Passed Alliance Warehouse

[DeletedUser]

Resource Transfer

Bribery-


I say alliance ware house resources can only be sent to players apart of that alliance. therefor stop it from being used to bribing other alliances

Sometimes transfers of money to other alliances can have legitimate purposes(e.g. providing an ally with resources to build troops, payment of tribute etc.) Therefore I think that 10% of the alliance money can be given to another alliance(up to 25% with founder approval). However transfers of money to other alliances can only be done every 24 hours, no matter the amount that you give, the points of your alliance, or who approved the transfer. This would effectively stop all kinds of bribery in an alliance, but would still allow for the legitimate transfer of money.

I agree to the quick alliance warehouse access thing, but still think that you should be able to transfer to the Alliance without a marketplace(less frequently and in smaller quantities, of course.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Is this really worth all the time and effort for the devs to implement this idea! There are too many flaws in it and could be easy abused! I like the idea but I don't think this idea needs implementing you have a market or if you want in house trading you put a tab in your forums that say "Trade" this is not needed in my opinion!

 

[DeletedUser]

This idea has been running through my head for weeks. I just never put it into action.
So obviously I agree with this topic lol. I think the introduction of bribery would be a great twist for the game.

maybe have an access where the founder has full rights to every part of the Treasury. However he/she is not allowed to route all the resources specifically for himself/herself. He can however distribute an unlimited amount of the stored resources to other players in an evened amount.

Leaders should be able to distribute 50% of the total resources stored in the Treasury as long as its evenly distributed. He is not allowed to route the 50% cap to himself/herself.

members will be able to withdraw 25% +/- of there total city points every 24hr. members withdraw cap is set by the founder and or leaders. for example, a member has the ability to draw out 5000 total resources from the Treasury*because he has 25,000 total points.* however the cap is set to 10%/24hr so he/she will only be able to draw out 2500 total resources.

Adding the ability to place godly gifts into the treasury I would be ok as long as you cannot specifically raise the Treasury's stored material by casting happiness on it.

 

[DeletedUser2663]

happyness wouldnt work on the basic idea as it isnt producing its storing, if the intrest idea i submitted were to involved it should be unaffeacted by anything else eg- gods power dont work on them

 

[DeletedUser2663]

Is this really worth all the time and effort for the devs to implement this idea! There are too many flaws in it and could be easy abused! I like the idea but I don't think this idea needs implementing you have a market or if you want in house trading you put a tab in your forums that say "Trade" this is not needed in my opinion!

the main point of this is "storing resources not trading them"

Flaws and abused?? Give some examples, with feedback like identifing those he can ( or others ) think of ways to prevent it. We get you view that you dont believe this idea needs implementing but if you are going to say there are flaws name them.

1- untill there is a vote we wont know if the majority of players want this
2- Only the devs themselves know what their time and effort can be used for. So unless they come along and say something themselves ( which wont happen ) we wont know

 

[DeletedUser]

happyness wouldnt work on the basic idea as it isnt producing its storing, if the intrest idea i submitted were to involved it should be unaffeacted by anything else eg- gods power dont work on them

This has 2 addictions but only 1 could and should be added. either it draws a small amount of interest such as 3%/24hr +/- and no god spells can specifically effect the Treasury. Or, god spells can effect the Treasury but it cannot draw interest. if both were implemented it would unbalance the game. You ARE suppose to feel the effects of a lack of resources at some point. If people were to continually cast wedding on the Treasury while it gains interest, the interest gained /hr would continually increase.

So, an alliance with a storage capacity of 500,000 could easily and quickly fill there Treasury up after using it just a day or 2 ago. IMO, this would be unbalancing to the smaller alliances.

 

[DeletedUser]

Frankly, I like this idea. But you're making it too complicated, much more than it needs to be. Try to simplify it instead of adding on a bunch of things.

 

[DeletedUser]

Frankly, I like this idea. But you're making it too complicated, much more than it needs to be. Try to simplify it instead of adding on a bunch of things.

Then how about a Treasury that can hold an unlimited amount of resources in it. Only leaders and founders can distribute the resources as needed. It can be sent to other alliances because bribery would be an awesome thing. members can add to the alliance Treasury but they cant take anything out.

is that simple enough?

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think it should be able to be raided, maybe flag points that alliances can take over but not their personal stash of resources

 

[DeletedUser]

This seems like a good idea but i do have a suggestion.

This operates on a rewards system:- The players that contribute to an alliance gets awards. This idea is becoming popular in MMORPGs such as WoW i believe and is being brought into games like GW2 and SWTOR. I think it could work here.

Top contributers in certain fields get rewards for improvement in a certain time period.

Top supporting player
Largest point gain
most forum posts

 

[DeletedUser]

Frankly, I like this idea. But you're making it too complicated, much more than it needs to be. Try to simplify it instead of adding on a bunch of things.

I have simplified the way that the alliance warehouse money is distributed. Founders set the cap for themselves, leaders, and members of the alliance. I updated the OP to incorporate these changes.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Top supporting player
Largest point gain
most forum posts

I like that last one, but why not 'most resource contributing player' or 'most kills'

 

[DeletedUser]

Why are we suddenly talking about awards?

 

[DeletedUser]

Awards

Why are we suddenly talking about awards?

I don't know why. But some of these awards are actually good ideas that tie in with the discussions.

This has 2 addictions but only 1 could and should be added. either it draws a small amount of interest such as 3%/24hr +/- and no god spells can specifically effect the Treasury. Or, god spells can effect the Treasury but it cannot draw interest. if both were implemented it would unbalance the game. You ARE suppose to feel the effects of a lack of resources at some point. If people were to continually cast wedding on the Treasury while it gains interest, the interest gained /hr would continually increase.

So, an alliance with a storage capacity of 500,000 could easily and quickly fill there Treasury up after using it just a day or 2 ago. IMO, this would be unbalancing to the smaller alliances.

Good idea. Because the one owning the alliance warehouse has no direct access, god spells, good or bad, are unable to affect the alliance warehouse.

 

[DeletedUser]

this is a pretty good idea

 

[DeletedUser]

this is a pretty good idea

Updated OP. I added the idea(credits to mccrafty17) that no divine powers, good or bad, will be able to affect the alliance warehouse. I have also added a visual aid to the original post and write in detail how the interface would work in that section.

 

[DeletedUser]

Any other thoughts before I consider moving this idea to Development Discussions?(sorry for double post)

 

[DeletedUser6029]

Here is my only question on this idea. When an alliance breaks up, or a person leaves with a vendetta...what then?

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I do not understand how the second part is relevant, but the first part is a good question

 

[DeletedUser6029]

well, if the warehouse is able to be raided, as it was suggested in an earlier idea, but the location is secret, if say you and I were in the same alliance and you made me mad, I left and went somewhere else, so does the information regarding the location of said warehouse.