storage discussion

I have but 1 remark to make. If your going to punish non SS members by killing their free unlimited banks, and not do anything about the unlimited bank called GM that's just wrong in my opinion.


If you do put in place a 1% rejection fee 1 or more things would be appriciated.

1. Do not charge trades that are expired (see 2. before saying it), yes I understand this defeats the purpose

2. Increase the time trades are available. 24 hrs is not enough time. those who log in only 1 or 2 times a day may miss a deal if their 1 or 2 log ins are effected by outside issues. I have missed many wanted trades due to missing the notice, or logging in 10 min after trade is set, and expecting to get back before it expires. When using mobile phone I do not like doing trades due to how long and tedious it is. so i do all trades on my 1 login from home PC. I ask the time be extended to 48 hrs.

3. Find some other means of trade not bound to the 24 hr rule.

yeah sure, will add what I always wanted to add, you have x hours to recover resources from Gm otherwise they go straight onto hand/bank/idles (at/kuwal/uu respectively)

It what many asked for from the beginning when the exploit was shown to you and you stated that was exactly how you intended it to be.

I mean all the big accounts use it, just as I do, and removing it just cements them in top ranks and hurts the smaller players the most, but it should have been done a long time ago before all the damage was done.

I'm going to get all kind of hate mail now, but everyone knows it should have never been like it was to begin with.


I best go hide for awhile now, until this blows over,,,,,say dec of 1015?

Admin wrote:yeah sure, will add what I always wanted to add, you have x hours to recover resources from Gm otherwise they go straight onto hand/bank/idles (at/kuwal/uu respectively)

One of the best pieces of news I have seen and will remove one of the biggest exploits from the game. I would however allow x Days for recovery of resources instead of x hours.

Nomad wrote:I best go hide for awhile now, until this blows over,,,,,say dec of 1015?

Going backwards will not make you any younger Nomad

opps, I meant 2015

Manleva wrote:

Admin wrote:yeah sure, will add what I always wanted to add, you have x hours to recover resources from Gm otherwise they go straight onto hand/bank/idles (at/kuwal/uu respectively)

One of the best pieces of news I have seen and will remove one of the biggest exploits from the game. I would however allow x Days for recovery of resources instead of x hours.
This had been planned since day 1 of galactic market, if you find the thread, I never got around to do it

Nomad wrote:I best go hide for awhile now, until this blows over,,,,,say dec of 1015?

Going backwards will not make you any younger Nomad

Nomad you said it yourself, bank will become less important for research, hence small players have little to no need for big banks anymore

Admin wrote:Nomad you said it yourself, bank will become less important for research, hence small players have little to no need for big banks anymore

It will however change the way war is conducted and a larger bank size will become more important because large amounts of resources will no longer be able to be stored away. It should even the playing field out a bit and make things more interesting.

To Admin,,,,,, read Manleva's post.

Anyone with less then a 1 trill bank will have 1 maybe 2 strikes and a defense in them, then they are bust.

Not arguing either way, just saying.

I dont think we should try to prevent players from having resources somewhere outside bank. For example GM which has been mentioned before. If somehow players are stopped from keeping their accepted trades there, it will not make the gameplay more fun. It will make it more stressful. I for example like to be able to collect accepted trades from GM at any moment so that I can place them on the GM again if there are favorable prices at which I can bid them. Trying to get rid of all possibilities where resources can be stored only so that all resources are stored in a bank is in my opinion a useless update. The game has to focus on strategic distribution of units and decisions about research and not about worrying where to put ones money. Ever heard of a country having problems to store it's money/gold? I haven't. So let us please not cling to it!

Nomad wrote:I have but 1 remark to make. If your going to punish non SS members by killing their free unlimited banks, and not do anything about the unlimited bank called GM that's just wrong in my opinion.


If you do put in place a 1% rejection fee 1 or more things would be appriciated.

1. Do not charge trades that are expired (see 2. before saying it), yes I understand this defeats the purpose

2. Increase the time trades are available. 24 hrs is not enough time. those who log in only 1 or 2 times a day may miss a deal if their 1 or 2 log ins are effected by outside issues. I have missed many wanted trades due to missing the notice, or logging in 10 min after trade is set, and expecting to get back before it expires. When using mobile phone I do not like doing trades due to how long and tedious it is. so i do all trades on my 1 login from home PC. I ask the time be extended to 48 hrs.

3. Find some other means of trade not bound to the 24 hr rule.

I applaud you for suggestion number 2.

It is true that some people don't long in every single day. And even if they do log in each single day, more than 24 hours could have passed (Logging in monday morning an then again tuesday afternoon). It would be better to extend trades to 48 hours, and withdrawal time also 48 hours. Also in the case of rejected trades, 48 hours should be given.

Manleva wrote:

Admin wrote:yeah sure, will add what I always wanted to add, you have x hours to recover resources from Gm otherwise they go straight onto hand/bank/idles (at/kuwal/uu respectively)

One of the best pieces of news I have seen and will remove one of the biggest exploits from the game. I would however allow x Days for recovery of resources instead of x hours.

It's not going to solve anything, because players can simply withdraw everything and toss it back on GM. And once they want to withdraw it they simply change the rate and buy it from themselves. Sure it will be more complicated for them as they cannot get their resources immediately. Might take a day or two, but it will not have stopped them from using GM as a bank.

Besides, as Nomad said, it's only going to hurt new players, as big players grew partially because of it and new players will have worse conditions at growing. I don't see using GM as a bank a serious problem. In fact, I believe that what we lose if resources will be withdrawn automatically is more than what we gain by placing this restriction.

And what about people who have massive amounts of turns in the GM? I have 75k AT. If I want to use them, I would need ST that I produce in the next half a year. But already now I buy enough AT to use all my ST.

Also, if admin want's to restrict how much kuwal players can keep then he should not force players to withdraw UU or AT, because they are not kept in a bank. Unlimited UU can be held as idles, but some new players might not know about this possibility, and I am sure that if resources get withdrawn automatically, it can lead to unpleasant surprises for players who get mass raided because of this update. Also if AT get withdrawn, no more new AT will be generated.

Therefore, players should not forcefully have their UU or AT withdrawn, as they are not kuwal that can be kept in a bank.
This update is supposed to counter players keeping kuwal in the GM. UU and AT are not kuwal!

Spoiler:

Sorry but IMO this argument does not work for me for several reasons.

1) UU can be stored on ones acct as "idles", also Gold can be traded for UU, MR's can be traded for AT's which in turn can be traded for UU.

2) AT's can be stored on ones acct as well, or as gold, or as MR's also.

3) if a players has resources on the market, they will stay there until purchased, once the resources are purchased/sold, the player has the option to either keep them safely on said players acct, or placing them back on the market.

4) having said the above; I can agree that UU & AT's are in fact not Kuwal, I say however that UU & AT's can be considered equal to kuwal therefore storing UU or AT's on the market is the same as storing kuwal on the market.

Storing ATs on the market allows one to generate more Ats
Soring UU on the market allows one to by pass AE

seaborgium wrote:Storing ATs on the market allows one to generate more Ats
Soring UU on the market allows one to by pass AE

storing AT's on ones acct in the form of MR's or gold has the same effect, same with UU...

Well lets be honest, and break it down to its simplest form.

A) Remove banks and AT generation limits.

B) Impose banks, and AT generation limits.

But Do Not, impose any restriction and then intentionally create a way to bypass said limit, its just stupid. If your going to allow bypassing of a limit or restriction then WHY have it in the first place?

@ Kenzu,,,
Yes it will make the game more stressful. Some people like myself enjoy a challenge, and do not care for games so easy "anyone can do it". If it had been correct from the start no one would have known any better or any other way. Its only an issue because Admin knowingly to put it in place and then leave it in place when the player base pointed it out to him.

I personally feel its a great move because there is little to no encouragement to push the boundaries of growth in this game. It is perceived to be far more profitable to sell off and stay average to small due to the double whammy effect. You increase your income by selling UU, therefore pushing tech's, levels, constructions, and researches faster and further. You also don't have to lose a % of your income. Making the bank mean something is the only thing that will promote growth because it is the only stat tied directly to size.

FTR I can accept the change, or accept the exploit. I still think its stupid. Both the bank issues and the AT production restrictions, I still think its an improvement to the game, but I can play either way.

Nomad wrote:Well lets be honest, and break it down to its simplest form.

A) Remove banks and AT generation limits.

B) Impose banks, and AT generation limits.

But Do Not, impose any restriction and then intentionally create a way to bypass said limit, its just stupid. If your going to allow bypassing of a limit or restriction then WHY have it in the first place?

@ Kenzu,,,
Yes it will make the game more stressful. Some people like myself enjoy a challenge, and do not care for games so easy "anyone can do it". If it had been correct from the start no one would have known any better or any other way. Its only an issue because Admin knowingly to put it in place and then leave it in place when the player base pointed it out to him.

I personally feel its a great move because there is little to no encouragement to push the boundaries of growth in this game. It is perceived to be far more profitable to sell off and stay average to small due to the double whammy effect. You increase your income by selling UU, therefore pushing tech's, levels, constructions, and researches faster and further. You also don't have to lose a % of your income. Making the bank mean something is the only thing that will promote growth because it is the only stat tied directly to size.

FTR I can accept the change, or accept the exploit. I still think its stupid. Both the bank issues and the AT production restrictions, I still think its an improvement to the game, but I can play either way.

you said what I was trying to say, only you said it better. also I completely agree with most of this post... not 100% sure of the validity of the part in blue I must admit...

Ok yes Kong you are correct. I can not say he Knowingly put it in place, so for that I apologize Martin.

The reason I said that was because when first pointed out to him, his official response was yes he knew it was an exploit/work around/ trick/feature or whatever you want to call it, and that he would leave it in place. That doesn't mean he put it in intentionally, just that if he didn't, then as soon as he knew it was an issue he decided to leave it.

Nomad wrote:Ok yes Kong you are correct. I can not say he Knowingly put it in place, so for that I apologize Martin.

The reason I said that was because when first pointed out to him, his official response was yes he knew it was an exploit/work around/ trick/feature or whatever you want to call it, and that he would leave it in place. That doesn't mean he put it in intentionally, just that if he didn't, then as soon as he knew it was an issue he decided to leave it.

ok, this I can agree with as I remember that convo.

seaborgium wrote:Storing ATs on the market allows one to generate more Ats
Soring UU on the market allows one to by pass AE

AE only influences your income, and by having less UU, you have always less income.
If you kept them as farmers, you will always have a higher income than not having them.

How does storing AT generate more AT?
Only those AT that are being traded can bring profit. Those which are lying where you can withdraw them don't generate anything.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

Sorry but IMO this argument does not work for me for several reasons.

1) UU can be stored on ones acct as "idles", also Gold can be traded for UU, MR's can be traded for AT's which in turn can be traded for UU.

2) AT's can be stored on ones acct as well, or as gold, or as MR's also.

3) if a players has resources on the market, they will stay there until purchased, once the resources are purchased/sold, the player has the option to either keep them safely on said players acct, or placing them back on the market.

4) having said the above; I can agree that UU & AT's are in fact not Kuwal, I say however that UU & AT's can be considered equal to kuwal therefore storing UU or AT's on the market is the same as storing kuwal on the market.

The only similarity kuwal UU and AT have is that they are resources.
The whole argument of imposing limits on keeping resources in the GM is so that it is not abused as a bank without limits. This makes imposing restrictions on UU and AT redundant.

Nomad wrote:Well lets be honest, and break it down to its simplest form.

A) Remove banks and AT generation limits.

B) Impose banks, and AT generation limits.

But Do Not, impose any restriction and then intentionally create a way to bypass said limit, its just stupid. If your going to allow bypassing of a limit or restriction then WHY have it in the first place?

@ Kenzu,,,
Yes it will make the game more stressful. Some people like myself enjoy a challenge, and do not care for games so easy "anyone can do it". If it had been correct from the start no one would have known any better or any other way. Its only an issue because Admin knowingly to put it in place and then leave it in place when the player base pointed it out to him.

Having to place accepted offers again on the market within a limited time frame is not a challenge. Not sure why you call it one.

I personally feel its a great move because there is little to no encouragement to push the boundaries of growth in this game. It is perceived to be far more profitable to sell off and stay average to small due to the double whammy effect. You increase your income by selling UU, therefore pushing tech's, levels, constructions, and researches faster and further. You also don't have to lose a % of your income. Making the bank mean something is the only thing that will promote growth because it is the only stat tied directly to size.

"It is perceived" Oh really? By who except you? I don't think most people believe in what you just said. Most people want to be as big as possible. Bigger player = more income, bigger military potential. Check out the best players. They have the biggest armysizes. Do you see any average players in the top ranks? You don't.

FTR I can accept the change, or accept the exploit. I still think its stupid. Both the bank issues and the AT production restrictions, I still think its an improvement to the game, but I can play either way.

Kenzu wrote:
How does storing AT generate more AT?
if you have 6,000 AT on your account you will generate no more, but if you store them you will continue to generate, thereby bypassing the restriction completely.

I'll get the rest after work, or in the morning

[quote="kingkongfan1"]

seaborgium wrote:Storing ATs on the market allows one to generate more Ats
Soring UU on the market allows one to by pass AE

storing AT's on ones acct in the form of MR's or gold has the same effect, same with UU...[/quote

show me where I can convert UU/AT/Kuwal into MRs or Gold and I would accept that

If you store ATs on the GM market, you can generate more
If you store UU on the market, you get around AE, This is VERY IMPORTANT when you have a lot of training going on
If you store Kuwal on the market you don't need to worry about your bank being too full to beable to save for anything.


the rest of the points were already hit by Nomad so I will let them be.

Kenzu wrote:

seaborgium wrote:Storing ATs on the market allows one to generate more Ats
Soring UU on the market allows one to by pass AE

AE only influences your income, and by having less UU, you have always less income.
For anyone who cares to listen, this is the way A.E. works (at least for me) I currently have 61,605,800 army size, with an A.E. of 75.02%, & the G.A.A.S. atm is 33,536,682. I have noticed that as the G.A.A.S. goes down, so does my income due to my A.E. %age dropping. when the G.A.A.S. goes up my income does as well. the more I increase my total army size over the G.A.A.S. the lower my A.E.%age, the less total income per turn I have. this would seem to be the direct opposite of what kenzu is saying so maybe I have a bug? idk?
If you kept them as farmers, you will always have a higher income than not having them.

How does storing AT generate more AT?
let us not forget that each acct generates 96 AT per day, having a 6,000 AT cap, but if I take & "store" some AT on the market, then my acct will continue to generate AT's. it really is that simple.

Only those AT that are being traded can bring profit.I would like to say that I just sold off a large quantity of my "stored" AT's for quite a profit. Those which are lying where you can withdraw them don't generate anything.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

Sorry but IMO this argument does not work for me for several reasons.

1) UU can be stored on ones acct as "idles", also Gold can be traded for UU, MR's can be traded for AT's which in turn can be traded for UU.

2) AT's can be stored on ones acct as well, or as gold, or as MR's also.

3) if a players has resources on the market, they will stay there until purchased, once the resources are purchased/sold, the player has the option to either keep them safely on said players acct, or placing them back on the market.

4) having said the above; I can agree that UU & AT's are in fact not Kuwal, I say however that UU & AT's can be considered equal to kuwal therefore storing UU or AT's on the market is the same as storing kuwal on the market.

The only similarity kuwal UU and AT have is that they are resources.
UU & AT's & ST's can be converted to kuwal making kuwal the common denominator here, basicly AT's = kuwal, UU = kuwal, ST's = kuwal, kuwal = the ability to build up a players acct, as in techs, UP, better weapons, etc.
The whole argument of imposing limits on keeping resources in the GM is so that it is not abused as a bank without limits. This makes imposing restrictions on UU and AT redundant.

Nomad wrote:Well lets be honest, and break it down to its simplest form.

A) Remove banks and AT generation limits.

B) Impose banks, and AT generation limits.

But Do Not, impose any restriction and then intentionally create a way to bypass said limit, its just stupid. If your going to allow bypassing of a limit or restriction then WHY have it in the first place?

@ Kenzu,,,
Yes it will make the game more stressful. Some people like myself enjoy a challenge, and do not care for games so easy "anyone can do it". If it had been correct from the start no one would have known any better or any other way. Its only an issue because Admin knowingly to put it in place and then leave it in place when the player base pointed it out to him.

Having to place accepted offers again on the market within a limited time frame is not a challenge. Not sure why you call it one.
I have to question how kenzu would know what another player would find challenging? just because kenzu does not find such an activity challenging does not mean that another player wouldn't.

I personally feel its a great move because there is little to no encouragement to push the boundaries of growth in this game. It is perceived to be far more profitable to sell off and stay average to small due to the double whammy effect. You increase your income by selling UU, therefore pushing tech's, levels, constructions, and researches faster and further. You also don't have to lose a % of your income. Making the bank mean something is the only thing that will promote growth because it is the only stat tied directly to size.

"It is perceived" Oh really? By who except you? I don't think most people believe in what you just said. Most people want to be as big as possible. Bigger player = more income, bigger military potential. Check out the best players. They have the biggest armysizes. Do you see any average players in the top ranks? You don't.
just stop for a moment if you will & take a serious look at the "actual" number of players who are currently my size (double the G.A.A.S.) or larger. then compare that to the total number of registered players & see which is more, players that are double the G.A.A.S. or larger, or players at or below the G.A.A.S. also I know for a fact that selling off to stay small is a strategy that more than a handful of players use because they have told me that they constantly stay at 100% A.E. or less earning 100% of their income.

FTR I can accept the change, or accept the exploit. I still think its stupid. Both the bank issues and the AT production restrictions, I still think its an improvement to the game, but I can play either way.

I feel hurt kong, you skiped my post

kingkongfan1 wrote:For anyone who cares to listen, this is the way A.E. works (at least for me) I currently have 61,605,800 army size, with an A.E. of 75.02%, & the G.A.A.S. atm is 33,536,682. I have noticed that as the G.A.A.S. goes down, so does my income due to my A.E. %age dropping. when the G.A.A.S. goes up my income does as well. the more I increase my total army size over the G.A.A.S. the lower my A.E.%age, the less total income per turn I have. this would seem to be the direct opposite of what kenzu is saying so maybe I have a bug? idk?

AE doesn't work the way you describe. You can ask admin for the exact formula and you will see that the more income units you have, the higher your income. AE slows the difference down so that a players who is 2 times bigger doesn't earn 2 times more income, but maybe 1.5 times more than a player of half size. Additionally a bigger players needs less % of population in the military to defend against farming.

If players give equal shares of units into defense, covert and assassins, if they are small, they will have about 70% income units, and 30% military units. Huge players don't need 30% in military. 15% might be enough for them. I am the 3rd biggest player in the game and I have only 8% in military and 92% in income.

An average player has now a population of 33,628,000. Maximum he can earn per turn is: 33,628,000*50 = 1.67 billion kuwal But even this is not realistic, as he needs about 10% defenders, 10% spies and 10% assassins. So actually his real income will be about: 1.18 billion kuwal

A player like you has about 70% AE. Your income without CO, without officers, without weapon upkeep must be around: 1.66 billion kuwal
(If you didnt have any workers or miners)

My AE is 54%. My income without CO without officers and without weapon upkeep is 3 billion

This proves that higher population means higher income, despite lower AE.

kingkongfan1 wrote:just stop for a moment if you will & take a serious look at the "actual" number of players who are currently my size (double the G.A.A.S.) or larger. then compare that to the total number of registered players & see which is more, players that are double the G.A.A.S. or larger, or players at or below the G.A.A.S. also I know for a fact that selling off to stay small is a strategy that more than a handful of players use because they have told me that they constantly stay at 100% A.E. or less earning 100% of their income.

All I know is that World Republic has the biggest number of active players and we all strive for a bigger population.

Kenzu wrote:The only similarity kuwal UU and AT have is that they are resources.
The whole argument of imposing limits on keeping resources in the GM is so that it is not abused as a bank without limits. This makes imposing restrictions on UU and AT redundant.

First off I am not 100% sure I know exactly what you mean here but I will respond based on what I think you mean, and if I am wrong feel free to tell me I misunderstood your meaning.

As for similarity, while they are all resources, that by definition and use means they can be traded one for another. so anyplace you have one, you can easily have the other (makes them interchangeable per say). Restricting Kewel kept on GM but not UU or AT means you can store UU and AT until needed and then converted to Kewel. This bypasses the restriction on storing kewel. GM is not restricted to a kewel bank, but a bank to store all resources. Storing kewel allows you to bypass the bank size restriction. Storing UU allows you to bypass the AE restriction. (this comes in handy when training 10, 20, 30, 50, mill UU as it takes months to do), and storing AT allows you to bypass the AT production limit.

Therefore in my opinion it does not make them redundant

Kenzu wrote:Having to place accepted offers again on the market within a limited time frame is not a challenge. Not sure why you call it one.

I do not call it one, only you have so far. I call not having an unlimited bank a challenge. No one yet has bothered to even try to explain why we have a bank limit and multiple ways around it. No one has yet to explain why we have an AT production limit, and multiple ways around it? Now the UU thing has a cost, so that has to be weighed and measured. My question still stands (Preferably for Martin but If Kenzu wants to reply thats ok to) and I would appreciate an answer. Why impose a restriction, and then offer multiple ways to bypass the restriction legally? Why not just remove the restrictions altogether? Or remove the means to bypass them.

Kenzu wrote:"It is perceived" Oh really? By who except you? I don't think most people believe in what you just said. Most people want to be as big as possible. Bigger player = more income, bigger military potential. Check out the best players. They have the biggest army sizes. Do you see any average players in the top ranks? You don't.

Since you seem to want to be fairly aggressive here, then I'll return the favor.
Smog and Vaga. The 2 accounts that early alone kicked the crap out of the whole of WR. Both accounts used this strategy. Sell off staying small, and use all funds from income, farming, raiding, and UP to increase their accounts. If you look around there are more accounts doing it. I have intel on an account now that has been using this strategy

Spy Power: 7200
Assassin Power: 7200
Weapon Level 13
Attack Turns: 147
Unit Production: 51,670

Technological Development
Attack Technology: 290%
Defense Technology: 210%
Covert Technology: 213%
Assassin Technology: 200%

Does this look like the average account with a 3 to 4 mill army size? I'm willing to bet this account is on par with the average game account now, and could probably take down 3/4 or more of WR in a 1 on 1 battle. I used the word "perceived" to allow for all different perspectives and not to claim one is better then another but in fact Yes I do believe that this strategy is the best one there is after the game was running 6 months.

Now MARTIN I am asking you to stop Kenzu and his abuse of forum powers. If he is going to act like this as a forum Admin he has no damn right to be one. He has a user account and I have it blocked so I do not argue with him, but I can not block his admin account and I WILL NOT be abused and punished because he wants to act out.

This is NO WAY for a forum admin to act. Trolling specific players and attempting to bash them like this is nothing short of unprofessional.

Kenzu wrote:"It is perceived" Oh really? By who except you? I don't think most people believe in what you just said. Most people want to be as big as possible. Bigger player = more income, bigger military potential. Check out the best players. They have the biggest armysizes. Do you see any average players in the top ranks? You don't.

He has a forum account for childish behavior like this. Tell him to use it, and make him do so, or tell me to leave and not come back.



@ Kong,,,

The system is set up so total income will always grow, it can never get smaller. but the larger you grow the smaller your individual income units production becomes, yet total income will still increase, just by a smaller and smaller amount. If Martin would be so kind as to post the formula maybe more people would understand it, people could check their incomes, and know their incomes if they gained more or lost some income units. I think it would be a plus to know.

Disagreeing with generalizations is not childish behaviour. Had Nomad not "foed" my account he would be able to see what I wrote and wouldn't have to make such comments here.

It's interesting how Nomad is trying justify himself, when my previous post has clearly shown that bigger accounts generate more income, and also that World Republic, which has more active players than all other alliances combined, also use the strategy of growing as big as possible. This is afterall what we have been talking about (whether most people use this strategy or not).

Then again, if he read my post he wouldn't be making claims that average account has 3-4 million population, when I stated that average accounts has 33 million population.

And just because smog and vaga have been using the "stay small" strategy it is no evidence for his belief that most people use this strategy.

Also smog and vaga were strong not because of their stay small strategy, but more accurately despite this strategy. Their accounts had an immense value because they were among the heaviest farmers. So it wasn't their stay small strategy that made them powerful, but their aggressive farming.

Although I repeat myself, it can't be stressed enough:
The problem admin wants to solve is that people don't keep more kuwal than what they can keep in their bank. Since AT and UU aren't kuwal, they should not be affected by the update. And it doesn't matter that they can be converted to kuwal, because it matters only when they are exchanged for kuwal.

I am sorry Keinutnai but like Nomad I cannot agree with your reasoning.

All items that can be traded in the GM are resources and each is as valuable as the other. The GM allows for the unlimited storage of these resources and is totally at odds with all of the limitations that are placed on the individual accounts.

The unlimited GM has allowed players to grow their accounts at rates greater that the actual account would normally be able to support at no risk

It needs to be remember that every resource that can be traded in the GM has other uses than just being a mechanism for account growth. Take for instance your 75K of AT, they are over 10 times the AT generation limit imposed on your account. Yes you can sell them for Kuwal that you can invest into growing your account but they are also a massive amount of AT that can be passed on to other Alliance members in times of war.

I do see a place for trading but also believe that there is a strong reason for controlling it as well which is why I like Admins proposal. I even suggested that rather than making it that returns had to be withdrawn within X hours is should be x Days (If asked I would have said a maximum of 10 days).

Nomad has pointed out some other possible exploits as well.

As an alternative how about this. A 10 day limit to withdraw the resources or to place them back on the market. If not withdrawn of put back on the market then they will automatically be withdrawn and placed in the players account. To discourage the use of the GM simply as a mechanism for hoarding these resources I would also suggest the following. Allow the ability to to alter the trade value once every 24 hours (this is the rate not the quantity of the resource) and to prevent outrageous pricing and thus keep different rates within reasonable bounds implement a penalty tax for the removal of unsold resources of 50%