The First Mega Game International Bank - Page 4

Kristoffer O · #31 May 9th, 2008, 12:12 PM

You don't mean Antibanking Republic of Socialist Earth, by any chance?

Ironhawk · #32 May 9th, 2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

AreaOfEffect said:
I'm a believer of player honesty.

...

Besides, what makes you think I'm not already constructing the blacklist...

Ummm, cause making a blacklist before you have actual cause to do so would make this whole bank thing just an excercise in pre-game alliances. Thats really bad form!

Jazzepi · #33 May 9th, 2008, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Kristoffer O said:
You don't mean Antibanking Republic of Socialist Earth, by any chance?

You got me D:

Jazzepi

AreaOfEffect · #34 May 9th, 2008, 06:52 PM

I don't see why shareholders can't attack each other. The only service being provided is a front where people can request funds and executives redirect them to other nations. That and a collectively agreed upon interest rate. If a shareholder wants to attack me, that's fine. Nothing in the charter prohibits this from happening.

The only provision for military action is against those that break the trust of the nations they loan from. The real point is not pre-game alliance, but rather a agreement amongst players that foul play will not be tolerated. The only reason to make this as formal as it is, is because loaning is rarely done in dominion games and I want to exercise it in a way I think would allow it to actually work.

Let's face it, anyone can grant a loan, however, if you are just one nation then you have almost no guarantee that the money will come back. If it makes people feel better I am willing to open the trust up to everyone. This ensures that if someone wants to con another player, all other players will respond to the act.

Ironhawk is right by the way, making a blacklist without reason is indeed bad form. However, if I do plan on putting a player on the list, I assure you I will have good reasons for doing so. I will be ready with direct links to comments from or about that player concerning their trustworthiness in previous games. It will be based on a history and not a singular event. I take the matter seriously.

chrispedersen · #35 May 9th, 2008, 08:46 PM

Each game Turn, DICE will announce the current prices of gems, in the following format:

Buy Sell
Dice Buys your Gems Dice Sells you Gems

Fire 16 18
Air 10 12
Earth 11 13
Water 10 12
Sorcery 10 12
Death 11 13
Blood 16 18

Each turn, if people wish to buy gems, and none are available, the price will increase by 1. Conversely, on turns where there are sellers but no buyers.. the prices will decrease by 1.

Each turn, the adjusted prices will be announced via message to everyone.

PS: KO - it would be really handy if you had an Exchange Order.. AKA: I will trade 5 fire gems for 78 gold. If both parties match - the trade is executed. And its not hard to impliment....

Lingchih · #36 May 9th, 2008, 09:53 PM

Now this I could get behind. A place to buy those few extra gems needed, and to sell the ones you don't need. The person running this would probably never get attacked... they are just too damn useful to everyone. Of course, it would end up being micromanagement hell for the that person, worse than being a forge *****, and I can't imagine the game would be very fun for them.

Jazzepi · #37 May 9th, 2008, 11:31 PM

Quote:

AreaOfEffect said:
I don't see why shareholders can't attack each other. The only service being provided is a front where people can request funds and executives redirect them to other nations. That and a collectively agreed upon interest rate. If a shareholder wants to attack me, that's fine. Nothing in the charter prohibits this from happening.

I was talking more about the two "executives" than the other of the 10 members. Really this whole thing smacks of a pregame alliance. Of course someone "can" attack someone else who is in a pregame alliance with them, but let's be honest, everyone who is part of this bank is obviously not going to attack each other. It's not just tacitly implied by the circumstances of the game, it doesn't make sense to attack a free, close ally who is part of a larger organization.

Jazzepi

Ironhawk · #38 May 10th, 2008, 12:52 AM

Yeah I agree with Jazzepi. While I think a gold bank is superflous anyway, the fact that it is controlled by a closed society of players who can choose how and when to enforce policy just makes it all wrong. Its a recipe not only for pre-game abuses but in-game abuses as well. If I were in the Megagame I would object to the existence of this thing.

Aezeal · #39 May 10th, 2008, 07:30 AM

anyway those pplz seem to be closer to eachother anyway so them attacking eachother is less likely in any case... if this is not allowed (and how can you not allow trading) they'll just be angry at the rest and still help eachother

otthegreat · #40 May 10th, 2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Jazzepi said:

Quote:

atul said:

Quote:

Janlm said:
Its not very polite to copy a concept and then advertise your copied concept in the originals advertisement i think

Big part of fun in the first megagame was the feeling of initial chaos and free-for-all in the beginning. I'd continue the impolite line by rudely pointing out that prior to game arranged deals which smell like informal alliance of up to 12 nations do not serve the "fun" for the disorganized rest.

Therefore, I Approve all the trashing this thread has gathered.

I completely agree, honestly. Do people really expect the bankers to attack each other if they get assigned capitals next to each other?

I HEREBY ANNOUNCE THE ANTIBANKING SOCIALISTIC REPUBLIC OF EARTH, otherwise known as ASRE! Let's join sickles against the evil corporate banking tyrants!

Jazzepi

Jazzepi whatever its called I'm with you. Down with capitalism! Yay!!