A little much maybe.......

[Mr President]

like prices on the market. when i send my goods to the market i send them with the price i want them on at. if market demand doesn't meet my prices then that is on me and only me to change my prices. if you still want to help people out give them the option to remove goods and take the penalty but don't drop my prices that i set for my goods.

What would be the downfall of removing the auto price drop? I agree with what you are saying, I just like to see both sides of the picture. :-)

the landgrab formula. maybe it shouldn't be setup so that stockers at the bottom always get pounded on....

I thing the amount of land lost needs to be lowered. It was a fine setting when we have over 500 playing. Right now grabs are very scarce.

the bank. i can understand people not wanting this raised to unlimited but wouldn't a 100bil cap work just as well? that will still not cover a decent stocker all set but provides for a little more protection for longer.

I think 50B should be the norm and if people want it higher they should have to purchase tech to have higher savings.

random events. i don't even wanna get started b/c it will only make me mad before bed time but these are crap. complete and utter crap. there is no reason for them and it only serves to piss off players. what does that accomplish? also it unfairly affects the strats differently. i have never seen an economic breakdown where someone loses 10% of their military..... or 10% of their tech.... or 10% of their buildings..... just take these out of the game completely. i don't even care for lvl12 units since it gives an unfair advantage. IF you HAVE to keep in some good random events keep in the CS boom and then instead of lvl12 just make it upgrade units to lvl8 (if you have already upgraded then oh well).

Random Events are fine when the bad ones don't happen to you. :-) Everyone likes it when the good ones happen .. We can't remove random events. We need things like these to create a little excitement or drama in the game. I agree we could lower the neg impacts though.

The way the game is set up now is for 500+ states. We don't have that sadly. I agree the land lost amount needs to be changed and some of the other settings lowered to make a little more real for the amount of members we have. If and when we gain more, then we change the settings again.

[czarcris]

Its also pretty awesome when you login and people have blown up 100+mil of your food too

so you cant stock in this game? but it is ok to destroy someone's state. this game just gets more and more interesting as the day the goes.

can i ask why we are against stockers? is it not a strat that can be run in this game? i mean sky runs indy and plays up top every set to take advantage of what it does in the game, why can one not play at the bottom with low up keep and it not be a viable strat?

something has got to be done to allow people to play down low and still be able to compete in this game.

[Mr President]

Its also pretty awesome when you login and people have blown up 100+mil of your food too

so you cant stock in this game? but it is ok to destroy someone's state. this game just gets more and more interesting as the day the goes.

can i ask why we are against stockers? is it not a strat that can be run in this game? i mean sky runs indy and plays up top every set to take advantage of what it does in the game, why can one not play at the bottom with low up keep and it not be a viable strat?

something has got to be done to allow people to play down low and still be able to compete in this game.

I'm confused.. Maybe your reply wasn't to me, but I thought in my reply I agreed that some things had to be changed....

The only thing I didn't fully agree with was removing the randoms.. I did however agree that the neg impact from them needs to be lowered. I am not against stocking at all. I thought adding tech to get a higher bank amount would be a nice solution to help the techer strat.

Again, maybe your reply wasn't to me

[Calvin74]

I'm confused.. Maybe your reply wasn't to me, but I thought in my reply I agreed that some things had to be changed....

The only thing I didn't fully agree with was removing the randoms.. I did however agree that the neg impact from them needs to be lowered. I am not against stocking at all. I thought adding tech to get a higher bank amount would be a nice solution to help the techer strat.

Again, maybe your reply wasn't to me

yeah i think he was replying to some earlier posts and was pissed that someone out there is a moron

of course the best way to convince us to put food on the market is to destroy our food. i can't possible see that going wrong at all....



for your reply though mr p i agree with everything (although i don't like any randoms) and will help you out with anything to get them implemented in the fastest possible time. also i would suggest then if you are going to leave in randoms that hurt 2 strats why not add in the other randoms? make one that stops all indy production for say 10 turns? or something along those lines or just one that straight up destroys 5% of your standing army....

[Mr President]

how much of a land modification are people thinking? 1/2 of what it is now? 3/4, 1/4???

Give me some ideas.

I just ran a quick test and put the land mod at 1/2 of what it was and the grabs seem more in line to the amount of people we have.. But of course I'll wait for the professionals to have a say before I really do any testing.

[Max Logan]

increase GB protection. leave the 1st hit be, but raise GB by some 20-25%

[BeeNo]

oh come on now czar! you know how much you can stock before you go over. and losing millions of food to each attack? you can easily send it to the market.

point is yea we could adjust it and expand the bank but what happens when you decide not to sell your food again or go over the new bank limit? you going to come on here and complain again?

i don't mind adding bank tech. as for the land formula basically the amount of GB you receive from each attack needs to be increased slightly. that would do the trick to help stockers out.

1/2 1/4 are way to high of an amount much less than that i would think, but again it'd be easier if i could see the actual formula. or if i knew all the exact changes that had been done to it.

i do not believe this to be the exact formula currently: (There land/Your land)*(There land*.13) Then 30% less for every hit in the last 36 hours

as when i plug it into my homemade calc which is: (B2/A2)*(B2*0.13)*(0.7^C2)

where-

A2= your land
B2= their land
C2= times attacked over the last 36 hours

maybe my formula isn't perfect if so someone could correct me, but i believe it to be sound but it it always comes up with less land than i receive. so maybe just changing the current formula back to this one would be sufficient.

the goal being to lower the amount of land lost in each attack or increasing the amount of gb protection you receive in each attack since the states lower on the scores list are attacked more often.

[Calvin74]

oh come on now czar! you know how much you can stock before you go over. and losing millions of food to each attack? you can easily send it to the market.

point is yea we could adjust it and expand the bank but what happens when you decide not to sell your food again or go over the new bank limit? you going to come on here and complain again?

i don't mind adding bank tech. as for the land formula basically the amount of GB you receive from each attack needs to be increased slightly. that would do the trick to help stockers out.

1/2 1/4 are way to high of an amount much less than that i would think, but again it'd be easier if i could see the actual formula. or if i knew all the exact changes that had been done to it.

i do not believe this to be the exact formula currently: (There land/Your land)*(There land*.13) Then 30% less for every hit in the last 36 hours

as when i plug it into my homemade calc which is: (B2/A2)*(B2*0.13)*(0.7^C2)

where-

A2= your land
B2= their land
C2= times attacked over the last 36 hours

maybe my formula isn't perfect if so someone could correct me, but i believe it to be sound but it it always comes up with less land than i receive. so maybe just changing the current formula back to this one would be sufficient.

the goal being to lower the amount of land lost in each attack or increasing the amount of gb protection you receive in each attack since the states lower on the scores list are attacked more often.

to the 1st part of your post our keeping food on hand has nothing to do with the need to tweak the game at all. in fact if we did send our food to the market and sold it then we would be losing double what we are losing now. losing 2bil cash per attack gets old real fast.

as i have said over and over we aren't hoarding food out of malice simply out of the need to given the restrictions placed on us by the game. you see what happens when we try and play our way and apparently you don't like it anymore than we do.

why is indy the only strat worth playing? why is it sky are the only ones that ever win? why should the game be completely unbalanced towards 1 strat? why are we the only ones that notice these things or ask these questions?

[BeeNo]

your welcome to play however you want to play calvin, but i don't see how keeping hundreds of millions of food on hand and losing millions in each attack then complaining on here about how the game needs to change when you could easily jump whenever you want to.

point is you don't need to be losing all that food but you choose that situation and now are complaining that the game needs to change for you. thats my problem with it calvin.

and you are talking to the only person with a casher state in the all time top 10 states list currently. i don't like it when i see people looking to change the game because they want to play a certain way. indy's largest advantage is the extra nation army they produce threw the double tax.

now i supported the bank tech idea and gave my input on the land grab formula, and i also wanted to make sure that these changes are in the honest effort to balance the strategies and not to attempt to make changes in the game or push for changes in the game that will help how you want to play the game. since that would not be fair to us all.

and like i've said in previous threads, sky doesn't always win. and i am offended by those types of comments!

[Calvin74]

your welcome to play however you want to play calvin, but i don't see how keeping hundreds of millions of food on hand and losing millions in each attack then complaining on here about how the game needs to change when you could easily jump whenever you want to.

point is you don't need to be losing all that food but you choose that situation and now are complaining that the game needs to change for you. thats my problem with it calvin.

and you are talking to the only person with a casher state in the all time top 10 states list currently. i don't like it when i see people looking to change the game because they want to play a certain way. indy's largest advantage is the extra nation army they produce threw the double tax.

now i supported the bank tech idea and gave my input on the land grab formula, and i also wanted to make sure that these changes are in the honest effort to balance the strategies and not to attempt to make changes in the game or push for changes in the game that will help how you want to play the game. since that would not be fair to us all.

and like i've said in previous threads, sky doesn't always win. and i am offended by those types of comments!

i can take all that and respect what you say
you do run a very good nation with ABT but you run a nation sky runs a state that is the difference.

as far as the changes i have suggested these for a long time even before i was stocking or doing anything of the sort. i think there needs to be more options of how to play and right now there is just netting.l yes you can stock to 50bil and then net but in the end it is just netting. stocking correctly requires a much different skill set and more planning in my opinion than just running a top ten state.

but i do think these are for the good of the game and while the help how CR is playing this set we won't always play this way but it draws more interest into the game