Posts made by Broker

@Conny_Action There is no point in accumulating resources.
It is possible to make the mine itself store resources.

@FtXCommando Excuse me. How old are you?

@Exselsior I don't do any training.)) I just follow the game. Because of the nostalgia for Total Annihilation.

@Ctrl-K This is too much. You need to keep yourself within limits. )))))

@Exselsior without storages there were 6, with storages 9.
now there will be 9 without storages. so what? ))

@Jip just shoot at the mines. ))
I don't think that in reality your action is used. unless by complete nerds.
but there won't be any popularity if you make a game only for these people.

@FreadyFish I consider these actions pointless.

@SainseRow without storages there were 6, with storages 9.
now there will be 9 without storages. so what? ))

Hello.

I propose to remove the need to equip mines with mass storage.
This is not a secret and everyone does it. Therefore, it does not affect the game at all.
It only forces you to click more and pay attention to useless actions.
There will be no need to write and maintain scripts for equipping mines with storage. The code will become simpler.
You can also remove the radar generators. Just reduce energy consumption.

You just need to increase the output of the mines and increase the cost of improvement. And that's it.

I hope at least this proposal will pass.

@sylph_ no . single player it is company.

@ftxcommando you are not interested in any proposals other than your own.
It’s not clear then why these discussions are needed at all. other players have already written to you about this.

I'm sure that if I go into the game in five years, nothing will change.
I think you'll like it.
but others get bored.

There are 7 billion people living on earth, and how many do you have? this is a rhetorical question.

I think the discussion can end. bye

if you don’t want to change anything, then why these questions like proposals, discussions of balance, why are players leaving us?

let everything remain as it is. as you personally want. it's your right.

@ftxcommando are you alone in the game?

@sylph_ The problem with what you wrote is the transfer of balance from single player to multiplayer. If you do this, then you will get exactly what you wrote.

for example, a T2 fighter cannot shoot down a T3 bomber. If you didn't have time to build a fighter, then you lost.
or your ally has lost the air, you cannot do anything against Avasa or the king.
or your enemy beat the Moor in 30 minutes, you in 35. Most likely you will lose. and you can’t do anything else either. wasted time.

@ftxcommando that's why your audience isn't growing. That's your business. good bye.

@conny_action because there are more of them.
and it is this approach that gives most people pleasure.

@blackyps I suggested making two sets. for different players. In my proposal, labor costs are minimal. I understand it.

And so the game will remain a game of nerds. it's a pity.
although nothing prevents you from doing an experiment.
except for the desire and fear that now no one will play with nerds if there is an alternative)))

@thomashiatt not necessary. I understand that labor costs are important. so my suggestions are to minimize them.

@blackyps the game hasn't changed in any way.