Too much money?

[z-money]

I'm making this post somewhat on behalf of Anx-, so bear with me.

There has been some sense among vet players that money is becoming an increasingly more attainable in the past few games. I know for a fact that at least four alliances this game, and maybe more, have trade routes that net them immense amounts of cash, amounts that would be difficult to spend without the launching of a full scale (very costly) war. The concern with this is that it has produced an alliance strategy that has become so common that it is scarcely even a strategy anymore. Alliances produce immense huge amounts of cash, which they use to fund extensive minefields and fleets of WBs, which are rammed against opponents' minefields in a vain attempt to gain some advantage, which will hopefully allow one alliance to eventually cripple the other. The problem, of course, is that the huge cash reserves that alliances build up allow them to rebuild minefields completely within hours without so much as a dent in their resources.

Thus, a cycle has emerged, in which alliances (if they choose) actually are able to gain cash while maintaining full minefields and waging full scale war.

This example is not meant as a slight on SF, but their situation this round serves as a perfect demonstration of my point. If the game were functioning at a healthy rate, SF should have been wiped out by our fortuitous capture of their bond and the mine clearing and port busting that followed. But SF still managed to rebuild nearly their entire financial structure in only a few days, funded by PR's and their constantly drained high multiplier port (I presume).

This should be a cause for concern in my opinion. While having many active alliances is great for the game, making those alliances virtually financially indestructible is not.

Thus, alliances wars have become wars of attrition in which both sides nearly always have the resources to survive any and all attacks for the duration of a game.

Perhaps a more relevant example is the Crusaders' bust of a BD level 70 planet earlier in the game. Aside from the notoriety of achieving what had been thought to be nearly impossible (namely, clearing out the BD corridors and busting a level 70 inside their galaxy), their op accomplished very little in the big scheme of things. BD retook the planet the next day, remined the corridors, and the war continued as if the bust had never taken place. This seems to indicate that the entire idea of alliance warfare under the current game conditions is entirely pointless, except for those seeking only repetition and the occassional notable achievement.

So maybe we should be asking ourselves how to break the cycle. Sorry for the length, I'm trying to avoid studying.

[Thennian]

i like this cycle. I dont think there is too much money, almost every game crusaders has been broke near the end of it. If you feel ur alliance has too much money donate it to OF or someone that could really use it

[Harry Krishna]

It seems like one big generalization to say there's too much money in the game based on looking at a single game. It's true that several alliances this round have a billion or more in cash and that losing a fleet of 20 ships in a day won't set them back very far. But that is just this round, and that's how the game is played by some.

There have been games when my alliance has been scratching the bottom of the AA looking for funds to pay for a single ship. I remember one game when we were flat broke in the middle of a war with Reincarnation and *gasp* we had to get back into traders and trade for a week to recover.

I'm not surprised that SF has bounced back from their problems. It shows what kind of alliance they are -- the kind that doesn't give up. Other alliances might have buckled under that strain. Kudos to SF for pulling themselves up and getting back on track!!

It's also possible that the amount of money in the game may be tied to the speed, so that faster games allow alliances to get more money. Just a thought.

[Trigek]

Crusaders has been almost broke or broke in almost every game. Just last game we had complaints about it being to hard to make money from broke alliances like SS and SF. Is this "sense from vet players" from all alliances or just 1 or 2?

You say SF rebuilt in just a few days but they took loans from other alliances and got a nice once a game 100+ mil bounty, and I haven't seen their minefields at the extent that they were. Sorry to say but your viewpoint seems very skewed. They were broke because they were forced to risk their bond because they were dire need of the bond interest.

Yeah the top alliances can be financial sound but to make it even harder hurts the lesser alliances more so.

[Shady_FA-]

SF got funded by terrorists. Don't hate on them because they don't quit.

[JettJackson]

Z it sounds like you are complaining because one team you guys thought was gunnna die to you did not. SO you then haqve to complain about something cus this war is not playing out exactly how you planned

[Purify]

Why should money be the ultimate deciding factor in a game?.....

that is, why should the alliance who uses their programmable calculators to calculate port drainage rates and most efficient trade times have the ultimate advantage when it comes to war???

i think the winner of an alliance war should be the alliance who has the most determination to win and the most success when it comes to fights..... not one who manages one or two successful ops

[Blum]

Why should money be the ultimate deciding factor in a game?.....

that is, why should the alliance who uses their programmable calculators to calculate port drainage rates and most efficient trade times have the ultimate advantage when it comes to war???

i think the winner of an alliance war should be the alliance who has the most determination to win and the most success when it comes to fights..... not one who manages one or two successful ops

Money is not the ultimate deciding factor, but it is a deciding factor. And why shouldn't it be? Money depends on the players' ability to create routes and use them effectively. It also depends on the players' ability to defend bonds and on how players spend the money. All of those require hard work and a lot of time. Same goes for pbusts, port raids, mine clearing... All of those are ways to win alliance wars. None of them better than the other ones.

[Purify]

I understand that money management needs to be part of the equation.... but from what i understood Z was implying that since SF lost their bond and their port they should have been 'wiped out'.... i was just pointing out that having money is not the only thing that wins a war...... and just because you have more doesn't mean you should win...

Like other members of Crusaders have pointed out we are usually the poorest alliance in the game and are often lucky to have a penny to our name at the end..... however, when it comes to a war we are no push over...

If money were made harder to make (i.e. different good prices or multipliers or bond interest rate) I believe the alliance who most efficiently makes their money would have a clear-cut advantage on other alliances and would be much more tougher for alliances to compete...... as it is now... alliances can leave their programmable calculators in the drawyer make money how they want (however inefficient it may be) and still be able to compete in an alliance war which is how i believe it should be...

(btw i also am trying to distract myself from studying for exams)

[z-money]

Purify
PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject:
Why should money be the ultimate deciding factor in a game?.....

that is, why should the alliance who uses their programmable calculators to calculate port drainage rates and most efficient trade times have the ultimate advantage when it comes to war???

i think the winner of an alliance war should be the alliance who has the most determination to win and the most success when it comes to fights..... not one who manages one or two successful ops

First off, I have to thank Anx- for warning me that the only response I would get would be Crusaders whining

But Puri, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit here. Is the use of programmable calculators and the like not a manifestation of an alliance's determination to gain an advantage? The alliance who has the most money should have an advantage (although maybe not "the ultimate advantage", whatever that's suppose to mean). Otherwise, what's the point of making all that money?

And to address STEBO's comment, you're right that we expected SF to die when we stole their bond (although that's not why I'm complaining; I'm complaining because I have nothing better to do).

And Thennian, we don't have "too much" money, but I think it should be cause for concern that we have enough money. We've been mining and remining since basically the third day of the game, and we're still nowhere close to running out of money. Perhaps more telling is that we haven't traded in weeks, and we've been getting cleared by two alliances for the majority of the game, and we're still financially stable.

So I guess my point really boils down to the fact that there really seems to be no more danger in alliance warfare. Everything seems to be about "moral victories" and "bragging rights", but I find that to be rather unfulfilling, when the "defeated" alliance is back on its feet a week later. Wars just seem to have no serious ramifications for alliances anymore, but rather they're simply ways to pass time in the game and spend all that money. Maybe money is the problem, or maybe it's something else, but there just doesn't seem to be much danger anymore.