| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Monday, December 21, 2009 - 06:17 pm 
Dear Santa (Gamemaster),
I would like to present the following petition as the wishlist of a returning veteran, and I am sure other players will add more to this.
1- Allow transfers of intra-empire professionals from 1 screen instead of country switching back and forth
2- Allow transfers of intra-empire of non-military supplies instead of country switching back and forth
3- Allow the setting of income tax % for general population
4- Implement the long-time promised natural resources
5- Make the Transport Index more realistic.
a) Allow the building of civil airports. This is impossible right now. What modern country has no civil airports ??
b) Allow the building of seaports for sea-border countries.
c) Create Cargo Ships corporation for transport of oil, gasoline and other products that cannot be transported by air
d) Create Trains corporation because the train tracks have been unused for 500 SimYears and the population deserves to travel by train.
6- Allow setting of default corp name or mass corp renaming
7- Simplify the military side with division of air, land and sea instead of def, off and strategic.
a) Weapons like light tanks/heavy tanks,etc. are redundant
8- Allow more diversified education and health buildings. I would like to see Librairies, Research Labs (for pharmaceutics) and Hospital Universities (to train health staff).
9- Complete the implementation of unfinished features (budget, natural disasters, etc).
10- Implement other long-time promised features like terrorism (civil and corporate), etc.
11- Indefinitely delay the implementation of fancy features like space travel until 1-10 have been completed.
12- More regular vote news (every 2 weeks instead of every month).
a) GM-Proposed polls on features implementation. Let the players decide. |
| Petra Arkanian (Little Upsilon) | Monday, December 21, 2009 - 09:03 pm
1- yes
2- yes
3- maybe. should influence other indexes if allowed
4- yes
5- eh?
a- build air transport corps, there are your airports
b- just for sea border countries? lets fix land navies first
c- why?
d- why? will either of these enhance our game play or will they open up possibilities of new features down the line? If so, sure
6- yes
7- makes sense, but would take some revamping to reflect the disparity between offense and defense currently affected by having separate arms for each
8- see 5c/5d
9- would be nice. Also, you mean REMOVE natural disasters, right?
10- this is as brilliant an idea as natural disasters >_>
11- reasonable
12- yes
a. would make more sense to have a group of players "beta test" new features also, but sure
The majority of Manny's suggestions are not major overhauls and would indeed be very nice to see in the near future. It shouldn't be hard to see these things before the "fancy" new features. Although, I do believe natural resources will tie in with the space trading, etc. That's the one real "major" change in the wishlist, which I think I annotated well :P
Glad to see trains at #5 (5d, at that!!) and not at the top of the list ;P |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Monday, December 21, 2009 - 09:21 pm
Some good stuff here, biggest of which would be mass corp renaming...I'll add to that mass anything renaming, i.e. military units, cities, forts, etc. |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 02:48 am
@Petra:
5- Civil airports are infrastructure. They require 5-10K employees max. Not 140K per corp. Think of them like water treatment facilities (not perfect example since these have no employees but anyhow).
c) There is no sea transport right now, it's nonexistent. How are oil and gasoline transported right now ? How is electric power transported ?
d) absolutely. See 5c. Train transportation is a transport mode. Intermodal transport enhances trade, etc.
8. I didn't mean remove the natural disasters, no. But like I mentioned in my poll, the only thing that was a disaster was this feature itself. We were promised hurricanes and all kinds of natural disasters and we ended up earthquakes that killed millions.
12.A beta test world was suggested years ago.
We even suggested a battle royale world where the top 16 (or top X) from each of the other worlds would battle each other during one month.
Last man standing contest with big coins prize at the end.
This would something like this:
1st week: everyone starts with 1 protected country and can expand.
Week 2-4: full war mode. No protected countries. Empire vs Empire wars. etc.
@whiteboy:
good point, didn't think of that. |
| Inanna (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 03:59 am
Battle Royale World should be an opt in only for 30gc for that month. Each president should have 1 - 3 nicely stocked war slaves, that comes standard for all players opting in. Each president should have a winner take all approach, meaning he/she would fight through their region, continent and then last man on each continent. Maybe a round robin style setup to give all players a level playing field, and no fed wars, just pvp pool style purse with w3c getting a percentage rake on the total prize pool. This benefits everyone and w3.
It would certainly settle the score between a lot of presidents who cant fight aprt from their feds.
I for one hope this idea would be debated and improved upon. |
| spartacus303 | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 07:04 pm
I forgot to mention that a BR world would have no fed, no common market, no stock market, no natural disasters.
It would be a "Lite" version of the other worlds. This would reduce a lot on the technical issues. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, December 22, 2009 - 07:22 pm
That sounds like fun...I'd definitely be down for something like that  |
| Scarlet (White Giant) | Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 09:09 am
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. I'm doubtful that the consequences of having an player-controlled income tax setting would be worth it.
4. Sure, why not?
5. Does it really matter?
a. These exist in the game already.
b. Disagreed. This would give an unfair advantage to coastal countries, unless an equivalent can be built in landlocked countries.
c. Disagreed. No purpose.
d. Disagreed. No purpose.
6. Agreed.
7. Agreed.
8. Disagreed. No purpose.
9. Partly-agreed, they should be completed or done away with. I would personally like to see those unfinished features removed altogether rather than finished.
10. Disagreed. We have sneak attacks, just target corporations.
11. Agreed. I would also like to add that perhaps more time should be spent fine tuning the existing features and interface than on adding yet more features.
12. Agreed. |
| Gold And Coal Researcher (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, December 24, 2009 - 04:10 am
and one last wish to santa:space program such as nasa etc.to add it for the country score. |
| meow69 (Little Upsilon) | Friday, January 8, 2010 - 12:20 am
I have a suggestion actually make government type do something and add more types. its just a shame that it doesn't matter if your a monarch, dictator ,democracy or republic. maybe when people buy a country ask what government type you want for free. then to change it require a revolution where you have mybe a year or so of decreased production lose a percentage of your weapons . mybe damage or lose some corps. what does everyone else think. |
| Zeba (Golden Rainbow) | Friday, January 8, 2010 - 03:24 pm
I like Wendy / Spartacus303's idea of a Battle Royale World very much. I think you could get a budget to spend on ammo and weapons, which of course you would get instantly for your 3 well stocked war slaves. No WP, no Feds, and a 1 month time limit...now that would be fun. Empires would function as Feds do now.
Less focus on the Econ, so corps could be dealt with in the same way...pick a bunch or corps till you had your fill...cash flow would still be important in that you would need to decide whether to run a deficit and put GC's into your countries or try and make cash to afford more weapons without adding cash.
Actually...i could see sim having multiple Battle Royale worlds perhaps set up so you and your friends could sign up for private battles or you could play in the general Battle Royale world.
Sign me up...I drop 30 GC on that right now! |
| dboyd3702 | Friday, January 8, 2010 - 08:11 pm
How about being able to set the price you well sell to Common Markets at. |
| Laguna | Friday, January 8, 2010 - 08:45 pm
I want trains. Can we have trains? Trains sind gut! |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 03:04 am
Trains are part of the bigger picture.
Simcountry needs to implement logistics.
How do product go from country A to country B if it is not by truck or plane ?
There are no cargo ships for sea-bound trading routes and there are no train to go on the traintracks.
Trains are also used for intra-city transit and inter-city transit, and international transit.
I can't imagine a world without trains. Anyone who wants to go from Paris to Bruxelles takes the train, the plane is not an affordable alternative.
Also civil airports cannot currently be built by presidents without the "air transportation" corps. And these corps cannot be ordered by private enterprises.
Complete non-sense !! |
| whiteboy (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 09:43 am
I'll add that to the list of the 8,000,000 other things that don't make sense in the game...but guess what, it's a game...most games make no sense at all, at least this one makes at least some sense most of the time. |
| spartacus303 | Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 07:29 pm
Simcountry advertizes itself as a simulation of the real world.
Well guess what ?
The real world has trains that go on traintracks.
Simcountry has traintracks but no trains.
Either remove the tracks or add the trains.
I think the latter is easier.
The added a "car engine" corporation which is completely useless. "Car parts" would of been better.
But now it bares the question, if there is a "car engine" corporation why not a "truck engine" as well. Don't truck also have engines ?
Or maybe it's time for electric cars !
So back to trains.
If there is a "car engine" corp that can be added with such ease, then a "trains" corp can also be added.
"Transportation services" would also be nice. |
| Petra Arkanian (White Giant) | Saturday, January 9, 2010 - 07:34 pm
I want a petroleum products corporation to refine all my oil into everyday goods.... how come rubber and household products don't use oil, GMs?!
No, seriously. It would help me a lot... |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, January 10, 2010 - 08:48 am
I know you have good intentions spartacus, but I really do not understand the obsession...what exactly would be improved in the game if a 'trains' corporation was added? How would that make things any better than they are? I think there are hundreds of other real improvements that could take place which would be of value to players. However I just don't think it would add anything to anyone's in game experience (except for yours of course) by adding trains corporations. Explain to me the actual in game value of these corporations (and I don't mean telling me that train tracks need trains to function), how will trains corporations change anything?
As far as car engine corps, I don't get that one either (why not strut corps, transmission corps, axle corps, etc.), but I'm not going to spend alot of time thinking about it because none of the corps listed will have any real impact in the game other than making things just slightly more complicated than they are now. |
| Jo Jo the Hun (Fearless Blue) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 05:07 am
I like all of Spartacus/Manny's suggestions. I'll give my opinions of which should be W3C priorities further on.
Perhaps Manny's suggestions can be grouped into a few categories:
1) Those that make game play easier and less time-consuming (#1, 2, 6 & 7)
2) Those that make economic play more complex and interesting. (#4, 5,& 8)
3) Those that make managing a country more complex and interesting (3, 8, 9, & 10). Space program and making government types meaningful fall here also.
4) General guidelines for ongoing game improvement (#11 & 12).
I don't see any on the original list that fall into this category, but it's an important one,
5) Those that make the war game more satisfying--it's already complex and interesting but still needs...something.
Category 1--Jozi seems receptive, but seems to think they require a lot of work. I would respectively suggest that they should be high priority, as they would go a long way toward retaining experienced players.
Category 2--The famous quote is that Manny wants trains. That can sound unserious on the surface, as whiteboy points out so well. But the idea of adding "logistics" is a deep one, and if I read you right, that's what you're really getting at. Actually having to extract natural resources on location, and then transport the raw materials to factories scattered around the world during their various stages of production, and then trasport the finished products to the countries, and then to population centers within the countries...managing all these would add another very interesting level to the game. Relative costs of transporting materials by air, land, or sea...oil pipelines passing through multiple countries...differentiating sea countries from inland countries...building up cities to be transportation hubs for regions and continents...wow! It would open up real economic interactions between players, and the potential for direct economic competition, and economic warfare. In general it would make the game more complex, which means more interesting and, unfortunately, more difficult to learn. And a lot to program and more burdensome on the servers, two of Jozi's big concerns. I'm happy that they're working on adding resources, and hope that long-term they do add aspects of logistics in a meaningful way.
Category 3--I like Manny's proposals but I don't think they'll mean much in the big picture, and wouldn't mind if they are left low on the priority list.
Category 4--agreed
My Category 5--The war game is one of the best aspects of this game, for those who partake of it. A Battle Royale world sounds cool...but in today's chat Jozi essentially nixed making a new world ("cute" was his word, and you could see the sarcasm dripping off the letters) He also said that he sees FB as essentially that world. Another whole topic there. |
| Jo Jo the Hun (Fearless Blue) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 06:28 am
eh, too late to edit that last paragraph, which included a lousy portrayal of Jozi's response. He didn't nix making a new world per se, just "rewriting the game". If I get it right, he could be interested in creating a BR world depending on how easy it would be to modify an existing world. And, he called FB a "battle world," not a battle royale world. |
| whiteboy (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 10:56 am
Jojo - I agree with you, but what I'm seeing is just more suggestions to generally make the game more complex...at least as far as logistics go. The only people who need this game to be more complex are those of us who have been around for a while, understand a large majority of the tiny intricacies and need something more (although I ultimately believe these will be amusing for a time but then vet players will demand something else). I think that all of us, nubs, vets, 'middle-agers' would be well suited to focus on game attributes that will make it easier for beginners to understand and thus make them more likely to continue in the game (which then leads to ultimately more people for some of us to either draft into feds, to create their own feds or to exploit for our own gain). Recent changes such as game level restrictions for corp building which leave players essentially forced to build corporations that can not turn a profit are counter-productive to this goal and I can't say that I yet understand the purpose of them.
As far as the battle royale world...I still think it is awesome and after reading the full text of the Jozi chat I believe that Laguna was not able to completely explain the idea, through no fault of his own as it was not his idea and he was kind of left holding the bag on that one. But all we are asking for is FB...same worker requirements, weapons, corps, etc. but with an initial buy in to get on to the world and a world reset once one player (or team of players which are pre arranged) has conquered all other players on the world. No wp, 30 day build up, equal assets to begin with and perhaps a one time GC re-buy in for those who need/want the assets but other than that no other GC can be spent and population can be transferred in from c3's...it could share the world market of FB to keep the resource/weapons markets honest. It would be kind of like the World Series of Poker but with SC, I can't imagine that this would require too much work to the servers and for SC it could be quite profitable. They could get solid vets who usually do not purchase GC to spend a solid amount of GC on a buy in and then take a 50% cut. So if the world was 10 players with a 50GC buy in the winner would take in 250GC after 30 real days as would w3c. Or some other %...or perhaps even a real cash buy in...and the winner can choose cash or GC as a payout.
I would like to finish with noting that none of the above is particularly well thought out or detailed, it's just off the top of my head which I do not wish to go back and correct...hopefully it makes sense.
WB |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 08:11 pm
Jojo,
Your categories are interesting.
However, I have raised points 1-3:
1- Allow transfers of intra-empire professionals from 1 screen instead of country switching back and forth
2- Allow transfers of intra-empire of non-military supplies instead of country switching back and forth
3- Allow the setting of income tax % for general population
in the chat with Jozi, and they were received well.
I also raised points 4 and 6, and there will be some progress made on those.
The chat went on a tangent as we discussed the effect of Q effect of non-military products on the welfare index. I was able to make a point that the Q of the products that population consumes should have a greater input in the welfare index formula.
Therefore, if you buy 150Q milk, your habitants will happier than if you 100Q milk.
Where you can replace milk with any product of your enjoyment.
Also, for short-term consumable products, there needs to be a decay factor. We found out that this already exists in the product table of W3C and it's only a matter of implementation.
It makes no sense to stock 6 months of milk, even 2 months of milk makes little sense.
Also, the instant delivery of certain goods makes no sense. How can I order an hospital, and then click on "immediate" and get it delivered.
We have to ask ourselves: How can hospitals be in surplus on the market ?
For the battle royale world, I think I outlined some ideas earlier in this thread, so we can build on those.
whiteboy, you also bring some good points. |
| CraftyCockney (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 11:07 pm
Manny, hospitals, schools, much of government infrastructure is composed of 'portacabins' in my country, like lego sets. They are 'off the shelf', as is, I believe, a lot of US housing nowadays.
I proposed intra-empire worker transfer a while ago and it was accepted... you know how that goes.
Look at the stock of perishable consumables as futures, a practice widely used worldwide. That way decay is not an issue.
Income tax, another parameter to fiddle with, could be a useful tool, I'm undecided.
Your other points I mostly agree with.
Crafty. |
| Berand (Little Upsilon) | Monday, January 11, 2010 - 11:50 pm
If you will forgive the complete randomness and newbishness of the request, a completely unrelated wish.
Much improved graphical depiction of cities, or more specifically of the Capital of the Country. If not the whole city, perhaps a Capital District, which would have a Palace ( Royal, Presidential or otherwise) and, if desired, decorations for achievements in War, Economy, Population Satisfaction, or any of the Indexes we follow and rank on in the game. With this as a start, continual add-ons to reflect an Imperial Capital, for Empires, and expansions for Game Level achievement.
I know most folks are really into the numbers of the game, and conducting wars, or growing their economy, and generating GC's,--so am I-- but if anyone else here is an old CIV fan, the one thing I always missed, was the building of the Castle, as you progressed in the game.
A small and unimportant thing, that may require out-sized resources, but will serve as a real testament and measure of progress in the game, for newbs who want to see where they can go, and vets, who want a tangible reflection of their accomplishements.
Of course, mere survival and growth show to everyone that a player is "good" at the game, but at the end of the day, we are all human(I think), and humans throughout the ages, when all the battles were done and empire assemblage accomplished, sought to build monuments that would stand the test of time, and say to everyone....
I was here, and this is what I have done. |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 12:36 am
Berard,
Your idea is even more useless than the idea of trains.
Nobody cares about the graphical depiction of cities. The city maps were a complete waste of time, energy and programming resources.
CraftyCockney,
You bring an interesting point about futures.
However, futures trading would require that these products are traded on a different market.
I think this would work well if there were less useless food/agri products and instead these were merged with the minerals to form a commodity market, which would be traded not on the world market but a separate market.
The fundamental difference is that I don't my country should spend to buy
4973219 units of internet
2440625 units of medical materials
and
571625 tons of Other Food Products
On OFP
My monthly use is 121,397 units
and I currently have 94,505 units in stock
Why would I want to buy 5 months of supplies ahead of time.
If you go to "world trade" and then "products in stock: order strategies", the game will not let you pick a value <5 for the "order quantity".
Also, can someone please explain to me what "1 unit" of "Gas" is ?!
All minerals except Gas and Uranium are in tons.
Uranium is in kilograms
and Gas is in units !!
What's a "unit" of Gas ? |
| Jo Jo the Hun (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 02:30 am
Berand has a point: you spend a lot of time building stuff in this game, and it all gets destroyed fairly quickly if you're not actively maintaining it. Where are the monuments to the great players? It used to be that when you deregged a country it kept its name--there are still a handful of "Laguna Spanked Me" countries around on FB. What trace of their presence would remain of anyone if they were to quit now...maybe a few corp names would linger for a while?
I think it would be nice to have a region permanently named after you if you took all the countries in it.
Or, how about if you get into the Hall of Fame 3x, you get your name added to the naming protocol for corps, or for c3s. Hey, somehow Barney managed to get a series of c3s named after himself (The Grand State of Barnea, etc). I want to be able to get "The Independent State of JoJoland" into the rotation! |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 02:44 am
spartacus303 said: "Your idea is even more useless than the idea of trains. "
You said it, Manny
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 05:58 am
Oh, 2 Jo's posting within 15 minutes apart.
So much for the new identity of British Jo transformed in JoJo.
I guess there's two of you now.
P.S. I meant to his palace building is completely useless, not my idea of more logistics which will eventually include transit (ie. trains).
Logistics is not limited to trains, trains are part of the bigger picture. Jozi reckoned that. |
| Berand (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 11:24 pm
Ok.
First of all spartacus, it's Berand, thank you. ; )
Secondly, I was quick, so I thought, to point out that this project might require outsized resources. This apparent self-deprication was designed to squash off-hand dismissals, like your own, but apparently, that was a fail.
Third, I would agree that the current city depiction is largely fluff and not particularly useful.
I would reiterate, however, that it would be both very useful, and very appealing to players to have some depiction of status in the game.
For instance, A Presidential Complex with:
A DOD, that could show how many countries were conqured(sure that may be clear from Empire size, but some may have been bought, or some let go at some point), how many wars fought, how many wars won/lost.
A Treasury, that could show (Empire)GDP, budget breakdowns per department, and the economic trends of the empire.
An Interior department that could depict population trends, social welfare, and the like.
Currently, I have seen folks amass scores from each world on Population, War Assets, Productivity per capita, etc. It seems folks do this on their own, and when they have the time. It also seems to me, that other folks really appreciate it when this is done. I know for myself, it gave a quick overview as to who is really experienced/active in playing the game, and what their play styles may be, which in turn, is a big help in assessing their advice here on the boards, and to see what they think is important for doing well at the game.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the game did that for us, in a pleasing and gratifying way for all the players?
Sure, there may be other priorities, but I think most of us would appreciate this, quite a bit.
B.
PS. I still want an Imperial Palace, but..thats negotiable. |
| spartacus303 (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 12:22 am
Sorry BeraNd.
Your proposal is still completely and totally useless. |
| Lorelei | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 04:56 pm
Hmmm is this thread popping up, because I am being inspired to write my letter to Sim Santa???? |
| Sunny | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 06:01 pm
woah what the hell. Bump a good old thread why don't you lol |
| Laguna | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 06:18 pm
Quote:It used to be that when you deregged a country it kept its name--there are still a handful of "Laguna Spanked Me" countries around on FB.
I don't remember how many C3s I conquered, but I know it was 90+ for sure, and probably ended at ~120.
I miss those days. It was kind of entertaining leaving my mark around. |
| Lorelei | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 07:19 pm
Why did this thread come up, btw? The last post was January 2010 and it was like in the top 5 list....baiting me to post. ha ha ha ha
@ Laguna, I suppose you are a fan of doling out whoopin's. There is still a country KissiStrip 2 I think registered to my old name, KissOfDeath, while the account is gone. :P Coincidence? I THINK NOT! KissOfDeath was meant to live on!!! Crafty, does it still exist? I think it was a neighboring land of yours. |
| Laguna | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 10:37 pm
There are two ways of doing this, but the most likely one is that it was an authentication error that bumped the thread and it was subsequently deleted. |
| Lorelei | Friday, October 5, 2012 - 11:31 pm
Well I was writing my letter to Santa....... until I realized that something was amiss!!! |
| Crafty | Saturday, October 6, 2012 - 08:04 pm
Still no trains 3 years later?
And what happened to the space market? There is never any demand at all for any space related products, boosters, rockets, whatever...
City maps...does anyone use them, do newer players even know they are there?
Selenium. What was that all about?
Professional soldiers, I dont realy know about these, but I never hear of anyone using or discussing them. Are they a good addition? Will the mobile units go the same way?
Alot of effort on W3cs behalf has been put into some pretty useless functions.
All I ask for is a modern forum and chat system! |
| Lorelei | Sunday, October 7, 2012 - 01:42 am
I am a strong advocate for the modern forum and chat system as well. Should I start a poll? :P |
| Crafty | Monday, October 8, 2012 - 02:53 pm
I only want it for an 'ignore' feature. You would be first on the list Jan :P |
| revmysleds | Monday, October 8, 2012 - 08:22 pm
Been waiting for Tourney world for years... |
| Lorelei | Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 04:22 pm
Pfft, what would your day be like without my non-stop chatter about Shoes, Crafty? lol :P |
