Re: storage discussion

by kingkongfan1 Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:22 pm

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.

by Kenzu Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:02 pm

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.

by Nomad Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:59 pm

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

by seaborgium Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:07 pm

[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.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:52 am

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.

by seaborgium Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:38 pm

I feel hurt kong, you skiped my post Sad

by Keinutnai Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:10 pm

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.

by Nomad Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:49 pm

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.

by Keinutnai Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:51 pm

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.

by Manleva Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:06 pm

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%

by seaborgium Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:44 am

remind me not to play any games with you manleva lol

by Admin Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:16 am

kingkongfan1 wrote: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?
Just like you guys complain about kenzu not reading properly, I'll point out the main part kenzu wrote and you missed/ignored/whatever (I'm just making a point here)
by having less UU
If your army stays the same and the GAAS drops, then so will your income. OBVIOUSLY, that's the WHOLE POINT of AE
It simulates that someone would have 10 mil army when average was 1 mil. Their income IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOWER than when the average is at 20 mil

What kenzu was saying was that by having fewer income units your income will ALWAYS be lower than if you had MORE income units. No matter what your AE or the GAAS is at the moment
If you kept them as farmers, you will always have a higher income than not having them.

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.
I would suggest you to not listen to people who have obviously not even a basic understanding of mathematics or ask someone who does have that understanding to do the math for you
100% of 15 mil is less than
88.7% of 20 mil (17.74 mil) or
71.8% of 30 mil (21.54 mil) or
38.8% of 130 mil (50.44 mil)

Notice how the 130 mil guy has over 3 times the income
(example based on 15 mil GAAS)

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.

I did not "leave it in place" so much as not "ADD extra code that would handle automatic removal"
I knew since the start what it could and would get used for and, again, if you look at the original topic, I did point out that something probably will get added, I just didn't know when or what it would be.

Nomad wrote:
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.
by x I meant >48 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.
point taken, will add a check that you can't accept an offer if it ends up being yours

TBH I dont get this discussion about whether or not it should be allowed to use gm as storage.
Can you use tradebroker to trade between players? yes
Can you use tradebroker to store resources permanently? yes (though not after I add that you still pay transfer fee upon rejection)

Same with GM, there's no reason the market should allow you to waste their space and hold your stuff indefinitely. Pay a storage fee or get out.

kenzu wrote: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.

If I restrict ONE type of resource, I should NOT restrict the others? where's the logic in that

If you have too much kuwal lying around and can't put it in bank it should get stolen
If you have too many uu's as idles, they will drop your income (since AE drops lowering average production and idles don't produce anything)
If you have too many AT's then accept the fact that you will not get your natural production

RL economics does not work by having people hoard their raw materials but by having AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE in their warehouses.
Hell the fundamental aspect of running a business, or the first rule if you will, is to keep your stocks low unless you really can't help it.

by Manleva Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:28 am

Keinutnai wrote: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.

You appear to be confusing GAAS which is just over 33 million with the actual average account size and they are two very different things.
although I have not really checked I believe that Nomads figure is much closer the the real average account size than yours.

If you look at page 3 of the battlefield you find a mix of different size army's ranging from just under 74 mill to just over 3.5 mill
If you simply average the values you get 16,218,556 however the median value is 10,297,350

So yes when I also look at your post I have to say you are wrong in your statement. Not that you are incorrect with the 33 bil for GAAS but because you have not fully read and understood Nomads comment because Nomad is talking about the average Account size. Nomads figure is not based on a mathematical formula rather it's a comparison of all of the army sizes and then an estimation based on observation. GAAS is purely mathematical.

by kingkongfan1 Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:03 am

[quote="Admin"]

kingkongfan1 wrote: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?
Just like you guys complain about kenzu not reading properly, I'll point out the main part kenzu wrote and you missed/ignored/whatever (I'm just making a point here)
by having less UU
If your army stays the same and the GAAS drops, then so will your income. OBVIOUSLY, that's the WHOLE POINT of AE
It simulates that someone would have 10 mil army when average was 1 mil. Their income IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOWER than when the average is at 20 mil

What kenzu was saying was that by having fewer income units your income will ALWAYS be lower than if you had MORE income units. No matter what your AE or the GAAS is at the moment
If you kept them as farmers, you will always have a higher income than not having them.

I appreciate the fact that you are taking the time to explain this to me; nomad has said this exact thing to me in an attempt to explain this to me as well, but I need this question answered please. "time & again I add income units in an attempt to increase my income, but time & again the increase in income is "minimal" if any & sometimes my income is less that what it was before I added the units, why?" (example1; in an attempt to negate the income loss I had with weapons upkeep; I figured how many farmers I needed to train to counter that loss, (example2; if my weapons upkeep cost is 450,000,000 kuwal, then I trained 9,000,000 farmers) using the A.E. deduction I figured that I needed XXX farmers, my UU increased significantly, my income did not.)

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.
I would suggest you to not listen to people who have obviously not even a basic understanding of mathematics or ask someone who does have that understanding to do the math for you
100% of 15 mil is less than
88.7% of 20 mil (17.74 mil) or
71.8% of 30 mil (21.54 mil) or
38.8% of 130 mil (50.44 mil)

Notice how the 130 mil guy has over 3 times the income
(example based on 15 mil GAAS)

believe it or not; ^ this I understand, I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to explain to kenzu at this point, (hell maybe kenzu misunderstood as well so I will try to explain it this way.)

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.

I was just trying to explain to kenzu that I know of several players who intentionally keep their army sizes at or below the G.A.A.S. (currently 33,628,488) as a strategic move either selling off excess resources, or "storing them on the GM". these players use the kuwal earned from these actions to increase techs, UP, spy/assassin training, to get better weapons, etc. all while remaining smaller than the G.A.A.S. & earning 100% of their total income. if you check you will find players that have been playing this game longer than I that have 1/2 my army size or less. does that clear it up for you? (notice I did not say that it made sense mathematically, [I am not smart enough to know what makes sense mathematically so I cannot say one way or another] I just said that is what they do.)

TBH I dont get this discussion about whether or not it should be allowed to use gm as storage.
Can you use tradebroker to trade between players? yes
above is correct; but you have to continually "rebroker" as the brokers expire, whereas it goes on the market & stays till you retrieve it. kinda a set it & forget it deal.
Can you use tradebroker to store resources permanently? yes (though not after I add that you still pay transfer fee upon rejection)
did not know this was possible, have not got a clue as to how to do it, sorry

Same with GM, there's no reason the market should allow you to waste their space and hold your stuff indefinitely. Pay a storage fee or get out.
I agree 100% with this

by seaborgium Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:06 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:
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.
by x I meant >48 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.
point taken, will add a check that you can't accept an offer if it ends up being yours

This step is going in a direction that again stop people from "playing" the market. If I want to change the price of something, I normally just buy stuff up, knowing that some of it is mine. Due to the fact that if I change my price I lost some of the kuwal listed....

by Keinutnai Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:32 pm

If you restrict this then the people you hurt the most will be the new players who didn't play long enough to increase bank space substantially! It's the newest and smallest players who will suffer the most, because it's easy for them to have a full bank, but big players will not be influenced much if this update counts. Big players will still be able to keep a trillions in their banks, while small players will have a rough time saving up even 200 billion.

@admin (saying that companies are trying to keep as little inventory as possible)
Additionally I believe that storing the resources on the market (there where you can withdraw them) without having them in active trades and not using them as trained farmers or for raiding is punishment enough. If you used them, you can turn them into profit, but if you have them lying around they are not increasing their value, in fact they are losing their value over time due to inflation. But this is the cost you are paying for having a war chest. I think this is enough and there is no need to further place restrictions on the market.

The more restrictions you place on the market, the less are people going to trade. The only reason why this problem started was because of the issue that its being used to store unlimited kuwal. But the players already own that kuwal. Why bother? In most cases its used either for research or as a war chest. If it's for research then this issue evaporates, due to the new research system. If it is for a war chest, then let it be so. Why bother?

Manleva wrote:
Keinutnai wrote: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.

You appear to be confusing GAAS which is just over 33 million with the actual average account size and they are two very different things.
although I have not really checked I believe that Nomads figure is much closer the the real average account size than yours.

If you look at page 3 of the battlefield you find a mix of different size army's ranging from just under 74 mill to just over 3.5 mill
If you simply average the values you get 16,218,556 however the median value is 10,297,350

So yes when I also look at your post I have to say you are wrong in your statement. Not that you are incorrect with the 33 bil for GAAS but because you have not fully read and understood Nomads comment because Nomad is talking about the average Account size. Nomads figure is not based on a mathematical formula rather it's a comparison of all of the army sizes and then an estimation based on observation. GAAS is purely mathematical.

If it's something that has to do with numbers, then you can rely that my approximations will be closer to reality.
GAAS is the actual average army size. GAAS is the sum of all populations of all active players divided by the number of active players.

I looked up average populations for each of the top battlefield pages and this is what I found out.

Ranks Average Population
1-30 75,1 million
31-60 28,5 million
61-90 16,3 million
91-120 9,5 million

Now I don't know how Nomad came up with the average population of 3 million, but that's not even the average population among players with ranks 91-120.

And Manleva, it's nice that you calculated the median of page 3, but why did you only look at page 3 and did not also consider page 2 and page 1?

I took the median of Ranks 1-100 and the result was 25,092,950. That's much higher than Nomads average population, but it's actually pretty close to the average population I have mentioned.
Then again I don't know whether Nomad was talking about average population or median population, in both cases, far off from the reality, however I was talking all the time about the average population until this post.

by Admin Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:52 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:"time & again I add income units in an attempt to increase my income, but time & again the increase in income is "minimal" if any & sometimes my income is less that what it was before I added the units, why?"
If GAAS drops then so will your income, obviously
And if you dont get why the increase is minimal then look at the numbers I posted as an example again
(You increase size by 50%, 10 mil, but income grows barely 4 mil worth of units)
(example1; in an attempt to negate the income loss I had with weapons upkeep; I figured how many farmers I needed to train to counter that loss, (example2; if my weapons upkeep cost is 450,000,000 kuwal, then I trained 9,000,000 farmers) using the A.E. deduction I figured that I needed XXX farmers, my UU increased significantly, my income did not.)
You obviously need MORE than XXX farmers since more farmers => higher army size => lower AE => lower income per unit
So you train X farmers and cover upkeep cost. AE updates for you and income drops so it's not covered anymore

I was just trying to explain to kenzu that I know of several players who intentionally keep their army sizes at or below the G.A.A.S. (currently 33,628,488) as a strategic move either selling off excess resources, or "storing them on the GM". these players use the kuwal earned from these actions to increase techs, UP, spy/assassin training, to get better weapons, etc. all while remaining smaller than the G.A.A.S. & earning 100% of their total income. if you check you will find players that have been playing this game longer than I that have 1/2 my army size or less. does that clear it up for you? (notice I did not say that it made sense mathematically, [I am not smart enough to know what makes sense mathematically so I cannot say one way or another] I just said that is what they do.)
Again, mathematically it is nonsense, so if they/you want to do that then that's their/your problem. It's not a strategic move, it's a dumb move for certain people in that group.
Which is what kenzu told you, which is what I'm telling you.
Saying "other people have been doing this for a long time" isn't an argument for doing something because a fundamental part of an argument is the justification.
People have been committing suicides since thousands of years, doesn't mean it's a smart move to take.

Now here is THE justification AGAIN for why it's nonsense, otherwise please open a new thread:
Numbers as above. You receive 10 mil free units with a 30 mil account.
You can sell them (~4 Tril) and invest into UP OR train these units as farmers (~+10 bil income per day, AE change included)
If your UP cannot increase by this equivalent of 10 bil kuwal per day (~25,200 units), then you made a mistake in selling them because your total income will be LESS THAN WHAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
This is called an opportunity cost. In both situations your income is higher than before (obviously, you just received 10 mil units), but in one situation (selling units) it is LOWER than in the other (keeping units).

Income is kuwal income + unit production. It's always a choice between raising one OR the other.
That's why for a new player, unit production is cheap so they should sell units
For an old player, unit production is expensive so they should BUY units (but with this AE business, once in a while it'll be better for them to increase up a bit)

Unless you can't be online to keep that income, you get unit production instead since that can't be raided off you even if you can login only once a day on average

Can you use tradebroker to store resources permanently? yes (though not after I add that you still pay transfer fee upon rejection)
did not know this was possible, have not got a clue as to how to do it, sorry
well "permanently", i meant the rebroker and reject, but you know, point was that it doesn't cost anything. Each time you trade you can put in the same amount as before

by Nomad Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:06 pm

Manleva wrote:
Keinutnai wrote: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.

You appear to be confusing GAAS which is just over 33 million with the actual average account size and they are two very different things.
although I have not really checked I believe that Nomads figure is much closer the the real average account size than yours.

If you look at page 3 of the battlefield you find a mix of different size army's ranging from just under 74 mill to just over 3.5 mill
If you simply average the values you get 16,218,556 however the median value is 10,297,350

So yes when I also look at your post I have to say you are wrong in your statement. Not that you are incorrect with the 33 bil for GAAS but because you have not fully read and understood Nomads comment because Nomad is talking about the average Account size. Nomads figure is not based on a mathematical formula rather it's a comparison of all of the army sizes and then an estimation based on observation. GAAS is purely mathematical.

It appears Kenzu has completely missed the point I was attempting to make, so I will attempt to address it again with a better explination.

This is to explain why there are times that "selling off to stay small" IS a strategic and smart move. I am not saying it is the best for every account, not that it is the best at every point in time. It is however smart for new accounts or accounts that are far behind the "average" account in terms of Stats. FTR I do not class the average account by size. I class them by stats. UU. comes and goes, untouchable stats such as UP, Levels, and tech's are what makes an account. Easy example is this, which account is better? A 10 mill man account with no upgrades of any kind, or a 1 mill man account with 200% techs, 5800 covert and assassin, weapons level 10, and a UP of 50K? While I personally feel the second if a far superior account I will let you the reader answer that on your own.

As to my example, I do not class this example account at 3 mill UU as average. It is exceptional in my eyes but I have watched it grow. Why I feel this is a smart strategy is simple. As Admin explained above you have 2 basic options. Grow and use your income and gathered resources to increase raw stats, or sell and use the same funds as the growth option PLUS all the funds you gain from selling the UU you raid, buy, and produce. Obviously you will grow in raw stats much quicker this way. Coupled with the FACT you can almost always farm more then you can produce on your own in a day, it makes much MORE sense to increase these raw stats and improve your account and farming profits.

In simpler terms. I feel the account I posted is not average "size". I feel its raw stats are about average for the accounts called average by the GASS or around 30 mill men in size. So you guys can argue all you want that its a bad idea, but the proof is in the pudding. The end result is a 3 mill man account in a few months of this strategic system is equal as far as raw stats of the account as an account 10 times its size thats been playing 10 times as long.

*Funneling everything into growth alone is the slowest means of growth. I have yet to see an account that can produce more income then it can farm.

*Actively playing, raiding, farming, and doing it with minimal losses is the fastest way to increase your account in core stats and size. So letting core stats suffer to grow size and keeping your losses higher, versus increasing core stats quickly and then reaping the benefits of less losses and faster growth is not always the best tactic

*My idea of an "average* account is based on core stats, far more then size. The games call the GAAS the Average, An account with comparable core stats to the "GASS" average account is what I call average, be it 10 mill in size or 100 mill in size.

Hope that helps to explain my point of view and the reasoning for my logic.

And Again, I do not think one is better then the other, growth vs selling. I think both have there place, and there time, but anyone who thinks that 1 tactic is the best all the time and far better then all others is a moron in my opinion.

To further drive the point home.(only view the spoiler if you into some reading, and its my opinion, yours may differ)

Spoiler:

by Manleva Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:03 am

Keinutnai wrote:If you restrict this then the people you hurt the most will be the new players who didn't play long enough to increase bank space substantially! It's the newest and smallest players who will suffer the most, because it's easy for them to have a full bank, but big players will not be influenced much if this update counts. Big players will still be able to keep a trillions in their banks, while small players will have a rough time saving up even 200 billion.

While I can understanding you point of view it is not one that I can agree with. The way that I interpret your point of view is that fast growth is important for new players and the quicker that they can catch up the better. Yes small players will suffer to some extent but you appear to be forgetting that for the new and small players that while their bank capacity is small so are the costs as the lower end. The ratio of bank size to upgrade cost is not to bad. What I see is that you simply want a mechanism that will allow new players a means to fast track their growth simply because those that have been here longer are that much bigger.

Rather than speeding up their growth I would prefer to see them protected in some way from the big players, Their competition and the risks of whatever path they choose to take is then balances out against those who are in the same situation as themselves. It is the competition and interaction between players that keeps the game interesting and keeps people coming back. There is no reason to fast track new players simply because other players who have been here longer are bigger. There is however a big risk in fast tracking growth because the player can find themselves in a situation that they have quickly grown in size but at the expense of learning how to play the game properly.

@admin (saying that companies are trying to keep as little inventory as possible)
Additionally I believe that storing the resources on the market (there where you can withdraw them) without having them in active trades and not using them as trained farmers or for raiding is punishment enough. If you used them, you can turn them into profit, but if you have them lying around they are not increasing their value, in fact they are losing their value over time due to inflation. But this is the cost you are paying for having a war chest. I think this is enough and there is no need to further place restrictions on the market.

What punishment, it is simply a place where resources can be stored with absolutely no risk. As for the War Chest part I have to admit that I am of two minds. A war chest has some benefit but it can also be very detrimental to the game as a whole if there is not some limit as to what it can hold. The fact that currently the GM is unlimited means that the war chest is unlimited. This becomes very demoralizing for players when war breaks out because essentially war against other players who have massive amounts stored in a war chest becomes rather pointless, this in turn leads to increasing inactivity and a game where the army units become unnecessary except for hammering individuals who make minor transgressions. In fact at the moment it reallt is fast approaching the stage where the name should be changed from Aderan Wars to Aderan Capitalists.

The more restrictions you place on the market, the less are people going to trade. The only reason why this problem started was because of the issue that its being used to store unlimited kuwal. But the players already own that kuwal. Why bother? In most cases its used either for research or as a war chest. If it's for research then this issue evaporates, due to the new research system. If it is for a war chest, then let it be so. Why bother?

Again you have missed what we are saying. The problem started because the issue is that the GM can be used to store unlimited resources. To be honest the probable best option would be to address the war chest issue in some other way. I am quite happy for players to Trade freely and use the resources acquired from trading as a means for account growth however there are many who while they do this to some extent ultimately utilize it as an unlimited war chest. If you have an unlimited War Chest then ultimately the question is why bother to have war and military units at all.

Manleva wrote:
Keinutnai wrote: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.

You appear to be confusing GAAS which is just over 33 million with the actual average account size and they are two very different things.
although I have not really checked I believe that Nomads figure is much closer the the real average account size than yours.

If you look at page 3 of the battlefield you find a mix of different size army's ranging from just under 74 mill to just over 3.5 mill
If you simply average the values you get 16,218,556 however the median value is 10,297,350

So yes when I also look at your post I have to say you are wrong in your statement. Not that you are incorrect with the 33 bil for GAAS but because you have not fully read and understood Nomads comment because Nomad is talking about the average Account size. Nomads figure is not based on a mathematical formula rather it's a comparison of all of the army sizes and then an estimation based on observation. GAAS is purely mathematical.

If it's something that has to do with numbers, then you can rely that my approximations will be closer to reality.
GAAS is the actual average army size. GAAS is the sum of all populations of all active players divided by the number of active players.

I looked up average populations for each of the top battlefield pages and this is what I found out.

Ranks Average Population
1-30 75,1 million
31-60 28,5 million
61-90 16,3 million
91-120 9,5 million

Now I don't know how Nomad came up with the average population of 3 million, but that's not even the average population among players with ranks 91-120.

And Manleva, it's nice that you calculated the median of page 3, but why did you only look at page 3 and did not also consider page 2 and page 1?

I only bothered with the one page simply because it was an example to show the difference between Average and Median values. Even looking at your analysis of the first 4 pages shows that the average on 3 of them is well below your 33 mill. The really here we are only talking about mathematical values. If you read through Nomads post you will see that he is talking about something very different. Nomads analysis is also different from my own and mine would be more based around grouping accounts of a similar size then looking at what range contains the most players. to truely do a complete analysis you need to look at all of the active accounts and also their ages and then start to analyise what the exceptions are and look at the overall growth trends. you could then start to draw some conclusions based on the assumptions that the majority of players would generally fit be classed as average and thus you could then look at what army size has the most player in it. Of course as Nomad has pointed out you also need to factor in not just size but all of the other relevant things such as investment into research etc.

I took the median of Ranks 1-100 and the result was 25,092,950. That's much higher than Nomads average population, but it's actually pretty close to the average population I have mentioned.
Then again I don't know whether Nomad was talking about average population or median population, in both cases, far off from the reality, however I was talking all the time about the average population until this post.

by Nomad Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:29 am

Don't forget the "human" factor. That is what is left out of all "mathematical" equations. While in mathematics something appears as account suicide, in reality a good bluff, or a big stick can gain you far more ground far quicker. Ergo the strong and aggressive thrive on the weak. There is always a risk of an uprising, but with risk comes reward.

by Keinutnai Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:54 pm

Manleva wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:If you restrict this then the people you hurt the most will be the new players who didn't play long enough to increase bank space substantially! It's the newest and smallest players who will suffer the most, because it's easy for them to have a full bank, but big players will not be influenced much if this update counts. Big players will still be able to keep a trillions in their banks, while small players will have a rough time saving up even 200 billion.

While I can understanding you point of view it is not one that I can agree with. The way that I interpret your point of view is that fast growth is important for new players and the quicker that they can catch up the better. Yes small players will suffer to some extent but you appear to be forgetting that for the new and small players that while their bank capacity is small so are the costs as the lower end. The ratio of bank size to upgrade cost is not to bad. What I see is that you simply want a mechanism that will allow new players a means to fast track their growth simply because those that have been here longer are that much bigger.

The cost of upgrading the bank is not bad, you are right, but the problem is you upgrade it with Market Reserves that are gained very slowly over time. You can't pay with kuwal to upgrade your bank.

Rather than speeding up their growth I would prefer to see them protected in some way from the big players, Their competition and the risks of whatever path they choose to take is then balances out against those who are in the same situation as themselves. It is the competition and interaction between players that keeps the game interesting and keeps people coming back. There is no reason to fast track new players simply because other players who have been here longer are bigger. There is however a big risk in fast tracking growth because the player can find themselves in a situation that they have quickly grown in size but at the expense of learning how to play the game properly.

I dont understand what you mean by "fast track new player". It makes no sense to me. The speed of growth of a player doesn't change with a bigger bank. Growth of a player economically is increase in income and UP, growth militarily is increase in army and military techs. You don't need a bank size for that. You need a big bank for a war chest.

@admin (saying that companies are trying to keep as little inventory as possible)
Additionally I believe that storing the resources on the market (there where you can withdraw them) without having them in active trades and not using them as trained farmers or for raiding is punishment enough. If you used them, you can turn them into profit, but if you have them lying around they are not increasing their value, in fact they are losing their value over time due to inflation. But this is the cost you are paying for having a war chest. I think this is enough and there is no need to further place restrictions on the market.

What punishment, it is simply a place where resources can be stored with absolutely no risk. As for the War Chest part I have to admit that I am of two minds. A war chest has some benefit but it can also be very detrimental to the game as a whole if there is not some limit as to what it can hold. The fact that currently the GM is unlimited means that the war chest is unlimited. This becomes very demoralizing for players when war breaks out because essentially war against other players who have massive amounts stored in a war chest becomes rather pointless, this in turn leads to increasing inactivity and a game where the army units become unnecessary except for hammering individuals who make minor transgressions. In fact at the moment it reallt is fast approaching the stage where the name should be changed from Aderan Wars to Aderan Capitalists.

Saying that war chest is unlimited is wrong, because it's always limited by the amount of kuwal you have already SAVED UP! It's kuwal you earned yourself! And I also disagree that you say that war against someone who stored up a big war chest is pointless. It's not pointless, because in a war you destroy a value and thus make the player weaker. A proper prolonged war should leave all players with war chests depleted. And a player who spends kuwal in a war is weaker than before the war. So it is not pointless at all. Building up a war chest during peace is part of many strategy games on the web.

The more restrictions you place on the market, the less are people going to trade. The only reason why this problem started was because of the issue that its being used to store unlimited kuwal. But the players already own that kuwal. Why bother? In most cases its used either for research or as a war chest. If it's for research then this issue evaporates, due to the new research system. If it is for a war chest, then let it be so. Why bother?

Again you have missed what we are saying. The problem started because the issue is that the GM can be used to store unlimited resources. To be honest the probable best option would be to address the war chest issue in some other way. I am quite happy for players to Trade freely and use the resources acquired from trading as a means for account growth however there are many who while they do this to some extent ultimately utilize it as an unlimited war chest. If you have an unlimited War Chest then ultimately the question is why bother to have war and military units at all.

No, that's not what has been said. It was about unlimited bank size all along. Because the whole discussion started because people were able to store more kuwal than what fits in their bank. As the discussion continued it was clear that if kuwal is restricted, then other resources are likely to be restricted too, to treat all resources the same.

Manleva wrote:
Keinutnai wrote: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.

You appear to be confusing GAAS which is just over 33 million with the actual average account size and they are two very different things.
although I have not really checked I believe that Nomads figure is much closer the the real average account size than yours.

If you look at page 3 of the battlefield you find a mix of different size army's ranging from just under 74 mill to just over 3.5 mill
If you simply average the values you get 16,218,556 however the median value is 10,297,350

So yes when I also look at your post I have to say you are wrong in your statement. Not that you are incorrect with the 33 bil for GAAS but because you have not fully read and understood Nomads comment because Nomad is talking about the average Account size. Nomads figure is not based on a mathematical formula rather it's a comparison of all of the army sizes and then an estimation based on observation. GAAS is purely mathematical.

If it's something that has to do with numbers, then you can rely that my approximations will be closer to reality.
GAAS is the actual average army size. GAAS is the sum of all populations of all active players divided by the number of active players.

I looked up average populations for each of the top battlefield pages and this is what I found out.

Ranks Average Population
1-30 75,1 million
31-60 28,5 million
61-90 16,3 million
91-120 9,5 million

Now I don't know how Nomad came up with the average population of 3 million, but that's not even the average population among players with ranks 91-120.

And Manleva, it's nice that you calculated the median of page 3, but why did you only look at page 3 and did not also consider page 2 and page 1?

I only bothered with the one page simply because it was an example to show the difference between Average and Median values. Even looking at your analysis of the first 4 pages shows that the average on 3 of them is well below your 33 mill. The really here we are only talking about mathematical values. If you read through Nomads post you will see that he is talking about something very different. Nomads analysis is also different from my own and mine would be more based around grouping accounts of a similar size then looking at what range contains the most players. to truely do a complete analysis you need to look at all of the active accounts and also their ages and then start to analyise what the exceptions are and look at the overall growth trends. you could then start to draw some conclusions based on the assumptions that the majority of players would generally fit be classed as average and thus you could then look at what army size has the most player in it. Of course as Nomad has pointed out you also need to factor in not just size but all of the other relevant things such as investment into research etc.

But apparently no one was talking about Median. Nomad still says he talked about averages. (And I consider that my average was actually very close to the Median).

Nomads post was completely ridiculous. He was using a pseudo-science to explain himself. He made a lot of assumptions based on feeling and used practically no math. I'm sorry, but I am a scientific person and I don't believe in unfounded wishy washy statements, especially if they contradict my mathematical calculations.

Nomad wrote:I do not class the average account by size. I class them by stats.
(By stats he means tech, and he apparently doesn't consider population an important stat)
Oh really, so why would someone who classes accounts by stats other than population state that average accounts have 3 million population? I don't think I need to check all accounts again and prove that he is wrong. It looks like Nomad is trying to justify his statement of "average account has 3-4 million population" by coming up with random explanations of what he meant that don't seem plausible at all, also because he never mentioned stats in his previous post before. Instead of trying to justify, he should simply admit that he was wrong.

I took the median of Ranks 1-100 and the result was 25,092,950. That's much higher than Nomads average population, but it's actually pretty close to the average population I have mentioned.
Then again I don't know whether Nomad was talking about average population or median population, in both cases, far off from the reality, however I was talking all the time about the average population until this post.

Nomad wrote:Easy example is this, which account is better? A 10 mill man account with no upgrades of any kind, or a 1 mill man account with 200% techs, 5800 covert and assassin, weapons level 10, and a UP of 50K?
Using random unrealistic examples to prove a point? What for? I don't know any player that reached 10 million population with no upgrades whatsoever. Now comparing 10 million with 150% and 4400 skill with 1 million and 200% and 5800 and proper UP would be more realistic, but still it would fail to prove a point, because victory in a war depends on many more factors as time spent online, amount of farming/raiding, massing skills, strategy. If however two players with same UP and same farming/raiding habits, where one player has much more tech and the other has much more population, the player with more population will increase the value of his account faster than the tech based player. Eventually so much that he will be able to catch up with techs while still maintaining an advantage in population.

Now let's look at Nomads example more closely:

Account 1 = 3.75 trillion kuwal
10 million UU = 3,750,000,000,000 kuwal

Account 2 = 4,534,000,000,000
1 million UU = 375,000,000,000 kuwal
50k UP = 50+200+450+800+1250 billion (for each 10k)= 2,750,000,000,000 kuwal
200% tech in all 4 categories = 4 x 336 aprox = 1,334,000,000,000 kuwal
5800 covert and assassin and weapon level 10 = aprox 450 billion = 450,000,000,000 kuwal

Why comparing two account which have a different account value?
And why comparing a tech focused player with a complete newbie who has apparently no idea how to play if he has 0 UP and no techs?
I really don't understand the way Nomad's brain functions.

Nomad wrote:And Again, I do not think one is better then the other, growth vs selling. I think both have there place, and there time, but anyone who thinks that 1 tactic is the best all the time and far better then all others is a moron in my opinion.
Obviously the tactic, which allows an account to grow faster and become more powerful than other accounts is better. And calling everyone a moron who disagrees with you is weird and intolerant.

-----------------------------------

Nomad wrote:To further drive the point home.(only view the spoiler if you into some reading, and its my opinion, yours may differ)
Spoiler:

WOW, I can't believe my eyes! Nomad really makes an example based on random accounts again, making the assumption that an account that had an average rank must be average and that an account that has above average rank must be above average, neglecting completely that AW ranks ignore the stats that he considers important (such as technologies, and UP), and it also ignores population, and he completely ignores that ranks can be easily influenced because all you have to do to lower your rank is not build a strike, and that's exactly what Thor has done. Not built a strike to keep rank low. And Nomad even used him as an example for an average account.

So let's recap what Nomad talked about in his spoiler. This is the way I understand it, you are welcome to correct me Manleva: Nomad wanted to make an example with average accounts by tacking accounts who had an average rank (which is based on military actions only and neglects techs, UP, populations). He compares two accounts, but without explaining what he wants to prove, he went on to compare another two accounts. Then he took a bigger and a smaller account and compared their techs and based on the fact that the bigger account had slightly worse techs he made the assumption that the account is worse, without explaining why.

Also I'd like to add that the Bigger account (ID 9581), which he considers worse (trying to make a point that this account is playing worse than the smaller account) is played by a player who joined the game one year after the smaller player (ID 3280). I believe this is what is called and EPIC FAIL.

Also the bigger player has apparently a smaller account value than the smaller player, but actually it looks like it's only a matter of time until the bigger player will outperform the smaller player in all stats. But this is most likely not due to having more income or better techs for farming. It's most likely because the bigger player raids much more than the smaller player. That's all

Well, if Nomad uses random examples, comparing only some stats and neglecting important differences in accounts, such as different income, account values, different date of joining the game, different farming/raiding habits, and fails to prove anything, how can his post be taken serious at all?

I suggest to Nomad to compare accounts of equal value in the future and explain reasons why one account is worse than another. Because simply saying that one account is worse because it has less attack tech and ignoring all other figures is very unconvincing.

Also if he intends to keep me blocked, because he cannot handle criticism, then it's his problem.

-----------------------------------

by Nomad Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:22 pm

I thought we were discussing different tactics? How can 2 different tactics result in the same account value if one is far superior to the other? That is the entire point I have been trying to make that you have difficulty understanding.

I do not block you because I can not take criticism, but if you want to believe that because it makes you feel better that is ok with me. I am not offended. I block you because me and you have an unproductive ingame dislike for one another ( I by no means dislike you as a real person, would actually love to have a brew with you guys. I bet actually talking out the issues we fight about in text I could understand you better and could get my points across to you better). I enjoy having an enemy. Your my enemy ingame. Here in forums tho that adversarial position is unproductive. I just choose to be the bigger man and let it alone. I also freely admit I was hounding you at one time as you try to hound me now. I do not want or wish to stop you as its your right same as mine. All I ask is for you to do it in the correct and legal manner, and to stop abusing your forum admin powers. Even tho martin "tried" to claim someone would come running, I find it funny that behind the scenes myself and atleast 5 more talked about Manlevas post and could not figure it out. Kong said he was going to message him(I cant say he did or didn't for sure, but no one backed Manleva because none of us saw it. We complain when we see something wrong. Whether or not you see it as wrong is a different matter, but we do not just complain for the hell of it as Martin is trying to imply. So believe whatever makes you be able to sleep at night, and ignore what I tell you as usual, but for the record Criticism has nothing to do with it. When I am wrong, I admit it, When a point of mine is defeated I accept it, and when I make a mistake I apologize. Wish everyone here could say that.

As for "Random". Well you are correct that you do not understand how my brain works. I thought it was well explained Exactly how each example was chosen. So any claim of randomness I just do not get. You do not have to take my posts seriously. Nor do you have to believe my posts at all. Does not stop them from illustrating truths found in the examples tho.

You see a good rebuttal would have been better played by exposing the lack of information on my example account. How long it has been playing, other vital information such as that. Attempting to say that 2 accounts of equal value must be compared defeats the entire purpose of this discussion because that is what I am discussing (Not sure what you are discussing). The entire point I have attempted to make boils down to this.

Putting everything into stats and neglecting growth is a valid strategy that has its time and place. The most obvious and easily seen example of this is a new account. By neglecting growth and increasing core stats the account can be made comparable to some measures of the "average" AW account. This allows the new account to take risks and be looked at as a viable threat even if it is smaller. Then After the core stats are decent enough to sustain the account the focus must shift to growth. During this mode the account would bolstered its core stats first, then focused on growth will reap many rewards in the form of lower losses, being able to see and strike bigger, juicier targets, and being enough of a "threat" that diplomacy happens in cases of bad hits or other issues over being massed for a first time issue. It also reaps rewards in being able to hold larger and larger amounts of kewel out due to having a better defense. It can be argued 50 different ways and to be honest I do not care. A human player will play as he wants to. Fun will ofter outrank logic. All I have to say is the proof is in the pudding. The best accounts seen in the game as far as I am concerned have all used this strategy at one point in time or another with ample success.

And in case I didn't cover it. The entire discussion and views I have made are based on one account being older then another. By your logic the 2 can not have the same account values, and if they do then that proves the newer account has a better strategy because it was able to achieve the same account value in a shorter time frame.

@ Kenzu personally
I wonder why you have turned so aggressive. I mean I have given you every right to be so and I admit that. The timing tho, there is something about the timing. I have been mostly passive with you, far less abrasive then times past. I have had you blocked and never replied to you, so I must wonder what set you off like this. What has made you so spiteful and aggressive. More importantly what can myself and you do, so that we can create a productive relationship here in forums for the good of the game. I know we may never be friendly ingame, I am as much to blame as you, but forums needs to be different, not for me, and not for you. For the forums and for the game. War sections and such as that, by all means let me have it, be as nasty as you want to be. I will take it or ask you to calm it down a bit if you happen to get to personal, but I wont ask for you to be banned, well unless you ignore request and cross the line.

Either way, I'll go back to the block now. Should I see a PM I will gladly read it and respond.

by Keinutnai Sun Mar 04, 2012 4:31 pm

I don't dislike you. I disagree with you. And I realised that arguing with you makes no sense.

by kingkongfan1 Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:22 pm

Keinutnai wrote:I don't dislike you. I disagree with you. And I realised that arguing with you makes no sense.

that is because you cannot understand anything that isn't bound within a "scientific" or "mathematical" equation. we, (Nomad, Manleva, & myself) have tried to explain things to you that aren't "mathematical" or "scientific" in nature, but contain the "human factor" which isn't "scientific" or "mathematical". the "human factor" is for lack of a better term, "desire" what a player "wants". but because it doesn't "fit" into your "scientific" formula, or is "nonsense" "mathematically", you can not/will not take it into consideration.

Because you cannot accept the existence of the "Human factor" as a legitimate, driving force, in the success of any game. there is in fact no use in having any further discussion on any topic concerning this game as we cannot communicate successfully because of the language barrier... I speak from the point of view of a player whose major driving force is "desire" not a "scientific" or "mathematical" equation. what makes perfect sense to me, is a "dumb" move or "nonsense" to you. the way I play would drive you batty because I do what I want regardless of any "scientific" formula or "mathematical" equation, & I believe I done real good so far. you on the other hand are "bound" by "scientific" formulas & "mathematical" equations & cannot see anything else. therefore we cannot communicate successfully because of your refusal to understand the "human factor". (I do however understand your "scientific" formulas & "mathematical" equations as they are explained to me, I just choose not to be bound to them.)

by Manleva Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:52 am

We appear to be going around in circles here so lets try a different track.

Admin has advised that he is considering making a change to the GM where players will be forced to withdraw the proceeds from all trades within x hours
He has also advised that he has considered this for a long time.

Kenzu / Keinutnai is apparently against this and also gives the impression that Admin is only referring to Kuwal. Kenzu / Keinutnai has sited both the benefit of unlimited and unrestricted trading as a means to assist new players to grow their accounts and has also brought up the additional use of the GM as a War Chest.

The rest of the posters are in favor of controls being placed on the GM

So lets look at this again and not in isolation but with regard to what is currently possible and what is coming.

Kuwal - Storage of Kuwal in the GM currently allows players to safely accumulate Kuwal for investment into techs and upgrades which cost more than they can store in their Bank.
Research Changes - These will allow players to invest in upgrades in a drip feed way. - The changes totally negate the need for storage of Kuwal for account growth

UU - The GM allows for the storage of UU acquired from trading and allows for then to be placed back on the market whenever is considered the correct time given the current rates within the GM
Idles - provides a totally safe storage location for any amount of UU

AT - essentially we have the same situation as UU, They can safely be stored in a players account and cannot be stolen

Now lets look at the War Chest concept - ideally it is a place where resources can safely be stored until they are needed. The GM currently provides a place for this storage that is unlimited. Once you have access to the GM essentially you have access to this unlimited storage for almost no cost. This sounds fine but there is a big drawback to this in times of war because this resource pool is completely hidden.

If there is a need for a war chest then I believe that it needs to be a totally separate entity from the GM and it should cost players to construct and improve it's capacity. At this time I given the changes to Research that are to be implemented I cannot see any need for this as they can all be stored in the players account. The only thing that may need to be considered is possibly increasing the bank size in some way. This would also mean that we end up in a fairer situation when in times of war because the current mechanics with spies will show not only the current strengths of a player but also show what the available resources are thus allowing better strategic decisions to be made. It also removes some of the antagonism that rears it's head and accusations of cheating.

Now I know that Kenzu / Keinutnai is probably not going to like this as it is so far so I will offer this suggestion.

1. Resources gained through Trading have to be withdrawn within 10 days otherwise that are automatically placed into the players account.
2. During this 10 Day period these resources can be returned directly to the GM at any rate the player wants. Players will also be allowed to alter the rate for each separate offering once every 24 hours for no cost. This means that you can adjust your rate as the market changes.
3. Resources currently offered on the GM can be withdrawn at any time for the following two reasons
a. Brokering direct to another player - there may possibly be a slight charge involved as now but we also have PTR involved here as a balance. Rejected brokers would see the resources placed back into the original trade offering they came from to prevent abuse.
b. Resources can be withdrawn from a Trade offering and placed into the players account however there would be a 50% tax imposed.

The above provides choice to the player while keeping things fair and balanced and provides both risks and rewards. It allows for trading and investment as currently happens without any additional restrictions but it also means that those who want to play the market do so knowing that there are risks involved both the normal market fluctuations but also there will be a penalty if they want to use it as a simple storage location for resources.

p.s. I have tried to remove as many loopholes as I can but I am sure Nomad will find plenty of holes

by Sponsored content