Movies

Movie gross limit on Starbonds at $250 mil. shipwreckedcrew May 04, 23:09

I've tried raising this point in the past, and it makes sense to me but the HSX gods seem to have no appetite for it {nm} Sleprock May 05, 03:47

I agree. It doesn't need to be a huge raise, but it's been the same since I started playing in 2004. {nm} ryancoke2 May 05, 06:39

Can you imagine how this would effect the current value of a Starbond vs. the aftermath? GruntNoNeck May 05, 07:40

whatever the effect it s time a new stance has been taken for starbonds bunty_ketti May 05, 08:13

That would be better addressed by increasing the share holding limits (which they've done in the past) {nm} warcraft86 May 05, 09:26

Maybe they could raise the cap on all movies released after a specific date. {nm} fourstars May 05, 09:03

You write the logic for that part of the program! {nm} GruntNoNeck May 05, 14:34

Logic Inside fourstars May 05, 15:04

The way to handle this is by adjusting the shares at the same time so the total value is unchanged (math inside) TheDowIsUp May 05, 17:50

IIRC the points made against raising the limit are: (inside) DTravel May 05, 09:44

Also, the fact that more movies are hitting the $250M mark is an argument against raising the cap - it means more starbonds with bigger adj RogerMore May 05, 09:56

I think you're making an assumption that more Starbond play means less Movistock play. Decoman May 05, 16:35

I'm just saying what HSX has said in the past. {nm} RogerMore May 05, 16:56

Starbonds are already a big freebie, very difficult to lose on them. Asking for even more seems a bit much {nm} MattW May 05, 10:15

Agrred. All they take is simple math and the ability to read a calendar. It's easy enough already. {nm} CSBD May 05, 11:50

^--< Are you a pirate? {nm} Abraxas May 05, 18:34

there is no reason for this... RazorHawk May 06, 06:00

Razorhawk, respectfully, I think there is a valid reason for this... Sleprock May 06, 08:04