Alliance items

[Anthraxus]

One of the features I've been thinking about introducing into the next version of the game is a virtual equivalent to the stock market, with alliances filling the roles of companies for players to invest in.  The problem is that I have yet to think of anything that the alliance could then spend that money on.  So, I am basically looking for ideas of what Alliances could do with that pool of funds that they would get from a stock offering.  Some thought also needs to be given to what controls the player should have as a shareholder vs an alliance leader.

For something like this to fly do we need to introduce alternate control structures for alliances?  For instance, when you create your alliance you are prompted for whether it is a sole proprietorship, a governing council, or something else.  You would then have to fill a certain number of "leader" positions to be able to do anything with the alliance (including currently normal alliance bennies).

On the flip side, if alliances are able to basically make an IPO or subsequent share offering/split, should non-alliance players get some kind of counter-balancing benefit?  What limits should be put in place to prevent a player from join and dropping alliances willy-nilly to maximize the benefits of both alliance and non-alliance benefits?

This is not really a feature I plan to have open at the release of the next version (no I don't have a date for that yet), but it is a very complex thing, so the longer we have to talk about it the better it will be, I think.

[Anthraxus]

Any input from anyone on this?

[nigey]

"what Alliances could do with that pool of funds that they would get from a stock offering".
If the price of stock is set to the overall repair threshold of all the alliances settlements, funds could be used to upgrade the repair threshold and therefore increase the price of stock.

“what controls the player should have as a shareholder vs an alliance leader”.
Much as in the real world, if the leader is not meeting a set standard and someone else stands up for the job, shareholders get to vote for a new leader.

[nigey]

“For something like this to fly do we need to introduce alternate control structures for alliances?”
When a player sets up an alliance they are “sole proprietor” when stock is sold in the alliance the top ten stock holders become the “governing council”.
If  the “governing council” vote no confidence in the alliance leader an election is held among all stock holders, on a stock held basis, ie. 1 vote point per share held.
So if a alliance leader retains 51% of their stock, they can not be dislodged.

Oh Rupert if you only had the 2% more of Sky Bsb, the British media alliance would be yours.

[Anthraxus]

The way I would see it, all alliances default as a sole proprietor when they are first created, as all of the 'stock' in the alliance is controlled by them.  If the leader quits the game or chooses to end the alliance, it is immediately dissolved.  The leader can also designate a second who will be able to perform all alliance leader actions except ousting the leader or terminating the alliance.

The alliance's market value is determined by the following conditions:
  1)  Number of settlements controlled on the planet
  2)  Size of alliance monetary pool
  3)  Average experience level of alliance members
  4)  Ratio of settlements owned to the number of alliance members
  5)  Average activity time of alliance members (amount of time played)

Once the alliance's market value has reached a certain base value, the leader will have the option to submit an IPO request.  This request would define the number of shares to be offered, the number of those shares that are pre-allocated to members, how that pre-allocation will be divided up, when the IPO will happen, what management organization will be put in place after the IPO and the proposed initial price.  This request will be reviewed by the administrators and, if approved or after modifications are accepted by the leader, the IPO will be announced.

There are four types of organization structures:  Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, Board, and General.  The major distinction in these structures is which alliance actions the shareholders get a vote on, and how the current leader is controlled.  A Sole Proprietorship is basically how alliances are run currently.  The leader is the only official voice in making decisions for the alliance. Partnership allows the leader to specify a specific number of partners (no more than 4).  These partners may vote on alliance actions, with the leader having a double vote.  In both Sole and Partnership organizations, the shareholders may call for a vote of no-confidence in any leader or partner.  This vote must pass with a quorum on alliance members to oust a leader/partner.  Ousting the leader of a Sole Proprietorship will result in the alliance bank being used to pay off shareholders and the alliance will be dissolved.  A Board organization is slightly more complex.  With a Board the leader will nominate a list of board members, and the shareholders may vote to ratify that list.  Until a Board membership list is ratified by the shareholders, Board organizations continue to act as Sole Proprietorships.  The Board provides a means of checking the leader's power.  Any action taken by the leader can be overturned by a quorum of the Board.  Finally, we have General organization.  This setup avoids pushing the decision making power on a single individual.  In General organization, all shareholders are entitled to vote on any major decision.  In a General setup, the Leader is primarily a figurehead.

After the IPO goes off, significant decisions for the alliance (alliance bank expenditures, stock split/reverses, change of leadership, etc.) must be decided as appropriate for the organization type that the alliance has chosen.

[Anthraxus]

Some things I've thought of that alliances could use alliance only money for:

Alliance Offense Boost:  All alliance members get a temporary boost to weapons
Alliance Defense Boost: All alliance members get a temporary defense boost
Maintenance:  A certain percentage of ]settlement degredation[ is paid off for all alliance controlled settlements
IPO: The alliance must front X% of the expected return of the IPO
Dividend: A percentage of the alliance pool is distributed to all members proportionate to their shares, with X% of that total paid in taxes and fees to Central Trading.
Centralization: All alliance member homesteads are moved to a randomly determined location within a sector
Decentralization: All alliance member homesteads are moved randomly around the map

[nigey]

If  the alliance's market value is determined by the number of settlements controlled on the planet, it would be possible that a individual  holding a large amount of settlements could hold the rest of the alliance to ransom.
 
ie. If that individual was to leave the alliance, its value could plummet.

I don't think a alliance holding a large amount of settlements should be of more value than a smaller well run alliance, whose settlements are better maintained.
This is why I think its market value should be based on overall repair threshold of all the alliances settlements, rather than just the amount of settlements held. This also negates the problem of a large settlement holder having to much influence over the alliance.

[Anthraxus]

I can see what you are saying there.  And the more settlements you have the harder it is to keep them all maintained.  I'm not sure that I have clean formula for calculating the repair % on each settlement for each member of an alliance in an efficient manner.  I'll have to think on that one.

[Anthraxus]

What are opinions on, assuming some close variation of above exists, requiring people to "buy in" to an alliance instead of just freely joining them on approval from the leader.  If that was in place, what would be a good measure of the cost of admittance?  Should the leader be able to opt in specific players for free?

[nigey]

“a good measure of the cost of admittance”.
Perhaps a set percentage of the alliances market value at the time of joining.
No freebie joins from the leader, that way a large well off alliance will cost more to join than a smaller one, it may also even up the member count of different alliances.

[QueenSheba]

I have no opinion on this new idea for the game, mainly because I don't know what the hell you are talking about or what the idea behind this is supposed to be.
What I would like to see is this new version finally making it to at least the beta testing stage, it's been years in the making and still no actual fixed roll out date.
What gives, we should be more worried if there are going to be pay-outs when the new version finally makes it to the game playable stage. I don't see how this alliance stuff is going to help the game out at all, maybe I'm missing something here, all I see are ways to suck MD's out of players to no end. How is that going to make people want to join and play this game when everything is going to cost more and more as the days go by

[Anthraxus]

I have no opinion on this new idea for the game, mainly because I don't know what the hell you are talking about or what the idea behind this is supposed to be.

The idea we are working with here is to make alliances a more dynamic and involved component of the next version.  Currently alliances really do and mean very little, and other than settlement count there is no real difference, quantitatively, between each of them.  This mechanic gives distinct benefits and drawbacks to being part of an alliance, and the stock market idea allows even non-alliance players some advantage for the alliances being there.

What I would like to see is this new version finally making it to at least the beta testing stage, it's been years in the making and still no actual fixed roll out date.

This is true.  I would like to have it off my plate as much as you would like to play it.  However, figuring out what mechanics and underlying systems are needed to make the new version as good as I can make it, really benefits everyone.  This discussion impacts a component of the game that I have yet to code, but is fundamentally different from how it's analogy currently works.  It is going to be much better to know how I as the designer and you as the players want things to be so I can write it up that way from the beginning, then trying to make fundamental changes later on.  That is what made the current platform so difficult to work with, too many things were bolted on after the fact, without a consistent plan of implementation.  That's what I'm trying to avoid here.

What gives, we should be more worried if there are going to be pay-outs when the new version finally makes it to the game playable stage.

It's been stated before that that decision will be made by the administration once the game is actually turning a profit.

I don't see how this alliance stuff is going to help the game out at all, maybe I'm missing something here, all I see are ways to suck MD's out of players to no end. How is that going to make people want to join and play this game when everything is going to cost more and more as the days go by

You are absolutely right.  One of the major reasons I'm looking to implement stuff like this and the settlement degredation thing and the other measures is that the main problem of the current version is that at the upper levels you run out of things to spend on.  This is part of what played into the rampant inflation, which itself is what let to the games bankruptcy.  The features I am implementing in this new version will not only mean that people have to be involved and active in the game to be able to cash out, but that the road to getting to a meaningful cashout is substantially more enriching and involved.  It also provides more avenues for players who are interested in the game and not the cashout to explore.

Before I go into the next paragraph, I would like to preface it by saying that your loyalty to the game is appreciated beyond my ability to express.  If it weren't for players like you and nigey and ben and all the rest of the long time players that still show up now and again, I probably would have lost interest in the game ages back myself.

I mean, what is there, really, for a player on your level to do in the game currently?  you've maxed out your stats, you dominate the map as far as settlement governorship goes, and you've completed all the missions; what else is there for you to do?  Now consider what we are looking at doing in the next version:  you would be involved in maintaining all of your settlements, working towards expansion on other maps, maintaining your alliance, investing in the stock market, working on expansion and/or consolidation plans with the rest of your alliance, and who knows what else?

[nigey]

QS this outburst is not like you   although I do understand your frustration.
I think it should be noted that Jason states in his first post  "This is not really a feature I plan to have open at the release of the next version“ as I understand this, it is not a feature that is currently being worked on, its just one that is being talked about “it is a very complex thing, so the longer we have to talk about it the better it will be”
Perhaps I should change the wiki description of Queenshebanite to something more fiery

[benh7777]

I agree with QS

[nigey]

 “I'm not sure that I have clean formula for calculating the repair % on each settlement for each member of an alliance in an efficient manner.”

For now you could just leave out the following market value conditions:

1) Number of settlements controlled on the planet
2) Size of alliance monetary pool

New conditions may become apparent when the new version is in play.