Jump to content

Alliance Projects (working title) Suggestions


Greene
 Share

Recommended Posts

In connection with my suggestion regarding utilizing alliance projects to make Alex's suggestion to cap banks workable, I'd like to roll out a few more possible projects that could be used to create more specialization at an alliance level. I'll edit the OP as I come up with additional alliance projects to suggest. I also hate that I'm calling them alliance projects, so if someone can come up with a better adjective, let me know!

Membership Soft Cap
Right now, alliances are allowed to have unlimited members. One suggestion could be to have a soft cap on that. Let's say we set the default cap to 20 members. The first 20 members to join the alliance are free, but anyone who is accepted after the cap costs their alliance (RNG up to ncount over cap)% of the alliance's bank. So if you have 24 members and still only have the cap of 20, you would lose between 0 and 5% of your alliance's bank when you bring them in as member 25. The cap could be raised to offset that. This creates a more decision-based approach. Is it worth it to bring this new player in? Also creates something more for alliances to spend their money on. At a lower level, it would not likely be cost effective to buy a project to increase member count cap, but at a higher level, it would undoubtedly be. If combined with the suggestions to improve bank capacity, this would force alliances to consider whether it is better to diversify or centralize their members.

Taxation Efficiency
Right now, alliances have perfect efficiency. If they set the tax rate to 20%, it's 20%. That's what goes into the bank. My suggestion for this project is to implement a variable efficiency. So lets say that instead of guaranteeing that 100% of what you're taxing actually makes it to the bank, have it be RNG 80-100%, with the rest of the funds remaining on the nation. No money is actually lost, but it creates an incentive to check your nation more often, and gives raiders a chance to make money, especially if the suggestion to protect bank balances goes into effect. The Taxation Efficiency project would significantly reduce (but not eliminate altogether) the chance of nations inadvertently retaining a portion of their taxes. So something like (10% chance of the nation keeping 5-10% of the taxes that turn). This suggestion also helps reduce the efficacy of 100% taxation and requires alliances and nations to actually pay just a little more attention to their balances.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

greene.png

Formerly known as Grealind of Resvernas (28 October 2014-29 August 2017) and Greene of Japan (29 August 2017-28 Septmber 2017)

7th Caretaker of Duat, the Deity Thoth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Player caps are stupid and have been suggested before. NPO for example would merely decide upgrading enough to fit X number is fine and then make NPO 2 and rinse repeat. Decision making already goes into allowing members entry since, unless you're a trashy micro, you will spend significant amounts of money and resources to build them up. 

Tax efficiency is also stupid. I shouldn't need to be worrying about 20% of my command economies income not going to the bank. I'm already a small alliance as it is and properly run economics, outside of a protector throwing endless money on us, is really the only way to play catch-up.

Furthermore one of the often stated good things about taxes is that it DOESN'T require you to login everyday and do some bullcrap math to figure out how much you need to deposit.

If you want to improve raiding try doing so by not literally cucking everyone who isn't arrgh for not being arrgh. Why the hell do I need to be any more of a raid target than I already am for being a smaller alliance? Piss off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alliance caps are silly for the reasons Akuryo gave.

Tying a basic game function (alliance taxes) to a game asset accessible only to large nations with lots of infrastructure (projects) is also silly.

This is fundamentally a social game, and players should be encouraged to associate. Penalizing the two most common forms of association - alliance membership and centralized alliance economies - would be hugely detrimental to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 7:34 PM, Edward I said:

Alliance caps are silly for the reasons Akuryo gave.

Tying a basic game function (alliance taxes) to a game asset accessible only to large nations with lots of infrastructure (projects) is also silly.

This is fundamentally a social game, and players should be encouraged to associate. Penalizing the two most common forms of association - alliance membership and centralized alliance economies - would be hugely detrimental to the game.

I agree: there's just no real way to balance around an arbitrarily large community that hasn't already been implemented (score range and caps on war slots per nation). Thankfully, what we've got already is pretty much enough to allow quality to persevere and even prevail against quantity, so we're safe as long as no stupid suggestions are implemented. (We're not safe at all...)

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.