22 september 2009 update

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:00 pm

While i was raiding/farming i came across something interesting and wanted to check if this was an update and it is.


22 September 2009:
1) Attack mission reduced weapon repairs and ST cost.
2) No weapon damage to attacker should strike be 500 times stronger than enemy defense


This effect is something, somehow, quite disturbing; despite the high random numeral in the sentence (500). I am wondering if someone else feels the same.


Happy New Year everyone. Now i'm going off to dah parteh.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:24 pm

500 is astronomical enough and the game is young enough for it not to be abused.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Admin on Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:08 pm

i can't imagine, even in sgw, that being abusable

imagine some higher tier strike of 4-6 Tril
that means you can farm people with no repairs if their def is below 8-12 BIL

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:16 pm

Admin wrote:i can't imagine, even in sgw, that being abusable

imagine some higher tier strike of 4-6 Tril
that means you can farm people with no repairs if their def is below 8-12 BIL

Precisely. So why should the people with high strike farm the targets of the lower strikes with no cost at all? That is what i thought it's wrong.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Admin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:21 am

it's not so much as to give the guys with the mega high strikes a chance to farm the near-0-def-farms for no repairs

as it is to give people a reason to slowly build their strikes, allowing them to farm the inactives until they reach a strike high enough to be able to farm active people

sidenote: fireworks are all gone and I still have all my fingers Very Happy

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:03 am

Thats a good sign for the coming year Admin.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:53 am

Admin wrote:it's not so much as to give the guys with the mega high strikes a chance to farm the near-0-def-farms for no repairs

as it is to give people a reason to slowly build their strikes, allowing them to farm the inactives until they reach a strike high enough to be able to farm active people

sidenote: fireworks are all gone and I still have all my fingers Very Happy

ohm... you are deep... no offence but if those with strikes of 1bil for example can farm all the inactive farms with 0 defense with no cost and they are doing it i know it, then what should those smaller who can't build such a strike do?

whatever man... i don't think that it's a fair update. "we want equality but not for puppies"


PS. Happy New Year and merry fingers... lol
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Admin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:05 pm

please explain to me nigatsu how much repairs the following people will pay when farming 0 def people

1k strike
500k strike
1 mil strike
50 mil strike
100 mil strike
500 mil strike

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:00 pm

I don't think that you should look at this problem from the point of view that those unarmed cause no damage at all. Even in history conquered countries oposed resistance, by burning fields, poisoning wells, blocking roads... etc.

Related to the game, this is a big disadvantage to those who just started and who are loosing their 0 def farms to those with big strikes who can also farm bigger defenses and who can afford to buy as many attacks as they wish. Think about it... there aren't too many players to farm, so the big strikes also farm 0 defenses with no cost for them at the margin of proffit. What is left to do for someone who is starting, except raiding UU then selling them to those who afford to buy it?

If there would be a cost the smaller armies would benefit more from the farms, because the huge strikes will not afford to farm for the minimal proffit (cost of turns + %).

Admin wrote:please explain to me nigatsu how much repairs the following people will pay when farming 0 def people

1k strike
500k strike
1 mil strike
50 mil strike
100 mil strike
500 mil strike

ATM no repairs, for any strike whatsoever.


I don't remember how many damage points were before, i think between 10 and 20 points per weapon.

230 kuwal per point per weapon... do the math (i think that the value [230] depends on the weapon level too, i forgot so correct me if i'm wrong)

(repair cost)=230*(no. of weapons)*(damage points)[kuwal]
..........


I think that you should find a way to resolve this. Perhaps, by introducing penalties based on the difference between armysizes?
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:12 pm

well, there is one thing you're not taking into account: STs. For example, I rarely farm inactives because I value my STs too much. And in the event of a dispute, I'd rather have more than less. 30-40 mil a hit is not worth losing the STs.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:23 pm

Sandwalker wrote:well, there is one thing you're not taking into account: STs. For example, I rarely farm inactives because I value my STs too much. And in the event of a dispute, I'd rather have more than less. 30-40 mil a hit is not worth losing the STs.

One word: bullshit. A proffit is a proffit no matter the quantity. Especially if you don't mass anyone and can't raid and if you don't want to farm active people because they could fight you back.

STs for farming almost don't matter at all in this situation.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Admin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:41 pm

Ok, back on topic, the main issue i have is that someone who has a strike of dunno lets say 50-100 mil, can neither farm inactives cos of high repairs nor actives cos hardly any defs are lower than 50-100 mil and give enough of a bounty.

someone suggest a better fix

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:47 pm

Admin wrote:Ok, back on topic, the main issue i have is that someone who has a strike of dunno lets say 50-100 mil, can neither farm inactives cos of high repairs nor actives cos hardly any defs are lower than 50-100 mil and give enough of a bounty.

someone suggest a better fix

Finally some hope.
Well, i suggested something (probably you didn't see)... let the no repair cost for weapons but introduce a penalty based on difference between armysizes. If you're bigger X times than the target, then penalty cost for farming... for example take less kuwal. (the peasants have hidden some of their assets when the lord came to collect the taxes)

And you also somehow answered yourself (it's not a fix though, but a suggestion):

as it is to give people a reason to slowly build their strikes, allowing them to farm the inactives until they reach a strike high enough to be able to farm active people
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:22 pm

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:
Sandwalker wrote:well, there is one thing you're not taking into account: STs. For example, I rarely farm inactives because I value my STs too much. And in the event of a dispute, I'd rather have more than less. 30-40 mil a hit is not worth losing the STs.

One word: bullshit. A proffit is a proffit no matter the quantity. Especially if you don't mass anyone and can't raid and if you don't want to farm active people because they could fight you back.

STs for farming almost don't matter at all in this situation.

If you don't mass anyone and you don't want to farm actives, chances are you don't have a strike and the situation doesn't really relate to my example. What would be the point to have a strike if you're not gonna use it?

And yes, STs for farming matter. I spent almost all my STs farming inactives at one point, went down from 3k STs to 100, then a war broke out and I was useless. I didn't pull that example or that opinion out of thin air.

Regarding your suggestion, I think it would work best if you take into account defenses, not army sizes. For example, say the biggest def right now is 3 bil. Have people farm inactives for free (i mean zero defs) if their strikes are less then say 5% of top defense. That works to 150 mil atm and is somewhat accurate if you think about defenses right now and how most active accounts are on the high side of the average.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:40 pm

Sandwalker wrote:Regarding your suggestion, I think it would work best if you take into account defenses, not army sizes. For example, say the biggest def right now is 3 bil. Have people farm inactives for free (i mean zero defs) if their strikes are less then say 5% of top defense. That works to 150 mil atm and is somewhat accurate if you think about defenses right now and how most active accounts are on the high side of the average.

That is a compromise still favouring the bigger accounts. Bigger accounts should not farm the targets of the smaller ones. That is the main point of making this thread. The reason why i think like this and why i think that armysizes is the best to take into consideration is because the bigger accounts already have a steady income to progress with by not doing anything, while those smaller mostly rely on activity to equalize the incomes per day of the bigger accounts. Simulate both suggestions and you'll see that mine is better for everyone. And besides restoring balance in terms of growth my suggestion will also release the strains on the attack market and STs aswell.

Short sentence: big farm big and pretty much everyone (but with a higher limit), small farm small and no defenses, with posible penalties from the bigger ones if they "vulture" too much. There's nothing more fair than this, IMO.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:55 pm

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:That is a compromise still favouring the bigger accounts. Bigger accounts should not farm the targets of the smaller ones. That is the main point of making this thread. The reason why i think like this and why i think that armysizes is the best to take into consideration is because the bigger accounts already have a steady income to progress with by not doing anything, while those smaller mostly rely on activity to equalize the incomes per day of the bigger accounts. Simulate both suggestions and you'll see that mine is better for everyone. And besides restoring balance in terms of growth my suggestion will also release the strains on the attack market and STs aswell.

Short sentence: big farm big and pretty much everyone (but with a higher limit), small farm small and no defenses, with posible penalties from the bigger ones if they "vulture" too much. There's nothing more fair than this, IMO.

Let me throw my counter to this point in here. First off I Do Not want to see SGW all over again. I Do Not want to see ANY limitations or disadvantages placed on anyone based on size UNLESS you stop ALL UU sales. I am sick to death of seeing people sell off their UU to ride the advantages of being "Small". Growing large has major disadvantages in itself. When you compare accounts that have sold off their UU versus someone who has kept or bought UU, the "smaller" account generally has higher techs, UP, and better constructions build. Throw in AE and your killing people who actually try to grow and advance the game. Keep in mind AE is the great equalizer here. I have seen accounts 1/2 the size of another making more income per turn. Hence, why is it "fair" for account A who is 1/2 the size of account B to have higher income, and get free farming? All because he sells off to continue to ride the "advantages" of being small?

Also talk to some of the top ranked strikes about their repair costs. I think you will find those costs are staggering unto themselves.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:08 pm

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:
That is a compromise still favouring the bigger accounts. Bigger accounts should not farm the targets of the smaller ones. That is the main point of making this thread. The reason why i think like this and why i think that armysizes is the best to take into consideration is because the bigger accounts already have a steady income to progress with by not doing anything, while those smaller mostly rely on activity to equalize the incomes per day of the bigger accounts. Simulate both suggestions and you'll see that mine is better for everyone. And besides restoring balance in terms of growth my suggestion will also release the strains on the attack market and STs aswell.

I see you've moved away from strikes to army sizes. That has nothing to do with the update concerning strikes. If I am big army size wise, I don't necessarily have to have a big strike. You're saying I do, I don't. Also, in THIS game, being big doesn't get you high incomes. The bigger you are, the less you make. An account half my size makes very close to the same amount I make per turn.

Like I said, if you want to make inactives the targets of only small accounts, then that has nothing to do with how much it costs to repair a strike that hits zero defs. I mean, a 200k army size account that has 50k atk supers with lv 11 weapons and some techs can reach around 1 bil strike. You tell me he relies on inactives to get income.

Everything you've said about big guys riding their income is dealt with by the AE. Considering I'm making 30% of my normal income and someone smaller is making 100%, I say that's crippling enough. No need to gank me for having a big army size.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:14 pm

Nomad wrote:
Nigatsu_Aka wrote:That is a compromise still favouring the bigger accounts. Bigger accounts should not farm the targets of the smaller ones. That is the main point of making this thread. The reason why i think like this and why i think that armysizes is the best to take into consideration is because the bigger accounts already have a steady income to progress with by not doing anything, while those smaller mostly rely on activity to equalize the incomes per day of the bigger accounts. Simulate both suggestions and you'll see that mine is better for everyone. And besides restoring balance in terms of growth my suggestion will also release the strains on the attack market and STs aswell.

Short sentence: big farm big and pretty much everyone (but with a higher limit), small farm small and no defenses, with posible penalties from the bigger ones if they "vulture" too much. There's nothing more fair than this, IMO.

Let me throw my counter to this point in here. First off I Do Not want to see SGW all over again. I Do Not want to see ANY limitations or disadvantages placed on anyone based on size UNLESS you stop ALL UU sales. I am sick to death of seeing people sell off their UU to ride the advantages of being "Small". Growing large has major disadvantages in itself. When you compare accounts that have sold off their UU versus someone who has kept or bought UU, the "smaller" account generally has higher techs, UP, and better constructions build. Throw in AE and your killing people who actually try to grow and advance the game. Keep in mind AE is the great equalizer here. I have seen accounts 1/2 the size of another making more income per turn. Hence, why is it "fair" for account A who is 1/2 the size of account B to have higher income, and get free farming? All because he sells off to continue to ride the "advantages" of being small?

Also talk to some of the top ranked strikes about their repair costs. I think you will find those costs are staggering unto themselves.

Well, then what's the point of strategy?
My suggestion cannot be abused like in SGW, simply because this game has different formulas for damages and control with the STs.
There is no free farming, just different limits in my suggestion.
I think that admin already said somewhere that because of the AE formula someone who has more income units makes more income than someone with less income units of the same type. The difference is not liniar but logarithmical, though. This is the only thing that AE does, so don't think that the AE is the almighty shit, because it is not.

I know that you probably like to stay big and farm the same or more than someone smaller, but if you take all their farms, then how can you encourage them to stay?


Same reply to sandwalker. AE is not the almighty shit. You only progress slower.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:26 pm

I never said it was. But, like I said, we were talking about big strikes not having to be repaired when they hit very low defenses, stealing the targets of the low strikes.

Now, I ask you: what does the size of the strike have to do with the size of the army? that's the point I was trying to make that last time. Apart from the other things I said.

Also, I believe you overestimate the amount of farms a high strike has at its disposal. Ask Danuboy, for example, how many people he farms per day with his strike. (people thathave a def, ofc)

The main point of this post remains: A high strike does not correlate with a high army size. We were talking about the 22 sep update which only has to do with strikes, not army sizes.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:41 pm

You also ignored my point of selling UU. Its BS to give an advantage to someone who PURPOSELY refuses to grow. So is the point of the game for EVERYONE to sell UU? then what will we do, start massing just to get rid of UU? Asking for an update to reverse UP?

I just don't like the idea of promoting "No growth" tactics. We see the result in SGW. You sell off, Keep 100% of your income, You get better UP, Better Techs, Better constructions, and therefore a better strike to farm those "big" accounts who actually grow to promote the game. Remember, all those "big accounts" suddenly shrink and then everyone is = with the same income, and same farming potentials.

Also, why is it ok for "smaller/newer" accounts to have farms, but a large account not? You say having more and better farms will entice more new/smaller players to stay, and I say the same about larger accounts. Take away their farms, couple that with guys 1/2 their size make just as much income PLUS they can farm and what incentive is there for a "big" account to stay in the game?
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:47 pm

Sandwalker wrote:Now, I ask you: what does the size of the strike have to do with the size of the army? that's the point I was trying to make that last time. Apart from the other things I said.

It is limited by the armysize. The bigger the army the bigger possible strike force. The bigger the strike force the more possible targets you have (confirmed by your next sentence).

Also, I believe you overestimate the amount of farms a high strike has at its disposal. Ask Danuboy, for example, how many people he farms per day with his strike. (people thathave a def, ofc)

The main point of this post remains: A high strike does not correlate with a high army size. We were talking about the 22 sep update which only has to do with strikes, not army sizes.

If you use a strike, you should not use it free. My suggestion was a way to stop those who make a lot by income to farm the same targets of those who don't have that income


Anyway, whatever... find something else to fix this, if you don't like my ideea.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nigatsu_Aka on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:56 pm

Nomad wrote:You also ignored my point of selling UU. Its BS to give an advantage to someone who PURPOSELY refuses to grow. So is the point of the game for EVERYONE to sell UU? then what will we do, start massing just to get rid of UU? Asking for an update to reverse UP?

Growing doesn't only mean armysizes (economies). You can grow in intelligence, military, technologies. If you have less population doesn't mean that you have to remain in the stoneage.

I just don't like the idea of promoting "No growth" tactics. We see the result in SGW. You sell off, Keep 100% of your income, You get better UP, Better Techs, Better constructions, and therefore a better strike to farm those "big" accounts who actually grow to promote the game. Remember, all those "big accounts" suddenly shrink and then everyone is = with the same income, and same farming potentials.

I don't understand this. I only said that the results of the farming attack should be influenced by a percentage based on the difference in armysizes. It encourages to farm more efficiently and not everything that is at the proffit limit.

Also, why is it ok for "smaller/newer" accounts to have farms, but a large account not? You say having more and better farms will entice more new/smaller players to stay, and I say the same about larger accounts. Take away their farms, couple that with guys 1/2 their size make just as much income PLUS they can farm and what incentive is there for a "big" account to stay in the game?

The bigger can attack more persons than the smaller. They have more possible farms, but they just have to farm more efficiently and not in quantity.
avatar
Nigatsu_Aka
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : I no longer have an account. Taking a break.
Number of posts : 526
Registration date : 2009-01-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sandwalker on Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:19 pm

We shouldn't restrict someone's potential targets based on possible strike action, but based on actual strike action.

Just because a player has a 5 mil army doesn't mean he has a big strike. I keep saying that to no avail.

Also, I was hinting that a high strike doesn't have that many targets, not that it has an excess of targets.

I also don't see why my suggestion does not get the job done. It helps people with a growing strike get on their feet, while restricting high strikes' access to low def farms.

That is, of course, IF martin decides to change anything at all. I don't see why he should atm.

Sandwalker
Aderan Super Soldier
Aderan Super Soldier

Number of posts : 750
Registration date : 2009-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Admin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:01 pm

Sandwalker wrote:That is, of course, IF martin decides to change anything at all. I don't see why he should atm.
you guys do all realize that i'll release new updates on the test server amongst the major ones are:
- that new farming system
- weapons dont get damaged but get destroyed along with units getting killed in battles (hence no repairs)
- weapon upkeep cost (per turn cost for holding weapons)

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Nomad on Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:32 pm

Yeah, we are waiting for Beta to get wiped so we can start testing the new systems.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 22 september 2009 update

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum