StarGateWars Forums

Might already be a topic or in one but I can't find it amongst the failed or ignored updates that will not be implemented anyways

Stop allowing money transactions out side of the black market!

Simple make it not allowed "Cheating"

yes maybe it will still be done, but not because of these forums and people change when others aren't watching, yes some will be scammed, but if it's cheating and not allowed don't they deserve it anyways?

Then keep the limit on the Spending cash option on the black market

The reason I bring this up is, wouldn't it shrink the void between money spenders and game players, it would allow non cash spenders to keep up with the cash spenders and it woudl allow for more compition in a game that is pretty much not a compitition game anymore...

Please post your Pro's and Con's on here I personally will be going to admin meet next week and promise if this gets a big enough plus to bring it up 100 times if i have to until he hears it

....nahh

Guild wrote:....nahh

Gee if your going to troll and spam a place your not supposed to, you could always post why you say no?

If you made it a rule how could one provide evidence the rule was broken? According to the logs that Admin would see there would be a trade, or one-sided trade between two accounts. There would be no sign of $$ involvement.

RoKeT wrote:

Guild wrote:....nahh

Gee if your going to troll and spam a place your not supposed to, you could always post why you say no?

trollolol , ok cause then admin will jack up the prices because of the increased demand, and then the high and mighty spenders who have profited already will become even moreso untouchable

good enough for yah ?

Clarkey wrote:If you made it a rule how could one provide evidence the rule was broken? According to the logs that Admin would see there would be a trade, or one-sided trade between two accounts. There would be no sign of $$ involvement.

Same as Multi, no one tracks it anymore and if he does there is so much done that he can't hoep to get even half of them, no it can't be watched but your doing it at your own risk also it's cheating so if your allaince sees it and they are fair they could always do something, it's not trackable i know that, but as i said it's cheating so can get you banned, not only that like i said earlier if no body was watching and you were helping someone cheat you'd be cheating so your also up for risks, and do you really want to buy from a guy who is cheating the game already? doesnt' that show his character... yes people would do it, but it woudl slow it down and in the end help slow the void wouldnt' it?

and Guild, if admin was trying to save the game by adding this feature in do you think he'd take advatadge of it and kill the game even more? he is trying to save it so he can make more money would it not be smart to keep it low to get more people in balance the game then rack in the dough?

RoKeT wrote:and Guild, if admin was trying to save the game by adding this feature in do you think he'd take advatadge of it and kill the game even more? he is trying to save it so he can make more money would it not be smart to keep it low to get more people in balance the game then rack in the dough?

i think he'll bleed it dry before everyone leaves

A couple of years ago ( just before Max, Hippy, Rag and others crashed the $$$ market with trade rings ) I suggested a 'fair value range' for private trades, abolishing the 'give' option and limiting private trades to a set number per week for exactly this reason.

Example

1 Mill could only be traded for between say 600 - 900 Bill naq

This would have essential ended the $$$ trade on resources ( although account trading would have continued ). And IMO would have been the best step forward for the game.

Before the market prices crashed $$ spenders didnt get much of advantage for their money ( I remember Naq being sold at $15/Trill and UU at $10/Mill ) but now so many have already invested vast amounts of $$$s at extremely cheap rates it's probably to late.

I can't see either suggestion working:

@Roket: you're never going to stop $$$ trading simply by stopping it here - it happens on alliance forums/msn etc, and it is far too lucrative for both sides for them to want to stop. And there is absolutely no way to regulate it. What's to say I didn't give guild a "gift" of 500tril naq, and he just happened to give me a "gift" of $200? Its completely unfeasible.

@Mezz@ but what happens if I want to give an alliance mate some naq? What about alliance eco programs? What about help during a war? All involve one-sided trades, but remove that element and it'll make any kind of cooperative action impossible - heck, then feri's def would be unmassable. lol

RepliMagni wrote:I can't see either suggestion working:

@Roket: you're never going to stop $$$ trading simply by stopping it here - it happens on alliance forums/msn etc, and it is far too lucrative for both sides for them to want to stop. And there is absolutely no way to regulate it. What's to say I didn't give guild a "gift" of 500tril naq, and he just happened to give me a "gift" of $200? Its completely unfeasible.

@Mezz@ but what happens if I want to give an alliance mate some naq? What about alliance eco programs? What about help during a war? All involve one-sided trades, but remove that element and it'll make any kind of cooperative action impossible - heck, then feri's def would be unmassable. lol

I know you can't regulate it, but you can make it cheating, in which case alliances who supported it and whoever supported it were cheating as well... and again even if it can't be "regulated" should it not be applied, i mean wouldn't it help though you know what i mean? like even if you can't "enforce it" why support it? why continue to allow something that is killing the game?

RepliMagni wrote:@Mezz@ but what happens if I want to give an alliance mate some naq? What about alliance eco programs? What about help during a war? All involve one-sided trades, but remove that element and it'll make any kind of cooperative action impossible - heck, then feri's def would be unmassable. lol

I think those were the argument made against the suggestion last time, personally I dont like growth plans and 'eco programs', they usually mean either highly actives supporting lower actives, or alliance funding of 1 person to do the fighting for several stuck doing the boring farming/raiding stuff, IMO better for everyone to build their own & be limited to fighting with what they've earned not been given. I do understand the need to give to new players to get them started, maybe a limited gift option could be allowed between CO and officers after they had been together for a set period of time ( a week or month ). As for Feri's def it's pretty much is unmassable already and the 'linked stats' suggestion is the best way to remove unmassable defs.

All suggestions have pro's & cons and removing the $$$ market would come at a cost, question is how much of a cost are people willing to accept to remove the battle of the wallets, and stop people from buying victories ?

Also as I said there are so many accounts that have been supersized with cheap resources that it's probably to late now anyway. $$$ trading should have been removed years ago and the damage is done.

MEZZANINE wrote:Also as I said there are so many accounts that have been supersized with cheap resources that it's probably to late now anyway. $$$ trading should have been removed years ago and the damage is done.

I disagree bro, only because through massive farmings and dedication people could catch up pretty easily I believe we would close the void in less then 3 months rapid farming and compition in the game would rise again

RoKeT wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Also as I said there are so many accounts that have been supersized with cheap resources that it's probably to late now anyway. $$$ trading should have been removed years ago and the damage is done.

I disagree bro, only because through massive farmings and dedication people could catch up pretty easily I believe we would close the void in less then 3 months rapid farming and compition in the game would rise again

double negative there , it would take a hell of a lot of effort and in 3 months ....no chance.

RoKeT wrote:I disagree bro, only because through massive farmings and dedication people could catch up pretty easily I believe we would close the void in less then 3 months rapid farming and compition in the game would rise again

You think someone could farm their way from...lets say c.36 (a solid covert) to c.39 (only achievable with cash) in less than 3 months? c.2.8quad naq - would take a year of pretty dedicated farming to get that really

And Roket: having a rule that you cannot enforce is just plain daft specifically because you can't enforce it. There is no way to gain 100% proof that any cash transaction occurred except for the two parties involved...

writes down msns of naq sellers....**