Question about bank size

Manleva wrote:Why would you want to reduce your bank size?

Research will now be a lot easier but because of the increased costs involved in war you will have a greater need for a war chest. All Airforce actions are expensive so you need to be prepared.

Nomad wrote:I think the current system for researches should be removed. Or simply remove bank limitations all together.

Kenzu wrote:I see no reason to do that. You might want to elaborate why you would want to do that.

Gamniac wrote:I guess this "limiter" no longer holds for research, but all the more as war funds. Rebuilding weapons (and Airforce) isn't cheap.
Someone else said that.

Nomad wrote:I think the current system for researches should be removed. Or simply remove bank limitations all together.

kingkongfan1 wrote:I am not saying that the setup is good/bad, or that I am for/against it, I am saying I do not understand the logic behind why it is setup this way.

Kenzu wrote:I think a feature should be added to be able to pay for the race change the same way like you pay currently for research.

Nomad wrote:I think the current system for researches should be removed. Or simply remove bank limitations all together.

Kenzu wrote:I see no reason to do that. You might want to elaborate why you would want to do that.

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:I think the current system for researches should be removed. Or simply remove bank limitations all together.

I think the new research system does offer some possibilities. However I think it would be beneficial if it somehow would get linked to bank size in some form.
I do agree it offers many possibilities. It allows new and smaller players even more footing to the oldest and largest accounts. I do not feel that is a bad thing, but I am convinced to much of anything is a bad thing. This game has more hindrances aimed at the biggest and more helped aimed at the smallest then an game I have ever played. For the most part I find it refreshing and a fairly balanced system, but it seems to me as a player with each update the balance is pushed further and further out of balance.

I have to ask why you feel it beneficial to be linked to bank size in some form? I would think it would be overall account size, but going by actual bank size would take into account any $$ spent on SS packs, and all those MR spent increasing ones Bank %. What do you see as the differences between using population and bank size?

Off the top of my head random thought:
Invested kuwal beyond some value compared to bank size suffers a penalty and invested kuwal is lost if research isn't completed quickly or invested kuwal is spent with a decreased efficiency (i.e. 100 kuwal would reduce remaining upgrade amount by only 90)
- say your bank size is 5 bil and next upgrade is 10 bil, anything invested after 5 bil suffers this penalty
- however if we'd go with the "invested kuwal is lost", then it could be another idea to go "remaining bank size" instead of bank size. Otherwise if cost is 10 bil and your bank size is 5 bil, you just fill up the bank once, pay in 5 bil, no penalty, fill up bank again, complete research. So you are in effect unaffected by this as long as your bank is at least half the size of the upgrade cost.

However this is a discussion into suggestions or released updates section
By all means feel free to split this topic and move it to the appropriate area, or if you are to busy let me know and I will copy and paste all the info into a new thread in the proper section. As for your above mentioned idea I think in reality it is borderline useless, only because of size VS income/bank capacity ratios. I may be wrong, but you have the info to back me or prove me wrong. I think the bank capacity of an account with average army size based on GAAS would be big enough to do exactly what you said. The 5 trill upgrades could be bought with that size bank. The largest accounts are now only barely closing in on the 35 trill upgrades, so this means using the above mentioned system puts everyone considered "average" and up on the exact same levels. I myself would have just liked to seen a set % "charge" for the new system. You suggested 10%. That means the 5 trill upgrades would cost a player 500 bill more using the new system over have the bank capacity. The 35 trill upgrades would cost 3.5 trill more. That is enough to make a person think about if it is worth it. At least it would justify a bank in some small way tho all level up to the 2.5 trill ones would be menial in cost.

kingkongfan1 wrote:I am not saying that the setup is good/bad, or that I am for/against it, I am saying I do not understand the logic behind why it is setup this way.

Buying the expensive upgrades is part of the game, but it's not the only situation where you should keep a surplus of kuwal stored, maybe I am not in favor of someone needing to have a huge bank size before they can afford some expensive upgrade
Also I admit that the change is made trivial partially to how the galactic market allows you to store resources indefinitely. However imagine a situation where you cannot have resources on the GM which you can withdraw instantly like now...

Ok. I am going to try to say this in as neutral a tone as possible. Understand this brings forth a great deal of frustration from within me but that is now what I want to convey.

We have all as players felt the unlimited banking on GM is an exploit. It feels like an exploit. There is no where in any worlds, solar system, or financial entities where you can store anything of value for no cost. It just shouldn't exist and is a defining sign that you simply remove the bank capacity from the game and allow players to simply bank on their own accounts. Why is there a limit put in place, and then a way to legally bypass said limit also put in place?

Secondly,,, try to understand how frustrating it is when we as players beg for a change. One like the storing of goods on the GM. Only to get repeatedly denied and told this is the system you as admin want in place. You have the final say so the system stays. We have tried many, many times with this issue to no success. Now you offer us a glimpse at a system you have feverishly fought to keep even when so many players disliked it? Why would any of us as players imagine this world you suggest after 3 yrs of you fighting us to keep it just like it is?

Moral of the story,,,, You know more then we know, and you can not expect us to think like you when you give us nothing to work with. Yes removing the unlimited banking, and putting in place some cost or growth orientated limitation on the "slow purchase" of high priced things would extensively change everything. We as players do not know any of these things are options, and some we have asked for over 3 yrs now and been stead fast denied so there is no way anyone would think in that direction.

Please understand there is no malice in this post, just some frustration. I hope this convo continues as its the first sign of promising dialogue between management and players in a long time.

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:I am not saying that the setup is good/bad, or that I am for/against it, I am saying I do not understand the logic behind why it is setup this way.

Buying the expensive upgrades is part of the game, but it's not the only situation where you should keep a surplus of kuwal stored, maybe I am not in favor of someone needing to have a huge bank size before they can afford some expensive upgrade
Also I admit that the change is made trivial partially to how the galactic market allows you to store resources indefinitely. However imagine a situation where you cannot have resources on the GM which you can withdraw instantly like now...

Nomad wrote:I have to ask why you feel it beneficial to be linked to bank size in some form? I would think it would be overall account size, but going by actual bank size would take into account any $$ spent on SS packs, and all those MR spent increasing ones Bank %. What do you see as the differences between using population and bank size?
There is none, you need to have a big income to have a big bank size. A crappy income means a crappy bank size even if you get a 10,000% bank size increase (try to get a tril bank with an income of 1 mil). Except a bank size is easier to go by with since it's not affected by officers, weapons upkeep, etc so it's easier for a player to use it for planning and calculations whatever way it would get used.

It just shouldn't exist and is a defining sign that you simply remove the bank capacity from the game and allow players to simply bank on their own accounts.
I see no reason to do that, I rather see it that the GM storage needs removing
Why is there a limit put in place, and then a way to legally bypass said limit also put in place?
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
Secondly,,, try to understand how frustrating it is when we as players beg for a change. One like the storing of goods on the GM. Only to get repeatedly denied and told this is the system you as admin want in place.
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
You have the final say so the system stays. We have tried many, many times with this issue to no success. Now you offer us a glimpse at a system you have feverishly fought to keep even when so many players disliked it? Why would any of us as players imagine this world you suggest after 3 yrs of you fighting us to keep it just like it is?
See the 2 comments above in every aspect of your comment, so the part about "keep it just like it is" makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, as well as saying many people dislike it also distorts the truth quite a bit

Nomad wrote:I have to ask why you feel it beneficial to be linked to bank size in some form? I would think it would be overall account size, but going by actual bank size would take into account any $$ spent on SS packs, and all those MR spent increasing ones Bank %. What do you see as the differences between using population and bank size?
There is none, you need to have a big income to have a big bank size. A crappy income means a crappy bank size even if you get a 10,000% bank size increase (try to get a tril bank with an income of 1 mil). Except a bank size is easier to go by with since it's not affected by officers, weapons upkeep, etc so it's easier for a player to use it for planning and calculations whatever way it would get used.
]I will take your word on this since I suck at math. It appeared to me if I had 2,000% bigger bank capacity I could have the same bank space as someone much much smaller then me in income, But in actuality I do not know, nor know how to do the math to find out.

It just shouldn't exist and is a defining sign that you simply remove the bank capacity from the game and allow players to simply bank on their own accounts.
I see no reason to do that, I rather see it that the GM storage needs removing
]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?
Why is there a limit put in place, and then a way to legally bypass said limit also put in place?
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
]I honestly think I am just failing to understand your issues, what it is you hope to achieve, and not understanding what it truely is you want from all of this. To me it just seems so black and white. Create a limit, or remove it. I have to be missing something that is making it far more difficult then I am able to see or understand.

Secondly,,, try to understand how frustrating it is when we as players beg for a change. One like the storing of goods on the GM. Only to get repeatedly denied and told this is the system you as admin want in place.
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
]Its been 3 yrs abmin. I feel if in 3 years nothing can be found to fix it, then there may not be a way to fixing it. I have to just assume I am not getting what is the ultimate goal is for this.
You have the final say so the system stays. We have tried many, many times with this issue to no success. Now you offer us a glimpse at a system you have feverishly fought to keep even when so many players disliked it? Why would any of us as players imagine this world you suggest after 3 yrs of you fighting us to keep it just like it is?
See the 2 comments above in every aspect of your comment, so the part about "keep it just like it is" makes absolutely ZERO sense to me, as well as saying many people dislike it also distorts the truth quite a bit
]Ok let me rephrase my remark. More players who regularly visit forums and attempt to assist in discussions have hinted they did not like the unlimted banking on the GM then those who said they liked it or thought it should stay. That is why I say what I say. Ultimately yes you are correct that long term and vocal players are a very small minority.

vaga wrote:Guess hulau if kinda fu.... up now with that advantage of banking with 0 fees a??? Helps with the race balance