SGW is dying....

[High Empty]

but, we have to remember why this market update came around in the first place. and that was one person or a group of people using their size advantage to tie up the AT of the game by offering huge prices

Was that aimed at me Chris.

*whistles innocently*
had to put it in so we didnt get another "High Empty's Market v2.0" if my idea went through

LOL but think of it. Atleast my rates weren't that bad, and compared to what you have right now what's it at 100 uu per turn. i was doing 10 uu per turn. Nope i wasn't that bad at all, ofcourse that was people everyone really clicked in that raiding was great, and it was only single players doing it now its' whole allainces.

[Mystake]

i like Wolf359.


Broker me two cents, it'll be worth more with you then it is with me.

[grimgor]

the thing i think that killing it is

Empire Building

and

UU Buying

[[KMA]Avenger]

HE's been drinking again...

Bah it's relative lost. And it is stress that random genernated attacks turns needs to go. Come to think of it, the Attack turn CAP needs to be 100k. instead too. ( i like my turns)

Note that somepeople would be losing a LOT. ( for myself i have around 300tril invested in my account which means i would end up having 30 tril naq, and 15mil uu. So it's a fair reduction

LMAO, mate i re member when bill told me he stopped you from massing me because of my suggestion of placing a cap on turns in peeps accounts

anyways...if turns are removed from the market (and send turns should also be removed from SS) and we only get turns from what we generate then i would agree that the cap be raised or even removed.

[Lord_Zeus]

i like Wolf359.


Broker me two cents, it'll be worth more with you then it is with me.

Ditto

And I'm borrowing an extra 2c from the bank this time.

As for making uu killable, if army sizes were divided by say 10-25ish but up's kept the same would this be a decent way to introduce it? (I don't think its plausable on the main server as it is currently set up) This way people could recover much more quickly.

Also with the way ascended ended up, I'm not sure that making uu killable would do this, in ascended you raided planets thus strengthening the attacker. You could also not pass uu around, which, if one person or alliance was becoming dominant an alliance could throw together a day or threes worth of uu to build an attack and take him down to 0? Perhaps? I'm unsure, I came in just before the uu unkillable update so not entirely sure how it all worked...

This, if introduced in the correct way could sure as hell make wars more fun, and much more decisive.

[Wolf359]

This is WAR Game, Tok´ra... limiting turns is just silly and this game would become utter stat building crap.



Teal'auc

Sorry Jenny - but as opposed to what? That's exactly what we have now! Lots of AT has deterred conflict (certainly any meaningful conflict) in the game - and definately any type of conflict where any type of skill and co-ordination is required.

@Brdavs - when did we have a server for 2 years when UU were killable? UU were made unkillable at around the 6 month mark of main. 2 years into the game was only last February!!

Besides - as I keep saying - not one thing will balance it - but a number of things.

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Sorry Jenny - but as opposed to what? That's exactly what we have now! Lots of AT has deterred conflict (certainly any meaningful conflict) in the game - and definately any type of conflict where any type of skill and co-ordination is required.

Better than limiting AT's would be to make wars meaningful in another way... ie making wars winable. (sp? I am ill, sorry if it does not make sense)



Teal'auc

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Wars are winable. Both sides fight til one surrenders.

Nope, I don't mean wars being 'winable' by utter farm fest and boredom. I meant more motivating ways and more funny ways how to win war.



Teal'auc

[Wolf359]

Sorry Jenny - but as opposed to what? That's exactly what we have now! Lots of AT has deterred conflict (certainly any meaningful conflict) in the game - and definately any type of conflict where any type of skill and co-ordination is required.

Better than limiting AT's would be to make wars meaningful in another way... ie making wars winable. (sp? I am ill, sorry if it does not make sense)



Teal'auc

The point is - wars were won previously dependent on which alliance/group was better prepared and better co-ordinated. If you wanted to enter and win a war then you had to save resources - especially AT. This was how, for example smaller alliances/groups was able to defeat larger ones - better organisation.

All of that is now out of the window - there is no skill level in the game anymore when it comes to wars - let's face it, it isn't difficult to go and purchase a few thousand AT is it? What it means is that the larger alliance ALWAYS now has the upper hand because of their AT buying power, when previously the better organisation of a smaller alliance could cancel the larger alliances greater power.

For heavens sake - we've seen individuals mass and take down entire alliances - and that should NEVER have been possible!

@ MEZZANINE - unkillable uu on its own wouldn't work - and yes, you're right - the big players would just smash up the smaller ones - which is why the limitless AT also needs to be removed from the game - again I say it, you cannot look at these things individually.

And it is the mass amount of AT that is at the centre of all the difficulties.

[Wolf359]

Chris, isnt the far better option to simply make a second main server that does not reset, thus allowing those who wish to continue in the old main, and the rest to play in a new server ?

Could be used to replace Quantum, as i said in another thread.

This is WAR Game, Tok´ra... limiting turns is just silly and this game would become utter stat building crap.



Teal'auc

The idea posted would be not too different to a return to early SGW. when AT were scarce and a valuable comodity. traded like now but on a much reduced scale.
I came through that game era to now, and i must say i look back at those times with great fondness.
Wars really were a big thing back then. TO vs EPA war is a big example of this. shame i wasnt a part of it.

TO v EPA War is a great example - at the time The Order was bigger and more powerful than the EPA, but better organisation and preparedness won it for the EPA. In todays climate, that advantage would be gone as the bigger and more powerful alliance would simply buy a damn sight more AT than the smaller one could.

[Teal'auc of the Void]

Wolf, I simply can't help it, but I dislike limiting AT's. There are probably many other options to make wars having some sense and strategy even without limiting AT's. People make hundreds and hundreds suggestions - why don't we try to find better solution for wars to be more fun without killing AT's in the game?

I want to mass when I feel up to it and waiting for AT's would just slow down the game, take part of fun away with such limiting. This is not graphic game... what would you do if you had no AT's? I personally would be bored as hell mate.



Teal'auc

[Wolf359]

But Jenny - people never complained about the normal 1 AT per turn until raid came along - it was accepted (as in real life) that in order to have and win a war, you need to prepare - and it is both raid and the mass amount of ATs available that has led to the massive exponential growth in the game - which IS the root of all game problems.

People would only complain and moan if it happened now because since the introduction of these updates they have had it TOO EASY. There are a lot of so called 'top players/massers/whatever' out there at the moment who would never have been able to achieve that position under the 'old school' game, because it took a damn sight more to be successful in the game back then.

I've been involved in wars/masses both before and after the introduction of limitless AT - and the ones prior were far mare enjoyable and produced a greater sense of satisfaction and achievement afterwards.

I'm all for finding any ideas to make wars (and the game in general) better - but unfortunately any suggestions that are made can easily be shot down in flames. However - I have yet to see a decent argument against the removal of limitless AT, other than people wouldn't like it - but the reasons they wouldn't like it are wholly selfish reasons. Yes, it might slow the game down - but isn't that what the game actually needs? And wouldn't it introduce more tactical thought?

[Teal'auc of the Void]

But Jenny - people never complained about the normal 1 AT per turn until raid came along - it was accepted (as in real life) that in order to have and win a war, you need to prepare - and it is both raid and the mass amount of ATs available that has led to the massive exponential growth in the game - which IS the root of all game problems.

People would only complain and moan if it happened now because since the introduction of these updates they have had it TOO EASY. There are a lot of so called 'top players/massers/whatever' out there at the moment who would never have been able to achieve that position under the 'old school' game, because it took a damn sight more to be successful in the game back then.

I've been involved in wars/masses both before and after the introduction of limitless AT - and the ones prior were far mare enjoyable and produced a greater sense of satisfaction and achievement afterwards.

I'm all for finding any ideas to make wars (and the game in general) better - but unfortunately any suggestions that are made can easily be shot down in flames. However - I have yet to see a decent argument against the removal of limitless AT, other than people wouldn't like it - but the reasons they wouldn't like it are wholly selfish reasons. Yes, it might slow the game down - but isn't that what the game actually needs? And wouldn't it introduce more tactical thought?

It's matter of opinion mate... I personally prefer fun in this game rather than waiting for AT's. Strategy would be nice, but not at the cost of fun imho...Of course I remember when turns were limited and I said it on many ocassions that I like it the way it is now better. It's always about what people prefer/want, and our opinions differ.



Teal'auc

[Am Heh]

The limiting turns through the ingame market wont solve anything. For example with the current rates you can only get 3240 turns by using your market turns and with you generating 3 turns a turn it increases your total weekly possible turns to 4248. This is around 283, 15 turn attacks each week. The problem that I will go with you on limiting the market is the black market. But I do not think the limiting of all aspects of the market is a good idea. By canceling out the Black market or limiting it you will severely limit the turns by limiting all the aspect you will further choke the life out of the game. I also have a problem with limiting the turns since the people that have been playing for awhile were able to use the market to get buy these turns which you are securing their benefit by limiting them now since they have already raiding or stolen naq with these turns. So the only fair thing to do if you limit the amount of turns is to do a massive plague to whole server to remove that bonus in my opinion. I have sure that the admin team has the stats for each account of how many turns each person has bought and can plague each account in regard to how many turns were bought. Now if they do this then they should also refund these people with cash since they bought them with real money.

[Am Heh]

Its called a paragraph