Passed Alliance Warehouse

[DeletedUser]

sig

Will be even better if alliance member can trade resources with alliance's warehouse
But this should be done with premission of leaders/founders

i will if you show me how to get the sig to work i already have an account for the internet part


on topic:i think idea isnt bad but it would get over used

 

[DeletedUser]

i will if you show me how to get the sig to work i already have an account for the internet part


on topic:i think idea isnt bad but it would get over used

Offtopic: It works just fine.

I still vote no. I don't like the idea.

I have no interest in getting a share of the resources if my alliance falls apart, especially if I have contributed more than say my neighbor. Accountability for your alliance, if they aren't team players, kick them...see. No need for a warehouse.

On Topic: The reason for this is not because alliances are poorly structured or anything. It is meant to be something managed by the whole alliance, not somewhere to keep your resources so someone doesn't take them. It is a central repository to deposit into in a time of plenty and draw upon in a time of need. And as for the share of resources: that's just so the resources don't just vanish into thin air.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

On Topic: The reason for this is not because alliances are poorly structured or anything. It is meant to be something managed by the whole alliance, not somewhere to keep your resources so someone doesn't take them. It is a central repository to deposit into in a time of plenty and draw upon in a time of need. And as for the share of resources: that's just so the resources don't just vanish into thin air.

that is what it will tun out to be

 

[DeletedUser]

Instead of this idea, why not have some person willing to keep them?

He will need a maxed warehouse with damn low mines
He could have a special rank in the alliance

There could be others too incase it gets fulled up

 

[DeletedUser]

That is what it will turn out to be...

... if you are in a corrupt alliance. A founder can set thresholds to make sure that any member/leader doesn't take more than their fair share of the money in the warehouse. This is a good form of abuse prevention, and if the founder is corrupt the alliance will fall someday.

Instead of this idea, why not have some person willing to keep them?

He will need a maxed warehouse with damn low mines
He could have a special rank in the alliance

There could be others too incase it gets fulled up

And what if that player goes into vacation mode?

 

[DeletedUser2795]

... if you are in a corrupt alliance. A founder can set thresholds to make sure that any member/leader doesn't take more than their fair share of the money in the warehouse. This is a good form of abuse prevention, and if the founder is corrupt the alliance will fall someday.
I was talking about the part that I bolded, it has nothing to do with corruption, I pointed out that people would use the alliance warehouse to hide their resources from attackers and the founder can always move the warehouse if an attack is directed against it


And what if that player goes into vacation mode?don't let them, spread it out between players, do it the current way

replies in bold

 

[DeletedUser]

The founder would have to pay the merchants 10% of the total capacity of the warehouse. By that I mean the maximum amount that the warehouse can store. So if you have a warehouse that can store 500,000 resources, you will have to pay 50,000 of each resource to move it even if you have only 45,000 of each in the warehouse... which means that you can't move the warehouse under those circumstances. This will be a form of abuse prevention to help prevent alliances from "dodging" their resources.

I have added this to the OP.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

what about the problem of people getting their resources away from attackers? and anyways, if you have a full warehouse then teleporting it away is better then letting it get raided

 

[DeletedUser]

You have outdone me again. From now on your ideas will be identified by a (F) after the idea. I have addressed both of these issues in the OP now.

This idea is now pending for Development Discussions.

 

[DeletedUser]

this does seem like a very awesome idea, i mean you all have my vote on it. but instead of allowing leaders access to the warehouse, why not create a new button on the members page that will allow them access and control for it. So that you can have a financial officer in addition to the founder to have ability to control it. That way you won't have multiple hands in the pots. Or even better yet, have an alliance warehouse set up on each island where that alliance controls the majority of the cities on it, and only allow that warehouse to be used on that island. kinda like a local warehouse of sorts.

Just throwing some ideas out there for this topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

this does seem like a very awesome idea, i mean you all have my vote on it. but instead of allowing leaders access to the warehouse, why not create a new button on the members page that will allow them access and control for it.So that you can have a financial officer in addition to the founder to have the ability to control it.
I doubt whether the devs would be willing to add more permissions to accommodate just one idea. I like the idea myself though


That way you won't have multiple hands in the pots. Or even better yet, have an alliance warehouse set up on each island where that alliance controls the majority of the cities on it, and only allow that warehouse to be used on that island. kinda like a local warehouse of sorts.

While I do like your idea about local warehouses for groups of islands, I will have to refrain from adding that right now. I think that we need to refine the current idea before we can move on to more complex versions.

Just throwing some ideas out there for this topic.

My replies in bold. I would have liked these ideas, but they may or may not be implemented.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm going to suggest that it keeps track of your resources in the warehouse. And the warehouse would use everyone's resources proportionately.
So, If you put it 300, and another person puts in 167, and a third puts in 1950, and the founder uses 500, it would use 62 of yours, 35 of the second guys, and 403 of the thirds. This would keep track of your resources.
If you leave the alliance, you would receive 50% of your resources back, and the remaining would be split proportionately amongst the founders.
If you are dismissed from an alliance, you would receive 80% of your resources back, and the remaining would be split proportionately amongst the founders.

 

[DeletedUser]

To stop greedy founders taking it all I suggest you have a plot evenly so each person has the same amount of storage say your alliance has a million points and theres 100 of you each player can store 10,000 resources each

 

[DeletedUser]

The point in contributing to the alliance is that it belongs to the entire alliances.
The founders keeping to themselves or not is a matter of them being greedy.

 

[DeletedUser]

To stop greedy founders taking it all I suggest you have a plot evenly so each person has the same amount of storage say your alliance has a million points and theres 100 of you each player can store 10,000 resources each

Shouldn't it be done by how many points each player has? I know there are sim citiers but in general the more cities a player has the better they are (I know about BP).

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that we should make an equation like this:

(p+a)/2=r

p = points of that particular player
a = average points

r = resources that player gets from the alliance warehouse.

This rewards players for their efforts, but still makes if fair for the smaller players.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you put in some numbers and show a result it may be better . Also this won't take into account the amount of resources they have put in.

 

[DeletedUser]

[(p+a) * r/c]/2 = t​

p = points of that particular player
a = average points

r = resources in the alliance warehouse
t = total resources that that player gets

This rewards players for their efforts, but still makes if fair for the smaller players. This equation is calculated once for EACH resource.

For a hypothetical 230,000 point alliance with an average points of 5,000, the scene for a 10,000 point member would look like this the day the alliance disbanded:

Equation for Wood

[(10,000+5,000) * 100,000/230,000]/2 = 3,261*

Equation for Rock

[(10,000+5,000) * 173,000/230,000]/2 = 5,641*

Equation for Silver

[(10,000+5,000) * 67,000/230,000]/2 = 2,185*

However for a smaller 2,000 point member the scene would be like this:

Equation for Wood

[(2,000+5,000) * 100,000/230,000]/2 = 1,522*

Equation for Rock

[(2,000+5,000) * 173,000/230,000]/2 = 2,632*

Equation for Silver

[(2,000+5,000) * 67,000/230,000]/2 = 1,020*

* Rounded to the Nearest Whole Number

So there is an example with numbers. I think that it is balanced for the whole alliance, regardless of points.

 

[DeletedUser]

you say bribery and corruption like its a bad thing. they open up possiblities of mercenaries, hiring alliances to fight for your side, rapid advancement, powers beyond your control...wait, no, the interface makes sure you can control the powers. but still, this would open up a whole new dimension for the game.

 

[DeletedUser]

you say bribery and corruption like its a bad thing. they open up possiblities of mercenaries, hiring alliances to fight for your side, rapid advancement, powers beyond your control...wait, no, the interface makes sure you can control the powers. but still, this would open up a whole new dimension for the game.

for the strong pointed alliances