No-Bank Analysis

[Nicholost]

I was lucky enough to receive a lesson on no-banking from Tramp Stamp before he departed. It was a game changer for me. I've followed his advice for seven weeks now with overwhelming success. I have literally saved millions by not using the bank. It's now time to pass on the knowledge.

Before you begin, you will need to determine two things: the period between successful attacks against you, and your daily income.


The Period Between Losses (P)
The period between successful attacks against you, P, is exactly that. It is the time between attacks against you where the opponent was successful. It does not take into account robberies since your stats are considerably reduced when fending off robberies.

To determine the period, set out some lucrative bait, wait, and watch your news feed. Depending on your level and what you opponents consider a good take, this could be anywhere from $1K to $100K. You want a chunk big enough to excite the sharks in your pool, that is, the strongest opponents in your bracket. If your bait gets taken, record the elapsed time since the last successful attack against you and rebait your hook. You want to determine an average period, so you may have to do this a few times... or only once, depending on your acceptable risk.


Your Income (I)
Your income in not your $/hr, but what you actually bring in from your buildings, PvP, and PvE. It is the total amount you bring in during a day's work before you bank it. You may want to keep a notepad for this so you don't accidentally sum banked money that has already lost 10%.


The Math
P = The period between successful attacks (in days)
I = Your income ($/day)
M = Maximum loss from an attack = (I x P) x 65.1% or $300K, whichever is lower
B = Loss from banking = (I x P) x 10%

If M > B, use the bank
If M < B, no-bank

It's that simple.

BTW, the 65.1% and $300K values came from this (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?20429-Crime-City-Attack-Analysis) thread. They represent the maximum amount someone can take from you with 10 successful hits.


Example
Alex makes $1million/day from his buildings, PvE, and PvP. He puts out a bait of $40K and observes that it takes 3 days 4 hours for an opponent to be able to attack him and win. Even though that opponent only had two successful attempts at the bait out of 5+, Alex assumes that with enough stamina, that opponent could have 10. Alex rehooks his $40K bait and tries again. This time, he goes 3 days 20 hours before he attacked and loses. Confident he can average 3.5 days between attacks, he does his calculations...

P = (3 days 4 hrs + 3 days 20 hrs) / 2 = (3.167 days + 3.833 days) / 2 = 3.5 days
I = 1,000,000 $/day
M = ($1,000,000/day x 3.5 days) x 65.1% = $2,278,500 > $300,000 = $300,000
B = ($1,000,000/day x 3.5 days) x 10% = $350,000

M < B = $300,000 < $350,000 = no-bank

In this example, Alex makes $50,000 more every 3.5 days by no-banking.


Repeat Offenders
Repeat offenders are sharks that revisit your hood because they know you no-bank. They are people who can and will beat you if given the chance. However, they have to find you first and the pool (bracket) is large. Remember, there's a cool-down period after you are too beat up where opponents cannot attack you. Some have said that period is 1 hour, some say it is more likely 2 hours. I personally have the most faith in this (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?23149-What-s-the-cooldown-period-after-being-quot-too-beat-up-quot&p=150730&viewfull=1#post150730) post by Lars, which says it is 2 hours. During that cool-down you can do one of three things:

Do nothing.
Congratulate your attacker on their wall and send them an invite.
Tuck tail and bank your money (if the shark's stats are well above yours and he has appeared in your rivals list often). IMO, this is the worst option.


I prefer option #2. I let them know how long I have been no-banking without an attack against me and that they successfully ruined my streak, thereby forcing me to bank again (bluff). I then congratulate them and request we join mafia. Why? Because with them in my mafia, they cannot attack me again and that is one less shark that I have to worry about. I'm batting 100% with this strategy. It's remarkably effective to appeal to someone's ego before sending them a request. Plus, I'm genuinely impressed when someone has both the strength and desire to break my streak.

Let's say they don't accept your request. Sit tight and don't panic prematurely. It will be two hours before they, or anyone, can attack you again. After that, they still have to find you in the rival's list. There's a tremendous amount of dedication involved in sitting and clicking refresh while looking for a single player out of hundreds. There are people who can tolerate, and enjoy, that kind of hunt, but most cannot and will give up in boredom.

A note from TS:

One thing I'd add is that it's worthwhile in a breakeven or even slight loss situation because you get info on who is beating you and how they are doing it. I never sent invites but I did ask (earnest) questions and reply to (friendly) trash talk, usually with jokes. I'd usually get an unsolicited invite. Even the trash talkers would send me add requests because I'd send them jokes in return. M4 advice was also highly valued, though not so much anymore I'd wager. Invite or not, I had few "repeat offenders". As businesslike as a lot of people would like to claim, most people seem to have trouble attacking "humanized" targets.

Sometimes I'd witness my money shrinking while playing (there is a considerable lag in notification). If I had more than $3 million I'd do nothing and let them take it because if I banked it'd be a "double loss". losing $300k would still be less than 10% and, like I said, few repeat offenders.

The one thing you never do when no-banking is revenge attack or rob. I'm going to say that again, do not attack or revenge anyone from your new feed. Just because you won the first time they attacked/robbed you does not mean you will win the second time. By placing yourself on their news feed, you are providing them with a direct connection to you. Bad idea.


Picking Opponents While No-Banking
Now that you are no-banking, you want to be careful who you attack/rob. You don't want to mistakenly piss off a shark after robbing his laundromat and give him direct access to your cash. Instead, only rob those whose attack is ~50% of your defense. That's very conservative advice and if you're not a strong player, that may be difficult to follow. Regardless, you are now primarily concerned with each victim's attack. You want to know if they are able to come back through their news feed and take your cash.

A note from TS:

I see you kept the 50% strength recommendation. You might want to mention that it's because Tramp Stamp was a lazy collector and didn't want obsessed robbers. I didn't complete analysis on attack, but 50% is almost beyond hopeless whereas it's almost conceivable with robberies.

High Levels
The higher you get in the levels, the more common sharks are. Eventually, there's a point where the brackets open up completely and rivals have visibility to dozens of levels, not just 2 or 3. Because the pool is large and opponents differ so dramatically, this strategy should applied with caution in the HLs. In fact, in the high levels, most may not be able to no-bank at all.

[Zendfrim]

2hour attack cool down is confirmed.

[i need muney]

Alex makes $100K/day
John has three apples.....

[BeniBugatti]

In your example you said
B = ($100000/day x 3.5 days) x 10% = $310,000
You either have a typo here or in your formula because...
B = ($100000/day x 3.5 days) x 10% is actually = $35,000

[Yahkin]

I had considered no banking in the past because I was generally more powerful than most of my rivals, but since getting 10 emeralds it is a moot point.

[Nicholost]

In your example you said
B = ($100000/day x 3.5 days) x 10% = $310,000
You either have a typo here or in your formula because...
B = ($100000/day x 3.5 days) x 10% is actually = $35,000
Yep, I said $100K, but did my calculations based off $1 million. It has been fixed.

http://i.qkme.me/3obbk9.jpg

[BeniBugatti]

Now the numbers make sense :)

I have noticed that my low level camper who doesn't lose often has an incredibly low maximum loss. Something like $400 per attack. My question is, is there a formula that has been determined which can compute the maximum loss per attack (based on level)?

[Walter]

Do we know at what level the HLs can see to, currently?

I'm getting up there and am curious:
a) will I learn I've "made it" when i start getting attacked by HLs? or does the game warn you
b) at what level will I start to see the younger bait?

[Nicholost]

My question is, is there a formula that has been determined which can compute the maximum loss per attack?

Yep. Crime City Attack Analysis (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?20429-Crime-City-Attack-Analysis)

[Ramshutu]

I appreciate the maths behind no banking. My main concern, however, is how much of a target I become with extra funds.

I may, experimentally start no banking and see whether the amount I am attacked increases...

[Nicholost]

I appreciate the maths behind no banking. My main concern, however, is how much of a target I become with extra funds.

I may, experimentally start no banking and see whether the amount I am attacked increases...
Exactly. That's what the bait is for. If you go straight from banking to no-banking your frequency of attacks will increase and your period will decrease. You want enough money out there to attract people.

[dudeman]

Do we know at what level the HLs can see to, currently?

I'm getting up there and am curious:
a) will I learn I've "made it" when i start getting attacked by HLs? or does the game warn you
b) at what level will I start to see the younger bait?

A) There is no warning. One day there will be some red in your news feed and when you check the rival's stats you will not like what you see.
B) From level 125ish to level 144 I could see mostly the same range of rivals. 120s to 160s. Everything opened when I reached level 144. Currently I am at 159 and I can see rivals from 140-200.

[Santa]

Great analysis Nich!

I am currently doing a hybrid no bank strategy. I will collect all my buildings until I reach 100k on hand. Then I bank either 80k or 90k, keeping 20k or 10k as bait. I rarely ever lose robs, and almost never an attack. I'm still too scared to go full no bank yet. :)

[Ramshutu]

Exactly. That's what the bait is for. If you go straight from banking to no-banking your frequency of attacks will increase and your period will decrease. You want enough money out there to attract people.

Sorry, I am idiot, for some reason I completely missed that second bit in your post... Been reviewing documents all day :)

[Walter]

Thanks, dudeman. So will I be suddenly able to see players higher than me, as you can?

[doomnosee]

am I right in thinking that theoretical maximum loss per day is $3,600,000? i.e. 24/2*300k
If that is the case then I guess it follows that if your daily income > $36,000,000 (minus expenditure) then you should automatically no-bank. hmmm so 1.5m-2.0m+ hourly income.

anything below 1m per hour income it seems sensible to bank at high level. At HL I get robbed/attacked successfully as often as there is anything worth taking (and not just because of rat wars!). The only way to avoid that is to have probably in the top 10 defense scores in the whole game, as there will always be someone stronger who will take an interest. To accomplish that you probably need to spend 10s of thousands of dollars in real money. perhaps I am just a pessimist lol.

[Nicholost]

am I right in thinking that theoretical maximum loss per day is $3,600,000? i.e. 24/2*300k
If that is the case then I guess it follows that if your daily income > $36,000,000 (minus expenditure) then you should automatically no-bank. hmmm so 1.5m-2.0m+ hourly income.

anything below 1m per hour income it seems sensible to bank at high level. At HL I get robbed/attacked successfully as often as there is anything worth taking (and not just because of rat wars!). The only way to avoid that is to have probably in the top 10 defense scores in the whole game, as there will always be someone stronger who will take an interest. To accomplish that you probably need to spend 10s of thousands of dollars in real money. perhaps I am just a pessimist lol.
The rules for HL players and no-banking are definitely different. I'm well below the threshold where brackets start opening up (lvl 92 currently), so I can't comment with certainty.

[Shoutzaonmyboiz]

Nich what is your.atk/def.per.mafia?

[Nicholost]

Nich what is your.atk/def.per.mafia?

53.2 att/mafia
66.7 def/mafia

With 281 mafia at level 92, I've positioned myself as strongly as possible in my bracket following my two guidelines:
1. I can outfit all mafia members with items from each category
2. All items used are decent (i.e. top 80% of all your items in each category)

That ensures I can no-bank. Read this (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?22306-Mafia-Size-and-the-Bracketing-Hypothesis) thread about adjusting mafia to meet your weapons and position yourself as strongly as possible within your bracket. As your equipment grows, increase your mafia while always making sure those two criteria are always true. Use Lars' Stat Calculation Spreadsheet (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?23214-Yet-Another-Stats-Spreadsheet-one-for-items-*and*-buildings) to track and position yourself.

[Alice]

All right, after all these trouble, why not reactivate the Emerald Event...I've got one more to go

[itzkakarot]

Thanks for breaking this down, Nicholas. I'm currently on day 2 of my "bait test", been keeping ~$70k on hand and have only lost once to a one-off hit.

I have one question. The $300k/65.1% rule applies per opponent, correct? There's no absolute maximum you can lose, right? So theoretically, you're playing the odds that there's rarely more than 1 shark in the waters at any given time.

[Santa]

Thanks for breaking this down, Nicholas. I'm currently on day 2 of my "bait test", been keeping ~$70k on hand and have only lost once to a one-off hit.

I have one question. The $300k/65.1% rule applies per opponent, correct? There's no absolute maximum you can lose, right? So theoretically, you're playing the odds that there's rarely more than 1 shark in the waters at any given time.

You should be correct...not sure though.

[Yahkin]

I have one question. The $300k/65.1% rule applies per opponent, correct? There's no absolute maximum you can lose, right? So theoretically, you're playing the odds that there's rarely more than 1 shark in the waters at any given time.

You can only lose 10 times every 2 hours. That could be one loss by 10 different players, or 10 losses by 1 player.

One thing I didn't see mentioned was to be careful when attacking other players as well. Not only do you want to attack players with offense way below your defense, you want to make sure you can beat the player 10/10 times. Same numbers apply when you are the attacker and lose. 30k or 10% of on hand cash.

[Dreno33]

Nicholost

I know Syn doesn't post anymore but if you can, your should get ahold of him to add this to his Best of the Best guides. WELL DONE!!

I am no banking at my low level still. this thread will come in handy later(:

[ryusho]

Great analysis Nich!

I am currently doing a hybrid no bank strategy. I will collect all my buildings until I reach 100k on hand. Then I bank either 80k or 90k, keeping 20k or 10k as bait. I rarely ever lose robs, and almost never an attack. I'm still too scared to go full no bank yet. :)

Santa, not trying to deride you or anything, but I feel that your hybrid strategy is a rather poor one. Essentially, whether you bank $10 or $90k, you are still going to lose 10%. If you do intend to keep 10k or 20k as bait, a better stratgey would be anything above that amount automatically be deposited into the bank. Banking a larger sum in one shot doesn't lower the cost of your banking.

The rationale behind this is given your intention to leave only up to 20k as bait, the maximum you hope to lose is $2k per hit. If for example, you have around $90k on hand and leave it while waiting for your 100k, you stand to lose around $9k per hit instead.

[emcee]

The biggest factor whether you have to bank or not is your mafia size imo. Unless you are in the high levels never have the biggest possible mafia. If you lose fights/robberies it usually means you have not fully equipped your mafia. I have been experimenting with mafia size for the last 4 months or so and can say with a great degree of certainty that you should simply trim your mob down to a point in which you can equip them with the best possible items. Having a smaller mob will also exponentially make your defense buildings more effective. We all know there are some unknown variables regarding how defense buildings operate but I can say my defense buildings work much more efficiently against a rival mob of 100 vs 500.

My level 54 account with 100 or so mob members has lost 2 robberies in the last 4 months.
This account has not banked for 4 months or so and I have saved millions.

My level 8 account has only 5 defeats and 0 robberies since Nov 24, 2011.
This account has never banked.

Ideally keep a trimmed mob and you don't even need to worry about banking not to mention successful attacks/robberies provided you also invest in defense buildings to boost your top or close to top tiered items.

[Santa]

Santa, not trying to deride you or anything, but I feel that your hybrid strategy is a rather poor one. Essentially, whether you bank $10 or $90k, you are still going to lose 10%. If you do intend to keep 10k or 20k as bait, a better stratgey would be anything above that amount automatically be deposited into the bank. Banking a larger sum in one shot doesn't lower the cost of your banking.

The rationale behind this is given your intention to leave only up to 20k as bait, the maximum you hope to lose is $2k per hit. If for example, you have around $90k on hand and leave it while waiting for your 100k, you stand to lose around $9k per hit instead.

I have a very low mafia for my level. I know I can win almost every fight so leaving $90k is just more bait compared to $20k. Of course, there probably is some gold spender out there who can kill me so I don't go over $150k. I'm going to start no banking today. If I lose, well, then I lose. Thanks for the advice though!

[Ram]

I have free banking ;)

[Santa]

I have free banking ;)

Don't need to rub it in our faces...JK you deserve it. :)

[i need muney]

I dont know if this is of any value or not, but I noticed one thing. When I stick out a bait, say 500000, people attack me, but not much more since my def is 40k. But when I put up a mil+ people start attacking like them wild aminals. I figure that the number is so tempting, even thou they can't get more then 300k they still try.
Just saying this cause you need to find the bait that works for your stats. Or you might end up with the wrong impression.

[itzkakarot]

You can only lose 10 times every 2 hours. That could be one loss by 10 different players, or 10 losses by 1 player.
Thanks Yahkin, this is very good to know. Do you know if the $300K max also applies to "all players"?

[Nicholost]

You can only lose 10 times every 2 hours. That could be one loss by 10 different players, or 10 losses by 1 player.
itzkakarot, Yahkin's response is correct. If your luck is abysmal, you could get attacked every two hours until you have been drained dry, but the odds are strongly against that happening. If you follow the no-banking strategy outlined in the original post and are good about establishing an average period, multiple losses within your period should be an uncommon occurrence. Possible, but not common.


One thing I didn't see mentioned was to be careful when attacking other players as well. Not only do you want to attack players with offense way below your defense, you want to make sure you can beat the player 10/10 times. Same numbers apply when you are the attacker and lose. 30k or 10% of on hand cash.
Also true. Pay attention to stats when you no-bank for both the reason I mentioned in the first post (linking a player back to your hood) and the reason Yahkin mentioned (losing an attack and therefor 10%/$30K of your stash).

[Nicholost]

The biggest factor whether you have to bank or not is your mafia size imo. Unless you are in the high levels never have the biggest possible mafia. If you lose fights/robberies it usually means you have not fully equipped your mafia. I have been experimenting with mafia size for the last 4 months or so and can say with a great degree of certainty that you should simply trim your mob down to a point in which you can equip them with the best possible items. Having a smaller mob will also exponentially make your defense buildings more effective. We all know there are some unknown variables regarding how defense buildings operate but I can say my defense buildings work much more efficiently against a rival mob of 100 vs 500.
Emcee, have you read the Mafia Size and The Bracketing Hypothesis (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?22306-Mafia-Size-and-the-Bracketing-Hypothesis) thread? Ignore the math because I think it's probably wrong. Although the concept of bracketing and differences in visibility is definitely correct. Anyway, I think you'll like the concept of positioning yourself in your bracket. Like you, I recommend adjusting your mafia size to ensure all mafia members are equipped and all are equipped with good items.

A point I had not considered is the effect of defense buildings relative to stats. As your mafia size drops, your defense buildings have a stronger impact on your defense stats. That makes the idea of reducing mafia size even more appealing. I had never considered that point. Thanks. :)

[Nicholost]

Tramp Stamp made a visit to this thread and brought up a couple points. I updated the original post with his advice.

[i need muney]

Tramp Stamp made a visit to this thread and brought up a couple points. I updated the original post with his advice.
Is he lurkin now or whata? Nic, if you cant lose more than 150k an hour, then having an income of 1.5m makes banking economically completely inefficient, right? So one would only bank at HL trying to save his loss/win ratio?

[Ohaithere]

This is correct however not many people have 1.5m per hour, when I reach 500k per hour I will probably no bank, currently at 114 though haha

[emcee]

Emcee, have you read the Mafia Size and The Bracketing Hypothesis (http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?22306-Mafia-Size-and-the-Bracketing-Hypothesis) thread? Ignore the math because I think it's probably wrong. Although the concept of bracketing and differences in visibility is definitely correct. Anyway, I think you'll like the concept of positioning yourself in your bracket. Like you, I recommend adjusting your mafia size to ensure all mafia members are equipped and all are equipped with good items.

A point I had not considered is the effect of defense buildings relative to stats. As your mafia size drops, your defense buildings have a stronger impact on your defense stats. That makes the idea of reducing mafia size even more appealing. I had never considered that point. Thanks. :)

Just read your thread and posted comment.

Technically you don't even need to fully equip your mob with best items. Just trim down mob to point in which your defense buildings bear a greater weight. There will be 'no wasted' income to outfit a mob of 500 and losing more to attacks/robberies and banking when all of that can be invested back into your economy.

Keep it simple. Never max alliance (unless at level 1,2,3 read my tortoise guide), buy defense buildings, win more fights/robberies, don't bank and divert most if not all funds into building economy.

[i need muney]

This is correct however not many people have 1.5m per hour, when I reach 500k per hour I will probably no bank, currently at 114 though haha
Thanks man :)

[Nicholost]

Is he lurkin now or whata? Nic, if you cant lose more than 150k an hour, then having an income of 1.5m makes banking economically completely inefficient, right? So one would only bank at HL trying to save his loss/win ratio?

This is correct however not many people have 1.5m per hour, when I reach 500k per hour I will probably no bank, currently at 114 though haha

Sorry, i need money, I just saw this post. Ohaithere is correct. If you have an economy of $1.5 million/hr or more, you easily lose more money to the bank than to other players from attacks. However, that's working off the assumption that you will be instantly attacked as soon as your cool down period (2 hrs) is over. Unless I am significantly underestimating the HLs, that is a very unlikely case. I agree with Ohaithere in that you can probably start no-banking even as a weak player once your economy reaches a certain point. What that point is will dependent on the period between attacks. You can use the math outlined in the first post of this thread to determine where that break-over point is for you at your level.

[askljdhaf4]

Hey, just saw this thread. I quickly skimmed through it, and someone may have made this point already, but figured i would point this out anyways.

While i can see the upside to no-banking in the short-term, i just cant see how there could be any benefit in the long term. I will use myself as an example.

I just built the nightclub. As we all know, that costs $40M. Now, my income per hour was around $100k when i built it, so it took some time to save up, about 20-25 days. Maybe i could have had an extra hundred thousand or so to keep on-hand every day that i decided to no-bank, but the truth is, at some point I am going to have millions of dollars up for grabs instead of stashed away in the bank. If i have $30M on me and get robbed, even if they just rob me once, i would be out 3 million. That right there would be worth NOT using the no-bank system. And i'm sure everyone would agree that if you rob a guy for 3 million, you are DEFINITELY gonna take him for as much as you can.

My point is, the no-bank system might let you hold on to a little extra cash from the day-to-day. But once you start buying/upgrading buildings that cost a little more than pocket-change, you are setting yourself up for failure using the no-bank system. The point of the game is to save up cash, and buy bigger and better buildings. So it would go without saying that everyone is going to have to save up a substantial amount to purchase/upgrade from time to time, and no-banking would be very counter-productive to anyone saving up for anything that they cant easily afford in the short-term.

[Euchred]

@ askljdhaf4

You do realize you can only lose 30 k per attack and can only get attacked 10 times every 2 hours right?

Meaning you can only lose 3.6 million a day max, so if you make more than 36 million a day the bank would take more than you could possibly lose. (unless you bring explosives into play)

[TenderPlacebo]

The most a player can take from you in one time is 300k, that's with 10 successful attacks.
So you wouldn't be out of 3 mill if you had 30 mill on you and you got attacked, you would only lose 30k. That is unless they found you over and over after your cooldwn period.

[Nicholost]

... text...

askljdhaf4, I think you need to actually read the analysis and thread rather than skim it. The point you're making is not only incorrect, but it has been refuted but this analysis. Go back and read the thread from the start. I think you will be enlightened.

[askljdhaf4]

askljdhaf4, I think you need to actually read the analysis and thread rather than skim it. The point you're making is not only incorrect, but it has been refuted but this analysis. Go back and read the thread from the start. I think you will be enlightened.

I may be wrong, and im the first to admit if i am.. Admittedly, i skimmed this thread. But i was under the impression that if you got attacked, the attacker takes 10% of the money you have on you.. is that not correct? because i distinctly remember attacking people and taking 10% of what they have on hand...

[askljdhaf4]

I may be wrong, and im the first to admit if i am.. Admittedly, i skimmed this thread. But i was under the impression that if you got attacked, the attacker takes 10% of the money you have on you.. is that not correct? because i distinctly remember attacking people and taking 10% of what they have on hand...

As i said, i'll admit when i am wrong. I just read your attack analysis, and i had missed the key point that there is a maximum of 30K you can take from someone when attacking. You are correct, i can see where i was mistaken..

i can definitely see the benefit of your argument for the no-banking system =)

[Chiefer]

Don't need to rub it in our faces...JK you deserve it. :)

I completely missed that event lol. I just find it hard to believe, That when I put the money out there. I wouldn't have to re factor everything on an assumed "x". How do you truly know everyone who visits your hood? And, that having the money there isn't always a gamble you can't ever be sure about. I would imagine that more people attempting would ruin a lot of things. I'm sure lot's of people would blow 20 stamina to get 1 win on an absurd amount of out of bank. How sure can you be about the no banking strategy?

My wall is always green except for when I forget to bank my money. That is enough for me to bank my money haha.

My buildings can stay unrobbed all night. But if I go ahead and collect it all for them and put it in one place. They always take it. I always seem to get found by someone out the blue with killer stats.

[Nicholost]

I completely missed that event lol. I just find it hard to believe, That when I put the money out there. I wouldn't have to re factor everything on an assumed "x". How do you truly know everyone who visits your hood? And, that having the money there isn't always a gamble you can't ever be sure about. I would imagine that more people attempting would ruin a lot of things. I'm sure lot's of people would blow 20 stamina to get 1 win on an absurd amount of out of bank. How sure can you be about the no banking strategy?

My wall is always green except for when I forget to bank my money. That is enough for me to bank my money haha.

My buildings can stay unrobbed all night. But if I go ahead and collect it all for them and put it in one place. They always take it. I always seem to get found by someone out the blue with killer stats.

It really comes down to establishing a period between successful attacks against you. Use a lucrative bait to do this. Just because one person is successful against you, it does not mean you give up on no-banking. Follow the steps outlined in the original post and make a logical judgement called based off that. The math is broken down to the point where it's easy to determine if you can no-bank or not and with confidence.

[Chiefer]

It really comes down to establishing a period between successful attacks against you. Use a lucrative bait to do this. Just because one person is successful against you, it does not mean you give up on no-banking. Follow the steps outlined in the original post and make a logical judgement called based off that. The math is broken down to the point where it's easy to determine if you can no-bank or not and with confidence.

I said I bank with confidence. Pretty much lol, Will watch you guys. I'll let you cold hard test it out for awhile. Than I'll make my decision based on if you guys still think so in 2 months.

[Nicholost]

I said I bank with confidence. Pretty much lol, Will watch you guys. I'll let you cold hard test it out for awhile. Than I'll make my decision based on if you guys still think so in 2 months.

I'm now at eight weeks of no-banking, if that makes you feel better. I have made literally millions by not using the bank. I just followed the logic in the first post and it all worked out.

[Whip88]

This is true i have seen it, go on nose picker tell them what you spend the extra dough on.......


He is recruiting hookers for his gent's clubs he is going to build down the track. lol


Guess what...... Im in.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR-FzL5sN4n8DNQhzzUMUebfoa1RiU0pp8Ho5cPm5y6sHrjX5dG

[i need muney]

Notification system sucks on this forums.
In the end I decided to bank. Whenever I have more than a million on hand theres a massive uprise of attacks. Since no-banking, gained 350 losses. Dont care for stats TOO much, but dont wanna see'em like this dude:
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/CutControl/2fcde304.jpg

[transfer]

Following the belief (actually started to do it a bit even before) that no banking would save me a lot in the long time process and is rather "safe" in the lower brackets, I've gone around 4 weeks without doing it.

My income is around 65k/hr at lv.73 and everything went for the greater good for a long time, I barely saw any red on my wall if not the odd robbery that went through once a few days and haven't had a succeful attack until....

....a few days ago, a shark hit me for the odd 300k so I went on with option 1 : who cares, it's once in a while, and I'll still save more in the end, then I got hit again so decided to engage in with the enemy to minimize loss.
Turns out the person is likely cheating and even claims it, at 9k/hr, he has inventory worth of 50+ Millions and can keep hitting me as long as I don't bank.
At this point, the period in which I don't get hit between successful attacks suddenly went from a few weeks down to "a few hours" and I'm likely gonna bank again, tail between the legs.

It was fun when it lasted :D

[Dr BoneCrusher]

No banking is the way to go and every top 5% player in there bracket should be singing it's virtue

[Dr BoneCrusher]

I guess it is safe to no-bank now the PVP event is over

[Dipstik]

I'll no-bank when my banking fees exceed $150k/hour. Until then, it's pretty much hopeless unless I either spend 50 grand on this game or hide like a little girl from those who do.

[Gaming Will]

I no banked through the event while doing the attacks. A few tried to attack back and failed. Really, people blind attack?

[Swearengen]

Following the belief (actually started to do it a bit even before) that no banking would save me a lot in the long time process and is rather "safe" in the lower brackets, I've gone around 4 weeks without doing it.

My income is around 65k/hr at lv.73 and everything went for the greater good for a long time, I barely saw any red on my wall if not the odd robbery that went through once a few days and haven't had a succeful attack until....

....a few days ago, a shark hit me for the odd 300k so I went on with option 1 : who cares, it's once in a while, and I'll still save more in the end, then I got hit again so decided to engage in with the enemy to minimize loss.
Turns out the person is likely cheating and even claims it, at 9k/hr, he has inventory worth of 50+ Millions and can keep hitting me as long as I don't bank.
At this point, the period in which I don't get hit between successful attacks suddenly went from a few weeks down to "a few hours" and I'm likely gonna bank again, tail between the legs.

It was fun when it lasted :D

The safe thing to do if you can stand it, leave your stuff robbed out for 2 or 3 days, so he cann't rob you anymore. check his hood, most cheaters lvl fast, once he is 2 lvls up go back to playing and no banking...

[gulp]

í am going to try the nog banking and see how it works out for me.

[SmokeEater]

I had considered no banking in the past because I was generally more powerful than most of my rivals, but since getting 10 emeralds it is a moot point.

Emeralds? Am I missing something?

[Test123]

Sorry to resurrect a decades old thread but it's quite relevant.

Are we still on the recommended $1.5m IPH before its safe to no-bank? Or have things moved on?

If there's a newer thread relating to this I can't find it.

Thanks

[MichelleEvelyncc]

Sorry to resurrect a decades old thread but it's quite relevant.

Are we still on the recommended $1.5m IPH before its safe to no-bank? Or have things moved on?

If there's a newer thread relating to this I can't find it.

Thanks

The 1.5 was when it made no sense anymore to bank at all. Now it seems that you can be attacked more often. That doesn't mean you need to bank at 1.5 or even lower. A lot of it depends on level and strength. If you have a relatively good rating at a lower or mid level, many of the players who can beat you won't attack you because they don't want to spend an average of (let's say) 7 exp. points for 30k when they can get more for less with robbing. I'd say, just try it out for a couple of days and see how much you lose.

[MattThomas08]

Sorry to resurrect a decades old thread but it's quite relevant.

Are we still on the recommended $1.5m IPH before its safe to no-bank? Or have things moved on?

If there's a newer thread relating to this I can't find it.

Thanks

Putting a general number on it is a bad idea to me. It depends on your player. Do you lose more per hour to attacks than you would by banking it? Should be pretty easily identifiable based on your news feed. Neither of my players have ever banked and my camper hasn't reached 1 mil IPH yet.

[OneHoop]

You may want to plan upgrades so that you have a large upgrade before a PvP, since they seem to be the most problematic (and stalkers immediately afterwards). PvPs seem to be the 1st and 3rd weekend after (or before) battle. I suggested that our syndicate do all-in periods during PvPs, so that I can continue to avoid banking fees. I'm not even in the top quartile of my syndicate's donations normalized by IPH, so it's fine if I do it on my own though and let others worry about their own bankroll.

However, as others have said, to determine its usefulness you have to try it for a while and keep track of losses. Even with 20 attacks allowed per 2 hours, I have sustained greater losses through robberies than through attacks. While it is difficult to quantify whether having a lot of cash on hand makes me more memorable to stalkers, banking does not keep people from robbing you. So you should only be comparing money lost to attacks versus 10% of collected monies. You will probably need to do it for more than a week to determine whether it is worthwhile. Based on my success, I would say go ahead and do it, but if you wanted to be more conservative you should start your trial period after the end of the next PvP (1st in a period).

M@

[MichelleEvelyncc]

For example: my main account is a certified stalker with a IpH a little under a million around lvl 70 with about 110k defense. For me it would make no sense not banking around PvPs. There are too many people who are so annoyed by me that they tear me a new one every PvP; if I would have money around that would only be worse even though with my RpH my income is over 1.5 m pH. My camper is low 30's with close to 200k IpH and about 60k defense. I never bank with that account and only rob LTB's of lvl 3 or higher. Almost none of the people who can beat me are active in PvP and that's about the only time I get any losses. I have over 40m unbanked now and lost only 60k so far in syndicate war. So as said before, it really depends.

[Euchred]

On the extreme end it's hard to justify banking at all with a 20m+ iph. Obviously in syn battles when you're on a team that faces top 10 teams you have to watch out but as long as you're not level 250 or an easy target you might be ok... Unless someone really doesn't like you.

[MichelleEvelyncc]

I'm guessing none of the people with 20 million is asking this question; I'm also guessing there aren't many people around who can beat them (a couple of 1000 times).

[ShawnBB]

Take care brothers.
It is good to actually go to Nicholost and Trampstamp's Tomb and put some flowers once a month.;)

[BigMoney]

While it is difficult to quantify whether having a lot of cash on hand makes me more memorable to stalkers, banking does not keep people from robbing you. So you should only be comparing money lost to attacks versus 10% of collected monies. You will probably need to do it for more than a week to determine whether it is worthwhile. Based on my success, I would say go ahead and do it, but if you wanted to be more conservative you should start your trial period after the end of the next PvP (1st in a period).

M@

I would say that depends on how "valuable" you are in PvPs (you're generally worth more points when you have a high PvP rank, and you're worth bigger points to people with weaker stats). I know that I'm worth a lot of points to a lot of people-- e.g. I have relatively high stats for my level, but I'm also hittable by players in the top3, and I find myself getting hit by them a lot (probably because they have very few targets at their strength or above, and I suppose I'm worth more than a commoner. Then there's a whole mass of people with weaker stats than me but who can just barely punch through a rob, so even my ****ty buildings get robbed in seconds.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I catch a lot of people's attention when they hit me off the Rival's List. During the PvP, I just hit every single person down the list until I find someone of value. If they are worth a medium amount of points, I'll unload 20 attacks on them, and if they are worth a large number of points, I will also visit their hood. If I were to come across you in a PvP (on a Rival List), and I were to hit you, and you were to give me 150 points, I would never visit your hood and learn that you have a monster IPH.

Well, also, I do tend to hit no-bankers for 20 attacks also, now that I think about it. I guess I might be tempted to visit your hood if you make enough money for no-banking to be a good idea, but usually when I do this they are just above-average players who aren't used to being attacked very often outside of PvPs. Even though a lot of people may be capable of taking money off their hands via fights, most people don't due to the XP. At very high levels, it's probably a whole 'nother story.

[Captain Torgue]

BANKING IS FOR SISSIES!!! oh no wait... I bank, scratch that BANKING IS AWESOME!!!

[candyson]

I only bank during syndicate wars. I hate giving up millions by banking every war.

[BigMoney]

BANKING IS FOR SISSIES!!! oh no wait... I bank, scratch that BANKING IS AWESOME!!!

I no-banked like a boss for the first few PvPs and I got hit a lot. Started throwing my extra (unbanked) cash into NC upgrades the past few PvPs and was barely hit at all last PvP, even though I leveled up quite a bit and there are a lot more people on my level who can hit me now.

Not sure if that's because I'm banking, or if it's because people got burned out on PvPs.

No-banking was still the right decision-- I got hit a lot more, but I still lose more money via banking.

[Euchred]

I'm guessing none of the people with 20 million is asking this question; I'm also guessing there aren't many people around who can beat them (a couple of 1000 times).

I only brought it up cause I'm one of them and surely there are folks who could beat me that many times.

[Legen...dary]

My syndicate is having a no-bank discussion.
Since this thread is back at the front I guess this is probably the best place to ask...
I know I read it a while back, but I'm having no luck finding the right search terms to find it again.

What is the new formula for how many times you can get attacked in a given two hour period at various levels? I know that at L144 and above it is up to 20 times, now, instead of the old 10. Does anyone know the cut-off points where it raises from, say, 5 to 7... 7 to 10... 10 to 12... or the just the formula that decides it?


20x attacks every 2 hours = 240 / day
240 x $30,000 = $7,200,000 max rob per day... 72mil per day actual income or 3mil IPH collected perfectly... if you make that you should NEVER bank. I need the guarantee number for every level.