Decrease AT and ST cost in massing

Special Agent 47 wrote:I personally would rather see a decrease in price for the more mundane things such as farming or raiding, not a cheapening of that which should be expensive such as war.

Kenzu wrote:Decreasing the cost of farming will NOT increase your farming profits, because it affects everyone.
BS!
You think that if you could farm 1 more time a day that your profit would not increase? How can you even attempt to justify that? You have to have the intellegence to understand that this game has 126 pages of accounts, but only about 6 pages that one could class as "active". Therefore there is more "farms" out there then can be farmed with the limited amount of AT created per account. You refuse to look at it from the veiw of someone who lives on self generated AT alone.

At the same time, decreasing cost of farming will make massing much more expensive.
Explain how. I can not see how it will effect it in any way, shape, or form. Looking at them seperately in terms of cost, changing 1 does not change the other unless you "compare" the cost.


If you decrease farm cost from 10 AT to 5 AT, then someone who could have made 2 assaults (each costs 5 AT) or farm once, can now chose between 2 assaults or 2 times farming.

Such a change is only good if you think there are too many wars on AW and you want to increase massing price. Why would you want to do that?
As stated above, it DOES NOT change the present cost at all.

@kingkongfan, how is it that you agree with what SA47 said?
You keep complaining that there isn't enough war on AW. Do you think making massing more expensive will help you get more war on AW?
Once again, explain how someone can say

I personally would rather see a decrease in price for the more mundane things such as farming or raiding, not a cheapening of that which should be expensive such as war.

and you twist it to try to make it mean we want war more expensive? I mean if you would actually read what was written you would plainly see that changing the cost of war was what YOU were wanting, not what Myself and players like Kingkongfan1 wanted. I clearly stated instead of making war cheaper like you are asking for, I would rather see the mundane activities such as farming and raiding cheaper. If you exist on self generated AT alone you can only do like 4 or 5 raids/farms per day and that is it.

I do not want to see wars made cheaper, or made to last longer. I would like to see the option to do more actions per day tho, meaning having the ability to do more then 4 or 5 actions per day before running out of resources. At present rates you can not buy AT from the TC nor the GM to turn a profit raiding or farming inactives.

Admin wrote:k, how about double AT production and double AT cost of farm raid?

kenzu wrote:
@kingkongfan, how is it that you agree with what SA47 said?
You keep complaining that there isn't enough war on AW. Do you think making massing more expensive will help you get more war on AW?

seaborgium wrote:Then you are still limited as STs are just as low in production but just as high in usage.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:k, how about double AT production and double AT cost of farm raid?

what does this gain anyone? 1/10, 2/20, it still equals 4 farms/raids per day, which equals very slow, boring growth of my account... sorry I just do not see the point.

kenzu wrote:
@kingkongfan, how is it that you agree with what SA47 said?
You keep complaining that there isn't enough war on AW. Do you think making massing more expensive will help you get more war on AW?

go back & reread what was posted, & STOP trying to twist my words...

Kenzu wrote:

seaborgium wrote:Then you are still limited as STs are just as low in production but just as high in usage.

ST let you farm a lot actually.
98 ST, only 2 are needed.
You can farm 50 people each single day.
If you farm once a week, then you have to farm 350 people to make sure you spend all ST.
I actually agree with this part
Furthermore if you vote you are producing over 100 turns.
Basically the update that massively increased the bonuses for voting allows people to farm more than 2 times more.
Not everyone votes, nor should someone be forced to do so. You vote for a game you like, and you don't vote for a game you do not believe in. If that is the intent, to force people to vote to be able to play then I need to leave now. I came here to play an enjoyable game, not spend my time being threatened by an admin who makes faulty voting links, and wasting my time voting for a game when I can be playing another one.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:k, how about double AT production and double AT cost of farm raid?

what does this gain anyone? 1/10, 2/20, it still equals 4 farms/raids per day, which equals very slow, boring growth of my account... sorry I just do not see the point.
exactly, its the EXACT same thing.

kenzu wrote:
@kingkongfan, how is it that you agree with what SA47 said?
You keep complaining that there isn't enough war on AW. Do you think making massing more expensive will help you get more war on AW?

go back & reread what was posted, & STOP trying to twist my words...

I read your and SA47's post, now please my post, more thoroughly.
And please answer the following:

1
Do you agree that decreasing the AT and/or ST cost of farming and raiding will not increase your profits from farming, and will influence barely nothing, except the absolute price of AT and cost of massing?
decreasing the AT price of farming and raiding will Increase your profit as long as it is done correctly.If you can make 1 more hit per day for the same cost, then that 1 hit is PURE PROFIT. Presently there are more farms then farmers, if the situation changes to more farmers then farms then that changes everything. If you cut the AT price in half YES people will hit for les, but NO it will not be for the same 1/2 that the cost was dropped. More then likely if it cost 10 AT to take 300 mill, then if you drop the cost to 5 AT the average hit will drop to 250/200 mill, not to the 150 mill or "1/2" mark. Plus it will take a long period of time because it will take farmers actually farming the inactive accounts completely down before the hits will drop. Plainly speaking, if you normally hit for 300 mill, and the AT price was cut in half are you automaticly going to hit for 150? NO. Your going to keep hitting for 300 until there is none. Then you will hit for 250 until there is none, then 200. As long as you can keep hitting for 300 then why in the world would you start hitting for 150?
2
Do you agree that making farming and raiding cheaper will have the similar effect as making massing more expensive?
No. they are two seperate things and the cost of one has NO effect on the other unless you directly compare them. They are apples and oranges. Do the math on cost versus profit per AT cost and you will see.

3
Do you want to tell me that you don't want that there will be more wars on AW? (because that's what you said a couple times in other threads.)
I, myself want more "Activity" on AW. I do not limit that to "war" as you do. I want to see more farming, more raiding, more trading, more forum interaction, and more ingame interaction among players. Thats what I want, and guess what all those will lead to? More war.

you see, more activity in other areas such as trade, raiding, farming, forums interaction, and ingame interaction will lead to war, but forcing war will not lead to trade, raiding, farming, and interaction. I mean yes war will lead to these things in the short term, but not long term. Activity breeds war, War can breed activity, but can also kill activity.

4
If you do want that there is more fighting on AW, do you think that SA47's suggestion will lead to more wars or less?
My suggestion has got NOTHING to do with war you damn fool!!!!!!!!! Get that through your damn head. Stop trying to twist my words, and put words in my mouth, I AM SICK OF IT!!!!!!

Decrease AT and ST cost in massing

Special Agent 47 wrote:I personally would rather see a decrease in price for the more mundane things such as farming or raiding, not a cheapening of that which should be expensive such as war.

Lord Ishurue wrote:his defense tech Defense Technology: 150% . (the max defense bonus he could have is 31%
at best his defense tech + bonus was 181% )

my attack tech with bonus is 210%

Lord Ishurue wrote:The attack was not even profitable. If this guy were to build up a strike . He could mass me profitably, while If i try to counter attack he would simply laugh .

Lord Ishurue wrote:
I did 10% more damage to him then I lost, when my strike was 387% larger .. what kind of crap is that.

9922 x 633k = 6,280,626,000 his loses
6821 x 847k = 5,777,387,000 my loses

Spoiler:

Special Agent 47 wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

seaborgium wrote:Then you are still limited as STs are just as low in production but just as high in usage.

ST let you farm a lot actually.
98 ST, only 2 are needed.
You can farm 50 people each single day.
If you farm once a week, then you have to farm 350 people to make sure you spend all ST.
I actually agree with this part
Furthermore if you vote you are producing over 100 turns.
Basically the update that massively increased the bonuses for voting allows people to farm more than 2 times more.
Not everyone votes, nor should someone be forced to do so. You vote for a game you like, and you don't vote for a game you do not believe in. If that is the intent, to force people to vote to be able to play then I need to leave now. I came here to play an enjoyable game, not spend my time being threatened by an admin who makes faulty voting links, and wasting my time voting for a game when I can be playing another one.

Special Agent 47 wrote:
My suggestion has got NOTHING to do with war you damn fool!!!!!!!!! Get that through your damn head. Stop trying to twist my words, and put words in my mouth, I AM SICK OF IT!!!!!!

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Special Agent 47 wrote:I personally would rather see a decrease in price for the more mundane things such as farming or raiding, not a cheapening of that which should be expensive such as war.

Agreed, you've stated my thoughts perfectly...

kingkongfan1 wrote:@ Admin, your assumptions about reducing the costs of farming/raiding will cause players to farm/raid for less, is quite incorrect in my & several others cases. EXAMPLE... to break even, (not make a profit) I have to make 400,000,000 per farm hit. now at 4 hits a day, that is 1,600,000,000. so why if AT production is increased to 2 or more per turn would I hit for less than 400,000,000 per hit? if I hit for less, its a waste of turns, to make a profit, & grow my account a bit faster then I would continue to hit for 400,000,000 or more... as it is now, I am missing out on about 3 billion per day in farm hits due to a lack of AT's...

Admin wrote:I think the real issue is that the intended purpose is not clear. at least not to me, and as i read the replies, many people want to achieve different objectives.
I agree with you here, so let me clearly state what my objective is and then I'll be done with it. Presently you produce enough natural resources to perform 4 or 5 "actions" per day, this would be raiding or farming. If you committed to war time actions your are even more limited. This means that during times of peace an account is limited to these said 4 or 5 actions a day, all of which can be completed in 1 thirty minute turn. I would then say you should include 4 total log in for the day to cover proper banking. At 5 minutes apiece that is a total of 45 minutes spent ingame daily. (we all know these actions can be done in far less then 1/2 that time but it could take longer as well if spying is necessary so I think it is a good indicator of an average time). If a player has no SS and no GM access the this is the total of their existence. Now to attempt to cover all bases let us say that 1/2 of the accounts MT are used to purchase AT from TC and the other half are used to increase bank size, and storing for future protections. At present rate that equals 1160 AT or 116 "actions". 116 divided by 7 days equals 16.5 actions per day. Add back the original 4 or 5 actions from natural production and you get 20 to 23 "actions" per day. Now, if you have to spy or hunt for each target then one could argue that 23 actions per day could equate to 2 hours of game play if each action took you 5.2 complete minutes. I think we can all agree that anyone with a farming list, or anyone who has found 1 good raid can execute these 23 actions in 1 turn, maybe 2 turns (1 hr)maximum.

In conclusion, My objective is to try to work with administration to find a way to get people to commit a small % more of their time to playing this game. I do not want it to be that a person has to commit 4 hours a day to this game to compete, but I also don't want people to be able to compete only committing 30 minutes a day to this game. I honestly believe the GM should be open to ALL account regardless of SS status. By all means give the access a significant cost to nonSS players, but anyone who thinks nonSS players with no GM access can compete with SS player who have GM access is a fool. PERIOD. GM access means quick liquidation of resources for fast rebuilding or restocking of lost resources. Not having those options, and relying on the VERY limited amounts one can get from TC is not an option for a competitive account.


If one drops the AT cost required to farm, then short term difference will be that people will attack for less kuwal or untrained, inactives and actives.
If before you needed to steal 2k units to have a nice profit, afterwards you only need to raid 1k units.

there won't be an increase in profit because you will not be hitting 2k uu targets any more often than you hit 4k uu targets now because people will generally raid to a lower uu level, since it's profitable even when less units are available than now.

Increasing AT production might dissipate some of this effect since some people chose to raid/farm which means they can do so more often, but some will sell them, increasing supply, reducing prices (though that's unlikely, chances are prices will drop only marginally).
Farming more often will not necessarily mean farming for less because people attack based on cost/profit, not based on production.
Once again, I'll say my piece and be done as it is apparent we will have to agree to disagree. I am not disagreeing with the mechanics of what your saying as they are true. I am going to disagree that you know what every player will do and can speak for them. I say this because many of the older more experienced players in fact would NOT do what you are saying and you know this for a fact. Yes we would hit for less in farms and raids, but it would not reflect the exact same % as the drop in cost. IF and only IF the number of farmers outpaced the number of farms would what your saying hold true. If there are more farms then farmers(more adequately put, more resources available to the farms to do the farming), then people will not farm for less, they will just farm more targets. They will not immediately drop to farming for 1/2 what they were farming for, not until all the farms are reduced that low. You seem to state if you cut the cost in half everyone immediately cuts the amount to hit for in half and that's simply not true.

Keep in mind I do agree with the fundamentals of what your saying, but disagreeing with the application. I'll try to explain with the following example.

100,000 accounts
10 active accounts(farming accounts)
each account can do 10 actions per day
Presently each account is hitting for 10 mill kewul per hit at a cost of 10 AT
AT cost gets cut in half to 5 AT per hit, now each account can do 20 actions
The average farming hit would increase past the 10 mill kewul per hit. You ask why?

Because even tho the cost was cut in half, and the amount of "actions" doubled, there is still more farms out there then there is capacity for the farmers to fully farm them.

10 accounts doing 20 actions each = 200 accounts being hit, that leaves 99,790 of the original 100,000 accounts not hit due to lack of resources to hit them.

In this example even tho the price was cut in half the average hit would continue to climb as there are more resources then can be farmed.

Now using the same example with a larger base of active farmers
100,000 accounts
10,000 active accounts(farmers)
each account can do 10 actions per day
Presently each account is hitting for 10 mill kewul per hit at a cost of 10 AT
AT cost gets cut in half to 5 AT per hit, now each account can do 20 actions
The average farming hit would decrease from the 10 mill kewul per hit. You ask why?

10,000 accounts doing 20 actions each = 200,000 accounts being hit, that means the original 100,000 accounts are hit twice as often and for 1/2 as much as before.(5 mill per hit in this case)


About ST's being relevant, not with respect to farming. Maybe in times of war, but not during peace time.
You produce enough ST's (overtime excluded) to attack/raid 48 times per day. You'd need the combined AT production of 10 people, you included, to spend ST's as fast as you get them (MT use excluded)
With voting/overtime i think you could get to 60 attacks per day, that's 12 people.
So I will have to completely disagree with sea's ST statement

I agree here, best I can tell it is physically and completely impossible to run out of ST farming or raiding even using voting, and dedicating ALL MT to AT purchases off the TC. The only way a person can 0 their ST is by gaining AT from the GM so that means no nonSS player can ever achieve a 0 ST status. I'll take this opportunity to show this as a valid reason the GM should be open to all players regardless of SS status and to once again prove that a nonSS player can not compete with a SS player due to these very facts.

Kenzu wrote:
@SA47
1
If you look at long term, then what you say is wrong.
You are right about what you say, but this will work for only a couple days. Immediately after all 4000 farms have been farmed then everyone will be farming as soon as a farm hits 50%, because if they don't someone else will farm it. And there will be enough turns to do that. It is true that if you farmed 300 mill before, now it won't be 150 million, but it won't be 200 million either. Most likely you will be farming for about 160 or 170 million, because some people who don't want to spend too much time on farming will sell turns instead. People who don't care how much time they spend farming will earn a little bit more, while those who don't want to spend much more additional time, will earn a little bit less. All in all if you double AT production, the amount of kuwal stolen WILL REMAIN SAME, and farmers total profits wont change much.
My point is made above. I accept that under certain circumstance we both are right, As I proved above. Now Admin must decide where this game is in those regards and act on that because I do not know what Admin knows. I said my piece and I'm done with it. Its his call.

2
They are indirectly correlated.
If 1 apple costs you 2 Euro, and 1 orange also 2 Euro, and apple price falls to 1 Euro.
Then orange will become much more expensive compared to apple.
you could chose between 1 apple or 1 orange, and now between 2 apples and 1 orange.
After such change, more people will chose apples than before.
If you don't like oranges you will NEVER buy them no matter the price of either. That is what you are missing and to blind to see. If an account has NEVER done a single war time action, then the cost of war time actions has absolutely NO bearing on farming and raiding. It is plain and simple, you can not compare 2 actions that do not yield the same result. Farming and War time actions DO NOT yield the same result, therefore you can not compare the results from each and the cost from each. You compare the cost to farm or raid the the result of farming and raiding. you compare the cost of war time actions to the cost of war time actions.

Easy example
If your goal is to gather resources to your account, if you were able to do war time actions for a cost 1/10 of a farming action, would you switch from farming to war time acts?

NO, because no war time action can yield you resources and collecting resources is your goal, not expending them with no gain.


My entire point is what i said in the original post

I personally would rather see a decrease in price for the more mundane things such as farming or raiding, not a cheapening of that which should be expensive such as war.

I personally, me as a player, would rather see an increase of action that are considered mundane but show a time commitment and a reward is yielded from doing them, over a cheapening of the cost of war witch will lead to wars lasting longer, and have less of an effect.

I can not explain it any better then that.

3
ok

4.
I am not twisting your words, because I am not mentioning what you have written

Kenzu wrote:do you think that SA47's suggestion will lead to more wars or less?

Your going to set there and say you have not mentioned my name or what I said even tho you wrote the very line I quote here now in this very thread? Does anyone else agree with him?


Insults are forbidden on this forum.
If you can't talk without insulting, then you shouldn't post here.
Then you have 2 choices, and I hope you pick one wisely
1. Remove me from here.
2. Stop your lies. Stop twisting other peoples words to fit your meaning, and stop trying to make your ideas appear to be from someone else. As I have just proven above you claim I want more war when I asked for more mundane and non war actions be avalible to help increase growth, and you say you have not mentioned me or "what I have written" even tho your call me by name and state your suggestion is mine.

Kenzu wrote:do you think that SA47's suggestion will lead to more wars or less?

I hope you choose the second, but its your choice to make

you are right about the suggestions part and activity war related post.
I consider farming a boring activity, because it's very repetitive and doesn't require any thinkingm, especially if farming and raiding inactives. And there are enough AT to farm actives.
I prefer there will be more activity on things where you need to think such as trading, communication and other player to player interaction.
Please prove "And there are enough AT to farm actives." I am not saying it is not true, but I want proof that this is true so I can change my thought process as I believe that it is false personally.


@I believe farm and raid missions should kill the same number of attackers and defenders, no matter how many attackers a player has (assuming all techs are the same)
That is fine, just as it is fine that I disagree with you. Your making AW2 just like this so go play AW2 and let main follow a different path so we can attract more players to the franchise. There is no sense in having 2, 4, or 6 identical games.


@seaborgiums next page post
reducing the cost of farming means that people need to spend more time on farming. This obviously will lead to one thing: Some people who don't want to spend more time farming will still spend as much time as before, and sell some of the kuwal, HOWEVER, since they have less profits per hit, they will spend less time.

This can be compared to working:
If I get paid 30$ per hour, I might want to work some overtime. but if my salary gets lowered to 20$ per hourm, I will probably work less hours per week, because there is less incentive to work more.

I think you see only 1 view, and refuse to see any other. You obviously have never been poor, or hard to work a hard job to literally feed your family. Coming from a manual labor background, and seeing this very example over and over again in real life I can tell you in many cases it is so very, very wrong. I'm not saying it is one or the other, I am saying it depends on the person doing the real life job, and the person playing the account. In my situation and experience in real life the less money per hour I made the more hours I worked to compensate for it. When I made $8.50 an hour I worked 70 to 80 hours a week to make 750$. Now I work 45 to 55 hours a week to make a tab bit more per week.

The difference is, I had no other job, and no other income, and no other means to produce what was needed to maintain my standard of living, ingame that means if you want to maintain a set growth rate you had to work more and commit more time when you made less per hour, and could commit less time and be online less when you made more per hour. Its the exact opposite of your example, and both are 100% correct and true.

Special Agent 47 wrote:In conclusion, My objective is to try to work with administration to find a way to get people to commit a small % more of their time to playing this game. I do not want it to be that a person has to commit 4 hours a day to this game to compete, but I also don't want people to be able to compete only committing 30 minutes a day to this game. I honestly believe the GM should be open to ALL account regardless of SS status. By all means give the access a significant cost to nonSS players, but anyone who thinks nonSS players with no GM access can compete with SS player who have GM access is a fool. PERIOD. GM access means quick liquidation of resources for fast rebuilding or restocking of lost resources. Not having those options, and relying on the VERY limited amounts one can get from TC is not an option for a competitive account.
I think the reason why kenzu keeps saying nonSS can compete is that his definition of competing is simply "to remain a challenge" while your definition of compete is "to be equal".

That being said I will give it some thought of allowing access to the GM however i'll also need to add some extra perks to SS owners (nothing that gives actual strategic advantages but still to make it more attractive to get SS), plus the usage fee would probably be something like 20%


Keep in mind I do agree with the fundamentals of what your saying, but disagreeing with the application. I'll try to explain with the following example.

Spoiler:

I completely understand your example as such situations can arise, however in these cases, and this is my philosophy which i've followed since sgw, one does not go chosing targets based on what is profitable but based on how many people you can hit.

Lets say you can make 20 attacks and after filtering out unprofitable, etc. hits you end up with the following list.
1 target 60 mil kuwal profit
3 targets 55 mil kuwal profit
4 targets 50 mil kuwal profit
8 targets 45 mil kuwal profit
22 targets 40 mil kuwal profit
If you attack the best 20 targets, you end up with a profit of 945 mil kuwal (unless I screwed up with the addition)

Now kingkongfan's logic is "I can only hit 20 people, the 18 people i cannot hit because there are no AT's is lost profit". From a laymans position it is true but from an economic one it's not.
If you use the 20 attacks to maximize potential then by definition you cannot have lost profit. You would lose profit if instead of the 60 mil target you would hit the 40 mil target. That's 20 mil lost profit.
It is lost profit if by some means it were possible to attack the other 18 targets, not if it's simply impossible because of some limitations.
Dont forget that from these 18 targets, the income they produce will increase the profit margin for other players who will come later, so others will also have a chance to hit people for a 50+ mil profit.
Had you farmed the rest, you would have ended up with a 40 mil profit per target.

By definition people will try to attack the targets that give most profit, creating the boundary what you can steal from inactives.
Reducing AT cost will make people attack more often, since inactives won't produce more income but get farmed more often, the amount stolen will go down, since they dont have as much time as before to build up these kuwal amounts.

You say that there's a capacity of farms to be "fully farmed".
However I think that that very amount of "unattackable targets" is one of the factors itself what sets the prices of AT's and presents simply the bedrock of targets no one will attack because there are better targets available.

seaborgium wrote:Admin you may have come up with a idea SS players have 0 fees for GM, but non SS have 20%(or something fair)

Admin wrote:
I think the reason why kenzu keeps saying nonSS can compete is that his definition of competing is simply "to remain a challenge" while your definition of compete is "to be equal".
Then I think you misunderstand my definition of being able to compete. 2 accounts of equal size, tech's, levels, and all around power/set ups. 1 has SS. 1 does not. If they go to war, what happens?

Long story short, the player with SS uses the GM to liquidate their resources to maintain their military might 100%. Also they can use the GM to replace losses suffered in the conflict with no limitation other then the amount of resources they can gather. The non SS player can do only what the 16MTs on TC allow him to do, so best case senerio it means he has 2 rounds at best in him and he is basically done. He can not recover quickly due to having spent all his MT in battle, and as slow as recover is with the 16MT that would take 7 days to get, a SS player can do in 1 day or even 1 turn.

A non SS player CAN build an account to rival a SS player in size, techs, levels, and military might, but a non SS player will NEVER be able to stand toe to toe with an SS account.



That being said I will give it some thought of allowing access to the GM however i'll also need to add some extra perks to SS owners (nothing that gives actual strategic advantages but still to make it more attractive to get SS), plus the usage fee would probably be something like 20%
If it cost you 20% to use the GM with no SS then there is NO reason to give SS accounts more bonuses, they have a 20% advantage already, but either way TY for at least considering the possible need.



I completely understand your example as such situations can arise, however in these cases, and this is my philosophy which i've followed since sgw, one does not go chosing targets based on what is profitable but based on how many people you can hit.

Lets say you can make 20 attacks and after filtering out unprofitable, etc. hits you end up with the following list.
1 target 60 mil kuwal profit
3 targets 55 mil kuwal profit
4 targets 50 mil kuwal profit
8 targets 45 mil kuwal profit
22 targets 40 mil kuwal profit
If you attack the best 20 targets, you end up with a profit of 945 mil kuwal (unless I screwed up with the addition)

Now kingkongfan's logic is "I can only hit 20 people, the 18 people i cannot hit because there are no AT's is lost profit". From a laymans position it is true but from an economic one it's not.
If you use the 20 attacks to maximize potential then by definition you cannot have lost profit. You would lose profit if instead of the 60 mil target you would hit the 40 mil target. That's 20 mil lost profit.
It is lost profit if by some means it were possible to attack the other 18 targets, not if it's simply impossible because of some limitations.
Dont forget that from these 18 targets, the income they produce will increase the profit margin for other players who will come later, so others will also have a chance to hit people for a 50+ mil profit.
Had you farmed the rest, you would have ended up with a 40 mil profit per target.

By definition people will try to attack the targets that give most profit, creating the boundary what you can steal from inactives.
Reducing AT cost will make people attack more often, since inactives won't produce more income but get farmed more often, the amount stolen will go down, since they dont have as much time as before to build up these kuwal amounts.

You say that there's a capacity of farms to be "fully farmed".
However I think that that very amount of "unattackable targets" is one of the factors itself what sets the prices of AT's and presents simply the bedrock of targets no one will attack because there are better targets available.

Admin wrote:

seaborgium wrote:Admin you may have come up with a idea SS players have 0 fees for GM, but non SS have 20%(or something fair)

that's sa's suggestion, I just threw a number that might be acceptable to me on first impression