Page 4 of 4
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:39 am
by Squeaky
no one wil ever know what it would do but it could get better or worse at the mo i would say 40 at the most
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:11 pm
by lemminglen1
Shizune wrote:i can powerfarming to come...
...What? Sorry i just don't understanding what you're saying, is it "I can
see powerfarming to come"? I don't mean to be rude, i just want to be clear.
Also, i think it's agreed that 40% is appropriate, though some may argue to keep it at 30% or move it to 50%. Honestly though for anyone who is going to post, don't suggest 100%, it won't happen, and you're just wasting space.
Finally, i think either the idea of bonus income for a fleet commander/first prime/whatever, or the idea of individual officer income rates, is a great idea, it would add more complexity to the commander/officer system, without, necessarily, reducing the amount of income available for attack. In fact, i think this suggestion is far more important than, though not unrelated to, the suggestion of a higher officer income cap.
Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 5:39 pm
by Rukia
lemminglen1 wrote:...What? Sorry i just don't understanding what you're saying, is it "I can see powerfarming to come"? I don't mean to be rude, i just want to be clear.
that is wat i was trying to say but ur close to breaking rule 6...
lemminglen1 wrote:Also, i think it's agreed that 40% is appropriate, though some may argue to keep it at 30% or move it to 50%. Honestly though for anyone who is going to post, don't suggest 100%, it won't happen, and you're just wasting space.
40% is good and limits powerfarming a bit...100% means ur officers become superfarms ^_^
lemminglen1 wrote:Finally, i think either the idea of bonus income for a fleet commander/first prime/whatever, or the idea of individual officer income rates, is a great idea, it would add more complexity to the commander/officer system, without, necessarily, reducing the amount of income available for attack. In fact, i think this suggestion is far more important than, though not unrelated to, the suggestion of a higher officer income cap.
is a title bonus realli necessary?
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:38 am
by Squeaky
i was trying to say that if we do add it in we cant tell what will happen if people will mass or not
there is no way to tell but 2 hav a stab in the dark and gess what will happen
but the other ideas are good well i think anyways
Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:41 am
by Reality
Hmm.
Bob is a commander. He makes 100 million naquadah per turn. He has an officer named 4l1c3_t3h_n00b that has an income of 50million naquadah per turn.
4l1c3_t3h_n00b is Bob's only officer, and he is giving her 100% of his income. She now makes 150 million naquadah per turn. She, however, also has an officer. His name is Squeaky_Mikey, and he makes 92 million naquadah per turn. 1lic3_t3h_n00b gives Squeaky_Mikey 100% of her income, and Squeaky_Mikey now produces 242 million naquadah per turn. (and so on)
An entire alliance can be linked in this way, and always have the last officer in the chain be on PPT (and periodically change him when his 4 days of PPT per week are gone). The alliance, of course, never gets farmed, as they do no produce naquadah.
Now, 100% is a horrible idea, but even 90%, 80% and such are much too high. This is an old thread, and I am sorry that I have only read the first and last page, but here's me giving a concrete example to "y'all". If it's irrelevant, just admire the nice names that I made up.
= Reality =
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:28 am
by Squeaky
yea it would help people but it would be abused straight away
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:42 am
by urogard
Squeaky wrote:yea it would help people but it would be abused straight away
so at least people agree that it could go a bit higher,
Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:57 am
by Squeaky
yea we all do just not 100% thats stupid
Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:03 pm
by urogard
Squeaky wrote:yea we all do just not 100% thats stupid
ehm, dude. that has been confirmed by everyone who took part in the discussion. try reading the first post and the few after that. you might find some things that come again and again.
Re: anyone against increase in % of income to off's?
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:25 pm
by -_RIKKY_-
Why not leave the officer bonus alone (as it is now) and just increase the amount we can give officers. To help them out... thats what officers started off as right?? someone that you could help
Re: anyone against increase in % of income to off's?
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:17 am
by Lore
-_RIKKY_- wrote:Why not leave the officer bonus alone (as it is now) and just increase the amount we can give officers. To help them out... thats what officers started off as right?? someone that you could help
You went back 2 years to drag this thread out? Sure your a noobie mate? How long it take you to find this thread?
Re: crap idea [close it]
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 8:47 am
by urogard
well thread necromancy ftw
Re: crap idea [close it]
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:00 am
by Lore
urogard wrote:well thread necromancy ftw
per author's request