Popular Post Keegoz Posted May 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 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 18 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danzek Posted May 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2020 It also could be useful to remove the cap altogether if the person is inactive. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Well you got 6 more months of begging before Alex considers this. See you next month, same time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post War Hawk Posted May 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2020 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. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 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.. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 It definitely should be scaled to city count. 1 mill is way too high at lower levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 50k or lower per city plz rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiWilliam Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Jesus Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 0 pls inactives don’t deserve rights to safe keeping. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 20k would be the lowest.. not that im suggesting 20k rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted May 25, 2020 Author Share Posted May 25, 2020 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. 2 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 I agree with this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.