Guild Bank

This is where the best suggestions are moved to, so discussion can carry on with moderation and be more easily read by the volunteers and development team.

Moderator: Support Moderators

Forum rules
Opening new topics in this forum is not possible, you may only reply to existing topics.

Only users with 50 or more posts can reply to topics.

This forum is moderated, so any posts will have to be approved by a moderator before being published.
Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Event Horizon » Tue 06 Nov, 2012 13:02

Well, as I said I do think this is a very workable idea. However, I don't feel like you're really addressing the main point of my reservations which is that there is really no reason to require that the bonuses ONLY apply when you trade with players in your same guild. You haven't given a rationale for that requirement. I've already stated how this cuts against the way players already choose to play the game (ie. strongholding). The result is that I don't think many guilds would bother to invest in it. If a guild chooses to stronghold and build up a guild bank only trading with themselves to take full advantage of the bonus to uniques I'm pretty sure that even with the distance bonus they would end up with less trade income because even at a bonus of 2000 to distance that's still half what an LD trade gives you. A guild that effectively breaks itself into two groups in two far flung galaxies to max out their trade route distances and still be able to take advantage of the uniques bonus to stack with it is going to get a significantly higher level of trade income. For one player that might seem small but add this up across a guild and it becomes quite significant. The problem with this is that what makes poor strategic sense in the game is rewarded by this insistence that the Guild Bank bonuses can ONLY apply to trades with members of the same guild. It's not that it is impossible to implement that way, it's that it runs counter to what makes sense for guild strategy in all other respects. Trades should be LD and with other players and guilds and be vulnerable. It adds a level of guild to guild interaction to the game. I also think it makes sense that there is risk involved when choosing trade partners.

Secondly, there is no way this should be implemented if the bonuses to trade distances don't result in credits that are plunderable from the Guild Bank. Otherwise you are creating credits from nothing. If the guild bank bonus to a trade results in 1300 increased distance then anyone who plunders that trade should be taking the 1300 credit bonus from the Guild Bank of the player to whom the bonus applies. Balancing risk and reward. It's already possible to have players on different ends of a trade getting different amounts of income from that trade because of the number of uniques each has. Players from different guilds with different bonuses simply add their respective bonuses to the trade route to get a total. You would have to cut the existing bonuses in half for this to work but otherwise there's really no problem with doing things this way. Guilds that have high bonuses to their TR distances will find it easier to get good LD trades because they pass those bonuses on to their partners as well. At the same time choosing safe trading partners becomes even more important since the funds in the bank (and the bonuses they support) are vulnerable to attack and plunder.

User avatar
Ferdoc
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 13933
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 19:05
Reputation: 114
Guild: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!
Location: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Ferdoc » Wed 07 Nov, 2012 15:25

Event Horizon wrote:Well, as I said I do think this is a very workable idea. However, I don't feel like you're really addressing the main point of my reservations which is that there is really no reason to require that the bonuses ONLY apply when you trade with players in your same guild. You haven't given a rationale for that requirement. I've already stated how this cuts against the way players already choose to play the game (ie. strongholding). The result is that I don't think many guilds would bother to invest in it. If a guild chooses to stronghold and build up a guild bank only trading with themselves to take full advantage of the bonus to uniques I'm pretty sure that even with the distance bonus they would end up with less trade income because even at a bonus of 2000 to distance that's still half what an LD trade gives you. A guild that effectively breaks itself into two groups in two far flung galaxies to max out their trade route distances and still be able to take advantage of the uniques bonus to stack with it is going to get a significantly higher level of trade income. For one player that might seem small but add this up across a guild and it becomes quite significant. The problem with this is that what makes poor strategic sense in the game is rewarded by this insistence that the Guild Bank bonuses can ONLY apply to trades with members of the same guild. It's not that it is impossible to implement that way, it's that it runs counter to what makes sense for guild strategy in all other respects. Trades should be LD and with other players and guilds and be vulnerable. It adds a level of guild to guild interaction to the game. I also think it makes sense that there is risk involved when choosing trade partners.


Ok. So the fact that the entire concept line is based around boosting your own guild doesn't count? The concept is about improving the point of a guild in as many aspects as possible. Yes, this is a lesser aspect in the matter. Yes, the change is basically inconsequential as compared to the total concept. However changing it to allow those outside your guild to help you generate more income within a concept to boost those inside your guild goes against the grain. Can you justify such a demand for change other than that it is poor strategic sense to keep resource protected. As everyone in the game; "Would you like to have your TRs be worth what they are now and vulnerable, or the same and be safer?"

Also, please refrain from presenting your opinion as fact, TRs should be what any player who creates them deems them to be.

Event Horizon wrote:Secondly, there is no way this should be implemented if the bonuses to trade distances don't result in credits that are plunderable from the Guild Bank.


Open to abuse, no.

Gotta love those death threats
Soubanth wrote:you're going to help him even if it kill you.
Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Event Horizon » Sat 10 Nov, 2012 13:08

Ferdoc wrote:
Event Horizon wrote:Well, as I said I do think this is a very workable idea. However, I don't feel like you're really addressing the main point of my reservations which is that there is really no reason to require that the bonuses ONLY apply when you trade with players in your same guild. You haven't given a rationale for that requirement. I've already stated how this cuts against the way players already choose to play the game (ie. strongholding). The result is that I don't think many guilds would bother to invest in it. If a guild chooses to stronghold and build up a guild bank only trading with themselves to take full advantage of the bonus to uniques I'm pretty sure that even with the distance bonus they would end up with less trade income because even at a bonus of 2000 to distance that's still half what an LD trade gives you. A guild that effectively breaks itself into two groups in two far flung galaxies to max out their trade route distances and still be able to take advantage of the uniques bonus to stack with it is going to get a significantly higher level of trade income. For one player that might seem small but add this up across a guild and it becomes quite significant. The problem with this is that what makes poor strategic sense in the game is rewarded by this insistence that the Guild Bank bonuses can ONLY apply to trades with members of the same guild. It's not that it is impossible to implement that way, it's that it runs counter to what makes sense for guild strategy in all other respects. Trades should be LD and with other players and guilds and be vulnerable. It adds a level of guild to guild interaction to the game. I also think it makes sense that there is risk involved when choosing trade partners.


Ok. So the fact that the entire concept line is based around boosting your own guild doesn't count? The concept is about improving the point of a guild in as many aspects as possible. Yes, this is a lesser aspect in the matter. Yes, the change is basically inconsequential as compared to the total concept. However changing it to allow those outside your guild to help you generate more income within a concept to boost those inside your guild goes against the grain. Can you justify such a demand for change other than that it is poor strategic sense to keep resource protected. As everyone in the game; "Would you like to have your TRs be worth what they are now and vulnerable, or the same and be safer?"

Also, please refrain from presenting your opinion as fact, TRs should be what any player who creates them deems them to be.


You need to go review some English grammar if you think a statement with "should" constitutes a statement of fact. That is an opinion. Doesn't require "I think" to be so. And just to show you how inane your comment is I want my trade routes to be impervious fortresses that can smash bases 5 galaxies away and ride pink ponies...oh wait they can't be because someone decided they can't be when they coded the game.

I don't know if you were around when they had the old trading system or not but it was pretty wonky. You had guilds building half their bases in one galaxy and the other half in galaxies as far away as possible. Didn't make much sense and everyone knew it. It was just one of those weird little quirks of the game. It also didn't encourage players to trade with each other or outside their guilds. It wasn't working the way trade would normally be expected to work. When the new trade formula was instituted entire guilds were relocating their bases, especially as strongholds based on jg networks and fleet dominance became the norm. The trade formula does reflect an idea of what trading "should" be. It says that players should be rewarded for trading across vast distances and risking their credits trading with other players in other guilds whose bases they can't see. It says that players should be rewarded for trading with as many other different players as possible meaning that you have to trade outside your guild to max out. That trading system with it's proscribed method of trading has been a big success and I don't see anything in your proposal that necessitates undermining it.

Nor am I suggesting something that goes against the grain of your proposal. You've got it backwards. It's this one aspect of an otherwise very interesting proposal that goes against the grain of the game. I'd like to see this idea get implemented which is why I'm suggesting you amend it so that it doesn't do that. Trade is about interaction between guilds, at least it seems quite clear that that is how the devs have intended for it to work, which I think makes a lot of sense to most players. If you want to change that then go talk to one of the devs and ask them if they think it's a good idea to undercut the changes they made to the trade formula and send us back to the bad old days when the trading system was broken. Why would we want to encourage less income from trades in exchange for greater protection of assets? How is that good for the game? We already have enough turtling and simming going on. How does that even accord with your stated aim of boosting one's own guild? If you really wanted to boost your own guild then you'd want what I'm proposing because it means more income for everyone in the guild as the result of an organized effort. What you're proposing is a bad trade off (pun intended). Does it not occur to you that guilds with a lot invested in their guild banks are going to seek out trade with other guilds who have done the same? Guilds that have built their guild banks up will be in a position to pick and choose who they trade with. The existing trade formula has been a big part of driving higher production capacities by pushing empire incomes, your most stable source of credits, way up. Higher production caps mean more ships and more game play. I doubt you'll find many players who would want to reverse that. [/quote]


Ferdoc wrote:
Event Horizon wrote:Secondly, there is no way this should be implemented if the bonuses to trade distances don't result in credits that are plunderable from the Guild Bank.


Open to abuse, no.


I can't believe you're making that argument. You should know better given how much you've been involved in Feature Requests. Trades are already open to abuse, as are many other features in the game. That doesn't rule them out as features. Naturally we assume that players will not break the rules and that measures are already taken to prevent cheating. Players can't plunder the trades of their own guild members and I've never heard of anyone using trades as a source of credit transfer although it is theoretically possible.

All credits generated in the game initially come from empire income off base structures and trades. You can hide credits in your queues (much easier to do later in the game) to a limited extent but those credits always come out the other end in a form that can be attacked and taken by another player whether through debris, plunder or pillage. Why should Guild Banks be the exception to this rule? I don't see any need for it. If players put credits into something it should lead to the possibility of attacking it and taking it. And I thought FRs that ask for ways to hide credits had already been ruled out a long time ago. And again this really isn't a major change to your proposal. It's simply asking that the feature be consistent with the rest of the game.

User avatar
Ferdoc
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 13933
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 19:05
Reputation: 114
Guild: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!
Location: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Ferdoc » Mon 12 Nov, 2012 21:46

Event Horizon wrote:You need to go review some English grammar if you think a statement with "should" constitutes a statement of fact. That is an opinion. Doesn't require "I think" to be so.


You should, uh oh there's that word again!, really pay attention to who says what.

Ok. So the fact that the entire concept line is based around boosting your own guild doesn't count? The concept is about improving the point of a guild in as many aspects as possible. Yes, this is a lesser aspect in the matter. Yes, the change is basically inconsequential as compared to the total concept. However changing it to allow those outside your guild to help you generate more income within a concept to boost those inside your guild goes against the grain. Can you justify such a demand for change other than that it is poor strategic sense to keep resource protected. As everyone in the game; "Would you like to have your TRs be worth what they are now and vulnerable, or the same and be safer?"


Here is where I lay out the basis of this concept, ie the fact of its foundation. Where is the word 'should' in there? and "I think"? Its not present in the portion where the fact of the concept is laid out.

Event Horizon wrote: And just to show you how inane your comment is I want my trade routes to be impervious fortresses that can smash bases 5 galaxies away and ride pink ponies...oh wait they can't be because someone decided they can't be when they coded the game.


I'm sorry, I thought I was dealing with an individual who could think and understand the basis of statements. I guess assuming you have a working knowledge of AE and the limitations of already defined concepts, new FRs not withstanding, would be a given. I apologize for mistaking you for someone who can critically think.


Event Horizon wrote:Nor am I suggesting something that goes against the grain of your proposal.


By suggesting that the bonus should apply OUTSIDE of the guild, you are infect going 100% against the grain of the concept. This is about making the internal guild stronge, you'll notice that your against the grain suggestion contradicts other portions of the OP... well you would know that if you read it all.


Event Horizon wrote:I'd like to see this idea get implemented which is why I'm suggesting you amend it so that it doesn't do that.


You're one to talk about grammar. "I would like to see this idea get implemented which is why I'm suggesting you amend the idea so that it doesn't get implemented"

Is one of two interpretations of what you said there. Non-specific identifiers, such as it and that, are directly related to the statement made. It is obviously the concept but 'do that' is open to speculation. It could either be 'go against the grain' or 'get implemented'. As do that is in reference to an action. Saying 'go against the grain' doesn't make much sense, as again the concept is ALL ABOUT IMPROVING GUILDS. For it to go against the grain would require the grain to demand the depression and whittling down of the point of guilds. Guilds are merely a JG sharing network. That's it. Everything else in AE can be provided outside of the game either in similar or greater quality / quantity. So for the premise of your statement to mean 'go against the grain' would require you to admit that AE wants to kill guilds. Otherwise you don't want this idea implemented.

Isn't being picked apart for grammar fun?

Event Horizon wrote:Trade is about interaction between guilds, at least it seems quite clear that that is how the devs have intended for it to work, which I think makes a lot of sense to most players. If you want to change that then go talk to one of the devs and ask them if they think it's a good idea to undercut the changes they made to the trade formula and send us back to the bad old days when the trading system was broken.


Nice hyperbole. I guess you don't want guilds to have any point at all other than JG networks.

Event Horizon wrote: Why would we want to encourage less income from trades in exchange for greater protection of assets?


I see a claim against my math and no math backing it up. Please provide data otherwise this 'comment' will be ignored, as will all 'arguments' stemming from it.


Event Horizon wrote:
I can't believe you're making that argument.


I am because its true. The matter is open to abuse as is and already stated within the framework of the concept as to how it would function. Stripping bank econ from a guild from a TR, which you suggest should be any TR, does what? it funnels money directly to the powerful guilds from the not so lucky. The not so lucky, reads small, guilds now see their ability to get bonuses, bases and technology disapear before their very eyes just because they were in a guild with TRs. By not having your suggested 'feature' allows them to hunker down, keep building the bank, and maintain their ability to gather some form of benefit rather than having it plundered out from under them.

Then again, I guess you might not consider ruining the ability of the smaller and weaker to engage in a mechanic as abuse.

Gotta love those death threats
Soubanth wrote:you're going to help him even if it kill you.
Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Event Horizon » Thu 29 Nov, 2012 11:04

One question about your math in the OP. Did you account for compound growth? Your tables all appear to be based on income as taken from existing servers and averaged for the top 15 ranked guilds over various time periods. Certainly an impressive bit of data collection and assessment but what seems to be missing is what happens when you implement the Guild Bank and economies start growing as a result. A 1% increase to econ makes that next level of the guild bank that much faster to attain. I don't feel inclined to try and crunch that many numbers for that many tables but I think it's fair to estimate that the time frames you're laying out for reaching the soft cap would be significantly shorter once compound growth is taken into account and in fact that soft cap would end up being significantly higher. Anyway, that probably just means some tweaking of the numbers and not a fatal problem with the idea on its own.

A second related issue is the issue of server life span. I realize we're talking about a proposal that is linked with others but just looking at the bonuses received to speed and trade and factoring in compound growth I think you run into the problem of accelerating the death of servers. It's not simply that highly active guilds will be able to take greater advantage of this feature it's that the gap between these guilds and the rest will grow faster than before. The time it takes for one or two guilds to completely dominate a server would shorten as a result. That would seem to negate any benefit gained by smaller or less active guilds and bring into question the entire concept. I'm not saying the idea should be abandoned because of this but i do think it reminds us that there is a fundamental issue in the game that needs to be addressed before features like this one are implemented.

Coming back to the issues we've been debating...

First, I think it seems pretty obvious that having GB bonuses apply to all trades and not just those within the guild is still going to be of great benefit to all guild members. Nor does it benefit those outside the guild in equal proportion. The unique trading partner bonus would, as now, apply only to the members of the guild and would not effect the income trading partners outside the guild receive when trading with guild members. The value of a trade route to me and my trading partner is not the same because we each have a different number of unique trading partners. The distance bonus would apply to trades outside the guild, but again that is of advantage to all members of the guild who want to get the best possible LD trades and max out the benefits of their GB bonuses. This becomes a matter of player and guild interaction. Your GB becomes a factor in determining who is willing to trade with you. Guild A that sinks the full 10% into its GB is going to be able to attract trade with another guild B that has done the same. Guild C that fails to build up their GB will find themselves unable to secure the best LD trades.

Second, after looking at the numbers more closely I see a big problem with the distance bonus being protected from plunder. The trade distance bonus is in fact huge when applied to short distance trades. The difference between a 5000 distance trade and a 10000 distance trade is only about 5 credits per hour with 100 unique trading partners and the lowest base econ at 200. So I'll take back what I said about this pushing guilds to spread themselves out to maximize the bonus. I think that wouldn't outweigh the benefits of a stronghold. But there is a significant problem here. The difference between a 20 distance trade and a 4000 distance trade is very big. At least double the value. So with the GB you can achieve near LD trade benefits while keeping your trades almost completely impervious to being plundered for profit. In fact cancelling and setting them back up again would be no big deal. Given that a big part of the profit in hitting bases, especially ringed bases is in taking LD trades, this would make a lot of bases, that are currently profitable to attack, unprofitable. You wouldn't need dreads and pshields to protect those trades anymore. Sacrificing a few hundred credits off your hourly income of 5000 or 6000 to have all trades cheap and basically untouchable AND at the same time make your base far less profitable to hit would be well worth it. Too worth it. Guilds would take all the credits they normally invest in LD trades and put them into their GB to pump up their short trades. Realizing just how significant this would be only makes me want to reject this idea if the distance bonuses can't be plundered. It is already hard work finding decent targets to attack for profit. This would just take one major source of profit out of the game, the trade plunder. If that distance bonus can't be plundered I think you're talking about a change that the most active players wouldn't support. It might appeal to people who want to turtle up on their bases and sim their lives away but for attacking players this would be a major blow to their profits and would end up discouraging a lot of attacks.

Here is the proposed solution to this problem: make the distance bonus plunderable BUT don't take the credits from the guild bank. Instead make it that so that GB distance bonuses, like base econs after pillaging, take time to recover to their full value. So a base wouldn't be able to get full GB trade distance bonuses until its econ had recovered to 100%.

User avatar
Ferdoc
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 13933
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 19:05
Reputation: 114
Guild: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!
Location: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Ferdoc » Thu 29 Nov, 2012 17:25

Event Horizon wrote: I don't feel inclined to try and crunch that many numbers for that many tables


Then I have no inclination to give you an answer when you use vague terms like 'much faster' and don't provide something quantifiable. If you don't see how you can reduce your own work load nor bother ask how you can, why should I entertain your responses at all?

Event Horizon wrote:A second related issue is the issue of server life span. I realize we're talking about a proposal that is linked with others but just looking at the bonuses received to speed and trade and factoring in compound growth I think you run into the problem of accelerating the death of servers. It's not simply that highly active guilds will be able to take greater advantage of this feature it's that the gap between these guilds and the rest will grow faster than before. The time it takes for one or two guilds to completely dominate a server would shorten as a result. That would seem to negate any benefit gained by smaller or less active guilds and bring into question the entire concept. I'm not saying the idea should be abandoned because of this but i do think it reminds us that there is a fundamental issue in the game that needs to be addressed before features like this one are implemented.


That's a fundamental flaw in all concepts. Just like larger guilds being able to use a concept to a fuller degree and to receive a greater benefit from it. One could always argue that server death is speed up in the same manner. Its a flaw in all concepts and in a similar manner as to the power issue, since we do not consider the topic of power in discussing flaws (unless of course the power given is vastly overwhelming) I have no care to discuss server death either.

Event Horizon wrote:Coming back to the issues we've been debating...


Seeing as I don't think you're getting the subtle hint I guess I have to outright state it. The GB bonuses are not up for debate. the concept is about benefiting the guild and only the guild. You want to change the CONCEPT FOUNDATION, which in turn alters the point of the idea.

I amazed at how long you continue to argue to do so. If you want it done, I suggest you create a concept of your own that does this, don't hijack mine to alter it to a degree that has no relation to its original intent.


Event Horizon wrote:Here is the proposed solution to this problem: make the distance bonus plunderable BUT don't take the credits from the guild bank.


We've already had this discussion.....


Event Horizen wrote:Following on the previous point, I need a bit of clarification on what happens with trade plunders. The distance bonus can be plundered. Where do these increased credits come from since you're not paying it when you set up the route?


Ferdoc wrote:It was not stated in the OP, which does mean they come out of nowhere. Yes, it is instant credits that can be abused. However in the original thread this issue was brought up and resolved. Astro Empires has a method through which actions can be flagged. The plundering of these trade routes can cause these flags to be tossed up and have a manual review of the actions. Should the offending players seem to be involved in credit transfer both will be penalized as appropriate within the game. No protective measure is needed since taking action in a manner to abuse this is already against the ToS and doing so will result in harsh punishments.


TR bonus distance can be plundered.


Event Horizon wrote:Instead make it that so that GB distance bonuses, like base econs after pillaging, take time to recover to their full value. So a base wouldn't be able to get full GB trade distance bonuses until its econ had recovered to 100%.



No. Punishes smaller and weaker guilds to the point where the addition of the concept won't be used by them. HeiHo rolls in farms a small guild who is saving up diligently and poof, there goes all of their bonuses. And since you say it should be like econ it'll take 1,200 hours (remember its 1 point ever 12 hours, or 50 days. For them to see their bonuses return.

Gotta love those death threats
Soubanth wrote:you're going to help him even if it kill you.
Event Horizon
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri 26 Jan, 2007 20:03
Reputation: 10
Guild: [╰▲╯] Ævikings
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Event Horizon » Fri 30 Nov, 2012 03:04

Since you're being difficult I'll lay this out for you so that it is crystal clear just how limited your own math really is.

Ferdoc wrote:
Data Time - below is just a lay down of the information that I've pulled in order to detail out the FR. Read the below and understand that the data will mostly speak for itself.

Code: Select all

Income using markers      
   Generic Guild - XYZ   
Income up to   total   10%
6 months   1,346,104,524   134,610,452
12 months   2,099,100,400   209,910,040
24 months   5,158,137,952   515,813,795
48 months   11,400,122,672   1,140,012,267
Total   20,003,465,548   2,000,346,555


I used the above as the marker for the soft cap for the top ranked guilds. To come to the above I used the below info sets as baseline.



This is grossly oversimplified math and won't give even a reasonable estimate of where the soft cap needs to be. The growth of the guild bank and the economic growth of guild members is not going to be linear. Economic growth in AE is not even linear to begin with. Here are the false assumptions you've used:

A. You're assuming that there will be no further economic growth on these servers. You'd need to look at the economic growth trends on each server to establish a baseline curve to track growth in GB contributions.

B. You're assuming that the Guild Bank itself has no impact on the economy of guilds or their members (a rather surprising assumption for you to be making given that that is the whole point of the GB as presented here - other linked proposals notwithstanding). The only starting point you could realistically try to use is the current hourly income of the average account on a given server (or broken down by guild, rank etc. as you've tried to do here) and then try to calculate the exponential impact of the guild bank on economic growth after factoring in the current economic growth trends. Phew! That was a mouthful. Unfortunately, because the GB bonuses are attained in a stepwise fashion and involve three different variables this makes it much more difficult to calculate. You're going to need to use a fair bit of integral calculus (and probably some software to run the calcs once you have the equations set up) here to try and predict the time frames involved for reaching a given level of GB contributions. It has been years since I studied integral calculus and exponential growth and I'm out of practice so I'm not going to even pretend that I could do these calculations. Apparently neither can you or you would have at least recognized this problem before you embarked on laying out these extensive tables and probably saved yourself a lot of effort.

C. Accounting for the impact of the speed bonus and for how guilds and players will adapt their playing styles to the introduction of GB to take greater advantage of it's economic benefits is effectively impossible but it would necessitate some further degree of conservatism in setting out the GB bonuses and the contributions required. Most likely this would require a trial and error approach using a test (speed) server.

The take home message here is that your obsession with numbers, tables and predictive modelling seems to be out of step with your actual mathematical ability. If you know anything about exponential growth then you'll know that the impact on your predictions is likely to be very significant. I'm not going to repeat your mistake and attempt to predict things which I know I can't predict. It's enough to point out the flawed assumptions you're operating on and leave it to you to adjust your OP accordingly or simply acknowledge that you don't have the math skills to do it and that perhaps FR is not the place to try and demonstrate them if you do. No one here cares and I doubt anyone other than myself and you have actually looked over your tables and numbers with any veracity. I'm suggesting here that the measure of a good FR is not in its numbers or its ability to predict results as you seem to believe. You're dealing here with casual gamers not expert game developers. Developers may look at our suggestions but I doubt very much that any numbers we generate are going to matter much to them. Even if your numbers are accurate the player base by and large doesn't have the ability to assess that. The tables and numbers just end up being a lot of irrelevant noise. Discussing at a conceptual level based on knowledge and experience of the game should be the primary objective imo. Leave the numbers to the experts and expect that any predictions are likely to be proven wrong in Beta testing. Good ideas usually sell themselves. Take a look at my Guild Maps FR as an example. No math, just simple, clear ideas.

Take out most of the tables and this FR is actually really interesting. And I'm generally very supportive of Guild oriented FRs, again as you can see from the Guild Maps FR I have in this workshop. Unfortunately, the way you present your ideas and your misguided attempt to "prove" that your way is the best only discourages more than a handful of people from taking a good look at it or engaging in discussion with you. In other words, try being a little more humble.

User avatar
Ferdoc
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 13933
Joined: Wed 23 Jan, 2008 19:05
Reputation: 114
Guild: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!
Location: ZORAN is a GLOBAL DICTATOR!

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Ferdoc » Mon 17 Dec, 2012 21:12

Event Horizon wrote:This is grossly oversimplified math and won't give even a reasonable estimate of where the soft cap needs to be. The growth of the guild bank and the economic growth of guild members is not going to be linear. Economic growth in AE is not even linear to begin with.


Oh goodie another ambious term; 'reasonable'. So where do you define it? Oh yea no where. So you would prefer I did a day by day growth comparison? Because that is the only way to perfectly state where the soft cap would be. Should I predict where each and every guild member is? calculate 250 players worth of bases, a mix of free and upgraded? To do so I need to gather the actual number of free and upgraded in a sample server each and every day for YEARS to make sure the information is accurate. Then I'ld need to plan out bases for every player. Can't use carbon copy bases because that wouldn't be reasonable (no 2 players will have perfectly exact timing on everything). I'll need to simulate server wars, combat, farming, the loss / gain of players and bannings. Yep. I'll need to do all of that work to satisfy your ambigious term of 'reasonable'. Oh yea, if you bothered to do any math you'ld notice the amounts quoted were not linear either, but hey, why bother checking to see if your complaint event comes true.


A. You're assuming that there will be no further economic growth on these servers. You'd need to look at the economic growth trends on each server to establish a baseline curve to track growth in GB contributions.


4 years out to hit the soft cap under the numbers used. And another 2 years to get 1 more level with the numbers provided. Did you bother to run numbers yourself to show that the information I provided was misleading, or is this another fluff claim? If you can't be bothered to do the math yourself and show your assumptions in that regard, refrain from asking me to do it for you.

B. You're assuming that the Guild Bank itself has no impact on the economy of guilds or their members (a rather surprising assumption for you to be making given that that is the whole point of the GB as presented here - other linked proposals notwithstanding). The only starting point you could realistically try to use is the current hourly income of the average account on a given server (or broken down by guild, rank etc. as you've tried to do here) and then try to calculate the exponential impact of the guild bank on economic growth after factoring in the current economic growth trends. Phew! That was a mouthful.


And in that mouthful you just restated part A in a different way.

Unfortunately, because the GB bonuses are attained in a stepwise fashion and involve three different variables this makes it much more difficult to calculate. You're going to need to use a fair bit of integral calculus (and probably some software to run the calcs once you have the equations set up) here to try and predict the time frames involved for reaching a given level of GB contributions. It has been years since I studied integral calculus and exponential growth and I'm out of practice so I'm not going to even pretend that I could do these calculations. Apparently neither can you or you would have at least recognized this problem before you embarked on laying out these extensive tables and probably saved yourself a lot of effort.


I've studied integral calculus as well, this doesn't fall under it. Its an investment business approach of anticipated gains under certain givens. The bet is either placed upon non-impact or impact. Does the investment have a significant enough impact upon the normal trend that it would speed up / slow down the trend. Since I didn't include it, guess which one I put my bet on. EH, while you and I might argue about the concept I know you can pull off a baseline approach of this. I did so BEFORE delving into the world of advanced calculus.

C. Accounting for the impact of the speed bonus and for how guilds and players will adapt their playing styles to the introduction of GB to take greater advantage of it's economic benefits is effectively impossible but it would necessitate some further degree of conservatism in setting out the GB bonuses and the contributions required. Most likely this would require a trial and error approach using a test (speed) server.


Impossible to predict let alone calculate w/o server side information. Since we can't predict it we must operate under the assumption of no impact.


EH, what you demand here takes years to do. Not for the actual calculations but merely for the data gathering. You use horribly vague terms to criticize what you can not, or choose not to, attack with math. Since you seem rather unwilling to understand things I'll spell it out for you clearly;

Provide math for your next challenge, otherwise you are just making claims without any proof.

Gotta love those death threats
Soubanth wrote:you're going to help him even if it kill you.
User avatar
Tomination
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Posts: 3789
Joined: Tue 26 Feb, 2008 21:57
Reputation: 95
Guild: WL/STARK
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Tomination » Mon 04 Feb, 2013 23:49

I appreciate the effort in this thread, but regardless of effort, I dont see the point. And its not a guild bank, but just my 2 cents or pence

Welcome to the Tomination: If there is no struggle, there is no progress.

Formerly played Alpha (2008 - 2013) (CLS), Currently playing Lynx (WL/STARK)
User avatar
Khamul Nazgul
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: Mon 08 Sep, 2008 10:36
Reputation: 107
Guild: [«o»]
Galaxy: Alpha

Re: Guild Bank

Postby Khamul Nazgul » Tue 05 Mar, 2013 05:52

Dislike.

Encourages Zerg Guilds.
Encourages Multi accounts that will put all economy they can into Guild bank.

- Retired Vice Leader of Mordor.
- Retired Guild Master of CRUEL.

Return to “FR Workshop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests