As covered under "near scrapped". I don't see what that has to do with anything? Every alliance has the OPTION of damaging their weapons until just before breaking point. Risk nothing, gain nothing.. but the cost of the service should be taken with the optimal gains possible; i.e. max damage on all members. THAT is the potential value of the service, and THAT is what should be used as a point of reference for pricing said service. If I could save spending 300 Billion in repair costs on one person, and have 30 people in my alliance, the potential value of the service is 9 Trillion. That 9T should be the point of reference for a price. For example (since we're reasonable people) 10% of the potential value. 900B. Expensive? Not when you make optimal use of the service. Sub-optimal use results in effectively increasing the cost of the service to you. But then, that is no concern of the Game, but of its users.Iƒrit wrote:FYI no one would take there attack weapons that low anything under 10% (might be higher can't remember exact) heavly risks auto destruction of all attack weapons on next hit, i do not remember the precise chance but its high.
I fail to see where I did that. Are you saying because 'nobody uses it like that' it doesn't exist? Nobody used to use sabbing as an alternative to massing, until they did. When they did, people started complaining that actual massing had lost its value. "What were you thinking! Couldn't you have foreseen this?!" - "Yes, we could."Iƒrit wrote:Also you can not use a function that does not exists as an example to back your argument, you would make your argument irrational.
One of the most important parts of the procedure of releasing a new update (or tweaking an existing one) is anticipating the use which will be made of the service affected by the update.
Irrelevant, and inaccurate. Irrelevant, because the "given 30/day" is an incorrect way of viewing this service. The service is limited to 30/day. You are not given anything. You purchase it, once or twice a day. If you can pay for more, you do it more often. To CAP that and prevent the alliances with HUGE alliance banks to have a MASSIVE advantage, we said "max 30/day". NO ONE should be able to afford 30/day just yet. The game is nowhere near that stage yet.Iƒrit wrote:Furthermore its not just weapons that are at a price that are out of align in cost, its nearly every function. It would take how long to produce enough income to afford 30/day?? What is the reasoning of giving 30/day if I can't even use that many, your logic is off-base.
I also said your statement was inaccurate. Inaccurate, because you say "the price [of every alliance 'gift'] is out of align in cost". You imply PPT, Repair, AND Bank level upgrades should be given out. "Why else would we have the option?" Sometimes, there are options you simply cannot afford yet, because the world (game) is not at that stage yet. Real world example; full 3d holographic television - if you're rich, you can buy it, otherwise you'll have to wait until the technology becomes widely available on the open market.
If your alliance has the money to pay for ALL potential upgrades/repairs/PPTs, then you are at liberty to use them. That stage is still far, far away though.
What it comes down to is you are misinterpreting the concept of an "alliance gift". It is not a gift from the Game Administration to you, to be used and distributed on a daily/weekly basis. It is a gift from alliance Leadership to its members. If you can afford to give ALL gifts to the gift cap every week, congratulations. You're ahead of your time.
Reason most alliances have been able to do this until now is due to costs being disproportionately low, and yes, this is another "radical change" but quite necessary in order to teach 'proper' use of the bank/gift system as opposed to mimicking the US Fed; spend, spend, spend, make extra money.
Re: Alliance bank not increasing; Rocky, Rene, good point. Even though costs should not be based on the alliance bank's size. You would suggest the alliance bank can be filled 'manually' as well? Donate to alliance bank directly? (Without the ability to withdraw, because that will never happen.) Deposit manually could help alliances who spend more than they can pay for with taxes alone.. it's a cost-benefit analysis, alliance leadership needs to make.
tl;dr: 1. Potential value decides price, not actual use. 2. Alliance gifts (from Leadership to Members) are CAPPED, not 'given'. Time until ANY alliance can spend their banks and reach the Cap is FAR away. 3. Radical change? Yes.