Simply put,
No one to protect your miners? They're too scared to work. Lose 33% for having no defence, lose 17% for having no covert = 50% total loss for not providing your miners are safe working environment.
Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 pm
- Alliance: Dominium of Chaos
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 50147
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
Last edited by Caprila on Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added title tag
Reason: Added title tag
TRADE FEEDBACK - I am an A+ trader! Safest $ trades in all of SGW. I do escrow services too!
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
Mathlord wrote:The Reclaimer has been descended as a result of the battle!!!
Good times
-
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 570
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:16 am
- Race: Mancunion
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction
lol and all the inactive farms we love so much will then be useless!!
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 pm
- Alliance: Dominium of Chaos
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 50147
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction
How bout if in an alliance war, having no defence or less than 3-5% of army trained cuts up and naq production?
TRADE FEEDBACK - I am an A+ trader! Safest $ trades in all of SGW. I do escrow services too!
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
Mathlord wrote:The Reclaimer has been descended as a result of the battle!!!
Good times
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3626
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:14 am
- Alliance: TÅÅE
- Race: I Love Lampey!
- ID: 1992329
- Alternate name(s): ~Tom~, Andy, Field marshall, ETL, Huxley, rudy, borek, rocky, C2, bruno, harsasnails, robe, R8, couzens, Lord Katsumoto, Da reno, The Queen of england, and a pineapple but only on sundays.
- Location: In Side Daku While playing on multis and useing my scripts
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction
how about every 5 days all ure miners become uu and the naq is withdrawn into the open from the bank.. this will stop people just sitting around gaining naq from planets.. and it will encourage new players.
ow and every month all planets are deleted
ow and every month all planets are deleted
Matt: I like men, especially when they are bent over in the shower.
Trade Feedback
-
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 559
- Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:13 pm
- Race: SL
- Location: Transilvania
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction
+1~Dä Vinci~ wrote:how about every 5 days all ure miners become uu and the naq is withdrawn into the open from the bank.. this will stop people just sitting around gaining naq from planets.. and it will encourage new players.
ow and every month all planets are deleted
- Caprila
- Grand Master of the Inquisition
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:51 am
- Race: Immortal
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction
01[22:58] <Caprila> Less naq produced by miners at 0 defence and/or covert .
01[22:58] <Caprila> No one to protect your miners? They're too scared to work. Lose 33% for having no defence, lose 17% for having no covert = 50% total loss for not providing your miners are safe working environment.
01[22:59] <Caprila> I find this one interesting in a sense that, it gives you a reason to have a defence. Although I suppose one could easily exploit it with 1 weapon
[23:00] <KJ> That will need a lot of tweaking
[23:00] <KJ> before even being considered
[23:00] <~Support> It seems like an attempt to force people to build a single stat.
[23:00] <KJ> IMO
[23:00] <cha0sk1ng> Also in general it'd make farming nearly impossible
[23:00] <~Support> ^And that.
01[23:00] <Caprila> It would wreck some of my beautiful farms, but I presume the purpose is to encourage people to build, and maintain a defence in wartime
[23:00] <cha0sk1ng> Hence people who already have stats now would basicly *win the game*
[23:02] <KJ> Still - an update to encourage people to build stats
[23:02] <KJ> would be excellent
[23:02] <~Support> Yes, this has more undesirable effects than positive. It might inspire a few people to build, but it would wreck the availability of naquadah across the server.
[23:02] <KJ> Not forcing them - but encouraging
[23:03] <cha0sk1ng> Yeah well, general idea of play however would require something to be indestructible in order for everyone to build it KJ
[23:03] <KJ> I'd never suggest something to have everyone do it
[23:04] <KJ> but perhaps something to encourage more people to do so
[23:04] <~Support> Anyway; no to income reduction on low defence.
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
-
- Forum Irregular
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:26 am
- Alliance: Ω TITAN
- Race: BEAR
- ID: 8008
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
Naq reduction for having no def? wow. Have you ever farmed before? I mean really.... that would completely screw over the previous updates admin put in to put more naq on the server because people were screaming "there isnt enough naq out there"... You are talking about reducing the amount of naq every dead account has out that.. you know. the farms we all look for....
This would pretty much mean you could only farm once or twice a day unless you hit only active people.. which would just cause more people to go crying "why are you hitting me.. why are you a bully..."
here's a dollar... go to the corner store and buy a clue on me...
This would pretty much mean you could only farm once or twice a day unless you hit only active people.. which would just cause more people to go crying "why are you hitting me.. why are you a bully..."
here's a dollar... go to the corner store and buy a clue on me...
"...Although I have made a career out of remodeling the truth into convenient shapes while taking possession of commodities legally belonging to others. I would dispute the fact that what I've done has been wrong. Legally yes, but you should know that the universe is not by nature an equitable distributor of good health and good fortune."
FeedBack
Spoiler
Everyone else has nice little quotes about them in their sig.. I thought this one would be snazzy...
AeonKnight wrote: You know you single Handedly made nearly all of them inacitve. well done.
Spoiler
[/quote]Cobolt wrote:
Another important thing regarding such things are that I also feel that my "shadow" shouldn´t be "everywhere" in the alliance. A legacy is in my opinion a good thing as long as it is on a foundation level, values and such. But if it seeps to much into things it is very hard for current leadership to make own policy as ppl tend to referr to "old ways" wich rarely are up to date.... As I have said to other leaders, it was never my intention to try to keep the alliance as a static entity - infact quite the opposite, I was adamant to keep evolving the alliance according to how the game developed, only thing I felt needed to be solid is the sprit, heart and foundation of Titans that in my opinion could be described with a few words - "good guys".
Spoiler
~Desert Phantom~ wrote:TAF posted that?!?!...I thought ~DP~did!!!Kjarkur wrote:Bring it on TAF.~Desert Phantom~ wrote:DDE SUCK...that is all!!!You sir must like men doesn't mean I do and if I did KJ would be my type I don't go after bottom feedersOsiris™ wrote:~Desert Phantom~ wrote:DDE SUCK...that is all!!!
If there is anything you do suck on then its my back vagina
Spoiler
On 1/14/14, at 5:12 PM, Dean Bailey Z E R O 1907332 HVE Canadia wrote:
> glad his return overshadowed our betrayal.
> glad his return overshadowed our betrayal.
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 pm
- Alliance: Dominium of Chaos
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 50147
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
Ok, make everything said here happen during an aliance war andmonly affect alliances currently at war.
And dont forget to include a % reduction for covert. And, abusing it with one weapon can be countered by a proportional defence to income ratio, like say the equivalent of 1.5 day of naq produxtion in def weps and uu = min def needed, 1 day worth in def gets you 66% production and 1/2 day worth gets you 33%.
And dont forget to include a % reduction for covert. And, abusing it with one weapon can be countered by a proportional defence to income ratio, like say the equivalent of 1.5 day of naq produxtion in def weps and uu = min def needed, 1 day worth in def gets you 66% production and 1/2 day worth gets you 33%.
TRADE FEEDBACK - I am an A+ trader! Safest $ trades in all of SGW. I do escrow services too!
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
Mathlord wrote:The Reclaimer has been descended as a result of the battle!!!
Good times
- Caprila
- Grand Master of the Inquisition
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:51 am
- Race: Immortal
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
How would you propose the game to detect an alliance is 'at war', and not just going about its normal daily playtime? Many alliances mass randoms, people in their logs etc, an effective 'aggression' counter would be difficult to design. Even the BR counter wouldn't be of assistance, as splinter alliances avoid this quite effectively.
By the alliance leader designating the alliance at war? I don't think many would set it, especially those specific 'sniper' alliances you are so keen to target.
Any incentive for using the war status, would likely be counter-intuitive; i.e. giving more power to those that already have it.
However, such debate is rather pointless in my opinion. Support has said quite clearly in the above quote, that no naq reduction on 0 defence will be considered, hence why this topic has been labelled as Rejected.
If you want to punish the sniper game mechanic, suggest you put your time and thoughts into another suggestion. ( Perhaps the life suicide ratio or targeted sabbing? )
By the alliance leader designating the alliance at war? I don't think many would set it, especially those specific 'sniper' alliances you are so keen to target.
Any incentive for using the war status, would likely be counter-intuitive; i.e. giving more power to those that already have it.
However, such debate is rather pointless in my opinion. Support has said quite clearly in the above quote, that no naq reduction on 0 defence will be considered, hence why this topic has been labelled as Rejected.
If you want to punish the sniper game mechanic, suggest you put your time and thoughts into another suggestion. ( Perhaps the life suicide ratio or targeted sabbing? )
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 pm
- Alliance: Dominium of Chaos
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 50147
- Location: Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Naq Productioin Reduction *REJECTED*
Doesnt have to be against snipers. If one alliance sets another alliance to war, thats all it takes. Then, If youre alliancemates goes inactive they stop producing. No president to run the country = chaos.
TRADE FEEDBACK - I am an A+ trader! Safest $ trades in all of SGW. I do escrow services too!
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=83709
Former member of what became the Alliance of the Year of 2009, Nemesis Sect.
Mathlord wrote:The Reclaimer has been descended as a result of the battle!!!
Good times