DeletedUser
Actually you're the first one to mention it. :laugh:
- Status
DeletedUser
To me, the comparing apples and oranges thing is an argument against rating threads. That is just begging for votes based on a false premise: The ideas the devs get presented are not in competition with each other.Say there was a very rare instance when two mutually exclusive ideas built around identical functions were actually being considered at the same time. That too would be best solved by a binary vote between Idea 1 and Idea 2 before finalising the winning proposal.
DeletedUser
These mullets seems to want to specify any amount and if that amount is available it gets deposited, so in effect you could get away with guesstimating your cash balance after the jobs and then deposit the money.
DeletedUser
Luap is that true? I must have missed that post. (please don't make me look through 19 pages of posts to find a reference for this)
Scheduling to deposit money you already have on hand is one thing, but scheduling money to be deposited that you might have is something all together different.
The example on the first page shows the players cash on hand being deposited, not money they don't have.
Scheduling to deposit money you already have on hand is one thing, but scheduling money to be deposited that you might have is something all together different.
The example on the first page shows the players cash on hand being deposited, not money they don't have.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Unless I misinterpreted it, you can't schedule a deposit more than you currently have. If you get dueled and lose, you'll automatically deposit what you have left if it was less than the scheduled deposit.
DeletedUser
"seem to" would be grammatically correct there, but no less objectively mistaken.
The only two changes suggested in the proposal are the ability to schedule a bank deposit and the (IMO corresponding) ability to deposit into both the private account and the treasury with one button. The rules of the deposits are not under discussion here. Thus, no change to the current rules about depositing only what you have on hand are being proposed.
I'm curious how and from whence you acquired any notion otherwise.
DeletedUser
Well thanks for clearing that up. I still vote yes then.
DeletedUser
i think it will really be useful to me...
i am a trapper so obviously... but i say it will be aver helpful to a lot of ppl
i am a trapper so obviously... but i say it will be aver helpful to a lot of ppl
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Much more complicated and an unrelated suggestion. master warrior has a suggestion around here somewhere that could be adapted for that.
DeletedUser
That's not entirely unrelated, but yes, it would add a good deal of complexity to the proposal. 1 step at a time.
There's no reason not to extend automation to (some) other tasks, ultimately.DeletedUser
I would not mind this even if it did an automatic deposit of all cash on hand you have into the bank. Here is why.
For simplicity sake there are really only 2 kinds of players as it relates to this proposal, those that schedule sleep time after a job (Or after 2 or 3 jobs if they have premium) and those that don't. AS a subset of both of those you have those that have premium and those that do not.
So if your a person who does not go to sleep after a job and whether or not you have premium nothing is really going to change. You will still be out there being able to be targeted by a dueler. In this case the change to duelers is negligible.
If your a player that goes to sleep after a job and do not have premium, then that means you do 1 job then go to sleep. So the only time a dueler can attack you and get cash is on your way back from the job. Again nothing will change except that the dueler will still be able to challenge you after you make your deposit. That means that the dueler actually has the benefit of challenging you more often. +1 for duelers! In reality I doubt non-premium sleepers would change what they are doing much even with this, but in the end it's at a minimum a draw and at most beneficial to duelers.
Now take the case of a player that sleeps after a job and has premium. What do they do now? Do 1 to 3 jobs and then schedule sleep time so they can deposit when they come back. I can see this changing slightly in that they will still do 1 or 2 jobs, then go deposit then go do another job or 2. So this means duelers will have more time to target those players as they are traveling and awake instead of sleeping. So a dueler is not likely to get a better chance at gaining any more money, but they will have the benefit of having more targets to hit more often. So I still see this as a benefit to duelers.
For simplicity sake there are really only 2 kinds of players as it relates to this proposal, those that schedule sleep time after a job (Or after 2 or 3 jobs if they have premium) and those that don't. AS a subset of both of those you have those that have premium and those that do not.
So if your a person who does not go to sleep after a job and whether or not you have premium nothing is really going to change. You will still be out there being able to be targeted by a dueler. In this case the change to duelers is negligible.
If your a player that goes to sleep after a job and do not have premium, then that means you do 1 job then go to sleep. So the only time a dueler can attack you and get cash is on your way back from the job. Again nothing will change except that the dueler will still be able to challenge you after you make your deposit. That means that the dueler actually has the benefit of challenging you more often. +1 for duelers! In reality I doubt non-premium sleepers would change what they are doing much even with this, but in the end it's at a minimum a draw and at most beneficial to duelers.
Now take the case of a player that sleeps after a job and has premium. What do they do now? Do 1 to 3 jobs and then schedule sleep time so they can deposit when they come back. I can see this changing slightly in that they will still do 1 or 2 jobs, then go deposit then go do another job or 2. So this means duelers will have more time to target those players as they are traveling and awake instead of sleeping. So a dueler is not likely to get a better chance at gaining any more money, but they will have the benefit of having more targets to hit more often. So I still see this as a benefit to duelers.
DeletedUser
All of that is accurate, with one proviso: it would be a net gain for duelers seeking exp. but a net loss for duelers seeking money. I still believe, though, that it would be used infrequently enough that the effect on duelers' earning ability (of $ or experience) would be negligible. It'd be a nice convenience every once in a while; the vast majority of dueler targets would be unchanged.
Frankly, I thought this would be a shoo-in and generate little discussion. Seems like an easy and unimportant modification. Actually I still think that.
Frankly, I thought this would be a shoo-in and generate little discussion. Seems like an easy and unimportant modification. Actually I still think that.
Red Falcon
Well-Known Member
I voted 'yes' for this idea.
Diggo11
Well-Known Member
Yes thanks for repeating al that for the hundredth time, hopefully the "grumpies" have finally got the message through their think skulls.
Anyway those changes stated would only apply to 1/4 of the community as stated above meaning those fluctuations would be minimal anyway as stated before.
Red Falcon
Well-Known Member
And I did not vote yes to this idea so my money would be safe from duelers. I voted for it because it would make banking easier for everyone.
DeletedUser
i voted no because i would rather see the programmers spend time on something more useful
this is a good idea yes but it takes a back burner in my mind when there are other things i would rather see done
a few things that comes to mind is the town management system of being able to block certain town members from building or doing something about the amount of level 1-5 toadstools. then there is the lack of quest for special items.
this is a good idea yes but it takes a back burner in my mind when there are other things i would rather see done
a few things that comes to mind is the town management system of being able to block certain town members from building or doing something about the amount of level 1-5 toadstools. then there is the lack of quest for special items.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I love all those ideas and agree with your priority rankings.
Once those others are done, will you vote yes for this?
DeletedUser
Either get back on topic, or go to the off topic section. Going to clean this thread now.
DeletedUser
these off topic words was only typed here to explain why i voted no. they wasn't to change the subject.
yeah in time i would vote yes
yeah in time i would vote yes
DeletedUser
Oops. Click to vote against, but meant to vote for it.
- Status