all i can say is pleas dear god no, that would ruin most ppls strategy they worked on, yes it would equalize things, so that those with bad or no strategy have an equal chance as those with good strategy
and let me guess, ure one of those who has fewer uu
and also all these sugestions about power an wealth distribution, its like socialism!!!! why the hell does all my hard work go down the tube for somone who doenst wrok hard, to get everything that i have divided between the masses
quit sugesting things that take good/big/rich/anything else type players down
Incremental Income
-
nebulator
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:21 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: facing east bowing to etl's greatness
- Contact:
- Wolf359
- The Big Bad Admin
- Posts: 5208
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 2:40 am
- Alliance: EPA
- Race: Tauri
- ID: 0
- Location: Omnipresent
- Contact:
-
Honours and Awards
I agree - although well thought out, the suggestion will make stronger players relatively weaker and weaker players relatively stronger. Additionally - as a country, or realm in this case, grows more powerful - yes, costs increase, but so does production and output - and generally there is a net increase, not a reduction, in wealth. You want a good example - look at Microsoft.
This smacks of, once again, people wanting something for nothing
This smacks of, once again, people wanting something for nothing
Mod SpeakSeverian wrote:So I say as a last resort, splice Semper & Wolf359 for a good balance, Clone said unholy abomination a hundred times, let loose on forums and problem solved.
- Mango
- Forum Intermediate
- Posts: 769
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:15 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
Thanks for your input guys, suggestions are just that..... suggestions, most will go on the scrap heap but sometimes one will shine and add to the game. Looks like the scrap heap for this one.
Neb - I have quite alot of UU and this would effect me also, but the reason the idea was put forward was to reduce the effect of the rich getting richer, not to destroy their choice in strategy, just to slow the exponential growth. (btw - it is a strategy I identified quite quickly and exploited so I am not a newbie whining about the strong
)
Anyway, it has been posted for a few days and the majority havent liked the idea so *chuck onto scrap heap it goes*
Neb - I have quite alot of UU and this would effect me also, but the reason the idea was put forward was to reduce the effect of the rich getting richer, not to destroy their choice in strategy, just to slow the exponential growth. (btw - it is a strategy I identified quite quickly and exploited so I am not a newbie whining about the strong
Anyway, it has been posted for a few days and the majority havent liked the idea so *chuck onto scrap heap it goes*
BL1P wrote:Im sorry for your fiend and the toilet paper accident...
-
agapooka
- Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
- Posts: 2607
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:34 am
- ID: 0
-
Honours and Awards
I'll ditto Wolfie.
HOWEVER... a population limit would be sweet and realistic
HOWEVER... a population limit would be sweet and realistic
Agapooka wrote:The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.
Pooka's UU Market Loyalty Card:Mister Sandman wrote:Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true.
Rudy Pena: 1 stamp!
A Spider: 1 stamp!
- god
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:40 am
- ID: 0
- Contact:
Agapooka wrote:I'll ditto Wolfie.
HOWEVER... a population limit would be sweet and realistic
considering that earth can hold 6 billion people and counting, and the milky way galaxy is prety damn big, I don't think we are anywhere near a realistic population limit yet.
SELLING Naq -- $0.80/Tril
currently 190 TRILLION available
currently 190 TRILLION available
-
nebulator
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 1:21 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: facing east bowing to etl's greatness
- Contact:
god wrote:Agapooka wrote:I'll ditto Wolfie.
HOWEVER... a population limit would be sweet and realistic
considering that earth can hold 6 billion people and counting, and the milky way galaxy is prety damn big, I don't think we are anywhere near a realistic population limit yet.
nice point there
" A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in.......and how many want to get out!"
Tony Blair
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
Tony Blair
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
-
agapooka
- Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
- Posts: 2607
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:34 am
- ID: 0
-
Honours and Awards
At least it follows reality in a parallel way. We don't need actual figures, and we aren't dealing with Earth, we're dealing with imaginary planets that are inumerable and all fit for life in some way.
Agapooka wrote:The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.
Pooka's UU Market Loyalty Card:Mister Sandman wrote:Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true.
Rudy Pena: 1 stamp!
A Spider: 1 stamp!
