bank transaction

[fremen]

I think the strategic nature of this game could be vastly improved if the banks had limits to the number of times per day they can be used. Call it a transaction limit and set it for anywhere from 3 to 6 transactions per day. That would include deposits and withdrawals.

It would increase the risk involved in the game. It would require forethought and planning in naq use.

It would increase the value of defensive weapons as many players make more then they can steal at present in a given day and yet have powerful strike ratings and weak defensive ratings. Also it would give players a reason to buy the cheaper weapons since most bank deposits are less then 100k naq. Since the cheaper weapons are more vulnerable to sabotage it would also increase the benefits of sabotage missions.

[[SGC_ReplicÅtors]]

i dont know imo i dont like the idea...

[Guest]

I hate th idea personally

[Raconar]

I hate the idea...sorry...just the truth...

[Fox]

Perhaps a suggestion of why you hate it would be more productive. I personally like the idea BECAUSE it adds more risk to the game rather than taking away from it...Its like every time you take some cash out of the bank machine, do you go running to the bank to deposit what you didnt spend or do you sometimes keep in in yer wallet? Real banks have rules about withdraw, why should it be different here? If anything it should be more strick because of the vastness of space.

[fremen]

I didn't think it would be popular with the players. But think about how cool it would be to hit a person right before they made one of their big deposits.

[Mattathias]

I didn't think it would be popular with the players. But think about how cool it would be to hit a person right before they made one of their big deposits.

And now picture yourself being the one hit

I do NOT like the idea.

Mattathias

[Raconar]

That is the reason I hate it...

[fremen]

I didn't say that you couldn't spend the naq. Or build defenses to protect it. I just think that it would increase the warfare aspect of Stargate Wars.

[Enfant Terrible]

I don't like the idea either.

That said I think it should be implemented for precisely the reasons fox gave. But maybe there is a middle road.

You could limit it to say 5 transactions, and then charge start charging a higher deposit fee once that number has been exceeded. Maybe 10 or 20% charge if you go over.

[Raconar]

Nice idea...I think I could live with it then...you could even increase the percents slightly more...that is if you want...

[Silent Todd]

Actually, I kind of like the idea because it evens the playing field and adds a strategic issue to the game. Right now, you have the players who can play all day and the players that don't have the time to do that. If you play all day you can be much more effective in protecting your money WITHOUT having to pay for weapons to defend it. However, someone who cannot sit in front of the computer all day must rely on his defensive weapons to protect his money. The game needs more dynamic play, I could launch an all out assault on someone, take all their naquadah and still only be able to afford a single weapon. On a side note, I think there should also be a way to tap into somebody's bank, maybe by weakening their weapons to 10% efficency or something. The problem is that the banks grow with the units, and the units are produced much faster than they are killed in battle. Eventually, there will simply be no point to keeping money out in the open. The only way to advance in the game will be to pray that you attack someone at just the right moment when they take cash out. Plus the big guys with all the units, myself included, will grow exponentially faster than the smaller guys because of the relationships between units/naquadah production/bank size. It seems like the game should be much more reward heavy.

[Enfant Terrible]

On a side note, I think there should also be a way to tap into somebody's bank, maybe by weakening their weapons to 10% efficency or something. The problem is that the banks grow with the units, and the units are produced much faster than they are killed in battle. Eventually, there will simply be no point to keeping money out in the open. The only way to advance in the game will be to pray that you attack someone at just the right moment when they take cash out. Plus the big guys with all the units, myself included, will grow exponentially faster than the smaller guys because of the relationships between units/naquadah production/bank size. It seems like the game should be much more reward heavy.

The problem I see with this is that suddenly covert becomes even more important. Because now not only can you destroy someone's armory with covert but you can also steal their banked naq (indirectly but ultimately the strategy would be sabotage then attack).

I think maybe we need higher casualty rates. Currently in a battle my casualty rates are about 0.1%. Hmm...suddenly I realised how low casualty rates are good. If they are too high then I just won't attack anyone anymore. This is a bit of a conundrum. Maybe if there was a penalty (a noticeably severe penalty) for attacking players ranked lower than you? ooo

And back to the original topic. I think 30% or more would be pointless. You can just put the money in the "other bank". So maybe a 25% charge after the first 5.

Or just limit it to 5 deposits. no limit on withdrawals since the calculation i only made on deposits and then make that a firm limit. 5 deposits nothing more till the next day. And I would also say it changes over at midnight so it's use em or lose em. no building up deposits.

[Raconar]

Why is everyone so concerned about not attacking lower ranked people...then on the other hand everyone is concerned with following the way the "show" is going...yet both contradict each other...lower ranked Goa'uld are attacked by higher ranked Goa'uld all the time...as with the replicators (when Replicator Sam created the cipher)...you see...if you are lower ranked...the only thing you need to do is gain defence and rank...see here is the problem with focusing on protecting the lower ranked people so much...the people who have their rank because of their Covert level...(and they can't do anything to change it)...wouldn't have anyone to attack...they sabotage the person goes lower than them...oh, now can't attack him because that has consequences...I think the basic deal is that there are a few types of players:

1. Those who get their rank through Covert Action and want the attack lowered and the covert raised...
2. Those who get their rank through their Strike and Defensive Action and want more power to attack and less to covert...
3. Those who are neutral because they are well 'balanced"...

Personally, I think that we should increase both...that would be a compromise...like adding the steal ability (not against banked naquadah) and increasing the attacking benefits...(not consequences for different ranks...)...there are many ways to increase attacking benefits...one of these is through of course the experience idea...you can view it here...that is just one of the ways...if you don't like it...suggest another way...or find another one you like...

[Enfant Terrible]

Why is everyone so concerned about not attacking lower ranked people...see here is the problem with focusing on protecting the lower ranked people so much...the people who have their rank because of their Covert level...(and they can't do anything to change it)...wouldn't have anyone to attack...they sabotage the person goes lower than them...oh, now can't attack him because that has consequences

Good point. I didn't think about that. My motivation for suggesting it was simply that as you get higher it makes it harder for players since they have fewer and fewer people to target. Another shortcoming of that though is that most of those people are moving forward on their income and not the naq gained from attacks. So now I'm not sure there is a good solution to the growth problem. At least I can't think of anything