Jump to content

World Bank initiative


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sun Yat-sen said:

Those micros fellow clearly don’t have experience to lead alliances then. This bank is setting them up for failure then. They would eventually default on their own. Also if you realized the risks behind their default, then why hand those risks over to the “world bank” then? You would be putting the “world bank” for failure. That would could much bigger problems then. Alliances won’t be able to use grants and loans for recruitment if there is another large competitor against them. Also, small individuals should learn how to save and actually play the game rather than constantly asking for loans like typical handout Americans. We don’t need this bank.

The world bank is at zero risk as stated Alex will code lost money in, so all the benefits of lending out large sums of cash getting the massive interest of those who paid, and having money coded back in for those who delete.

Yes it also totally removes all alliances to be able to use loads and grants as a tool to recruit, as alliances have set rules people have to live by in order to honor the request of said loan or grant, a loan from the world bank does not even need to be honored it seems, as I do not see them being able to force people to pay it back only cut them off from future loans, Unless Alex him self will punish people for failing to repay said loan, then it leads to a much bigger problem for the game.

3.5% interest on a loan, simply to match that of the interest given to investors at private banks, So lets say you loan out 5,000,000,000 the cap of an investor who keeps that 175m earned via interest.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Psweet said:

Why do this when there are already banks?  Why penalize the players, like Seb, Paul Warburg, and myself, who took it upon ourselves to create a solution to financing problems?  Just.. why?  I don't see the need that this would fill that isn't already being addressed.  

If any of you have finance concerns of ANY sort, I encourage you to seek out your friendly neighborhood banker.  I can assure you we can figure out a way to do almost anything... for a price, of course.  We're not charities.  If you don't trust private banks, then... well...

 

I want to highlight what you're main point is because I think its important regarding already established-player owned banks.

With player run banks, there is absolutely no guarantee of safety regarding a customers money/resources regardless of reputation. You are essentially putting your trust in someone who could quite easily refuse/ignore your requests to withdraw their own money and keep it for themselves, I'm not saying that it will happen just that its a possibility. Taking out the middle-man and having a centralised bank for the majority of the game would offer peace of mind when their hard earned money is stashed away ready for that big infra jump or bulk city purchases. There's already a bunch of 'alliances' that have been created just to keep others' money stored away, Yarr, Planet Reach & Stratton Oakmont to name but a few. This idea could somewhat render these shell-alliances useless and keep the alliance leader boards clutter-free. At the rate these shells are being created, there might as well be an option to setup a corporation inside your aligned alliance instead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Holton said:

This was tried in another game and it was constantly out of money. It only takes a few whales wanting cities to tie-up everyone else's money.

 

Plus I like that we have a bunch of player-run banks. A world bank would probably negate or lessen their impact and that's not fun.

 

A neat idea, but in this genre of game we need to remember that a lot of things like this have to be handled through role-play and player-made things or we're just an iOS app game.

How can it run out of money, it has already been stated that the Admin would code in any lost money, so those who fail to pay the bank loses out as the money gets coded back in, so it would be able to loan out 100% more loans than it would ever have investors ?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seb said:

but this bank would benefit lower nations allowing them to take loans while private banks would give them insane interest rates and dry them up and force them to quit and default

1 hour ago, Seb said:

I have received numerous requests for loans to small nations wanting to grow 1 more city, and everytime I have denied them the opportunity for fear of a default, many of this guys are in micro alliances with no money at all and have a hard time getting this grants you speak of.

Smaller nations can actually BETTER afford higher rates than larger ones because they get a much larger return on investment.  Buying a new city for $5m can increase their income by 20% or 15% or similar - for a whale, buying a new city for hundreds of millions of dollars is a measly 4% increase or thereabouts.  

1 hour ago, Seb said:

I am the owner of one of this private banks, the difference with me is that I am willing to evolve to make the community a better place while other bank owners just want to keep cashing in money

so for once, put your greedyness aside and think what could be best for the community, a world bank available for everybody and not to a selected few that happen to be friends with the bankers or for instance are willing to pay insane interest rates.

It is disreputable for you to cast aspersions like this, and unworthy of this discussion for you to bring that kind of mudslinging into game suggestions.

A lot of people are pointing out that this WOULD NOT make the community a better place.  For my part, I think it would hamper involvement by players by taking functions that they can and do fulfill and making it something that the game can and will fulfill instead.  Players cannot compete with a risk-free source of funding.  

If you only give decent loans to people who are friends with you, that's your problem.  I can personally attest to the fact (as can many of our customers) that Stratton Oakmont loans to anyone we deem as credit worthy - whether or not we know them personally, or like them.  Sounds like your policies might be the ones that need changing :P 

And if you think 4% weekly is insane interest (and that is the most common rate our customers get, I'm aware several banks are lower still), you're delusional.  Much lower than that and the income derived is not worth the effort it takes to keep records and raise cash, not to mention the risk of default that always attends to the business.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

this rates have been as high as 11% a week to my knowledge.

Speaking for SO (and I'm 95% sure we're the ones you're talking about here), the rates have not been that high in almost two years, and only ever got that high for very risky loans.  Please don't comment on situations you aren't very familiar with.  

1 hour ago, Seb said:

if you are going to critisize it, do it with a valid opinion and not a biased "I like my money making machine and don't want to let go" opinion.

private banks can still exist and this World Bank would be a tool to get the smaller nations their next city ahead of time, that is all.

So "I think this will discourage players from doing neat things on their own" is biased and not valid?  Get off your high horse, Seb.  Just because some of us own banks doesn't mean our opinions are worthless when we disagree with you.

Private banks will have no reason to exist if people can get better terms from the game itself. 

Small nations haven't had funding problems for their cities in a VERY long time.  There are many banks willing to lend to them.  Just because you don't think they're worth it doesn't mean that all bank owners don't think they're worth it.  And this isn't even touching alliances, who pay for the vast vast majority of lowbie cities in the game.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

1. private banks already have that source of extra money, so this would be an alternative to this private banks.

No, private banks have funding that was TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME in other places, either by players investing it directly, or paying interest on loans to it.  The bank you're talking about would just flat out create money out of thin air without creating a significant sink for it. 

If someone invests in a bank, the dividends or interest they earn on it COMES OUT OF THE MONEY MADE BY THE BANK.  It's zero-sum, in that respect.  The bank you want to create doesn't MAKE any money, as such.  It's an infinite well of cash and the interest people make on the investments with it are coming out of nothing.  

Consider for a moment - what if everyone in the game took out CDs with this game-bank, and no one took out any loans?  What would happen?  Everyone would be making interest income, but the game-bank wouldn't be pulling in any interest from the game.  The game now has a ton more money in it, because there is no cash sink to counterbalance it.  If this were a private for-profit bank, we'd stop selling CDs both because if no one's taking loans then we don't need the cash, and also because we'd have no income to pay the interest on them with!  But that wouldn't be the case with the game-bank as you've outlined it.  That's a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

2. why does all money have to have a risk? I don't see why it can't be risk free with a very low income source.

This tells me you have no understanding of economics.  Risk is WHY the majority of interest exists in the first place.  If everyone was certain they'd get their money back, they'd be happy accepting minimal returns, because those returns are sure things.  This is why people irl invest in things like bonds and CDs when the stock market pays multiple times the returns on investment on average, and even within the stock market people invest in blue chips even though midcaps and smallcaps have higher returns.  Risk is THE primary force behind interest rates.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

6.to have negative income you would need to be at war and your infraestructure destroyed, I think that in the case of the nation being at war, a pause on paying the loan could be coded in, private banks have this rule too, where nations don't have to pay their loans while they are at war.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

7. that just doesn't make sense unless you have absolutely no infraestructure

This is just you thinking like a whale and not understanding what other people can think up.  I bet a decent chunk of Arrgh is at negative income at any given point, for example.  Should this bank only exist for the benefit of people who are already established and are going the conventional route to nation building?

 

1 hour ago, Seb said:

3. how would blockades affect it?

If blockades don't affect it, it'd make blockades a fair bit less useful, wouldn't it?

 

1 hour ago, Seb said:

We all know that before a war, there is a ton of cash in hand but after the war rebuilds are hard because money is scarce, private banks take advantage of the necesity and raise their interests and still 80% of the game have to spend the next 2 months slowly grinding up their rebuilds.

So what you're saying is that money scarcity should never be a thing, ever?  Again, you're showing that you don't understand economics.  Having money scarcity is a GOOD thing.  It adds depth to the game and its economy.  It's also very easy to circumvent if you're intelligent about it.

Also, I can't speak for other banks, but SO is not generally in the habit of dramatically increasing rates after a war...  Either you're speaking ill of your own bank, or you're pulling that out of your ass.

1 hour ago, Seb said:

and your rebuilds wouldn't be politically tied to private banks.

Again, not all banks are political.  Don't assume everyone is so filthy.  You are free to change your own practices if you want to see this change.

 

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Seb said:

The PNW Bank should also allow for people to take out loans as well.

Nations that will most likely use this will be smaller nations that find it difficult to grow on their own.

How would the nation pay this loan?

A set percentage would be discounted from the nations income in a daily basis similar to an alliance tax.

An alternative to this if a nation had to repay to the bank manually could be Alex's new Bounty system that's in place on the test server, automatic bounties placed on people who have refused to pay their loans. Think of the pirates, they'd have a field day with that!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Seb said:

World Bank

The PNW bank would work as a saving account for the nations of PNW.

This would allow for nations that are not comfortable investing in private banks to be able to put money away and earn something for money not currently being used toward cities, resources, and infrastructure.

Could i please point out that you would also be a private bank, unless you are a game mod, an admin then you are just a player and in that case even with Alex offering to code in lost money you are still just another private bank are you not?.

As pointed out before Alex could easy code in a banking system where someone could take a loan from the game and have it automatically taken from the profit made each turn, it could even come out before the alliance 100% tax meaning even plays that are 100% taxed have a chance to take said loans and so on.

You are still a private bank when a player of the game has control.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arrow said:

I want to highlight what you're main point is because I think its important regarding already established-player owned banks.

With player run banks, there is absolutely no guarantee of safety regarding a customers money/resources regardless of reputation. You are essentially putting your trust in someone who could quite easily refuse/ignore your requests to withdraw their own money and keep it for themselves, I'm not saying that it will happen just that its a possibility. Taking out the middle-man and having a centralised bank for the majority of the game would offer peace of mind when their hard earned money is stashed away ready for that big infra jump or bulk city purchases. There's already a bunch of 'alliances' that have been created just to keep others' money stored away, Yarr, Planet Reach & Stratton Oakmont to name but a few. This idea could somewhat render these shell-alliances useless and keep the alliance leader boards clutter-free. At the rate these shells are being created, there might as well be an option to setup a corporation inside your aligned alliance instead.

There is no guarantee, correct.  This is a very realistic thing that I think is GOOD for Orbis's finances, because uncertainty creates opportunity.

If there were no risk, there'd be no reason for us to charge decent interest.  If there were no risk, banking would be a lot more BORING.  That said, let's not overplay the risks here.  To the best of my knowledge, NONE of the big banks have EVER defaulted on a liability (possibly excluding the Gringotts/Greene thing which I'm not super clear on the details and won't comment on).  While that doesn't mean that there is NO risk, it does mean that if you're scared of investing in any of us, you need to get your head checked because I think you've got some serious trust problems.

Peace of mind is not something we WANT everyone to have for no downsides, with great ease.  That's just boring.  The game NEEDS to have problems to solve and risks to take or there's no point doing anything.  As I pointed out somewhere in my wall of text above, risk is an inextricable part of economics.  I don't think the game would be made better AT ALL by removing that wrinkle. 

Why would rendering shell alliances moot be a good thing?  Why is that even an argument?  I don't understand.  I mean, I understand thinking the concept is stupid (and I agree with you there, even!).  But I don't see how removing them is an argument unto itself.  It's not like they harm the game.  

I'd seriously like the ability to set up non-alliance entities though.  That'd be rad.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Psweet said:

Peace of mind is not something we WANT everyone to have for no downsides, with great ease.  That's just boring.  The game NEEDS to have problems to solve and risks to take or there's no point doing anything.  As I pointed out somewhere in my wall of text above, risk is an inextricable part of economics.  I don't think the game would be made better AT ALL by removing that wrinkle. 

I'd seriously like the ability to set up non-alliance entities though.  That'd be rad.

I get your point about risk regarding banks, but why on earth would someone want to risk their money they want to save for a set date with a player-owned bank rather than this proposed bank? I'm thinking from a point of view of me putting my life savings into this bank to save for when I'm ready to bulk purchase cities, I could just go away from the game and not worry about anything until the set date I chose to withdraw the money at. With player-run banks I'd be constantly worried about a global war breaking out and your bank's money being taken. It's a pessimistic point of view I know, but a valid one for a vast amount of players.

Also this could set about more regular global wars, with the peace of mind that you have enough cash/resources stashed away in the proposed bank, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from making this game interesting again. With player run banks, the owners are rarely in favour of war because of their mindset towards the game which is in itself a problem that needs to be ironed out.

Entities within alliances would be a great addition and one which I hope holds some weight with Alex when he reads through :P

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arrow said:

I get your point about risk regarding banks, but why on earth would someone want to risk their money they want to save for a set date with a player-owned bank rather than this proposed bank?

They don't.  It's a risk they'll have to take.  People need to be forced to take risks, or the game will quickly become even more boring than it is.  Just like how I wish SO didn't have to take a risk when lending to people, but if we want to make money then that's a risk we have to take.  Risk vs reward needs to be kept in balance.

5 minutes ago, Arrow said:

I'm thinking from a point of view of me putting my life savings into this bank

If you want to minimize risk, split it up and put it in many different banks.  If any one bank goes under, even if it takes your funds with it, the rest of your funds will survive and you'll only be out that one investment.  Diversification is a real-life tool to manage risk as well.

7 minutes ago, Arrow said:

I could just go away from the game and not worry about anything until the set date I chose to withdraw the money at. With player-run banks I'd be constantly worried about a global war breaking out and your bank's money being taken.

Again, it's never happened yet, and SO has been around for... hmm.
*Counts*
Ah, quite a few wars.  I don't trust my memory to count accurately.  Every war that's happened since before Oktoberfest.

Again, if you don't trust the major banks at this point, you have trust problems.  It's POSSIBLE that they'll get screwed over, but removing ALL risk from the game is not the way to go about "fixing" this very real and complex issue.

9 minutes ago, Arrow said:

Also this could set about more regular global wars, with the peace of mind that you have enough cash/resources stashed away in the proposed bank, there's absolutely nothing stopping people from making this game interesting again. With player run banks, the owners are rarely in favour of war because of their mindset towards the game which is in itself a problem that needs to be ironed out.

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.  Could you elaborate?

I don't see what the connection is to people storing money safely and having more wars.  People don't eschew wars because they're scared of their savings being stolen, they eschew wars because they don't want to *spend* those savings, and/or don't want to lose the war to begin with.  Do you think whales got to be whales by throwing themselves into battle with abandon whenever they got the chance?  How would letting them store away money risk free at a profit encourage them to have to spend that money instead of using it to grow larger still?

Bank owners actually love war.  You know when we do our best business?  Yeah, it's right after a war.  We actually have wait lists, there's so many people wanting loans.  It's great!  Not to mention those of us who do brokering often manage to make out fairly well during/before the war as well.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sun Yat-sen said:

"The world bank is at zero risk as stated Alex will code lost money in, so all the benefits of lending out large sums of cash getting the massive interest of those who paid, and having money coded back in for those who delete." This would just increase inflation since Alex will just be constantly printing money on every default...

And that's the problem, whoever run this so called world (private) bank would get millions in interest without ever the need of investors as the money will just be printed out from the sounds of it, this will cripple all markets and pretty much cause people to leave. 

just a side note, nothing is more safer than buying credits, they can not be looted, or lost, and you can use them in time of need, so if you have like 500m sitting about and do not want the risk of it being looted, buy credits  easy enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Seb said:

but this bank would benefit lower nations allowing them to take loans while private banks would give them insane interest rates and dry them up and force them to quit and default.

 

14 minutes ago, Long Shanks said:

just a side note, nothing is more safer than buying credits, they can not be looted, or lost, and you can use them in time of need, so if you have like 500m sitting about and do not want the risk of it being looted, buy credits  easy enough

Yea those low tiers sure can buy credits $9m each. Not everybody has the option to exchange irl cash for credits, which I assume you have the privilege of.

  • Upvote 1

           Roman Empire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trajan said:

 

Yea those low tiers sure can buy credits $9m each. Not everybody has the option to exchange irl cash for credits, which I assume you have the privilege of.

Yes I have that privilege, however that was not the point, my point was it is by far the safest way to protect your in game money, sure you might lose some cash but if done correctly you can make money from trading them, however it was food for thought some alliances do have 500m spare not all but some.

As to the lower nations taking out loans, join a good Alliance and you will get help and support to grow and not simply cash placed in hand with no idea how to spend it?

Edited by Long Shanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Trajan said:

I remember the days when I bought credits, then student loans hit me hard <_<

Not all members use grants. Some actually prefer loans with private banking. I view this as an alternative for the low tiers.

Again my problem isnt having cash ready for smaller nations, my main issue is the fact an alliance will make tons of money (3.5% on all loans) on cash given to them and protected by coding 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Holton said:

This was tried in another game and it was constantly out of money. It only takes a few whales wanting cities to tie-up everyone else's money.

 

Plus I like that we have a bunch of player-run banks. A world bank would probably negate or lessen their impact and that's not fun.

 

A neat idea, but in this genre of game we need to remember that a lot of things like this have to be handled through role-play and player-made things or we're just an iOS app game.

To be fair, it was consistently out of money because it had a fixed supply of cash, and interest payments were just jettisoned into the void rather than paid back into the WB coffers.

  • Upvote 1

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Long Shanks said:

Could i please point out that you would also be a private bank, unless you are a game mod, an admin then you are just a player and in that case even with Alex offering to code in lost money you are still just another private bank are you not?.

As pointed out before Alex could easy code in a banking system where someone could take a loan from the game and have it automatically taken from the profit made each turn, it could even come out before the alliance 100% tax meaning even plays that are 100% taxed have a chance to take said loans and so on.

You are still a private bank when a player of the game has control.

I think you're really missing the point. As far as I'm aware there is nobody controlling the bank, it's all automated by code. So no, it wouldn't be a private bank.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

I think you're really missing the point. As far as I'm aware there is nobody controlling the bank, it's all automated by code. So no, it wouldn't be a private bank.

From the looks of it Zeb and his alliance would collect the fund and the interest and therefore control the bank its not coded in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Long Shanks said:

From the looks of it Zeb and his alliance would collect the fund and the interest and therefore control the bank its not coded in

If you read the discussion, half of them are talking about inflation caused by money generated through code in different cases. So... yeah, it's not Seb and his alliance taking over the world with this magical bank. Not trying to be rude, but you should probably re-read some of the posts that have been made. 

9 hours ago, Sun Yat-sen said:

But you completely forget that this would only increase inflation and could easily be exploited by others. 

And your point is? I don't think I mentioned anything about inflation in my response to Long Shanks, just that it would be automated (as he thought it was controlled by Seb and his alliance). No need to parrot your point to everyone, because it's been discussed at length by other players. 

What are the effects of inflation that you have in mind? Just curious. 

Edited by Jeremy Graham
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jeremy Graham said:

If you read the discussion, half of them are talking about inflation caused by money generated through code in different cases. So... yeah, it's not Seb and his alliance taking over the world with this magical bank. Not trying to be rude, but you should probably re-read some of the posts that have been made. 

 

I feel you should read the op again, the issue with this for me is the fact Zeb and his alliance will collect 3.5% interest on money coded in, if even at the start it was done by investment would soon be replaced with coding if its lost.


Why not just code a bank in for players to invest or loan from and totally remove all aspect of a player based bank and thats what this world bank would be, it would be run by Zeb therefore a player bank a private bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Long Shanks said:

I feel you should read the op again, the issue with this for me is the fact Zeb and his alliance will collect 3.5% interest on money coded in, if even at the start it was done by investment would soon be replaced with coding if its lost.


Why not just code a bank in for players to invest or loan from and totally remove all aspect of a player based bank and thats what this world bank would be, it would be run by Zeb therefore a player bank a private bank.

Can you quote where Seb says his alliance will take 3.5% of the interest on money coded in? 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jeremy Graham said:

This seems like an interesting idea that could work. I'd personally like to see a low-risk, low-return investment mechanism so I can invest :D 

Then invest in any of the reputable private commercial banks that are already in Orbis. 

 

 

This in my opinion is a terrible idea, players have worked hard to build up the banks they run and player run banks are an interesting aspect of this game, why try to destroy that aspect?  People value the security of their investments, and for some that is the most important aspect, if this update goes through you'll be seeing an  exodus of funds from private banks to this cheap coded alternative.  This proposed change will ruin something that gives P&W a unique angle. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Darth Revan said:

Then invest in any of the reputable private commercial banks that are already in Orbis. 

 

 

This in my opinion is a terrible idea, players have worked hard to build up the banks they run and player run banks are an interesting aspect of this game, why try to destroy that aspect?  People value the security of their investments, and for some that is the most important aspect, if this update goes through you'll be seeing an  exodus of funds from private banks to this cheap coded alternative.  This proposed change will ruin something that gives P&W a unique angle. 

 

Fair point. I don't think it's people taking out investments from private banks to this new coded bank that will harm the private banks (unless major private banks have defaulted or lost a large sum of their investors' money in the past, which I don't think has happened) but the fact that new players are most likely going to use this alternative to gain loans to build cities, which would deny private banks the return on the loans they hand out to pay back investors (I think Psweet mentioned this somewhere). 

It is easy to ignore that people have worked hard to get their banks up to where it is, so thank you for reminding me about that point. 

Edited by Jeremy Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Psweet said:

Smaller nations can actually BETTER afford higher rates than larger ones because they get a much larger return on investment.  Buying a new city for $5m can increase their income by 20% or 15% or similar - for a whale, buying a new city for hundreds of millions of dollars is a measly 4% increase or thereabouts.  

It is disreputable for you to cast aspersions like this, and unworthy of this discussion for you to bring that kind of mudslinging into game suggestions.

A lot of people are pointing out that this WOULD NOT make the community a better place.  For my part, I think it would hamper involvement by players by taking functions that they can and do fulfill and making it something that the game can and will fulfill instead.  Players cannot compete with a risk-free source of funding.  

If you only give decent loans to people who are friends with you, that's your problem.  I can personally attest to the fact (as can many of our customers) that Stratton Oakmont loans to anyone we deem as credit worthy - whether or not we know them personally, or like them.  Sounds like your policies might be the ones that need changing :P 

And if you think 4% weekly is insane interest (and that is the most common rate our customers get, I'm aware several banks are lower still), you're delusional.  Much lower than that and the income derived is not worth the effort it takes to keep records and raise cash, not to mention the risk of default that always attends to the business.

Speaking for SO (and I'm 95% sure we're the ones you're talking about here), the rates have not been that high in almost two years, and only ever got that high for very risky loans.  Please don't comment on situations you aren't very familiar with.  

So "I think this will discourage players from doing neat things on their own" is biased and not valid?  Get off your high horse, Seb.  Just because some of us own banks doesn't mean our opinions are worthless when we disagree with you.

Private banks will have no reason to exist if people can get better terms from the game itself. 

Small nations haven't had funding problems for their cities in a VERY long time.  There are many banks willing to lend to them.  Just because you don't think they're worth it doesn't mean that all bank owners don't think they're worth it.  And this isn't even touching alliances, who pay for the vast vast majority of lowbie cities in the game.

No, private banks have funding that was TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME in other places, either by players investing it directly, or paying interest on loans to it.  The bank you're talking about would just flat out create money out of thin air without creating a significant sink for it. 

If someone invests in a bank, the dividends or interest they earn on it COMES OUT OF THE MONEY MADE BY THE BANK.  It's zero-sum, in that respect.  The bank you want to create doesn't MAKE any money, as such.  It's an infinite well of cash and the interest people make on the investments with it are coming out of nothing.  

Consider for a moment - what if everyone in the game took out CDs with this game-bank, and no one took out any loans?  What would happen?  Everyone would be making interest income, but the game-bank wouldn't be pulling in any interest from the game.  The game now has a ton more money in it, because there is no cash sink to counterbalance it.  If this were a private for-profit bank, we'd stop selling CDs both because if no one's taking loans then we don't need the cash, and also because we'd have no income to pay the interest on them with!  But that wouldn't be the case with the game-bank as you've outlined it.  That's a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

This tells me you have no understanding of economics.  Risk is WHY the majority of interest exists in the first place.  If everyone was certain they'd get their money back, they'd be happy accepting minimal returns, because those returns are sure things.  This is why people irl invest in things like bonds and CDs when the stock market pays multiple times the returns on investment on average, and even within the stock market people invest in blue chips even though midcaps and smallcaps have higher returns.  Risk is THE primary force behind interest rates.

This is just you thinking like a whale and not understanding what other people can think up.  I bet a decent chunk of Arrgh is at negative income at any given point, for example.  Should this bank only exist for the benefit of people who are already established and are going the conventional route to nation building?

 

If blockades don't affect it, it'd make blockades a fair bit less useful, wouldn't it?

 

So what you're saying is that money scarcity should never be a thing, ever?  Again, you're showing that you don't understand economics.  Having money scarcity is a GOOD thing.  It adds depth to the game and its economy.  It's also very easy to circumvent if you're intelligent about it.

Also, I can't speak for other banks, but SO is not generally in the habit of dramatically increasing rates after a war...  Either you're speaking ill of your own bank, or you're pulling that out of your ass.

Again, not all banks are political.  Don't assume everyone is so filthy.  You are free to change your own practices if you want to see this change.

 

dude, you are taking things way to personal here, go keep your private bank and make your profits, I only see 2 people arguing against this. this two people have 6 and 7 cities and are new to the game.

I also see 1 private bank owner trying to discredit the proposal, you made your point, as weak as it sounds, tis time to let others comment it.

22 hours ago, Arrow said:

An alternative to this if a nation had to repay to the bank manually could be Alex's new Bounty system that's in place on the test server, automatic bounties placed on people who have refused to pay their loans. Think of the pirates, they'd have a field day with that!

thats a fun concept, it would add more dynamic to the game

22 hours ago, Long Shanks said:

Could i please point out that you would also be a private bank, unless you are a game mod, an admin then you are just a player and in that case even with Alex offering to code in lost money you are still just another private bank are you not?.

As pointed out before Alex could easy code in a banking system where someone could take a loan from the game and have it automatically taken from the profit made each turn, it could even come out before the alliance 100% tax meaning even plays that are 100% taxed have a chance to take said loans and so on.

You are still a private bank when a player of the game has control.

you are not making sense, this bank would just be part of the game code, not a private bank and not controlled by any player. no player would profit from anything except those investing.

2 hours ago, Long Shanks said:

I feel you should read the op again, the issue with this for me is the fact Zeb and his alliance will collect 3.5% interest on money coded in, if even at the start it was done by investment would soon be replaced with coding if its lost.


Why not just code a bank in for players to invest or loan from and totally remove all aspect of a player based bank and thats what this world bank would be, it would be run by Zeb therefore a player bank a private bank.

you are again repeating something that doesn't make sense, I wouldn't control anything in the bank, it would be part of the game itself.

I get the feeling you are just trolling this post with nonesense

  • Upvote 2
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.