Too much money?

kilthix · Post by **kilthix** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:51 am

The idea of inflating mine prices is an interesting one. It would no doubt hinder large mine fields, and certainly, especially in games like the last one, with only two CA's, create some very interesting fleet battles as the clock ticked over.

BooRawl · Post by **BooRawl** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:50 pm

Too much money, in the game. I don't see it for the little guy in the small alliance. Big alliances especially the 4 top alliances will always figure out away around no ports in galaxies, and more expensive mines. I think no ports in galaxy will mean that you will need 10 planet builders instead of 3. But only the top alliances will adapt right away. Expensive mines again only the top alliances will adapt and will create more mines in neautral and racial galaxies.

I agree we have gotten into a rut, trade first two weeks, a few hunters get out. raid some ports and build planets. We make the super route and start mining. That is the winning formula along with an active alliance.

Location location can also be of benifit. I just don't see how changing the game will solve the problem. I really think it us that needs to change. We are bogged down in planet busting, mine clearing and fleet battles. That is the way we want to play this game. If you have fleet battles and planet busting mine clearing those are very expensive activities and you need lots of money for those activities.

I think changing the experience you get to a higher rate for military and bounty claims might change the game more than no ports in a galaxy or expensive mines.

But personally I think we have to change. I for one like trading racial galaxies and love when the hunter finds me. But I don't like the galaxies loaded with mines and scouts either.

I don't think there is a solution here as all alliances will protect themselves and maximize there dollars to carry out ops.

The best solution I see is making alliances smaller to solve the problems, big alliances suck is the cry.

Harry Krishna · Post by **Harry Krishna** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:08 am

Every game brings complaints of one kind or another. The game is fine as it is.

Freon22 · Post by **Freon22** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:26 am

Harry Krishna wrote:Every game brings complaints of one kind or another. The game is fine as it is.

Here Here, I agree HK. The game is fine as it is. Besides my idea isn't really to control credits in the game but more to slow down mining some. But as far as I am concerned mines are not a problem in the racial galaxys so there's not a problem.

Post by **Jester-** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:51 pm

Quick comment to Z. You guys "stole" our bond but never hit a level 70. How can you claim victory if you do nothing about the advantage you claim? Don't complain if you have a bad op leader/alliance leader. You press the advantage you take. If you woulda hit our lander and then podded us a day or two AFTER you took a big chunk of our money (not all) then you would have hurt us more. But since you just took the money and never came back, I see no reason why you are even posting this non-sense.

**EDIT**

Also for those who do not know, mine prices were inflated a long time ago. They did cost next to nothing, literally. Then they inflated it big time to what it is now, and man did people complain about how draining it was. I think mines are fine now as it is. The real problem was no one fought each other really for the first three weeks and everyone got to build their galaxies. We hit LB and crippled them early, but that was the only real action I saw early game. I think BD hit crusaders once then backed off. So hit'm early, crippl them late. Yes?

z-money · Post by **z-money** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:10 pm

well here i was thinking this thread was dying out, but here goes nothing.

as we've already established, we were in a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation after we stole your bond. if we continued to attack, we would not only face criticism from the community at large that we were adding insult to injury, but we would still be doing nothing about the other alliance attacking us. as we're discovering now, since we didn't attack you, we face criticism from the community for not following through with our initial crushing blow.

more importantly, regardless of whether you think we made a tactical error or not, i haven't seen you guys doing anything against us since that attack, so we stole your money and accomplished our objective of taking you out of our picture, which i would describe as a victory. and in case you've forgotten, we even tried to squash your port after taking your bond so that it would be even harder for you guys to recover. the fact is, any further attacks like that would have been a waste of time on our part, particularly considering the determination you guys had to stay in the game and your ability to borrow money from other alliances. i suppose we could have busted your lander and podded your fleet, but our spy wouldn't tell us where you guys had landed, even when we offered him more money than we were already giving him

Freon22 · Post by **Freon22** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:23 pm

Jester- wrote:Also for those who do not know, mine prices were inflated a long time ago. They did cost next to nothing, literally. Then they inflated it big time to what it is now, and man did people complain about how draining it was. I think mines are fine now as it is.

Don't mines cost 10,000 credit each? Because if they do then that has been the price since the last year or so of the 90s.

Thennian · Post by **Thennian** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:28 pm

i dont think anyone wouldve criticized you for beating SF down. Its what i wouldve done, *I* might not have given you much credit for busting their lander and podding them all after they were all broke and half of them in fed but still it wouldve been a killing blow.

SYS konfigg · Post by **SYS konfigg** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:39 pm

It's a post about how much money is in the game. Not who hit who and how and why....and why not.

So to that point, money is a bit to easy to get.

...

SYS

Volrath · Post by **Volrath** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:45 pm

Thennian wrote:i dont think anyone wouldve criticized you for beating SF down. Its what i wouldve done, *I* might not have given you much credit for busting their lander and podding them all after they were all broke and half of them in fed but still it wouldve been a killing blow.

Thennian, after taking the bond, we did ONE last OP, to destroy SF's port...

DURING the OP, GLOBALS from CRUSADERS were flying everywhere!!!, saying something like: "Bah, beating on the crippled instead of comming to the ONE, true enemy", and other remarks much more low in content...

you are right though, you wouldn't have given us much credit if we kept at it! you wouldn't have given NO credit AT ALL!!

In fact, Im pretty sure you would be here saying something like "BD can't come for us, so they have to attack an already beaten opponent..." (i've read this comment a couple of times, in past games...)

but i guess we all are used to this (and by all, i mean the "community"), people just need to find arguments to try and bring enemies down, whatever those arguments may be...

I've been in (or read about) alliances beeing criticised for getting involved in a war between 2 other alliances, or for not getting involved and have to attack a smaller alliance, criticized for attacking an alliance till they have nothing, or not, or for teaming up with another alliance to beat a bigger one, or for forming a nap to hold twin galaxies, or for attacking smaller alliances that had teamed up to attack us, or for not attacking at all and just defend our galaxy, or for not having galaxy and OP out of fed, or for attacking everywhere in small ops against everyone...

the list is endless, just because its the way this "community" behaves...

and now, someone from whatever other alliance that's not my own, will grab a small piece of this post and turn it around and make whatever i just wrote pointless...