StarGateWars Forums

Su wrote:
Trading I agree with, however it's finding a way around the abusers that currently puzzle me.
There is no silver bullet, if there were we would have found it already

Caps, well perhaps but if we keep to 1 turn per tick then it will be hard to get to the cap.
Maybe its not the amount per turn? but the amount per action? maybe 1 AT is all thats needed to attack?

Buying, Nope. I don't agree with. I completely support the need for this game to get funds to move forward with so I agree with SS and USS. I just don't agree with Ingame Markets, Free or paid.
Ok you lost me, you dont want a ingame market at all? Only P2P transactions? or you saying no $$ market?

adminGary wrote:There is a lot of issues with trading, the bigest being people feeding one account. If there was a decent way to prevent that behavor I would allow for a P2P market to exist.
There is no way, as a player involved in a massive take over of one game, we had entire alliances joining to funnel resources to the few HC members who played, the game crumbled under the pressure.


AT is supposed to be a device that makes the game have a presence of time. Therefore I don't like the idea of purchasing AT, it robs the game of an element of gameplay.

THANK YOU!!!!! UU, naq, weapons, mercs, are all physical things, AT is the time required to preform an action. HOW can you buy that?

I have suggested a paid skill or tech, with a mantinace fee, that could increase AT production so set times.

@ Semper I have to respectfully disagree. What you are suggesting is a popularity contest. This is another case where alliance mates and R/L friends who will never actively play will create accounts and funnel resources. It also ends up giving the person online every single day a large advantage over someone who isnt able to log on 2 or 3 times a week or who misses their trades. If you allow UU transfers of 10 per day, and your UP is 10 per day, then some will have a 20 UP every day, a newer playes with small friend bases will suffer greatly.

I still stand by and suggest NO P2P transfers, only allow trade to the galactic market. This maintains prices and stops trades for 1 mill UU for 1 naq or resource funneling.

IF and only IF you make a P2P transfer, then YOU set the price by the galactic market so you Su and I want to trade UU for Naq then The price is set by the market, that means he has to pay FULL Naq price for the UU just like he was getting the UU from market. That will slow/stop resource funneling.

Su wrote:
Point is resources are far to easy to come by right now in main, hence the pointlessness of wars. There's no meaning and the objective is something unachievable.

On the flip side, making resources so limited is also bad but in a different manner. By adding the ability for people to work together using a Broker idea but with a way to manage it as suggested by others in my opinion is the way to go. It also adds team play to the game.

I agree and disagree, I think 1 man needs the ability to fight back, but not indefinitly. As for the team work part I think that fits into my above idea, I just force a just price to be paid for resources and not 1 mill UU for 1 naq, or 1 trill naq of 1 uu. Allowing trade is fine, sell UU to smaller players for safe income to expand your UP or Technolgy. Just force a fair price.

I said per week lore, not per day, and its p2p...so that one trade would be both persons one trade for the week The caps would not allow an abusive amount of resources to be transferred. Yes, maybe 20UP a day, even 80UP... but an extra 100men per week is not going to give anyone a massive advantage, not when we are starting with around 3700 units. 1/37th in the opening week? Some people will get that extra from the increased up they will have farmed to get.

Semper wrote:I said per week lore, not per day, and its p2p...so that one trade would be both persons one trade for the week The caps would not allow an abusive amount of resources to be transferred. Yes, maybe 20UP a day, even 80UP... but an extra 100men per week is not going to give anyone a massive advantage, not when we are starting with around 3700 units. 1/37th in the opening week? Some people will get that extra from the increased up they will have farmed to get.

1 a week isnt even enough to be called trading

plus if its in there it will grow over time

JMO

Im open to anything new, just pitch in my 2 cents

I made another suggestion elsewhere, conceding this point..

about an ingame lobby...where you post up your resources with your desired price, and people can take as much as they want..and pay the right amount.

Say I put up.. 1mill uu, and asked for 1000000 naq. Joe (joe is the man..) only wants 250,000 uu, so he only gets 250,000 uu and pays 250,000 naq for it. My remaining 750k uu stays on the market, waiting for the next buyer.

Like I also said elsewhere.. you and su gary, will know where I got that one from.

Will all killable units, and only 1 ppt, I reckon that system would work very nicely.

It is a suggestion, but i dont like it

nor the way it was abused there either


It never set well with me finding out I sold resources to "Joe" and Joe masses me with those same resources.

This can also be cover instantly by just using the galactic market and no P2P

same effect.

But it is a suggestion to be concidered, not knocking it, just stating I dont like it.

Keep it anonymous then. That would also stop people trying to control the rates by threat of violence.

it was only abused there because of the stupidity of other people who did not realise what some where doing....

Lol, battle of the intellect here.

This is good discussion!!!

One question, who quoted me and respond in green? I assume that's you Lore? Let me take a moment to respond to that before I get ahead of myself.

Trading I agree with, however it's finding a way around the abusers that currently puzzle me.
There is no silver bullet, if there were we would have found it already

Understood! I agree but it should be manageable.

Caps, well perhaps but if we keep to 1 turn per tick then it will be hard to get to the cap.
Maybe its not the amount per turn? but the amount per action? maybe 1 AT is all thats needed to attack?

Perhaps we should explore this. I just think the turns should be even to everyone and not based on how often to log in so on so forth. The bottom line is there will always be a gap between whom is active and who is extremely active. I also think that is fair, if I spend 6 hours more then you per week, i deserve more. Just as if we work the same job getting paid the same, if I work 40 hours per week and you work 20, then you should get less then me! Please don't take this to the flip side, and say it is possible for one to work harder in a shorter amount of time, and yes I agree with that but more often the one who spends more time gets more out of it.

Buying, Nope. I don't agree with. I completely support the need for this game to get funds to move forward with so I agree with SS and USS. I just don't agree with Ingame Markets, Free or paid.
Ok you lost me, you dont want a ingame market at all? Only P2P transactions? or you saying no $$ market?[/qoute]

I think we should support the game by SS, but limited. I also think we should have a in game market but only supplied by goods from players not randomly generated goods. I don't think I should be able to buy resources directly from the game market for world currencies. I support a in game p2p market that will need limitations. .

adminGary wrote:There is a lot of issues with trading, the bigest being people feeding one account. If there was a decent way to prevent that behavor I would allow for a P2P market to exist.
There is no way, as a player involved in a massive take over of one game, we had entire alliances joining to funnel resources to the few HC members who played, the game crumbled under the pressure.


AT is supposed to be a device that makes the game have a presence of time. Therefore I don't like the idea of purchasing AT, it robs the game of an element of gameplay.

THANK YOU!!!!! UU, naq, weapons, mercs, are all physical things, AT is the time required to preform an action. HOW can you buy that?

I have suggested a paid skill or tech, with a mantinace fee, that could increase AT production so set times.

@ Semper I have to respectfully disagree. What you are suggesting is a popularity contest. This is another case where alliance mates and R/L friends who will never actively play will create accounts and funnel resources. It also ends up giving the person online every single day a large advantage over someone who isnt able to log on 2 or 3 times a week or who misses their trades. If you allow UU transfers of 10 per day, and your UP is 10 per day, then some will have a 20 UP every day, a newer playes with small friend bases will suffer greatly.

I still stand by and suggest NO P2P transfers, only allow trade to the galactic market. This maintains prices and stops trades for 1 mill UU for 1 naq or resource funneling.

IF and only IF you make a P2P transfer, then YOU set the price by the galactic market so you Su and I want to trade UU for Naq then The price is set by the market, that means he has to pay FULL Naq price for the UU just like he was getting the UU from market. That will slow/stop resource funneling.[\quote]

Su wrote:
Point is resources are far to easy to come by right now in main, hence the pointlessness of wars. There's no meaning and the objective is something unachievable.

On the flip side, making resources so limited is also bad but in a different manner. By adding the ability for people to work together using a Broker idea but with a way to manage it as suggested by others in my opinion is the way to go. It also adds team play to the game.

I agree and disagree, I think 1 man needs the ability to fight back, but not indefinitly. As for the team work part I think that fits into my above idea, I just force a just price to be paid for resources and not 1 mill UU for 1 naq, or 1 trill naq of 1 uu. Allowing trade is fine, sell UU to smaller players for safe income to expand your UP or Technolgy. Just force a fair price.

Yes, they should be able to fight back, but not in the manner that they can and do now.

We have had lots of time to think things over.

For starters I'll explain how the new system that we've been thinking over works. We will have a vote for either the new system, or scraping it and reverting to the old system.

The new system we are introducing is fairly simple. You now have two 'pools' of AT rather than the previous single 'pool'.

One pool is refilled every single server tick, the other pool is slowly filled to a maximum level over time. When using your AT, you will use the first pool, and only when that first pool is used up will you start to use the AT of the second pool.

The first pool of AT is designed to give the game a sense of time passing. The second pool of AT acts as a rested buffer for the first pool. This way you don't have to worry about missing a server tick, or even a few days worth of server ticks.

Now, I need a few numbers to fill in the holes here.
What should the first pool (refreshing every 30 minutes) refresh to?
How much AT per server tick should be added to the second pool?
Where should the cap for the second pool be?

adminGary wrote:We have had lots of time to think things over.

For starters I'll explain how the new system that we've been thinking over works. We will have a vote for either the new system, or scraping it and reverting to the old system.

The new system we are introducing is fairly simple. You now have two 'pools' of AT rather than the previous single 'pool'.

One pool is refilled every single server tick, the other pool is slowly filled to a maximum level over time. When using your AT, you will use the first pool, and only when that first pool is used up will you start to use the AT of the second pool.

The first pool of AT is designed to give the game a sense of time passing. The second pool of AT acts as a rested buffer for the first pool. This way you don't have to worry about missing a server tick, or even a few days worth of server ticks.

Now, I need a few numbers to fill in the holes here.
What should the first pool (refreshing every 30 minutes) refresh to?
How much AT per server tick should be added to the second pool?
Where should the cap for the second pool be?

First pool? (Assuming Attacks require 15 AT?)
150 = 10 attacks
1500 = 100 attacks

It take aproximately 30 to 33 attacks to mass someone? so id say no less then 495, rounded to 500 AT so you can mass in 1 turn

I say the reserve pile should be slow to raise, but have a high max.
grows at 1 to 3 per click
5K to 10K

Reserves grow at 1 per click with


just to start the discussion

Lore wrote:First pool? (Assuming Attacks require 15 AT?)
150 = 10 attacks
1500 = 100 attacks

It take aproximately 30 to 33 attacks to mass someone? so id say no less then 495, rounded to 500 AT so you can mass in 1 turn

I say the reserve pile should be slow to raise, but have a high max.
grows at 1 to 3 per click
5K to 10K

Reserves grow at 1 per click with


just to start the discussion

I like your idea. The only adjustment I would make would be to make it that the second pool only gets AT if the first pool is more than half full.

That way if you believe that you'll need more AT's to mass multiple accounts, you'll need to more deeply stratergise.

Lore wrote:First pool? (Assuming Attacks require 15 AT?)
150 = 10 attacks
1500 = 100 attacks

It take aproximately 30 to 33 attacks to mass someone? so id say no less then 495, rounded to 500 AT so you can mass in 1 turn

I say the reserve pile should be slow to raise, but have a high max.
grows at 1 to 3 per click
5K to 10K

Reserves grow at 1 per click with


just to start the discussion

See I lean just the opposite. I don't think you should be able to mass 1 person per turn.

I think an allotment of say 150 (or so) ATs that reset every turn is a fair amount. As for the 2nd pool. 1AT per turn with a max of around 5k. So if you haven't been saving up then to mass someone would take coordinated work on an alliances part. (at least 3 people)

this could be very good, still leaves question of buying selling turns though

I'd be very much against buying and selling turns. The availability of turns is what pretty much destroyed main in many people's opinions. And as stated accumulation of turns is a representation of time passing (thus you can't really buy and sell time). So hopefully AdminGary is against the idea of selling/buying turns.

Yeah I'm hoping he sticks to his guns there too.

If turns become buyable, I think a lot of people will delete their origins account.

I for one am against the the ability of the buying of turns.