Very loosely proportionate for a very short time... but whatever floats your boat.

So instead of $10 :: $15 going down to $7 :: $12 maybe it will go down to $7 :: $11.50 or something. The point is that supporters have an alternate revenue stream that is only partially reduced less than the income of everyone else is reduced, and only for a short time.

There is a reason the resource OPs greatly balanced out the resources in the game, everyone got the same chance at more resources, but people winning solely on donations dropped significantly... this is the same effect but in reverse, albeit in a less significant way, but still. I just hate people making decisions on faulty math.

To me... nukes are reaching their targets most of the time, even if the cost was 200..

yeh, 250 is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to much back to 200!

Nope.
The supporters revenue stream is reduced along with everybody else's assuming they keep donating the same amount of money. Of the methods of boosting that increase oil/metal revenue, only the six mentioned (metal/oil big, small and emergency) do not increase by percentage. So I'll only discuss this type of boosting, as this is the one that concerns us.
Firstly, "partially reduced" is false, it is reduced along with everybody else's, as it is adjusted according to current world averages, and Michael will likely change it anyways. Now, only for a short time is also false, as supporters will have to pay increased costs to get the previous revenue increase. They will, as I have previously said, have to boost more at the lower end of the efficiency spectrum, spending more money. Furthermore, these boosts will not cap at mid-game as they have previously. They will only max out when the current world averages reach the required levels. This means that people will get the big boosts when everybody is richer, when each individual unit of resource is worth less. Which means that supporters will not be gaining an advantage through this update.

You are operating under the false assumption that directly and indirectly proportional are the same thing. Until you get over that, you won't understand my point.

[/quote]

That will actually make the game more competitive as there will be less farming for conquers and more Alliance vs Alliance fighting over Resource Outposts.

[/quote]

And what about when the alliance that has all the resource outposts is one of your allies huh? What then? My alliance is part of a HUGE network of alliances that cooperate with each other. I can't take resource outposts from alliances that I'm friendly with, and there are never EVER enough resource outposts to go around. It's one thing to compete with your enemies, but its impossible to compete with your "friends".

wow