[Idea] More things to spend bank on

[Valentine Z]

This is gonna sound controversial as hell, so I'm going to put it out here:

What if you can spend Bank to reduce the amount of auction time? Not by a huge percentage, mind you. Maybe 1 bank to reduce auction time to 59 mins, 4 banks to 58 mins, 9 banks to 57 mins, basically x² Bank to reduce time by 1 minute. This only applies to the one that started the auction, so further bids and sells will still increase time by 1 min.

And that's where it comes to the second part: Spending bank to reduce the amount of time you increased, from 60 secs, to 59, 58, 57...

Discuss! :P

[9003]

This is gonna sound controversial as hell, so I'm going to put it out here:

What if you can spend Bank to reduce the amount of auction time? Not by a huge percentage, mind you. Maybe 1 bank to reduce auction time to 59 mins, 4 banks to 58 mins, 9 banks to 57 mins, basically x² Bank to reduce time by 1 minute. This only applies to the one that started the auction, so further bids and sells will still increase time by 1 min.

And that's where it comes to the second part: Spending bank to reduce the amount of time you increased, from 60 secs, to 59, 58, 57...

Discuss!

I could see a lot of merit in extending the auction but it gets expensive when I can already do that with some leg work and .01 (still being able to do so upfront saves leg work and that can be worth a sizeable amount of bank)
While cool I'm not sure shorting it would be very economical it seems like any fair pricing would cost way to much way to quikcly

[Inven]

This is gonna sound controversial as hell, so I'm going to put it out here:

What if you can spend Bank to reduce the amount of auction time? Not by a huge percentage, mind you. Maybe 1 bank to reduce auction time to 59 mins, 4 banks to 58 mins, 9 banks to 57 mins, basically x² Bank to reduce time by 1 minute. This only applies to the one that started the auction, so further bids and sells will still increase time by 1 min.

And that's where it comes to the second part: Spending bank to reduce the amount of time you increased, from 60 secs, to 59, 58, 57...

Discuss!

This is quite useful for hundred-bank transfer as near the end they could use the money to end the auction.
Smaller transfer isn't effective as well

[Valentine Z]

Yeah, the pricing could use some work (I'm currently using the squared model of card deck expansion). ^^;

I think it will be good to have a limit too if it is implemented. Maybe 30-25 min is the shortest you can cut it down to. Same with shortening "further bid time", maybe 30 sec is the shortest.

[Refuge Isle]

The obvious implication of spending money to cut down on auction time is that Koem only needs to spend X (60 in your example) to make a classic 3,000 bank transfer instant and unstoppable.

[Dwarf Land4]

Maybe while it speeds up, it also doesn't count towards mv, meaning for big mv you need to do the full 60 mins
(DRUS On puppet)

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Since that guy who keeps bashing farming fails to provide any evidence and didn't acknowledge the 2 users who also called him out (along with the fact that I refuse to continue this alleged threadjack), I don't think I'll respond to them anymore.

...

Anyways, while I don't know if Val's suggestion is good, I'll agree that this opens up a whole new way for players to strategize in auctions:

Yeah, the pricing could use some work (I'm currently using the squared model of card deck expansion). ^^;

I think it will be good to have a limit too if it is implemented. Maybe 30-25 min is the shortest you can cut it down to. Same with shortening "further bid time", maybe 30 sec is the shortest.

Yeah, if this was an actual thing then it'd probably be good to set a cap as to how low you can shorten the duration (although maybe a bit lower than 25 mins). Otherwise it's very likely that sneaky players may use this feature to instantly win an auction at the very last second.

Also, rather than using exponential values to shorten an auction, I'd bet that it's more viable to use 0.5 bank increments (i.e. 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, etc). If we did exponential ones, then it'd be expensive to the point where only (as hinted above) extremely rich people would use this feature.

[Feu de Glace]

So, I just had a thought that is semi-related to this. As I see it there are two problems:
1. Inflation of bank
2. The amount of cards that large decks have possibly interfering with the server at some unknowable point in the future

One way thing that could be done is not allowing any benefit from cards that are gotten while over the card limit. This means something along the lines of not being included in an DV calculation or being able to be put into a collection. I have no idea if the server tracks the order of the cards or if this would cause more strain on the servers but it one things that could help both problems.

The problems to this would be making some large collections (Refuge Isle's all S2 ultra rare nations or 9003's common collection) all but impossible to complete. The largest deck size that I currently know is Luna's at 2,800 and they have put a ridiculous amount of bank into it so it probably would completely alter what is and what is not possible.

[Refuge Isle]

So, I just had a thought that is semi-related to this. As I see it there are two problems:
1. Inflation of bank
2. The amount of cards that large decks have possibly interfering with the server at some unknowable point in the future

One way thing that could be done is not allowing any benefit from cards that are gotten while over the card limit. This means something along the lines of not being included in an DV calculation or being able to be put into a collection. I have no idea if the server tracks the order of the cards or if this would cause more strain on the servers but it one things that could help both problems.

The problems to this would be making some large collections (Refuge Isle's all S2 ultra rare nations or 9003's common collection) all but impossible to complete. The largest deck size that I currently know is Luna's at 2,800 and they have put a ridiculous amount of bank into it so it probably would completely alter what is and what is not possible.

This would only affect a handful of accounts, though. Koem Kab, Fris, 9003, DGES, Karen Matheson, Giovanniland, and possibly a couple others that don't come to mind right now. Obviously I don't get the benefit of deck value on my puppets on Refuge Isle, so it would have no effect on whether or not I will continue to complete the UR collection. I would assume Giovanniland would be the same way for TWP. So basically, it's a rule proposal that would affect four accounts in the top fifteen, which seems like a very silly reason to restrict large collections. Everyone else with huge numbers of cards has purchased the deck upgrades for them and are considered, at the moment, morally justified.

Aside, everyone's always concerned with server strain, but has [v] suggested that the theoretical point at which someone's card inventory will overflow the sql tables is rapidly approaching?

[Inven]

I want to propose two things:
1. Pay some money to decorate your card
2. Pay LOTS OF money to increase the rarity of your card (except Epic).

[USS Monitor]

I want to propose two things:
1. Pay some money to decorate your card
2. Pay LOTS OF money to increase the rarity of your card (except Epic).

If you want to increase the rarity of your card, just write a WA proposal or an issue. Letting people pay to do it is too pay-to-win.

[Noahs Second Country]

I want to propose two things:
2. Pay LOTS OF money to increase the rarity of your card (except Epic).

I don't really see a point in doing this. The rarity of your card can change from season to season anyway, and honestly rarity doesn't matter that much outside of determining card value. If anything, having a legendary status just made my nation card more difficult to acquire. I was excited to see my card as a legendary when cards first came out a while ago, but there really aren't any perks that come with a higher rarity.

[1-Inven]

I want to propose two things:
1. Pay some money to decorate your card
2. Pay LOTS OF money to increase the rarity of your card (except Epic).

If you want to increase the rarity of your card, just write a WA proposal or an issue. Letting people pay to do it is too pay-to-win.

I see that this is a bad idea since card rarity represent how important you are in NS. (Inven)

[Dr Neela Rasgotra]

Seems like some people have different definitions of "working hard" here - but let me help you out : whatever you do for fun and personal excitement is not called "work" (my definition).

I'd love to make fun of this statement, but I am going to hold myself back!

[Tarockanien]

If you want to increase the rarity of your card, just write a WA proposal or an issue. Letting people pay to do it is too pay-to-win.

I see that this is a bad idea since card rarity represent how important you are in NS. (Inven)

This.
The card-game is only a sidegame to NS, better said a little portion of NS. Imagine how someone who is istaying in NS for dozens of years, has moderated, created issues, aso, and therefore has reached epic or legendary status would feel if this could be achieved by simply everybody by spending enough bank and nothing else.
Card status shouldn´t be alterable through money. It´s crazy enough, but, as it seems to have been the wish of many players, right, that there was a badge impemented, based on cards. What´s next ? Implementing a badge for partizipation in raids or defends ? For the ammount of postings of a nation on the forums (as a badge on said nations page, didn´t mean the titles granted by the forums) ? For partizipation in roleplaying (and a few more come to mind) ?

[VicktoriaDiamond]

And what about expanding the ingame store (shop) with an option to buy Bank (ingame currency)?!
For example at $1=10Bank rate.

[Tarockanien]

So, I just had a thought that is semi-related to this. As I see it there are two problems:
1. Inflation of bank
2. The amount of cards that large decks have possibly interfering with the server at some unknowable point in the future

There are three ways of creating large ammounts of bank :
1. Getting incredibly lucky and draw one (or more) very high priced and sought-after cards (which is very seldom).
2. Extensive trading, plus the first one (very slow and time-consuming, and usually doesn´t create such big profits).
3. Farming and transfering (the easy, and most commmon way, resulting, vaguely related to how many farms are run, to ever increasing banks).
As I´m afraid, most card-farmers dont want to see that the inflation of bank is closely related to their huge farms (their practices of doing so), and the last thing they want to hear (or read about) is, that the inflation of bank, and the undesirable results of this to happen is their own creation. More (bigger) farms leads to more cards drawn, which means, more bank (if junked), which, since competition (everyone can farm if he/she wants to do so limitless) and prices are also inflated, leads to even more farms. Lone survivers has called this somewhere a "circulus vitiosus" (which is Latin and means "a devils circle", similar to a "self fulfilling prophecy") and he is bloody right.
Imo, the only way to counter the inflation of bank is a drastical reduction of the farming practice, which, of course, would leave some players with huge ammounts of bank already gained and some others without a real chance of achieving their goals of collections (like the "all of a kind" collections), but imo that´s the price for saving the card-game from getting increasingly unfair, exclusive and in the end uninteresting for the majority of players.

At least, just a few words to Destructive Systems, since he/she had adressed me namely : should the about ninety people/nations inhibiting the same region as you stopping to post on the forums, if likeminded, or based on the fact, that your nation is housed in their region by chance ? Is this then, how did you call it, "buddy-leeching" or "friend-wanking" (I´m not a native speaker, bit this sounds pretty rude to me), or dont you live by your own rules and advices ?
That´s all, thank you for reading and maybe rethinking my point(s).

[Tarockanien]

And what about expanding the ingame store (shop) with an option to buy Bank (ingame currency)?!
For example at $1=10Bank rate.

I cant decide if this is meant humorous or serious, but if the latter, you better stick to MMORPGs and the same, since NS is (and has always been) meant to be a charge-free game. The day this would become real would be my last day on NS (and I guess, I wouldn´t be the only one).
But I guess, it´s meant more satirical.

[Giovanniland]

And what about expanding the ingame store (shop) with an option to buy Bank (ingame currency)?!
For example at $1=10Bank rate.

That is a bad idea, and it would turn the card game extremely pay-to-win, meaning that people could just buy a lot of bank with no effort, instead of card farming which takes a lot of effort and time.
I would personally quit the card game if this was implemented, and I know a lot of other people who would follow.

[Destructive Government Economic System]

At least, just a few words to Destructive Systems, since he/she had adressed me namely : should the about ninety people/nations inhibiting the same region as you stopping to post on the forums, if likeminded, or based on the fact, that your nation is housed in their region by chance ? Is this then, how did you call it, "buddy-leeching" or "friend-wanking" (I´m not a native speaker, bit this sounds pretty rude to me), or dont you live by your own rules and advices ?

Read this:

I think what DGES is trying to convey is that if you want to do stuff, try and get a wider range of people on your side than just them

I have absolutely no one in my region to defend me, yet my points are being supported by people of all varieties (barring you and your friends). This includes DRUS (a.k.a. the person I just quoted), Refuge Isle, 9003, One Small Island, USS Monitor (to some extent), Valentine Z, Inven, and more.

You? Pretty much the ones I mentioned here, and you guys just seem to want to pile up on each other in order to stress a point that little-to-no one actually agrees with. Want to make yourselves credible and without any hint of bias? Get strangers to agree with you.

That's pretty much all I'm saying.

(And just to be clear, while I do support farming, I do not support ideas that would give farmers an extremely disproportionate advantage over others, including guaranteed safe transfers or tools that would let the computer do the work for you. If us farmers want to be successful traders, then we'll have to earn it the hard way.)

And what about expanding the ingame store (shop) with an option to buy Bank (ingame currency)?!
For example at $1=10Bank rate.

Probably a joke, but just to re-iterate, NS ain't pay-to-win

[VicktoriaDiamond]

Probably a joke, but just to re-iterate, NS ain't pay-to-win

It was not a joke^

NS is (and has always been) meant to be a charge-free game.

The card-game is only a sidegame to NS, better said a little portion of NS.

And besides that its just a sidegame, the whole thing would stay charge-free, since you don't have to pay to play.. It would be totally optional.
Plus it would help the creators of this lovely game (and may moderate the server overloading issues, so the capacity prices could be lowered).

[Lone survivers]

How about an option to buy those cards otherwise unobtainable (rarity one or zero owners) for a fixed ammount of bank (junk price x 100, or x 500, which should be in the reach of even interested single nation collectors over time), but cards bought in this way dont show up as owned (means, they dont count for stated number of owners), are not gift- or saleable and dont influence market-, collection-,card- or any other value. Their only use is for completing collection or in possessing them.
Which, I would say, benefits (or hurts, depending on the point of view) everyone the same.

[Racoda]

How about an option to buy those cards otherwise unobtainable (rarity one or zero owners) for a fixed ammount of bank (junk price x 100, or x 500, which should be in the reach of even interested single nation collectors over time), but cards bought in this way dont show up as owned (means, they dont count for stated number of owners), are not gift- or saleable and dont influence market-, collection-,card- or any other value. Their only use is for completing collection or in possessing them.
Which, I would say, benefits (or hurts, depending on the point of view) everyone the same.

I feel like this is needlessly complicated (the second part, with all the restrictions on selling/gifting/etc.). If that were to be implemented, I see no reason why these cards should be treated differently.
Seeing as one or zero owner cards, even of CTEd nations, are obtainable, albeit have a low(er) chance of being pulled; I would propose a slight modification: the ability to buy any specific card for 100×max(JV, MV) (or something similar — we wouldn't want people buying Soops for only 100~500 bank).

[Noahs 2nd Country]

Probably a joke, but just to re-iterate, NS ain't pay-to-win

It was not a joke^

NS is (and has always been) meant to be a charge-free game.

The card-game is only a sidegame to NS, better said a little portion of NS.

And besides that its just a sidegame, the whole thing would stay charge-free, since you don't have to pay to play.. It would be totally optional.
Plus it would help the creators of this lovely game (and may moderate the server overloading issues, so the capacity prices could be lowered).

Hypothetical scenario here:

Nation A can't afford to buy card money with real money, but they want a certain card that is mildly expensive. This card is a reasonably price S1 card that is becoming increasingly hard to acquire as it finds a place in some permanent collections. They have been working for the past month to acquire enough card money through puppet farming. They finally have enough and place a bid on the card.

Nation B is new to the game but they want some cards because they look cool. They are looking through the marketplace and they spot the super cool card of Noahs Second Country. So they drop some real life money on card money and outbid nation A, winning the card.

How can you justify the fact that nation B deserved the card, when all they have done is pay to win?

Cards are a side game, yes. But anyone can play for free, and all nations have an equal opportunity in the current state of cards. The most successful in the card game are those who have put in the most time. I think that time should be valued much more than a simple micro transaction, especially in a game that doesn't really have any in the first place.

[Lone survivers]

I feel like this is needlessly complicated (the second part, with all the restrictions on selling/gifting/etc.). If that were to be implemented, I see no reason why these cards should be treated differently.
Seeing as one or zero owner cards, even of CTEd nations, are obtainable, albeit have a low(er) chance of being pulled; I would propose a slight modification: the ability to buy any specific card for 100×max(JV, MV) (or something similar — we wouldn't want people buying Soops for only 100~500 bank).

But the regulations and limitations would be necessary, otherwise the market would become meaningless, as all those rare and pricey cards would inflate it without or would be bought to push collection values.
Just to add - by my understanding, cards will show up randomly in packages (by a very small chance) only if they show up on the market. If no one trades them, they wont be drawable. Or did I get something wrong ?