StarGateWars Forums

Wolf359 wrote:I'd actually be against removing the limit - because, once again, the only people it benefits are those with the best accounts.

If someone has 800 billion out, then currently it costs at least 30 turns to get that 800 billion - and the chances are that you'll only ever have a chance of getting it if you have one of the best accounts, as it's highly likely the person with it out also has one of the best.

All removing the limit will do will allow the best accounts to farm even more, and won't benefit the smaller ones in anyway.

People always use the 'at the rate the game is growing' card with suggestions like this, but if implemented, this would simply increase that rate further and widen the gulf between accounts.

It's not only the people with the biggest accounts who benefit. Actually they would finally have to make sure to bank again.

At the moment there is no such thing as having too much naq out when you have like a 5 trillion defence. People will not farm you because they can only get 500 billion.

It's a war game, right? So what's the point in making it soooo easy for people to be unfarmable. People with big defences aren't farmed. Full stop. They are either massed or left alone. And that's lame.

Also the small guys would also benefit if they see someone taking out several trill and they get to hit them before they manage to spend their naq.

I never suggest things only the big players benefit from. I always try to see things from the smaller guys' point of view too. This suggestion here wouldn't harm the small guys at all. If anything they would get the chance to steal a crap load of naq when they get lucky.

I just want to add, that if a bigger player has to hit a smaller one, twice for the naq, there going to get hurt more.

@ wolf: And also, in what way do you think it would harm the smaller players? Big dude hits other big dude, UU get destroyed on both sides. So effectively big dude 1 and big dude 2 are both not as big anymore. Only difference: big dude 2 now has big dude 1's naq.

Same amount of naq stays in the game.


Small dude sits there being small either way.

first off - yes it is a war game - but farming isn't war, and it is precisely because of ideas like this that the bigger accounts grow exponentially faster than the smaller ones and.

second - to play the game as a war game you do not need to have an account that is unprofitable when making attacks for over 500 billion!

Furthermore, it hurts the smaller guys because the smaller guys do not have a chance of farming that much, but yet you want to make it easier for the bigger accounts, who can already farm that much, to be able to farm more with less AT??

Like I said - it's not as if AT is a shortage, and if it is unprofitable for the bigger players to 'farm' then perhaps you need to look at different ways to play?

It boils down to the simple fact that the majority of the updates have been implemented to make things easier, not more interesting! unkillable UU, raid, unlimited AT etc, have all led to this and are the reason it now may bee unprofitable for a small MINORITY of players.

To throw it back to you, geisha - what actually is the point in making it easier for the bigger accounts to farm more with less AT, while the smaller players do not benefit (as they can't farm that much anyway), and thus widen the gap further?

I wonder would you have the same attitude wolf if you hadn't sold your account and then came back to the game, and now own an account that is well, small.

The UPDATE to only farm 500bill in 15 at's was not put into place to stop farming, big guys or small guys, it was a temporary solution to stop a bug that was in the game, it has now been patched and thus should be undone.

Wolf359 wrote:first off - yes it is a war game - but farming isn't war, and it is precisely because of ideas like this that the bigger accounts grow exponentially faster than the smaller ones and.

second - to play the game as a war game you do not need to have an account that is unprofitable when making attacks for over 500 billion!

Furthermore, it hurts the smaller guys because the smaller guys do not have a chance of farming that much, but yet you want to make it easier for the bigger accounts, who can already farm that much, to be able to farm more with less AT??

Like I said - it's not as if AT is a shortage, and if it is unprofitable for the bigger players to 'farm' then perhaps you need to look at different ways to play?

It boils down to the simple fact that the majority of the updates have been implemented to make things easier, not more interesting! unkillable UU, raid, unlimited AT etc, have all led to this and are the reason it now may bee unprofitable for a small MINORITY of players.

To throw it back to you, geisha - what actually is the point in making it easier for the bigger accounts to farm more with less AT, while the smaller players do not benefit (as they can't farm that much anyway), and thus widen the gap further?

Wolf, I think you don't quite get my point.

Right now the big accounts are sitting there with a big defence. They can have trillions of naq out and nobody is going to farm them because their losses would cost more than the 500 billion naq they are farming.

So effectively, the can just sit there and grow and grow and grow and grow and the gap between the big guys and the small guys gets even bigger.

However, if it would be profitable to farm big defences because you could actually make trillions, then people would do it. And their losses would still be astronomical. Instead of sitting there growing peacefully, people would actually be taking resources out of the game by destroying UU in attacks. And the gap between the big and the small guys would become smaller.

What does it matter to the small guys where exactly all the trillions in the game are? If player A has a trillion more than player B, the small guy won't see any difference for his account at all.

This is NOT about attack turns. Attack turns have nothing to do with the fact that people are not being farmed because the losses are too big.

I get the feeling your only **Filtered** because your account sucks and anything a bigger player says has to be wrong just because they are bigger. You didn't even get my point.

geisha wrote:I get the feeling your only **Filtered** because your account sucks and anything a bigger player says has to be wrong just because they are bigger.

Well, in my eyes you lose any credibility with that statement - you can't accept what I've said (or can't argue back logically) so you resort to a personal attack?? I had to chuckle.

It matters not one iota to me that my account is smaller than yours (after all - I did only start it in September, and have had over 2 months not playing since then). And you seem to forget that when I was one of the big players, I still went against suggestions that made things easier for the bigger guys and that widened the gap to the smaller ones.

I'm not **Filtered**, and unlike you I didn't resort to personal attacks, I'm simply stating what I believe the outcome of this will be.

I get your point completely - I simply don't see it as the important factor in the argument - and you continually fail to see the obvious point that this makes things easier for the big accounts to grow exponentially faster than the smaller ones - THAT is why it matters to the smaller ones - and that it is because of updates such as this (and the unlimited availability of AT (a major factor in the exponential growth) - which is why AT is a factor) that have allowed the game to get to the point that it is and why there is such a gulf - and why other things need to be put in/updated etc to try and sort it.

People, and generally a small minority who shout the loudest, have always asked for updates to make things easier or so they have less hurt when attacked - unkillable UU, miners, raid, more and more AT....... the list goes on. Now on their own they aren't that bad - but combined, and with some short sighted implementation, they have damaged the game, and are what lead to people wanting other things changed too.

If attacking for naq through a certain defence is unprofitable, then there are ways around that. Yes, it will mean more losses initially - but that also highlights the main problem with this game at the moment - it has ceased to be a war game and is more of a 'who can have the biggest account through the easiest means with no consequences' game.

So, you may think I'm missing your point - but you seem to be definately missing mine.

Wolf359 wrote:People, and generally a small minority who shout the loudest, have always asked for updates to make things easier or so they have less hurt when attacked - unkillable UU, miners, raid, more and more AT....... the list goes on. Now on their own they aren't that bad - but combined, and with some short sighted implementation, they have damaged the game, and are what lead to people wanting other things changed too.

well but my suggestions are about making things harder, not easier. I'm asking to make the big player's life harder and force them to actually bank again.

Just I was suggesting other things like a new attack type to destroy AC, so people can't store millions and millions of UU and be safe.

So in your opinion, what other ways are there to farm big players? Just mass them until their defence is low enough?

Your whole oh but the poor small players won't get a piece of the cake, just doesn't make any sense here at all. Big players grow faster either way. They grow when keeping their naq because nobody farms them, and they grow when stealing naq from others.

Besides I fail to see any personal attacks. Saying that it looks like you are one of those people who always complain about big players just because they are big, can hardly be classed a personal attack.

Anyway, it is a suggestion. Nothing more. And luckily those kind of things are not up to you to decide.

Ok.

From the "Little Guy Who Sits Round Doing Nothing's" point of view (that's mine btw), removing the 500bil limit would have no affect on me, so I do not see why it should be there now the bug has gone.

Either way a huge person will have that of naq, it doesn't really make a difference which one as when it comes down to it, the only way it could affect me is if they use the naq to mass me.

I say remove it. It won't affect the speed of growth. If anything it will encourage wars in the higher echelon of players, and will actually retard (slow) the larger players growth. Especially those who are stat builders.

I do see your point geisha - honestly I do - but, playing devil's advocate (as I have always done with suggestions) I think that the ability to farm more with less AT is the dominant factor here.

I suppose it could lead to the bigger players attacking each other more - which would be of benefit to the smaller guys - but again, I'm not sure that outweighs the point above.....?

As for the attack - you didn't quite put it that way, but let's not get hung up on it. Like I said, even when I was a big player, I still questioned suggestions such as this. A lot of the time I am, as stated above, just playing devils advocate, to try and understand what is actually being said, or to see if those suggesting it have thought it and all the repurcussions through. A lot of the time (but by no means all of the time), some people realise that they haven't. I even convinced hidden that I was right and he was wrong once!!!

lol fair enuff, but I still don't get your point about AT. If someone has 1 trill out and I could take it with 1 hit, that's 15 AT, with the limit it takes 2 hits it's 30 AT.

I don't think that makes that much of a difference attack turn wise. However, taking 1 trill in 1 hit and only having 1 time the losses might be profitable while attacking twice and taking double the losses will not. So effectively people don't farm. And that's booooooooooooooooring.


It's ages ago that I slept in and was like WTH I bet I was farmed. Today I know all my naq will be sitting there waiting for me unless I managed to annoy someone enough to mass me.

I think that's lame. I miss the WTH part....

I fully agree with Wolf concerning the need to remove unlimited AT from the game, but in this specific case, I agree with Geisha. The limit was a temporary patch till a bug could be fixed, and presently it is helping to "protect" large accounts. Therefore it needs to be removed.

And unlimited AT

Yes but lore, if admin now removes the AT's from the market, the gap between small and big will get wider, because the small guy will never beable to afford the AT's to raid to catch up, only those with big incomes will grow.

agree the 500B cap should be removed

eg

lets say a smaller person has 500B defence and 1T naq he still going to get hit twice

now a bigger person 3T+ defence and 2T naq no hits unless you have powerfull attack planets and MS


with the cap increase to 1T

they both get hit once and the smaller acount would have more troops

GeneralChaos wrote:Yes but lore, if admin now removes the AT's from the market, the gap between small and big will get wider, because the small guy will never beable to afford the AT's to raid to catch up, only those with big incomes will grow.

what makes you so sure of that?

from our understanding, removing those unlimited ATs would, for a short time make things much harder, since people are used to raiding for say 200 uus per AT, but eventually, due to a sudden drop in AT availability, it will suddenly be something like 600 UUs per AT, then rise further shortly...

also, trading for ats will also get a lot more expensive... the smaller players will suddenly charge a lot more for their ats...
also, this whole change is slowly happening already, as the market price is dynamic...