So, what is abuse?

D DeilocheOP

OP 23/02/2010 · 03:21 AM #1

There has been a lot of controversy caused lately by MK`s use of the UW function. Much of this has been saying that this is abuse of the UW function. This brings up the question of what "is" abuse. Several things that COULD be argued as abuse:

A-Buying out the food market by going far over the limit and simply burning food
B-Buying out any market and burning resources
C-Buying out a market when resetting just to burn your credits and similarly impact the market
D-Hoarding/buying up minerals to prevent opposition from having the minerals to fight a UW, or fight at all
E-Buying a huge number of resources not because you need them but because you can and have nothing else to do
F-Holding on to a UW well past it`s natural expiry time and not due to inactivity

NONE of this is currently labeled abuse. Of them all, I consider A to be by far the worst, and yet it is the most acceptable. I guess not everybody plays tax empires that have to VM for six months of a paid because their empire cannot play, not because there isn`t enough agriculture production but because empires artificially inflate the market price to screw taxers. Specifically virals. :P

So, here`s the question: What do the masses think is abuse?

Notes from my end:
-For F, I hope to ask Stephen whether or not this is meant to be a part of the game. If it`s not, then we need to make publicly visible rules stating that it isn`t, adding constraints and potential fallout.
-I am working on a proposal to stop A entirely, and to limit E (which only affects RT).
-D is completely legitimate and frankly there`s absolutely no way to stop it.
-B is a set containing A, so my plans for A include B.
-C cannot really be stopped, though it would be faced with the same restrictions as B.

N nedflanders

01/03/2010 · 12:42 AM #123

this would make it much easier to build UWs

I ImaVirusOhNoz

01/03/2010 · 12:40 AM #122

Hrm income stays same for miners just more to sell and new people cna get em i like that idea >.> i dont really see a downside to it other than it helps new people get mins >.>

S ScarletTears

28/02/2010 · 10:39 PM #121

this is a friends idea and i think it`s a pretty valid suggestion:

Miner has a Mineral Generation of + 1,000%

What I would suggest is to rise it to +4,000% then drop the price of minerals from 1,000 to 250 max price.

This would increase miners mineral production by 300%. The price of minerals would drop by the same amount there by not affecting there income.

The benefits from this would do the following....

300% increase in minerals made by miners giving a greater amount to the market.
More minerals on the market at a cheaper price making it easier of new players and empires that start over to access minerals on the market.
This would also have an affect of making the mineral cap smaller as minerals are much more abounded.
Miners max there cash faster then any race and many say there is no point selling minerals if they already have max cash. (so they say on the forums). This would at least make them sell 300% more before making making max cash.

The only side effect I can see from it would be that ships would be a little more cheaper to build. This would be for every race so no one race would benefit more.

this change would have to be so drastic but increasing mineral production by a certain percentage and then lowering the mineral price cap by an amount could potentially solve that crisis though it would need some testing...

A Aacra

28/02/2010 · 01:17 PM #120

this is one of the pathetic reasons food prices are high.......

Fed Name Wall Street, Inc.
Fed ID 8011
Leader Brandonia
Short Desc. By owning the market, we control the game.

Website @ http://gc.gamestotal.com/fed/?/8011
Vote link http://gc.gamestotal.com/fed/?/in/8011
You have to leave your current federation before able to join a new one

I ImaVirusOhNoz

28/02/2010 · 06:39 AM #119

maybe once or twice a week food can be BMd for like 14 to give a ittle bit of pressure off of he food prices and dont make a ton of it available and do it at random times so people who buy n sell wont beable to predict it if ya can O.o that way people can be like hey look foods at 14 and buy it O.o

D devorock

28/02/2010 · 06:13 AM #118

ya anything over 15 for food is just too much...ya as a food maker i make more but the damage to big established taxers is just to great.. some kind of 14 or 15 cost bm safety net would be nice

I ImaVirusOhNoz

28/02/2010 · 06:01 AM #117

brains off :( i know theres more to what im saying then i can think of right now :/

B backoff

27/02/2010 · 05:57 PM #116

tax empire is suffering now, juz like me, lol...i guess i will go vm...

D Deiloche

27/02/2010 · 04:21 PM #115

Oooo. Thank you for reminding me about that devorock. That`s another thing I want to get changed. The ability of collectives and virals to use agriculture on infected/assimilated planets.

D devorock

27/02/2010 · 04:12 PM #114

ok i`m a agri marauder and i think some kind of bm supply when market gets too high is best... i`m being honest as long as food stays over 4 a agri terran will make more then a comm cause of racial cluster and ufert bonus.. as a marauder i get -50% but with my lower upkeep and mineral cost i can get maintain a much bigger fleet then a terran with same land or even less land..... as is .. for a agri empire anything over 5 is just extra even a gordo ufert guard can make more as agri then taxing ..if it wasn`t for virals not be able to use agri on captured clusters i`d play every race cept for miner as agri...

D DeilocheOP

27/02/2010 · 03:19 PM #113

Firstly: It`s a programming reason why the food cap is where it is. It could be changed (logically so, given that it is higher on UC) but it might be a pain.

Secondly... that makes it even easier for the empires who buy out the market. They don`t even have to burn food anymore, they can keep it all.

A aacra

27/02/2010 · 01:17 PM #112

It usually isn`t agri empires getting greedy imavirus, it is people who prefer play styles beyond which their land/infra can support, who are buying the food and marking it up. Agri empires make enough cash they have no need of marking food extremely high. I don`t mean this to be an all encompassing statement as there are greedy agri empires too, but they are generally not the huge food producers either, they fall into the catagory i just described as people who like to spend beyond their means.

I ImaVirusOhNoz

27/02/2010 · 12:23 PM #111

no food burnt no food gets freezer burned either at some point ti will sells and virals will have a nice stockpile for when agri empires become greedy >.> good thing im not tax :)

E ear614

27/02/2010 · 12:13 PM #110

I like the sugestion no limit on food because taxer and buy as much as they want and food producers and make much of what they want

I ImaVirusOhNoz

27/02/2010 · 11:44 AM #109

maybe week with viral cap prices and next week with no cap prices >.> if the agri empires want to forgo a week of income to kill off viral taxers i guess they just will burn a lot of food and income for the week and do nothing >.> :)

I ImaVirusOhNoz

27/02/2010 · 11:12 AM #108

instead of putting a price cap or storage cap on food why dont u just take away any food storage cap so that nothing gets burned and tax virals can grab and grab and grab while they can and if nothing sells hgih it will all get returned and not sold not giving the income to agri empires >>>

I ImaVirusOhNoz

27/02/2010 · 11:07 AM #107

mmmmmm toast :)

E ear614

27/02/2010 · 10:15 AM #106

exept on RT we have food crashes all the time XD

K Kraven

27/02/2010 · 02:54 AM #105

arch and rag: I look at just the size of your posts and decide to go make some toast instead of participate here.

D DeilocheOP

27/02/2010 · 02:12 AM #104

See, that`s the thing. There IS a huge amount of supply. The only reason the price is so inflated is because people burn the food wholesale. The market almost never runs out of food. They just jack up the prices.

Regardless, part of my intent was to completely eliminate the ability to burn food. Which you`d know if you`d read what I`d said earlier, but given the sheer amount of text in here, I don`t blame you.

Reply