Page 2 of 23
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 12:28 pm
by Brdavs
I think it`s awsome admin is furthering the developmend of alliances that have become the center point of roleplay these day...
However I Cant help but feel that bar something revolutionary from admin this will just be "technology updates" for alliances... with the same issues: make them cheap and they loose all point / make them expensive and you help the big alliances to a bigger lead.
I`d rather see a ingame shoutbox for alliances (alliance tab/area) tbh...
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:00 pm
by DarkSchneider
clarkey wrote:DarkSchneider wrote:2.) 2 people act as alliance Treasurer and can distribute the funds, in case one person is gone.
4.) Bank naq can only be transferred to a member of the alliance.
The bank will not be used for these purposes, it will be used for alliance upgrades. No-one will be able to withdraw funds at all.
To be honest, then there really is no need for an alliance bank at all. No matter how a banking system is done, it will favor the larger alliances with the larger incomes. Admin may as well make a bank an actual "bank".
At least I tried to provide some sort of solution to try to minimize abusing a bank system.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:59 am
by Clarkey
DarkSchneider wrote:clarkey wrote:DarkSchneider wrote:2.) 2 people act as alliance Treasurer and can distribute the funds, in case one person is gone.
4.) Bank naq can only be transferred to a member of the alliance.
The bank will not be used for these purposes, it will be used for alliance upgrades. No-one will be able to withdraw funds at all.
To be honest, then there really is no need for an alliance bank at all. No matter how a banking system is done, it will favor the larger alliances with the larger incomes. Admin may as well make a bank an actual "bank".
At least I tried to provide some sort of solution to try to minimize abusing a bank system.
How can you judge this update when no-one even knows what Admin has planned for the alliance updates. it may not necessarily benefit only the large alliances. You can't judge something that you know nothing about.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:16 am
by DarkSchneider
clarkey wrote:... it may not necessarily benefit only the large alliances.
You're either naive... or an idiot, then.
Possible ways to put money into a bank that I can think of...
1.) Automatic % withdrawal from TIP
Larger accounts will have higher TIP and thus have larger deposits into the bank. They will therefore have more naq to put towards alliance upgrades.
2.) Flat Rate withdrawal from TIP
Flat rate withdrawal will be a smaller % for the accounts with higher TIP. While the amounts put in the alliance bank will be the same, the individual empires in the small alliance will suffer more than the empires with a high TIP.
3.) Manual deposit of naq
Accounts with higher TIP can afford to deposit more naq into the bank. They will therefore have more naq to put towards alliance upgrades.
No matter how you look at it, it can
only benefit the larger alliances with larger accounts.
For a guy that has to comment on just about everything said in the forum, you don't put much thought into what you type.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:55 pm
by Naminef
it sounds like an alliance technology update is coming by the sounds of it. this could be good as long as the cost is based on total army size in the alliance. i can already see people dropping rank to lower the cost of an upgrade if its power based.
i'd imagine this has to do with the planned "reward" for wars as well. If this is the case i hope admin makes the reward scalable based on total army size, because if the reward system is the same for (examples following) any large tag beating a small tag as it would be for a small tag beating a large tag then the system would be flawed. this would only encourage even more abuse of newer players since there would actually be a pay day at the end of the massing.
on a side note, i would hope that mercs are not included in total army size calcs since they are far too easy to replace
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:48 am
by TheRook
the costs cannot be based on changeable factors...
i.e. alliance power, members numbers, alliance armysizes
otherwise whats to stop the Alliance leader from getting everyone to leave and being just him to buy the upgrades... or better still get one of the trusted smaller players to be alliance leader just to get even cheaper upgrades...
They have to be set costs and the problem with set costs is that it is impossible to balance for large/small accounts/alliances
TheRook
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 6:06 am
by Darkalbino_
from my point of view, i think it should be a 'bank'
all of the members banks added together, halved.
then only the 2IC and leader can take funds from it, with a bank long for all deposits and withdrawals, which would be available to all, like an attack log, underneath would be a bank log.
thats my dream ^^
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 12:38 am
by SG
thumbs down to the bank.
loner wolfers lose out no matter how you cut it since they wouldn't be getting any kinds of alliance 'upgrade powers'
It would be interesting to give people that are not in alliances to get the upgrades accessible via (useless) tech, but those updates in turn would be disabled and replaced by alliance upgrades when one is in one.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:51 am
by Angel_F1re
clarkey wrote:
1 - increase alliance bank space with the funds in the bank
2 - limit number of members allowed in alliance and increase that limit with funds from the bank
1- Depending on how the bank size is worked out larger alliances will be able to store vast sums of naq, which ultimately will go to waste. The upgrades are likely to have minimal effect on most people.
2 - Theres a maximum size for an alliance to work effectively, and thats around 30 members. Any more and its too difficult to maintain.
The bank should operate on a manual deposit system, otherwise it would simply be a tax. While many alliances DO implement taxes, most do not as it is seen as a means of draining resources to be spent on those who don't work for them.
The alliance leader and 2iC should be able to withdraw naq from the bank, but it must go straight to an account. They would not be able to siphon it out for themselves.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:50 pm
by Ra
What the bleep...how can I embezzle from an alliance if I can't take out funds?...
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 8:20 pm
by Naminef
TheRook wrote:the costs cannot be based on changeable factors...
i.e. alliance power, members numbers, alliance armysizes
otherwise whats to stop the Alliance leader from getting everyone to leave and being just him to buy the upgrades... or better still get one of the trusted smaller players to be alliance leader just to get even cheaper upgrades...
They have to be set costs and the problem with set costs is that it is impossible to balance for large/small accounts/alliances
TheRook
that is a very simple answer. you only make the upgrades apply on a % basis. if its bought with 1 person in the alliance then the upgrade will only be worth: (# of people in the alliance at the time of purchase)/(#of people in the alliance currently)
This would solve that problem rather easily without having any type of complex coding. Of course this formula would need to be made so that alliances couldn't recruit extra people in order to purchase their upgrades and then dump them to gain extra power after the fact.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:48 am
by Brdavs
How bout taking the plunge and tying these alliance bonuses to the racial composition of alliances somehow... Get that aspect of RPG rolling again a bit... The "purer" the alliance is the greater the induvidual bonus (all ancient def boost; 50% anciend 50% tollan, boost divided down the middle etc.)...
Presto: no "cost" problem. Oh and make race changes painfull, after an initiall heads up that is
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:35 am
by TheRook
Brdavs wrote:Presto: no "cost" problem. Oh and make race changes painfull, after an initiall heads up that is
I was going to say as its so easy to change ascended race right now without penalty...
I'd probably go for the extra 50% defence bonus just as it makes it cheaper to defend... although 50% strike would make it cheaper to mass... hmmm
I may got 25% strike 25% defence or ideall 50% mothership
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 6:58 am
by Brdavs
Well the wording was perhaps a bit poor as 50% would be a bit rich imho heh... I`d have it at 10% or so max...
I tried to ilustrate how a pure alliance would get the whole 10% to its race stat (def) and how a mixed one would get a corresponding lower one to theirs (50% out of 10%... that is 5% to def and attack for a 50/50 split alliance.... or 6% 4% for 60/40 split.... or 3% 3% 4% or whatever the combo... with an additional boost for being pure maybe)
Only problem I see is that ppl would flock to system lords for extra income as opposed to a bigger def/attack/covert lol. But you can solve that by replacing income boost with a MS one or whatnot, I guess heh...
Anyhoo this is getting a bit off topic into the whole "make race a big thing again" suggestions that keep popping up. Just thought I`d tie it in since it could be a chance to actually go in that direction, if so wanted.
Re: Alliance Bank
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 12:28 pm
by Legendary Apophis
Naminef wrote:it sounds like an alliance technology update is coming by the sounds of it. this could be good as long as the cost is based on total army size in the alliance. i can already see people dropping rank to lower the cost of an upgrade if its power based.
i'd imagine this has to do with the planned "reward" for wars as well. If this is the case i hope admin makes the reward scalable based on total army size, because if the reward system is the same for (examples following) any large tag beating a small tag as it would be for a small tag beating a large tag then the system would be flawed. this would only encourage even more abuse of newer players since there would actually be a pay day at the end of the massing.
on a side note, i would hope that mercs are not included in total army size calcs since they are far too easy to replace
Good idea there!
Naminef wrote:TheRook wrote:the costs cannot be based on changeable factors...
i.e. alliance power, members numbers, alliance armysizes
otherwise whats to stop the Alliance leader from getting everyone to leave and being just him to buy the upgrades... or better still get one of the trusted smaller players to be alliance leader just to get even cheaper upgrades...
They have to be set costs and the problem with set costs is that it is impossible to balance for large/small accounts/alliances
TheRook
that is a very simple answer. you only make the upgrades apply on a % basis. if its bought with 1 person in the alliance then the upgrade will only be worth: (# of people in the alliance at the time of purchase)/(#of people in the alliance currently)
This would solve that problem rather easily without having any type of complex coding. Of course this formula would need to be made so that alliances couldn't recruit extra people in order to purchase their upgrades and then dump them to gain extra power after the fact.
Good way to fix the problem.
Brdavs wrote:How bout taking the plunge and tying these alliance bonuses to the racial composition of alliances somehow... Get that aspect of RPG rolling again a bit... The "purer" the alliance is the greater the induvidual bonus (all ancient def boost; 50% anciend 50% tollan, boost divided down the middle etc.)...
Presto: no "cost" problem. Oh and make race changes painfull, after an initiall heads up that is
I like it