Posts by bb6

    About exactly my opinion too...

    If just either the resource cap, or the sell fee was there, it would still be fun AND we wouldn't be able to get millions of coins. Since as socroima said (however one should note there are 5 resources and it take two hours to get 1 coin per resource): we are limited to 5*100/2=250 coin wins per hour: fine.

    When there just would be a sell fee, we could still try to get a 2 flip, but there is always the risk to lose coins with the trade.

    I do have a question about # 13. I gat to 65 minutes minimum. The 5 minute walker takes the torch back 2x:

    25 + 5, 20 + 5, & 10 = 65 minutes. I don't see how it is possible to get them all across the bridge in 60 minutes?

    There is a quicker way though: let the 5 and 10 min walk first, then the 5min guy goes back (15 min passed), now the 20 and 25 min walk (40min passed) and the 10min guy goes back (50min passed), finally the 5 and 10min guy walk. So we get to the other side in 60min.

    Q1: B

    Q2: scissors

    Q3: A

    Q4: B

    Q5: A

    Q6: 10 rotations anti-clockwise

    Q7: 2.5kg

    Q8: 20cm (assuming pulleys are fixed)

    Q9: still A (assuming there is no friction)

    Q10: Less than 5 cm

    Let us first look at the trains: using non-relativistic mechanics we see that from one train's perspective the other train is moving in with a speed of 160+120=280km/h. Hence the distance to the other train (140km) with be covered in exactly 30min. The supervisor needs to run 6.3km at a speed of 14km/h, thus takes 6.3/14=0.45h=27min. Since 27<30, the supervisor can pull the switch before he sees the trains collide.

    We only need to hope the switch is in the right place...

    Addendum: when considering the relativistic case, in the frame of the switch, the switch will be pulled in 27min (same calculation).

    In the frame of each train, the speed of the other train moving in, is slightly smaller than 280km/h (it is (120+160)/(1+120*160/c^2), where c^2 is the speed of light).

    In the frame of a train the distance to be covered will be shortened by a factor γ (which is different for both trains), so for the train the collision happens a factor γ earlier than for the switch. However the clock in each trains is running slower than the clock in the switch, by the same factor γ. So a train sees the switch being pulled earlier by a factor γ than the switch sees it.

    We conclude that both trains see the switch being pulled earlier than they "see" collision happen, in fact relativity will help avoid the collision.

    PS: γ=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where v is the speed of the train and c the speed of light

    Supplying a factory with a wait time problem only increases the problem: your supplies lower the WT for the people hauling wrongly, hence they will actually haul more tons, thus increase the occupancy rate and thus drive up the WT. Also notice that any supply vanishes within minutes when a good is called.

    The things one could do with a career like this (except just doing the upgrades), is putting it the offline (if any and possible), haul some $$ in another city or just park it.

    I have proposed it earlier in another thread: instead of having 15/30 days an account can be sat for, have 15/30 (or whatever number) days a sitter can sit for an account. Meaning when the 15/30 days run out, the player can simply set a new sitter who can sit for another period.

    However, I don't see the building as a mean to give an enormous advantage to a few players that were lucky to participate in the winter event with an active team.

    False, I did 36175 all on my own.


    Would you have felt better knowing all you did was actually for nothing ?

    Everything except 1 day has been for nothing (diamonds wise) anyways.


    You need to start seeing the bigger picture, isn't this little sacrifice (we gained a lot already, didn't we ?) worth having many more such fun events ?

    And there comes in the my first question, I look at the even bigger picture.

    Let me ask the same question for the 3rd time: In a couple of events players will have tons of diamonds too and thus gain a lead over new players, how is the situation then different from it was? Saying "the difference will be less" is not an answer as that simply implies you don't want the event building to give a bonus long time players, which is kindof the idea of the building, I suppose.

    Furthermore how should I interpreted the hotfix during the event: "You will get less gold but more diamonds"? Seems like less gold AND less diamonds after all.

    And from The winter event is coming!


    whatever you achieved in this event, you earned it.

    How doesn't that apply to diamonds?

    With our corp members we have been discussing about something like this too. What I have in mind is extending the transport ranking: currently the transports from the current day are visible (that is the tonnage per player since 00:00 GMT), it would be nice if also the tonnage from the this and last hour were visible (that is respectively the tonnage per player since last recalc, and the tonnage per player between the last two recalcs). If one wants to pull it to the max, one could also add the tonnage from this/last consumption in the city.

    Just to share how bad someone can be hit: 98.6% of my diamonds have evaporated (yes I had 36 175...), I wonder how you can EVER say that is "FAIR". Also think about it this way: in a couple of events players will have a significant lead over new players anyway, so we cut the diamonds another time?

    To stress it again, I find it ridiculous, outrages and whatever words you want to add to that...

    As a slightly off topic remark/question: why can't sitters collect station bonuses for corp members and watch videos? In the time one couldn't use gold and stuff, I would get it (one could see ingame time and gold as kindoff equivalent, obviously one can't beat a gold player with enough ingame time, without spending gold). But as sitters can spend gold now, why can't they spend the ingame time?

    Regarding the sitting limitation:

    One could think about instead of having a X number of days an account can be sat for, having a Y number of days a sitter can sit for an account. Meaning if the Y number runs out, the account owner can simply set a new sitter and the account can be ran by that sitter for Y days again (as one can have two sitters, one could get a break of 2Y days straight, before (s)he needs to set new sitters).

    It is useful currently due to some tutorial bug (I never had this bug myself, but hearing it from other ppl): when someone else collects your bonus before you get through the tutorial you get stuck on the "collect bonus" objective. In that case you can PM the guy who did it so for the next bonus you hav the chance of collecting.