suggestion

hmm, couldnt it be something like the uu thingy? like you only get like 4-5% of the targets AT so really you will stop taking the AT after you start to get like 5-6 AT per hit so leaving a few AT for the person to rebuild?

goku1719 wrote:hmm, couldnt it be something like the uu thingy? like you only get like 4-5% of the targets AT so really you will stop taking the AT after you start to get like 5-6 AT per hit so leaving a few AT for the person to rebuild?

With 4000 inactive accounts, players would drain 192.000 AT from inactives each day. That's almost 10 times more than what actives produce right now.

So each player who previously gained 100 AT per day through voting and waiting, can now easily get additional 1000 by farming.
Do you really think it's a good idea?

How is it supposed to help you?

IF farming will lead to all players having 10 times more AT to spend, then the AT will become worthless and it will seriously damage AW economy as many things are based on AT, since it's such a stable resource.
And if everyone has 10 times more AT, then everyone will farm 10 times more and farm profits will fall to one tenth, resulting in the same profits as before.

Also, people who don't like farming will be completely disadvantaged, because even if they sell the turns they produce it will be nothing compared to turns that are used.
Such a change will not increase profits in AW, but it will shift almost all income generated through AT from people who don't like farming to people who like farming for hours.

Also, if before you needed to farm only 1-2 hours per week. Now you will have to farm 10 to 20 hours per week.

Also, this change wouldn't influence farming of active players barely at all, because AT cost is marginal when thousands of troops get killed anyway.

okay, but i still dont get why farming/raiding missions cost more AT than attacking missions like Assaults, this is completely wrong way around, and the game designers are asking whether or not all attacking missions cost 1 AT and 5 ST, shouldn't a Destruction Mission cost X10 MORE AT than Farming/Raiding Missions and not X10 LESS AT since we do more attacking in a destruction mission than we do in a Farming/Raiding Mission? Anyone who thinks I am wrong about this must be completely out of their minds ...

goku1719 wrote:okay, but i still dont get why farming/raiding missions cost more AT than attacking missions like Assaults, this is completely wrong way around, and the game designers are asking whether or not all attacking missions cost 1 AT and 5 ST, shouldn't a Destruction Mission cost X10 MORE AT than Farming/Raiding Missions and not X10 LESS AT since we do more attacking in a destruction mission than we do in a Farming/Raiding Mission? Anyone who thinks I am wrong about this must be completely out of their minds ...

I agree with a full on war type attack should cost more then a minor robbery. I also dont understand the reasoning as to why admins feel its good to keep farming and raiding prices high and drop actual damaging attacks by 1/2.

IDK.

All I can say is that Admin is doing everything possible to make his game last VERY LONG which he is doing the opposite. Games are meant to be more fun and filled with activity, but due to the factor that ANY GAIN given also comes with a NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE. I understand that making it a team based game is a nice idea, but to cause everyone to "BEG" for improvements is really not the way to go if you want a LONG-TERM GAME solution. MANY MANY BIG PLAYERS AND SUPPORTERS are slowly loosing interest as this game is WAY TO RESTRICTED to the point that "GAME" is no longer considered a game which allows people pleasure and fun. This seems to show some sort of dictatorship in how everything is controlled. I assure you that if things do not change soon, many of your supporters may just end up leaving which kills your business entirely. Being very COUNTER INTUITIVE to every suggestion brought to your attention, gives everyone a very bad vibe to it. YOU ASK FOR SIMPLE REQUESTS, then you give a list of reasons why anything we request for as a problematic situation. I personally been just watching and waiting to see if anything will change and make this game "FUN" which seems like this game is loosing.

yes, thank you stars

i'll look into some changes, I agree some stuff did pull down activity on some aspects, but then again it's easy to say something's bad while not seeing all the benefits or even the true outcome of not-made updates that could have come instead

stars wrote:All I can say is that Admin is doing everything possible to make his game last VERY LONG which he is doing the opposite. Games are meant to be more fun and filled with activity, but due to the factor that ANY GAIN given also comes with a NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE. I understand that making it a team based game is a nice idea, but to cause everyone to "BEG" for improvements is really not the way to go if you want a LONG-TERM GAME solution. MANY MANY BIG PLAYERS AND SUPPORTERS are slowly loosing interest as this game is WAY TO RESTRICTED to the point that "GAME" is no longer considered a game which allows people pleasure and fun. This seems to show some sort of dictatorship in how everything is controlled. I assure you that if things do not change soon, many of your supporters may just end up leaving which kills your business entirely. Being very COUNTER INTUITIVE to every suggestion brought to your attention, gives everyone a very bad vibe to it. YOU ASK FOR SIMPLE REQUESTS, then you give a list of reasons why anything we request for as a problematic situation. I personally been just watching and waiting to see if anything will change and make this game "FUN" which seems like this game is loosing.

How is the game too restricted?

Why don't you suggest changes how to make it less restricted?

You make it sound like Aderan Wars is restricting the possibilities of players, even though the opposite is true. Since the release of the game, many missions have been released, the possibility to trade with each other, a galactic market, improvements for farming and raiding (farming and raiding without losses against 0 defs) and many more.

Are you sure your post is related to AW?

Looking forward to your suggestions for improvement.

Stars has more than a point.

Admin Efficiency was designed to stop late gamers from growing geometrically, but everything else remains the same value (Still generate the same ATK and SUPLY per turn regardless of level).

Maybe ATK/SUPLY turns should be based on the level of the player, rather than fixed values (So someone earning 1 bill gets *10 ATK/SUPLY than someone earning 100 mill). But as a result, attacking someone who earns 100 mill is *10 more expensive than attacking someone who earns 1 bill (Zero defense attacks is a default value).

The idea is to bolster intra-level combat without utterly decimating inter-level combat.

I'm sure you get the general gist.

hmm really good idea farle, i'll strongly consider something like that.

although there's a serious issue with it that would need resolving and that's purchase and sale of attack turns, so this update would probably get limited to production and use of supply turns.
also attacking 0 def farms (inactives) would need to carry the same cost as attacking "small players", to preserve the original purpose of the idea that while you produce more turns, you can weigh this benefit onto attacking big(ger) players, you won't have any particular advantage when attacking smaller players

because imagine, you produce 10 times more attack turns, than another player. While they have to attack for someone for 300 mil to make a profit, you could attack for 30 mil. The big player(s) would then clear out the farms at regular intervals long before the farms generate enough wealth to be farmable by the small players

The other issue you have is this gives way to smaller players being able to attack larger players so much more then they can be attacked themselves.

If the small account gets 10 times more AT and ST then the large account, then they can attack the large account 10 times more.

Also, your taking away the only activity left for large players by removing their only time consuming actions, raiding and farming (maybe leave 0 def cost at 0 for raiding? so they have something to do?)

This also promotes the strategy of always selling off the bulk of ones army to reap the benefits of staying small (no AE and 10 times the AT/ST). I think it would be a real kick in the nutz for those pushing the size boundaries and ultimately driving the AE up by a massive amount for others to enjoy for free.

no no, i think you misunderstood nomad.

Small players keep their AT/ST production, let's say those players production multiplier remains 1x
Now big players would have more AT/ST (maybe even 10x) but will need to pay more AT/ST than normally the smaller the target player is (up to 10x).

So small players will be able to attack everyone for the same turns they have to pay now.

Big players, while producing 10 times more, will be able to attack small players/inactives for 10 times more turns (no effect on amount of attacks to be done), while also attacking other big players for 8x,6x,4x,3x,1x the current amount of turns (you produce 10 times more turns but only need to pay 3 times more to attack) so you can attack big players more than you could have before.

Admin wrote:hmm really good idea farle, i'll strongly consider something like that.

although there's a serious issue with it that would need resolving and that's purchase and sale of attack turns, so this update would probably get limited to production and use of supply turns.
also attacking 0 def farms (inactives) would need to carry the same cost as attacking "small players", to preserve the original purpose of the idea that while you produce more turns, you can weigh this benefit onto attacking big(ger) players, you won't have any particular advantage when attacking smaller players

because imagine, you produce 10 times more attack turns, than another player. While they have to attack for someone for 300 mil to make a profit, you could attack for 30 mil. The big player(s) would then clear out the farms at regular intervals long before the farms generate enough wealth to be farmable by the small players

I would still keep the farms at a lower level than smaller players, so that active players are differentiated against inactive.

Also, about the market.
Convert ALL attack points into a single currency, so you buy 1 ATT @ 10m on the market, but you are *10 bigger, you get TEN ATK points, but cannot sell any number that is not dividable by ten as a result (So no floating point numbers on the market).

Let me study on that Admin, not sure I understood it. I'll pm you after I mull it a bit see if you can help me understand if i don't get it.

lol nomad, thats kind of funny. admin, adding to your idea, if the person you are attacking is bigger than you, then you should be able to farm them for less than X1 AT. Also your level should be something like RAW UP divided by 1000 as RAW UP I think needs to play a larger role in the game.

Okay admin, about my original idea, I am going to repeat this because I don't think everyone understood what I said last time. Admin said that being able to steal AT won't be fair because you can log on and find all of your AT gone. My question will be, isn't it also unfair when you have been massed when not online and you log on and all of your troops (Attack, Defence, Covert, Assassin and Economy) are dead and you have to start all over again?

Nomad said something like if there is no AT left the person cant rebuild anymore: I agree but there can be a restriction like, the person MUST have 1k or more AT to have their AT stolen, and when it goes under 1k that person's AT can't be stolent because they need it to rebuild. Sound good?

PS: I still stick to my original conclusion that this feature will be a good inclusion.

goku1719 wrote:lol nomad, thats kind of funny. admin, adding to your idea, if the person you are attacking is bigger than you, then you should be able to farm them for less than X1 AT. Also your level should be something like RAW UP divided by 1000 as RAW UP I think needs to play a larger role in the game.

Okay admin, about my original idea, I am going to repeat this because I don't think everyone understood what I said last time. Admin said that being able to steal AT won't be fair because you can log on and find all of your AT gone. My question will be, isn't it also unfair when you have been massed when not online and you log on and all of your troops (Attack, Defence, Covert, Assassin and Economy) are dead and you have to start all over again?

Nomad said something like if there is no AT left the person cant rebuild anymore: I agree but there can be a restriction like, the person MUST have 1k or more AT to have their AT stolen, and when it goes under 1k that person's AT can't be stolent because they need it to rebuild. Sound good?

PS: I still stick to my original conclusion that this feature will be a good inclusion.

The military might of an account is your decision to make. Choose poorly and pay a price. You also can put every single UU and kewal into things that can not be stolen. If you bring this AT suggestion to life then there is no way to defend from it.

Ultimately an AT is not a physical thing. It is not money, it is not a live person, it is a representation of a time requirement, therefore it can not and should not be stolen. JMO.

Not to mention it all but stops alliance wars and AT stockpiling, which are crutial to war strategies.

Oh, and @ Admin,,,,,

I got it now, not not sure if I am for, against or undecided.

Nomad wrote:

goku1719 wrote:lol nomad, thats kind of funny. admin, adding to your idea, if the person you are attacking is bigger than you, then you should be able to farm them for less than X1 AT. Also your level should be something like RAW UP divided by 1000 as RAW UP I think needs to play a larger role in the game.

Okay admin, about my original idea, I am going to repeat this because I don't think everyone understood what I said last time. Admin said that being able to steal AT won't be fair because you can log on and find all of your AT gone. My question will be, isn't it also unfair when you have been massed when not online and you log on and all of your troops (Attack, Defence, Covert, Assassin and Economy) are dead and you have to start all over again?

Nomad said something like if there is no AT left the person cant rebuild anymore: I agree but there can be a restriction like, the person MUST have 1k or more AT to have their AT stolen, and when it goes under 1k that person's AT can't be stolent because they need it to rebuild. Sound good?

PS: I still stick to my original conclusion that this feature will be a good inclusion.

The military might of an account is your decision to make. Choose poorly and pay a price. You also can put every single UU and kewal into things that can not be stolen. If you bring this AT suggestion to life then there is no way to defend from it.

Ultimately an AT is not a physical thing. It is not money, it is not a live person, it is a representation of a time requirement, therefore it can not and should not be stolen. JMO.

Not to mention it all but stops alliance wars and AT stockpiling, which are crutial to war strategies.

Oh, and @ Admin,,,,,

I got it now, not not sure if I am for, against or undecided.

i really dont think you know what i mean, and there can be a method of stopping at from being stolen, like an AT bank but with no fees.

not really a fruitful addition to your suggestion

huh? what do u mean?

dunno I kinda didn't see the point of adding a bank to protect something that would only become stealable after a change is made.

though on second thought, yes would help make only inactives get attackable, but the question is if people want an unlimited supply of AT's

Admin wrote:dunno I kinda didn't see the point of adding a bank to protect something that would only become stealable after a change is made.

though on second thought, yes would help make only inactives get attackable, but the question is if people want an unlimited supply of AT's

unlimited NO


more antiquate YES

Turns for Kewul = No offers available

Turns for UU = No offers available

This is the reality of the GM presently, and if you use ALL your MT to buy from the TC you get a whopping 2320 per week. Thats 232 non wartime actions per week or 33 raids or farms per day. I can do 33 raids in less then 1 turn and 1 maybe 2 accounts. If your in war your looking at a fraction of that.

actually now that i consider it:
- only AT's you produce are grabable
- each time you login, all AT's you produced become untouchable
- spy logs wont show up stealable AT's
- attack to steal AT's costs 100 AT 25 ST and steals 10% of AT stock
- all inactives get their AT's "banked"

Now, getting an extra 3.5k AT's every turn into the "active" field might look like infinite but with the 100 AT cost, i figure 50-70% of the stolen AT's will be spent to actually get them in the first place.
Plus with not knowing how much you'll steal before the attack, might open a good window in AT trashing

I for one won't bother, as you don't know how many are possible.

Nomad wrote:

Admin wrote:dunno I kinda didn't see the point of adding a bank to protect something that would only become stealable after a change is made.

though on second thought, yes would help make only inactives get attackable, but the question is if people want an unlimited supply of AT's

unlimited NO


more antiquate YES

Turns for Kewul = No offers available

Turns for UU = No offers available

This is the reality of the GM presently, and if you use ALL your MT to buy from the TC you get a whopping 2320 per week. Thats 232 non wartime actions per week or 33 raids or farms per day. I can do 33 raids in less then 1 turn and 1 maybe 2 accounts. If your in war your looking at a fraction of that.

That's only because someone bought the last ones of the market and no one added fresh ones. If you see that happening you should place some of yours for a price you would like to have. There will be always someone who will pay more than what you can make when using it yourself

Admin wrote:actually now that i consider it:
- only AT's you produce are grabable
- each time you login, all AT's you produced become untouchable
- spy logs wont show up stealable AT's
- attack to steal AT's costs 100 AT 25 ST and steals 10% of AT stock
- all inactives get their AT's "banked"

Now, getting an extra 3.5k AT's every turn into the "active" field might look like infinite but with the 100 AT cost, i figure 50-70% of the stolen AT's will be spent to actually get them in the first place.
Plus with not knowing how much you'll steal before the attack, might open a good window in AT trashing

There is no reason why to make AT stealable. It will not improve ANYTHING, since AT themselves don't help an account, they only help steal kuwal and uu. Enabling people to steal AT will not increase how much kuwal and uu is stolen in the long run (it will increase it for 2 weeks though), and thus it's a completely useless idea and won't improve the game.

In fact it will harm the game, because all it will cause is bring doom to the game by leading to a hyperinflation, and drastic devaluation of turns, which currently have a relatively stable value.

Currently AT is a good resource to measure a value of things such as an account or 1$. After this change it will bring chaos to the resource prices.
It isn't something we should strive for.

------------------

@Nomad
You can sell them for a higher price than what you can farm.
Sell them to make profit.

Admin wrote:actually now that i consider it:
- only AT's you produce are grabable
- each time you login, all AT's you produced become untouchable
- spy logs wont show up stealable AT's
- attack to steal AT's costs 100 AT 25 ST and steals 10% of AT stock
- all inactives get their AT's "banked"

Now, getting an extra 3.5k AT's every turn into the "active" field might look like infinite but with the 100 AT cost, i figure 50-70% of the stolen AT's will be spent to actually get them in the first place.
Plus with not knowing how much you'll steal before the attack, might open a good window in AT trashing

bank all inactives pre release right?

this does sound interesting, since there can not be a massive AT farming spree, sice AT cuts off at 6K that means a completely full farm can only yield
600 AT first hit,
540 the next hit,
486 the 3rd,
437 the 4th,
354,,,,,




Very interesting indeed


@ Kenzu,,,, why would I have bought them just to sell them? I actually like useing them far more mate

Kenzu wrote: bring doom to the game by leading to a hyperinflation,

read below...

13 Nov 09:53:58...

Buy Turns with your Kuwal
Displaying up to 4 best Offers
You receive You pay Rate
900 Turns 1,800,000,000,000 Kuwal [1:2,000,000,000]
Pay Kuwal
to receive 900 Turns.

don't know about anyone else, but the above is what I call HYPERINFLATION, don't know if someone actually paid 2,000,000,000 per for AT's, or if the offer was pulled cause nobody would touch it... all I do know for sure is the price of AT's has gotten so high that farming/raiding is no longer possible profitably...