantly rerolling and maintaining their own bank, they could easily raid and reroll all of the 0.0's they want with a place to keep the spoils. 

All around terrible idea that doesn't fix anything and shifts the optics. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps rather than a hard cap a soft cap could be used. Basically if an alliance exceeds its cap the amount above the cap decays. Would allow people to exceed the cap if they wanted to, but not without it costing them.

Also while I agree the solution you proposed in the op needs tweeking, I must say I am glad that you are taking this issue seriously and is looking into how to fix it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think if you looked at the numbers again this would be a good idea, the numbers I would use are the following 

This would be for one city within an alliance.
Cash 100,000,000 
Coal 1,250
Oil 1,250
Uranium 625
Iron 1,250
Bauxite 1,250
Lead 2,500
Gasoline 2,500
Munitions 2,500
Steel 2,500
Aluminum 2,500
Food 30,000

Now the reason I picked these numbers are pretty simple, Based it on my own nation, and Alliance I have run and been Econ within, these are enough to fight a war and also be able to maintain a good rebuild.

This means for someone like NPO they would be able to hold

Cash 259,500,000,000 
Coal 3,243,750
Oil 3,243,750
Uranium 1,621,875
Iron 3,243,750
Bauxite 3,243,750
Lead 3,243,750
Gasoline 6,487,500
Munitions 6,487,500
Steel 6,487,500
Aluminum 6,487,500
Food 77,850,000

Now for those who say about raiding, well think about how much more loot will have to be stored on nations, clearly this is better than an alliance bank ignoring the mistakes of this war and some offshore banks, but this means most alliances will hold less, so the nations within that alliance would need to hold more.

Now this would be the cap of an alliance bank, but would love to see a project that will improve those numbers by 10% but of course the cost must be huge, maybe the cost would be based on the number of cities within the alliance something they then have to pay every time someone joined and they go over the city caps, so as NPO has 2595 cities, if say a total of 2500 cities leave in order to buy the project to make it cheaper, the second NPO goes over 95 cities they have to pay the extra in order for the project to work, so if the 2500 cities rejoin they then have to pay X times 2500 cities just to get the project to work.

hope i explained that well if not sorry lol, in my mind i knew what i mean lol 

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

This would be for one city within an alliance.
Cash 100,000,000 
Coal 1,250
Oil 1,250
Uranium 625
Iron 1,250
Bauxite 1,250
Lead 2,500
Gasoline 2,500
Munitions 2,500
Steel 2,500
Aluminum 2,500
Food 30,000

Those numbers are actually so high you may as well not have a cap at all. Actually an interesting proposal if alliance bank looting isnt removed though, because then a cap with numbers like this has impact on offshores only, e.g. a 20 city offshore could only store 2b cash in contrast to 100b.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Alex I suggest revisiting the nation resource caps that was posted in the far off days of early 2016. The numbers should probably be tippled though.

People keep complaining about how costly wars are and how the game encourages stockpiling of resources. I'm suggesting a massive reduction in maximum stockpile limits so that people actually hit the caps and are incentivised to actually do something with their resources rather than risk having them waste away. Instead of having a flat 99k limit for raw and 999k limit for manufactured resources, change the stockpile limits to a per-city (and continent) basis. 

 

Lowered raw resource stockpiles - A flat cap of 1k per raw resource (not including food) with an extra 150 per city if your nation can produce the resource or a mere 25 if your nation can't

Lower Manufactured resource stockpiles - New stockpile for steel is 3250 per city and aluminum is 540 per city (two full rebuys of military units) along with 6k munitions per city and 4k gas per city (worst-case resource waste using only max ship attacks for 3 wars every round for 3 rounds (9 wars total))(could probably be lowered to something more reasonable)

Uranium could be reduced to 250 per city(it was gut wrenching to type this ;_; ) and food max could be reduced to Total Population/100(inb4 war genocide destroys all your food) or perhaps something based on land (reminiscent of farms)

 

 

Obviously, this would encourage nations to build up their armies before hitting their stockpile caps which would could give a general warning to other alliances.

 

 

Example using my nation:

15 cities in North America

Resource caps:

Coal 2250

Oil 1375

Uranium 3750

Lead 1375

Iron 2250

Bauxite 1375

Gasoline 60000 (probs to much)

Munitions 90000 (probs to much)

Steel 48750 (really not that much, any nation can top that out in under half a year easily if they tried)

Aluminum 8100

Food 32215.6 (using obviously flawed total pop/100)

 

Raw resources are used either to power your cities at low levels (sub-5 cities or whatever tf the standard noob build is these days) or to manufacturer war resources. The 1k base is mostly for oil/coal PP users but I recognize that could be set just those two (making it more complicated) or just outright lowering the base amount to 500 or less. The 150/25 per cities is to allow people on continents with the resources to mine and sell in larger quantities. You could also argue that a nation on NA who mines I iron would be better at storing iron than a country in SA who's more concerned with their own bauxite resource. It also means if you want to produce manufactured resources that your continent doesn't specialize in, it's going to be slightly more annoying than if you focused on something your continent actually supports.

 

With war resources I figured two full rebuys is enough since that's 10-12 days straight of max unit builds. Wars are usually decided by the second round if not the first and if you're winning the war you're buying only small amounts of units to replace the handfuls you might be losing in attacks and if you're losing you're either trying to double buy and fight back or turtling and launching missiles/nukes. I gave my exact reasoning for Munitions and Gas already so I'm not going to copy paste but like I said, I recognize that's probably never going to happen and could be lowered to something more reasonable.

 

Uranium is set at 250 that so, assuming you get blockaded and can somehow still afford to buy nukes you can buy one per city you own. I figured that's fair but I assume it could be too high, especially considering if you can afford to launch nukes you're more likely than not using uranium power so you're building one less than your city count would theoretically allow anyways. Go ahead and suggest a better number, nothing's stopping you.

 

Food I can't come up with a balanced way to do it that's fair since total pop is flawed due to how war works and basing it off land just means people already producing a shitton of food and likely not actually needing to stockpile vast amounts of it would be able to while the opposite wouldn't. Although it makes sense using the raw resource idea base it doesn't really work for lower level players.

Edited by Malal

Share this post


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

The OP says that Vacation Mode / gray nations would not count toward the cap. So there wouldn't be much advantage to having inactive nations.

You can still be inactive and on vacation mode and be on another color.

 

1 hour ago, Tymeier said:

Why is it that whenever there is a discussion about game changes, half the playerbase flips out

Because he wants to make changes in the middle of a war, or during a time when war is about to start. He gets the most complaints then when people start getting rolled.

 

Share this post


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

Those numbers are actually so high you may as well not have a cap at all. Actually an interesting proposal if alliance bank looting isnt removed though, because then a cap with numbers like this has impact on offshores only, e.g. a 20 city offshore could only store 2b cash in contrast to 100b.

Do you think, my nation makes 130k food and 20m cash a day with 33 cities this means if i made a solo alliance it would take me less then 165 days to reach the cash or  8 days to reach the food cap, now to get to 2500 infra it would cost me 917,310,160.80 to rebuild so 1/3 of what a single man alliance could hold, so leaving me 2/3 to fight with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Think if you looked at the numbers again this would be a good idea, the numbers I would use are the following 

This would be for one city within an alliance.
Cash 100,000,000 
Coal 1,250
Oil 1,250
Uranium 625
Iron 1,250
Bauxite 1,250
Lead 2,500
Gasoline 2,500
Munitions 2,500
Steel 2,500
Aluminum 2,500
Food 30,000

Now the reason I picked these numbers are pretty simple, Based it on my own nation, and Alliance I have run and been Econ within, these are enough to fight a war and also be able to maintain a good rebuild.

This means for someone like NPO they would be able to hold

Cash 259,500,000,000 
Coal 3,243,750
Oil 3,243,750
Uranium 1,621,875
Iron 3,243,750
Bauxite 3,243,750
Lead 3,243,750
Gasoline 6,487,500
Munitions 6,487,500
Steel 6,487,500
Aluminum 6,487,500
Food 77,850,000

Now for those who say about raiding, well think about how much more loot will have to be stored on nations, clearly this is better than an alliance bank ignoring the mistakes of this war and some offshore banks, but this means most alliances will hold less, so the nations within that alliance would need to hold more.

Now this would be the cap of an alliance bank, but would love to see a project that will improve those numbers by 10% but of course the cost must be huge, maybe the cost would be based on the number of cities within the alliance something they then have to pay every time someone joined and they go over the city caps, so as NPO has 2595 cities, if say a total of 2500 cities leave in order to buy the project to make it cheaper, the second NPO goes over 95 cities they have to pay the extra in order for the project to work, so if the 2500 cities rejoin they then have to pay X times 2500 cities just to get the project to work.

hope i explained that well if not sorry lol, in my mind i knew what i mean lol 

Disagree with those resources numbers. Were a teeny micro and needed 20ish k per resource per nation, or this war would've ended within a few weeks for us. Keep in mind that a nation being bombarded with all 3 def slots filled and at least 2 offensive needs considerably more resources to weather the storm.

Share this post


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

Disagree with those resources numbers. Were a teeny micro and needed 20ish k per resource per nation, or this war would've ended within a few weeks for us. Keep in mind that a nation being bombarded with all 3 def slots filled and at least 2 offensive needs considerably more resources to weather the storm.

Yakuza who had far more members and was very active at the start until the last say 20 days of this war was fighting every day, we did not even use anything close to 500k of each resources and we had about 550 cities at that time, so I do not believe many used a lot more than 1,000,000 of each unless BK/NPO or other major players

Share this post


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

Do you think, my nation makes 130k food and 20m cash a day with 33 cities this means if i made a solo alliance it would take me less then 165 days to reach the cash or  8 days to reach the food cap, now to get to 2500 infra it would cost me 917,310,160.80 to rebuild so 1/3 of what a single man alliance could hold, so leaving me 2/3 to fight with.

Well, you shouldnt try to balance it around solo alliances. If alliance bank looting is removed then offshores will no longer be needed, so you need to look at the wealth of average alliance members to balance it. Your income is clearly not the norm in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the lion share of complaints are directed at having a cap on the bank's balance. The issue is that any formula will inevitably be too low for some and too high for others. I have the easiest solution in the world: let alliances implement their own cap.

Someone mentioned alliance-level projects in this thread already, and I'd like to expand on that in greater detail. Alliance projects would be significant expenditures that would yield awesome benefits to the alliance. For the purpose of this thread though, let's lay out an idea.

Repeating Project: Bank Capacity Increase
Banks start with a cap of 1n. Whatever Alex determines to be the final resting place for that cap is mostly irrelevant to this suggestion. Each time the alliance wants to increase their bank's "safety cap" (I'll explain why shortly why I am calling it a safety cap), they pay a exponentially increasing price (similar to city count) for +0.1n cap. So if an alliance did 5 increases, they'd have a total of 1.5n bank capacity.

This solves the issue of larger or more affluent alliances needing to retain their larger bank balances safe, while creating a greater level of flexibility in alliance management. Alliances can decide if they want to have that money simply retained at a nation level and susceptible to wide-scale looting, or if they want to spend capital to safeguard future monies in the bank.

But wait, there's more!
Remember when I said "safety cap" - I have two suggestions that could either be implemented separately, or in tandem. I think these will sufficiently mollify at least a few detractors.

  • The alliance cap is just an immunity or safety cap. What that means is, up to the aforementioned capacity balance that's protected, the funds cannot be looted. Once the alliance hits that cap, anything above that cap becomes susceptible to looting. To balance out the fact that banks now have safety caps, anything above the cap is able to be looted at a factor of 10 (I support even higher factors, but again, I think x10 seems reasonable). This helps encourage alliances to stay below their cap or spend funds to increase their cap.
  • The second part is what I really like. Again, allow banks to receive monies above the cap. The difference here would be that bank efficiency or graft (we can play around with wording) applies to this mechanic. Once the bank hits their cap, any funds going in would find a random (RNG) percentage go poof. So if you were at the cap and someone deposited 100m into your alliance's bank, you might only receive 68m of that deposit, since the other 32m (RNG of 32) was stolen en-route by the Sheepanostra.

In both add-on suggestions, the alliance cap is implemented, only as more of a soft cap with serious side effects to exceeding it.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

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.