crap idea [close it]

[SGC_Sam Fisher]

25.

[Chris M]

i dont like the idea of giving 100% of income to officers. uping to limit to 50% would be good.
being able to select each officers % would also be good.

[KnightValor]

25.

Aha! This further proves my point

[Wolf359]

25.

Aha! This further proves my point

It doesn't prove any point - as it stands - a commander has to limit his officers so that they all get a decent amount of naq from him - if he doesn't, then the officers naq share will reduce and the commander will lsoe them.

Similarly, officers have to be clever when choosing their commanders - it is all well and good if a commander dishes out 20 million a turn (or whatever), but if he already has 24 officers - it is not worth joining him.

This suggestion would to a degree remove that strategic thinking - and would reduce the amount of naq (and the large amounts of individual's naq) available in the game, limiting attacking, therefore making the game more stagnant! - there is no argument that can disprove that.

And just because the poll is getting a psoitive response - it does not mean it will be implemented - liek I said - this topic has appeared many times before - some where the majority are for, some where they are against - but Forum, in his wisdom, has realised it would ruin the game and has not implemented it.

[311 [TA]]

i agree with wolf 100% is too much

but a slight increase migth be a good update to the game ....

[KnightValor]

25.

Aha! This further proves my point

It doesn't prove any point - as it stands - a commander has to limit his officers so that they all get a decent amount of naq from him - if he doesn't, then the officers naq share will reduce and the commander will lsoe them.

Similarly, officers have to be clever when choosing their commanders - it is all well and good if a commander dishes out 20 million a turn (or whatever), but if he already has 24 officers - it is not worth joining him.

This suggestion would to a degree remove that strategic thinking - and would reduce the amount of naq (and the large amounts of individual's naq) available in the game, limiting attacking, therefore making the game more stagnant! - there is no argument that can disprove that.

And just because the poll is getting a psoitive response - it does not mean it will be implemented - liek I said - this topic has appeared many times before - some where the majority are for, some where they are against - but Forum, in his wisdom, has realised it would ruin the game and has not implemented it.

"it would to a degree remove that strategic thinking"

I have a few things to say to that...

1. "No...",
2. "Where did you get that idea?", and
3. "It would actually increase it..."

Let me explain.

Player A has 24 officers, but says he gives them 80% income.
Player B is one of player A's officers, but swears he must get only 60% or less.
Player C has 24 officers, but says he gives them 70% income.
Player D is player's C's officer, and is surprised that it isn't 80%

Player E is looking for a commander, and is invited by both player A and player C, but has no other invitations yet. Both will give him 1 bil naq for joining.

Compare to:

Player A has 24 officers, says he gives 30% income, and will also give you, say, 4 billion naquadah if you join him.
Player B is one of A's officers, and says that his commander gets him alot of extra money per turn.
Player C has 24 officers, gives 30% income, and will give you 3 billion naq if you join him.
Player D is one of player C's officers, and says to player E that he gets a bit more naquadah per turn.

There is no doubt in E's mind that A and C give 30% income, and is pretty sure A gives not only more initial money, but also long term money.

In the first example, there's alot more to consider.

Not to mention, with up to 70% income, it will make an officer search for different levels of income percentage... who wants to lose 35% of their UP?

There would be more variation in what people want, what people could get, and what initial "signup" bonusses would be. With variation comes strategy.

[Kerrus Magrus]

another issue would be with officer loops. if we had 100% income sendign ie: i'll use names a, b, and c.

A is the CO of B, who in turn is the CO of C, who it A's CO. now the moment you go through a turn, where does the naq end up assuming there are no other officers ijn the loop, and everyones set to 100%?

[urogard]

another issue would be with officer loops. if we had 100% income sendign ie: i'll use names a, b, and c.

A is the CO of B, who in turn is the CO of C, who it A's CO. now the moment you go through a turn, where does the naq end up assuming there are no other officers ijn the loop, and everyones set to 100%?

nice thing you thought of it.
i agree myselft that it shouldn't be 100%, but there should be a significant increase.

and knight. you don't loose the % of units trained. your co just get's them as a bonus. i.e. they appear out of nowhere. but no one looses anything.

[KnightValor]

another issue would be with officer loops. if we had 100% income sendign ie: i'll use names a, b, and c.

A is the CO of B, who in turn is the CO of C, who it A's CO. now the moment you go through a turn, where does the naq end up assuming there are no other officers ijn the loop, and everyones set to 100%?

nice thing you thought of it.
i agree myselft that it shouldn't be 100%, but there should be a significant increase.

and knight. you don't loose the % of units trained. your co just get's them as a bonus. i.e. they appear out of nowhere. but no one looses anything.

Ah, the way wolf had said it seemed like it was another rule I hadn't known.

Would kinda make sense though, (but please don't add it admin!)

[Wolf359]

Anything suggesting being able to give more than 50% is far too much. If it was to be increased, I would say limit it to 40%, and be able to set officers pay individually, then you can pay them what you want - and there is still sufficient naq available so as not to risk decreasing the profit margin for attacks (which is what we must avoid).

Besides - if a commander can give 70, 80, 90 or 100% - then it removes part of the incentive to buy/achieve getting SS - as he can, effectively, protect all, or most of his naq by sending it to an officewr who is online when he is offline.

I cannot see how you do not understand this?

[Sleipnir]

I cannot see how you do not understand this?

It's a matter of narrowmindedness. People, when making suggestions, try not to look only at yourself, and benefiting your situation. Think of the bigger picture. Remind yourself, that what benefits you in the short term, does the same for your neighbour. Eventually we all want to get better from it, but that's not possible. The amount of naq produced in the entire galaxy will not change, just the distribution. Spreading the naq too thin means everyone has a chance to bank their naq before the amounts get too high. It will reduce the rewards of attack, taking one of the main aspects out of the game.

If you want to give your officers more, you can:
A - Improve your income
B - Reduce the number of officers
C - Send mercs
D - Get SS and send UU, naq or turns
E - Give advice
F - Give diplomatic aid
G - Give military aid

Looks like plenty of strategic options to me.

One final suggestion I may add. Instead of increasing the max% to officers, we could bring out the old First prime. The titles have been created, and we may as well use them. The system would need to be tweaked so that 1 commander has 1 first prime and no more, and people without a commander lose their title. Then we can add an extra box to set the first prime's pay rate individually, up to 10%. This will be the first prime's bonus. It'll also give officers something to compete for. So you will have a max of 30% to officers, plus an extra 10% max to first prime, bringing the total up to 40%. How does that sound?

[The Dalek Empire]

So you will have a max of 30% to officers, plus an extra 10% max to first prime, bringing the total up to 40%. How does that sound?

That sounds good.

[urogard]

So you will have a max of 30% to officers, plus an extra 10% max to first prime, bringing the total up to 40%. How does that sound?

That sounds good.

it does but i still think the percentage given to off's could be put to 50.

[Radium]

Both Sleipnir and Wolf have brought up the ability to set a rate for officers individually, even though their ideas are a bit different from each other. This is something that really needs to be done to keep the commander and officer relationships viable.

During the last wave on Quantum I had ETL as a commander. He was dishing out a lot of naq to his officers. From what I saw everytime I had a far higher raw UP then any of his other officers. Matter of fact one of them looked like they had not done anything after the first week to me. But I got paid the same as the account that was just being farmed.

I remained an officer only because I had made a commitment, and I try to keep my word. But that so turned me off that I will no longer make anyone my commander. It was not because of my commander, but rather because of the game mechanics.

Now I have several officers. Honestly one of them deserves more then the rest, maybe more then all the rest of them combined to be blunt. I know I can give out a bonus. But I would rather just constantly give him more so that he knows what he is getting and there is no screw up. Also I guess that I do not want those inactive officers to get paid as much as they are either.

[undead21]

i would agree with wolf, that 100% is too much, i would have to speek for all officers when i say that 50% is too much too. for the most part, the younger players have no idia how the system works, so honestly alot of people could get scamed.