StarGateWars Forums

Clarkey wrote:

Ifrit wrote:

anh yeu em wrote:ps: i would also suggest that only 5+player alliance can benefit from alliance improvement...

since you need more then 5 players in an alliance for it to stay open more then 30 days I see no problem with that one.

This is incorrect. An alliance under 5 members will not automatically disband in 60 days if it is active during those 60 days.

I didnt know it was 60 days last time I saw the message it said 5 or less 30 days, maybe its changed, or im mistaken. Either way I dont see anything wrong with the suggestion as it goes with what is already in effect.

anh yeu em wrote:I'm pretty unknow in SGW but top player in another Sgw-like game..... Also building my own game and willing to share about ALLIANCE TECHS.

There is one very solution to the power-ratio-member number-cost limitations it is UPKEEP and Banksize :

- Each Tech would be free, you could set the desired level of tech
- Each turn bank would loose a upkeep every turn which cost would be : Base x 2^(TechLevel/n) x Nb of player (making it increasingly costly, price double every n level)
- Only players within alliance on the last Turn Tick benefit from the techs
- You can not spend more than a % of Banksize which is : Base x Nb of player (so if you drop all player to make a superpowerfull player, you a limited by the banksize)
- i would imagine a tech to give Level% bonus to a stat to any member of the alliance.

This solve :
- supermassive alliance affording super techs if tech have a FIXED price (and not upkeep price)
- supersmall alliance funded by external affording upkeep of super tech if they can spend hellish amount in tech

Obviously the "price double every n level" make it so the growth is not linear, the higher is the tech, the more you pay it, so top alliance are not overpowered again small alliances (work the same as Covert).

regards.

ps: my english may be bad to express exactly my tough...hope you'll understand it.

Actually I missed this one. The idea has merit. If the costs are high enough that the upgrades cant be maintained constantly, i think its a good idea.

Lore wrote:

anh yeu em wrote:I'm pretty unknow in SGW but top player in another Sgw-like game..... Also building my own game and willing to share about ALLIANCE TECHS.

There is one very solution to the power-ratio-member number-cost limitations it is UPKEEP and Banksize :

- Each Tech would be free, you could set the desired level of tech
- Each turn bank would loose a upkeep every turn which cost would be : Base x 2^(TechLevel/n) x Nb of player (making it increasingly costly, price double every n level)
- Only players within alliance on the last Turn Tick benefit from the techs
- You can not spend more than a % of Banksize which is : Base x Nb of player (so if you drop all player to make a superpowerfull player, you a limited by the banksize)
- i would imagine a tech to give Level% bonus to a stat to any member of the alliance.

This solve :
- supermassive alliance affording super techs if tech have a FIXED price (and not upkeep price)
- supersmall alliance funded by external affording upkeep of super tech if they can spend hellish amount in tech

Obviously the "price double every n level" make it so the growth is not linear, the higher is the tech, the more you pay it, so top alliance are not overpowered again small alliances (work the same as Covert).

regards.

ps: my english may be bad to express exactly my tough...hope you'll understand it.

Actually I missed this one. The idea has merit. If the costs are high enough that the upgrades cant be maintained constantly, i think its a good idea.

I also agree to this pricing idea, but I don't know about just giving the bonus to any member of the alliance. I'd rather that the whole alliance will benefit, not a chosen person. If that is not what you meant then I apologize.

- i would imagine a tech to give Level% bonus to a stat to any member of the alliance.

sniper0432 wrote:I also agree to this pricing idea, but I don't know about just giving the bonus to any member of the alliance. I'd rather that the whole alliance will benefit, not a chosen person. If that is not what you meant then I apologize.

- i would imagine a tech to give Level% bonus to a stat to any member of the alliance.

I actually meant the same, it should be alliance wide. It should be custamizeable so the alliance can talor it to fit them best. Cost should be high so a constantly warring alliance would be able to keep up with the cost unless they go through a time of peace to build their banks.

the % of boost should stay small to not unbalance things, but it would give a small advantage to aa defending peaceful alliance in some ways.

Well i've think about it more and so there is no flaw, the alliance bank size should be based on members bank size. It should be upgradable with Naq, because then 1 account could benefit from a supersized alliance bank and able to pay supermassive stat boost.

Actually i made a mistake in the formula for price cost. It's more like Base price * 2^(Tech level * (y-1)) with 2 < y

For example:
with y = 3 and base = 1000
level 1 upkeep is 4000 (4000 per point)
level 2 upkeep is 16000 (8000 per point)
level 3 upkeep is 64000 (21333 per point)
level 4 upkeep is 256000 (64000 per point)

with y = 2 and base = 1000
level 1 upkeep is 2000 (2000 per point)
level 2 upkeep is 4000 (2000 per point)
level 3 upkeep is 8000 (2666 per point)
level 4 upkeep is 16000 (4000 per point)$
To resume :

- Alliance bank size = Sum (members bank size including MT upgrades) * x
- Upkeep = Base price * 2^(Tech level * (y-1)) with 2 < y
- Max upkeep = Alliance bank size / z
- Bonus = Level % to a stat to everybody (not split)
- You can set a tech to everystat
- Tech not working if less than 5 members

This way :
Each % point cost more than the previous
No money can be pooled
Capacity to SPEND upkeep depend on alliance bank size, which can only be modified by income and MTs
Kill small account snipers (because small bank), if you want a big tech, you need big bank, thus big account, thus having much more to loose if engaging hostile activities; Small snipers accounts with amazing tech can not be achieved.


With such techs we will see some more different alliances :
- Trader alliance with Defense/income/up techs
- Farmer/raider alliance with only income/up
- Hostile alliance with Atk/cov/anti (and probably income/up)
- jack-of-all-trade alliance with all techs

All this depending on size, aim, playstyle etc...

Took me three tries to fully understand the formulas you were using (might still be a little confused ), but for the most part I like it.

Nice idea on the upkeep costs, and alliances only able to keep upgrades they can afford. At the moment, I'm all for it!

ok?????????????

For my first assignment as Forum Liason, I have been asked to survey you, the players of SGW, and get your ideas and opinions. Tell me what you'd like for the Alliance Bank. I want all of your ideas and opinions. After we get a few ideas, I'll submit them to Jason for him to look at and to work on.

to be able to take it out and distribute it to members, to help with alliance growth, or to directly buy covert levels for members something like that

The ability to take money out of it with the consensus of alliance members or at least Leader and second.

I thought putting in such a feature with no specific plan in mind for it's use was a dumb idea to begin with. If some really cool idea doesn't materialize, the bank should be refunded to the alliance members and dismantled.

I think all alliance upgrades should be trinket based and not stat based.

possible ideas could be

Empire based
allowing sister alliances to receive alliance wide messages
allowing sister alliances to see each others attack logs
allowing sister alliances to see covert logs*

Alliance based
allowing any member to send an alliance wide message
Gaining the 3rd in command position
allowing alliance members to see individual covert loggs*

such as that. I dont like the idea of stat increases myself.



*Ideas are Super Sayians

Lore wrote:I think all alliance upgrades should be trinket based and not stat based.

possible ideas could be

Empire based
allowing sister alliances to receive alliance wide messages
allowing sister alliances to see each others attack logs


Alliance based
allowing any member to send an alliance wide message
Gaining the 3rd in command position.

I like this idea.

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Lore wrote:I think all alliance upgrades should be trinket based and not stat based.

possible ideas could be

Empire based
allowing sister alliances to receive alliance wide messages
allowing sister alliances to see each others attack logs


Alliance based
allowing any member to send an alliance wide message
Gaining the 3rd in command position

such as that. I dont like the idea of stat increases myself.

I love this idea, and perhaps covert logs as well

added to original idea, thanks SS

Why not use it for

Alliance UP factory , the alliance " factory " adds UU to members account.

Alliance Defence ship(s) , these ship(s) can be sent out to aid members MS against other MS. ( limited to 5 ships )

Alliance covert base of operations ( gives 1 member who is apointed the leadership of the base extra spy skilz )

Alliance at bank , the member that is apointed leadership can stock , buy and trade turns above the normal limitations to alliance members.

All these things would be both with the alliance naq and prolly be upgradeble with the same alliance bank naq .