Get rid of Upkeep cost to help farmers with proper strike

Upkeep costs are a nice idea, but on the other hand they but more constraints on farming.

Building a big strike is already not very usefull, afterall most players are well defended and the pool of inactives is huge.

Upkeeps make it even elss attractive to build bigger strikes to farm people. If I have 100.000 tanks and end up paying 231.000.000 kuwal upkeep each day, well, the question is if I can even find enough targets to farm that much more from people with decent defense, because I can always farm inactives with 0 def and 30-60 million kuwal

Kenzu wrote:Upkeep costs are a nice idea, but on the other hand they but more constraints on farming.

Building a big strike is already not very usefull, afterall most players are well defended and the pool of inactives is huge.

Upkeeps make it even elss attractive to build bigger strikes to farm people. If I have 100.000 tanks and end up paying 231.000.000 kuwal upkeep each day, well, the question is if I can even find enough targets to farm that much more from people with decent defense, because I can always farm inactives with 0 def and 30-60 million kuwal

Its funny that u post that . I just sold my strike again for the 2nd time . I couldn't find any farms and the upkeep for my strike alone was over 240mil a day .

I think the weapon upkeep is a reasonable update , and it adds a unique touch to the game .

I would say reduce the upkeep by 25 - 50% and/or reduce the amount of units killed during a farm mission .
Maybe reduce the cost per weapon as well . ( new costs IFV = 120k , Main Battle Tank = 220k Etc )

or we just decrease upkeep cost for attack weapons
I have no problems with saying that the upkeep for an attack weapon is only half or even just a third of the upkeep of a defense weapon.

Reducing the amount of units killed during a farm mission, not sure that'd be a good choice. All it would do is make the current defs insufficient, allowing you to farm a bit more until everyone would raise their defs back up bringing us back to the original problem, needing to lose a set number of units to steal a certain amount of kuwal

I am not sure I am understanding this correctly, Why build an excessively large strike when there are other ways to deal with an opponent, i.e. sabatoge, assassination etc. Sorry if I am off base on this one...

It is farming not massing that these strikes are for.

-Alex

Then run with 1 weapon and avoid the upkeep?

And just for arguements sake Admin, why do you feel attack weapons deserve "less" upkeep then defensive ones? Defensive weapons dont move much, while strikes has to cover the ground going to and retreating from the target.

*not saying I agree or disagree with anything, just debating the reasoning*

If you do that Nomad you can only farm inactives. This is about farming active people who have defences.

-Alex

then if your hitting live defernses then suffer the cost?

I cant see how anyone can say its fair that you get 25 to 50% less cost for a strike weapon upkeep PLUS a strike 20% a defense can take kewal from it?

ummmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,

Yeah I personally dont see the need to reduce upkeep costs as I can farm more then the upkeep costs each day but evidently some don't like it.
I am in no way against reducing it, I am just saying I am not against it staying the same either.

-Alex

Alex wrote:Yeah I personally dont see the need to reduce upkeep costs as I can farm more then the upkeep costs each day but evidently some don't like it.
I am in no way against reducing it, I am just saying I am not against it staying the same either.

-Alex

You should not only be able to farm more than upkeep cost, you should farm more than upkeep cost + what you could farm by having 1 weapon which is 30-60 million without any losses with each hit.

Upkeep is a nice idea, but pretty much weakens Daning quite a lot and makes farming much less profitable.

Kenzu wrote:

Alex wrote:Yeah I personally dont see the need to reduce upkeep costs as I can farm more then the upkeep costs each day but evidently some don't like it.
I am in no way against reducing it, I am just saying I am not against it staying the same either.

-Alex

You should not only be able to farm more than upkeep cost, you should farm more than upkeep cost + what you could farm by having 1 weapon which is 30-60 million without any losses with each hit.

Upkeep is a nice idea, but pretty much weakens Daning quite a lot and makes farming much less profitable.

Yes which isn't all that hard you just need 1 hit with a profit of (Daily upkeep) + 60m once a day to get that, which isn't all that hard, it is like 300-400m profit of a single hit, the rest are then pure profit. (Well the profit of the rest are pure profit if you get what I mean.)

Edit: Or you just take 60m off the profit of each of your other hits (60m is what you would get from a 0 defence) and then once that profit (profit of total hits) - ( (60m) * (# of hits) ) = upkeep anything else is 'profit profit'.

-Alex

Kenzu please stop winging.

Upkeep costs are fine - keep them how they are.

I have absolutely zero issue's farming more kuwal from active player's than my upkeep costs a day. To me a strike isn't just for farming - its a tool of war. If you want to be ready for war, you need to have a strike at your disposal. Farming is neither here nor there since with or without a strike you can farm & raid inactives. Having a strike merely mean's you can hit back against whoever is a threat to you, as well as farm the occassional active and get a higher profit than you would from inactives.

Why complain?

Kenzu wrote:

Alex wrote:Yeah I personally dont see the need to reduce upkeep costs as I can farm more then the upkeep costs each day but evidently some don't like it.
I am in no way against reducing it, I am just saying I am not against it staying the same either.

-Alex

You should not only be able to farm more than upkeep cost, you should farm more than upkeep cost + what you could farm by having 1 weapon which is 30-60 million without any losses with each hit.

Upkeep is a nice idea, but pretty much weakens Daning quite a lot and makes farming much less profitable.

Either I am missing something here, or I am way off the mark on this topic. It seems to me that the daning could keep a smaller strike,(but more powerful due to race bonuses in attack) so I don't see how it weakens the daning any more than any other race.

Nomad wrote:Then run with 1 weapon and avoid the upkeep?

And just for arguements sake Admin, why do you feel attack weapons deserve "less" upkeep then defensive ones? Defensive weapons dont move much, while strikes has to cover the ground going to and retreating from the target.

*not saying I agree or disagree with anything, just debating the reasoning*

So a way to make both sides happy is to reduce weapon upkeep by 50% . This will help the farmers and it will help people who build huge defenses save some kuwal from weapon upkeep cost . .

not sure the point of the suggestion is to make building defenses more attractive, but making building strikes more attractive

but whatever

I dont think the update has been live long enough to make any decisions as to weather the costs are to high, to low, or just right.

@ Lord Ishurue, I think getting rid of upkeep all together would make 99% hapy, but then it defeats the idea/reason for the update to begin with

Nomad wrote:I dont think the update has been live long enough to make any decisions as to weather the costs are to high, to low, or just right.

@ Lord Ishurue, I think getting rid of upkeep all together would make 99% hapy, but then it defeats the idea/reason for the update to begin with

Hey, not all updates make the game necessarily better.

I support new ideas and experiments, and I think the idea of upkeep costs as not a bad one, but the higher the upkeep cost, the less attractive it will be for people to have many weapons, and if the upkeep is too low, then it doesn't have any purpose, therefore it might be a good idea to get rid of it completely.

We already have something like an upkeep cost: when fighting with weapons, some of them get destroyed. That's pretty much like an upkeep cost, since you have to replace the weapons as you use them.

You got AKs in your warehouse, you can keep them there for 50 years, just blow the dust and shoot to kill!
Of course tanks have much higher upkeep costs, but even a tank doesnt have such an extremely high upkeep cost like on Aderan Wars. I mean the AW weapons have an upkeep which is per year higher than the price of the weapon.

I can imagine a tank which costs 3.000.000 Euro has an upkeep cost of 100.000 Euro per year, if you use it.
The Aderan Wars tank costs 308.000 kuwal but yearly upkeep costs 843.000 kuwal.

Why not have realistic upkeep cost like 0.02% (56.210 kuwal/year for a tank) or 0.1% (112.000 kuwal/year for a tank)

I can't argue that logic nor the numbers Kenzu, so I have to chalk that one up to you

Its still admins call, and I still think the update hasnt been live long enough to accurately gauge.

who said that a day in RL is a day in AW?

Admin wrote:who said that a day in RL is a day in AW?

"Unit Production Raw xxxx (Total xxxx) per Day"

as far as I know the amount of unit I get in a AW day is equal to 24h in RL

Still this is a game not real life, certain things like upkeep costs have to be different to real life costs to fit in with/be balanced in the game.

-Alex

ok guys I'm a bit confused as I think this thread has strayed a bit, can someone please explain the term "proper strike" to me? thanks...

skyfighter wrote:

Admin wrote:who said that a day in RL is a day in AW?

"Unit Production Raw xxxx (Total xxxx) per Day"

as far as I know the amount of unit I get in a AW day is equal to 24h in RL

the per day is equal to earth days, but where does it say anything about our day being worth "their" day.

I'm just saying that comparing upkeep cost per unit of time on earth is kinda not comparable to upkeep cost per unit of time on the game due to a lack of comparability of the units of time.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:I dont think the update has been live long enough to make any decisions as to weather the costs are to high, to low, or just right.

@ Lord Ishurue, I think getting rid of upkeep all together would make 99% hapy, but then it defeats the idea/reason for the update to begin with

Hey, not all updates make the game necessarily better.

I support new ideas and experiments, and I think the idea of upkeep costs as not a bad one, but the higher the upkeep cost, the less attractive it will be for people to have many weapons, and if the upkeep is too low, then it doesn't have any purpose, therefore it might be a good idea to get rid of it completely.

We already have something like an upkeep cost: when fighting with weapons, some of them get destroyed. That's pretty much like an upkeep cost, since you have to replace the weapons as you use them.

You got AKs in your warehouse, you can keep them there for 50 years, just blow the dust and shoot to kill!
Of course tanks have much higher upkeep costs, but even a tank doesnt have such an extremely high upkeep cost like on Aderan Wars. I mean the AW weapons have an upkeep which is per year higher than the price of the weapon.

I can imagine a tank which costs 3.000.000 Euro has an upkeep cost of 100.000 Euro per year, if you use it.
The Aderan Wars tank costs 308.000 kuwal but yearly upkeep costs 843.000 kuwal.

Why not have realistic upkeep cost like 0.02% (56.210 kuwal/year for a tank) or 0.1% (112.000 kuwal/year for a tank)

our empires/realms . have weapons , Troops , Buildings etc .

instead of having a weapon upkeep cost . what about an Empire/realm Upkeep expense.

before
Work Condition Modifier 0
Realm Alert Cost 0
Mercenary Salary 0
Weapon Upkeep

After
Work Condition Modifier 0
Realm Alert Cost 0
Mercenary Salary 0
Empire Upkeep ( 3% of income )

I would equate empire upkeep to AE more then weapons cost, thats just me tho.