Passed Alliance Warehouse

[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.

Bribery would add a whole new dimension to the game if done between alliances; but bribery and corruption within alliances would weaken their structure. That's why I allowed the founders to set the thresholds that were right for their alliance - as a form of abuse prevention.

 

[DeletedUser]

ro: not stock exchange

 

[DeletedUser]

ro:, not stock exchange

It's just a central repository to store resources, and little more. All it does is keep alliance resources and allows you to set percentages for withdrawal. Having a central repository would be more efficient in times of war than giving resources directly. There are no stocks or bonds here.

Even in ancient Greece, alliances had central repositories... the Delian League(Athenian Empire) had a central repository on the island of Delos. This shows that, even with this idea implemented, ro: still.

 

[DeletedUser]

what happens if you put in more than you get out I liked the idea at first but now I don't like it I think this will take alot of programming and someone could set up an alliance and say aww this is where my warhouse is gonna be and be able to store 40,000 more resources so no I'm Out

 

[DeletedUser]

what happens if you put in more than you get out
That alliance isn't very good at managing its money. A good alliance would distribute its assets before falling, that feature is meant as a fallback.
I liked the idea at first but now I don't like it I think this will take alot of programming
Many of these items are already being tracked, so incorporating it into the alliance itself shouldn't be too hard. Plus, the devs look at more than the lines of code they will have to write. They look at the idea itself.
and someone could set up an alliance and say aww this is where my warhouse is gonna be and be able to store 40,000 more resources so no I'm Out
It isn't accessible to them directly, it belongs to the alliance. Plus it is filled with the contributions of alliance members so that it will take away from someone's resources while adding to the alliance. Unless you have a 1 player alliance with 40000 points *which would be very hard* they cannot automatically store resources for themselves.

You don't set the capacity, it changes with your points. Plus keeping track of transfers would be too hard to implement. What if the Alliance Warehouse is running low right before the alliance disbands/you get kicked out? It will be hard to take all of your deposits and withdrawals into account then.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

giving esources does nto change your points

 

[DeletedUser]

I am talking about the total amount the warehouse can hold, not the actual resources in it.

 

[DeletedUser]

no I don't like the idea to much the founders can do basically gives them an advantage over everyone else

 

[DeletedUser]

Alliances have wide and varied governments. Most alliances are near-absolute monarchies, where the founder(s) would inherently possess such rights. Others are constitutional monarchies, where the leader has limited power, and a small minority are democracies.

If the founder in your alliance would be too abusive of this feature, then he's not a good leader In that case you should join another alliance or found a new one.

 

[DeletedUser]

no I don't like the idea to much the founders can do basically gives them an advantage over everyone else

The founder deserves something for his leadership.

Besides if he steals everybodies resources everybody still has the option to leave.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

yep, and if you have two people with founder rights

 

[DeletedUser]

but then it sucks because they can disable you from taking anything

 

[DeletedUser]

That may happen in any alliance. If the circumstances are extreme and the reasons justified, the founder will limit the amount that anyone can remove. If the founder is a cruel autocrat whose elites enjoy unlimited resources, find a new alliance.

 

[DeletedUser]

no I still don't like this beeping idea

 

[DeletedUser2795]

lol, summed it up in one, though I would not phrase it quite that way, it is undiplomatic

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that only bad alliances, with bad leaders, bad management and bad/no communication amongst their players might find your idea useful.
If your idea passes I would like to make it public the name of the alliances adopting this central storage, so that everyone else would know where to direct their next attacks

 

[DeletedUser]

It's just a place to keep resources, otherwise all resources would be in "limbo" in alliances.

 

[DeletedUser]

Having a central storage is like to have a big, glowing sign on the heads of the alliance members saying: "I'm a clueless noob. Please attack me."
A good alliance do not need such an escamotage to share resources amongst its players. A decent communication and trusted allies will do the job much better.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok now I'm defecting to the no side after jenas point

I agree only alliances with bad communication would need this

 

[DeletedUser]

So trusted allies are supposed to hold all resources?
What if they're being farmed
What if they're inactive?

Your not understanding the idea properly