imo there should be a max value of Credits you can steal from ones bank on 1 attack
for example, 1-5m. not a % of someones bank.

and if you want to keep the Credits moving, you should take the TB-offers from ones bank account, not from their pocket cash.

also

I already said that

I love the idea but the major flaw is people who are large in level will always be able to win attacks and possibly always steal money. 

If there was a way for me to steal money even though i lost the battle then it would be worth it. Then everyone would get attacked in game ( the higher ups) and no one would be safe. You just cant have the larger people that win only collect.

Currently it seams like things are moving in the right direction but everything is still far from being done as for skills and such. I would love to be able to take on lets say you Cyber or Jackk in the current level im at with wha im wearing and have a chance to win. But that wont happen anytime soon because of how the game has been setup. Without a level cap this is what happens ....the large keep getting larger and keep winning.  In other games like this i have played they have level caps and what makes it fair is the items you have that you can buy to make yourself better and improving on those items with metals and magical stones.

Sorry for side tracking lol but i do like the idea if it gives everyone a chance to steal money and makes no one safe regardless of level and if you win or not. 

lol, i thought you still said it would be % of their total money.

and i like sdiddys idea too

completely agree with diddy here....

basically going right against what youre trying to prevent... stealing from the poor to make the rich richer.  the money will eventually work its way right up the ladder and the rich get richer.  since like one person can beat jackk and very rarely at that his bank wont get robbed too often if at all.  and hes a money hound so he will rob everyones banks... like the credits that arent banked and sit out, they work their way up to the stronger, higher leveled guys.... banked credits will do the same.  until you develop a system where smaller people can beat larger people more regularly.... this idea isnt a good one at the games current state.  just my opinion.  but its quite evident ck hates me

It's a tough call, because if you're level 100 and someone else is level 40, you don't expect that fool to be able to beat you. You've gained 60 more hard earned levels than him. Why should he have power over you?

But yes, just as in real life, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. How can I solve an economic problem that hasn't been solved by the best economists in the world yet?

This is the way works atm:
- Every player has base attributes. Those base attributes increase as you level. That way, you can be fundamentally stronger than another player with no items equipped at a lower level.
- Items fill in the gaps. You equip them to gain up to 10+ levels worth of power, so if you're level 40, you can technically be as strong as level 50 if you get good stuff. That completely ignores the fact that a level 50 usually has level 50 items which make them as strong as a level 60.
- You also have to factor in skill effects.

It also ignores the fact that no items actually have the max rated power they could have, so nobody gets +10 levels worth of power from them.

I propose that we increase the power cap on all items, to make them give you significantly more power. As a yardstick for fairness, if a higher level player can attack you, YOU should be able to attack them, and win every now and then.

I am adding two new attributes to player accounts: Critical Hit % and Block %. If Critical Hit is good enough, maybe it can help turn an attack in favour of the weaker opponent occasionally.

I don't mind changing the way the attacks are done, as long as it actually improves the situation.

Also, I don't think level caps are the answer, as there will still be a problem for players that still haven't reached the cap

EDIT:
One other factor here, is the attack range. If the attack range was such at it favoured weaker players, by letting them attack upwards (as it does now), but having a much harsher lower bound (rather than the 40% range atm), you wouldn't see such drastic money accumulation at the top.

Just think, if the majority of people that attacked you were within 10 or so levels of you, at least you'd be able to do something about it. And, perhaps other players with a similar level could attack the people that attacked you.

The problem is when a level 150 person swoops in an takes the money from a level 80. You can't get that back, even if you could beat them from time to time. It's all very complicated stuff. Not something to change without a lot of thought. I don't mind changing it though. Anything to make the game more compet*tive and the economy less one-sided.