Jump to content

The Offshore Culture and its Side Effects


Theodosius
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Theo's got some solid ideas there. I've honestly looked for a problem or an exploit, but he's covered it all, and in a way that doesn't entirely remove banking as a critical balance factor. I'm down for these changes.

The loophole is storing your bank in a nation with 0 score without creating an alliance. 

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this, many people use low score nations to do this, what if you just make it so a nation must have a nation with 1000 or so score in it to have an alliance bank or just be an alliance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Viselli said:

The loophole is storing your bank in a nation with 0 score without creating an alliance. 

Ah, right, but I'd already covered that one with my own prior suggestion that all nations have 1 score just for existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

A bank cap really is the only way to solve this problem. As i said before, cost, age restrictions and score restrictions won't affect larger alliances. And sure we may have to scale the caps, but there are ways to do that more easily than there are to keep increasing the cost of creating an offshore. A year from now, 150mil really will be pittance if the 'mid-tier' reaches City 20. 

The mid tier is city 20. C20 is upper mid tier now. Arguably upper tier doesn't even start until 22/23. 

Anything below c14 isn't even mid tier anymore, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Epi said:

Yeah, we can't set a cost that's too high to be spammable by large alliances whilst also allowing new alliances to be formed.

Maybe find a way different then a cost, because it's either gonna be too high or not high enough (if there is one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

Age isn't a solution, again i'll just use my members to create the alliance. Only way to prevent really stupid loopholes is a cap. Preferably a scaling cap.

Doesnt stop the fact you can currently get your nation to 0 score. Have a few "friends" be at 0 score and you can hide your bank in them. In addition to a cap Alex still needs to make it so you cant zero yourself

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Epi said:

If the cap scales off of cities, you physically won't be able to transfer that much money to a nation at 0 score.

That is true, what is your recommended amount of cash and resources it should be capped at per city? I know the stuff Alex originally proposed was way too small.

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Epi said:

I'd probably have the Cash cap inbetween 30-50mil right now, but he can find some other method to scale it.

So for example that would cap Camelot at between $20,340,000,000 to $33,900,000,000 cash in their bank. Or is that total not per city?

Edited by Viselli

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Well @Alex made it clear that once you place cash within the alliance bank it is no longer owned by that nation, so my question is why beating that nation in a war enables someone to steal from the alliance bank they do not own it.

I personally would like to see loot based of alliance wars lost,

So lets say Alliance A has 100 nations this is how you would loot the bank.
1) You have to beige more than 50% of the alliance to reach the loot
2) Every 1% over the minimum cap gives you 2% of the maximum possible loot,
3) if you beige 80% you would get 60% of the max 33% loot able.

Now you are wondering what about world wars, well lets take the current was well lets say Alliance A beige 45% and Alliance B beige 20% then no one will be able to get any bank loot, this means alliances who want to loot the banks have to work better together and plan, it will also make beige people important.

Yes this would mean a rework on beige as right now people are not beige due to the fact it helps the person losing more than those winning, As for the offshore well that's a simple fix in truth Anyone who leaves an alliance has a 7 day cooling off before they are able to make another alliance, sure they could join one but they will not be able to make one.

Personally my philosophy with banks has always been not to trust them & you can expect fairly big chance of not getting it back. I remember warning Leyaul about trusting banks & told him I didn't trust banks when he started thinking he was going to be able to get cities by saving money in them; which of course he wasn't able to get out. (Even before he did anything which could get him banned out of frustration).

Although really people should only put money in banks they're willing to lose if it doesn't go their way, both IRL and anywhere else.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.