Another one of my suggestions!

This is another one of my suggestions that just popped into my head and refused to get out until someone like SA pointed out every one of a few million flaws that are in it. This one might be a bit more to the liking of newer players, much like myself. What is this suggestion, you ask? Well, why don't we have a new server? Not reset the current main server, not have a reset server like Red Apocalypse, but something permanent, but new. A new server where everyone has equal chances of getting big. No offense, I consider SA as one of my few friends on this game, but he is getting ridiculously big and powerful, it's been over a year now and I have made absolutely no progress over him. The ones that are powerful will always be powerful because they started playing the game earlier so they have an advantage. I say have a new server where everything is separate from the first one, but whether the logging in IDs will be the same or not will be up to Admin to decide, that's his job. I say this because the bigger players will grow faster than we smaller players will, so it's like cumulative frequencies, we will never catch up.

So ANYONE agree with me here?

Only if it is vastly different to the current servers, Something like no supply turns needed for military functions but used for farming and raiding.
Punish accounts in other ways like the more the weapons are used higher the upkeep becomes, There's a lot that could be done to get a stand alone new server.

I don't disagree with the suggestion, I just see 2 issues with it.

1) the existing player base is to small already

2) this is a bandaide. In a year someone will be asking for a new server because they can't catch you.

That is a fair enough thing, and is a flaw in this plan. There could be a way to decrease growth of bigger players like tax to a universal bank/trade market that gets higher as you get bigger, thus making it easier for smaller players to grow, that way another new server won't be asked for.

Also, I see no problem with the existing player base, it is already far larger than some of the games I have played in the past, where it was as low as 300.

Mental, I agree with that, but there is no problem with the game system being same as the first server, is there?

It was an interesting proposition but as Nomad has said there is not a very large player base and really the situation will only reoccur again in the future.

There are already mechanisms in place to somewhat address player growth for the bigger players, AE reduces income and higher costs for researching techs and upgrades do this.

Unfortunately there are three major issues as well. one is that there are to many exploitable features in the game, another is that there is to much opportunity for those who can afford to use real money to advance their accounts and finally what is most likely the major contributor, player attitude

Big players already now earn less than 50% per farmer compared to what regular players earn.

Kenzu wrote:Big players already now earn less than 50% per farmer compared to what regular players earn.

Add to that, the larger accounts have more military and therefore more weapons upkeep. That also drops their total income much more.

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Big players already now earn less than 50% per farmer compared to what regular players earn.

Add to that, the larger accounts have more military and therefore more weapons upkeep. That also drops their total income much more.

Their military is much smaller percentagewise than for average players. Average players might have 60%-80% in income units, but biggest players can easily have 95% in income units. This means that small players suffer more from weapon upkeep cost than big players.

Okay, let's not get into an argument here. I can almost feel the calm before the storm. No offense.

Thing is, though, in this game, the main factor in growth is not income. Income only provides about 10% of the growth, or even less, in my opinion. The most comes from raiding and farming, which is far more effective as you get bigger than others and have a better military. Although having a steady income is necessary, trades on the market and pvp is a far larger growth source.

That is my opinion, anyway. Nomad will probably find the technicalities and mathematics behind the scenes and completely trash my theory, but oh well.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Big players already now earn less than 50% per farmer compared to what regular players earn.

Add to that, the larger accounts have more military and therefore more weapons upkeep. That also drops their total income much more.

Their military is much smaller percentagewise than for average players. Average players might have 60%-80% in income units, but biggest players can easily have 95% in income units. This means that small players suffer more from weapon upkeep cost than big players.

And again the only reason for this is the players themselves and their attitudes not the games mechanics.

@goku1719 - there's no arguments here, just some spirited discussions.
The storm is outside my window and your more than welcome to come and take it away as I am sick of it raining in what is supposed to be summer.

goku1719 wrote:Okay, let's not get into an argument here. I can almost feel the calm before the storm. No offense.

Thing is, though, in this game, the main factor in growth is not income. Income only provides about 10% of the growth, or even less, in my opinion. The most comes from raiding and farming, which is far more effective as you get bigger than others and have a better military. Although having a steady income is necessary, trades on the market and pvp is a far larger growth source.

That is my opinion, anyway. Nomad will probably find the technicalities and mathematics behind the scenes and completely trash my theory, but oh well.

No I fully 100% agree with what you said underlined above,,, been saying it for years. Glad someone else finally spoke up and said the same thing.

I wont bother to try to rebuttle Kenzu. Its a fact more weapons = more upkeep. He can argue it 20 different ways from sunday and its still a fact.

Manleva wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Big players already now earn less than 50% per farmer compared to what regular players earn.

Add to that, the larger accounts have more military and therefore more weapons upkeep. That also drops their total income much more.

Their military is much smaller percentagewise than for average players. Average players might have 60%-80% in income units, but biggest players can easily have 95% in income units. This means that small players suffer more from weapon upkeep cost than big players.

And again the only reason for this is the players themselves and their attitudes not the games mechanics.

@goku1719 - there's no arguments here, just some spirited discussions.
The storm is outside my window and your more than welcome to come and take it away as I am sick of it raining in what is supposed to be summer.

I disagree. It really is the game mechanics, because 10% in each military stat is what average players need so that they won't get farmed if they bank 2-3 times a day. Sure, you could say they don't need any defense at all, they can be machines not sleeping and banking every one hour, and you might call it a different attitude, but I call it an unhealthy Lifestyle. A normal human being, who goes to work/school and sleeps enough will not be online for 10-12 hours regularly. To prevent being farmed, he must have enough defense to keep his 20-24 turns of income safe. (Logging in with mobile phone is a viable option for some people, but not an option for everyone). Certain Lifestyles, like that of a working person, don't allow the attitude of being online all day long. Even less so for people with wifes and children.

I would somehow agree that income is not the main source of income, obviously, but income is important. Yet, you only need to log in 2 or 3 x a day to keep your income with the correct account setup. When you wake up, before going to work/uni/school and once you come back, or you mean to tell me that you don't have enough time to log in 2x? I don't consider this unhealthy. I manage work, school and a very serious relationship this way.

Also not even big players can afford to keep 95 % of their uu in income units. It's just stupid. What will you fight with in case of a war? With me that would mean 5 mill units in total to keep in attackers, defenders, spies and assassins and untrained units. What can I HONESTLY do with that? Regardless of my levels (and they ARE good) I can be sabbed, farmed and destroyed easily with only 5 % of my uu in army units. So from a strategic point of view it is, pardon the parlour - retarded.

I have 2 m in def and strike, and 9 m covert units to keep me safe (and my income). So let's break it down for the sake of argument:
- 10 % tops in strike and def together (some have RIDICULOUSLY different set ups but who am I to judge?)
- up to 5 % in covert units (preferably 10 % but this applies to bigger players)
- up to 5 % in untrained units (just in case - always good to have spare)

So that's 20-25 % you need in warriors (don't pay attention to SA and mental - them 2 are an exception as nobody is as big as they are). Not one 1% more. That would be how I'd advise players to build their account.

What you need to calculate in is the income and how much you generate and what amount is safe for you to keep outside the bank. So what it boils down to is the income/defense ratio. Nothing more, nothing less. Naturally you have to keep the income normal and not destabilite it by having more than that 25% in army units.

Let me examplify 3 different scenarios:
5 mill (minimal army size) -> 300 m income tops
28 mill (average army size) -> 1 b income tops
92 mill (my size) -> 2 b income tops

5 m army size:

- 500 k in defense (no need for attackers as you can't do anything but farm/raid smaller players) which gives what, around 15 b def?
- 500 k minimum in covert and assassin each (otherwise you're just a sitting duck in a war)
- 250 k u uu in untrainable just in case (optional)
- 3 m income units
- 500 k workers and miners (as this is the max to have safe)
This would generate around 300 m income tops. So he generates 15 b a day, roughly. Around 10 b would be safe to keep outside. That's around 18 hours of not being logged in.

28 m army size

- 500 k in attackers (cause you can and could possibly pay off with farming)
- 1.5 m in defense (which should give a defense of at least 40 b (lvl 12 and 200 in techs)
- 1.5 m in spies and 1 m in assassins (same reason as above)
- 26 m uu in income units (1 m workers and farmers each TOPS) which gives an rough income of 1.5 b a turn. 1,5 * 48 = 72 b a day. I believe this is pushing it as it is anyway as the income will be definitely lower.

So for him the safe amount to keep out would be around 25 b easily as the attacker needs 4 b room and with his def the usual death ratio would be around 15 (with techs 300 + in attack) - 25 k (normal techs) units, so depending on the attacker the costs range from around 20 - 30 b losses for the attacker per hit. Simply put – I (with 340 % total in attack and level 13) lost 15k units in a hit on a 35 b def, loosing 21 B. So to farm him he would need to have at least 25 b out, and even then I'd be pushing MY luck. Not many have my kind of techs, so they would have even bigger problems farming him. But let's stay at 25 b. This player would have to log in 3 times a day. Every 8 hours then for less than a minute.

Now the 92 m acc with 2 b income tops
Should I do the math for this one as well or will you believe me when I tell you that 2m uu is all i need in def not to be farmed by ANYONE in the game if I log in 2, 3 x a day?

As for the topic, I'm on nomad's side here. In 1 year someone will tell the same thing to you, as they won't catch you. And please, no other server, as pointed out perfectly - the playerbase is too small. There is virtually NO general trade or economy as there is a lack of supply while the demand is ridiculous. So obviously only the big players seem to be able to afford it (where I care to disagree).

Damn, this was a long post ... sorry if it wasted anyone's time

I thought Ian left?

Someone has to keep his memory alive! Seriously though, you think I'm wrong?

I don't. I do the 3 log ins a day system. before work, after work, before bed. 5 to 10 minutes ingame max.

@ Sea,,,, he was Ian's 2IC for a rather long time, I'm sure he rubbed off on him LOL

Nomad, my friend, you are right And yes, I did learn a thing or two about long post ... had to read many in my time

and then 3 years later a third non-reset server?
(it's like 3 hours of work to start a new server to run as a carbon copy of main server, that's not the issue)

don't take this the wrong way, i'm literally just doing devils advocate now

The other issue that arises is that just because there is a new server does not mean that all of the players will play on it. Most of the big players will not see any reason to move over and start again from nothing and really will not be interested in playing two identical servers.

What you would ultimately end up with is multiple servers with diminishing player bases on each one.

That is a point that did not come into my thought process. I guess the way to go would be to do something new for each server, like AF is being done?

And what is this deal of Evolution, can someone explain? In a SHORT post, thank you!

evolutions is dead.

RA has 6 or 8 active players this round I think.

As for what Evo was suppose to be? Thats one for admin I guess. I understood it to be a short rounded game that would be used to test some things for main, be different every round, but still keep the same basics. Game would be much faster paced then the rest.

I see. Not that I understand exactly what it meant, and I didn't get a chance to play Evo cuz I don't know how to access it in the first place, so I never got around to playing on that server.

I would play RA, but I really don't have the time or needed commitment to perform at the level I want to on that server. I would rather not waste effort on a server where I am not going to play regularly.

Evo is not running mate. It was shut down to launch RA. Eco was an exact copy of main but ran 4 times faster in all areas.

Yeah I know, I meant I didn't get to play it when it was around because I didn't know how to access it.

Nomad wrote:Evo is not running mate. It was shut down to launch RA. Eco was an exact copy of main but ran 4 times faster in all areas.

Please note that Evolutions and Red Apocalypse are not mutually exclusive.
Admin could launch Evolutions anytime he wants and it would not influence Red Apocalypse the slightest.

I suggested to him over the year a couple times to launch the Evolutions server at least the way it was, but he wants to make some big changes to it before he launches it again, and didn't have the time to complete these changes yet.