StarGateWars Forums

edited this crap idea

interesting poll results. (btw i didn't vote at all)

if the % went to 100% that could be abused by ppt'ers you have 3 mates one on ppt at all times he joins under you for two days while on ppt you set to 100% your income is safe from attack
you get your mate on msn he passes the naq to you,you either bank or use dismiss your mate and start again

JIX wrote:if the % went to 100% that could be abused by ppt'ers you have 3 mates one on ppt at all times he joins under you for two days while on ppt you set to 100% your income is safe from attack
you get your mate on msn he passes the naq to you,you either bank or use dismiss your mate and start again

true that.
maybe put a limitation that if you go on ppt you'd be only receiving as much naq as you'd be receiving if the % would be set at (random number, open for discussion) 30

the only problem is officers getting "super-farmed"

this idea is bad, every1 would create a rubbish account make it their officer and when they stopped playing for the night etc would put it 2 100$If i post a new topic in all the forums i will be able to become a spam god in an hr or 2 100% make no na and not get attacked

100% ? Get real! - there would be no naq whatsoever open to atatck within about 5 minutes of this suggestion being implemented.

If it was to rise - I would say take it up to 40% - no more.

Wolf359 wrote:100% ? Get real! - there would be no naq whatsoever open to atatck within about 5 minutes of this suggestion being implemented.

If it was to rise - I would say take it up to 40% - no more.

i don't get you. no one would ever put long-term 100%. it's nice getting uu's but it's pointless if you don't have any naq to train them.
i don't get it how it could affect the naq which would be open to attack

Same here... how'd you get that, wolf?

An idea though, couldn't this be abused by multi-ers? They have an account giving them 100% income and trading all its guys into miners being their main acount's commanders.

Then again, though... they might as well just make one account.

think what wolfy is trying to say is what i said if this update game out i would do the mate thing dont hide it i would abuse it like that and so would many many many others

halamala wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:100% ? Get real! - there would be no naq whatsoever open to atatck within about 5 minutes of this suggestion being implemented.

If it was to rise - I would say take it up to 40% - no more.

i don't get you. no one would ever put long-term 100%. it's nice getting uu's but it's pointless if you don't have any naq to train them.
i don't get it how it could affect the naq which would be open to attack

It's simple - while you are online, you just bank/spend your naq as normal - then, while you are offline, you divert 100% of your naq to your officers, who (if you are clever) will always be online when you are offline - hence they will bank all the naq you send them; therefore none of your naq will ever be on the 'open market'.

I would say that more people would do this than wouldn't - therefore large amounts of naq would dry up, severely limiting the attacking aspect of the game.

That is where you are wrong...

Being rank 1500 (and rightfully so, I didn't just drop my rank to raid) I can safely say that nobody in my alliance would do that.

I agree, alot of people would, but...

The top 300 players don't make up the majority of people playing this game.

KnightValor wrote:That is where you are wrong...

Being rank 1500 (and rightfully so, I didn't just drop my rank to raid) I can safely say that nobody in my alliance would do that.

I agree, alot of people would, but...

The top 300 players don't make up the majority of people playing this game.

i think one just has to look at the poll and we know what direction this dicussion is going.
I personally would rarely put this to 100% and if it's such an issue we could make the maximum % being at 70 or 80. My whole point is that is should be possible to put it higher so that there is diversity in the % that people set and that some could focus on uu's, some others on naq. at the moment none of those is being achieved, well, maybe naq focusing

KnightValor wrote:That is where you are wrong...

Being rank 1500 (and rightfully so, I didn't just drop my rank to raid) I can safely say that nobody in my alliance would do that.

I agree, alot of people would, but...

The top 300 players don't make up the majority of people playing this game.

Er - so where exactly was your argument that I would be wrong? And are you seriously telling me that if the members of 'your alliance' had the opportunity to save 100% of their naq that they wouldn't take it?

I don't mind people disagreeing with me - but please, try and back it up with an argument to match, especially when you are so adamant that I am wrong.

halamala wrote:i think one just has to look at the poll and we know what direction this dicussion is going.
I personally would rarely put this to 100% and if it's such an issue we could make the maximum % being at 70 or 80. My whole point is that is should be possible to put it higher so that there is diversity in the % that people set and that some could focus on uu's, some others on naq. at the moment none of those is being achieved, well, maybe naq focusing

Being able to divert 70-80% of your naq is never going to happen - this suggestion has appeared numerous times before - and always rejected.

Well, like he just said, look where the thread is going

Anyway, 100% is probably too much.

Maybe 70%...

The idea isn't to create multi-accounting more profitable, its to make it more appealing to join a commander.

For example: Why would anyone join a player that has 1 less officer than the max? I've heard that its 20, I've heard that the limit is 25, but either way, when you're only one of 20 or 25 guys splitting 30% of his income, it really isn't that much!

30%/20 = 1.5%... 1.5% of, say, 70 mil naq per turn is only 1.05 mil naq per turn extra!
30%/25 = 1.2%... Out of 70 mil thats only 840 thou naq per turn!

And lets face it, the guys that want that many officers wouldn't mind giving more than 30%... but probably would mind giving 70... it would, like we said, create variation between who is the better commander.

Just some facts to support my point... take them however you want.

And what is the limit anyway, 20 officers of 25?