StarGateWars Forums

Radium wrote:

12agnar0k wrote:it is a nice way to scam, get someone to broker you , say with 500k uu for your 200 bil, then when they are not around, decline it and mass raid them

I agree this is an anti scam upgrade. The person argueing against this is Wolf, who openly is anti trade as well

Er - read my last post - the perfect solution.

What I am arguing against is giving people free reign to send trades out willy nilly without it ever affecting them - the solution I presented - as an add on to Kerrus' post would solve the issuing of losing the naq, and stop people from abusing the broker as a bank - so what's the problem?

And, since when was I anti-trade? That's a strange thing to say about someone with a trade feeback thread!

Wolf359 wrote:
Er - read my last post - the perfect solution.

What I am arguing against is giving people free reign to send trades out willy nilly without it ever affecting them - the solution I presented - as an add on to Kerrus' post would solve the issuing of losing the naq, and stop people from abusing the broker as a bank - so what's the problem?

And, since when was I anti-trade? That's a strange thing to say about someone with a trade feeback thread!

I shortened the quotes because I hate quote wars

I do agree that making another way to override banking limits is somethign to be avoided. I did not read that last post carefully enough. Candidly I cannot pick your idea apart. So while I love playing devil's advocate I actually do like the idea. The only question is how much time would be involved in coding it, but that is best left answered by others.

Regarding my statement about you being antitrade I will say that numerous posts at least have given me that feeling. If you are saying I got the wrong impression then I accept your word. Also just because you do trade does not mean you favor it being in game. There are a number of features in the game I do not like, but use since they are part of the game. I mention that only so you understand a bit of where I am coming from.

Radium wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:
Er - read my last post - the perfect solution.

What I am arguing against is giving people free reign to send trades out willy nilly without it ever affecting them - the solution I presented - as an add on to Kerrus' post would solve the issuing of losing the naq, and stop people from abusing the broker as a bank - so what's the problem?

And, since when was I anti-trade? That's a strange thing to say about someone with a trade feeback thread!

I shortened the quotes because I hate quote wars

I do agree that making another way to override banking limits is somethign to be avoided. I did not read that last post carefully enough. Candidly I cannot pick your idea apart. So while I love playing devil's advocate I actually do like the idea. The only question is how much time would be involved in coding it, but that is best left answered by others.

Regarding my statement about you being antitrade I will say that numerous posts at least have given me that feeling. If you are saying I got the wrong impression then I accept your word. Also just because you do trade does not mean you favor it being in game. There are a number of features in the game I do not like, but use since they are part of the game. I mention that only so you understand a bit of where I am coming from.

I do not like the fact that trade seems to have taken over the game - but I have never been totally against it!