Apr 25th 2011, 17:27:54
rockman,
Thank you for your question which i considered overnight.
Your point that the admins have adressed bottom feeding but not topfeeding is well taken. Your point highlights the inconsistency inherent in awarding ghost acreage for one type but not for the balancing rule.
SIMPLE SOLUTION
Reward ghost acres for top feeds.
The admins recognize that the bottomfeed penalty presents a problem. They solve that problem with ghost acres.
The solution leaves us with a situation where both midfeeders and bottomfeeders are not penalized but topfeeders still are.
Ghost acres will defend the fast-growing netters from their decision not to invest in weapons tech while still allowing those who do to benefit from the investment.
rewarding ghost acres for topfeeds will keep the server's treatment consistent with the treatment for bottomfeeds.
thanks again, rockman
Thank you for your question which i considered overnight.
Your point that the admins have adressed bottom feeding but not topfeeding is well taken. Your point highlights the inconsistency inherent in awarding ghost acreage for one type but not for the balancing rule.
SIMPLE SOLUTION
Reward ghost acres for top feeds.
The admins recognize that the bottomfeed penalty presents a problem. They solve that problem with ghost acres.
The solution leaves us with a situation where both midfeeders and bottomfeeders are not penalized but topfeeders still are.
Ghost acres will defend the fast-growing netters from their decision not to invest in weapons tech while still allowing those who do to benefit from the investment.
rewarding ghost acres for topfeeds will keep the server's treatment consistent with the treatment for bottomfeeds.
thanks again, rockman
FoG