reason no one wars

[Pax]

I'm not saying that this was a bad idea, because I thought it was cool at first.

 

But when we're talking about someone being able to get 7 billion dollars in 6 months, the way it's been suggested just straight up will not work. That's insanely OP compared to current standards and I'm sure at least some people would be able to take advantage of it without being declared on. GPA would be ridiculously large before long, for sure.

 

Practically this idea cannot work without some major changes.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Pax

[SoS]

People that buy more cities would be able to beat the cash hoarders on the ground. There's a spectrum of nations in strength ranges...I don't see how ranges would suddenly work against us.

 

$6 billion hoarded in a nation with 8 cities would be a juicy target to a nation with ten cities. Or to three nations working together. There would be as much incentive to keep up with competitors' growth as ever. Remember the city timer. No matter how much cash you have on hand you can't "jump" in city count overnight. That's what differentiates this from the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) warchests.

[Arthur James]

thanks for telling

[SoS]

thanks for telling

[Just Monika]

People that buy more cities would be able to beat the cash hoarders on the ground. There's a spectrum of nations in strength ranges...I don't see how ranges would suddenly work against us.

 

$6 billion hoarded in a nation with 8 cities would be a juicy target to a nation with ten cities. Or to three nations working together. There would be as much incentive to keep up with competitors' growth as ever. Remember the city timer. No matter how much cash you have on hand you can't "jump" in city count overnight. That's what differentiates this from the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) warchests.

Just that a nation with 10 cities might not have the downdeclare range to hit a nation with 8 cities. And if the nation with 10 cities invested all their money into these cities and infrastructure instead of interest-producing money stockpiles, even in a war they might be far less efficient than one would assume. Why? Because if my income is 80% interest and 20% tax and in the millions, I can just max out military improvements as cash hoarder and make the most out of my cities to trump someone who has to actually rely on proper income. At 8 cities vs. 10 cities, that's not that much of an issue, as a 10 city nation will most likely have the improvement slots to keep up, but at lower ranges, with say 4 cities versus 5 cities or 5 cities versus 6 cities, this might not be the case anymore. And if the cash hoarder feels like it indeed is hopeless, they still can ditch infrastructure to lie low, because their income is pretty much independent of the nation they have. Would be quite the issue if these nations then just slump to very low strength levels, max out improvements and mess around with those nations that are still new and growing.

 

I for my part oppose the idea, because not only has it flaws like the one pointed out here, but this system also is just a money machine which will make nations with savings richer, while nations who invest lose out, thereby discouraging nation building and thus furthering a gamestyle, where I log in, get my 10k, check wether everything is alright and don't touch a thing, because that is the most profitable thing to do, rather than actually develop things and invest some time into making growth plans. I like that people are encouraged to invest their money, because investment is the proper sensible way of getting returns on your money, not interest from nowhere. And while some may think this will encourage raiding, the sole viable targets will be inactives, as active treasure builders will most likely be sitting at full barracks, factories, air and naval bases to arm themselves to the death once attacked. And thus, not much changed really, other than we now got a broken economy, where people will surely find creative uses for treasure builders, all of which are not necessarily strengthening the "war" component.

 

If Sheepy wants to encourage war, it might be better to look at options for ressource scarcity, rather than making money even more abundant. Give people something to fight over.

[Pax]

People that buy more cities would be able to beat the cash hoarders on the ground. There's a spectrum of nations in strength ranges...I don't see how ranges would suddenly work against us.

 

$6 billion hoarded in a nation with 8 cities would be a juicy target to a nation with ten cities. Or to three nations working together. There would be as much incentive to keep up with competitors' growth as ever. Remember the city timer. No matter how much cash you have on hand you can't "jump" in city count overnight. That's what differentiates this from the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) warchests.

 

Yeah, $6 billion would be a juicy target. And you know what? Any nation who wasn't using the compound interest would get themselves absolutely and totally stomped into the ground by Mr. $6b because it is a ridiculously overpowered and insane amount of money. Almost nobody in the game has even had 2% of that amount. 

 

The money that wasn't used on infra and city growth could still be used on infra and city growth when they got declared on, if they wanted to stomp the guy who declared on them. Even if city growth is limited currently, infra growth isn't and exponential infra growth would be easy to do with that kind of warchest. Nobody in their range would even remotely stand a chance against them unless they had done the exact same thing, which would mean that growth would be massively discouraged and war wouldn't even be encouraged much (if at all)

 

There is no way having a nation just slightly larger will give you an advantage over one of these guys, because they can afford to outgrow you instantly. Even three average nations doing regular nation building would probably get curb stomped by a guy with $6b because it is, again, a ridiculous amount.

 

It would absolutely flood the global economy, most nations would see their income go up ridiculous amounts, and there is no way that all of the nations with lots of cash will be raided, plain and simple. We'd going to see people's warchests hit amounts we couldn't even dream of with the current system very shortly, and the only way anyone could compare would be to also never grow and hoard their money. The game would be stagnant within a few months because everyone would have money and no good reason to spend it.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Pax

[SoS]

What you can spend money on is very limited. And the effect it would have in the timeline of a war is even more limited. Military is relatively cheap. Infra, over a certain level, confers no great advantage. Billion$ wouldn't give you an advantage in war if your opponent has the monies and slots for a full militarily.

[ataraxis]

You could get rid of the threat of being raided by simply being out of range to be raided (typically on the low end).

[Ashland]

You're forgetting the other side of that...where the dude that buys cities comes and takes your money.

 

It would offer more tough decisions.

No, he's right.  You're severely oversimplifying it and if someone is high enough, they become completely out of reach.  And they just get richer and richer.

 

Terrible, awful idea.  Do not implement.  Will kill the game.

 

SOS:

 

Why should we reward people for doing nothing?  Building infra is a bigger risk.  That !@#$ is expensive and you lose it in a war.  It should always provide more of a return than just doing nothing.

 

Sheepy:

 

Why are you considering this?  Please, dismiss it out of hand.  All you're doing is rewarding inactivity!

 

Large, rich nations and nations who are not very active.  That is who this is helping.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Ashland

[SoS]

You could get rid of the threat of being raided by simply being out of range to be raided (typically on the low end).

That would require buying cities and infra. And there's no score that can't be raided by someone.

[SoS]

No, he's right. You're severely oversimplifying it and if someone is high enough, they become completely out of reach. And they just get richer and richer.

 

Terrible, awful idea. Do not implement. Will kill the game.

 

SOS:

 

Why should we reward people for doing nothing? Building infra is a bigger risk. That !@#$ is expensive and you lose it in a war. It should always provide more of a return than just doing nothing.

 

Sheepy:

 

Why are you considering this? Please, dismiss it out of hand. All you're doing is rewarding inactivity!

 

Large, rich nations and nations who are not very active. That is who this is helping.

Might be terrible for the game, but that's not as certain as the critics are making it seem.

 

I expect people would save until they have the funds to keep up with the city/project clock. They would save for current city and enough to get them next city in minimum time. Anything else makes no sense. That, not sitting on billions is how it would actually go down. So, lets debate that.

 

Who gives a shit if someone has billions. What you can do with it is limited.

 

Businessmen like yourself would actually do more business with this.

 

If it's still deemed op, reduce the rate to 1% or less or to a structure that doesn't compound.

[Pax]

I expect people would save until they have the funds to keep up with the city/project clock. They would save for current city and enough to get them next city in minimum time. Anything else makes no sense. That, not sitting on billions is how it would actually go down. So, lets debate that.

 

No. That is not how it would 'actually' go down. What you would do and what every person would do are very different things, and the reality is not everyone is going to do the same thing. There are going to be a lot people who realize "hey, all it takes is a few months and I could literally have game-breaking amounts of money!" and suddenly just doing ordinary growth is not as attractive and not as many people would do it, because it would make them less money and overall less powerful. In a few months, lots of people would sit on more money individually than probably the top hundred nations combined have.

 

 

Who gives a !@#$ if someone has billions. What you can do with it is limited.

 

Now that we've cleared that up, sure, let's talk about the actual effects of someone having billions.

 

First off, nukes are ridiculously common compared to current status. People build up insane amounts of missiles and nukes because upkeep costs are nothing to them.

 

One person deciding to mess around could entirely change the face of the current global economy because billions is enough to buy a huge chunk of the resources currently on sale, driving prices upwards. Seriously increased money production without increased resource production means that there is going to be a significant boost in the price of every single resource, to an insane degree.

 

Following raised resource market prices:

• Small to medium sized nations will get plenty of early cash, meaning that the current mid to late game will be done very, very quickly for them.
• Using a military is going to be prohibitively expensive for many nations, because of how expensive resources themselves will be. Anyone who builds in the current manner probably won't be able to afford those costs.
• Commerce improvements or really anything that isn't producing resources (unless at war) will be outdated and useless
• Wind farms are going to be the only worthwhile power production

Following the massively increased worldwide resource production (because nobody will need commerce improvements), eventually we might see a point where resources aren't that prohibitively expensive anymore because of the sheer amount being produced, but it's sketchy exactly how things would go down and we won't know unless it happens.

 

Anything in-game that relies on spending money is going to be hilariously cheap, other than huge amounts of infra as the costs on that raise exponentially.

 

 

The global economy might be able to fix itself, but this would absolutely devastate it for a while and laugh in the face of existing mechanics. 

Edited February 2, 2015 by Pax

[ataraxis]

That would require buying cities and infra. And there's no score that can't be raided by someone.

 

I mean, having a low score and having an disproportionately sized military.

[SoS]

Ok, then how about "interest" that doesn't compound? Bonuses for cash on hand thresholds?

[ataraxis]

You could first look into revamping nation bonuses, but I think Sheepy said that he's not going to change that.

[Aisha Greyjoy]

With diminishing returns on infra/cities, at some point, the best way to make money is to do NOTHING.  No.  I whole-heartedly oppose interest on cash.  Let the banks manage that via lending and saving.

[Arthur James]

Edited

Edited February 2, 2015 by Arthur James

[last187]

With diminishing returns on infra/cities, at some point, the best way to make money is to do NOTHING.  No.  I whole-heartedly oppose interest on cash.  Let the banks manage that via lending and saving.

that wouldnt solve the problem id just depo it in the bank and ill be like i want my interest every day

 

compound interest causes problems

lots and lots of problems 

[Buck Turgidson]

Interest bearing bonds, in small denominations, that work for a week at a time.

 

This way, if you had billions, it would take all day to set up the investments. This would still be a big benefit for lower tiers.

 

Finally, I think people forget how actual banks work:

 

- They take your money

- And pay you a low interest

- Somewhere along the line, they either make investments or loans

- Eventually they fail, and Bush bails them out

 

It might be interesting to be able to make term deposits to you alliance bank, and have the bank send out loans.

 

Arrgh is willing to take up collection contracts.

[Placentica]

Love the idea of interest on the cash on hand.  And by that I agree:

With diminishing returns on infra/cities, at some point, the best way to make money is to do NOTHING.  No.  I whole-heartedly oppose interest on cash.  Let the banks manage that via lending and saving.

If I could get 3% on my saved cash I'd be all over that and that prob. means it's OP.  1% is about right though.  That would only be $100k extra a day on $10m saved.  $100m in my account for $1m a day makes me pretty nervous, lol.  But would 1% even be worth it?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Placentica

[Jefferson Davis III]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea, but I think it needs to be expanded on a little bit more. What if instead of color stock bonus giving you a bonus to gross income, that amount was given to you as interest on the funds you have on hand?

 

(Just spit balling ideas here, don't crucify me)

I have to agree with sheepy, because the collor stock bonus does very little for me on my average income and I think it would be a really good thing to add.

[Hereno]

this is literally "give people who are saving between cities free money and do it flat so it benefits larger nations more (because they are more economically efficient)"

 

why would we want that?

 

if you want wars, allow naval embargoes to sap 10% of their income and resource production

 

actually, i think i did suggest something like that along with a change to the war system to make it more balanced

 

too many ideas, not enough coders