Debate on the AT generation restriction.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:56 pm

Myself and Kong have been having a heated debate over the past several days or so. I am sad to say we went through so many cookies and so much milk during or discussions that as a result 27 cows were literally milked to death and 44 keebler elves made the ultimate sacrifise to supply the demand. Kong seems to be proud as its a new personal best for him. I personally was disturbed.


Now to the topic at Hand.

AT,,,,,The AT generation restriction,,,,,,,and the multiple way to legally bypass it.

We obviously have and had different views on it, but after a couple days to think about my points and arguements, and his I find myself somewhat lost. In times past and in other games AT were the limiting factor. They are what stopped players who could live online from ruling the games. Kind of the equalizer if you will. In AW this is not the case. In AW it is ST who is the ultimate equalizer. Now I find myself taking a new look at AT.

So my questions are, and are open for all to discuss and make their case. I would love to see the Admin's in the discussion, just don't be offended if I do not respond to you Kenzu as you know why.

Should AT have a limit? Should this limit include all AT such as those stored on market, or in private brokers?
Should AT have a point where they are no longer produced as they are now? If so should bypasses be legal and allowed?

With ST as the true equalizer I find myself thinking the AT limit should be lifted, and the generation never stop. I do think that Kenzu has made some good points about this subject in the fact that resources horded are bad for account growth. 50K AT on an account is great for war, but those same 50K AT are lost growth since they could have been traded, sold, or used to further ones account. It should be the accounts owner who decided if the "investment" in a war time chest is more or less important then using every resource avalible to maximise account growth.

Now I do think that some common sense limitations should be in place. Things like (just throwing wild numbers) 100K max AT allowable when including on account, in broker, and on market. I am torn about a limit or stopage of AT on inactives. On one hand you have the possibilitiy for multi abuse. I personally feel Admin's programs to regulate and control it are sound, but removing all limitations may stress that. On the other hand someone returning from a long absence would have many, many AT he could sell to rebuild his account.

Lastly what exactly is an AT? An Attack Turn? How is it they are tradable to begin with? These are abstract thoughts not necissary to the conversation TBH, but I felt the need to ask. Maybe there is a better way to do all this, if we all really think about this.

*Opens the floor to discussion.*
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Kenzu on Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:36 pm

I support Nomad on this one.

The only reason why I think AT should not be produced are so that inactive players don't simply leave a game and come back with plenty of AT. A simple solution to this problem is to stop production for players who didn't log in for a certain amount of days (I suggest 7), and then there doesn't have to be a limit for the amount of AT one can hold.

It only requires a check. If player logged in less than 7 days ago, give him an Attack turn at turn tick. removing AT limit without adding this restriction, doesn't necessarily have to, but could, encourage multying, even if only for the purpose of selling AT for cash, by logging in once a year with 35k AT to sell them for $$$.

I see AT as the supplies you need to wage war. Provisions so to say.

(Nomad, you don't need to reply)
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:14 pm

Nomad wrote:Myself and Kong have been having a heated debate over the past several days or so. I am sad to say we went through so many cookies and so much milk during or discussions that as a result 27 cows were literally milked to death and 44 keebler elves made the ultimate sacrifise to supply the demand. Kong seems to be proud as its a new personal best for him. cheers I personally was disturbed.


Now to the topic at Hand.

AT,,,,,The AT generation restriction,,,,,,,and the multiple way to legally bypass it.

We obviously have and had different views on it, but after a couple days to think about my points and arguements, and his I find myself somewhat lost. In times past and in other games AT were the limiting factor. They are what stopped players who could live online from ruling the games. Kind of the equalizer if you will. In AW this is not the case. In AW it is ST who is the ultimate equalizer. Now I find myself taking a new look at AT.
Let me start by saying that this is practically the first game of this nature that I ever played, (not gonna count the 3 weeks that I played sgw) I had many questions on the "how to's" & the "why for's" of how & why certain things are done the way they are, & it has literally taken this long (2+ years) & I am just now starting to get a grasp on things... anyway one of my biggest questions has always been "why the AT cap?" especially since it is quite easy to bypass...

So my questions are, and are open for all to discuss and make their case. I would love to see the Admin's in the discussion, just don't be offended if I do not respond to you Kenzu as you know why.

Should AT have a limit?I do not see the need for a cap such as we have now, if that is what you are asking... Should this limit include all AT such as those stored on market, or in private brokers?without the cap that we have now, I see no need to store AT's anywhere else...
Should AT have a point where they are no longer produced as they are now?I say "no"... If so should bypasses be legal and allowed?I say "no" here as well...

With ST as the true equalizer I find myself thinking the AT limit should be lifted, and the generation never stop.I agree here as well... I do think that Kenzu has made some good points about this subject in the fact that resources horded are bad for account growth. 50K AT on an account is great for war, but those same 50K AT are lost growth since they could have been traded, sold, or used to further ones account. It should be the accounts owner who decided if the "investment" in a war time chest is more or less important then using every resource avalible to maximise account growth.agreed...

Now I do think that some common sense limitations should be in place. Things like (just throwing wild numbers) 100K max AT allowable when including on account, in broker, and on market.I see this as bringing us to the same point that we are now, because players will always want more when you put in a limit, but I understand your point & would not take issue with it personally... I am torn about a limit or stopage of AT on inactives. On one hand you have the possibilitiy for multi abuse. I personally feel Admin's programs to regulate and control it are sound, but removing all limitations may stress that. On the other hand someone returning from a long absence would have many, many AT he could sell to rebuild his account.

Lastly what exactly is an AT? An Attack Turn? How is it they are tradable to begin with?these are good questions, & I think that they should be seriously discussed... These are abstract thoughts not necissary to the conversation TBH, but I felt the need to ask. Maybe there is a better way to do all this, if we all really think about this.

*Opens the floor to discussion.*

Kenzu wrote:I support Nomad on this one.that makes two of us... the world must be ending. lol...

The only reason why I think AT should not be produced are so that inactive players don't simply leave a game and come back with plenty of AT. A simple solution to this problem is to stop production for players who didn't log in for a certain amount of days (I suggest 7), and then there doesn't have to be a limit for the amount of AT one can hold.

It only requires a check. If player logged in less than 7 days ago, give him an Attack turn at turn tick. removing AT limit without adding this restriction, doesn't necessarily have to, but could, encourage multying, even if only for the purpose of selling AT for cash, by logging in once a year with 35k AT to sell them for $$$.

I see AT as the supplies you need to wage war. Provisions so to say.I can honestly say that what kenzu says here makes sense & I would not take issue with his proposal.

(Nomad, you don't need to reply)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Manleva on Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:17 am

An interesting discussion should come about here.

There's some very big questions here and the first that I think that needs to be answered is exactly what AT are and what is their primary usage.

The only in game use for AT is for attacking other players through Farming, Raiding or the War missions. The only additional usage proposed is for the Airforce missions. The actual usage of AT is also again further limited by ST usage.

The best case that can be put forward for increasing the amount of AT that an account can store before production stops would be for Farming and Raiding usage where it could be argued that a limit of 10,000 could be applied as it would match the AT to St ratio. That really is the only justification that I can see as being applicable because in every other action in which AT are used either the same amount or more ST are required.

The only other usage of AT is for trading between players.

In most games that utilise AT, production is restricted and the total capacity is limited. This is generally the mechanism used to keep actions between players within somewhat reasonable bounds. However here in AW we find that we have both AT and ST performing this role.

My view it that we truly have no reason to have two restricted and limited resources to fulfill this role.

My proposal would lift the ST limit a little bit and to totally do away with AT. The reasoning behind this is that they really do nothing at this time other than offer what because of the ST restrictions is really little more than trading of an unusable resource.

Why do I say this. Well it is simple, the only time we need more AT than ST is for Farming and Raiding. Heavy farmers and raiders will want more AT which is understandable but as most of this action is carried out against inactive accounts it does nothing to introduce player interaction.

Removal of AT would mean that more Farming and Raising could occur however it also means that players would have to adapt as well because they would need to make choices as to how they carry out these actions. To much farming and raising could leave then at risk in times of War if they don't have enough ST. I think that over time you would find that players will then value their ST higher than they do now and will look to make better returns from their usage. This would mean that there would be more Kuwal and UU available for all players.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by seaborgium on Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:07 am

instead of check on last activ3e, just have be a multiple of sts.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:56 am

You lost me Sea.

@ Manleva,,,
I wondered about removal of AT as well, but then we are back to ST = AT and then we have the same restrictions and limits,,,, tho ST are governed by different rules.

@ Kenzu,,,,
I didnt think the PTR would allow a player to log in 1 time a year and sell for $$? The first time should blow there PTR out of sight, and second time get them banned? But yes I see and understand the point being made. As I said before I felt like the PTR system was sound enough to hold, but agree it would be stressed and people will try to "work" it. As for your definition of AT,,, Ty. Tho to me a Provision is an object, hence I would equate it to a "supply" or a supply turn. AT always seemed like the "action" itself. A person can fire a gun all day long, but is limited to how fast he or the gun can be supplied with Ammo. Just always the way it worked in my mind.

I guess now the question has changed even more. Do we even need AT anymore?

Thinking on this all night again tonight I thought removing the limits would help trading. There would be far more for sale as the supply might meet of surpass demand. Those who want to raid or farm could buy more to use to advance there accounts, and those not using the AT they have can sell them to advance their accounts. No one would have to worry as much about a shortage, and during war time those not involved could make a profit.

Another "view" I always saw ST and AT by was more like ST was your "long term" plan or strategy, while AT was short quick battles. Maybe thats the answer? splitting the attacks by ST and AT?
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Kenzu on Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:32 pm

Yes, you are right the PTR restricts it. Then the only problem I see is a player create multies, sell the AT for $, and not care that his account will be banned as he already made his profit. So only people are going to use it, who are ok losing their accounts (Which is true for most multies)

On second thought, this will not be a problem either as improved PTR will in future prevent that too.

But it could also be abused by players who create multi accounts that they sell to new players. So no transaction is made visibly, as the resources stay in the account. This will not harm gameplay, could harm game revenues if taken to an extreme.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Manleva on Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:44 am

There are obviously some issues if AT are retained and the limit raised but there is also a balancing factor. AT trading con only exist while there are players who will by them so that they can use them. Mostly this will be the big Farmers and raiders and their need is always going to be governed by ST. If they don't have enough ST then they simply will not buy.

The other big purchasers are the speculators who buy then to trade.

PTR will never be a mechanism for dealing with multi accounts and Admin should have other measures in place to deal with these.

I am not sure where the comment about game revenues comes from at this time as we have been told that they are more than sufficient. In fact you've given money away recently. Of course I have to also admit that this is the only game I have seen where players have the ability to trade resources and accounts openly for real money in the games own forum. Most actively discourage it.

To be honest I still at this time see no reason for any increase in AT limits.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:46 pm

Manleva wrote:There are obviously some issues if AT are retained and the limit raised but there is also a balancing factor. AT trading con only exist while there are players who will by them so that they can use them. Mostly this will be the big Farmers and raiders and their need is always going to be governed by ST. If they don't have enough ST then they simply will not buy.

The other big purchasers are the speculators who buy then to trade.

PTR will never be a mechanism for dealing with multi accounts and Admin should have other measures in place to deal with these.

I am not sure where the comment about game revenues comes from at this time as we have been told that they are more than sufficient. In fact you've given money away recently. Of course I have to also admit that this is the only game I have seen where players have the ability to trade resources and accounts openly for real money in the games own forum. Most actively discourage it.

To be honest I still at this time see no reason for any increase in AT limits.

I look at PTR as the system that auto for admin to review and make appropriate actions.

I am with you on game revenues, I have rallied against a couple of issues that I felt would harm the health of the game, but have been told it is not an issue, and the game is sustaining itself. There is also the donations made by the game to other causes showing it is doing well financially.

And for the AT part,,,,, At this point why have the limit if it can be bypassed 3 different ways legally? What is your suggestion to address that issue. While making suggestion for a future state as I have made here is great,,, we still need to fix what is obviously broken in the present state. I know Admin has suggested a Tax on Private trade brokers to stop or slow AT storage there, and I suggested that if Non SS players are to be punished in that way that SS players should be punished equally so GM should have a cost same as PTB. Do you feel these 2 options are warranted or necessary?

The tax to PTB is an easy fix, but taxing the GM is going to be much much harder as there are different rules and situations presented by GM that are not in PTB.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Manleva on Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:01 am

Nomad wrote:I look at PTR as the system that auto for admin to review and make appropriate actions.

I am with you on game revenues, I have rallied against a couple of issues that I felt would harm the health of the game, but have been told it is not an issue, and the game is sustaining itself. There is also the donations made by the game to other causes showing it is doing well financially.

And for the AT part,,,,, At this point why have the limit if it can be bypassed 3 different ways legally? What is your suggestion to address that issue. While making suggestion for a future state as I have made here is great,,, we still need to fix what is obviously broken in the present state. I know Admin has suggested a Tax on Private trade brokers to stop or slow AT storage there, and I suggested that if Non SS players are to be punished in that way that SS players should be punished equally so GM should have a cost same as PTB. Do you feel these 2 options are warranted or necessary?

The option that springs to mind quickly would be to make the ST limit a fixed maximum value and remove all ST over the limit so that no one will be able to exceed it. It will not matter then if the AT limit can be bypassed because without ST to use with the AT then there value should drop. It is somewhat of a crude option but it's easier than coding something new

The tax to PTB is an easy fix, but taxing the GM is going to be much much harder as there are different rules and situations presented by GM that are not in PTB.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by seaborgium on Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:39 pm

ST is fixed.
the only way to go over the amount is by being larger.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:49 pm


I honestly did not understand. What Sea said poped to mind.

I keep way more AT then my ?ST would allow me to use on my own, and for a reason. I do not see limiting ST changing that?
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Manleva on Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:11 am

Well I suppose I look at it from a supply and demand view.

The only true demand for AT is from players who use them. Having more than can be used simply means that you have a stockpile that can be sold. When selling you only have two types of customers, the speculators and the Users.

Speculators are always going to drive prices upward, hoping to sell for more than the cost.

Users will only be in the market if they need them so once they run out of ST they will stop buying until their St has recovered to a usable level.

Sea's comment appeared to contradict it's self. By a fixed limit I meant totally fixed. If it's set at 2000 then you cannot have 2001 or more. Fixing it means it becomes a maximum no one can go over. This would also mean that if the maximum is 2000 then you could not trade a MR for 50 ST unless you were under 1950.

I will also say the once again we are attempting to tackle an issue by not looking at the overall situation. There are possibly other ways in other areas of the game that could alter this situation.
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Kenzu on Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:51 pm

Manleva wrote:
The option that springs to mind quickly would be to make the ST limit a fixed maximum value and remove all ST over the limit so that no one will be able to exceed it. It will not matter then if the AT limit can be bypassed because without ST to use with the AT then there value should drop. It is somewhat of a crude option but it's easier than coding something new

What you just said makes no sence. Decreasing the capacity of ST one can hold, will not influence attack turn prices the slightest, because a change in capacity doesn't influence the production speed of AT and ST. All it will change is that people will make sure to raid/farm before they reach 2000 ST so that ST keeps on producing.

But I wouldn't mind if ST is decreased to 2000 for everyone. There is no need to give big players more ST capacity. They are already very powerful and influence wars a lot. Limiting their capacity will allow them to mass no more than a regular player (Still they are more deadly due to their techs and armysizes).
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:41 pm

What Manleva said makes sense to me, but I agree with Kenzu in his assessment that it will not change anything in the long run as players will keep ST at roughly 1/2 their capacity so production never stops.

I am not for or against Martin's idea of letting the accounts above GAAS have a few more ST. I thought it odd when put in place but it is the ONLY advantage growing above GAAS gives you. In my past experiences in wars that a few accounts are always massed by many, and they are generally smaller. Allowing larger accounts a few more ST off sets some of the "strength in numbers" mentality.

I can go either way but I like and appreciate what Martin did with GAAS and ST. I don't feel any change in ST will effect the AT or the issues with them in any way.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:21 pm

Please do not take this as harsh, it is not meant to be.


It has been 4 days now and with only 5 people participating, and no word from Admin Martin I must ask is there a reason to continue all these conversations? If they are viable and Martin is reading and thinking on them then I will continue, but I do not want to invest so many hours of thought and text for something not even being looked at or considered. I guess I am just looking for some sign as to if there is any meaning in doing all this. Thanks.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Nomad on Thu May 03, 2012 6:56 pm

I guess the question has been answered.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

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

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

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by kingkongfan1 on Thu May 03, 2012 7:24 pm

Nomad wrote:I guess the question has been answered.

Agreed, & I for one am not happy with the answer, but C'est la vie...
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Debate on the AT generation restriction.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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