Ascended and Untrained
-
Brigon
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:27 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: beyond the edge of my sanity
Ascended and Untrained
I suggested this somewere before but I'm going to do it again, I would like to see the advanced races(System Lord, Tollah, Ancient, NanoTiMaster) not able to recieve untrained units.
I want my tombstone to read 'brb'
-
Sleipnir
- Merriest Mod in the West
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Off-world
-
Honours and Awards
I suggested to forum to make them unable to receive troops while on PPT, actually. This would prevent them from aqcuiring massive naq while on that initial PPT, enough to become pretty much invulnerable. Instead, they would be able to get the troops back at the time when they became vulnerable to attack, so their growth could at least be kept in check by others. However, this would involve changing the rules for everyone because of the few people that actually have such quantities of troops. Instead, the current solution was chosen. To promote reascension, and thereby depleting the resources. And be honest, some of these people have been working their butts off since februari to achieve what they've achieved, I think it's only fair that they get something in return.

As soon as you build an idiot proof system, somebody else builds a better idiot.
If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kick it until it does move, and then kill it.
-
Elemental_FIRE
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:40 pm
- god
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:40 am
- ID: 0
- Contact:
Elemental_FIRE wrote:Anyways... ascension was changed to drain off our untrained troops anyways. For eample if you have a unit production of 2k/day, you lose about 70k for ascension. That is just me. I'm laughing at people who didn't realize it in time and went to 10k/day.
why? it only takes people with UP of 10k a week to generate what it cost you to ascend... it took you a month... obvioulsy it costs them more, but wheter you want to admit it or not, UP is still what makes the universe go round
SELLING Naq -- $0.80/Tril
currently 190 TRILLION available
currently 190 TRILLION available
-
Sleipnir
- Merriest Mod in the West
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Off-world
-
Honours and Awards
god wrote:Elemental_FIRE wrote:Anyways... ascension was changed to drain off our untrained troops anyways. For eample if you have a unit production of 2k/day, you lose about 70k for ascension. That is just me. I'm laughing at people who didn't realize it in time and went to 10k/day.
why? it only takes people with UP of 10k a week to generate what it cost you to ascend... it took you a month... obvioulsy it costs them more, but wheter you want to admit it or not, UP is still what makes the universe go round
Actually it costs everyone 35 days to generate the amount of units needed for ascension, because the amount is based upon unit production.

As soon as you build an idiot proof system, somebody else builds a better idiot.
If it moves, kill it. If it doesn't move, kick it until it does move, and then kill it.
-
daivahataka
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland
I'd say that ascended accounts should either be unable to recieve troops/naq or receive a increasing cost to each proportional to the number of times that they've ascended.
If we went with the first then there'd no longer be any need for subsequent ascentions to cost more since ascention would still require a lot of work each time, the second option however I feel would still necessitate an increase in ascention requirements for each time you ascend.
If we went with the first then there'd no longer be any need for subsequent ascentions to cost more since ascention would still require a lot of work each time, the second option however I feel would still necessitate an increase in ascention requirements for each time you ascend.
-
Unknown
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Nottingham (England)
The thing is though that if this was inplemented now people that have been doing it would have an advantage to those who haven't had the chance.....
And so the margin would remain bigger.
Is that what you would want?
Hell if i had reascended a few times already i would love this to come in as i wouldn't be caught for ages! lol
And so the margin would remain bigger.
Is that what you would want?
Hell if i had reascended a few times already i would love this to come in as i wouldn't be caught for ages! lol
-
daivahataka
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland
So the loophole should be left open just because others have previously abused it? I think it should be closed ASAP, fair enough there'll be some who've benefitted from the loophole but it would be unfair to go and penalise them for something which has never been declared illegal in the game. And the sooner it's closed the less of a permenant top 100 will be established. The real test of skill will be can we catch up on these people.
-
Unknown
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Nottingham (England)
-
daivahataka
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland
Ireland had a problem until recently whereby the constitution said that anyone who gave birth in Ireland would be granted citizenship, so we had many refugees and such coming to the country while pregnent in the hopes of giving birth and getting their citizenship. This was not the intent, rather it was to do with the north-south divide here, but as a result of this loophole many people who had no real right to citizenship were given it. As a result these people were then free to travel and work within the EU which started drawing complaints from Britain, who many of these people were then moving on to. This loophole was closed, do you feel it should have been left open?
-
Unknown
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Nottingham (England)
-
Unknown
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Nottingham (England)
-
daivahataka
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:16 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland
-
Unknown
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:40 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Nottingham (England)


