LOL. There are complaints that the game is dying and we MUST make changes to make things better, and complaints that changes made in December and January were too much and harmful, but a partial move back to pre-December is strongly resisted.

I have been criticised for relying too much on surveys and polls, as it is not adequately providing for the long term success of the game.

Maximum defense in November was 90 million (well, 100 million with 16.6M of T and E). Now, it is 150 million (more with 16.6M T and E). With this change, we move to the middle of these two extremes for maximum defense.

I do not like the level of points being earned now for top players in a round. The degree of attacking is too low, and the amount of HWs which are almost unthreatened is too high.

This change should restore a bit of the excitement of risk to the game. Yes, it will be a change, and yes, it will make life a bit more "interesting" for some players, but I believe that this overall reduction in power of shields and increase in the value of a x20 planet is needed. In this case, I am not going to change my mind, and I am not going to do a survey. If this is a mistake, I will be open to shifting back to where we are now, if necessary, but I have been criticised too much for too long for not making changes to fix problems, and I am determined to making adjustments which will maintain a more effective balance between building defense and investing in attacks to increase points and reputation.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."

Oh, and why announce so far in advance? Well, some people may want to build shield generator buildings before the end of the round, or shift to x20 planets for defense before then.

I wanted to make sure people had time to prepare in case they wanted to make adjustments to strategy as a result of this change.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."

How are turrets going to be handled? If you have 160 existing turrets and the formula changes for a max defence of 120 for the planet.

__________________________
*Note to self* Do not leave clan with leadership.
System Administrator planet 0 Wolfs Teeth has been captured by Maaak2, Shadow Industries.

Professor, do you feel this will improve the market any? The market has been pathetic to even look at these days. No one is buying...25 credits for E or T ouch

__________________________
*Note to self* Do not leave clan with leadership.
System Administrator planet 0 Wolfs Teeth has been captured by Maaak2, Shadow Industries.

Turrets will remain as they are. You won't lose any, but you might not be able to rebuild some of them if they are killed, as maximum defense will be lower in June. However, you can keep any turrets that are built now, and any surplus turrets will become active as soon as active turrets are killed, the same as happens already when turrets exceed defense for any reason.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."

prof if u make this change u'll be pushing people towards floating hws again

__________________________
It's allways been my fault

As for the market, I doubt that this change will have much effect on market prices. The primary reason for market prices declining has been due to a decrease in players buying credits.

As long as demand for credits purchasing is low, prices paid for resources will be lower. If we want to see higher prices for resources in the market, we will have to find ways to encourage more players to want to purchase credits, so there is more supply of credits for the resources that people are trying to sell.

Lower interest rates, however, might increase resource prices in the market over time, as the supply of resources will be lower, which will tend to increase demand relative to supply over time.

Less criticism of players who are sponsors of the game due to purchase of credits also might help encourage people to purchase credits. Not clear how the recognition of game sponsors will affect demand for purchasing credits. It is possible that showing respect and appreciation for game sponsors (those purchasing credits who are paying for cost of hosting and supporting the game) will result in more willingness to purchase credits. However, if there is a lot of criticism and bashing of sponsors, they might stop buying credits, which will tend to push market prices lower until they consider it worthwhile to start buying again.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."

Professor, don't be a Scrooge. The awards now can be bigger hundred times and it won't do much harm. There would be many attacking people if the winners could get something compensating their efforts. Especially when the homage to the winners is near nothing at the moment.

As for credits i still like my idea about money circulation - everything what is spent for upgrades goes to the prize fund (as an entrance fee in variuos competitions) of that month. The rest credits are used for market operations. A constant number of credits in the game. And you'll be able to make your researches which now are vacuous. People donating a game should get something else, not credits. So at the moment i can't promise less criticism

__________________________
I will defeat you. When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, i'll be waiting.

I think that interest on resources, even with the limits now in place, will still be enough for people to want to have HWs. However, some people might keep resources on ships.

Fortunately, this change overall provides for a middle ground with maximum defense of 120 million with maximum shield generator on x20 building (which is not that hard to build), for 15M T and E on the planet, or 133 million total defense with maximum of 16.6M T and E on planet.

This is much higher than the defense we had in November round, and interest is still effective, but with maximum caps on it as the level of interest in January when it was introduced was excessive (as was correctly pointed out by Filas).

Rather than being a vacilation between extremes, this is instead a move to the middle ground, with maximum defense now greater than it was during June to November 2005 and lower than it was from December 2005 to May 2005. Although it might not be the exactly optimal balancing point for incentives towards defense versus offense, I believe it is better balanced than either of the extreme points we have had on both ends of this middle ground.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."

As for RBAs comment that awards for round winners could be larger, without harm, I do agree with that. I do not want to make them so large as to make it such that winning a round makes it too easy to keep being the winner of the next round, due to having more credits. However, awards are probably too low for winning rounds, and larger prizes will provide more credits to stimulate the economy.

I will consider how awards for round winners should be revised, but I do not agree to RBAs suggestion of a pool of upgrade credits. I prefer a more consistent and stable award structure that is fixed in amount of payout for alliances and players over time.

In the short term, given the fact that HW defenses, on average, will be lower next round, it would not hurt to have some additional incentives for attacking this round instead of waiting. Therefore, I will provide a temporary bonus of five times normal round credits for both alliances and players for this round only as a one time bonus.

__________________________
"Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most."