Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [358289] Alliance funds
[-358289]
ZaX500 (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 5, 2018, 3:42 a.m.
So I am a treasurer for an alliance that is quite active and I was wondering if you could donate out of the alliance funds to people/monument/lab. The way it would work is the treasurer could donate to everyone else but not be able to take any out for himself. Of course he would need to be trustworthy, but then again, if anyone is in that position, the leader should be trusting of them already. The leader would also be able to do it so if the treasurer needs it then someone can give it to them. The main point I want to stress is that the leader and treasurer would be able to send it to other players but NOT themselves.
[5007244]
AWC (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 5, 2018, 3:47 a.m.
that a good plan.
[5007245]
ZaX500 (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 5, 2018, 3:50 a.m.
Thanks. I was reading other forum and I saw some of their flaws and thought up a new plan. The main point is that they would be able to do it because bot the leader and the treasurer should be trustworthy.
[5007407]
JYT (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 5, 2018, 11:49 p.m.
could the leader and treasurer send to each other? If so, that'd defeat the purpose of not giving to themselves lol.
If the leader and treasurer were not allowed to send to each other, the leader could just temporarily demote the treasurer, send res, swap places, and send again. Again, it's prone to abuse.
It has some flaws, but still, it is a cool idea.
If the leader and treasurer were not allowed to send to each other, the leader could just temporarily demote the treasurer, send res, swap places, and send again. Again, it's prone to abuse.
It has some flaws, but still, it is a cool idea.
[5007649]
PJH_ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 7, 2018, 2:10 p.m.
It would stop people donating to the alliance if they thought that they couldn't.wouldn't benefit from its utilisation....including stopping grinding away for alliance's benefit when they've completed their individual event goals....
It would also increase the amount of "internal diplomacy" required when collective resources are doled out to individuals leading to less people actually wanting to do these roles...
Many other useful things to expend resources on if your resource is burning a hole in your pocket
It would also increase the amount of "internal diplomacy" required when collective resources are doled out to individuals leading to less people actually wanting to do these roles...
Many other useful things to expend resources on if your resource is burning a hole in your pocket
[5007669]
kookiekooks (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 7, 2018, 3:43 p.m.
The biggest problem you fail to address is this will cost GGS. Right now a member of an alliance on fire or upgrading may ask and in my alliance receive the resources he requests with no real problem.
Now lets institute this suggestion: I now no longer give directly to the player, I donate to alliance. My 50K in resources become 130K (or so going by memory) and that gets sent to the requester. Oh donations to the alliance do not have transportation cost either.
So GGE loses the money to transport the resources, and it loses the cost of someone gathering 80k in resources.
Now lets institute this suggestion: I now no longer give directly to the player, I donate to alliance. My 50K in resources become 130K (or so going by memory) and that gets sent to the requester. Oh donations to the alliance do not have transportation cost either.
So GGE loses the money to transport the resources, and it loses the cost of someone gathering 80k in resources.
[5007742]
ZaX500 (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 7, 2018, 11:37 p.m.
the leader would be able to send it to the treasurer and the treasurer to the leader.
[5007746]
ZaX500 (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 7, 2018, 11:44 p.m.
Good point kookie. Yes that would be the idea. There would be no transportation costs. It would go directly in their storehouse. Also PJH, do you donate to alliance funds? If you don't, I have no words. If you do, you might see where I am coming from.
[5007766]
PJH_ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 8, 2018, 7:58 a.m.
@ZaX500 (US1)
yep, both directly (in moderation) and indirectly through event grinding - some very valuable effects often used at times when alliance members REALLY appreciate it.... though obviously the direct giving is often more useful when given to a specific alliance goal e.g. fire fighting, to newbies to help develop, monuments etc. As the sort of mechanic you are looking for (direct giving) is already covered by what individuals can give, I'm not really sure if there's a reason to advocate developer time for it and as said, I rather think it would change the dynamics and have a negative effect as well as abuse potential
The one area, which you don't really mention, is maybe a more elegant mechanic for alliance merger.... but then again i can see reasons why not developing this would be in gge's interest.
I'll concede that exploiting the different mechanic sounds attractive but the multiplier shouldn't be an issue for most. The freeing up of barrows would be a big benefit but think how that drives other things that gge want to make money from - makes it unlikely from their perspective and would undermine a key alliance "bonding" for all those active players in an alliance
yep, both directly (in moderation) and indirectly through event grinding - some very valuable effects often used at times when alliance members REALLY appreciate it
.... though obviously the direct giving is often more useful when given to a specific alliance goal e.g. fire fighting, to newbies to help develop, monuments etc. As the sort of mechanic you are looking for (direct giving) is already covered by what individuals can give, I'm not really sure if there's a reason to advocate developer time for it and as said, I rather think it would change the dynamics and have a negative effect as well as abuse potentialThe one area, which you don't really mention, is maybe a more elegant mechanic for alliance merger.... but then again i can see reasons why not developing this would be in gge's interest.
I'll concede that exploiting the different mechanic sounds attractive but the multiplier shouldn't be an issue for most. The freeing up of barrows would be a big benefit but think how that drives other things that gge want to make money from - makes it unlikely from their perspective and would undermine a key alliance "bonding" for all those active players in an alliance
[5008616]
JYT (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 12, 2018, 3:57 p.m.
If there's no transport costs, what's stopping someone from donating a bunch of res to the alliance, having it multiplied by the donation booster, and then taking it back? Infinite, free res. Congratulations, you've broken the game LOL
[5008704]
ZaX500 (US1) [None]
:: Nov. 13, 2018, 12:43 a.m.
You have missed the biggest point I made. NO ONE would be able to take it out except the treasurer and leader. And the treasurer and leader would be able to send it to ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES. thank you.
[5008770]
Zenzer (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 13, 2018, 1:36 p.m.
This is a very old suggestion that i've seen being brought up a few times now. It's a cool idea but sending resources from funds directly to players is not going to work out.
1. Donation bonus multiples all donated resources. Meaning you could just keep on sending resources to alliance funds, get them duplicated and then send to other players, repeating the process. = infinite resources. Alliance donation bonus would have to be removed from the game completely.
2. The removal of the donation bonus will make the exisiting temporary bonuses more expensive to execute. Such as glory bonuses. Unless they reduce the wood/stone costs of the alliance bonuses which is not 100% sure that they would do.
3. Some alliances already have hundred, thousands of millions of resources in their alliance funds already. (Larger alliances) These alliances suddenly being given the ability to redistribute all those millions of resources to other players would create huge balancing issues. (Let's also not forget all the several millions of kingdom resources as well.)
4. As i believe was already mentioned above by someone else. This feature could also have the potential to cause internal issues and debates within the alliances. These are things you don't want if you want the alliance to stick together. While it might work out just fine for your own alliance, that doesn't mean it will work for all alliances.
5. Sending resources to players directly from the alliance funds would also make the market barrows travel speed bonus obselete. Because there is simply not any point in doing manual transfers if you can do it directly from the funds.
6. Once again. Balancing issues.
The ability to send resources from funds to monuments and labs is something that i do support however.
Having to send millions of resources manually to these structures is just too tedious and time consuming especially when the bonuses they give aren't that dramatic of a change. (Unless you still have those kingdom resource production buildings in your kingdom castles)
Sending resources directly to other players from funds is a whole different topic however.
1. Donation bonus multiples all donated resources. Meaning you could just keep on sending resources to alliance funds, get them duplicated and then send to other players, repeating the process. = infinite resources. Alliance donation bonus would have to be removed from the game completely.
2. The removal of the donation bonus will make the exisiting temporary bonuses more expensive to execute. Such as glory bonuses. Unless they reduce the wood/stone costs of the alliance bonuses which is not 100% sure that they would do.
3. Some alliances already have hundred, thousands of millions of resources in their alliance funds already. (Larger alliances) These alliances suddenly being given the ability to redistribute all those millions of resources to other players would create huge balancing issues. (Let's also not forget all the several millions of kingdom resources as well.)
4. As i believe was already mentioned above by someone else. This feature could also have the potential to cause internal issues and debates within the alliances. These are things you don't want if you want the alliance to stick together. While it might work out just fine for your own alliance, that doesn't mean it will work for all alliances.
5. Sending resources to players directly from the alliance funds would also make the market barrows travel speed bonus obselete. Because there is simply not any point in doing manual transfers if you can do it directly from the funds.
6. Once again. Balancing issues.
The ability to send resources from funds to monuments and labs is something that i do support however.
Having to send millions of resources manually to these structures is just too tedious and time consuming especially when the bonuses they give aren't that dramatic of a change. (Unless you still have those kingdom resource production buildings in your kingdom castles)
Sending resources directly to other players from funds is a whole different topic however.
[5008893]
JYT (US1) [US1]
:: Nov. 14, 2018, 1:46 a.m.
but you saidZaX500 (US1) said:You have missed the biggest point I made. NO ONE would be able to take it out except the treasurer and leader. And the treasurer and leader would be able to send it to ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES. thank you.
So nothing is stopping the treasurer from donating 81k wood and stone, adding 421k res total to alliance funds (+160% multiplier), and then having the leader fill the treasurer back up with plenty to spare? Sounds foolproof.ZaX500 (US1) said:the leader would be able to send it to the treasurer and the treasurer to the leader.
thank you for coming to my ted talk .
[5008926]
BM Fujiwara [None]
:: Nov. 14, 2018, 8:31 a.m.
All behold the alliances who suddenly have 50 treasurers!ZaX500 (US1) said:You have missed the biggest point I made. NO ONE would be able to take it out except the treasurer and leader. And the treasurer and leader would be able to send it to ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES. thank you.
[5008951]
PJH_ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 14, 2018, 10:36 a.m.
Ohhh.... think having the donations to monuments (and labs where still used) is also a really bad idea as well... building up a monument is key alliance bonding and no reason to give big alliances a free pass to even greater glory bonuses from their accrued wealth! Whole point of the game is rationing out all the tedious and boring repetitions to have the maximum benefit.....
Good thread though...
Good thread though...
[5008957]
Zenzer (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 14, 2018, 11:12 a.m.
PJH_ (GB1) said:Ohhh.... think having the donations to monuments (and labs where still used) is also a really bad idea as well... building up a monument is key alliance bonding and no reason to give big alliances a free pass to even greater glory bonuses from their accrued wealth! Whole point of the game is rationing out all the tedious and boring repetitions to have the maximum benefit.....
Good thread though...
Big alliances are already and will max out their monuments and labs no matter if they have to send the resources manually or through the funds. While monuments and labs upgrading can have some effect on bonding, donating resources to the alliance funds, supporting the collective is also a key way for alliance bonding, you aren't really losing out on much.
[5008990]
PJH_ (GB1) [GB1]
:: Nov. 14, 2018, 2:11 p.m.
LOl, and the lower alliances as well can get monuments to high levels... not really that hard
just saying no reason to make it even easier and to keep the time/barrow limitation in it.
just saying no reason to make it even easier and to keep the time/barrow limitation in it.