[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:

JadedRadiance Wrote:Yeah that had crossed my mind that the attacker would empty their vault before attacking, I was just hoping someone could think of a work around.

But the idea of maintaining a minimum balance of 5k or so in your gang vault would solve that issue.

nice point.

how about this....to war a gang, both need to put up 5k. winner takes the pot.


I mean these changes turn it into a totally different game, but i have to be honest, i've found the more i train, the more perks of training are removed from the game. So whynot just take that stuff out of the game altogether.

It would keep down whining, resentment, and donating gobs of money. It seems the majority of folks don't like these things anyway so why not do away with them.

[Guest]

A lot of real world banks do that. They require you to have a minimum amount in your account or they penalize you.

The same policy could be implemented here. If you don't maintain the minimum amount in your gang vault to war, you won't be able to upgrade your gang, allow any new members to join or do anything until you meet the minimum again.

To prevent people from just depositing the money to upgrade, then removing it so they don't get warred on, similar to the name change policy, there would be a block of some sorts to prevent immediate deposits and withdrawals from the gang fund.

And how much the minimum would be would depend on the number of slots in a gang. A gang just starting out may only have to maintain a $500 dollar minimum with the minimum increasing for every new slot.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:how about this....to war a gang, both need to put up 5k. winner takes the pot.


I mean these changes turn it into a totally different game, but i have to be honest, i've found the more i train, the more perks of training are removed from the game. So whynot just take that stuff out of the game altogether.

It would keep down whining, resentment, and donating gobs of money. It seems the majority of folks don't like these things anyway so why not do away with them.

That would make warring a lot less spontaneous and give the defender the option to opt out for whatever reason. One of the interesting things, and strategic things, about warring is that you never know when it's gonna be coming

[Guest]

JadedRadiance Wrote:A lot of real world banks do that. They require you to have a minimum amount in your account or they penalize you.

The same policy could be implemented here. If you don't maintain the minimum amount in your gang vault to war, you won't be able to upgrade your gang, allow any new members to join or do anything until you meet the minimum again.

To prevent people from just depositing the money to upgrade, then removing it so they don't get warred on, similar to the name change policy, there would be a block of some sorts to prevent immediate deposits and withdrawals from the gang fund.

And how much the minimum would be would depend on the number of slots in a gang. A gang just starting out may only have to maintain a $500 dollar minimum with the minimum increasing for every new slot.

Well in order for 2 gangs to war, they'd have to agree upon an amount. anything 1 dollar or more is fine. no gang upgrades. they would give unfair advantage. The satisfaction really comes from the winners renaming the members of the losing gang.

Those names stick until the losing gang wars again. A win = you can change your own names and those of the losing gang.

To war another gang, you both have to have the same # of people.

[Jolabent]

Mighke Wrote:Well in order for 2 gangs to war, they'd have to agree upon an amount. anything 1 dollar or more is fine. no gang upgrades. they would give unfair advantage. The satisfaction really comes from the winners renaming the members of the losing gang.

Those names stick until the losing gang wars again. A win = you can change your own names and those of the losing gang.

To war another gang, you both have to have the same # of people.

This would be very difficult for some gangs. Look at the villians with their 2 gangs of 21 and 23 members. They earned their gang slots. Unfortunately they would have no one to declare on since to date, no other gang consists of that size

[Guest]

The thing is Jaded, you really can't have it both ways. You either have the sanatized war thing or the blood and guts war thing. The middle road leaves room for complaints on both sides and ends up giving unfair advantage to those who haven't even earned them.

If you have an advantage, you should at least earn it. If advantages of donating and plain hard work are diminished exponentially over time as they have been it's not really fair to just give advantages to those who have neither spent as much time or money as those with the advantages they earned that way.

if i had a choice of one or the other, i choose blood and guts. Those who can't afford to keep up with the big dogs fight the less big dogs. That's just the way it is. nothing's free.

My second choice would be total sanitization. Fair is fair. If you're taking advantages away, take everyone's advantage away and put it on an even playing field for real.

You'd have to adjust gang size as part of your strategy.

[Guest]

anyway, i'm done monopolizing the thread ::everyone heaves a sigh of relief and thanks their higher power::

Summary-poop or get off the pot.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:My second choice would be total sanitization. Fair is fair. If you're taking advantages away, take everyone's advantage away and put it on an even playing field for real.

that's the point where I'd realize how pointless it is to train donate and crime, and I'd quietly quit the game without a thread to announce it.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:To be honest jola, i'd rather see these changes than the half arsed changes that make stronger players impotent.

Poop or get of the pot. The game is about money and strength or strategy.
Diluting it to the point of annoyance is a waste of time for all concerned.

Actually, I thought the game was about having fun. I know if it stopped being fun I'd just leave.

I'm glad the new safeguards were added. I come from a game very similar to this one where I was basically forced to quit because someone in my gang did something dumb. I couldn't even log in to leave the gang since I was in the hospital all the time. I like the change. It helps prevent people who like to hide behind rules to excuse their behavior from forcing people to quit.

I've donated plenty, and I don't see my donations diluted. I wouldn't be surprised if I had donated more than many others since the day I started. You obviously have a much higher stake in the game from your perch though, so who am I. I doubt the new code has made you weaker than anyone else.

I wasn't around here for the original gang code, but I am familiar with the respect points and gang deletions from the other game. Nothing like spending $100 bucks of your real money to see some snot-nosed brat delete you because you attacked his online girlfriend's sister's squeeze. As far as I'm concerned that's not fun at all.

I haven't been in a gang here yet because everyone says gang wars are just a waste. I don't think deleting gangs is going to be fun, but I wouldn't mind seeing a gang who defeats another send everyone to the hospital in one fell swoop.

[Guest]

Mighke Wrote:The thing is Jaded, you really can't have it both ways. You either have the sanatized war thing or the blood and guts war thing. The middle road leaves room for complaints on both sides and ends up giving unfair advantage to those who haven't even earned them.

If you have an advantage, you should at least earn it. If advantages of donating and plain hard work are diminished exponentially over time as they have been it's not really fair to just give advantages to those who have neither spent as much time or money as those with the advantages they earned that way.

if i had a choice of one or the other, i choose blood and guts. Those who can't afford to keep up with the big dogs fight the less big dogs. That's just the way it is. nothing's free.

My second choice would be total sanitization. Fair is fair. If you're taking advantages away, take everyone's advantage away and put it on an even playing field for real.

You'd have to adjust gang size as part of your strategy.

Oh, I agree. Out of the 2 choices, the blood and guts would be preferential. But whether it's strictly blood and guts or sanitized, there would be complaints from both sides. Lower level gangs complaining about the cost of losing blood and guts type wars or higher level players complaining that wars are too soft and there is no real point in them. I think trying to find a middle ground that both sides could be happy with would be the best option. One where there is a safety net so to speak to appease the pacifists who don't like warring and where there is also a substantial gain for warring for the ones who like wars.

Unfortunately, trying to find said middle ground to make everyone happy probably is gonna be very difficult