StarGateWars Forums

Not really, I can can see both sides of the fence. Update is random but i'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Will allow for more teamwork to be involved, lower lvls wont struggle as you can farm covert lvls in a few attempts and hitting unknown ascension your bound to be in an alliance or make friends anyway.

Naq will be harder to obtain and buy, just wait for the update!

~Dä Vinci~ wrote:Not really, I can can see both sides of the fence. Update is random but i'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Will allow for more teamwork to be involved, lower lvls wont struggle as you can farm covert lvls in a few attempts and hitting unknown ascension your bound to be in an alliance or make friends anyway.

Naq will be harder to obtain and buy, just wait for the update!

flip side.. more prone to scam. trusting others to hold naq for you. any cov level past 36 will require another person to hold naq for you. 42 would take 2 people with cov lvl 41 and almost full banks.

the teamwork thing is cool and all but i feel the negatives out weigh the positives.. from a game play and user prospective.

Phobetor wrote:

~Dä Vinci~ wrote:Not really, I can can see both sides of the fence. Update is random but i'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Will allow for more teamwork to be involved, lower lvls wont struggle as you can farm covert lvls in a few attempts and hitting unknown ascension your bound to be in an alliance or make friends anyway.

Naq will be harder to obtain and buy, just wait for the update!

flip side.. more prone to scam. trusting others to hold naq for you. any cov level past 36 will require another person to hold naq for you. 42 would take 2 people with cov lvl 41 and almost full banks.

the teamwork thing is cool and all but i feel the negatives out weigh the positives.. from a game play and user prospective.

True, 42 covert is very rare and people will have friends to hold there naq. I have held naq for friends in the quads before and no issue. I have had friends hold my naq in the past ect. Covert 36 above requiring another account, hmm.. not difficult to get the naq. There are trustworthy people out there. My bank will be big and I can hold naq for anyone.

~Dä Vinci~ wrote:

Phobetor wrote:

~Dä Vinci~ wrote:Not really, I can can see both sides of the fence. Update is random but i'm looking at it from both perspectives.

Will allow for more teamwork to be involved, lower lvls wont struggle as you can farm covert lvls in a few attempts and hitting unknown ascension your bound to be in an alliance or make friends anyway.

Naq will be harder to obtain and buy, just wait for the update!

flip side.. more prone to scam. trusting others to hold naq for you. any cov level past 36 will require another person to hold naq for you. 42 would take 2 people with cov lvl 41 and almost full banks.

the teamwork thing is cool and all but i feel the negatives out weigh the positives.. from a game play and user prospective.

True, 42 covert is very rare and people will have friends to hold there naq. I have held naq for friends in the quads before and no issue. I have had friends hold my naq in the past ect. Covert 36 above requiring another account, hmm.. not difficult to get the naq. There are trustworthy people out there. My bank will be big and I can hold naq for anyone.

yes its not difficult getting the naq.... thats not the problem.... its not having the bank space to hold it. untill you can farm that much. meaning you will now need 2 accounts just to hold naq.

YES. you can hold it on you multi. BUT who is going to buy 41 for there multi and there main to have enough bank to hold for 42. i wouldnt even buy 38 for both my main and my multi just so i have the bank space to buy 39 on main/multi.

and on another note. to the people with the accounts that do have 42..... hold you accounts until a couple months after update... would put lots of money on the fact that your account value will damn near double..

My main concern is that this will increase scamming in the game. Smaller players leave because there will without doubt be douchebags who 'Hold naq' for smaller players, for them to never see it again.

This is such a non-issue. You don't need anybody to hold your naq for you, you can do it all yourself. Fairly easily with your Main + NGM banks, but regardless, you will still be able to hold all the naq yourself on a single account.

Am I the only one who remembers the time before bank size was linked to covert level?? When people spent alliance perks on increasing natural bank size? when the bank of planet defences was all the rage?

Got a planet on merlins? start buying planet defences on that, simple, easy way to store 'safe' naq on a 'safe' planet until you need that naq and sell the defence weps. 100% safe if you keep that planet on merlins, gradually more safe as the defence increases to a point it becomes un-economical for anybody to mass it. At which point you get to decide if you just want to keep that planet defence, or sell it for whatever covert/anti-covert level you want next.

Game changes, people adapt.

so its screws the solo players?

~NyX~ wrote:so its screws the solo players?

Yes and no you just have to pay 1/3 more then everyone else because you have to lose money and buy planet defenses. So if you dont wanna pay more then you have to have someone hold it for you and risk being scammed or forgetting about it.

Clockwork wrote:This is such a non-issue. You don't need anybody to hold your naq for you, you can do it all yourself. Fairly easily with your Main + NGM banks, but regardless, you will still be able to hold all the naq yourself on a single account.

For new comers who only have a NGM? Don't have two accounts to hold naq. With 500B income you only get 48Tril extra which i think is riidculous.

Clockwork wrote:Got a planet on merlins? start buying planet defences on that, simple, easy way to store 'safe' naq on a 'safe' planet until you need that naq and sell the defence weps. 100% safe if you keep that planet on merlins, gradually more safe as the defence increases to a point it becomes un-economical for anybody to mass it. At which point you get to decide if you just want to keep that planet defence, or sell it for whatever covert/anti-covert level you want next.

So we have to use our MT for merlins? Less turns to farm, less can be saved.

To me it's a circle that hurts new and solo players.

All these players have had the advantage to upgrade covert, and now newer/returning players will struggle to catch up.

Phobetor wrote:

~NyX~ wrote:so its screws the solo players?

Yes and no you just have to pay 1/3 more then everyone else because you have to lose money and buy planet defenses. So if you dont wanna pay more then you have to have someone hold it for you and risk being scammed or forgetting about it.

I don't bother with planet defences, if planets disappeared from game i couldn't care less.

and I don't have a NGM.

~NyX~ wrote:I don't bother with planet defences, if planets disappeared from game i couldn't care less.

and I don't have a NGM.

The fact you do not bother with planet defences, and/or do not care if planets are in the game or not, is neither here not there. You along with everybody else have the option to use said features of the game, that you choose not to is your choice.

And like I said, you do not 'need' and NGM, but having one would make the game play experience easier.

I get that people don't like change, but this change to banking is really not the end of the world and the sky is not falling.

Will the ability to increase bank via Market turns, return?

Absolutely.

Heisenberg wrote:Will the ability to increase bank via Market turns, return?

Clockwork wrote:

~NyX~ wrote:I don't bother with planet defences, if planets disappeared from game i couldn't care less.

and I don't have a NGM.

The fact you do not bother with planet defences, and/or do not care if planets are in the game or not, is neither here not there. You along with everybody else have the option to use said features of the game, that you choose not to is your choice.

And like I said, you do not 'need' and NGM, but having one would make the game play experience easier.

I get that people don't like change, but this change to banking is really not the end of the world and the sky is not falling.

yes I am a creature of habit, but a real reason for change hasn't been clearly explained to me. ie is this simply a change for change sake, or a real help for the game over all?

Since the 'random update' comment pops up repeatedly (understandably, as no further information was given), here is the main reasoning for the update.
In the simplest of terms: This update is part of a series (tba) that aims to increase tactical depth and reduce value inflation.
Considering the relatively high impact on bank-based operations, this update announcement precedes implementation.

More in-depth:
Increase tactical depth by providing more sub-optimal choices, none of which are 'game-winning' but each offering a different path to account structuring and gameplay.
Reduce value inflation by applying gentle (mechanical) pressure to values that are exponential and (in some cases) out of bounds, without imposing hard limits or active reduction.


Some people have asked "what about banks that are full at the time of the update?"
There is no cause for alarm, there will be legacy bank protection: a fancy way of saying that for the first ~2 months (or however long is reasonable, subject to revision) post update over-filled banks will not 'leak'.

Other people have asked "but what about the little guys?" These 'little guys' can increase their bank size as needed. As previously mentioned the "MT for Bank" will once again be available to all. As you may or may not remember this increase is 10% of the raw bank max per MT: meaning that while yes, 500B income would only yield a 48T raw bank max, within 2 weeks everyone can increase that to 96T. SS (including Market SS, which you can also acquire twice a week) increases the raw bank size by 20% (and USS by 50%).
While this might appear to work in favour of older, larger accounts, it does not. To illustrate, I recall player A and B from our previous example.
Player A and B[spoiler]player A:
--Absolute minimum bank size @ 40: 3.3Q
--Bank size @ 500B/turn (without bank upgrades): 48T
--Actual bank size: 3.3Q (income-based bank size effect negligible)
--Actual bank size after 10 MT's (2 weeks!) invested in bank upgrades: 3.4Q

player B:
--Absolute minimum bank size @ 32: 12.9T
--Bank size @ 500B/turn (without bank upgrades): 48T
--Actual bank size: 60T (income-based bank size effect significant)
--Actual bank size after 10 MT's (2 weeks!) invested in bank upgrades: 108T[/spoiler]
Introducing player C:
--Absolute minimum bank size @38: 825T
--Bank size @ 500B/turn (without bank upgrades): 48T
--Actual bank size: 873T (income-based bank size effect noticeable)
--Actual bank size after 10 MT's (2 weeks!) invested in bank upgrades: 921T

Investing 2 (of 6) MT's a week for a single year yields a 1040% increase of bank size. That is not counting the significant contribution from Market SS. You can do the math, this balance will always work in favour of those with lower covert levels. It does present a new tactical choice for players on how to spend their MTs.
Thank you for your engagement so far. Please continue to provide your thoughts and feedback.