| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:30 pm 
Fearless Blue remains a war world and war will remain part of the game on all the other worlds.
Formally, one could say that following the rules as stated in the game, you should be able to fight anyone, anytime without limitations and without reason.
However, we would like the game to be more inviting and less hostile to players, mainly new players and ones who are not able to invest the time needed to build great defense but are mainly interested in the economic part of the game.
We hope that players will try to be fair and not destructive.
If you want to fight a war, find an enemy who can seriously fight back instead of preying upon people who have no clue how destructive a war could be and who wake up to discover that everything is gone.
These people may have invested a lot of time to build and destruction can be swift.
None of this is in our rules but we always found many who thought likewise and kept the game reasonably descent.
We might be forced to consider some war rules to prevent such unreasonable wars but as I stated in the beginning of this message, war will remain an important part of the game for people who want to play a war game.
We are thinking of several alternatives and possibilities to improve the war game:
There are no decisions yet and we will take some time to decide and listen to arguments.
1. The "End the war" booster as described in the last game news. The booster can be used by the attacked country only. There are arguments for and against.
2. Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously.
Example:
An empire with 1 - 5 countries: 1 country can be attacked.
An empire with 6 - 10 countries: 2 countries can be attacked simultaneously. Etc.
Once the war is over, a new war can be started.
The attacked empire has some time to prepare defense for the other countries or place them in war protection.
The empire will not be destroyed overnight.
3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones.
4. Make the defense cheaper so that defending countries could build a stronger defense without increasing their spending.
5. Place the three weakest countries in secured mode. (Suggested by Yankee).
There are some variations possible: let the player choose the three countries.
This may make the number of countries that can be attacked much smaller.
When secured mode was introduced, we had a lot of criticism from many, about limiting the possibilities for war.
We would prefer the suggestion in point 2 but this is an alternative. |
| Dale Legge (White Giant) | Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:58 pm
IMHO there should be no limts on the number of countries that can be attacked. Some of the most fun in war is coordinating such attacks with fedmates/allies on your enemies, if limits are introduced it will be a one by one process which will slow down the whole process.
If this was happening on other worlds I could see it being a huge issue but this is the war world as stated many other places. If you are trying to give people a chance to build up on the war world before becoming possible targets why don't you just introduce secured mode for a set period of time for new presidents?
I play on WG because I prefer the mix of the econ and war, I know from reading about the different worlds what each stands for and the type of player you need to be to be on those worlds. A brand new player who signs up on the war world should not be surprised to see armies crossing their borders, that is what it is all about there. Sign up for one of the other worlds, learn the game and make friends/allies/enemies then move to the war world like everyone else.
Why again ruin that particular world for the vets who have put so much time and money into it for people who have no clue and 75% of the time bail after their trial. |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Friday, July 10, 2009 - 07:16 pm
War is fun as part of a fed. Interacting with your allies is the most fun part. Limiting the number of wars would interfer with this. |
| Alarich (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 10, 2009 - 10:24 pm
i like it all, but there shouldn't be limts on the number of countries that can be attacked. |
| Gandolf The White (Kebir Blue) | Friday, July 10, 2009 - 11:43 pm
Three suggestions (either/or, or all)
1)Limited secure mode for first two (leader and first slave) on FB.
2)Require an amount of play on another world before a player is allowed to have a country on FB.If they don't learn how to play on a tamer world then thats their own fault.
3)Once the player decides that they are ready to go to FB make the cost of the first country 50GC.
Also make it abundantly clear BOLD TYPE, IN YOUR FACE! that FB is a WAR WORLD
"FB is a WAR WORLD. As such, war maybe declared on you for little or no reason. Your countries may be conquered and any time or effort maybe wiped away if you are not prepared to play to the level required for this world. Are you sure you want to play on Fearless Blue?"
"Continue" "Cancel" |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 12:18 am
Tom,
I will try to cover my opinions on each point.
1. The "End the war" booster as described in the last game news. The booster can be used by the attacked country only. There are arguments for and against.
I think I've covered this enough but would still like to say I still think it's a bad idea and opens the door to many other problems.
2. Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously.
(W3C's points edited see Tom's original post)
I believe limiting the number of countries that can be attacked to be a rather large problem. I for one try to keep some of my countries out of the war so they can perform missions that can only be stopped if they are declared upon.
Many times I will declare on a country I have absolutley no intention of even fighting simply to stop sneak attacks. Unless those countries that are limited are prevented from joining into the war through the use of sneak attacks then this could very well be another sore point down the road.
3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones.
As long as this worked both ways the only real problem I see with this is the very annoying player that nobody can do anything about. This is whether or not anyone believes it is a serious problem with SC today.
There is no reason to get along or even be polite if there is nothing anyone can do about transgressions simply because a country is too small.
4. Make the defense cheaper so that defending countries could build a stronger defense without increasing their spending.
I play FB so weapons are already cheaper than the other worlds. I do have quite a bit of experience over the years in the other worlds also and I've never had a problem with the cost of defense.
I don't "like" the way somethings are done, specifically the minimums for ammunition on units (which if you'll check you have an email on that subject), but anyone who wants a defense can build a defense.
5. Place the three weakest countries in secured mode. (Suggested by Yankee).
There are some variations possible: let the player choose the three countries.
This would actually defeat many of the purposes for suggesting secured mode for any country, foremost of which, was to prevent a player from being "wiped out"
Many wars are already fought with massive amounts of countries grabbed for no purpose other than to attack a specific target. These C3's warriors never risk thier main countries and keep them in either WP or secured mode for the economic benefit of feeding a loser (the war country).
If you allow the player to choose which countries he no longer needs to spend GC's on for WP, then you've only increased the number of economic powerhouses someone can own on the worlds (other than FB) by two.
This may make the number of countries that can be attacked much smaller.
This should allow a player 3 countries that cannot be taken away.
When secured mode was introduced, we had a lot of criticism from many, about limiting the possibilities for war.
And I was one of them, I still do not believe there should be any form of secured country other than WP. In my opinion, alot of problems we have in this game today stems from both boosters, population sales, and secured countries. (I argued against all of them)
However in the case of population sales, since you cannot gain population through raiding anymore, that's the only real way of getting it other than waiting years.
I do not like secured countries in any form, and I only bowed to them as a way of preventing a player from being wiped out and leaving the game.
My suggestion however can't be "improved" on without destroying the only reason I suggested it in the first place.
Allowing a player to "choose" which countries they keep in secured mode is only going to multiply the problems we now have in this game.
If a new player wants to build a viable empire 3 countries is enough to start with, if they wish to continue that growth then and include 5 or 15 then they should have been developing those countries .
We would prefer the suggestion in point 2 but this is an alternative.
I honestly can't think of one, but if a country is able to attack me, even through "sneak attacks" I need the ability to declare on it. |
| Jabberwock (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 01:45 am
I'm going to agree with most all of what Yankee has to say. I don't know a lot about the other worlds, but FB being an 'all risk' world is what caused me to join.
I'm all for keeping FB as it is. With possibly an increase in Black Out hours (max 8).
Although if a 'Stop War' Booster is what you guys are really shooting for it would be great if the booster could only be used prior to the actual start of the war.
Having FB be a less restricted world when it comes to war would attract only players who seriously want to have a 'no holds bar' war.
I agree with Gandolf on making the risks involved on FB very clear and allowing new players an extended WP time. (Longer for those new to the game as opposed to new to the world).
Also adding a disclaimer that says something along the lines of how very possible it is to lose all assets on Fearless Blue.
It's understandable that W3C wants the game to be more inviting and less hostile. The ideal mix between player and GM control for me would be: (this is strictly for Fearless Blue)
-If the Stop War Booster is a must then only prior to war starting
-Black out times allowed (between 4 and 8 hours)
- Extended War Protection for new players, by this i don't mean a lump sum that must be used right away, maybe give them a credit of 100 months or so. (For new to the game players only)
If they have a credit they could lower war protection to start their first war against a country they can't beat (as many new players do) find out how hard it is and place their credited WP on other countries.
-Increased Security Council Involvement.
-Make access to the Security Council by player vote maybe? We have had a member of the SC that has been inactive for several months.
-It would be largely up to the community to keep the SC as unbiased as possible.
This post is getting to long as it is, but bottom line: Fearless Blue should be the most accessible and least restrictive when it comes to war; and new players (to the game) should be given extra advantages on FB.
Also, the FB community (despite it being the war world) is pretty nice in general and as long as im there i'll help new players understand the intricacy of war (with my limited knowledge that is.)
Another thing the community could do is have an overall training Fed, with no allegiance. Don't know how it would work exactly, but something along the lines of new players being immediately registered into the training fed and having players that are generally helpful be permanent message receivers in terms of this fed.
Edit: I think what the community generally dislikes about changes are the numerous ways other players can exploit them as well as the increase in restrictions, but as always no law is made without it having already been broken. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:20 am
Not that I matter,
But . . .
Restrictions take the realism of the game away.
Changes, good or bad, dont go over well.
From a very unbiased standpoint, 3 secured countries make sense more than alot of the proposals here. For reason I will say
1. Players will have a stable platform to build from. Most would agree that an empire over three countries can be time consuming for maintenance.
2. Assets can be safely guarded in a three nation secured empire.
3. Three secured countries would give a ton of players more opportunity to increase potential GC earnings. Which would of course go to making it easier to pay the 30 gc per month. And reduce complaints, or new trial players from not extending membership. The monthly gc fee, would be more affordable. More players will happen upon SC and while W3 still gets there kickback. Player assets will increase. The cash market will liven up, opening up more activity on the cash market, and stimulating more trade between players for real assets or SC assets and Vice versa. Sim Economies will Grow. That is alot of countries for CEOs not to get their corps nuked in wars they have no part of.
3.Sim ceo's, ( who are the only true eco players DUUUUHHHHHHHH ) would have more opportunity to grow in secure environment, encouraging new ceo accounts and keeping old ones in the game.
4. and finally . . .
All you whiny little whimps crying about being eco driven dictators can quit yer itchin when some real drama comes your way cause you have no business with all that schwag and dum dum pops like this "Candy Land. Keep yer whiny arses in secured mode and CEO's and let the dogs run the yard and eat. This is a dog eat dog world. And thats how it is in the real world. So yes, we know who you are, and when we get the time and space, Im comin for ya. We gonna make you pay. You think you can have all these ECO goldmines sitting around while we have to break even on defense. NO . . . We're not gonna take it.
No We're not gonna take it ANYMORE!!!!>>>>
And LDI can stay, and kick arse and be evil. NO rulez need to be changed, no body needz leaving. Im gettin annoyed by this kina talk. I'm thinking about them hormone pills I've been missing. I get kinda whacky when I can't find em.
Three cheers for three nation secured. Ther is no downside, and the upside is tremendous. What do you say W3. Lets get one for the good guys. YOU hear THEM screaming for it. Give it to them.
Good suggestion Yankee.
I can see clearly now the rain is Gone . . .
FREE LDI!!!!! |
| Man of Peace (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:36 am
I agree. Yankee's proposal is the most logical, least corruptible, and overall best solution I have seen yet. |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:16 am
There will always be players with big empires, who abuse the power and assets they have.
There will always be n00bs who think this is just a war game, or that military power is the only one that counts, and spoil the game for the rest of us.
The two are very similar, the only difference being that the former have managed to survive.
There will also always be players who don't want to war at all, and those who will only war to make the game a nicer place as they define it. Essentially all those different groups of people are self-balancing within the virtual world that the GMs have created ... a microcosm of society.
The GMs have created a great game, and what makes it so fascinating is that there are as many different ways to play, as many different goals to aim for, as there are players. This is a community. Those who survive are part of it, and those who don't, don't have the skill to play such a complex and fascinating game. Survival in itself is a goal, and to limit such an important aspect of the game would be to destroy its appeal.
I prefer Hondo's idea that the GMs bias each world a certain way ...
* A war world - cheap weapons, no secure mode or WP, a place where those who want to war can have fun!
* An economic world - no war at all, with a bias towards economic growth
* A fast world - for those of us who have too much time on our hands 
* One or two mixed worlds, one more peaceful and one more aggressive - for those who wish to explore the full range of the game
... then encourage players to gravitate towards the world that matches their style of gameplay. Taking away the choice would ruin the game, IMHO.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| REALFRIEL (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:27 am
i am a relatively new player. when i picked the world i wanted to play in i read all descriptions of all worlds carefully. i chose fb for the war. i have been attacked and have attacked and , like the real world i was forced to make allies and enemys. what a bueatifull world it would be if powerful countrys couldnt invade weaker ones. its not like that though, i servived and feel quite secure. i understand the war protection and agree but no one can hide forever. if these rules are put into place it will slow down the pace and reduce the reality of the experience. i suggest starting a medium war world where countrys are free to yell at each other after 6 game months then they can start throughing rocks at one another. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:30 am
Again with respect Jo . . .
while Hondo's suggestion is valid and creative, this "concept" already exists in form at present regarding which worlds cater to certain player types.
This kind of approach, is too broad, to be precise, this one
"* One or two mixed worlds, one more peaceful and one more aggressive - for those who wish to explore the full range of the game"
"Mixed" is the problem leading to questions such as , "What is TOO agressive?" and "What exactly IS acceptable?"
This is why this pickle we are in is a major problem now.
3 nation secured gives EVERY player the CHOICE you speak of and I hope you are aiming for.
This leaves the game, great as it is, intact and with a wide range of CHOICE on every world. Not just certain ones.
Three secured nations . . . and after that "NO HOLDS BARRED"
Stinkin beautiful |
| slocketer17 | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:34 am
I think this game should be trashed and the GMs should go find new jobs. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:57 am
Maybe you should just act like an adult and leave without trying to ruin the game. |
| BorderC | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:59 am
You think C3 wars are bad now? It'll be that much worse with 3 Secured Mains.
I think you people (GMs) are making excuses and making scapegoats out of a few people so you can ignore the fact that people are quitting the game due to previous changes you've made and ways you've treated people around here. People have been saying as long as I've been here that the game is dying. You want to blame it on the players. I blame it on the game and the general GM attitude we've all seen.
Develop innovations in the game instead of limitations. Make this a better game. Quit worrying about things like the display and city maps. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:08 am
How can you contradict your self with those statements BC??
Do you really feel like that??
If you can make yourself believe your own lies you are really full of @%#$
If you really believed a word of what you just typed. You'd have been out of here and NEVER even posted that rediculous crap.
GROW UP and leave then. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:13 am
Im just wondering, you rarely have had more than three nations in an empire. From what I've seen.
What does a c3 war matter when you have three nations to have worry free??
Anything beyond that is really too time consuming, so you should be using those as war slaves.
Everyone can have something meaningless to figth with (c3s) and not have to cry about getting a country they have worked on or owned for months swiped from under their noses.
YOU are making EXCUSES |
| Jabberwock (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:56 am
3. Measures that will prevent wars between very strong countries and very weak ones
If this portion of the restrictions are chosen to be enacted is it possible to make that by player instead of countries? I picture two experienced players and an 80mil pop country with number 1 war rank that has enemy countries with 25 mil pop and 50 -100 war rank not able to attack the larger country. Or the larger country suffering from hourly sneak attacks by smaller countries it cannot declare on. |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:43 am
Having 3 secured countries would probably encourage war, which is a good thing. You could spend a lot of time and effort on those 3 countries and if you lose you empire beyound this its not such a big deal. But war is not for everyone, and those that like war mostly dont want restrictions.
War is a very enjoyable part of the game, but like all things it depends who you war with. Some players are good sports, will have fun and sell your countries back to you on the cheap afterwards. Others however are less amicable.
For worlds other than FB I would suggest giving the secruity council more power. Allow the player community to control the community. If one or a group of players is deemed too hostile for that world, allow the secruity council to put controls on them.
War protection on FB is a good thing. We are not always available to look after our countries. Having the option of war protection gives player choice. Other than that I think FB should be a free for all, and advertised at that.
Restrictions are generally harmful, increase player choice. The game is at its best when its interactive. Expand the United Nations. Keep the council to experienced players, but let everyone have more voting options. Weapons embargos etc. |
| Tendo Ryu (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 11:47 am
I had the very same idea as Jo, why not have a world that is an Economic world, without having the war aspect at all, this would create a more balanced game and would provide the correct environment for anyone wishing to play, no matter what their goals. |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 12:01 pm
Defense is a big part of the real economic world. |
| Yankee | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 02:43 pm
"You think C3 wars are bad now? It'll be that much worse with 3 Secured Mains."
Maybe, but then I'm talking about the three lowest ranked countries being automatically placed in secured mode.
Once a fourth country is acquired it "most times" unless purchased, would become the lowest ranked and the top ranked country would them become unsecured.
Same with the fifth, sixth, etc. The three lowest ranked countries should never be able to participate in a war against a player. That means if you wish to keep your top ranked countries out of war, you'd have to pay for WP. And if you wanted guarenteed assets, you'd be smart to develop secured countries along with everything else.
I've already stated I'm in FB and do not think any country should be secured and have argued against many of these types of changes for my entire time in this game (almost 8 years)
This is however the best way I can see for anyone to have guarenteed assets and as someone said the least open to abuse.
Sure you will find people using these new "secured country" C3's as airlift and air drop staging areas. That however would not make C3 wars "worse" in my opinion. It would make it more costly in manpower and equipment but I am perfectly capable of nailing someone on the otherside of the world as long as they are forced to declare with the country feeding the effort.
Air dropped forces are actually rather easy to destroy anyway unless provided with support from a close in country.
As for the "Dedicated Worlds" it sounds good however, how does a new player have any idea just exactly which world they wish to play in?
There is nothing worse than being locked into a boring world as you have no way to move assets without help at this time.
And before someone recommends being able to move empires, that has already been done and found to be a horrible idea (see monkey wars).
Imagine working for years on an empire and having someone drop one next to you that was developed on another world, and was 4 times your size. |
| Blue Serpent (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:05 pm
I must admit, having read Yankee's thoughts towards the "3 lowest ranked countries" being in secured mode.I am all for this.
If you go beyond 3, you open yourself for war or buy wp.
Your not going to lose everything if you do get in to a war or 2.
This booster to enable stopping war, i think is a bad idea.I would much prefer 3 secured and a little common sense applied from all players regarding their conduct in game or on the forums. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 03:46 pm
I'd think everyone would get the "gist" of the following statement however I probably should clarify.
"The three lowest ranked countries should never be able to participate in a war against a player."
All countries including "secured" should be able to participate in federation air defense during a war with a player controlled country. |
| Brian K (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:54 pm
If the problem is on FB why in the world would you ever consider changes to other worlds because of this? If you do not like war then stay the fuck out of FB! All of these proposed changes are ridiculous (and this coming from someone who does like not war). |
| Jabberwock (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 04:59 pm
I don't think the problem is with FB, i think there is a lot of talk about FB because if there are changes to the war game the players want to see FB the least restricted of all the worlds in terms of war. i could be wrong though. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:10 pm
One or two new players stumbled into FB and got wiped out. Yah well live and learn.
Most of the trouble stems from people finding they have spend hundreds of dollars and lost everything.
Most times this would have been prevented had they simply not signed the war treaty.
For what ever reason people gamble and lose then start demanding compensation. It's the same in every multiplayer game where you paid to play that I've ever seen.
Sim Country is not cheap to play and with boosters, cash market etc. it's no different than putting an ATM machine inside a casino.
Someone is always going to bet more and lose more than they can afford. IMHO they simply should roll back to an earlier time, charge 36 bucks to play for one year and forget the rest of this crap. |
| Brian K (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 05:13 pm
Ha ok now I understand it. Some fools spend a ton of money then get wiped out. Now the even bigger fools in charge want to fix it so the other fools who pay that ton of money can keep doing so and be happy. |
| Yankee | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 06:35 pm
That is pretty much the long and short of it.
At one time you didn't need to sell GC's to get money, or population you could gain it by raiding.
For many years the game was free in all but GR where you paid 36 bucks and played for a year. Then they cut the raiding for population, cut the money and came up with the convoluted GC system.
The problem was nobody wanted to pay money to play this game, I'm sorry but you always pay for your entertainment. As long as the cost is reasonable people continue to do it.
SC is now so expensive to get started I wouldn't waste my time. But what we have are people that hit the door, spend money like they never had to pay the bill (some probably don't), then when they get the statement, or mom and dad say's WTF!!! or they get wiped out and realize what it's costing them they get nasty.
Which is why I say roll back and simply charge, let players raid countries for pop (you can sill make cash you just have to work at it), charge 36 bucks to everyone and let them play for a year. If they lose it .. big deal .. start over.
Rebuilding an empire, better and faster once you've learned the score was always the most interesting part anyway.
I've been arguing for almost 8 years to leave the game alone and simply charge for it. As you can tell from what we have today my ideas were "improved" on. |
| Brian K (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 06:41 pm
I would state my true feeling and opinions of things, but I would probably get banned again. However I think you can tell by my last message how I feel about the people who run the game and see that we pretty well agree on things. Veterans like me and you will be a thing of the past in the next year or so if they keep doing things like this that cater who the dumb noobs who pour in cash. |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 06:52 pm
Well once the people that knew what the game was, and could have been are gone, alot of discussions become a moot point.
I've given away countries, empires and almost made it out the door when I gave away my entire account. I made the mistake of stopping in FB or I'd be gone already. |
| Daconia | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 08:10 pm
Just a suggestion. Instead of having the worlds be war or econ...make the players...a player choosing econ..can not attack another player..or be attacked by another player. If you choose the war option...you war against others who wish to play that way...To me that makes more sense than dividing the worlds up. |
| Leen Dierts (White Giant) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 08:33 pm
Yankee you are right! Keep up expressing (y)our opinion, since most of "us" oldtime players are numb of left...
I have known the old "free playing", and all phases that let to what we now have. I think we only need a few minor changes, and let things as the are now.
What do we have now?
1) You don't need to spend more then $ 4,-/month.
2) You can play/build "save" (secured main) and have no risk of losing your "precious" country (what is wrong with losing, anyway? It used to be the best way to learn...)
3) If you want to "buy" a powerhouse, mighty army et cetera, realise that it might look impressive, but you might become a pitty loser when you face some-one who build his empire/army the hard way (by investing time instead of gold coins..)
Minor points, that need to be improved, imo:
4)we have a credit-card competion. Those who spend (extra) goldcoins get higher in rank (is that fair?)(remember Silver's words...)
5)there is no incentive (motivation) to be/stay active. Just set everything on automation and it runs for months without any problem. And you don't need to fear anyone will raid you...
How to solve (improve) these last points? I think less war-protection will be better. No protection when you grow beyond a certain size, or when you are inactive, or when you spend extra boosters. Predation on fat inactives (like me), keeping the community lean and mean, survival of the fittest. That will make this game more interesting.
My 2 cents.
Patience and respect
Leen |
| Alarich (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 09:05 pm
daconia has a point. |
| REALFRIEL (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 02:53 am
well i got to say im one of the guys that came 4 months ago and spent like 100$ so far. i set myself up pretty good and could walk away knowing i enjoyed myself. if i wake up tommorow and its gone i wont play agian cause i see whats coming and its not what is here now. the game , with the exceptions of the times u cant build units is fun , risky, and getting better. if u told me i had no possibility of loseing then id save some money and find a free chess site. |
| Yankee | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 07:44 am
Daconia's point use to be called "peaceful mode".
Problem with that is you couldn't switch out of it and many people found it too boring after awhile.
SC isn't going to let anyone build a 10+ country empire that nobody can attack, it's simply too costly for them. |
| Aaron Doolavay (White Giant) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 08:48 am
When we had peaceful mode it was easy enough to buy a peaceful country so your empire was part peaceful and part not, or start in peaceful and buy a war country. I had that at one point. Of course peaceful came with raised govt. costs so it was bit different than secured mode. |
| Tom Willard (White Giant) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 01:54 pm
Just to clarify several points:
1. We have not decided on any changes at all.
2. We have no plans to change anything on FB.
The only things we might improve are the messages players get when they want to start on FB, warning them of the possibility that they will be wiped out for no reason.
We can advise them more clearly to stay out of FB is they do not want to play this kind of game.
3. The idea of 3 countries in secured mode, shifting the choice of three to the weakest ones is not entirely clear.
Most players now have their main country in secured mode. We assume that they want to keep it in secured mode.
Adding the two weakest countries to a secured group, with secured mode shifting automatically depending on their rank will reduce transparency and people might be surprised to discover changes they don't want.
They will have to watch out what they do to prevent shifts they do not want and will end up implicitly enforcing their own choice, but without the possibility to explicitly set that choice.
So when you have a new country and it is weak and placed in secured mode, and you want a different country to be in secured mode, you can start shifting resources as quickly as you can to make it stronger, increase its rank and return to the previous set of secured countries.
Do we really want this?
4. I see some comments by very long time players who are complaining about repeated changes and lack of reasons to come back and play and no challenges.
We are extremely proud they are here. I don't know of many games people play for 5 to 8 years.
But Simcountry is not what it was 5 to 8 years ago. It is a different game.
It also has many more players who are also participating in the cost of keeping it running. This was not the case 5 to 8 years ago.
We are proud of the fact that Simcounry is a game people play very long.
We also realize that you cannot be a game that is easier to learn than it used to be, has many more features than before, tries to allow new players to develop quickly and not remain behind for a real year before they can reach a high position, prevent the destruction of new players, prevent the total domination by huge empire, keep the balance on hundreds of issues and at the same time appeal to everyone.
This will not happen.
We see some old players go and we also see some of them come back. We also listen to them and believe me, Yankee mails us from time to time and we never put his messages aside. We like the constructive criticism as the only way to improve.
He is not the only long term player who mails us advise from time to time.
We think that on all other worlds (excluding FB), war should remain part of the game.
On the other hand, we want to make it harder to wipe someone out in no time even if attacked by a gang of ten strong players. Or specially in that case.
The solution should not be too protective or the war game will become obsolete. It has to be somewhere in between.
We would like in fact to remove many limitations in the war game and also allow players who are not interested in the economy to play the war game only. We currently plan the details and will announce ahead of time.
There are some good ideas here and we will wait for more.
We will be back with suggestions before any decision is made.
This problem is serious and must be solved.
We are on the eve of a large increase in the number of players. It has already increased in the past months and will move up much faster. The number of available countries will decline.
We expect in fact that building an empire and holding it may become a little harder. As availability of countries will decline, the way war is conducted will become even more important. |
| Ares (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 06:58 pm
Thank you for the clarification Tom. I like knowing what is going on. |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 09:47 pm
/me applauds Yankee
Spot on Yankee. I hope the GMs listen.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Yankee (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:07 pm
They do listen Jo, it's a matter of whether or not I can convince them.
However, like a politician they try to keep everyone happy and many times make so many "deals" what is done most times many times is no longer effective.
Even I'm not sure what they really want, I know they want to make money (who doesn't). Thing is do they want it all at once, and risk the game, or do they want it long term at the cost of rapid (realitively) development. |
| Tom Willard | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:41 pm
This was not constructive. Even worse, it did not help anyone.
We had a discussion about possible changes in the war game.
It does not need to be. there are many ideas by now and there is enough time before it is implemented. |
| Yankee | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:57 pm
Sure it was Tom, Jo statement indicated the GM's do not listen.
I simply told her you DO listen. Alot of people actually believe you do not care.
I know different, what I do also realize is you listen to everyone at once and many times attempt to compromise between suggestions.
Most times those compromises end up being nothing like what what originally intended in the first place.
Even this last post of your's indicates W3C has already decided what it intends to do. The rest of us will as usual simply wait to see what they are. |
| Yankee | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:59 pm
And if you are referring to my post prior to Jo's, it definetly needed saying as the problems are all interconnected. |
| Tom Willard | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 11:03 pm
There is no decision on what to do.
some of the people here are on vacation and we will wait for them anyway to participate in this discussion.
I hoped to get something out of a discussion here.
I am not sure it will happen. |
| Yankee | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 11:07 pm
LMAO and so you delete the post which actually gets to the heart of the enitre situation.
Way to go Tom, I can see just how "intereted" W3C really is in what we as players deem as problems
Anyway I tried, do what you will |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 11:08 pm
I'm sorry for any confusion, but I wasn't suggesting that the GMs don't listen. That's not what I said.
I have emailed the GMs in the past about problems and they have always listened and put in the work to fix them. If anything, I have found them to be far more reasonable and supportive than some others on this forum suggest.
I merely stated that I hope they listen this time, as I have never tried to alert them to anything by posting on this forum, and I therefore have no idea whether it is the best medium in which to get the GM's ear ...
My support was for Yankee's suggestions to bring back C3 raiding ... the best incentive to learn the war engine, the best way to build up your country's defences and the best diversion for those who enjoy warring - far better than picking on noobs or raiding inactives. And also for getting rid of the cashout feature / GC market. However, that post seems to have been deleted ... 
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Dubhthaigh (White Giant) | Monday, July 13, 2009 - 03:10 pm
Hello there, I will try to take an impartial look at the proposed changes, their implications, and if anything can be done to achieve similar results, but in a less intrusive/drastic way.
"Three countries in Secured Mode."
Implications:
* It will be possible for more players to become involved in the war game, as large warslaves do not have to be supported with billions of population or propped up by the cash market. +
* Big federations will play a much larger and more effective role in the game - military power is no longer reliant on the individual's ability to pay (GC) for upkeep costs - you will have 100 secured economic slaves powering a virtually untouchable strike force. This will be taken to the extreme with the planned implementation of federation contolled armies. + / -
* You nullify the point of honest war in SC - to punish or remove undesirables from the game. Wars only use will be to gain wealth through raiding unsecured countries. -
Conclusion: I feel this change would be a bad one. You will be leaving the door open for a breakdown in the SC community. The game is online and thus has no laws other than those in the license agreement - it takes players to enforce some kind of moral and behavioural standard. If you take away the ability to do so, the dirt stays on the clothes, and noone wants to wear them.
Solution: Give new players 60 days of free war protection per country, and remove the 30 day limit. WP should be placed on automatically, until they turn it off. Make war protection cheaper.
"A War Ending booster."
Implications:
* You nullify the point of war, and make it very hard for players to weed out those who are making the game unpleasant for everyone else. -
* You open up the option for raiding players to 'farm' GC, by declaring on rich weak players who will use the booster. Who needs to strip or take a country when the GC is paid directly to you for it? + / -
Conclusion: I feel this change has both positive and negative implications - new players get an option to keep their countries for a price, and old players get an additional source of income. I can't see W3C liking the ensuing raiding though, and it will again deteriorate into a bitching fest.
Solution: Make war protection cheaper.
"Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously."
Implications:
* The player will still lose that/those country/ies - they will be outnumbered and stand even less of a chance, and you have solved nothing. Once the country/ies have fallen, the attacker will move onto the next lot, until the empire is gone. -
* You cannot declare on a whole empire unawares, and leave all the countries open for attack. This is good for new players as they cannot lose all their countries at once. +
* The element of surprise will no longer be a factor. War becomes more boring. -
Conclusion All you are doing is adding more limits and restrictions. People play SC to do things online
that they cannot do in real life, they want to be unrestricted. You are making the game less appealing, as with all these baby-coddling changes.
Solution: Make war protection cheaper. (notice a theme going here?)
Overall: I believe you (W3C) are suffering from a lack of trust in the player base. You are adding changes that try to take the power away from some, and give it to all. Unfortunately, all that will do is open the way for anarchy and lead the game towards an unattractive community and subsequent death.
Solution: Trust us more - sometimes things do happen unfairly, yes, innocent players do lose their countries, but
on the whole Very rarely. If you look at the history of all worlds, if someone begins to act unfairly or disfunctionally towards others (especially towards small ones), they are removed, not by the admins, but by other big players.
If you are that worried about new players being attacked, give them free WP for a period of time, and make WP cheaper overall. By adding restrictions, all you are doing is crossing off reasons people have to play. |
| The Goldern Khan (Fearless Blue) | Monday, July 13, 2009 - 05:52 pm
Well said Dub. Making war protection cheaper solves alot of trouble easily. |
| Jojo the Hun (Fearless Blue) | Monday, July 13, 2009 - 07:40 pm
Lots of great posts. My two cents:
War booster: nay, lousy idea in so many ways.
Yankee's "weakest 3 countries secured": sounds like the most well-thought out game change proposal I've seen in my two years here. Could benefit players on the full range of levels of play.
Making war protection cheaper: I hate seeing huge militaristic empires on the "war" world constantly in WP for months on end. Basic principle of the war game seems to me that the stuff you use to wage or potentially wage war should be accessible for others to attack. Big countries in wp supporting little c3s in action violates that. Big empires in wp that come out only at opportune times, to take other countries then go back into wp, also violates that. Cheaper wp by itself will just encourage more of this.
More WP credit for noobs: sure
Limit number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously: Dub said it well, not a helpful idea.
Greater distinction between worlds: Sure, though I think a basic appeal of this game is the interplay between war and economy. Personally I see FB as just about right in its balance. It is very possible to have a strong empire running in the black financially there, and still be involved in wars. I'd like to see a war playground world where economies are irrelevant. More to the point, I don't want FB to become such a world.
Blackouts: working fine, and could well be increased to 6 or 8 hours.
Overall tenor: As Dub said, W3C has to trust the players. A bunch of jerks won't make a good game, no matter what rules and policies are put in place.
W3C making money: I've paid more to Kinko's to play this game (a couple of hours of online access while on vacation) than I've paid to W3C in the past year. Wouldn't mind spending more for the game. |
| Tom Willard | Monday, July 13, 2009 - 09:31 pm
Dubhthaigh and Jojo too, thanks.
I busy now but I will react within 24 hours.
there is a lot here to try and find a fair solution that will not introduce any more limitations.
we would like to remove limitations. |
| Tom Willard | Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 01:52 am
24 very log hours.
Here is some response and additional suggestions
"Three countries in Secured Mode."
Implications:
* It will be possible for more players to become involved in the war game, as large warslaves do not have to be supported with billions of population or propped up by the cash market. +
* Big federations will play a much larger and more effective role in the game - military power is no longer reliant on the individual's ability to pay (GC) for upkeep costs - you will have 100 secured economic slaves powering a virtually untouchable strike force. This will be taken to the extreme with the planned implementation of federation contolled armies. + / -
* You nullify the point of honest war in SC - to punish or remove undesirables from the game. Wars only use will be to gain wealth through raiding unsecured countries. -
Conclusion: I feel this change would be a bad one. You will be leaving the door open for a breakdown in the SC community. The game is online and thus has no laws other than those in the license agreement - it takes players to enforce some kind of moral and behavioural standard. If you take away the ability to do so, the dirt stays on the clothes, and noone wants to wear them.
Solution: Give new players 60 days of free war protection per country, and remove the 30 day limit. WP should be placed on automatically, until they turn it off. Make war protection cheaper.
-->
I tend to agree with your arguments. I also think that increasing the number of secured countries will have more negative effects on the participation of smaller players in the war game, structurally reduce the number of countries that will participate in the war game and at the end, diminish the war game in Simcountry. I also think that automatic assignment of the secured mode to different countries will be confusing.
I also agree that new players should have a longer war free period. I am not sure about reducing the price of WP. This too can result in more permanently protected countries and a diminished war game.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"A War Ending booster."
Implications:
* You nullify the point of war, and make it very hard for players to weed out those who are making the game unpleasant for everyone else. -
* You open up the option for raiding players to 'farm' GC, by declaring on rich weak players who will use the booster. Who needs to strip or take a country when the GC is paid directly to you for it? + / -
Conclusion: I feel this change has both positive and negative implications - new players get an option to keep their countries for a price, and old players get an additional source of income. I can't see W3C liking the ensuing raiding though, and it will again deteriorate into a bitching fest.
Solution: Make war protection cheaper.
-->
This is not an ideal solution of course. It will invite attacks aimed at winning the coins. It will however offer some protection and while the war is stopped, other countries might boost their own defense or use WP to prevent a next war. There could be some improved variations of the same.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Limit the number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously."
Implications:
* The player will still lose that/those country/ies - they will be outnumbered and stand even less of a chance, and you have solved nothing. Once the country/ies have fallen, the attacker will move onto the next lot, until the empire is gone. -
* You cannot declare on a whole empire unawares, and leave all the countries open for attack. This is good for new players as they cannot lose all their countries at once. +
* The element of surprise will no longer be a factor. War becomes more boring. -
Conclusion All you are doing is adding more limits and restrictions. People play SC to do things online
that they cannot do in real life, they want to be unrestricted. You are making the game less appealing, as with all these baby-coddling changes.
Solution: Make war protection cheaper. (notice a theme going here?)
-->
This solution will reduce the risk of total destruction and will give the attacked empire time to either boost it s defenses or place countries in WP to prevent short term creeping destruction.
It is indeed a new limitation and as such, undesireable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Overall: I believe you (W3C) are suffering from a lack of trust in the player base. You are adding changes that try to take the power away from some, and give it to all. Unfortunately, all that will do is open the way for anarchy and lead the game towards an unattractive community and subsequent death.
-->
No lack of trust. Just looking at the facts, now and before, we know that very destructive wars will continue. There are always some who don’t care. I do not see how this will lead to anarchy or death. Death was predicted many times before. Simcountry keeps growing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Solution: Trust us more - sometimes things do happen unfairly, yes, innocent players do lose their countries, but
on the whole Very rarely. If you look at the history of all worlds, if someone begins to act unfairly or disfunctionally towards others (especially towards small ones), they are removed, not by the admins, but by other big players.
-->
It always happened. In the past it happened a lot. Secured mode solved a huge problem we had before with many very destructive players, no secured mode and no WP.
They were not removed by the community. Not in the past and not now.
We had to intervene, both then and now and explain to the players that they can’t just destroy players and make clear that we are watching.
As a result, they stop for some time and some of them leave.
If the community would tell them to stop and take action, this discussion would be obsolete.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you are that worried about new players being attacked, give them free WP for a period of time, and make WP cheaper overall. By adding restrictions, all you are doing is crossing off reasons people have to play.
-->
Giving new players more WP is a good idea. Making it cheaper as will reduce or diminish the war game as I argued before.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yankee's "weakest 3 countries secured": sounds like the most well-thought out game change proposal I've seen in my two years here. Could benefit players on the full range of levels of play.
-->
I explained why I think it is not a solution. An automatic choice is even worse. It will be manipulated by players who want to make their own choice and it is complex for users to figure out where protection is moving all the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Making war protection cheaper: I hate seeing huge militaristic empires on the "war" world constantly in WP for months on end. Basic principle of the war game seems to me that the stuff you use to wage or potentially wage war should be accessible for others to attack. Big countries in wp supporting little c3s in action violates that. Big empires in wp that come out only at opportune times, to take other countries then go back into wp, also violates that. Cheaper wp by itself will just encourage more of this.
-->
I agree. This is exactly what will happen if we make WP cheaper. It should not be used as a long term solution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
More WP credit for noobs: sure
-->
Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greater distinction between worlds: Sure, though I think a basic appeal of this game is the interplay between war and economy. Personally I see FB as just about right in its balance. It is very possible to have a strong empire running in the black financially there, and still be involved in wars. I'd like to see a war playground world where economies are irrelevant. More to the point, I don't want FB to become such a world.
-->
I agree. We could make war even a little cheaper on FB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blackouts: working fine, and could well be increased to 6 or 8 hours.
-->
I agree on this too. We made it short as an experiment and to see if people like it. We are for prolonging the number of hours a little.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overall tenor: As Dub said, W3C has to trust the players. A bunch of jerks won't make a good game, no matter what rules and policies are put in place.
-->
True. But we all know that there are some who will go for trouble whatever the rest of us may think of it. We hope that the community will regulate itself with some more power and sometime even fight for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other suggestions:
1. When a country is attacked, the closer it is to full destruction, the harder its defense may become. The idea is to make it harder to conquer, assuming that the defensive forces become harder to destroy when their country is closer to losing the war.
Wars may then end earlier, without any country being conquered.
2. Allow both sides in the war to request a cease fire. Each cease fire request cost 1 gold coin. The gold coins are given to the winner if he wins the war and does not take the country. The coins and divided by both if the war ends differently.
3. Variations on point 2.
4. Reduce the number of simultaneous wars or at least, take the war indexes of both parties into account when war is declared to prevent disproportionate wars.
5. Make de defense cheaper or make the attacker loose more weapons in attacks.
6. Make sure that beginners get clear and precise message explaining them the risks of war and giving them clearer advise on how to best and quickly protect your country.
We would also like to remove some limitations
1. Scaling down any automatic deactivation of the army.
2. Making it possible to build a large army even if the economy is not functioning.
3. Allow a faster army buildup on FB and a review of max spending on the other worlds.
4. Allow LLW and MLM of all ages to be part of the army and allow conversions of some other groups of managers into MLM to make more people available for the army. This will make it easier to understand and make it possible to build a larger army with the same number of population.
5. More will be added. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 04:25 am
It is terrible that somehow, three secured countries had only one negative point from some players, that it will perpetuate wars,
particularly c3 wars.
How did you come up with the conclusion that it will diminish the war game?
I am not sure. Let us not forget that there is only one secured country atm, yet the root of this pickle being debated was wars, specifically experienced players vs weaker or new players.
I am unsure how this conclusion is logical at all given the players input from onset of the thread. A few disagreed at the end, but lets face reality, agreements/disagreements on this fact diminishing/perpetuating wars, is only a matter of opinion.
Indeed both assumptions are ONLY opinions, facts can be checked or proven. Nothing can be checked or proven concerning either assumption.
If players were to choose what to do with the benefit of an extra secured nation or two, that choice is completely theirs and totally unpredictable. No one can see into the future and predict what choices people would make.
I think that the assumption up or down on secured nations is made out of fears or bias.
I also feel strongly that the players that suggested three nation secured, addressed the concerns of w3c, new/innocent players, CEO players, eco and war players, together as a whole. It appeared to be the most balanced rational solution that took all classes of player into consideration provided a remedy to each class, from a practical and balanced standpoint. Not to mention the ease of implementation.
The concern I have now, not that it matters, is that this idea has been overlooked and stamped as stinky by those who would have you think every one is out to destroy.
The idea should be revisited, with the utmost sincerity in my opinion. The solutions offered here are more confusing than I ever thought, and inevitably will lead to negativity when confusion or glitches/bugs hamper implementation of these complex suggestions.
I would also like to address a comment made by Dub as well.
Wars should not be used as "punishments". This a very "bold" statement. And poses a risk to the danger as much as you say it would help.
If it is of your opinion that a player should be "removed", this should not lie in the hands of any player or group of players. This should rest solely upon the shoulders of w3c, that is their job. The community has been given reasonable menas to correct what it deems bad behavior in game. Boycotts. And the boycotts work so that there is not a single player or group of players, that can abuse a boycott. If You are of the opinion that someone should be removed, the means available to you should suffice.
If a player breaks any real rules that deserve removal, w3c can and should ban such a player.
* You nullify the point of honest war in SC - to punish or remove undesirables from the game. Wars only use will be to gain wealth through raiding unsecured countries.
Honest war should be fun. Too many wars start over personal anemosity or BS. If they were fun, more people would love to play the war game. In fact, they are not all fun. Because of someone elses actions, someone decides to judge someone, and decides to be the jury and executioner too. This has lead, to me starting c3 wars, players asking for changes, plyers getting those changes, and starting this type of behavior again. The deterrence was taken away, and it was business as usual. Now the complaints come from n00bs who have been rubbed the wrong way. So in essence we are back to square one.
No player should be judging another, or making a war personal. The fact is that
SERIOUSLY there is only ONE game here.
IT IS CALLED SIMCOUNTRY.
NOT SIMCOUNTRY ECO V1
NOT SIMCOUNTRY WAR GAME V1
SIMCOUNTRY.
War is a part of the game.
So is economics.
Players are players.
Mods are Mods.
Players play the game.
Mods and Gods "Remove and/or punish them" (if needed of course )
This line should no be crossed. Know your role and shut your mouth.
Three nation secured in no way poses a risk to either side of the game, it benefits both, and helps out another class altogether; CEOs.
Please reconsider, I personally would like to retire to three nations where I don't have to fight anymore.
I can get three slaves to fight with, why wouldn't I want three economic slaves.
The debate should be about how they are chosen. I seriously agree, that the three weakest should not be in secured. The automation can and will be confusing. It should stay as secured is now. But the idea in general is golden.
Give me some of what you guys are smokin.
Thx for listening Tom . . . and Dub no offense. Glad to see you back. |
| BorderC | Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 02:41 pm
I know that anything you do will upset some group of customers. But, you said that the worlds will be overcrowded soon. Wouldn't it be a good time to start a new planet and maybe implement some of these features there? That way nobody's current empires (investments) would be affected and everybody would know what they are getting into. There have been several suggestions and maybe that would be a way to experiment without causing more people to leave.
BC |
| Hondo | Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 06:39 pm
A test planet is a very good ideal. Try out your ideals before they are implemented? That is logical, humm. |
| The High Profitess (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 17, 2009 - 01:35 am
I thought one already existed, not sure if it still does |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:14 pm
[edited for content-off subject, sorry] |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:27 pm
(ok, I'm going to read the whole thread now that I got that out lol) |
| BorderC (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:36 pm
This wasn't about FB. This thread was supposed to be about everything BUT FB.
The GM has said that FB will not change. |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 11:39 pm
ahh well, I am an unbalanced player, strong economics and weak on the military knowledge and I prosper. Why do we need changes? Simcountry isn't hostile enough to have taught me war skills in 3 years of on and off play! lol
I think there really is no monster under the bed! lol |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 04:31 am
I really think this is out of control.
Where are all these 'victims'? All these newbies getting terrorized to where we need changes?
Why aren't we hearing testimony to the effect: "when I was new I wish we had more protection because yada yada yada" or "what made the game not fun for me as a new player was yada yada yada"
I don't see any of it, no victims, nobody has voiced concern over negative experiences they don't want to see others experience, I'm really not getting what the GM's issue is.
Did Obama bail out or take over Simcountry when I wasn't looking?
I want to hear from some victims before I see radical changes that make the simulation less realistic.
We need a realistic simulation with controls to stop exploitations,(cheating) isn't that all? |
| Darke Katt (Kebir Blue) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 02:04 pm
When I was new there was no form of secured mode. You had to play the game, and you felt driven to do so. Survival was difficult, and you had to learn how to play and use the features of the game to your advantage.
The game was engaging, challenging and - most importantly - fun.
Now the game is entirely different.
Tom, you and the rest of W3 are idiots if you think adding further handicap to your skilled playerbase will improve the game. You want to seperate econ players from warlords? Fine. Return us to the time when you had two choices - war mode or peace mode. No more middle ground where I can't attack player X for being rude, obnoxious and insulting simply because W3 thinks being good at the game is a crime.
Why is being a good player a punishable offence anyway? Why do you cater to the ever-fleeting noobs rather than the players who draw pleasure from the game and invest in the long-run?
There are two types of player who start playing this game, Tom; the noobs and the newbs.
Noobs are the players who come into the game cocky, arrogant, ignorant. They mouth off, get their arses handed to them in their first war, then cry to the GMs about how unfair the game is.
Newbs, on the other hand, are polite, thoughtful and generally quite inquisitive and innovative. They learn how to play the game - economy and war - and never have need to complain to the GMs. They add to the community and they eventually become veterans.
I know this cycle to be true. I've been here long enough to see many waves of veterans come and go. And I remember when many of them were newbs to the game, entering the chatroom and asking questions, posing answers - getting involved.
The only reason you see a problem, Tom, is because it is the noobs who complain to you because they do not know how to play the game. The newbs go on to become experienced players without need to complain to you. Playing the fool as always, you take the noobs' complaints as fact and handicap the rest of us.
You want to help the noobs at the expense of the newbs and experienced players? Well, its your game to ruin as you see fit. Personally, I think you'd solve the problem by incorporating some form of useful tutorial to help educate the new players. Something that takes them through the A to Z of game features, joining all the dots along the way so that they understand how the game works.
Because, let's face it, if they do not have time to conduct war in this game then they also don't have the time to run a strong economy. Both are equally time-consuming and in-depth.
So either teach the noobs how to play, or let them stay in peace mode. If they want to war they should learn how. All you're doing is catering to the type of player who wants to fight, but only if the game guarentees them the win. |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 04:44 pm
Online games always seem to result in a ton of whiners that the game manufacture has to deal with. I'm convinced you'll never see another Sims Online because of that. It seems the younger the group that you attract the more intense the whining is.
I had this next part typed out last night but it wouldn't let me post again, I guess I posted too many in a certain period of time, maybe it will let me post it now, so here it is:
_____________________
If this were Electronic Arts it would go a little like this:
[EA Boss]:
Tom, you have a minute to step into my office?
We need to discuss the Simcountry project,
There's been a complaint, apparently a moderator or someone posing as one engaged in a war or conflict with paying players and as you know EA forbids employees from establishing relationships with the customer in our online gaming communities. The complaint cites LG and a member or multiple members of management removing war protection and denying declarations of war on Little Upsilon, do you know anything about this? Fix it, please. Make sure it doesn't happen again and if you have anything to do with it I don't even want to know.
Also I need you to get on the documentation, that's way over due. Most new comers go there first to learn, presentation is important. It looks like the beta version for Pete's sake. If your guy can't handle making the site look professional and attractive with 'bang up' icons and a killer front page to present to new comers then spend a little of the money coming in off of the game and hire from outside the company.
Pick it up Tom. I want to be able to consider you for Simcountry 2, you've done a lot of fine work for us, upper management loves the simulation but they'll bust my bubble if membership dives and things are starting to slip a little and it's showing in the online community so crack the whip, bang some heads and find out what's going on out there.
WEll?! What are you waiting for? get to it.
____________________________
Get my point? This game should not operate like it's hosted out of someone's living room. |
| Split (White Giant) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 04:59 pm
I dont think it is an issue either, however, i suggest putting a failsafe to avoid have a noob being wiped out of his country(if he has more than his main).
Obviously the game is complex and takes a while to absorb and demands time. For the usual player, you wont have time to master either sides for a while (country,ceos or war part).
I dont think it is fair however to not allow a noob to try out his war arsenal. If he wants to try it, whatever, he can sure try.
However, for a veteran or for anybody who clearly can destroy him, whatever the reason why you want to do it, i think a failsafe that prevents you from completely taking ownership of his country IF you are stronger than him. It should stop the whining.
By stronger, you can define it by ranks,score, countries owned, military assets, etc, your choice. I suggest score, since it reflects your strength on both econ and war stats.
So if a noob annoys you, you can still raid his country for example, take cash in it, even pop etc, but after say a period of defined time, the country goes back to him. Some kind of limits could be put to avoid completely raping the country, or not. The said country can be put in secured mode for a period of time to rebuild, and thats it.
The noob will think about it and he probably will settle down, knowing he could get raided again and again and again. |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 05:27 pm
See? that's already covered in having a secure mode country. The only thing that happens to a rude noob is they get blasted back to their main and sometimes get held there for a while until they stop frothing at the mouth. lol Meanwhile they can play until their hearts content with their one untouchable country (on every planet) with some issue with replacing a few CEO corps that will move out because they chose to mess with the bull and get the horns.
I suggest they do what the average noob does, change your name and become a respectful new player.
Tom, you fix the problem by replying to the new player complaint with some facts on how to avoid the situation in the future. If freedom from the situation they are complaining about isn't good enough for them then they are simply complaining for your attention or game leverage over another player(s). |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, July 31, 2009 - 05:59 pm
I'm going to stop posting so much, I'm sorry I'm just blown away by what you want to do Tom.
Haven't you seen the Wendy conflict? Wendy seems to have done well for herself and I have never seen an onslaught like that on a "former noob". (you go girl! lol)
There is no real problem, why are you 'crying wolf'?
Tom what's really going on here? It's almost like you have an entire line of thinking here based on emotion instead of logic. |
| King Xenu (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, August 1, 2009 - 10:14 pm
Darke Katt, I feel the same way you do. That is why I wrote on another post that the GM is trying to create a Socialist Reality in SC. Basically punishing success and promoting and supporting mediocrity. Nothing will so kill the human spirit as forced mediocrity.
One Secured County should be enough. If a noob wants to try out the war engine and be safe, then they should conquer a C3 and practice with the slave.
It seems the GM wants to have a safe, happy economic game. Imho, the economic part of the game is the most boring part, especially when a player leaves and their countries are not allowed to be attacked or bid on until the pop has reduced to 6M.
Making the game too safe only leads to boredom. Real life is inherently unpredictable, which is what makes it so interesting. SC should be even more unpredictable and uncertain. |
| BorderC (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 03:47 pm
W3C:
So you've now reduced the max number of weapons in a unit. Are you done now or is this another gradual change where in 6 months we'll be able to use half as many weapons as before??
Also, what happened to your plans to leave FB alone? The same reductions are there as well.
BC |
| Solomon Grundy | Thursday, August 6, 2009 - 11:27 pm
Who was that talking about a test world? That's what we need so the Gamemaster has somewhere to flip out! lol
No, really, how about that test world? (like any responsible game company would have)
We don't mind changes, we understand that our game experience will change as time progresses, however, I doubt even one of us likes the idea of being used as a lab rat. |
| Solomon Grundy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, August 7, 2009 - 02:42 am
This brings to mind a question.
Were the units already in existence in the game reduced to the new maximum limit or is it just newly created ones?
|
