Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*

[Mystake]

Simply put,


No one to protect your miners? They're too scared to work. Lose 33% for having no defence, lose 17% for having no covert = 50% total loss for not providing your miners are safe working environment.

[Ritalin]

lol and all the inactive farms we love so much will then be useless!!

[Mystake]

How bout if in an alliance war, having no defence or less than 3-5% of army trained cuts up and naq production?

[~Dä Vinci~]

how about every 5 days all ure miners become uu and the naq is withdrawn into the open from the bank.. this will stop people just sitting around gaining naq from planets.. and it will encourage new players.

ow and every month all planets are deleted

[~Deathlok~]

how about every 5 days all ure miners become uu and the naq is withdrawn into the open from the bank.. this will stop people just sitting around gaining naq from planets.. and it will encourage new players.

ow and every month all planets are deleted

+1

[Caprila]

01[22:58] <Caprila> Less naq produced by miners at 0 defence and/or covert .
01[22:58] <Caprila> No one to protect your miners? They're too scared to work. Lose 33% for having no defence, lose 17% for having no covert = 50% total loss for not providing your miners are safe working environment.
01[22:59] <Caprila> I find this one interesting in a sense that, it gives you a reason to have a defence. Although I suppose one could easily exploit it with 1 weapon
[23:00] <KJ> That will need a lot of tweaking
[23:00] <KJ> before even being considered
[23:00] <~Support> It seems like an attempt to force people to build a single stat.
[23:00] <KJ> IMO
[23:00] <cha0sk1ng> Also in general it'd make farming nearly impossible
[23:00] <~Support> ^And that.
01[23:00] <Caprila> It would wreck some of my beautiful farms, but I presume the purpose is to encourage people to build, and maintain a defence in wartime
[23:00] <cha0sk1ng> Hence people who already have stats now would basicly *win the game*
[23:02] <KJ> Still - an update to encourage people to build stats
[23:02] <KJ> would be excellent
[23:02] <~Support> Yes, this has more undesirable effects than positive. It might inspire a few people to build, but it would wreck the availability of naquadah across the server.
[23:02] <KJ> Not forcing them - but encouraging
[23:03] <cha0sk1ng> Yeah well, general idea of play however would require something to be indestructible in order for everyone to build it KJ
[23:03] <KJ> I'd never suggest something to have everyone do it
[23:04] <KJ> but perhaps something to encourage more people to do so

[23:04] <~Support> Anyway; no to income reduction on low defence.

[WoofyBear]

Naq reduction for having no def? wow. Have you ever farmed before? I mean really.... that would completely screw over the previous updates admin put in to put more naq on the server because people were screaming "there isnt enough naq out there"... You are talking about reducing the amount of naq every dead account has out that.. you know. the farms we all look for....

This would pretty much mean you could only farm once or twice a day unless you hit only active people.. which would just cause more people to go crying "why are you hitting me.. why are you a bully..."

here's a dollar... go to the corner store and buy a clue on me...

[Mystake]

Ok, make everything said here happen during an aliance war andmonly affect alliances currently at war.

And dont forget to include a % reduction for covert. And, abusing it with one weapon can be countered by a proportional defence to income ratio, like say the equivalent of 1.5 day of naq produxtion in def weps and uu = min def needed, 1 day worth in def gets you 66% production and 1/2 day worth gets you 33%.

[Caprila]

How would you propose the game to detect an alliance is 'at war', and not just going about its normal daily playtime? Many alliances mass randoms, people in their logs etc, an effective 'aggression' counter would be difficult to design. Even the BR counter wouldn't be of assistance, as splinter alliances avoid this quite effectively.

By the alliance leader designating the alliance at war? I don't think many would set it, especially those specific 'sniper' alliances you are so keen to target.

Any incentive for using the war status, would likely be counter-intuitive; i.e. giving more power to those that already have it.


However, such debate is rather pointless in my opinion. Support has said quite clearly in the above quote, that no naq reduction on 0 defence will be considered, hence why this topic has been labelled as Rejected.

If you want to punish the sniper game mechanic, suggest you put your time and thoughts into another suggestion. ( Perhaps the life suicide ratio or targeted sabbing? )

[Mystake]

Doesnt have to be against snipers. If one alliance sets another alliance to war, thats all it takes. Then, If youre alliancemates goes inactive they stop producing. No president to run the country = chaos.