Question about bank size

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by fivel on Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:56 pm

not as annoying as GM fees, i'm glad i don't have to use it anymore Razz
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Admin on Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:19 pm

Nomad wrote:Well many of us said that to begin with, it was you who repeatedly gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt. Now I must ask why the change in stance? And why now?

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2759p15-storage-discussion
Read my posts there from last year which also reference the introduction of the GM and it's relevant posts (and if you look at the post lengths, you'll figure out that it doesn't take a genius to point out that something needs changing [the captain obvious type] however this solution needs a flash of insight, something no one has yet had, and I rather have a suboptimal situation than a broken one.

So I'm very unhappy I have to resort to this unprofessional and to be honest beyond ridiculous measure.
To make sure the following 3 items get acknowledged correctly, after repeated failed attempts at polite clarification over a number of threads, I will not respond to any person referencing them, until they personally edit their own posts to reflect the truth, anymore:
a) I did never "gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt"
b) No one needed to point this out or notice this some time after release
Link: storage_discussion_topic
Admin wrote:I did not "leave it in place" so much as not "ADD extra code that would handle automatic removal"
I knew since the start what it could and would get used for and, again, if you look at the original topic, I did point out that something probably will get added, I just didn't know when or what it would be.
c) consequently there cannot be a "change of stance"

I'd like to point out that I am not expecting anyone to say that the GM doesn't need changing or anything, mentioning this should be unnecessary but certain people have made it clear time and time again that they are unable to make clear distinctions.
Until this is addressed I am unable to post the reply I've written to the the other parts you wrote

Honestly I find it frustrating and disappointing that after writing
Admin wrote:I just have to call this one out, because you know exactly that I've repeatedly said I am not intending that to be kept the way it is, as to why it hasn't been changed see the comment above
Admin wrote:Because as of yet, me nor anyone else has come up with a workable or even basic idea that could be developed into how to address the GM resources issue

You write this immediately as reply:
Nomad wrote:Well many of us said that to begin with, it was you who repeatedly gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt. Now I must ask why the change in stance? And why now?
My impression is that you (and certain others) reply on a sentence to sentence basis and always ignore everything but the one sentence you're replying to, which makes it impossible for me to respond in a way that you can write a meaningful reply so we can have a meaningful discussion


fivel wrote:not as annoying as GM fees, i'm glad i don't have to use it anymore Razz
Since the GM has no fees and hasn't had them for at least a year or two...

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by fivel on Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:56 pm

Admin wrote:

fivel wrote:not as annoying as GM fees, i'm glad i don't have to use it anymore Razz
Since the GM has no fees and hasn't had them for at least a year or two...
i've been inactive for a long time before the WR vs Muj war (this war got me back) so i'm not to up to date with the updates before this war (this is why you need someone for administrative work LIKE UPDATING THE FAQ/RULES) but i'm sure that when you withdraw your GM trades you lose a percentage because i've done it and the amount i withdraw was less than what i had (never thought i should check by how much because i believed that
Add Trade Offer
POINT with your mouse on this text to see how to use this function

Trades become active on average in 5 hours and are available until they are accepted or cancelled
Cancelling causes you to lose 2% of all unsold resources and another 0.1% for each day that has passed since the offer was created (max 5% fee)

Rate is always taken as 1 unit of the more expensive resource and X units of the less expensive resource.
Attack Turns>Untrained Units>Kuwal
is true
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:49 am

Admin wrote:
Spoiler:
Nomad wrote:Well many of us said that to begin with, it was you who repeatedly gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt. Now I must ask why the change in stance? And why now?

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2759p15-storage-discussion
Read my posts there from last year which also reference the introduction of the GM and it's relevant posts (and if you look at the post lengths, you'll figure out that it doesn't take a genius to point out that something needs changing [the captain obvious type] however this solution needs a flash of insight, something no one has yet had, and I rather have a suboptimal situation than a broken one.

So I'm very unhappy I have to resort to this unprofessional and to be honest beyond ridiculous measure.
To make sure the following 3 items get acknowledged correctly, after repeated failed attempts at polite clarification over a number of threads, I will not respond to any person referencing them, until they personally edit their own posts to reflect the truth, anymore:
a) I did never "gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt"
b) No one needed to point this out or notice this some time after release
Link: storage_discussion_topic
Admin wrote:I did not "leave it in place" so much as not "ADD extra code that would handle automatic removal"
I knew since the start what it could and would get used for and, again, if you look at the original topic, I did point out that something probably will get added, I just didn't know when or what it would be.
c) consequently there cannot be a "change of stance"

I'd like to point out that I am not expecting anyone to say that the GM doesn't need changing or anything, mentioning this should be unnecessary but certain people have made it clear time and time again that they are unable to make clear distinctions.
Until this is addressed I am unable to post the reply I've written to the the other parts you wrote

Honestly I find it frustrating and disappointing that after writing
Admin wrote:I just have to call this one out, because you know exactly that I've repeatedly said I am not intending that to be kept the way it is, as to why it hasn't been changed see the comment above
Admin wrote:Because as of yet, me nor anyone else has come up with a workable or even basic idea that could be developed into how to address the GM resources issue

You write this immediately as reply:
Nomad wrote:Well many of us said that to begin with, it was you who repeatedly gave a resounding and unyielding NO to every past attempt. Now I must ask why the change in stance? And why now?
My impression is that you (and certain others) reply on a sentence to sentence basis and always ignore everything but the one sentence you're replying to, which makes it impossible for me to respond in a way that you can write a meaningful reply so we can have a meaningful discussion


fivel wrote:not as annoying as GM fees, i'm glad i don't have to use it anymore Razz
Since the GM has no fees and hasn't had them for at least a year or two...

I will try once again to help you. If you will please take the time to explain what it is you want the end result to be. What is your final goal? If I can not even remotely understand what it is you are attempting to accomplish then there is little hope of me helping you, and it seems very obvious my participation at this time is more a hindrance then a help, and if that is the case I will remove myself from the convo because I want headway. I want improvement. So lets stop living in the past and more to the present or the future.

Kenzu wrote:1)Using bank as a war chest is a good enough reason to have it.

2)The research works fine, and there is absolutely no reason to change it. Especially not in the way that people are going to lose a portion of the money they invested it. You will just piss people off. I am strongly against "fixing what isn't broken"

3)If you can't handle having a limited bank capacity, then instead of trying to add limitations to the game and come up with random ways how bank capacity should be more important, it really would be better to remove it altogether.

4)So either keep it, or remove it. Don't try to come up with things to increase its importance. It is already important enough and gives a clear advantage over people who have a small one. Furthermore it's more convenient to store kuwal in a bank than storing it in the GM, because bank allows you to withdraw any amount you want at once, while GM only allows you to withdraw in the sizes of completed trades.

1)In your opinion it is. Please attempt to see past your own account and further then the length of your own nose. No one has argued it isn't needed for a war chest. What has been argued is bank capacities that far, far exceed what any "war chest" would ever need. Those MR were burned in a specific way to gain use of a specific function which is no longer needed. With those MR returned many AT or ST could be purchased and those resources turned in billions of kewal and millions of raided men. That is what this topic is about. Since a very specific change has been made, and a very valuable investment made less valuable, will a refund be offered?

2)I find this nothing more then hilariously amusing. The change has not been in place a month, how can you know it works just fine? You act like it has changed nothing. Are you to blinded by you want to see that it has effected other aspects of the game? Is it just the fact you want what is best for you in your opinion with no regards to anyone else? You just changed the system, now you exclaim "there is no need to change it"? Comical but expected from you as a response. So your saying that its perfectly fine for me and anyone else who lost countless MR and all the AT and ST they could have yielded, but lord forbid you or anyone else lose a dime getting a new "free" system that makes it so you do not need to grow like I had to grow? So you do not have to work like I had to work? You didn't have to make resource losing commitments like I had to? Hypocrite. You may be "strongly against not fixing what isn't broken" as you claim, but you also appear to be strongly against fixing anything the doesn't benefit you, and strongly against fixing things that will hurt you even tho they need to be fixed. You only want to fix things to help you and hurt others instead of atleast attempting to balance everyone on both ends of the spectrum.

3)I fully agree complete removal at this point makes more sense than any and all options offered up at this point. It solves every exploit and failed feature of the GM, Bank, and cost systems old and new. It seems it is not something management is willing to accept so you might try taking that up with your Brother Admin Martin. I seem to fall short in all my attempts. As for your first comment, what a joke Kenzu, that one really made me laugh. I have handled my bank capacity limits far better then 95% of this game, so for you to even say something like that just makes you look so unintelligent in my eyes. Like a small child trying to throw a fit for some attention. I am not trying to "create" limitations to increase the importance of bank capacity, I am fighting against this new update that removes a great deal of importance from bank capacity. If you can not understand that I have no way to help you as it seems so very simple and very straight forward.

4) All covered already. If your good at using the GM, that is a joke you just made. I can set trades up for as big or as little of an amount as I want. Set trades for 1/2 your bank capacity and you should never have problems.


Quite honestly I wish you would stop using your Admin account to promote your player ideology. Use your player account so I do not have to see it and therefore will not respond to it.

avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:55 am

Admin wrote:
Until this is addressed I am unable to post the reply I've written to the the other parts you wrote


Ok I missed this part, so I'll Edit this post after work to attempt to address this for you as requested.


*edit*
Yes you have never "said" no. 100% true. My saying you have ever said "NO" is completely incorrect.

The reasoning behind my saying it is simple. While you do not say no, you also never have done anything, so while your mouth does not say no, your actions do. It has been 2 years or better with no action on the issue. To many, actions speak loader then words, but that is neither here nor there. Yes you are correct. Yes I am incorrect and being a bit of an ass about it. So now can we please move on and try to find a resolution?
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Kenzu on Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:26 pm

@ Nomad

1) I made it clear already a long time ago that I believe a partial refund on investment into bank size should be made. I think it would be fair if people could get back 50% of the MR invested in bank size. Maybe even more.

2) I see it as a major improvement over how research worked before. If you do not see it that way, then it is your opinion. I am not blind, but maybe you are blinded by your own opinion if you believe I am.

I believe the new research makes it easier for EVERYONE to advance their research and it clearly is true. The new research system has absolutely no disadvantages over the old system.

The only reason I see why someone would be against it, is because they use GM or massive banks to advance expensive techs, are aware that not everyone can or will use such methods and want to keep the hindrance that the old research system was to inhibit average players from advancing high in the tech tree.

The reason why I said that there is no reason to change it because the suggested change and all other changes I heard before would result only in a worse a less convenient system.

"You only want to fix things to help you and hurt others instead of atleast attempting to balance everyone on both ends of the spectrum." -Nomad

This assumption of yours is wrong and could not be further from truth.

An example: I want that people who invested into bank upgrades get the chance to convert a share of their invested MR back. This doesn't benefit me at all, because I am not planning to convert anything back. Your assumption is wrong.

3) => Learn to talk in a way that you dont offend others.

Also, dont think that because I disagree with you that I dont understand what you want to say.

4) You misunderstood what I said. The problem isnt that what you withdraw will not fit in your bank. The problem is that you cannot withdraw the exact number of kuwal you need to make a certain investment, which means you will have to withdraw more and lose banking fees, or withdraw less and make another withdrawal from the bank, which increases the time you have a lot of kuwal out and can be farmed. This problem however only exists for non Hualu players.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Nomad on Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:41 pm

Bump


Can't have forward movement with no continued discussion or conversation.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Manleva on Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:08 am

This is an interesting situation and rather more complex that many appear to realize. When I read the first post my initial reaction was tough, you used your MRs to increase your bank size and also got the benefit of this, however as was pointed out there are some very large Banks out there now of a size that is currently no longer beneficial either to the player or more importantly to the game.

First and foremost lets clarify the Bank. It's not a Bank in the traditional sense, you don't get interest from deposits and it doesn't provide loans or mortgages (it also doesn't need bailing out by the government when it's directors make stupid decisions)

What the Bank is is in reality nothing more than a Strong Room to which there are only 2 keys, the players and Admins and it is very secure because on one else can break into it.

The Bank has 3 facets to it.
1. It is a mechanism that generates and promotes player/account growth.
It is the only place you can quickly deposit Kuwal that can be used at a later time. If the Bank is full and you don't have time to take other actions the your Kuwal on hand increases and is at risk.
2. It acts as a War Chest
3. It's still a storage place for savings to invest into Construction, Increasing Techs and increasing UP.

So now here is a question, How is Bank Size calculated? i.e. What is the exact formula.

Some thoughts to rectify the negatives that the update has brought forward
1. Link Bank size to GM storage or link the MR investment in Bank size to GM Storage.
GM storage should be larger that the Bank but both combined should not be that large that players can almost immediately recover from War. War should have a negative impact that takes time to recover from.
2. Link Minimum Research Payments to Bank Size on a percentage basis. e.g. minimum payment = 25% of Bank Size

In addition I would allow for one more time payment based action - The Chang Race feature.

To reduce current overly large Bank sizes there are possibly two options
1. Allow limited conversion back to MR's at a rate of 10% per MR
2. Alter the formula so that overall size is reduced

avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Special Agent 47 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:24 pm

TBH I am not sure I follow many of your ideals here. I have thought about them for some time now, and want to try to understand them more if possible.

Manleva wrote:This is an interesting situation and rather more complex that many appear to realize.I fully agree.

When I read the first post my initial reaction was tough, you used your MRs to increase your bank size and also got the benefit of this, however as was pointed out there are some very large Banks out there now of a size that is currently no longer beneficial either to the player or more importantly to the game.Again, I agree. Being the only player I know of able to buy the level 10,600 covert or assassin I knew that would give me a distinct advantage and make my commitments worthwhile. Now my commitment and everything invested into that goal has been made fruitless as anyone can now do what I alone was able to do for no cost and no commitment.

First and foremost lets clarify the Bank. It's not a Bank in the traditional sense, you don't get interest from deposits and it doesn't provide loans or mortgages (it also doesn't need bailing out by the government when it's directors make stupid decisions)Totally agree.

What the Bank is is in reality nothing more than a Strong Room to which there are only 2 keys, the players and Admins and it is very secure because on one else can break into it.Again agree.

The Bank has 3 facets to it.
1. It is a mechanism that generates and promotes player/account growth.I have to say it should now read "It WAS a mechanism that generates and promotes player/account growth". Because it no longer is because of this update.

It is the only place you can quickly deposit Kuwal that can be used at a later time. If the Bank is full and you don't have time to take other actions the your Kuwal on hand increases and is at risk.I have to say I agree and disagree. In "theory" what you say is true, but in reality you have multiple options to overcome this problem, one of which takes less then 15 seconds, and that's if your on a phone and therefore slowed down. It is not time consuming to set up a broker to a dead account, or to a friend. That will hold the resources till you have more time to properly deal with them, such as storing them on market.

2. It acts as a War Chestagree

3. It's still a storage place for savings to invest into Construction, Increasing Techs and increasing UP.It is a storage place as you say, its just useless. There is not a single account in the game that is 1/4 the GAAS that is restricted by price on any of those you mentioned with the exclusion of possibly the Con Yards. I can not give an accurate assessment of the bank size of an account of that size. You can now put in as little as 1 kewal into research, Techs per level are under 200, to 300 bill and surely ones bank space is far more then that, same for UP costs. So the only one effected is con yards as no other building is that expensive. That can be handled with storing resources on the GM presently.

So now here is a question, How is Bank Size calculated? i.e. What is the exact formula.I hope you get the correct answer.

Some thoughts to rectify the negatives that the update has brought forward
1. Link Bank size to GM storage or link the MR investment in Bank size to GM Storage. A good start, tho I personally feel its a step in the wrong direction. I am of the opinion GM storage should not, and never should have been allowed period.
GM storage should be larger that the Bank but both combined should not be that large that players can almost immediately recover from War. War should have a negative impact that takes time to recover from.This in itself is impossible. I have a 33 trill bank capacity. By your suggestion that means I could store another 34 trill in GM(minimum), for a grand total of 67 trill. I can rebuild my armies 10 times over and still have resources to spare.
2. Link Minimum Research Payments to Bank Size on a percentage basis. e.g. minimum payment = 25% of Bank SizeI am a bit confused by this. Do you mean the minimum you can put in grows larger as your bank does? So a small person can put in 100,000,000 kewal and a larger person has to invest 100,000,000,000 kewal?

In addition I would allow for one more time payment based action - The Chang Race feature.I am willing to bet all features of any merit or cost will be that way soon enough.

To reduce current overly large Bank sizes there are possibly two options
1. Allow limited conversion back to MR's at a rate of 10% per MRPlease explain more, because it looks to me like you are saying if I reduce my investment I should only get 10% back of what I put in? Why the punishment of such magnitude? Or am I totally misunderstanding?
2. Alter the formula so that overall size is reducedOverall size of what? Why reduce everyone?

I must ask you Manleva, what is so wrong with just giving me back my MR's since a major aspect of the game has changed. I have lost out on thousands of AT, Millions of UU, and trillions of Kewal to gain an advantage that Admin has taken away from me at the drop of a hat.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Gamniac on Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:56 pm

"1. Allow limited conversion back to MR's at a rate of 10% per MR"

If I read that correctly, you'd be refunded 1 MR per 10% Bank Size.
It costs 1 MR to increase your Bank by 5%.
So, you would retrieve half of your investment.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 28
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Manleva on Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:31 pm

As I noted we actually need the formula for Bank Size before we can make any realistic contribution.

From what I can see SA47 has invested approx twice the amount of MR into Bank Research than I have but has a Bank Size massively larger than myself. From this it is obvious that the actual bank size is influenced more by the size of the account than the research. Without the full formula it is hard to comment fully.

Bank size should still be important and relevant and past research should still be rewarded
Special Agent 47 wrote:TBH I am not sure I follow many of your ideals here. I have thought about them for some time now, and want to try to understand them more if possible.

Manleva wrote:This is an interesting situation and rather more complex that many appear to realize.I fully agree.

When I read the first post my initial reaction was tough, you used your MRs to increase your bank size and also got the benefit of this, however as was pointed out there are some very large Banks out there now of a size that is currently no longer beneficial either to the player or more importantly to the game.Again, I agree. Being the only player I know of able to buy the level 10,600 covert or assassin I knew that would give me a distinct advantage and make my commitments worthwhile. Now my commitment and everything invested into that goal has been made fruitless as anyone can now do what I alone was able to do for no cost and no commitment.
It is still going to cost everyone and take the same commitment. The cost has not changed and what they invest into the research they cannot invest elsewhere. The change from needing an extremely large bank to purchasing over time has not really changed things all that much. I still want to see changes but they must be balanced. I still want to see a reason for investment into bank size but I also want to see bank size reduced in a manner that is fair to all so that the advantage that has been gained is in some way retained.

First and foremost lets clarify the Bank. It's not a Bank in the traditional sense, you don't get interest from deposits and it doesn't provide loans or mortgages (it also doesn't need bailing out by the government when it's directors make stupid decisions)Totally agree.

What the Bank is is in reality nothing more than a Strong Room to which there are only 2 keys, the players and Admins and it is very secure because on one else can break into it.Again agree.

The Bank has 3 facets to it.
1. It is a mechanism that generates and promotes player/account growth.I have to say it should now read "It WAS a mechanism that generates and promotes player/account growth". Because it no longer is because of this update.
This is an issue because the storage of income and it's use are a balancing act. Limiting storage forces players to invest income or loose it. What I am attempting here is to rectify what the change has brought into the game.

It is the only place you can quickly deposit Kuwal that can be used at a later time. If the Bank is full and you don't have time to take other actions the your Kuwal on hand increases and is at risk.I have to say I agree and disagree. In "theory" what you say is true, but in reality you have multiple options to overcome this problem, one of which takes less then 15 seconds, and that's if your on a phone and therefore slowed down. It is not time consuming to set up a broker to a dead account, or to a friend. That will hold the resources till you have more time to properly deal with them, such as storing them on market.

2. It acts as a War Chestagree

3. It's still a storage place for savings to invest into Construction, Increasing Techs and increasing UP.It is a storage place as you say, its just useless. There is not a single account in the game that is 1/4 the GAAS that is restricted by price on any of those you mentioned with the exclusion of possibly the Con Yards. I can not give an accurate assessment of the bank size of an account of that size. You can now put in as little as 1 kewal into research, Techs per level are under 200, to 300 bill and surely ones bank space is far more then that, same for UP costs. So the only one effected is con yards as no other building is that expensive. That can be handled with storing resources on the GM presently.
You appear to have missed the fact that Attack, Defense, Covert and Assassin Techs still need to be paid for in a lump sum. I would oppose any change to this and their cost increases. With the change in the other researches investment in them becomes more important.

So now here is a question, How is Bank Size calculated? i.e. What is the exact formula.I hope you get the correct answer.

Some thoughts to rectify the negatives that the update has brought forward
1. Link Bank size to GM storage or link the MR investment in Bank size to GM Storage. A good start, tho I personally feel its a step in the wrong direction. I am of the opinion GM storage should not, and never should have been allowed period.
I personally agree with you on GM storage and would like to see it almost totally removed. I would allow a brief time period in which the player has the ability to do the withdrawal and after that expires it is automatically moved into the open.

GM storage should be larger that the Bank but both combined should not be that large that players can almost immediately recover from War. War should have a negative impact that takes time to recover from.This in itself is impossible. I have a 33 trill bank capacity. By your suggestion that means I could store another 34 trill in GM(minimum), for a grand total of 67 trill. I can rebuild my armies 10 times over and still have resources to spare.
Only if your bank size is not reduced and the changes I am suggesting would do this for everyone

2. Link Minimum Research Payments to Bank Size on a percentage basis. e.g. minimum payment = 25% of Bank SizeI am a bit confused by this. Do you mean the minimum you can put in grows larger as your bank does? So a small person can put in 100,000,000 kewal and a larger person has to invest 100,000,000,000 kewal?
You are correct. By itself this could be an issue and we may also need to adjust this payment to also account for AE so that the payment installment is linked both to Bank size and actual income. With this a smaller may have to make 100,000,000 while a larger player who because of bank size alone needed to make 100,000,000,000 payments may only need to make 50,000,000,000 payments because of AE

In addition I would allow for one more time payment based action - The Chang Race feature.I am willing to bet all features of any merit or cost will be that way soon enough.
I would hope not because unless a lot of other improvements are made it would kill the game

To reduce current overly large Bank sizes there are possibly two options
1. Allow limited conversion back to MR's at a rate of 10% per MRPlease explain more, because it looks to me like you are saying if I reduce my investment I should only get 10% back of what I put in? Why the punishment of such magnitude? Or am I totally misunderstanding?
Punishment?? for selling used goods. The actual percentage is up for discussion if that is the way we go. Don't forget that those who invested int researching Bank size have also had the benefit of that research and are still way ahead of those who have not.

2. Alter the formula so that overall size is reducedOverall size of what? Why reduce everyone?
Overall Bank Size and impact everyone because it is only way that it is fair to all. Also I am not suggesting an alteration to the % parts of the formula or the base bank size

I must ask you Manleva, what is so wrong with just giving me back my MR's since a major aspect of the game has changed. I have lost out on thousands of AT, Millions of UU, and trillions of Kewal to gain an advantage that Admin has taken away from me at the drop of a hat.

It is not so much about giving you back your MR's but rather more about retaining the it advantage that research in Bank Size has given players. I would rather see Bank Size remain important and players retain the advantage that they have than simply to return the MR's.

The answer may be both in the Bank Size formula and how Bank size is relevant. It may also involve some other options. One thing that needs to be addressed is most definitely GM Storage
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Smog on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:59 am

It is not so much about giving you back your MR's but rather more about retaining the it advantage that research in Bank Size has given players. I would rather see Bank Size remain important and players retain the advantage that they have than simply to return the MR's.

Just my 2 cents on this topic: bank was rendered practically useless by the update that gives you the possibility gradually invest in upgrades.
Make the upgrades made gradually X% more expensive, and you'll have everyone who has a large enough bank use.
To develop more the idea: every time you invest in an upgrade and not finish it, the cost should go up by (x)2%, with a cap of (Y)10% (x and y are random numbers in my example). Meaning that:
1) if you invest all in one, the cost remains the same.
2) if you invest two times in the upgrade before finishing, it will cost 2% more
3) if you invest 5+ times in an upgrade, it will be 10% more expensive for you.

My next spy level costs 36,396,812,056,263 Kuwal. My bank doesn't cover that, so I'd have to invest at least 4 times. That would be an extra 3.6 trillion cost.
SA47 would need about 30 billion, since he's Kyora, amount that his bank covers.
avatar
Smog
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

Alliance : Mujengan

Age : 29
Number of posts : 223
Location : Romania
Registration date : 2009-04-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by seaborgium on Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:37 pm

Admin had posted somewhere bank was 48hrs income * bank % increase

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by fivel on Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:09 pm

seaborgium wrote:Admin had posted somewhere bank was 48hrs income * bank % increase
but i think the formula does not include AE
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Manleva on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:31 pm

Smog wrote:
It is not so much about giving you back your MR's but rather more about retaining the it advantage that research in Bank Size has given players. I would rather see Bank Size remain important and players retain the advantage that they have than simply to return the MR's.

Just my 2 cents on this topic: bank was rendered practically useless by the update that gives you the possibility gradually invest in upgrades.
Make the upgrades made gradually X% more expensive, and you'll have everyone who has a large enough bank use.
To develop more the idea: every time you invest in an upgrade and not finish it, the cost should go up by (x)2%, with a cap of (Y)10% (x and y are random numbers in my example). Meaning that:
1) if you invest all in one, the cost remains the same.
2) if you invest two times in the upgrade before finishing, it will cost 2% more
3) if you invest 5+ times in an upgrade, it will be 10% more expensive for you.

My next spy level costs 36,396,812,056,263 Kuwal. My bank doesn't cover that, so I'd have to invest at least 4 times. That would be an extra 3.6 trillion cost.
SA47 would need about 30 billion, since he's Kyora, amount that his bank covers.

This is an interesting proposition and would in some way return an advantage to Bank Size investment but in it's self I do not think it is the complete answer.
It will still leave us with players that have massive Banks and still leave us with a GM that provides an unlimited storage location.
We have just seen an extended period where WR has been involved in 3 wars. 2 with Muj and one with TMI and yet what do we see on the battlefield pages. There is very little change. The larger active players have recovered in no time at all. The players on both sides suffered during the wars and dropped a lot of ranks but their recovery time has been very small. From my perspective this shows that there is an issue of balance here and that the storage of resources is to great and that War is pointless an all the you get from it is bragging rights. The impact of War is insufficient
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Smog on Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:41 am

Manleva wrote: The impact of War is insufficient

Not if you make the war last.
avatar
Smog
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

Alliance : Mujengan

Age : 29
Number of posts : 223
Location : Romania
Registration date : 2009-04-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Manleva on Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:33 am

fivel wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Admin had posted somewhere bank was 48hrs income * bank % increase
but i think the formula does not include AE

Well that formula is close but I find that it's around 200 Bill out.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by fivel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:14 pm

Manleva wrote:
fivel wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Admin had posted somewhere bank was 48hrs income * bank % increase
but i think the formula does not include AE

Well that formula is close but I find that it's around 200 Bill out.
if you take "Income Total" (the one were you add the income from your farmers, workers and miners) you will see it is pretty accurate (not the exact number, but over 97% accurate)
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Manleva on Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:00 pm

fivel wrote:
Manleva wrote:
fivel wrote:
seaborgium wrote:Admin had posted somewhere bank was 48hrs income * bank % increase
but i think the formula does not include AE

Well that formula is close but I find that it's around 200 Bill out.
if you take "Income Total" (the one were you add the income from your farmers, workers and miners) you will see it is pretty accurate (not the exact number, but over 97% accurate)

A I said the formula that seaborgium posted was close and it is what Admin posted elsewhere and I do agree that it is about 97% accurate.
However if this is the formula that Admin is actually using then it must be 100% accurate. Anyone should be able to perform the same calculation and come up with the same answer as Admin.

Hopefully Admin will post the actual formula, then we will be able to see if we can make any modifications to it and assess how it would impact different players at different levels if it was altered. The complete formula would include something along the lines of an IF, THEN, ELSE format because it has to account for the minimum Bank Size which is fixed
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Special Agent 47 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:50 pm

I believe the only thing keeping it from being 100% accurate is the income you gain from UU.


Manleva wrote:
We have just seen an extended period where WR has been involved in 3 wars. 2 with Muj and one with TMI and yet what do we see on the battlefield pages. There is very little change. The larger active players have recovered in no time at all. The players on both sides suffered during the wars and dropped a lot of ranks but their recovery time has been very small. From my perspective this shows that there is an issue of balance here and that the storage of resources is to great and that War is pointless an all the you get from it is bragging rights. The impact of War is insufficient

I see things a bit differently Manleva, tho ultimately agree the statement you made is correct. I feel like if you had what is perceived as a "real war" the end result is much different. All the wars with WR simply show what is wrong with war mechanics in AW. WR just turtle shells and does not fight. It has been their MO for a rather long time. IF 2 alliances actually built up military, and expended resources through constant attacks and constant rebuilding then "WAR" would have a totally different effect. The effects intended, and not the effects presently portrayed.

You have to admit even if there was a significant impact for war there would be little to no change from what there is now due to such a small and stagnate player base. Under the present systems if there were 2 or 3 times as many active players and active alliances, and waring alliances actually fought and not turtle up and take a beating like WR then you would see more impact in the rankings. I see it as more a player issue then a administrative issue. Yes administration could do much more to limit the players options. Removing such things as unlimited free banking, nearly unlimited Protections, and changing the present system of "the only way to fight a turtle is to kill your own ranks by ditching your stats, and then their being no gain because you can not 0 out or hold down an account, and since you can not effectively farm token defensive on active players it becomes a stagnate game".

As for storage and recovery, again I take example from the TMI VS Munjengan war. In that war entire accounts were exhausted of funds. The major fights relied on alliance mates to keep the fight going due to exhaustion of funds. It was a war where people did build up and fight from both sides. Accounts turtled when there was no hope in salvaging them. Under this new system of much more rigid limitations on assisting a war like that would be far more difficult to fight and have a far longer lasting effect on the accounts involved.

Unfortunately there is no silver bullet. If there were we would have found it already.






Just in general while AW if far advanced over many similar games, it suffers from 1 aspect that so far has not been able to overcome. In most games you can break an account and then sit on it turn farming. Due to how attacks work, the much higher cost, the much easier recovery, and the basically unlimited storage and protections the entire system of "sitting" on an account or a group has been removed and made useless. While this is a good thing in many ways, it is also a bad thing. As WR have shown all to well, in this game refusing to build or to fight makes you appear to "win" due to a skewed ranking system. Even when you get man handled and beaten down at every turn and can not effectively even hold down 1 or 2 of your smallest and weakest opponents all the while being held down as an alliance the entire time, this game portrays you as a "winner".

I had many hopes the AF would address this, but from all seen so far it will do very, very little if anything at all.




*Edit*
It is still going to cost everyone and take the same commitment. The cost has not changed and what they invest into the research they cannot invest elsewhere. The change from needing an extremely large bank to purchasing over time has not really changed things all that much.

I think you misunderstand what I mean Manleva, because this makes no sense. How can you say the commitment has not changed? It took me 35 trill AND 500 MR to get the ability to reach the next covert or assassin level. Now anyone can reach it for 35 trill and NO MR. 500 MR is a rather large commitment in my opinion. Not only the time it took to invest 500 MR, but if those MR has been converted to ST and AT, and then those ST, and AT used to farm money and raid men then you are looking at trillions of Kewal and millions of men. So how can it costing one person many. many months, trillions of kewal, and millions of UU to gain the same level, as another gaining it for just the base cost alone "Not" changing what is invested, and "Not" really changing things much at all?
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Nomad on Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:51 pm

Nomad wrote:Bump


Can't have forward movement with no continued discussion or conversation.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Question about bank size

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum