StarGateWars Forums

Jim wrote:Havnt read the whole thread but my 2cents:

you could instead reduce the amount of covert levels lost on ascension, Say at lower lvls (0-10) you only loose 1 of your covert levels when you ascend. 10-20 you loose 2 levels and 20-23 you loose 3.

This keeps higher ascensions as expensive as ever but helps lower ascended players stay in the game at least somewhat....


So if your Lg and want to get to LG+1, if your Covert level is 31 it will only be reduced to 30. but if your unnamed trying to get to unknown and your covert is 38, it goes down to 35.

fixed

Good idea IMO Jim. Especially since the next covert level = sum of all previous levels

Sarevok wrote:Good idea IMO Jim. Especially since the next covert level = sum of all previous levels

Yay for an idea approved by Sarevok, the all knowing god of Suggestions. Not that ideas mean anything anymore unless they come from our all knowing lord and master... the hallowed Jason.

Jim wrote:Havnt read the whole thread but my 2cents:
No.

In other news, you could instead reduce the amount of covert levels lost on ascension, Say at lower lvls (0-10) you only loose 1 of your covert levels when you ascend. 10-20 you loose 2 levels and 20-23 you loose 3.

This keeps higher ascensions as expensive as ever but helps lower ascended players stay in the game at least somewhat....


So if your Lg and want to get to LG+1, if your Covert level is 31 it will only be reduced to 30. but if your unnamed trying to get to unknown and your covert is 38, it goes down to 35.

Brilliant...now if only that actually came into play lol

Iƒrit wrote:

NanoBite wrote:When turns were 300b per k, what was the highest covert level around ?
36 or 37, at least to my knowledge.

It is an argument as you require the extra turns to accumilate the resources needed.
The higher the covert level you want, the more turns you require.
And as far as I can tell, the covert level price increases a damn lot faster per level then infilation will provide the naq for turns. Which in it self, is a good thing, as you would still require the time investment gathering the resources while spending the turns
I didn't say it wasn't an argument I said it was an irrational one the idea doesn't eliminate the grind or eliminate turns from the picture at all, so in essence your point is not rational. Specially since the idea is to generate balance, specially for newer players.

Imo, making covert levels cheaper is a very bad idea .... it will damage a working game economy (not just meaning $$ here) especially now, as coverts are a basic element of use at this moment.
In fact using logic it will not, UU and ATs should be increasing or staying in its range it is mostly based off profit made/performed from the action of ATs. The one example you used is known as "flooding", market was flooded thus prices dropped, its always gonna be the case when the supply exceeds the demands.

In effect, it has taken 2 / 2,5 years for the prices for turns to triple and and the max covert levels to have gone up 1 or 2 levels.
There is a very delicate system at work there for it to have taken such a long time.
To suddenly decrease the prices will mean that one element suddenly becomes more available.
Action will give reaction and an expected outcome will be a higher turns price inflation increasing faster too.

In effect, it will be a direct cause for even higher, and more expensive covert levels to be within reach/desired aswell.
Which will be bought more too, requiring more resources, leaving us in the same boat as we are now, but only with even higherer levels,
which require even more work or 'grind', increasing the gap between different types of players (activeness/power levels).
Turns will become more expensive faster too for everyone and all those with their current investements will get the bad end of the stick on this one.

I cant help to think it would be a very bad move.

If the idea is to make it easier for lower ascendeds and newer players, why not create a more balanced situation what happens during the use of coverts between differing ascension ranks. (thats a tuff cookie to achieve though)



btw:
The example I gave for the 'gifts' were to show how quickly a change can occur when something is changed to the game.
Halfway januari, 6 weeks after the 'gifts' there were still players with 10's of k's of turns on hand and in brokers as a direct result of it.

NanoBite wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

NanoBite wrote:When turns were 300b per k, what was the highest covert level around ?
36 or 37, at least to my knowledge.

It is an argument as you require the extra turns to accumilate the resources needed.
The higher the covert level you want, the more turns you require.
And as far as I can tell, the covert level price increases a damn lot faster per level then infilation will provide the naq for turns. Which in it self, is a good thing, as you would still require the time investment gathering the resources while spending the turns
I didn't say it wasn't an argument I said it was an irrational one the idea doesn't eliminate the grind or eliminate turns from the picture at all, so in essence your point is not rational. Specially since the idea is to generate balance, specially for newer players.

Imo, making covert levels cheaper is a very bad idea .... it will damage a working game economy (not just meaning $$ here) especially now, as coverts are a basic element of use at this moment.
In fact using logic it will not, UU and ATs should be increasing or staying in its range it is mostly based off profit made/performed from the action of ATs. The one example you used is known as "flooding", market was flooded thus prices dropped, its always gonna be the case when the supply exceeds the demands.

In effect, it has taken 2 / 2,5 years for the prices for turns to triple and and the max covert levels to have gone up 1 or 2 levels.
There is a very delicate system at work there for it to have taken such a long time.
To suddenly decrease the prices will mean that one element suddenly becomes more available.
Action will give reaction and an expected outcome will be a higher turns price inflation increasing faster too.

In effect, it will be a direct cause for even higher, and more expensive covert levels to be within reach/desired aswell.
Which will be bought more too, requiring more resources, leaving us in the same boat as we are now, but only with even higherer levels,
which require even more work or 'grind', increasing the gap between different types of players (activeness/power levels).
Turns will become more expensive faster too for everyone and all those with their current investements will get the bad end of the stick on this one.

I cant help to think it would be a very bad move.

If the idea is to make it easier for lower ascendeds and newer players, why not create a more balanced situation what happens during the use of coverts between differing ascension ranks. (thats a tuff cookie to achieve though)



btw:
The example I gave for the 'gifts' were to show how quickly a change can occur when something is changed to the game.
Halfway januari, 6 weeks after the 'gifts' there were still players with 10's of k's of turns on hand and in brokers as a direct result of it.

your still babbling on,
1.) turns are going to increase no matter what, their value is based mainly off how much profit is generated from there action.
2.) your speculating there is no proof to what you say, you can't prove nor disprove this would be a result, using an example that doesn't deal with the actual discussion is a.) pointless and b.) irrational. If anything one could prove you wrong since MS updates; of no reset, would show ATs never got affected by it results, but that point is as irrational as yours.
3.) I don't believe it would, notice HIGHEST LEVEL maintains its original cost, while all levels beneath it are reduced, in my example its not by much, add them together and you receive a substantial drop overall, raising the overall covert level within the population, having it more balanced, for smaller and larger.

Jim I'm not objecting to your thought it does make it much simpler to code, and essentially pulls the same result wanted, the major con is cutting down grind substantially. But the idea works and has merit.

~matty~ wrote:

Jim wrote:Havnt read the whole thread but my 2cents:

you could instead reduce the amount of covert levels lost on ascension, Say at lower lvls (0-10) you only loose 1 of your covert levels when you ascend. 10-20 you loose 2 levels and 20-23 you loose 3.

This keeps higher ascensions as expensive as ever but helps lower ascended players stay in the game at least somewhat....


So if your Lg and want to get to LG+1, if your Covert level is 31 it will only be reduced to 30. but if your unnamed trying to get to unknown and your covert is 38, it goes down to 35.

fixed

changed the title, and used this in the intro

If you wish to adjust your thread to that, perhaps i would suggest
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=179137

Jim started a topic on this. If you like, i can close this topic (those still talking back and forth, you can continue in PM) and we can go from there.

people need 2 be able 2 see the debates.. sticky it then lock it