PTR

BRB sending 50k uu to accounts that are under 250k in size.

They can't SS their way out of PTR!

I believe it's just been shown that to play AderanWars, you must use Cash in order to be able to "control" your PTR.

To put it bluntly, AderanWars is Pay-2-Play?
I believe that is exactly what has been shown.

Now, Martin, You have failed to answer my PM. Do I have your permission to send it to Kenzu? Maybe he would like to address it? (I believe Kenzu is ur bro, right?)


edit: should we be telling our friends about AW? "Yeah, when you trade you have this personal trade ratio, you need to pay to be able to trade otherwise someone could screw your ratio over and have you banned"


50k uu != 20% of MY account.

matter of fact, I could go as far as sending away 1.6m uu of my account if we go by the 20% rule. So, who wants to get banned?

Sea has given one way for non SS players to get affected by PTR.

The other two way that I know of are;

1. The Commander Officer Relationship

2. The receipt of compensation for farming action that breaches Alliance policies.

I do acknowledge that the second way is outside of the actual game features and is something that has been developed by the players but it does exist. This does disadvantage non SS players because it greatly discourages them from farming active players because the risks are way to high. To assume that they should refuse the offer of compensation only increases the disadvantage.

Admin, you have stated that normal account growth will balance things out but when I look at my PTR page this is not something that is apparent. It is probably happening but the rate may be to small for it to be displayed.

Also the only gauge that I have on the PTR page that my account is growing is the single Account Value figure. As this is shown in Turns and the value of turns fluctuates it's hopeless to use as a guide and I have no idea of what is actually included in it.

A while back I received around 4.5 Bill Kuwal in compensation. Since then I have invested 472,610,100,000 Kuwal in upgrading UP and Techs alone and have a normal daily income that exceeds the single compensation payment. And this doesn't include resources spent in training and weapons. This raises the question of just how much account growth is required to balance things out?

yes the commander officer relationship is starting to be a big enough headache for me that I am considering dropping my commander,,, with having to increase/decrease payment continually to maintain the proper %, I do not know what my income is from one day to the next...

Admin wrote:
which is an unlikely scenario since you'd know what's about to happen when your ss runs out. so there's no need to discuss it.

Point taken, I was just offing possibilities but I'll yield on the point as I agree with your logic/resoning

Mystake wrote:BRB sending 50k uu to accounts that are under 250k in size.

They can't SS their way out of PTR!
No they can't, but they also do not need to. Normal account growth is an equalizer thats works the strongest for the smallest accounts. An account thats 250K in size can literall double its size in 1 hr of raiding. 50K is 1/5th of 250K, but only 1/10th of 500K.

I believe it's just been shown that to play AderanWars, you must use Cash in order to be able to "control" your PTR.

To put it bluntly, AderanWars is Pay-2-Play?
I believe that is exactly what has been shown.
I do not believe that it has been shown at all. The plain and simple fact is DO NOT do skewed trades or 1 sided trades, or $$ trades and your PTR will NEVER be out of line. So NO you do not have to "pay" to play. You have to "pay" to feed, buy with $$, or give/get something for nothing.

Now, Martin, You have failed to answer my PM. Do I have your permission to send it to Kenzu? Maybe he would like to address it? (I believe Kenzu is ur bro, right?)
Kenzu is his brother.

edit: should we be telling our friends about AW? "Yeah, when you trade you have this personal trade ratio, you need to pay to be able to trade otherwise someone could screw your ratio over and have you banned"


50k uu != 20% of MY account.

matter of fact, I could go as far as sending away 1.6m uu of my account if we go by the 20% rule. So, who wants to get banned?
All I have to say is try it. I mean really who is going to GIVE away hundreds of thousands of UU to ATTEMPT to get someone else banned? this is resources lost forever to the "giver". First off if you recieve something you do not want due to the negative effect it has on your PTR, just ask admin to remove it and I'm willing to bet he will do so gladly. You talk like its an automatic thing, you hit 20% and BLAM your banned. Well it doesnt work that way. When you redline it simply tells YOU your starting to go outside the boundries of acceptable behavior, then when you go further and further in a negative direction Admin might WARN you FIRST. This is where someone who is having funds FORCED on them by another can say to admin "I didnt ask for them, and they are trying to get me banned". ONLY after the self notifiying redline, and at least 1 or more direct admin to player warning MIGHT someone get banned. So that arguement is gone I'm afraid.

I like what Manleva had to say, as I see the same thing as him. No matter how much I grow or invest in my account, it means nothing to my PTR as it can change 6% in a day, in a good or bad direction, weather I do anything or not. So if growth effects it, it must take 6 months to a year to effect it in a manner that is seeable/noticeable.

just sayin nomad, your closing paragraph answers your first answer to my point.


yes, you DO have to pay to play. You have to pay, in order to be able to access features that make managing your account possible, hence, playable. One of those features may result in a ban!


You're also telling me that if admin can do that for aaaaallll the little players, p.s. I can find accounts with 50,80,90k uu out, send them 50k and raid it back to reduce my costs. It's do able - thats the point.
anyway, so if he can do that for allll the little players, when an alliance initiates an economic growth plan, that one big contributor gets a free pass from admin too?

that little player I just put in the red, how does he get out? You think a brand new account is going to be able to raid 250k uu in an hour? Let alone 30k?!

let alone 2k with the amt of AT they have?! Come on, get real here. That and apparently your acc size doesn't really affect PTR as much as people thought, as has been said above.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Kenzu wrote:No I haven't If you make 1 trade selling 10% of your account you are not braking the rules.

You get out of bad PTR by simple growth and you don't need SS to grow.

Also, please address my last point in my previous post.

yes, you did Kenzu, whether you realize it or not, your statements do contradict one another... If a player sells 10% of his account, grows only to sell another 10% later, & repeats this several times over, then as far as I am concerned then that player is only playing to sell resources. & there are plenty of players that do just that... as for the last part of your post, I really did not understand what you are talking about.

Here is what i said:

Statement 1
It's ok to sell 10% of your account.

Statement 2
It's against rules to keep playing to sell resources.

Both of these statmenents have to be true if you want to be within game rules.
Statement 2 puts a restriction on statement 1, both statements can coexists and here is a situation where they do: You sell/send 10% of your population in one case and never do it again.

This obviously means that you are allowed to sell 10% of your account as long as you are not doing this on a regular basis.
Now, if someone sells 2 times 5% it will be also ok. But making many such trades over a certain time period is against rules and people who do it have to live with the risk of getting banned anytime.
How can you not understand that?

Here a real life example:

1) The law states that a company has the freedom to employ anyone who agrees to do the job.
2) The law states that it's forbidden to sell drugs, and all those involved will be prosecuted.

Is this also a contradiction? Of course not.
All it means is that a company can employ anyone in any job as long as this job doesnt involve selling drugs.

You might want to read about the Venn diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

Nomad wrote:

Admin wrote:

Manleva wrote:The issues are not PTR it's self but rather the values used and their reasonableness and fairness. Those with SS can take action to address issues whereas those without SS can only address any issues through account growth.

How would those without SS get into PTR problems in the first place?

I salute you Manleva, you bested me on that one.


At admin, buy 1 five buck SS pack, trade like mad, get whacked PTR, SS expires, now your screwed. Only way I can think of it happening.

Trade on the galactic market and your PTR will not change.

seaborgium wrote:it doesn't have to be as much as I said. You could just send 100k UU and it would put them over the 20%.
Untill they start raiding/increasing UP it will be high

No, their PTR would be still in green.
If they send 100.000 UU that's the same as 700 attack turns.

Each player is allowed to have an imbalance of 5000 attack turns and the PTR will be green, no matter how bad it is.

Also, why should a new player send away 100.000 UU in the first place? Shouldn't they use it to get AT or kuwal to increase unit production?
Also, if they get SS through the broker, PTR doesn't change.

ok change that to 800k, as of this post that is worth over 5k ats.

Mystake wrote:just sayin nomad, your closing paragraph answers your first answer to my point.


yes, you DO have to pay to play. You have to pay, in order to be able to access features that make managing your account possible, hence, playable. One of those features may result in a ban!
Then explain how for every 1 SS account in the game there are 2 non SS accounts. Explain how players like Manleva have no SS, and have NEVER had SS yet they play and somewhat compete, I say somewhat because in a group he can do so, it any actions alone, or against an SS backed account which he can not compete long term. If you HAVE TO PAY to play then explain that, because to me the statement is 100% false.On top of that SS packs do not even effect your PTR so what exactly is your arguement here?

You're also telling me that if admin can do that for aaaaallll the little players, p.s. I can find accounts with 50,80,90k uu out, send them 50k and raid it back to reduce my costs.idk if you know this, but EVERY trade and attack is recorded for long term review, and scripts run that actually pick up on this very behavior, if the system redflags you, then martin manually looks at the attacks and if its obvious abuse, guess what happens. It's do able - thats the point.Feel free to try it, I think you will find there is more then 1 system in place to stop/limit such actions.
anyway, so if he can do that for allll the little players, when an alliance initiates an economic growth plan, that one big contributor gets a free pass from admin too?
give a better desription because this is making no sense to me. Does admin respond to player request? Hell yes, hes the most active Admin I have ever played under. You tell him someone is trying to screw you by dumping resources on your account and yes he will fix it as far as I am concerned. I still question who would be stupid enough to even try it KNOWING there is no auto bann, just an automated system to First alert you there is an issue, then a admin to player warning where you can explain/plead your case, and ONLY then after you continue in the negative action that a banning might happen. I do not understand the alliance program bit. Its not "forced" on anyone so yes if you exceed the allowable limits a warning may happen, thats what its suppose to do?????

that little player I just put in the red, how does he get out? You think a brand new account is going to be able to raid 250k uu in an hour? Let alone 30k?!
since you have a 5K AT value limit before PTR is effected, you would have to attempt this on an account just days old. Why? Who would be stupid enough to? And do you really think Martin would be stupid enough to bann a few day old account over Someone elses actions over just removing the unwanted good? This game admin is active, and responsive. This is not Jason, or Gary, or Rufus we are dealing with.

let alone 2k with the amt of AT they have?! Come on, get real here. That and apparently your acc size doesn't really affect PTR as much as people thought, as has been said above.explain,,,,your account "size" actually has nothing to do with PTR. It does not matter if your 10K or 10 mill in size. What does matter is HOW you got there. Player A can be 25 mill in size with a PTR of 0% +- 1% and player B can have an account thats 15 mill with a PTR of 30% redlined, even if they started the exact same day and have played the same amount of days. If you do very skewed deals such as 100K UU for 100 kewal per when the going rate is 100K kewal per, if you do 100K UU for 1 kewal or free, or if you recieve free stuff due to $$ trades P 2 P or cross server then your PTR is adjusted to reflect this. That is in fact what the system is set up and meant to do.

seaborgium wrote:ok change that to 800k, as of this post that is worth over 5k ats.

I'll ask you the same, who is going to dump 800K uu on an account that they will NEVER see again (the uu) just to attempt to get someone banned? All the reciever has to do is request there removal when admin gives his warning and prove they did not ask nor want them. The system is not automated, it is manual, and admin talks to/warns everyone before action is taken

mine was just a point.

Nomad,

PTR is controllable IF you have SS.

No SS, PTR is at the mercy of those who do have SS!

Manleva... I can get him banned I suppose, I could offset his PTR so bad that he can't fix it himself.

Mystake wrote:Nomad,

PTR is controllable IF you have SS.

No SS, PTR is at the mercy of those who do have SS!

Manleva... I can get him banned I suppose, I could offset his PTR so bad that he can't fix it himself.

Try it. I dare you.

What you refuse to see is the FACT that the banning system is not automated. It is manual, and it is done ONLY after admin contacts the account and gives it a chance to contest/explain. Dump 5 mill men on an account that 50K, and I guarentee you when admin messages the account, and then looks at what happens, and the 50K account asks for the 5 mill to be vaperized, well the only thing that will come of it all is someone will be 5 mill men lighter.

You can not effect anothers account so badly to get him banded without that account pleading its cases, that combined with the obviousness of what the SS account has done and why it has done it, and I would be Less suprised is the "giver" got a warning or bann rather then the reciever.

There is no auto script, the auto script is only the redflag, the banning script is manual and is used only after contact(warning) and Continued negative actions(those generated by you, not someone else trying to negatively effect your account)

so, what you're saying is that Admin has to interfere in the game for unintended side effects of features of the game he's implemented?


because see, now you're suggesting the admin has to interfere in the game playing field.


Also, Martin, you still have yet to respond to my PM. Do I need to resend it? The longer you stay quiet the more my point is proven...

What are these unintended side effects you keep talking about? I think PTR does a fantastic job of regulating things. Also, sending 5mil uu to a 50k acc? First of all what is the point??? He can't hurt you and obviously you wont waste your turns massing him if you are over 5mil army, I fail to see where you are getting your logic from.

By the way I'm sure once everything was straightened out then the players PTR would be reset to what it was before and also the uu sent gone forever (unless sent by accident to a player with no SS). I don't see any problem with it (besides it wasting admins time jk)

Mystake wrote:so, what you're saying is that Admin has to interfere in the game for unintended side effects of features of the game he's implemented?


because see, now you're suggesting the admin has to interfere in the game playing field.

How is he suggesting that I have to interfere with anything?
As people have pointed out, there's plenty of reasons why PTR will spike or not, and as I've pointed out simply going or being in the red will not automatically get anyone banned because the system doesn't ban anyone. I do.
My last action to ban people manually is not a flaw but just another check in the system.

So back to your suggestion about sending resources so that manleva gets banned, have fun trying.
All it would require was for manleva to tell me saying he received it all from you and i can take it away and restore his PTR.
End result: you simply losing everything you sent away

Mystake wrote:Also, Martin, you still have yet to respond to my PM. Do I need to resend it? The longer you stay quiet the more my point is proven...

I wasn't really aware that you put questions there. but ok will reply to it.

Martin,

You just said you had to interfere with the game to 'clear' manlevas account.

That there is "I have to interfere with anything"

Your game's mechanics are faulty, and it's needed for you to adjust the ingame play.

Sending manleva's resources to get him in the red is a feature of the game
admin going in an changing it and REMOVING RESOURCES FROM THE GAME is interference.


I don't see how that could be put any more bluntly.

PTR has been proven, over and over to be faulty game mechanics. How much more do we need to prove this?

So I'm gunna go ahead and start feeding my alliance. I raid way more than they do but we all need to grow TOGETHER as a TEAM.

Am I to understand Admin will come in and reset my PTR seeing as I wasn't actually 'feeding', as in, feeding the way admin intended to stop it from happening?

I dont get it.

The system works exactly as it is designed to, but you call it doing exactly what it is designed to do as faulty, that makes no sense


and you are feeding your alliance to do what you suggest, do it enough, for long enough and the system will work exactly as its suppose to, you will be redflaged, warned, and banned if you do not stop doing what your not suppose to do.

but the feature is meant to stop people from logging in JUST to feed people

I'm playing actively, building my account AND helping others. Just means I have to play more.

But, I'm playing, aren't I?

And I'm saying its faulty because it doesn't do just what it was designed to do, it does a whole lot more which actually completely changes the gameplay and strategy of the game.

putting somoene in the Red is a game FEATURE due to its MECHANICS.

if someone's gunna have thier account 'safeguarded' from the red zone by the admin because someone FAIRLY pushed them into it, then I want admin to safeguard my account from the red zone as I help my friends grow!

Mystake wrote:And I'm saying its faulty because it doesn't do just what it was designed to do, it does a whole lot more which actually completely changes the gameplay and strategy of the game.

How does it change the strategy, it maybe affects it somewhat but it definitely doesnt' change it.

Every single alliance I've been in resources never went only one way. Over short or long, everyone eventually had received their fair share.
When I was active and big, I sent loads to others to help them grow, then later during wars because I was active I was also receiving a lot of resources from everyone to do the fighting.
It's an undeniable circle of resource flow which I have seen and experienced time and time again and these are fundamental alliance strategies which should and still get applied even on AW.

You help your alliance, eventually a war will come where your activity will mean that you will be online for many of the strikes to be made. That means the alliance will then fund YOU in return so that you can always stand ready with a strike,covert and assassin power to attack the required targets automatically correcting your PTR so that you can once again help your alliance in time of peace

Are you telling me that if I help my alliance, game states that they MUST help me back?

what if u get kicked before hand?

too many variables. You've got tunnel vision!

brb headache... ive been sick the past week and ive had a huge headache past few days

Mystake wrote:but the feature is meant to stop people from logging in JUST to feed people
This is where your wrong, or do not fully understand what its function is. It is not "JUST to stop feeding" but it is to regulate ALL forms of skewed or 1 sided trading. Would you rather he just remove P2P transactions all together? Remove the markets all together? It is a system to stop/slow/control the abilitiy of someone from using "multis/friends/family/dogs/cats.goldfish" from funneling multiple accounts resources to 1 and to regulate the previously unregulated $$ trading market

I'm playing actively, building my account AND helping others. Just means I have to play more.

But, I'm playing, aren't I?
yes, so whats your point? are they? why are you always sending and not recieving? why do you feel the need to always send more then 20% of your account away every day? because what your asking for is for everyone in the alliance to dump their entire accounts into 1 and be able to use $$ to buy endless amounts of resources. If thats what you want then go play SGW or one of its multiple copies. Its different here.

And I'm saying its faulty because it doesn't do just what it was designed to do, it does a whole lot more which actually completely changes the gameplay and strategy of the game.
simple fis is to stop P2P transaction to any non SS account at 19% or greenline limit, problem fixed.

putting somoene in the Red is a game FEATURE due to its MECHANICS.
anything you can do to another, when they can not defend or counter is a mistake and damaging to the game. Simple fix would be to go back to non P2P transfers to non SS accounts, something the players asked for and admin agreed to, but if you want it removed because you want to give away your account then ask for it to be removed. I think its a bad decision personally

if someone's gunna have thier account 'safeguarded' from the red zone by the admin because someone FAIRLY pushed them into it, then I want admin to safeguard my account from the red zone as I help my friends grow!
so because you can not cause harm to another account by a means they can not defend from or even effect/correct, you want to be able to feed and turn this game into SGW and all its copies?

He does have a point about game mechanics admin. I suggest you allow P2P transfers to non SS accounts until their PTR is 1% from redline, and then stop them until they are 10 points away. This is the easiest way to correct the issue Mystake has and to keep the intergrity of the PTR system

jmo

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:And I'm saying its faulty because it doesn't do just what it was designed to do, it does a whole lot more which actually completely changes the gameplay and strategy of the game.

How does it change the strategy, it maybe affects it somewhat but it definitely doesnt' change it.

Every single alliance I've been in resources never went only one way. Over short or long, everyone eventually had received their fair share.
When I was active and big, I sent loads to others to help them grow, then later during wars because I was active I was also receiving a lot of resources from everyone to do the fighting.
It's an undeniable circle of resource flow which I have seen and experienced time and time again and these are fundamental alliance strategies which should and still get applied even on AW.

You help your alliance, eventually a war will come where your activity will mean that you will be online for many of the strikes to be made. That means the alliance will then fund YOU in return so that you can always stand ready with a strike,covert and assassin power to attack the required targets automatically correcting your PTR so that you can once again help your alliance in time of peace

Here you are completely wrong admin, and Mystake is closer to being correct. Those on the top ALWAYS sent away more then they recieved to alliance programs, those on the bottom always got more then they gave, couple that with the system that you have to repay alot more then you gave to get the same PTR effect has killed almost all alliance programs. Why you will not allow alliance programs that freeze the price so you pay the EXACT same and not 20%, 30%, or 50% more then you recieved is beyond me, but it is causing PTR to strangle almost all alliance programs. That is a fact.

Simple example, WR has 80 members so if they did a program where 1 bill a week from each account was given to 1 account a week, every week a new person got the funds, that means someone goe 80 weeks and 80bill in the whole for 80 weeks, thats over a friggan year, after thet year they got to pay back how much to get the same PTR effect?

Having to pay back more then pay in is stupid and negatively effects the programs, on top of that everyone is always going negative faster then positive so soon everyone will be to far negative. either state alliance programs are not welcome and will not be supported, or code them in and actually use the worthless trade transaction type called alliance trade now, because presently it is worthless. It will tell you that you gave 100 bill to the alliance, but doesnt tell you that you have to pay 120 bill to get your PTR right after 3/6 months.

Kill them or support them, stop trying to walk an imaginary line


hope your headache gets better soon mate. but yes, you should get back roughly what you give, if not then you might as well completely unregulate it and allow multis and feeders with no restriction. thats what your asking for.

how to differentiate between those who really support their alliance compared to those who simply make a phony alliance to carry the benefits that would be created with lessening the effect of ptr.

plus being in an alliance should not be a requirement for having these benefits

That is the problem in 1 sentence.

And yes an alliance program would hint that you need to be in one.

I also dont think short term either, I like 30 days, or even 90 for benifits, but thats prolly extreme

So we have an allinace based game, where alliance benefits are only to be in a group to war?

seaborgium wrote:So we have an allinace based game, where alliance benefits are only to be in a group to war?

I was not aware that people were interested in a game where there were benefits for simply being in an alliance

Thats crap, there are many threads/postings showing about ALLIANCE programs.
The benefits are for working as a team, to help each other grow. As long as the benefits are 100% optional in coding, so that the option is there and not forced by the game.