mercs/army size

[Duderanch]

Sorry mayhemer's, your crying for something which you want only, years this worked perfectly and should remain so. The game dont need another **Filtered** to protect money spenders, statbuilders and empires.

Sorry this amused me. Did you read all the admin meets? You're saying the system worked fine before it got updated? So are we.

The way the plague has been ever since I started playing is people reach it, a % of their trained army dies every turn. The idea was to try and build a bigger UP than the death rate so you can grow passed the plague, that's exactly what fericide did.

Then Tekki & Robe (amongst others) cried to admin at a meet and voila without, without any discussion amongst the community or anoncement the plauge deathrates where changed...

[RepliMagni]

But this isn't just about those above plague, its much more about those who build massive stats - and now giving them much more room to manoeuvre than before. If you want to build unmassable stats like C2 did, then it comes at a price, as he well knows. Now the price has been lessened, and makes it that little bit easier to build up ridiculous stats.

Lets get this straight - for the vast amount of people this update makes little real appreciable difference. But for those 20 people with 50tril defs, it can make a substantial difference - ie: this update only serves to help those with massive stats, and making them that much more feasible and untouchable....

[Rodwolf]

This topic is about mercs and armysize. I believe some mods should remove all political stuff and talks about (supposedly) unmassable accounts. Go create a different topic for that...

On topic: I for one still agree with admin to have made this adjustment to his initial update at the start of the week. The weaker unit counting for less what considers death rate of the plague.

[Robe]

Sorry mayhemer's, your crying for something which you want only, years this worked perfectly and should remain so. The game dont need another **Filtered** to protect money spenders, statbuilders and empires.

Sorry this amused me. Did you read all the admin meets? You're saying the system worked fine before it got updated? So are we.

The way the plague has been ever since I started playing is people reach it, a % of their trained army dies every turn. The idea was to try and build a bigger UP than the death rate so you can grow passed the plague, that's exactly what fericide did.

Then Tekki & Robe (amongst others) cried to admin at a meet and voila without, without any discussion amongst the community or anoncement the plauge deathrates where changed...

Tekki suggested to Jason at the open community admin meeting on the 26 Apr that the plague was in need of reviewing. I among others form different alliances agreed because the purpose of the plague is to cap growth rates.

Clearly growth rates were accelerating if players were able to double their armies above the plague cap.
There was a non-conformity in the program that in Jason's words had not been reviewed for years.

At the following meeting on the 6 May, a number of players from one alliance - Your alliance Duderanch - who have a vested interest in beating the plague because your agenda is to build several untouchable accounts,
had a chat with Jason and a completely NEW update was released without any community discussion.

Now we can debate whether you believe that 250 - 300t defences on Unknown accounts with Covert Level 39 can be massed (or not) in a different thread. In fact I think that would be an interesting thread so feel free to start a new topic in General so the entire community have a chance to debate the subject.

I think C2 hit the nail on the head when he said this NEW update was tailor made by Mayhem, for Mayhem
and is certainly not in the interest of the average player or average alliance in the game.

[MEZZANINE]

1) Backroom updates are bad, all updates should be discussed in the public forum to get a variety of perspectives on the pro's & cons before being implemented. Reminds me of special interest lobbies getting laws changed for their own benefit.

2) A Merc IS 1 Unit, its a weaker unit than a super just like a guard or raider and hence much cheaper, but it IS STILL 1 UNIT and should count as such in army size, plague, raid and trade caps.

3) Building a 250 trill def is completing unbalanced and unmassable, brings me back to one of my old suggestions that att/def stats should be linked so def and att are only effective to say 50% of each other

Example

If you have a 50 trill def you must have at least a 25 trill strike

or

If you have a 50 trill strike you must have at least a 25 trill def

Anything over the 50 trill would not count even if built unless the 25 trill was also increased in line.

This would fix several problems in one go, it would stop unmassable defs, force the raider/trader/multi/resource accounts that sit with huge defs and no strike to build a playable account, stop vultures from farming with strikes and no defs, and if someone wants to mass you it would force them to build a def for you to mass back.

Sorry i cant agree Mezz.
That will be a serious problem for new players using one weapon to raid to increase army size and keeping costs down. They will then not be able to keep naq safe only having a tiny defence.

Nothing is unmassable, it just depends how far you and your alliance are prepared to go to take it down.

Which raiders will this be an issue too ?

The small players trying to grow dont have big defs so their strikes will still be low

The big raider/trader/multi/resource accounts that sit with massive defs and 1 unit in strike will be effected but they dont play anyway and arent the ones we need to help. In fact they are a problem to be fixed.

On unmassable theoretically you are correct anything can be massed with enough time and resources, but in in reality a 250 trill def in an active alliance who use alliance functions could still be standing after an attacker had burned 10 or 20x as much resources trying to take it down, the attacker would have to have almost everything in strike with little def making the coverts vulnerable and then the strike vulnerable.

Lets face it the only reason to build a def that big is to be unmassable

This topic is about mercs and armysize. I believe some mods should remove all political stuff and talks about (supposedly) unmassable accounts. Go create a different topic for that...

Nothing to do with politics, the subjects are clearly linked, armysize is currently the only thing that limits stat size.

[MEZZANINE]

Sorry to double post but another option has occurred to me,

We have plague on armysize, what about training losses and natural deaths, trained forces could also have a cap where they start dying.

Also what about the cost of maintaining weapons and feeding the troops, armies need food, fuel and supplies, maybe a link between trained and untrained so you have to have enough miners/income to support the trained troops or they cant fight.

If not a link between trained/untrained, maybe a cost in naq per turn from your bank for every trained unit.

[Clarkey]

What a moronic update.

Let's get one thing straight here, EVERYONE knows that when an update is NOT openly discussed on the forums between ALL players then that update is to benefit ONLY a few, hence the reason for a private and down right SELFISH talk with Jason about it.

Now, someone explain to me this.....

Attack mercs - 1
Defence mercs - 1
Total Army Size - 1

So you buy 2 mercs (one of each), it shows as 1 "whole" attack and 1 "whole" defence, but in total army shows as just 1 man. If you're going to implement such a moronic move then actually get it to make sense. Why should it show as one whole man in the merc count but half a man in the army total! DUH!

I think the real problem here is the fact that certain people speak privately to Jason about an update that will benefit THEM and talk him in to implementing it. They know it will benefit only them and others like them and that is why they didn't use the suggestions forum to get players thoughts on it.

Selfish bastards.

The fact the rankings page shows the true army total, the fact the merc count shows the number of mercs you've actually bought, and the fact that the total army size shows the changed amount clearly shows that this update was rushed and not thought through.

I'm not against that actual update as i'm not bothered, although the update has no sense, I am just completely against peoples selfish updates.

Every single person on this planet no matter what gender they are, no matter what job they do, no matter whether they have disabilities or not they are still considered 1 person, even if they lose all their limbs they are still one person. Therefore a merc is 1 person. Not half a person.

Are you saying that all mercs have lost a testical and therefore is half a person?

[Bullseye]

Haha just remove officers option over a certain point. That way the chances of someone even thinking about growing to 1bill will now be alot harder.

Say once you reach plague, officers can no longer be accepted. You now rely on own up.

[Rodwolf]

Seems it's going this way afterall ( I still believe mods should remove all political / alliance talk in this thread):

Tekki suggested to Jason at the open community admin meeting on the 26 Apr that the plague was in need of reviewing.

At the following meeting on the 6 May

Both were admin IRC chats, so what's the difference? Don't think there is any.

A number of players from one alliance - Your alliance Duderanch - who have a vested interest in beating the plague because your agenda is to build several untouchable accounts

I didn't know you were in our HC making decisions Robe, maybe I do have to put that onto our agenda

I think C2 hit the nail on the head when he said this NEW update was tailor made by Mayhem, for Mayhem
and is certainly not in the interest of the average player or average alliance in the game.

Can you provide proof of this? For all I know it was Admin himself who brought this forward on the chat. Making assumptions is easy ofcourse...

[caesar2]

Chris or Fred... doesnt metter. 2 groups and few irelevant were established in this discusion, which is in more than this topic and far far behind forums on MSN or alliance forums in private.

One group wants 1 merc = 1 man other group wants less count for mercs to army size. If I am right, mH members in this and other topics are suggesting to lower mercs count. Am I right? Thats not political, thats fact.

After all, if we ignore all political junks from the game, lets say, man is man... if you have army of 100m soldiers fighting with power A and your oponent has army with 100k soldiers fighting with power 1.5xA you both have 100m army, am I right? Doesnt meter if you have patriots fighting for homeland or mercenaries fighting for money. This is the game and lets not forget it. Dont be such stupid mathematic idiots dividing numbers and powers and effectivnes. Or be such hypocrite and limited in mind, and lets count like:

1 super soldier = 2 man
1 soldier = 1 man
1 mercenary = 0.5 man

(thanks clarkey for the example )


DR and Rodwoolf, I spent some 8 months with almost 0 income, over the plague, loosing troops daily, still I was able to mass, to fight and to rebuild. If a player like High Empty reachs amazing size cuse hes mad man with huge raw UP and planets (which he later lost) and still can live with super soldier = soldier = mercenary, why should you even talk to lower mercs count.


Dear Jason, your biggest mystake ever was IRC private discussions with whoever you talk with. You should read forums more, and not lisen money spenders who of course fills your bank account, but they dont care about the game. Better than 10 mad money spenders is game of thousends players, still... after 6 years playing this game because its interesting and funny... but IT'S NOT FUNNY if someone, whoever, can build something which cant be massed, destroyed or even touched. And excuse me, if you will start dividing merceneries, and making diferences between mercs and soldiers, look for another enterteinment, GW will be just lost game.

[Duderanch]

DR and Rodwoolf, I spent some 8 months with almost 0 income, over the plague, loosing troops daily, still I was able to mass, to fight and to rebuild. If a player like High Empty reachs amazing size cuse hes mad man with huge raw UP and planets (which he later lost) and still can live with super soldier = soldier = mercenary, why should you even talk to lower mercs count.

Did you read my post? The plague death rate was changed last week after a suggestion to Jason in the IRC meet. So you saying you and HE could build big stats and army sizes and still grow months ago is irrelevant as Feri was still growing before that update (hence why the update was suggested as people don't want Feri to grow).

People saying mH are selfish blah blah because 2 of our members where in an open community IRC meeting with Jason are just being petty and stupid.

The real selfish ones are the people suggesting updates to ruin 1 persons game play...

[Rocky]

DR and Rodwoolf, I spent some 8 months with almost 0 income, over the plague, loosing troops daily, still I was able to mass, to fight and to rebuild. If a player like High Empty reachs amazing size cuse hes mad man with huge raw UP and planets (which he later lost) and still can live with super soldier = soldier = mercenary, why should you even talk to lower mercs count.

Did you read my post? The plague death rate was changed last week after a suggestion to Jason in the IRC meet. So you saying you and HE could build big stats and army sizes and still grow months ago is irrelevant as Feri was still growing before that update (hence why the update was suggested as people don't want Feri to grow).

People saying mH are selfish blah blah because 2 of our members where in an open community IRC meeting with Jason are just being petty and stupid.

The real selfish ones are the people suggesting updates to ruin 1 persons game play...

how is that being selfish, selfish would be suggesting an update to benefit only 1 player.

If you found the original update unfair, why didn't you go on the forums and discuss it here, in a topic like this for example, rather than speaking to Jason behind everyone's back and suggesting another update that you personally think will make up the unjust you feel has been done?

Jason ain't too bright either considering he has no clue what is going on at all, but likes his regular pay checks coming from the cashspender's wallets, so he agrees on one update after another, without real discussion or anything.

[Jim]

I shall give my "two cence", if they mean anything anymore and if anyone cares to listen to the inane ramblings of a fool that attempts to walk the difficult path of unbiasness (Yeah, thats a word, i just made it up).

Two "backroom deals" were made by two opposing parties. Both parties frown at the other for doing so. This is fair enough and I expect both parties to be big enough people to call that quits for now. Others may still find offense at this, and if they do I suggest they take the issue up in a new thread dedicated to this particular issue.

The first update was, we can all agree, in order to cull the progress of one individual who has, as is customary and to be expected in such as game as this, taken it upon himself to become a player worth of great note. To said player I say this: My hearty congratulations on your amazing achievement! But I say this also: A balancing out of sum degree may have been in order.
That said, the initial update caused such great limitations that it left the efforts of the player decimated and he was left punished for his success.

However, a second update was brought in at the behest of his friends and teammates in order to lessen his suffering and create a fairer system. Instead of campaigning ruthlessly for a retrieval of the previous mechanics, they settled for an alternative (however they did so should not factor into this issue at this moment!).

Thus, a compromise is reached. Justly I believe, was an update needed. But also Rightly I believe was the initial update too strong.

These are my feelings on the matter, I hope they are appreciated by some as I have attempted to be as fair as I could in my thoughts.

Much love,
Jim

[Tekki]

Haha just remove officers option over a certain point. That way the chances of someone even thinking about growing to 1bill will now be alot harder.

Say once you reach plague, officers can no longer be accepted. You now rely on own up.

Though for the people saying I asked admin to look at plague, yep I did. I asked him, I believe, to check how it was supposed to work and to make sure that his calculations were correct on the limits. I suggested that if the calculations where somewhat ineffective and may need adjusting. This isn't surprising though. Plague was brought in at a time when 1m UP was enormous. 2-3-4-5milion UPs now are becoming more common place, so it's logical that plague be reviewed. I didn't say some of that to Admin J, but I meant it.

Though, a lot of changes come down to how you believe the game should be. Should it take you everything you have to mass an account, or should you be able to fight after such an investment? That's part of it. While Jim's post is all very nice and fluffy and specifically designed by him to attempt to be unbiased, I'm afraid that it shows that he is not really conversant with the game mechanics and what is and isn't possible.

Though I'm also a believer in discussing changes on the forum. Unless it's a bug fix (one that is ACKNOWLEDGED as a bug by the community) then the change SHOULD have a forum discussion thread to back it up so that the feasibility and arguments for and against can be put to AdminJ logically and clearly. Suggestions should be made at the IRC meeting, but they should be put into a discussion thread as well so that they can be debated by the entire community since the IRC meeings just aren't long enough to really have a full discussion and a good think about what the implications of some updates are.

[Duderanch]

Though I'm also a believer in discussing changes on the forum. Unless it's a bug fix (one that is ACKNOWLEDGED as a bug by the community) then the change SHOULD have a forum discussion thread to back it up so that the feasibility and arguments for and against can be put to AdminJ logically and clearly. Suggestions should be made at the IRC meeting, but they should be put into a discussion thread as well so that they can be debated by the entire community since the IRC meeings just aren't long enough to really have a full discussion and a good think about what the implications of some updates are.

I think this, we can all agree on.