StarGateWars Forums

Zaya wrote:Also, in theory, we didn't need larger fields, it's in inconvenience trading back and forth with a cap of 1 Trill or 1M weapons, but none of that was "necessary" or had a purpose other than making it "easier" for people.

Zaya wrote:ROFL, I've been ascending for the last two months..

I always trade with someone on PPT.

I send the ATs and the Naq directly since there is no loss there.

You just do one broker for the UU.

So 1 broker for each ascention = not bad.

hidden wrote:

Zaya wrote:ROFL, I've been ascending for the last two months..

I always trade with someone on PPT.

I send the ATs and the Naq directly since there is no loss there.

You just do one broker for the UU.

So 1 broker for each ascention = not bad.

and you cant trade more then 1 tril which means you obviously aren't big enough to see the problem


and i do need to advise my officer about his planets

Zaya wrote:The UU is the only thing that needs to go through the broker so you don't lose the 1%.

If units were sent, you highly doubt they all made it without at least a few running away. The cowards.

Wolf359 wrote:I see the point that it makes things easier for the CO - but is it needed? - why do all updates have to make things easier? Where will it end?

Update Feb 03 2009: New Auto Feature: This feature has been added for those who wish to have the best accounts, but can't be bothered to actually get off their butts and login. Once activated, the feature will learn a players strategy based on his or her past 100 logins. It will then compare this strategy to those people who have the best accounts and will set up an automated routine of raiding/attacking/training/banking/going on PPT/massing etc. It will even automatically sell your defensive weapons and untrain your spies in the event of an attack. You will then be safe in the knowledge that the next time you login your account will be at least 10 times more powerful than it was previously. If it isn't, we'll make it even easier for you and give you 100 trillion naq and 10k AT.

Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of updates that make things easier. How about an update to make something more difficult, more interesting or (heaven forbid), more strategic?

Yes, yes, you could add a check box - but why bother with it at all? - if the officer wants his commander to see his planets he can cut and paste them.

Why do we need to have all the information of our officers? Have people and armies in history always known everything about their allies?

As for one of the previous points about people not trusting their commanders and it being 'ugly' - well there has been the odd occasion when people have been forced to join a commander or be destroyed, so I guess it could happen.

I guess my point is that what this suggests is already achievable in a matter of seconds (or at the very most a couple of ingame messages). I'd rather see something like a new type of covert (Planet Recon) that allows for greater success on gathering planet information - perhaps using 3-5 covert turns instead of 1 (we do have increased covert capacity). That way you could get the information you want (not need), but it would come at a cost. The only decision you have to make is whether the cost is worth it. Or, just ask.

Personally, I'd rather see the Admin spending time on something that will actually make a difference to the game, and not just something that is an easy convenience.

Wolf359 wrote:Because it isn't just about UP and naq bonus (and in fact I made a suggestion myself that we should have the ability to vary or even stop the amounts of naq (and subsequently UP bonus) that commanders/officers get from each other) - it's also about showing (just as alliances) that these groups of people work together, and to work together, one person doesn't need to see all of the information on the others.

What you said about attaching weapons isn't relevant, to be honest. If you think that it is, then please explain how.

And I am well aware that you can have a commander and officer in different time zones - that is why I said 'at the most a couple of ingame messages' - but your argument that it can take 20 hours to communicate those doesn't actually do anything to strengthen the case of why this suggestion is actually needed.

Take the other side of your '20 hours' argument - what if the officer desperately needs some info about his or her commander, or despeartely needs some advice from his or her commander? Well, they can't just get it from looking at their commanders stats can they? No, they have to wait the 20 hours you mentiuoned.

Wolf359 wrote:Why?