Nov 27th poll discussion
+4
Admin
Steveanaya
Manleva
Special Agent 47
8 posters
Page 1 of 1
Nov 27th poll discussion
Q1: In the previous poll, people voted that normal soldiers will be removed from the game and all super soldiers will be renamed into normal soldiers.
Most people use super soldiers and train them at a price of 150.000 per unit. If the price gets lowered, then it will be cheaper for attackers to steal kuwal and players who want to prevent getting farmed will have to increase their defenses. Question is: If training cost of all military units (attack, defense, spies and assassins) will be the same how much should it be?
Please select an option:
A) 150.000 (current train price of attack and defense supers)
B) 125.000
C) 100.000
D) 75.000
D) 50.000
E) 45.000 (current train price of spies and assassins)
F) Undecided
Q2:Background:Most people voted for an update, where 50% of Attack units and defense units, which should die, will get wounded instead. Which means that in missions, only half of units will die, the other half can be trained into units again at no cost. This means that you will need higher defense to protect your kuwal from enemy attacks, because attack losses will be reduced. Units will get wounded in all missions except farm and raid no matter what.
Should units get wounded in farm and raid missions (missions to steal kuwal and untrained). Having units get wounded will reduce attacker losses which means a higher defense than before will be needed to protect the same amount of kuwal.
Please select an option:
A) Yes, soldiers should get wounded too in farm and raid missions.
B) No, I don't want wounded units in farm and raid missions
C) Undecided / I don't care
Q3: From 1 January 2009 till mid November 2010 all players produced 1 Attack Turn per turn (48 per day). Right now they produce 96 attack turns per day. How many attack turns should they produce per day? (The number of attack turns you get by voting is not considered here)
Please select an option:
A) 48 (1 per turn)
B) 96 (2 per turn)
C) As much as possible
D) Undecided
Q4: Voting on the voting page currently gives 56 attack turns in addition to kuwal and a couple supply turns. How much attack turns should you be able to get by voting?
Please select an option:
A) 56 (3 per link)
B) 90 (5 per link)
C) 108 (6 per link)
D) 180 (10 per link)
E) Undecided
Q5:Each player gets 16 Market Trades each week, which they can use to trade in the trade center, activate protection and other features. Do you want that there is an option to pay 1 Market Reserve (costs 4 Market trades) to get attack turns without paying any other resources (kuwal or untrained)?
Please select an option:
A) I want this feature
B) I don't want this feature
C) I dont care / Undecided
Q6:If the feature to get attack turns by paying market reserves will remain. How many turns should you get per 1 Market Reserve?
Please select an option:
A) 25 attack turns
B) 50 attack turns.
C) 75 attack turns
D) 100 attack turns
C) 125 attack turns
D) 150 attack turns
E) I dont care / Undecided
Q7:How much is the maximum, players should be able to get per day, by simply by getting attack turns each turn, voting, and changing market reserves into attack turns (ignoring galactic market and trade center trading). Until beginning of november, players received a total of 48 turns automatically and 56 from voting (104 per day).
Please select an option:
A) 104 per day
B) 208 per day
C) As much as possible
D) Undecided
Q8:Should it be possible to change market reserves into supply turns
Please select an option:
A) Yes
B) No
C) I dont care / Undecided
Q9:There is an option to trade 400 Supply turns for a package of kuwal, untrained or turns in the trade center.
Should this option be removed?
Please select an option:
A) Yes, I want it removed
B) No, I want it to stay
C) I dont care / Undecided
Most people use super soldiers and train them at a price of 150.000 per unit. If the price gets lowered, then it will be cheaper for attackers to steal kuwal and players who want to prevent getting farmed will have to increase their defenses. Question is: If training cost of all military units (attack, defense, spies and assassins) will be the same how much should it be?
Please select an option:
A) 150.000 (current train price of attack and defense supers)
B) 125.000
C) 100.000
D) 75.000
D) 50.000
E) 45.000 (current train price of spies and assassins)
F) Undecided
Q2:Background:Most people voted for an update, where 50% of Attack units and defense units, which should die, will get wounded instead. Which means that in missions, only half of units will die, the other half can be trained into units again at no cost. This means that you will need higher defense to protect your kuwal from enemy attacks, because attack losses will be reduced. Units will get wounded in all missions except farm and raid no matter what.
Should units get wounded in farm and raid missions (missions to steal kuwal and untrained). Having units get wounded will reduce attacker losses which means a higher defense than before will be needed to protect the same amount of kuwal.
Please select an option:
A) Yes, soldiers should get wounded too in farm and raid missions.
B) No, I don't want wounded units in farm and raid missions
C) Undecided / I don't care
Q3: From 1 January 2009 till mid November 2010 all players produced 1 Attack Turn per turn (48 per day). Right now they produce 96 attack turns per day. How many attack turns should they produce per day? (The number of attack turns you get by voting is not considered here)
Please select an option:
A) 48 (1 per turn)
B) 96 (2 per turn)
C) As much as possible
D) Undecided
Q4: Voting on the voting page currently gives 56 attack turns in addition to kuwal and a couple supply turns. How much attack turns should you be able to get by voting?
Please select an option:
A) 56 (3 per link)
B) 90 (5 per link)
C) 108 (6 per link)
D) 180 (10 per link)
E) Undecided
Q5:Each player gets 16 Market Trades each week, which they can use to trade in the trade center, activate protection and other features. Do you want that there is an option to pay 1 Market Reserve (costs 4 Market trades) to get attack turns without paying any other resources (kuwal or untrained)?
Please select an option:
A) I want this feature
B) I don't want this feature
C) I dont care / Undecided
Q6:If the feature to get attack turns by paying market reserves will remain. How many turns should you get per 1 Market Reserve?
Please select an option:
A) 25 attack turns
B) 50 attack turns.
C) 75 attack turns
D) 100 attack turns
C) 125 attack turns
D) 150 attack turns
E) I dont care / Undecided
Q7:How much is the maximum, players should be able to get per day, by simply by getting attack turns each turn, voting, and changing market reserves into attack turns (ignoring galactic market and trade center trading). Until beginning of november, players received a total of 48 turns automatically and 56 from voting (104 per day).
Please select an option:
A) 104 per day
B) 208 per day
C) As much as possible
D) Undecided
Q8:Should it be possible to change market reserves into supply turns
Please select an option:
A) Yes
B) No
C) I dont care / Undecided
Q9:There is an option to trade 400 Supply turns for a package of kuwal, untrained or turns in the trade center.
Should this option be removed?
Please select an option:
A) Yes, I want it removed
B) No, I want it to stay
C) I dont care / Undecided
Special Agent 47- Aderan Assassin
- ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
1. Why are we still being forced into identical training costs? Why is there no option for keeping different cost for different units? I mean Att and Def require weapons so they cost considerably more, so why don't spies and assassins cost more to train since they work with their hands, not just pulling a trigger? Also why is there no option for MORE then current amounts or LESS then current amounts?
2. No issues
3. The question is a good question, but the limited answers are horrific. Its either the same(1), double(2), or unlimited. That is chicken mate. More choices should be available, allow people to input a number, or change the question to one or the other(1 or 2). Your choices do not match the question you ask.
4. Would like to have seen a "none" answer. Also would like to see an less then or more then on the ends as well, but a wider variety is offered then in Q3.
5. No issue
6. Decent variety in the possible responses. Would still like to see an "or less" and "or more" choice on the ends.
7. It is a trick question. Why do you ask what the "maximum" amount should be, then tell us to ignore the UNLIMITED amount that SS players can send or receive? If you want a limit it should be on ALL accounts no matter how they get them. Voters should not get more benefits then someone who actually plays and invests time playing this game.
8. No issue
9. No Issue. Just wanted to add that it will be a tragic loss to remove this feature. Anyone forced to live on their own AT, and what trading they can do on TC can and will never be able to use all their ST. This is simply making ST useless to them when they can not even use them all even when doing all they can possibly to do use them. 400ST for a few AT is a heavy price to pay, but its still better then simply wasting them by non use and getting nothing for them in any way, shape, or form.
2. No issues
3. The question is a good question, but the limited answers are horrific. Its either the same(1), double(2), or unlimited. That is chicken mate. More choices should be available, allow people to input a number, or change the question to one or the other(1 or 2). Your choices do not match the question you ask.
4. Would like to have seen a "none" answer. Also would like to see an less then or more then on the ends as well, but a wider variety is offered then in Q3.
5. No issue
6. Decent variety in the possible responses. Would still like to see an "or less" and "or more" choice on the ends.
7. It is a trick question. Why do you ask what the "maximum" amount should be, then tell us to ignore the UNLIMITED amount that SS players can send or receive? If you want a limit it should be on ALL accounts no matter how they get them. Voters should not get more benefits then someone who actually plays and invests time playing this game.
8. No issue
9. No Issue. Just wanted to add that it will be a tragic loss to remove this feature. Anyone forced to live on their own AT, and what trading they can do on TC can and will never be able to use all their ST. This is simply making ST useless to them when they can not even use them all even when doing all they can possibly to do use them. 400ST for a few AT is a heavy price to pay, but its still better then simply wasting them by non use and getting nothing for them in any way, shape, or form.
Special Agent 47- Aderan Assassin
- ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
I'm supprised that SA47 missed the glaringly obvious mistakes in both Q1 and Q6
Q1 has 7 options but only 6 possible answers as both 75,000 and 50,000 are labeled as D.
Q 2 is a no brainier, If we're going to have wounded units then it has to apply to all actions. If the vote is for not having wounded units when farming or raiding then players are not looking at it correctly and cannot see past their own interests. Farming and raiding should be the cheapest aggressive actions and if they are not then new players will not stay.
Q3. I see no point in having more AT than 1 per turn. It is a limiting factor for War and makes players think more about their use. At upper limits are high so they can be stored for War. To many At can cause issues with over aggressive action against individual players
Q4 Went with the option for the status quo but would have preferred to see smaller options. I can see no valid reason for voting to generate more AT than the daily provision.
Q5 I was unsure here, it depends very largely on how players value market reserves.
Q6 Again 7 options but only 5 options to choose from as both C & D are used twice
Q7 Again no lower limits. I would have preferred to see at least 96 as an option - 1 Per turn = 48 and 48 from voting. I also consider the use of Market Reserves to be similar to trading
Q8 was a yes. As you can sell them hen you should be able to buy them
Q9 I agree with SA47, this option needs to stay. It could possibly be altered for Non SS players so that there is more benefit.
Q1 has 7 options but only 6 possible answers as both 75,000 and 50,000 are labeled as D.
Q 2 is a no brainier, If we're going to have wounded units then it has to apply to all actions. If the vote is for not having wounded units when farming or raiding then players are not looking at it correctly and cannot see past their own interests. Farming and raiding should be the cheapest aggressive actions and if they are not then new players will not stay.
Q3. I see no point in having more AT than 1 per turn. It is a limiting factor for War and makes players think more about their use. At upper limits are high so they can be stored for War. To many At can cause issues with over aggressive action against individual players
Q4 Went with the option for the status quo but would have preferred to see smaller options. I can see no valid reason for voting to generate more AT than the daily provision.
Q5 I was unsure here, it depends very largely on how players value market reserves.
Q6 Again 7 options but only 5 options to choose from as both C & D are used twice
Q7 Again no lower limits. I would have preferred to see at least 96 as an option - 1 Per turn = 48 and 48 from voting. I also consider the use of Market Reserves to be similar to trading
Q8 was a yes. As you can sell them hen you should be able to buy them
Q9 I agree with SA47, this option needs to stay. It could possibly be altered for Non SS players so that there is more benefit.
Manleva- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 66
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Am I the only one that thinks that's against wounded units?
I like the game how it is; I would not want to have a mess of wounded and healed/normal units like in ra. It's just a bad idea altogether.
Also I don't see how having more AT's is a bad thing. Activity is GOOD, it'll help the game, not hinder it.
People who vote deserve to have a large bonus! I used to vote until I realized it was not worth it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If you want the game to expand, get people to vote by offering a larger reward.
I gotta agree with SA47 on the bit where you should be able to sell ST's, but you should also be able to buy some(very scarce amount; expensive I'm certain)
Also, I personally like the cost of supers just the way it is. I do think, however, that the cost to train spies & assassins should be equal or higher.
Max 200k though.
This was just my opinion btw.
Thanks
I like the game how it is; I would not want to have a mess of wounded and healed/normal units like in ra. It's just a bad idea altogether.
Also I don't see how having more AT's is a bad thing. Activity is GOOD, it'll help the game, not hinder it.
People who vote deserve to have a large bonus! I used to vote until I realized it was not worth it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If you want the game to expand, get people to vote by offering a larger reward.
I gotta agree with SA47 on the bit where you should be able to sell ST's, but you should also be able to buy some(very scarce amount; expensive I'm certain)
Also, I personally like the cost of supers just the way it is. I do think, however, that the cost to train spies & assassins should be equal or higher.
Max 200k though.
This was just my opinion btw.
Thanks
Steveanaya- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 1624
Alliance : Fedaykin
Age : 28
Number of posts : 695
Location : Narnia
Registration date : 2010-07-18
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Steveanaya wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that's against wounded units?
I like the game how it is; I would not want to have a mess of wounded and healed/normal units like in ra. It's just a bad idea altogether.
No your not the only one, Like you I am not in favor of them and see no constructive point in having them. However we were not given that option in this poll
Also I don't see how having more AT's is a bad thing. Activity is GOOD, it'll help the game, not hinder it.
People who vote deserve to have a large bonus! I used to vote until I realized it was not worth it. I'm sure I'm not the only one. If you want the game to expand, get people to vote by offering a larger reward.
People who vote should be rewarded, however people should vote because they think that the game is worth voting for not because they get a large bonus. I've seen to many crappy games get a lot of votes because the rewards are to high. I vote for AW because I think the game is worth it not for the reward.
I gotta agree with SA47 on the bit where you should be able to sell ST's, but you should also be able to buy some(very scarce amount; expensive I'm certain)
Also, I personally like the cost of supers just the way it is. I do think, however, that the cost to train spies & assassins should be equal or higher.
Max 200k though.
This was just my opinion btw.
Thanks
Manleva- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 66
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
wounded units were the subject of the previous poll, more than double the people who voted against, voted in favor.Manleva wrote:Steveanaya wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that's against wounded units?
I like the game how it is; I would not want to have a mess of wounded and healed/normal units like in ra. It's just a bad idea altogether.
No your not the only one, Like you I am not in favor of them and see no constructive point in having them. However we were not given that option in this poll
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Of course they voted for it. Those who voted for it AND want lowered super cost just aren't thinking clearly lol. With that, I could practically farm anyone I please all the time. They just want to make things cheaper for themselves without realizing what it will do to the game. Its one or the other for me. Preferably lowered super cost (75k min and 100k max) instead of having wounded.
Kingofshinobis1- Aderan Super Soldier
- ID : 171
Alliance : The_Mercenary
Hire For Massings
Age : 34
Number of posts : 823
Location : United States
Registration date : 2010-01-31
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
I'd actually keep the difference in cost and keep teh current cost but I would introduce woundeds ... but with a twist - like 2 buildings that enables it - let's say a M.A.S.H. team building to carry them home and Hospital and Recovery facilities where they can be retrained - but it would take them some time before they could be reused ... that would be my solution.
curumo- Aderan Miner
- Number of posts : 335
Registration date : 2008-08-22
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
the farming issue is the reason why I've added that into the poll now if people want wounded units also during farm/raid missions.Kingofshinobis1 wrote:Of course they voted for it. Those who voted for it AND want lowered super cost just aren't thinking clearly lol. With that, I could practically farm anyone I please all the time. They just want to make things cheaper for themselves without realizing what it will do to the game. Its one or the other for me. Preferably lowered super cost (75k min and 100k max) instead of having wounded.
that is also why i added an explicit explanation that reducing attack losses will not make farming cheaper since people would just build higher defenses
well anyways, there's a secondary poll now that will clearly address the issue of training cost for soldiers and agents
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
for me it was the following...
Q1. in the previous poll I did vote for the removal of normal soldiers, but did not vote for any other changes to be made...
I do not think that it should cost the same to train spies, or assassins, as it does to train & arm soldiers, & ultimately voted to keep the costs the same as they are now in the secondary poll...
Q2. I did not vote for the wounded soldier suggestion in the origional poll, & ultimately voted B to this question. I understand that the majority of players wanted this, but I like the kill & rebuild simplicity of how the game is now...
Q3. I chose B, I will say this, I do not see how this could possibly harm the game, but at the same time, if it is proven harmful to the game, then I will advocate the removal of these...
Q4. I voted B here, only cause I am a bit OCD on even numbers,(56 = 5 hits with 6 left over, & 90 gives you 9 hits.) honestly, I personally think that there is too much reward given for voting, but I am not going to open a debate about it...
Q5. I like this Idea, & voted for it, I personally don't see it getting used a lot, but as with the extra AT per turn, if it is proven harmful to the game, I will advocate its removal from the game...
Q6. voted D here (100) as I thought it was fair...
Q7. voted C here, as much as possible, if they can get 104 per day, fine, if they have the MR to get 1,000 then that should be possible as well, JMO...
Q8. yes to this one as well, tho I like the 50 per setup that we have now...
Q9. I voted to keep it, I do not use the Trade Center much since I have SS, but I do not think it is an option that should be removed...
Q1. in the previous poll I did vote for the removal of normal soldiers, but did not vote for any other changes to be made...
I do not think that it should cost the same to train spies, or assassins, as it does to train & arm soldiers, & ultimately voted to keep the costs the same as they are now in the secondary poll...
Q2. I did not vote for the wounded soldier suggestion in the origional poll, & ultimately voted B to this question. I understand that the majority of players wanted this, but I like the kill & rebuild simplicity of how the game is now...
Q3. I chose B, I will say this, I do not see how this could possibly harm the game, but at the same time, if it is proven harmful to the game, then I will advocate the removal of these...
Q4. I voted B here, only cause I am a bit OCD on even numbers,(56 = 5 hits with 6 left over, & 90 gives you 9 hits.) honestly, I personally think that there is too much reward given for voting, but I am not going to open a debate about it...
Q5. I like this Idea, & voted for it, I personally don't see it getting used a lot, but as with the extra AT per turn, if it is proven harmful to the game, I will advocate its removal from the game...
Q6. voted D here (100) as I thought it was fair...
Q7. voted C here, as much as possible, if they can get 104 per day, fine, if they have the MR to get 1,000 then that should be possible as well, JMO...
Q8. yes to this one as well, tho I like the 50 per setup that we have now...
Q9. I voted to keep it, I do not use the Trade Center much since I have SS, but I do not think it is an option that should be removed...
kingkongfan1- Coalition Officer
- ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 56
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Admin wrote:thank you for this explained insight into your choices
you are welcome, just trying to be helpful,,, ( of course improving my knowledge on how to post is the biggest reason you got it, a month ago you wouldn't have gotten that post... lol.)
kingkongfan1- Coalition Officer
- ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 56
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
1. I actually went with 100K, but its only because the options were bad. I personally think Spies and assassins should cost far more to train then att or def soilders. It takes more to train a spy to not get caught, or an assassin to kill with his hands then it cost to train a man to pull a trigger. I dont think they should cost the same. I think 100K to 150K would be fine for soilders but spies and assassins needs to be 200K or 250K
2. I personally think that since raiding and farming missions losses are so small now that there is no real need for 50% of them to be wounded. I don't care either way, since it will make no real difference as you stated def will just grow, but mechanics wise it makes no sense because losses on those 2 attacks are already far smaller then military attacks. You can pull wunded me from a battlefield, but your not going to drag a injured man from a bank and get away with the loot.
3. You ask how many AT someone should make, but then give only 2 real options. 1 or 2 AT per turn. Personally, and this is just me thinking, a person should actually be able to get enough AT to match their ST usage if they use all forms of getting AT allowed to them. Thats what I think. As it stands right now, even with using all 16 MT for AT and voting it is impossible to use all your ST as you will run out of AT first. The basic attacks see 10/2 usage. 10 AT and 2 ST. If we produce 1 ST then why not produce 5 AT to match it? This would allow for people to sell AT they will not use, or allow those who do want to use them to use all their ST if they want. I do admit I do not fully understand the broad spectrium of what that could or would do to the game, its just what makes sense to me as a player.
4. I am torn, I think voters should be rewarded, but I also think it should not be required. nor give an advantage. Presently it is skewed as to new players its a great help, but to older players its not that much, Plus you have to consider is the reward for voting worth the time spent doing it? Can I farm more in the same amount of time? Possible consideration is to base the bonuses on the account voting. 1 bill to a week old account is awesome, 1 bill to the largest accounts in the game is what? 1 or 2 turns income? soon to be less then 1 turns income? I mean IDK, thats something you as admin need to see.
5. Yes, because often you cant afford to trade resources and still grow. Trading kewal or UU is a hurt you/help you situation. If you have the MR to burn, you suffer no other side effects. The cost is high in terms of MR, and thats why I think it should stay. You can only get 4MR per week or 4 trades for AT and that is a healthy limit.
6. presently I think 100 is fine, might go higher but definitely not lower. Keep it based on a set of attacks, or a multiple of 10 tho. Maybe in time the amount needs to be revisited.
7. Why are we punishing non SS players? As for the answer, I go with my response to Q3. Enough to actually use all your ST.
8. Im undecided, as ST are the ultimate limiter. If it is left in play it needs to be limited more strictly then any other thing, and remain the most costly thing in the game. Otherwise ST lose their importance all together.
9. NO, if you cant open play for a week or so, just bank and such, you can still trade the ST for something. Otherwise they are a completely wasted resource.
2. I personally think that since raiding and farming missions losses are so small now that there is no real need for 50% of them to be wounded. I don't care either way, since it will make no real difference as you stated def will just grow, but mechanics wise it makes no sense because losses on those 2 attacks are already far smaller then military attacks. You can pull wunded me from a battlefield, but your not going to drag a injured man from a bank and get away with the loot.
3. You ask how many AT someone should make, but then give only 2 real options. 1 or 2 AT per turn. Personally, and this is just me thinking, a person should actually be able to get enough AT to match their ST usage if they use all forms of getting AT allowed to them. Thats what I think. As it stands right now, even with using all 16 MT for AT and voting it is impossible to use all your ST as you will run out of AT first. The basic attacks see 10/2 usage. 10 AT and 2 ST. If we produce 1 ST then why not produce 5 AT to match it? This would allow for people to sell AT they will not use, or allow those who do want to use them to use all their ST if they want. I do admit I do not fully understand the broad spectrium of what that could or would do to the game, its just what makes sense to me as a player.
4. I am torn, I think voters should be rewarded, but I also think it should not be required. nor give an advantage. Presently it is skewed as to new players its a great help, but to older players its not that much, Plus you have to consider is the reward for voting worth the time spent doing it? Can I farm more in the same amount of time? Possible consideration is to base the bonuses on the account voting. 1 bill to a week old account is awesome, 1 bill to the largest accounts in the game is what? 1 or 2 turns income? soon to be less then 1 turns income? I mean IDK, thats something you as admin need to see.
5. Yes, because often you cant afford to trade resources and still grow. Trading kewal or UU is a hurt you/help you situation. If you have the MR to burn, you suffer no other side effects. The cost is high in terms of MR, and thats why I think it should stay. You can only get 4MR per week or 4 trades for AT and that is a healthy limit.
6. presently I think 100 is fine, might go higher but definitely not lower. Keep it based on a set of attacks, or a multiple of 10 tho. Maybe in time the amount needs to be revisited.
7. Why are we punishing non SS players? As for the answer, I go with my response to Q3. Enough to actually use all your ST.
8. Im undecided, as ST are the ultimate limiter. If it is left in play it needs to be limited more strictly then any other thing, and remain the most costly thing in the game. Otherwise ST lose their importance all together.
9. NO, if you cant open play for a week or so, just bank and such, you can still trade the ST for something. Otherwise they are a completely wasted resource.
Nomad- Alliance Leader
- ID :
Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
You dont produce 5 AT's for each 1 ST because the actual war missions dont require you to spend anywhere near as many AT's as you need ST's
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
What about those of us who only farm now?Admin wrote:You dont produce 5 AT's for each 1 ST because the actual war missions dont require you to spend anywhere near as many AT's as you need ST's
Steveanaya- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 1624
Alliance : Fedaykin
Age : 28
Number of posts : 695
Location : Narnia
Registration date : 2010-07-18
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
then there's plenty of opportunities to get those 3k at's per week you could spend farmingSteveanaya wrote:What about those of us who only farm now?Admin wrote:You dont produce 5 AT's for each 1 ST because the actual war missions dont require you to spend anywhere near as many AT's as you need ST's
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Huh?Admin wrote:then there's plenty of opportunities to get those 3k at's per week you could spend farmingSteveanaya wrote:What about those of us who only farm now?Admin wrote:You dont produce 5 AT's for each 1 ST because the actual war missions dont require you to spend anywhere near as many AT's as you need ST's
Sorry but this doesn't make sense to me
Steveanaya- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 1624
Alliance : Fedaykin
Age : 28
Number of posts : 695
Location : Narnia
Registration date : 2010-07-18
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
ok, right now you make enough st's to farm/raid about 330 times a week, that's 3.3k at's
16 Market Trades to get 145 AT's each is already 2.3k per week.
Assuming you make 2 At's per day and vote all the time, that's another 150 AT's per day
150 x 7 days per week is ~1k AT's
So technically, as of this moment, a non-SS player has the ability to spend all of their ST's to farm/raid
16 Market Trades to get 145 AT's each is already 2.3k per week.
Assuming you make 2 At's per day and vote all the time, that's another 150 AT's per day
150 x 7 days per week is ~1k AT's
So technically, as of this moment, a non-SS player has the ability to spend all of their ST's to farm/raid
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Interesting
I had no idea!
Now my problem is the limited ST's..
I had no idea!
Now my problem is the limited ST's..
Steveanaya- Aderan Assassin
- ID : 1624
Alliance : Fedaykin
Age : 28
Number of posts : 695
Location : Narnia
Registration date : 2010-07-18
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Steveanaya wrote:
Now my problem is the limited ST's..
I'm confused, what limit?... we now have the ability to get ST's at the Trade center for market reserves... or are you refering to some other limit?
kingkongfan1- Coalition Officer
- ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 56
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
the inherent limit of how many ST's you can get and by extension how many you can spendkingkongfan1 wrote:Steveanaya wrote:
Now my problem is the limited ST's..
I'm confused, what limit?... we now have the ability to get ST's at the Trade center for market reserves... or are you refering to some other limit?
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Admin wrote:ok, right now you make enough st's to farm/raid about 330 times a week, that's 3.3k at's
16 Market Trades to get 145 AT's each is already 2.3k per week.
Assuming you make 2 At's per day and vote all the time, that's another 150 AT's per day
150 x 7 days per week is ~1k AT's
So technically, as of this moment, a non-SS player has the ability to spend all of their ST's to farm/raid
Thanks for this, This is something I did not know.
Nomad- Alliance Leader
- ID :
Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17
Re: Nov 27th poll discussion
Admin wrote:the inherent limit of how many ST's you can get and by extension how many you can spendkingkongfan1 wrote:Steveanaya wrote:
Now my problem is the limited ST's..
I'm confused, what limit?... we now have the ability to get ST's at the Trade center for market reserves... or are you refering to some other limit?
thank you...
kingkongfan1- Coalition Officer
- ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 56
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|