StarGateWars Forums

well, g'nyt mate.

I like this idea, but Wolf & 12agnar0k good points, this would drive people to statless accounts.

An easy way to fix that is that if you have over a percentage of men in miners, some of the naq earned is taxed for a lack of a better word and the taxed naq is put into the market. And the more men you have in the mines after that percentage, the higher the tax. Up to the point of 100% taxed.

That should force the players to invest in stats.

However, if you have less than say...100K men in total, the tax doesn't kick in so they can build up to where they can get going.


Also,ATs. Do like Wolf wants and end infinite ATs. Wolf's already pointed out what it'd do for the game so I won't repeat it.

That's my say on this.
DLR

weilandsmith wrote:countries around the world spend billions of $$ maintaining their armies. in the fictional world of stargate, the US government spends a lot to maintain the stargate program.

in the game, there is no accounting for the expense of maintaining soldiers. people can build a 100 mil trained army without having to pay for maintenance of the troops.

this is a proposal that hopes to see some sort of balancing rule put into place to make the economical model of the game a bit more realistic. it will also affect gameplay in such a way that the basic soldier becomes a valuable asset that simply cannot be killed off and replaced out of hand. perhaps, this will bring back strategic thinking instead of all out war using numerical superiority.

i propose that a maintenance cost structure be placed in the game. the figures are not exact, but, it gives a starting point with which to being the argument. what say 3 naq per soldier per turn?

maintenance costs could also be placed for the MS and defense platforms.

depending on what will be maintained, the costs can be adjusted accordingly.

this is a raw idea that needs fine tuning. feel free to post your input.

Congratulations... your bank has gone into administration you must give 50% of your naq in your bank to me... That will teach you for investing badly...

TheRook

and No to the more realistic economy

Wolf359 wrote:Yes - raiding takes effort - mainly the effort to stay awake whilst doing it

lol, sigged,

Also, lol at weilandsmith because he thinks after charging people maintanence to hold stats he then charges them tax for not holding them.

As I said why doesnt admin just delete all our accounts then we can give him USSs for being his friend.

@weiland - sorry, i disagree... you gain naq for the more troops you have, pay naq to buy/repair weaps and MS, pay to train... it is enough

@12ag - how many soldiers do u know in RL that -in your words- "collect stamps" as a expenditure?

@wolf - find me just one of thse accounts that make trills a turn, and i shal pay you handsomly for it

@teesdale

You mean you dont know any stamp collecting soldiers!!!

-Feels sad for poor tees.-

12agnar0k wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:Yes - raiding takes effort - mainly the effort to stay awake whilst doing it

lol, sigged

*chuckles*

I just want to clear one thing up - and thanks to Lore for highlighting it to me. My long and rather direct post on Page 1 was not designed to have a pop at players who contribute $$ to the game - far from it. Money that actually goes into the game is needed to keep the game going - the kind of $$ I have a problem with personally is from those who make personal gain from the game - I much preferred it when you had to pay $10 to get a PPT - you knew the cash was going straight to the game, and not as many people were on PPT - since that went away it seems more personal cash is being exchanged between players, rather than going to the game.

My point was to try and say that those with bigger accounts, whether through hard work or $$, should not be advantaged (or, indeed, smaller accounts disadvantaged) by any suggestion that is made. My belief is that this suggestion would actually cause such an imbalance, for reasons already stated. Again, if this had been thought of earlier, it would have been a different matter.

On another note - there's kind of an in-joke going about regarding me 'assassinating' suggestions - - and I've noticed a few people recently say things like '*waits for Wolf to find this thread*'. Well, I'm not going to stop doing it - I just want people to know that such 'assassinations' come about because I am thinking about how it will/might affect the game as a whole, and that it is nothing personal. Also, it is not always because I don't like an idea - sometimes I just act as Devil's Advocate, pointing out potential pit-falls etc that the author of the suggestion might not have considered - and sometimes this goes on for somebody to find a way to overcome it and think up something better! Please don't stop making suggestions for fear of me (or anyone else) doing a hatchet job on it - even bad ideas can act as a catalyst for good ones, and no suggestion is a bad suggestion when it is initially made - only when potential negative aspects have been unearthed.

Well I agree with wolf partly, people shouldnt use the game just as a way to make $ to spend on your bills in life, the game is supposed to be for your enjoyment not a second job, but if you have the good business sense to use this as an online investment to further your bank roll then good on you, So long as you have fun whilst doing it, then its okay by me, personally I have , well I have reasons but none id care to concentrate my efforts on, to sell for $ to use in my life, such as bills or purchases for my house e.t.c, as you can get a fair bit of money through SGW, but i prefer to re-invest the majority of any money I get from traders who would have gone to someone else who would have put the money into their pocket, back into the game helping to keep it alive and giving me easy access to turns and merlins.
I feel this to be a much better and healtier way to play the $ market of the game as no $ leaves the game,

I have nothing against the occassional sale for $, I mean sometimes life calls on you for an expenditure and if SGW can help you obtain it then so be it, but the people who only sell for $, if they couldnt they wouldnt be here, just shouldnt be here as they no longer derive enjoyment from the game they should move on and find soemthing else they can enjoy, it is healthier for them.

Regards, Ian.

And I want to point out, even Wolf has been converted to appriciate an idea after a bit of evolution.

well, i posted this with expectations of people dishing out ideas. so far, no ideas except some flat out "no"s and criticisms for even thinking about this. am waiting for more constructive posts.

@wolf, i always look forward to the posts that you make in the forum. they are concise and incisive. i'm certainly not offended by the blunt method of your postings.

Well all I can say is I have suggested and agree with maintanance cost, but in this case I agree with Wolf 100%. As long as unlimited AT exist in this game its not a good decision, and the game has been running to long to put it in now. In the first yr would have been a good idea, now, it just won't work.

Weil, comments which pick out the flaws of your suggestions are constructive its your role as suggestion maker to take these flaws and revise your suggestion, if you want people to do all the work for you, why not just wait for someone else to come up with it.

12agnar0k wrote:Weil, comments which pick out the flaws of your suggestions are constructive its your role as suggestion maker to take these flaws and revise your suggestion, if you want people to do all the work for you, why not just wait for someone else to come up with it.

well, i've actually been thinking about wolf's input.... no brilliant ideas have come to mind so far... in the meantime, i'm waiting for someone else to be brilliant..

got any ideas? the main thrust of wolf's argument is the balance between bigger and smaller accounts. how exactly do you address that? it's not easy to formulate something especially when you know how it should translate into programming. for example, if admin takes up my suggestion and implements maintenance, how do you balance out big versus small accounts? should you use ratios or percentages as basis for maintenance fees depending on an individual account's income? accounts with less than a bil income per turn will be charged so and so unspecified % of total maintenance fees while accounts with 1 to 2 bil income per turn should be charged a higher percentage of maintenance fees? i guess this can work. you have your block of maintenance fee. lets say 100% is 500 naq per unit per turn (UU no charge). at a BASE income of 8 bil or more a turn, an account can feasibly hold a respectable sized army without running out of funds. at say 4 to 5 bil per turn, you can drop maintenance fees down to 80 or 75% of 500 naq per turn.... so on and so forth... mind you, the effect of this will look like your source of naq has dried up. so raiding for naq and protecting your naq becomes an even more intense activity.

then, some units will be more expensive to maintain than others... supers more expensive than soldiers and cov/anticov.... miners charged fee as well?

again, the main thrust is to make you work harder for your resources and appreciate them better. even if there were unlimited ATs in the market, as lore and wolf emphasized, purchasing those ATs becomes difficult because of the scarcity of the base resource > naq.

lots of thoughts... please share yours.

still useless and needless.



and IMO, it wont ever change. I dont see how it could ever be good for todays game,

As I said, needless.

12agnar0k wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:Yes - raiding takes effort - mainly the effort to stay awake whilst doing it

lol, sigged,

wolf said it himself farming for naq and raiding for uu has become a boring routine. there's no fun in it. why? because all the resources are out there ripe for the picking....

if there were lesser resources to fight over, the enjoyment factor of the game grows higher because you would have to squeeze your brain and be skillful enough to farm for limited resources.

the idea of army maintenance fees per turn is just one way of realizing a vision where you actually have to think hard about your priorities for your account and how to go about getting the resources so that you can fulfill those priorities. with a reduction in resources, you think more, you plan more, and you feel more satisfaction when your plans succeed.

if admin is to overhaul this system, he might as well do it by incorporating something else with it. that's where army maintenance costs comes in. it will significantly reduce income.