PPT Market Cost

[Quina Quen]

Very clever indeed - this is more along the lines of what I was thinking originally. One small thing though - Is it unreasonable to deprive a person in PPT of any incoming resources from another player - ESPECIALLY naq ? Opinions...

[Spoon]

it cant be an on the spot thing... heres a nice idea... you cant recieve things while under PPT, this would stop anyone that wants to get a cheap PPT...

next basing the price... the UU price should be based upon the total units in the relm AND the TOTAL (commander included) UP
turns should be a generic value due to the fact that everyone gains turns at the same rate reguardless
Naq should be bassed upon the ammount of lifers that the person has... since you cant untrain them it will give a fair view of how many people that the person is using to gain credits, and if someone hasnt trained any people then they can only use the advantage once.

[SBO] DarthYoda

If you replaced your idea about not being able to recieve stuff on ppt with sleipnirs idea about losing a percentage of your per turn income for a way to limit ppts, then this would be a perfect way to fix the market. The one problem is that this would be abused as big players send naq to a smaller player with only like 20kuu and gets them to buy a big batch of uu and then gets most of it transferred back to them.

To expand on sleipnirs %income loss on ppt maybe it could be linked to the number of times you have used it per month, with the first ppt being "free" (no income lost), however if you go on ppt again that month you lose 10% of your income, go on for a third time lose 20% and so on until you reach the 8th ppt and you are losing 70% of your per turn income over the duration of the ppt. To make it even better maybe make it so that every ppt you buy off the market increases the G&R required for ascension by say 100 as well, to stop people just ppting their way between ascensions.

[12agnar0k]

i think costing 10-20 % of your income is a good idea , i currently have 1.3 mil miners , so the cost for me would be about 1000-2000 mil, which is fine by me ....

although i dont fully support the idea , mainly because ppts are a gr8 way to keep your naq safe , we bigger players worked hard for our incoem potential why should we pay more irrespective of incoem potential where people who just threw away there naq on things like ms's pay far less.

ncie idea though

[Sleipnir]

although i dont fully support the idea , mainly because ppts are a gr8 way to keep your naq safe , we bigger players worked hard for our incoem potential why should we pay more irrespective of incoem potential where people who just threw away there naq on things like ms's pay far less.

ncie idea though

A little too great maybe. It was never intended as a way of play, hence the limitations. But I think encouragement to actually stay off PPT would be great. You might limit the turn income reduction to market PPT's only, cause if you pay $$, I think you're entitled to full income PPT. As for highrollers paying more, well, look at it now. You pay the same to initiate PPT, and gain much more. So from a cost/return point of view, highrollers have it much better. And even if you were to substract a percentage of naq each turn, you'd still have better returns than someone with a lower income. You gain more, you lose more, seems fair to me.

[daivahataka]

I'd have to agree with this idea, it should cost people more the more resources they have as to the best implementation however I'm not certain, all ideas seem to have their merits but unfortunately we need to be certain there are no loopholes to abuse in the method of assigning the cost for the PPT.
Also, if you can't be attacked/sabbed/spied upon should you be allowed to recieve any form of transfers (perhaps a sure fire protection against loopholes, blocking UU/naq/merc/turns transfers while on PPT)?

[Sleipnir]

That would close off the option of an alliance PPT-hoard. Putting one person on PPT, and using the others to farm and send naq to this individual. Alliances would probably complain, but it is more fair to the lone wolf trying to keep up.

[12agnar0k]

nah i still dont liek the idea, ppt costs should stay at what they are, theres good and bad points to the arguement. its best to implement oinly when theres good points.

[PSICOLIX]

i like the idea of get only a % of u income when u r on ppt!!

but the cost to get in, must ne the same for everyone!

2 mutlipe 1/2SS for 48h on ppt is a good price, but its a great ideia of 1 1/2SS get 24h of ppt! thats is very useful to the lower players!!!

[Wolf359]

This has now been linked to the Common Game Suggestions thead.

[Quina Quen]

Good job Wolf I must say you are the neatest mod going...

[~Phoenix~]

How about while we're on PPT we dont produce income

[Quina Quen]

But still have it sent to you... interesting. And isn't the point of PPT to protect you from attack NOT too earn money... I like it.

[311 [TA]]

to make the ppt cost a percentage of your income you will have to split it from the market.........otherwise it would cost more and more and more for a person to buy UU from the market as well

[thunder]

i only read the topic title, and all i have to say is that this idea was already put forth a ling time ago and was not much apreatiated. hope you have a better chance getting it passed then i did

[cyberblade]

I think that the cost of PPT should be based on a persons production-not their available resources-because, as has been noted-they could just broker to someone-then get it sent back.

I think PPT should still be in market, as it is now-but instead of being based on market rates have it be based on total UP and NAQ, so it will cost the same % for big and small players. Small players can't afford it at all (I remember when I first started). I can afford it now-but it takes several turns UP. For the huge players it's only 1 turns naq. It should be equivalent for everyone, not equal-because all players are not equal.