New CO-Officer relations

[weilandsmith]

meh i must agree with above post...
also this will lessen how recruitment has been going lately (imo it was all We demand more UP we demand more NAQ)
i have kept officers for reasons not being their UP so im not saddened that all those profit-only CO's got nerfed

i voted no ( at first i wanted to vate "dont care" but i don't like it being tied with me being a n00b so thanks)

but... but... what about us noobs? because of CO officer relationship, we get extra Naq that we badly need to grow. if that's gone, then it will be very slow going. The CO officer relationship works both ways. We accept it and glad that it is there.... Please don't take it away from us... please

or else

[Mordack]

This just seems a bit pointless to me... an update which serves only to irritate people.

Was it done in the interests of 'balance', or?

[Legendary Apophis]

Was it done in the interests of 'balance', or?

In my opinion, yes.
A balance between ascended and main, but it came WAY too late, so it's a big bad fail. As ascended is quite easy, they want to make everything helpful for ascending a pain (selling weapons, getting easier UP...) so that way it will "balance" sgw.
But in my opinion, that's too late and only screws up people who (re)join the game and people who aren't yet LG or AG.

[Adaren]

kill the update!!

Join!!

[Wolf359]

This just seems a bit pointless to me... an update which serves only to irritate people.

Was it done in the interests of 'balance', or?

It only irritates people because they are used to having things easy and can't see past their own accounts.

Should a commander/officer relationship be based on how much UP the commander gets from their officer? No, it shouldn't, and was never intended to be.

[Iƒrit]

This just seems a bit pointless to me... an update which serves only to irritate people.

Was it done in the interests of 'balance', or?

It only irritates people because they are used to having things easy and can't see past their own accounts.

Should a commander/officer relationship be based on how much UP the commander gets from their officer? No, it shouldn't, and was never intended to be.

ok, so why take a officer on at all, I mean if I am gonna give him 1b income why am I gonna take him if he isnt giving me in return what I could purchase on the market?

[Clarkey]

Because officers aren't just about bonuses. Commanders are there to command and help their officers.

[Iƒrit]

yea I see that point, I just looked in the other thread its a lot more detailed. But the fact is, If Im trying to grow and someone else is also and wants my help, why should I offer it for next to nothing, when I can remain where I am at and not worry about more losses. It's a war game and its about survival so the impression of people thinking about themselves is valid. And alliance standards sometimes change that, since many of them require you to have a CO inside thier alliance. Most people are gonna have a officer to help without the return of full market value.

[Suzuk]

Ok, if that's the way it's going to be...

If only RAW UP is passed on to the commander, then only miners should give naq to officers.

That's the only way this update is going to be fair.

Why should people with 10 income planets have an advantage over people with 10 UP planets?

I vote to get rid of the update all together, but if not, I think planet resources in general should not be passed on between Officer and Commander.

[none-delete-me]

This just seems a bit pointless to me... an update which serves only to irritate people.

Was it done in the interests of 'balance', or?

It only irritates people because they are used to having things easy and can't see past their own accounts.

Should a commander/officer relationship be based on how much UP the commander gets from their officer? No, it shouldn't, and was never intended to be.

the problem with this wolf is that its NOT just the comander that gains from having an officer. an officer gains just as much. its a mutual relationship.. im sure if anyone here has payed attention in highschool science class they would know that a mutual relationship, such as what admins have just nerfed and ergo killing that relationship, is not "using officers" like you pretty much mean in your post.

heres a few reasons as to why NOT Nerfing this whole bonus
- protection
- helping a player out via growth on uu
- helping a player out via growth with naq. (you dont just buy UP upgrades with naq... some people use it for more)

and yes, if people decide to recruit for up, who are you to judge that they shouldnt? their officer's are only there for the USE of the co to begin with... usually for income. so why kill this whole thing that worked without complaint... without fail... and replace it with a retard update like this one?!

its just so damned stupid!

> Also note that im an officer, and a co. i see both use and help ... thus being a mutual relationship.... this is one of the few things that makes it worth keeping contact with other players outside or inside your alliance.

death to update!


*********

other note... i strongly welcome the update on "Leaders can be Officer's.." BACK!

[timetravlin13]

Most CO's pay their officers over their turn based income anyway...its a fair exchange....well was.

If you want to talk about a CO commanding and helping, and nuturing their officers. That can be easily done with a PM or a broker, or naq sent. Its too onesided now.

And I say that with one officer and no CO...thanks to the update, my former CO won't pay bonus to me that equals out the UU he recieves from me.

Like I said in the other thread....start the protect a noob program...maybe if you recruit enough and get 25....they might match what you can get from 1or2 UP planets.

[dead solid]

y dont we all just blame planets, they did all this in the first place

[Demon Eater]

y dont we all just blame planets, they did all this in the first place

but if so what the point of having a MS then

[weilandsmith]

y dont we all just blame planets, they did all this in the first place

The planets are very useful and are an integral part of the game. Although the ultimate goal of this game is ascension, the acquisition of additional territory is also essential.

Let's put the blame where it lies; the updates. As far as I can tell, the CO-officer relationship was an update in itself. Now, the update has been affected by another update. What should be done? Just ask the the people directly affected by the updates. The players.

If you judge from the majority of the posts here in this thread, you will see a clear and favorable response for abolishing this latest update not just by the COs, but also by the officers.

Take my case for instance. If I lose my CO (Clarkey), I also stand to lose 100M income per turn. It may not seem a lot to the big accounts, but to me, it means everything. 100M can mean the difference towards being able to upgrade a stat or not. I need a CO and if a CO benefits from my modified UP, so what?

Lastly, this latest update makes no sense. COs are actually paying FOR their officers. Unlike officers who do not lose UP, COs actually lose NAQ for every officer they have on their officer roll. This latest update needlessly brings additional punishment to the CO. Seeing as the only factor to make up for that loss of income is the modified UP of an officer, the reduction to raw UP, adds to the burden of being a CO.

I, and most others, know the true value of a CO-officer relationship. Clarkey, my CO, has been good enough to answer ALL my ingame questions aside from providing me with additional income. Because he is kind to me, I want to give him something in return. You can bet I'd give him my modified UP if it will help him.

[Legendary Apophis]

Lastly, this latest update makes no sense. COs are actually paying FOR their officers. Unlike officers who do not lose UP, COs actually lose NAQ for every officer they have on their officer roll. This latest update needlessly brings additional punishment to the CO. Seeing as the only factor to make up for that loss of income is the modified UP of an officer, the reduction to raw UP, adds to the burden of being a CO.

Hmmm here I think we have finally a valid arguement against the update.