Scale the safe-money cap with cities

[Keegoz]

The latest change to the safe-money cap seems to have been poorly thought out. You've essientially considerably cut down any raiding profits to be made in the lower tiers on what seems to be an arbitrary number. I don't see how it makes any sense that the safe-money cap is the same across the entire game from a 1 city nation to a 45 city nation. 1 million means extremely different things to both nations.

Would it not be smarter to tie the cap to cities? Say 100k per city or something?

You've already basically killed making new alliances from scratch in this game with the other changes, raiding was one of the very few ways people could attempt to catch up.

Edited May 19, 2020 by Keegoz

[Danzek]

It also could be useful to remove the cap altogether if the person is inactive. 

[Wendell]

Well you got 6 more months of begging before Alex considers this. See you next month, same time?

[War Hawk]

Tying the treasury cap to city-count also provides an avenue for an easy project addition: a national treasury that buffs the per-city cash cap.

For example: At 33 cities, a base $100k/city cap allows me $3.3m unraidable; a project that buffs the per-city treasury cap by 50% allows me $4.95m unraidable; a project that buffs the per-city treasury cap by 100% allows me $6.6m unraidable.

[Prefontaine]

This was in line with one of the things I was looking at tweaking, it was 50k per city though, 500k for 10 cities, 1M for 20, 1.5M for 30 etc..

[Azaghul]

It definitely should be scaled to city count.  1 mill is way too high at lower levels.

[katashimon13]

50k or lower per city plz

rawr

[Prefontaine]

On 5/21/2020 at 1:55 AM, katashimon13 said:

50k or lower per city plz

rawr

How low?

Edited May 24, 2020 by Prefontaine

[KiWilliam]

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

How low?

If you ask certain people: zero per city.

Whoever is deciding this needs to pick something that makes sense with all the other decisions made, as well as the meta of the game, and the current in-game population (don't use average {mean} when we have too many 1 city nobodies, use median or better yet drop off all the inactive nobodies). My opinion about if we should have a cap, higher or lower or not aside, 50k per city for 1m at city 20, is "about" the median if we have players from city 1 to 45, and still uses that magically arbitrary one million figure for that median city number. As well it's 500k, or one day's worth of a full activity bonus, at city 10, which is the real number that separates noobs from real players considering that's when you lose the in-game bonus of no city timers.

[Duck Jesus]

0 pls inactives don’t deserve rights to safe keeping.

[katashimon13]

20k would be the lowest.. not that im suggesting 20k

rawr

[Keegoz]

7 hours ago, PriestDuck said:

0 pls inactives don’t deserve rights to safe keeping.

If it's able to be coded, makes sense to me that if you're on grey that you should have the cap go to 0. Would mean inactives are able to be raided.

[Kastor]

I agree with this idea.