Re: Alliance fund

by Admin Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:05 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
with the recent trading restrictions/ need a fair return . maybe it is now time to code an alliance bank into the game , with a turn tax system of a max of 10% turn income or a min of 0% .

since if an alliance wants to make programs for growth etc , help out new players, Buy ATs as an alliance then evenly distribute them , this is the most legit thing to do .

you need at least 4 members to an alliance from 4 different ISPs
1. alliance banks start off at 25bil size , you can manually increase your bank size . so if u want to increase the bank size by 50 bil , u need to spend 5bil of the alliance kuwal to increase it .

2. The maximum size for an alliance bank is 500billion for current game settings.

After this system is released I am now almost 100% set that an alliance bank will come since many of the issues will have been solved with its release.
Max size is meant to be 5% of the combined bank sizes.
then you can buy some techs to increase that, also maybe would add techs that you can reduce the alliance upkeep, brainstorm

by seaborgium Wed Aug 11, 2010 12:54 am

I like dune system, someone puts in a request, and either leader/2ic has to approve it.

by Nomad Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:19 am

Admin wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:
with the recent trading restrictions/ need a fair return . maybe it is now time to code an alliance bank into the game , with a turn tax system of a max of 10% turn income or a min of 0% .

since if an alliance wants to make programs for growth etc , help out new players, Buy ATs as an alliance then evenly distribute them , this is the most legit thing to do .

you need at least 4 members to an alliance from 4 different ISPs
1. alliance banks start off at 25bil size , you can manually increase your bank size . so if u want to increase the bank size by 50 bil , u need to spend 5bil of the alliance kuwal to increase it .

2. The maximum size for an alliance bank is 500billion for current game settings.
After this system is released I am now almost 100% set that an alliance bank will come since many of the issues will have been solved with its release.
Max size is meant to be 5% of the combined bank sizes.
then you can buy some techs to increase that, also maybe would add techs that you can reduce the alliance upkeep, brainstorm

Nice way to back up and punt.

Hope this doesnt redline you as well.

But yes I'll be glad to see it come in, now if you fix the officer/commander stuff right we be good, well better.

by SovietMan Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:31 am

i like this idea.
also, taxing does makes things easier but some might not like it.
i think it's okay to have taxing but have the max tax 10% and min 0% like LI said.
If this gets implemented, would alliances be able to store ATs and UUs?
I would like it to be like this:
Taxing system + manual "donation" for kuwal
how about also giving us the option to give AT and UUs to alliance?

by Manleva Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:34 am

First let me say that I do like this idea however it will not be a simple thing to set up.

If it is not implemented properly then it could become something that could be exploited and be detrimental to the game. It also has the potential to cause issues between players.

Here are the immediate concerns that I can see.

1. It has the potential to become an additional bank for players that could become a place where income that they cannot fit into their own bank can be stored which would in turn lower income that can be farmed.

2. If an alliance fund becomes big enough then any damage done during war could become irrelevant as alliances would be able to recover quickly from the fund.

3. If there is an alliance fund can it be targeted by other alliances and if so how would this be done so that it requires an alliance to target it but not individual players.

4. Management - by who and how. who will control it. What happens when alliance membership changes or alliances themselves disband.

There are things that can be done to deal with these concerns.

The Tax rate would be have to be big enough to make the Alliance Fund beneficial but would not impact largely on income that is out in the open.

Donations to the Fund could be allowed but would be limited to a percentage of kuwal on hand.

Control and management of the Fund could be controlled by the alliance leadership but ultimately the fund could be like a bank. Alliance Leadership could be able to authorize loans and set interest rates for repayments but members would be able to withdraw their own deposits. There is also the possibility to put some other options in here to allow for investment of some of the fund to increase it.

Arguments over the fund between members could become extremely destructive not only to an alliance but also to the game as a whole.

As to Alliance Funds being targeted by other alliances, well I'll leave it to better minds to mull that over.

As I said at the beginning I like the idea of Alliance Funds but if not considered carefully there are many ramifications that may be detrimental.

by Kenzu Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:50 pm

i support the tax system.

by SovietMan Sun Aug 15, 2010 4:31 pm

very good points manleva. if this gets implemented we have to be careful about it.

by Nomad Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:32 pm

Spoiler:

My opinions in green

by Admin Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:04 pm

I think it'd be very funny if the bank would work, someone would get a spy into another alliance, work themselves up to 2ic and then clear that bank

by Kenzu Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:15 pm

Admin wrote:I think it'd be very funny if the bank would work, someone would get a spy into another alliance, work themselves up to 2ic and then clear that bank

It definitely sounds like a good plan that can bring more excitement and more hatred to the game, and we all know what this leads to: More wars.

by Nomad Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:27 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Admin wrote:I think it'd be very funny if the bank would work, someone would get a spy into another alliance, work themselves up to 2ic and then clear that bank

It definitely sounds like a good plan that can bring more excitement and more hatred to the game, and we all know what this leads to: More wars.

Well yes and no. Since you can't move resources then the account would keep them more then likely, and then its an alliance one one guy. Tactics like that cause hatred, much like TOC's tactic of asking for mercy and to be let out a war multiple times just to return. There is nothing good that can come from tactics like that, nothing but malice. Tho you can bet it will happen sooner or later if the game makes it that long.

I personally never give anything I'm not willing to lose so it doesnt effect me TBH. I still say the pro's outweigh the cons by far. Besides, any good alliance leadership will have the bulk of the funds loaned out and in use, if they are just sitting on them, that would concern me.

Any idea if a tresurer will be considered?

by Lord Ishurue Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:05 am

Nomad wrote:Well yes and no. Since you can't move resources then the account would keep them more then likely, and then its an alliance one one guy. Tactics like that cause hatred, much like TOC's tactic of asking for mercy and to be let out a war multiple times just to return.

TOC's Tactic LMAO . care to edit that mate . I can say the same thing about Stars & reaper's tactic . what one person did is not as a whole unless giving under orders to .

You dont see us saying TIE used the death of relatives to get immunity for the purpose of battle tactics .

EYE for an EYE.

by Nomad Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:15 am

Lord Ishurue wrote:
EYE for an EYE.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Sad thing is you don't even understand what you admit to. Just because someone else does something after, before, or at the same time as you doesn't make it right, nor does it justify what you do.

This is off topic as well so best to end it here.

by Lord Ishurue Mon Aug 16, 2010 2:07 am

Nomad wrote:An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

In the land of the Blind The one eyed man is king .

Nomad wrote:Just because someone else does something after, before, or at the same time as you doesn't make it right, nor does it justify what you do.

I find this amusing, then what is the point of having a judicial system, Police, Prisons , etc.
Someone causes harm to you , so you do the 'right" thing and put them in jail .

same type of revenge , just that form of revenge is in the form of civilized violence or getting even with in the stated rules of the power of your country .

Nomad wrote:This is off topic as well so best to end it here.

True

so back to topic.

we were at.

1. alliance bank size being 5% of total member size.
2. Tax a min of 0% , max of 10% turn income .
3. alliance techs ? for alliance upkeep, bank size ?? what about alliance lock down ? everyone in the alliance goes on PPT for 24 hours, u can use lock down a max of once every 14 days.

it would be the same with MTs for idividual accounts just at alliance level for , upkeep, Bank size, alliance Lock Down .

4. someone mentioned like a ware house . that would be cool for trading between alliances as an alliance.
maybe when airforce gets coded u can bomb the alliance warehouse .

5. who accepts withdrawl requests . in DWs its the 1IC & 2ic . i think King or vesper said in TCWs the 1ic gives out permissions to who can accept requests .

by Nomad Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:48 am

3. Explain the alliance lock down a bit more if you don't mind.

4. not sure about alliances trading as alliances, seems like a coding nightmare, but it is intriguing about being able to use the AF to stop/slow transfers in and out of the alliance bank as well as individual banks.

5. yeah, same as having an assignable tresurer.

by Manleva Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:47 am

Lock down has also confused me a bit as well.

I am not sure how relating the fund size to a percentage of the alliance members banks would work out and can see some potential issues when players change alliances. Loosing a large player could have a marked affect on an Alliances fund especially if it is full. Also the retention of Inactives would be a means of keeping the fund larger than it should be.

As for Techs etc that could be used to increase the fund size I'm not sure. My major concern is that the fund could easily end up large enough that it could fully fund losses that occurred in War especially where there is a mix of large and small alliances involved.

A possible solution would be to set some limits around how much the fund is allowed to hold in reserves or stockpile. Maybe something like an average of 10% over a 30 day period.

To Clarify and alliance with a 10 bill fund would only be allowed to on average have 1 bill in the fund over a 30 day period, the other 9 bill would have to be actively in use by the alliance members.

A possible option to Techs could be interest where funds lent to individual members could have a small interest rate applied to the loan. this interest rate could then be used as a tech to increase the total funds size, By small I'm looking at something like 1 to 5 % so if an alliance was to lend it's fund to it's members at 5% then the fund's total size would increase by 5%.

I think that there would also need to be a mechanism but in place to handle repayments similar to weapons upkeep where resources are sold so that the repayments can be met.

I think that like everything there needs to be balance and in this case there is a benefit to an alliance the uses it's fund as it is intended but there also need to be a penalty to prevent an alliance misusing the feature.

by seaborgium Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:11 am

Manleva wrote:Lock down has also confused me a bit as well.

I am not sure how relating the fund size to a percentage of the alliance members banks would work out and can see some potential issues when players change alliances. Loosing a large player could have a marked affect on an Alliances fund especially if it is full. Also the retention of Inactives would be a means of keeping the fund larger than it should be.

I agree, maybe having a 'Haven't seen you' auto kick after say 30 days.

As for Techs etc that could be used to increase the fund size I'm not sure. My major concern is that the fund could easily end up large enough that it could fully fund losses that occurred in War especially where there is a mix of large and small alliances involved.

What kind of techs we talking?
Also the point of an alliance bank is to have funds to rebuild. I can say with fact that no bank I have ever seen would beable to support a war like the recent one(TOC/TIE)

A possible solution would be to set some limits around how much the fund is allowed to hold in reserves or stockpile. Maybe something like an average of 10% over a 30 day period.

To Clarify and alliance with a 10 bill fund would only be allowed to on average have 1 bill in the fund over a 30 day period, the other 9 bill would have to be actively in use by the alliance members.

Then wtf is the point of having a bank if you can only use 10% over time?

A possible option to Techs could be interest where funds lent to individual members could have a small interest rate applied to the loan. this interest rate could then be used as a tech to increase the total funds size, By small I'm looking at something like 1 to 5 % so if an alliance was to lend it's fund to it's members at 5% then the fund's total size would increase by 5%.

Intresting, that the repayment makes the bank larger.

I think that there would also need to be a mechanism but in place to handle repayments similar to weapons upkeep where resources are sold so that the repayments can be met.

I not sure how that would work....

I think that like everything there needs to be balance and in this case there is a benefit to an alliance the uses it's fund as it is intended but there also need to be a penalty to prevent an alliance misusing the feature.

by Manleva Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:58 am

seaborgium wrote:
Manleva wrote:

As for Techs etc that could be used to increase the fund size I'm not sure. My major concern is that the fund could easily end up large enough that it could fully fund losses that occurred in War especially where there is a mix of large and small alliances involved.

What kind of techs we talking? I'm not sure as this was LI's suggestion
Also the point of an alliance bank is to have funds to rebuild. I can say with fact that no bank I have ever seen would beable to support a war like the recent one(TOC/TIE) You are correct with this example but if it had been TOC or TIE verses the Black Dragons for example then there is a distinct possibility that the fund would have negated any damage that the Black Dragons could have inflicted

A possible solution would be to set some limits around how much the fund is allowed to hold in reserves or stockpile. Maybe something like an average of 10% over a 30 day period.

To Clarify and alliance with a 10 bill fund would only be allowed to on average have 1 bill in the fund over a 30 day period, the other 9 bill would have to be actively in use by the alliance members.

Then wtf is the point of having a bank if you can only use 10% over time? Try reading it again as what I'm saying is that you actively need to be using 90% of the fund ie 90% is lent to your members (Note I only used 10% as an example as it's easy to see and I would leave the final figure to the maths geniuses. An alternative may be to allow an actively utilized fund to grow while an inactive (stockpiled war chest) may decrease

A possible option to Techs could be interest where funds lent to individual members could have a small interest rate applied to the loan. this interest rate could then be used as a tech to increase the total funds size, By small I'm looking at something like 1 to 5 % so if an alliance was to lend it's fund to it's members at 5% then the fund's total size would increase by 5%.

Intresting, that the repayment makes the bank larger. It's called profit and was an alternative to using Techs of some sort to increase the funds total size

I think that there would also need to be a mechanism but in place to handle repayments similar to weapons upkeep where resources are sold so that the repayments can be met.

I not sure how that would work.... Neither was I, If the loan was used to purchase UU then UU could be sold to make the payment and the same applies to weapons. However if it was used to fund Techs or increase UP then it's not so easy to do which is why I didn't take it further

I think that like everything there needs to be balance and in this case there is a benefit to an alliance the uses it's fund as it is intended but there also need to be a penalty to prevent an alliance misusing the feature.

by Jiro Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:39 pm

I like the idea of an alliance bank. Here are my thought how I think it should work:
1) An alliance bank has a size of 5% of total bank size.
2) Taxes can be levied up to 10% of net income if your alliance has more than 1 member. (This to prevent individual players from creating a limited auto-banking feature for just themselves)
3) Individual members can donate as much as they want into the bank manually from Kuwal they have in the open.
4) Up to 50% of a person's account value can be transferred from the bank to that person. The 50% is a balance between Kuwal paid into the bank and Kuwal received. (This to prevent the alliance bank to be a means of circumventing anti-feeding checks. It also makes it beneficial to be loyal to your alliance. Smile

50% is just a number I thought up).
5) A positive balance between Kuwal donated to the bank / Kuwal received from the bank gets cleared when you leave, a negative balance carries over to your next alliance. (This is to prevent people from going beyond the 50% by leaving / rejoining their alliance.)
6) The alliance leader and 2ic and a person appointed by the aliance leader can manage the bank funds and tax rate. (There needs to be a large group of people who can access it, in case some of them suddenly leave the game. Alternatively, if limited to alliance leader, an alliance should be able to elect a new leader on the instigation of squad leader / advisor and up over.
7) The people managing the bank funds also can see a balance of how much each member has donated to the bank and withdrawn from it.
I think research for increasing alliance bank size is superfluous as the individual members can increase their banksize. If you can choose however to spend market reserves to increase alliance banksize instead (by 2,5% of normal size, so 5%, 5.125%, 5,25% etc.) , that may become a powerful argument to join a specific alliance.
As for alliance "loans" versus alliance "gifts" from the bank, I think it should be up to the individual aliances to decide how they'd handle that. If someone has a very high attack bonus and you are at war, it'd make sense to provide that person with a lot of Kuwal in order to build/repair the weapons of your alliance's strike force and not want anything in return as he'd be donating those resources to the war effort anyway.
If I skipped over suggestions already posted, I am sorry for not reading thoroughly enough.

by Nomad Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:25 am

I agree with Jiro on bank size and no need to have a tech to increase it, as the members themselves can do that by increasing their own.

My question is still the same as before, is it a per turn taxation of turn income, or will manual donations be allowed?

As for loan vs gift, from what I can tell the new fair trade update will solve that issue. It will show if it needs to be returned as the account is redlining, or if a gift is appropriate. I mean it allows a "limited" use of the "feed the masser" stratagy, but with the high cost of war it will redline a single account rather quickly TBH.

by Steveanaya Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:38 am

I have the absolute best idea!!!

Why not make it like fallen sword guilds?
You could build buildings and increase their levels and they could add a percentage to every research skill(income, strike, etc)

They would have upkeep.

Allinace bank MUST be big. I'm sayin 50% of all the member's banks combined.

There should also be locations that can be captured, fought for, and defended by an alliance, to give even more bonuses.

The option to have a trade center for the alliance bank would also be pretty cool. Like, trading billions, maybe even trillions of kuwal for thousands of turns.

My mind is burned out for now(2 AM here) but if needed, I *can* elaborate:)

by Nomad Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:46 am

Steveanaya wrote:I have the absolute best idea!!!

Why not make it like fallen sword guilds?
You could build buildings and increase their levels and they could add a percentage to every research skill(income, strike, etc)

They would have upkeep.

Allinace bank MUST be big. I'm sayin 50% of all the member's banks combined.

There should also be locations that can be captured, fought for, and defended by an alliance, to give even more bonuses.

The option to have a trade center for the alliance bank would also be pretty cool. Like, trading billions, maybe even trillions of kuwal for thousands of turns.

My mind is burned out for now(2 AM here) but if needed, I *can* elaborate:)

Please do.

As for locations being fought for, I dislike the idea. 2 main reasons.
1. it makes the strong, stronger.
2. limited playerbase, and even fewer alliances.

by Manleva Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:28 am

An additional thought also comes to mind. If we were to have an Alliance Fund is this where Alliance Upkeep should be paid from.

by A man from Bob Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:12 pm

Manleva, that's a great idea

I think we need to all consider the KISS method

Add a bank in now, and add all the bells and whistles like techs and whatnot later. Any speculation right now on additional features would be grossly inaccurate compared to speculation after we all get used to having an alliance bank.

by Steveanaya Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:47 pm

Well, maybe some of you guys should join the game fallensword and get to level 25 and make a guild to see all of it's functions. I personally don't playboy anymore cuz I found myself being addicted to it.(also it's near impossible to play in my situation[mobile only])

Like there would be a really big cost for spots to put buildings in. And the buildings themselves would cost a fair amount as well.

Also we should pay for a max tax rate like every 0.01% integer would cost an amount. I suggest this amount is bot too high or not too low to be abuseable. Also it should NOT increase cost like unit production does. It definitely needs a cap to max tax rate though!!

I was also thinking we should be able to buy max players slots(to avoid the big alliance issue.

I love the idea of the tax coming from the bank!!

Why not just implement all the 'good' ideas into a new test server?

It certainly would make this idea deciding so much easier;)

by Sponsored content