storage discussion

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Spoiler:

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.

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.

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

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

Manleva wrote: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

Kenzu wrote:I suggest a new tech that allows you to increase bank size for kuwal! (each increase by 1% point of capacity costs more than previous one similar like techs)
This bank tech would add up to the bank capacity you obtained through bank building, gold upgrades or market reserves.
Interesting idea, but I personally think it is a bit of overkill. I think we have plenty of stuff to spend kewul on already, but I'm not against it.

I also suggest an increase in attack turn capacity to 10.000
I have to ask,,,,, Why? having a 10,000 limit is no different then a 6K limit. All the same issues will still occur and still exist. I would suggest removal of the AT production limit, with an activity restriction put in place. 7 days with no log in stops AT production on an account. This way we do not have all the inactives with 100K AT on them. That or actually enforce the restriction that is inplace at whatever amount is set(be it 3K, 6K, 10K, 20K)

I believe that instead of forcing players to withdraw, players should simply pay a certain fee if they withdraw their resources after a certain period.
I agree with this more then a "dump" to the players account or a 50% fee

"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."
The resource pool in a bank is also hidden, and you cannot estimate it, because a player could have a bank size of 200% and he could have a bank size of 1000%
You are right you can not estimate it exactly, but you are wrong that you can not get a good estimate of their upper limit. You can use %1,000 as a rule of thumb or %1500 if they are a top account and know roughly their upper limit, or what it should be. if they are less hen its in your favor.

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:I suggest a new tech that allows you to increase bank size for kuwal! (each increase by 1% point of capacity costs more than previous one similar like techs)
This bank tech would add up to the bank capacity you obtained through bank building, gold upgrades or market reserves.
Interesting idea, but I personally think it is a bit of overkill. I think we have plenty of stuff to spend kewul on already, but I'm not against it.

I also suggest an increase in attack turn capacity to 10.000
I have to ask,,,,, Why? having a 10,000 limit is no different then a 6K limit. All the same issues will still occur and still exist. I would suggest removal of the AT production limit, with an activity restriction put in place. 7 days with no log in stops AT production on an account. This way we do not have all the inactives with 100K AT on them. That or actually enforce the restriction that is inplace at whatever amount is set(be it 3K, 6K, 10K, 20K)

seaborgium wrote:1. 10 days is a decent time frame, however I do see 1 issue. Say I put up enough UU to beable to buy the next level of research. Say I only sell 50% of the UU. Now you come along and place a bid for a better price. Now it takes more then 10 days for the rest of my UU to sell. my first set of sales is now in the bank/open and I am stuck trying to pay for what I was after.

Since this would not happen until after the research changes there would not be an issue as you would simply withdraw then and make a down payment on what ever research you wanted to/ If the concern is for techs then I have to ask why you are investing above your capacity

2. I see this has 2 things posted.
a. Why wouldn't the player beable to put it back on the market?
b. Once every 24 hours? WTF talk about killing the market. The market is part of the game, once every 24 doesn't do anything but make it stale(more then it already is)

a. The proposal was that the player could put the resources back on the market at no cost provided it was done within the 10 day period.
b.Once every 24 hours for free was just a starting point. If you want more thats fine, Once per hour, once per turn for free is fine but I would say if it is to often then there is also the possibility that there could be a charge

3.
a. This is an intresting concept.
b. This single item here would stop every player I know that uses the market for anything.

I'm not really sure what the issue is here. This was about making the GM a place for trading not storing resources and the only time you would be penalized was for using it for storage. By giving the players the ability to virtually change rates at will they actually have the ability to set very high rates so that the resources don't sell and then adjust them when they believe the market conditions are right for them. So what you actually get is unlimited storage for unlimited time for Trading purposes. The 50% stated is negotiable and could be lowered but it also needs to be sufficiently high to discourage the simple hoarding of resources