Seb

World Bank initiative

60 posts in this topic

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
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
0

Share this post


Link to post
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

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

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. 

to add to the inflation concern, it would require a 5b investment to produce 10m a day. I think I read somewhere that there is currently 80b worth of liquid money flying around Orbis, if all of that were to be deposited in the bank (very unlikely) it would produce the same money than 15 nations of 15 cities each can already produce.

just to add figures, the top alliance at 100% tax must be making over 400m a day overall. and thats just 1 single alliance.

how much money would it take to equal 1 alliance's income to add to this inflation? 200 billion

so the inflation of new money generated is not really that big in an Orbis wide scale

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seb said:

I only see 2 people arguing against this. this two people have 6 and 7 cities and are new to the game.

This is incorrect. There are at least nine players before this post who have expressed varying degrees of skepticism or opposition to the idea. Several of them have quite a few more than six or seven cities, and several of them are older players. I've quoted them below for reference.

On 1/12/2018 at 8:53 PM, James II said:

I trust the private banks more than Alex tbh.

On 1/12/2018 at 9:18 PM, Sun Yat-sen said:

No, this stupid. Everyone is just gonna hide their shit there and would increase inflation.

On 1/12/2018 at 10:36 PM, Frederick said:

Nope.  

On 1/12/2018 at 10:53 PM, Dr Rush said:

What have you wrought? You have me agreeing with these two.

1. This adds a new source of money without adding a method that takes it back out at an equal rate. The interest on the city loans even though its larger is going against smaller principle. So unless there is a massive uptake in the whale tier this system will add more money to the system then it removes. See inflation.

2. Any form of income needs to have a risk with it. Even infra carries a certain level of risk, this carries basically none.

3. Blockades?

4. Need to hide your alliance's rebuild cash?

5. I see newbies not knowing what they are doing taking out city loans right off the bat and not being able to grow properly as a result.

6. What if you have negative income?

7. What if the loan payments put you into negative income?

On 1/12/2018 at 11:43 PM, Psweet said:

While I like the idea in theory...

I don't like the idea of taking away the agency of players and turning it into an inflexible/infallible game mechanic.  (bugs/imbalances aside...)

We don't need this precisely because we DO have player-run banks.  Hiding your cash is trivial these days.  People who "aren't comfortable" investing in private banks need to get over themselves.  By this point private banking has been around for at least two and a half years, possibly even longer.  

On 1/12/2018 at 11:51 PM, Sketchy said:

A non-player driven alternative seems like a bad idea. The more player-driven systems in place the better, using mechanics should be avoided unless it helps to aid the player driven systems rather than replace them.

Also this provides an easy place for people to hide money. That happens quite a bit already, this would make it considerably worse by allowing individual nations to hide their money independent of their alliance administration.

Better tools to create private banks would be preferable. Like "organizations" independent of alliances that can include multiple members, have their own organization page, a shared bank (with public records) and the ability to trade with that organization rather than a nation. Then you can simply emulate the mechanics of alliances, and have that bank be lootable by raiding members of the organization rather than the alliance.

On 1/13/2018 at 4:21 AM, Long Shanks said:

Yes the power of coding, Then WHY wont Alex code in a banking system, where nations can deposit any sum they want and get a daily % added to said sum within the protected bank system that no nation can even raid, a protected vault, in the same bank they could also take a loan from the game and have it taken out automatically at every turn of the game, I am wondering WHY have this if Alex is just going to code in money for you upon any mistakes you make then why not simply code in a bank system, it could be set at % so private banks can still run on some level, I personally think having any alliance in any game having that amount of power to have any amount coded in that they lose put the whole Econ of the game at risk.

If i buy Steel in the hope of reselling it at a higher price but find myself short and have to sell early and lose cash that's my risk, BUT you are taking ZERO risk but plan on making a huge amount of cash for no risk at all. What happens if you are raided, or caught up in a war will all your funds be coded back in ?

On 1/13/2018 at 2:50 PM, Holton said:

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.

3 hours ago, Darth Revan said:

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Seb said:

dude, you are taking things way to personal here, go keep your private bank and make your profits

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.

Rather than making ad hominem attacks on @Psweet, I'd suggest you address the substance of his posts. None of his arguments have been framed as a defense of his legacy or material interest in private banking; rather, they've been constructive critiques of a proposal that is explicitly based on reducing risk and inter-player interaction.

 

If you don't want to take it from @Psweet, take it from @Sketchy or @Dr Rush or any of the other players posting critiques based on the balance effects of this proposal. Your responses have still largely failed to explain how this would positively affect the game balance:

Why is reducing inter-player interaction a good thing? What, exactly, is wrong with incentivizing players to rely on alliances, banks, or one another for liquid cash?

Inflation is a persistent and growing problem in the game. The whole point of the resource update was partially counteract the effects of inflation. Telling us that the extra cash created will total only tens of millions of dollars a day doesn't address the facts that:

1) Inflation is a compounding, long-term problem (tens of millions of dollars today that are reinvested become even more cash tomorrow).

2) Creating a world bank would induce a greater supply of lendable money and thus of interest payments to players and alliances (therefore, ceteris parabus, increasing inflation).

3) Income that is totally divorced from material production in-game (e.g. buying infrastructure or producing resources) is an inherently troublesome proposition both in the sense that makes the game less immersive (the reason lending or borrowing money is lucrative in real life is the capacity to invest it in productive activity) and in the sense that it risks inflation. (If investing, directly or indirectly, in infrastructure or resources is more lucrative than investing in the world bank it will be preferable; if not, then you've created an asset with artificially high returns, which in turn drives inflation even higher than it already is.)

 

In short, this is a deeply flawed proposal that should not be implemented.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seb said:

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.

The reason no one else is commenting is that Psweet (and others) have already made perfectly good points explaining why this is a terrible idea and you haven't even attempted to address them, but have instead just cried bias.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 1:00 PM, Seb said:

the funds would be coded back in if you are in a war at the same time the CD expires and you happen to forget to renew it.

it would be a negligence of the player.

and this CDs can be bought in a set day of the month, lets say 1st of every month, or the first 2 days of every month. If you don't invest it then, you miss your chance and gotta wait another month. That way you reduce the chances of it being an exploited system.

but if you are so worried about exploits, tell me what exactly are you afraid of and how would you fix it, this thread is to find out opinions and all this failsafe mechs that could be implemented to make it good.

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

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.

3. how would blockades affect it?

4. I guess you could hide that money but it would only be available for withdrawal once a month

5. the code would prevent such a thing because the loan would only get them 1 more city and would have a payback automated system for 30, 60 or 90 days.

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.

7. that just doesn't make sense unless you have absolutely no infraestructure, but I guess that if you can't pay the loan, you will never be out of debt and 1 city is all you will ever get out of the bank. in the excel sheet I sent I made an example of a 100m loan (for a nation buying its 14th city) in which the nation would have to pay 2m a day of the loan (if the interests were 0.5% daily or 3.5% weekly) a nation with 14 cities can easily make twice that much money.

lets say you want to buy your 10th city, that loan would then be 40m at most, so your payment would be less than 1m a day for a 60 day period. a nation that doesn't make 1m a day at 10 cities is doing something incredibly wrong.

1. Private banks simply collect and redistribute money already in the game. What your suggesting is adding a new source of cash into the game without a matching drain. See inflation.

2. Because we are trying to play politics and war which is a game, not play watch numbers grow bigger on a spreadsheet.

3. The point is you need to specify how blockade mechanics will effect this. This is needed both to address exploits, and also a chance to add interesting features to your module.

4. The withdraw time isn't really meaningful to the issue, which is money being spirited away from looting into an untouchable bank.

5. A. You have now said something completely different from your op so which is it. In any case you haven't actually addressed any of the issues with newbie growth rates being tinkered with. We already have a hang up after the end of objectives and a lot nations quit at that point. Your suggestion creates a worse hang up in that improperly used this can leave a new nation with basically no income.

6. & 7. Pwseet already addressed the other playstyles thing but missed a rather glaring exploit here. Okay, so assuming you implement this in the logical manner which is that loan payments are added as per turn expenses like every other expense. And right here we run into a bit of an issue, the game if your in negative income and out of cash simply forgives the extra debt. This is problem because certain whales are already at the point where it takes more then a month to save enough cash for a city. So with this module they could take out a 30 day loan that has payments that are higher then their income, and have the excess debt just disappear at the end of the 30 days. This essentially caps the price of a city to 30 days of your income.

8. New point, you have stated that you feel instant cash for rebuilds is a good thing. I would counter that it rather defeats the purpose of going to war as a rather large portion of the damage you do to an enemy is in the lost income during rebuilding.

9. New point, I have never heard a good argument for removing meta gameplay in favor of a hardcoded mechanic. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Seb said:

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.

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


Also just to point out only due to someone having 6 or 7 cities and new to the game can still see the massive flaws within this and how it will massively effect the game in a bad way, no trolling was meant but my replies was to the level of the OP, complete silly and way off the mark.
 

Edited by Long Shanks
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now