HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Razorhawk, respectfully, I think there is a valid reason for this...
I totally get what you're saying and respect your opinion, but I do feel differently. Personally, my thinking has nothing to do with how much fake money I could make or whether playing Star bonds is easy or hard. To me, it's about improving the game I love. I think it would improve the game because one of the things I like about this game is how it mirrors the movie biz, and this change would help that- Big stars that draw big BO are more valuable to studios that invest in producing movies. Increasing the limit higher than 250 would create greater differentiation between the starbond values, and to me create a truer reflection of a star's value. I know this thinking is flawed. I know that no one is going to see Avengers because, someone like John Slattery, is in it. But overall, taking the pros and cons into account, I like the idea that someone like RDOWN, whose tag would probably be >$500 without limits (including Endgame), should have a higher value than, say ELILL whose tag would be around $330 without limits...just my thoughts and humble opinion.
Movie gross limit on Starbonds at $250 mil. 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} 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} May 05, 06:39
Can you imagine how this would effect the current value of a Starbond vs. the aftermath? May 05, 07:40
whatever the effect it s time a new stance has been taken for starbonds May 05, 08:13
That would be better addressed by increasing the share holding limits (which they've done in the past) {nm} May 05, 09:26
Maybe they could raise the cap on all movies released after a specific date. {nm} May 05, 09:03
You write the logic for that part of the program! {nm} May 05, 14:34
Logic Inside 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) May 05, 17:50
IIRC the points made against raising the limit are: (inside) May 05, 09:44
I think you're making an assumption that more Starbond play means less Movistock play. May 05, 16:35
I'm just saying what HSX has said in the past. {nm} 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} May 05, 10:15
Agrred. All they take is simple math and the ability to read a calendar. It's easy enough already. {nm} May 05, 11:50
^--< Are you a pirate? {nm} May 05, 18:34
there is no reason for this... May 06, 06:00
Razorhawk, respectfully, I think there is a valid reason for this... May 06, 08:04