$Alliance Funds$

[Abreu]

How about an Alliance Leader is able to donate the alliance funds back to players?
For example

Player A has 100b funds he has no need for at the moment so he donates them to the alliance...

Then two hours later Player B is zeroed and needs funds to build back up so the Alliance Leader can draw money out of the alliance funds and give Player B 40b funds for some troops.

Player C (Noob) is struggling to keep up with the rest of the alliance so therefore the Alliance Leader gives him 60b from the alliance funds allowing him to grow along with the others.

But have the funds delayed say, 12 ticks (Like insurance) so it cant be abused when defending

Everyone is complaining about how Bushtarion is supposed to be an alliance game, and alliances are based around team work, so this is just another way alliances can work together.


Only constructive criticism please, none of this "stupid idea" "it's never gonna work" blah blah blah

[Cyrus]

you've gotta think there needs to be some downsides to whoring land, this way the biggest guys that have no targets will filter down cash like you say for the rest to catch up leaving no way to pick off players if they're all massive.

if this was to become reality then there would need to be a significant downside for cash to move around, something outrageous like 70% is lost due to that cash being taxed when it goes from HQ to player aswell?

[f0xx]

Sorry, that is one of the worst suggestions ever. Why do you think Azzer made it so that seeds AND funds give score? Yes, thats right, to make the big players grow in score even when they are not growing seeds/buying troops.

With your suggestion people will be able to control their score, do you realise that? "Hey, I don't need those 12 tril of funds, I will donate them, lose score, steal land, then you can give them back to me".

Not even going to start talking about fund transfering so that people can be boosted to start their teches.

Yes this is an alliance game but your suggestion is going to hurt the small/average score players the most.

[BlackWolf]

I must agree with f0xx on that this is probably worst suggestion ever. Allowing people to transfer funds let there be even huge losses in transfer would allow such score manipulation that it would hurt whole game.

:offtopic: I must say that f0xx you have probably first time on these new forums posted something constructive and civilized. I would reward you with reputation, but due your behaviour on other thread and disreputation I gave you I am not allowed to give you good reputation in exchange from this turn over.

[pinpower]

Worst suggestion ever.

Definately, player just makes an ID joins alliance full of high ranks friends, they just donate money to the HQ then the leader gives the money to the new player and they grow insanely fast.

Or...Player A is very highly ranked, he donates 1 tril funds (for example) to the HQ...drops in score, gains loads of land of lower ranked people then just gets his funds back when he's bored.

Overall. NO!

Also, azzer will never go for this, any sort of funds transfer is a big no-no!!!

x

[Dakbrew]

I agree the Idea is totally abusable as written but that does not make it a stupid idea!

One way to make it not so abusable would be to make it so that donating funds does not lower your score. Score should only be lost in battle either loosing troops or land. This would make it so that there is no advantage to donating 12 trillion to your alliance unless you want to help the less fortunate players keep up with your brilliant play!

You could also make it so that funds given to a player would count as double towards their score.

dakbrew

[Cyrus]

I agree the Idea is totally abusable as written but that does not make it a stupid idea!

One way to make it not so abusable would be to make it so that donating funds does not lower your score. Score should only be lost in battle either loosing troops or land. This would make it so that there is no advantage to donating 12 trillion to your alliance unless you want to help the less fortunate players keep up with your brilliant play!

You could also make it so that funds given to a player would count as double towards their score.

dakbrew

cash = score therefore your idea doesnt work and people need to learn to get better by going out and growing not being baby fed
you cant start saying cash = more score when its transfered etc because then if a small player is given loads of cash then he gets zero'd, youve jsut invented score that stands for nothing.

[Jonny]

I agree the Idea is totally abusable as written but that does not make it a stupid idea!

One way to make it not so abusable would be to make it so that donating funds does not lower your score. Score should only be lost in battle either loosing troops or land. This would make it so that there is no advantage to donating 12 trillion to your alliance unless you want to help the less fortunate players keep up with your brilliant play!

You could also make it so that funds given to a player would count as double towards their score.

dakbrew

I agree that it might not be that bad an idea if you can get it to work without being misused. Making it count double sounds like a good idea but you would have to make it counting double continue to count as double for a while before wearing off slowly even after using the funds! even after buying devs for example. Also score isn't much of a problem for the top alliance, they could easily just feed the strongest, and in doing so lower themselves far enough to steal land from weaker players while injoying def from the strongest player... I like the idea of a huge tax like say 50% more, as kind of an insurance idea for if you get zeroed.

I have one last point to make though, I believe this would be quite a serious advantage for alliance members and if done one would have to compensate the solos appropriately for this disadvantage. One idea would be to give the solos a kind of "bank" where they could deposit cash (but not seeds) at the cost of 50%. This money could be withdrawn at any time with exception of after joinig an alliance at which point the funds would be frozen until the player leaves the alliance.

-Jonny

[Alcibiades]

there is no advantage to donating 12 trillion to your alliance unless you want to help the less fortunate players keep up with your brilliant play!

dakbrew

That is the advantage. Having even something realistic like 500-750 bill to give to your low ranked players is a HUGE advantage. Like, getting game cash for free.

No, I can't support this idea. The abuse is the ability to transfer funds once you've given them away in the first place. You shouldn't be able to disperse them as you wish and I don't think you can find a solution because the problem is making the funds transferable imo.

[Dakbrew]

cash = score therefore your idea doesnt work and people need to learn to get better by going out and growing not being baby fed
you cant start saying cash = more score when its transfered etc because then if a small player is given loads of cash then he gets zero'd, youve jsut invented score that stands for nothing.

I think you missed the point people were saying that there needs to be a down side to moving cash around in an alliance.
My solution provides a down side

If you move cash from a large player and he does not drop score just because he gives up some cash the only reason for him to do so is if overall it helps the alliance.

As a side note would like to see an end to scores dropping when huge amounts of cash are spent on Developments. If as you say Cyrus Cash = Score why should investing cash in a Development lower your score? If anything it should Improve your score not lower it.

Dakbrew

[Alcibiades]

As a side note would like to see an end to scores dropping when huge amounts of cash are spent on Developments. If as you say Cyrus Cash = Score why should investing cash in a Development lower your score? If anything it should Improve your score not lower it.

Dakbrew

As far as I know, you gain score once a development is complete. An analogy I once heard about Devs here was that you lose score immediately because it's like investing in a Stadium for a sports team; you initially lose a LOT of money you've invested in your building; you wait ages and ages (ticks) for it to develop/get built; then you've got these shiny new troops/shiny new stadium; and thus your investment has borne fruit and your score goes up to compensate. So you temporarily lose score, and then gain more when the dev finishes. I believe that's how it used to work... although it may well be different now.

Also, as a benefit; those new troops (usually) help you either get more land with greater ease or help you keep land with greater ease; thus making them an even better investment. So while you lose a bit of score in devving it's actually nice as it gives you better range of easier to hit targets and gets you out of range of the bigger guys :P. At least, that's how I feel about the situation.

Back on topic: Money shouldn't be transferable!

[Cyrus]

I think you missed the point people were saying that there needs to be a down side to moving cash around in an alliance.
My solution provides a down side

If you move cash from a large player and he does not drop score just because he gives up some cash the only reason for him to do so is if overall it helps the alliance.

As a side note would like to see an end to scores dropping when huge amounts of cash are spent on Developments. If as you say Cyrus Cash = Score why should investing cash in a Development lower your score? If anything it should Improve your score not lower it.

Dakbrew

the way the system works atm gives funds a score value. you cant possibly have it being worth more at 1 company than the other, this is why your theory doesnt work.
and money disappearing from the games economy isnt the same as transfering it from 1 id to another and doubling the score value of it here n there

[Dakbrew]

the way the system works atm gives funds a score value. you cant possibly have it being worth more at 1 company than the other, this is why your theory doesnt work.
and money disappearing from the games economy isnt the same as transfering it from 1 id to another and doubling the score value of it here n there

Money never disappears (with the exception of Money Launderer's) it buys stuff.

If some one gives you money that you did not earn why can't having it counting as more then its worth towards your score be as the down side?

Dakbrew

[Azzer]

There will never be a facility to enable fund transfers from one player to another, either through an alliance or otherwise, within Bushtarion.

[Dakbrew]

There will never be a facility to enable fund transfers from one player to another, either through an alliance or otherwise, within Bushtarion.

come on Azzer you could have let me push his buttons for a wile longer!

Dakbrew

[Cyrus]

come on Azzer you could have let me push his buttons for a wile longer!

Dakbrew

i take it your not familiar with ingame mechanisms? because then you'd understand what your saying isnt possible, but anyways, azzman as spoken

[Dakbrew]

i take it your not familiar with ingame mechanisms? because then you'd understand what your saying isnt possible, but anyways, azzman as spoken

AH yes just pretend Im a noob if that makes you more comfortable.

Not possible and not practical are not the same thing.

Dakbrew

[Cyrus]

okay then it isnt practical due to the ingame workings, finally we agree

[Dakbrew]

okay then it isnt practical due to the ingame workings, finally we agree

ROFLMAO it is not practical because Azzer does not want it to happen!

Dakbrew

[tobapopalos]

I agree with Cyrus (baffling in itself). I'd hate to see any changes of this sort made, and I'm glad Azzer has made it clear that it will never happen.