 |
|
|
|
Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 07:52 pm  1. Development The next months will be dedicated to improve and correct current features. A new world with free membership will be launched on October. Starting next year, game missions will be added. 2. War protection [16:09] [@Jozi] we think that war should be risky for both sides. if you want to start a war, you should be able to conquer but also sustain damage. [16:09] [@Jozi] hence the idea of partial war protection when you go to war. [16:10] [@Jozi] you need to have at least half of your population in countries that are unprotected. [16:12] [~Laguna] [CC] This is an idea or a definite action W3C will take Jozi? [16:13] [+Vicious] Thanks. That's very fair. That works. [16:13] [@Jozi] This is considered a small, very easily implemented feature. we want to do it quickly. 3. Marketting Later this week a series of announcements and improvements will be launched for the promoting members program. Other things were discussed and are awaiting further comment. Greater detail can be read in the full transcript below.
| |
| Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 07:52 pm [15:54] * Laguna changes topic to 'Private Message Laguna to voice questions and opinions.' [15:55] * Laguna sets mode: +m [15:55] [~Laguna] Hello, Jozi. [15:56] [@Jozi] hi laguna. Its been a long time [15:56] [~Laguna] Indeed. It has been eight months since the last chat session. [15:56] [@Jozi] we should do this more often. [15:56] [@Jozi] I am available, just let me know and I will participate. [15:57] [~Laguna] I'll see when we can schedule another for next month. [15:58] [~Laguna] Can you tell us what was that W3C did since the beginning of the year, how that development will continue, what aims are set for the remainder of the year? [15:58] [@Jozi] ok. Sept. 19 and 26 are OK with me. [15:59] [~Laguna] Better make it the 19th. [15:59] [@Jozi] I will try to remember. It is a long time. we have been working for a long time on the space functions. [16:00] [@Jozi] there were many other smaller functions but this is the biggest one. [16:00] [@Jozi] I am not sure that doing very large features is such a great idea but we have promised it long time ago. [16:01] [@Jozi] we will not try to do many smaller features, and also extend and fix many existing stuff. [16:02] [@Jozi] we intend to tune many of the features we have added before, like the quality of military units and [16:02] [@Jozi] some space features. [16:02] [@Jozi] short term, we will add some co-marketing features and then a new world. [16:03] [@Jozi] We want to do several months of this and do a large number of small corrections and features that were asked for long time ago. [16:03] * BorderC has joined #jozichat [16:03] [@Jozi] the first major feature will be game missions. It will start early next year. [16:03] [@Jozi] done [16:04] [~Laguna] Thank you for the insight. [16:04] * Laguna sets mode: +v Vicious [16:04] [@Jozi] Sep 19 is OK then. [16:04] [+Vicious] Regarding war protection boosters... [16:05] [+Vicious] Guerrilla wars are like sneak attacks: they do damage but don't conquer any country. That's realistic. [16:05] * iki-ryo has joined #jozichat [16:05] [+Vicious] Some players fight guerrilla wars because that's much less time-consuming than conventional war. [16:05] [+Vicious] But some other players don't want guerrillas to have any war protection, so that guerrillas are weaker. Without war protection for some countries, guerrillas can't safely stockpile weapons in those countries. [16:06] [+Vicious] The guerrilla community wants to play too. War protection works fine and should stay exactly the same as it is now. That's it for me. [16:06] [@Jozi] Maybe a helicopter view. [16:07] [@Jozi] we used to play without any war protection. [16:07] [@Jozi] some people had sleepless nights, afraid that when they wake up in the morning, everything will be gone. [16:08] [@Jozi] then we started with secured mode to protect your assets and later, introduced temp. war protection [16:08] [@Jozi] mainly for people going on vacation. [16:08] [@Jozi] now, it has grown to a standard and nobody wants to take any risk. [16:09] [@Jozi] we think that war should be risky for both sides. if you want to start a war, you should be able to conquer but also sustain damage. [16:09] [@Jozi] hence the idea of partial war protection when you go to war. [16:10] [@Jozi] you need to have at least half of your population in countries that are unprotected. [16:10] [@Jozi] done [16:10] [+Vicious] The problem is there are warlords with lots of weapons. Small aggressors need some countries with war protection. Without that, the small aggressors will always lose war against the big warlords. [16:11] [@Jozi] we do not want to remove war protection. it will remain of course. [16:12] [@Jozi] but having everything protected except for one country with no assets goes too far. [16:12] [@Jozi] you can keep most of your assets in protected countries but when you start a war, they will get a chance to attck you somewhere. [16:12] [@Jozi] done [16:12] [~Laguna] [CC] This is an idea or a definite action W3C will take Jozi? [16:13] [+Vicious] Thanks. That's very fair. That works. [16:13] [@Jozi] This is considered a small, very easily implemented feature. we want to do it quickly. [16:13] * Genie has joined #jozichat [16:13] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Genie [16:14] [~Laguna] I understand. Moving on to marketing and the new world: [16:14] * Laguna sets mode: -v Vicious [16:14] * Laguna sets mode: +v GreenStarfish [16:14] [+GreenStarfish] Jozi, thanks for doing these chats [16:14] [+GreenStarfish] can we have some more details about the new world? [16:15] [@Jozi] I love these chats. It gives me a chance to find out what you hate and what you want. don't hold back. [16:16] [+GreenStarfish] lol...okay [16:16] [@Jozi] the new world will be similar but no membership fees at all and some limitations, mainly in the cash market and awards. [16:17] [@Jozi] done [16:17] [+GreenStarfish] okay...also, I was wondering what is being done to attract new members? [16:18] [+GreenStarfish] but I guess the new world is going to be a big part of that? [16:18] [@Jozi] we think that the site remains largely unknow and have not reached much of the market. [16:19] [@Jozi] we will advertize much more, we are working hard on SEO to become more visible on the internet and we will launch a program to reward players who are placing links to the simcountry site or are generating traffic. [16:20] [@Jozi] the details will be published this week and the first part will become active at the end of the week. [16:20] [@Jozi] done [16:20] [+GreenStarfish] okay, thank you, done [16:20] * Laguna sets mode: -v GreenStarfish [16:20] [~Laguna] Looks like nobody else wants to talk. [16:21] [~Laguna] On behalf of Jo jo the Hun, I have to make this comment regarding War protection: [16:21] [~Laguna] A) Remove WP on FB, except for vacation and new president allotments. [16:22] [~Laguna] Done. [16:22] [@Jozi] we have seen this. it was voted and accepted (I think this is where I saw it) or maybe a mail from someone. [16:22] [@Jozi] I agree. [16:23] [~Laguna] I have one last comment to make on his behalf and that someone has PMed: [16:23] [~Laguna] C) Add some sort of preliminary, non-committal stage to the war declaration process. Barney brought up an idea like this recently on the forums. It has a few purposes, but mostly so that active players don't have to live on 24-hour notice that they'll have to fight a war. [16:23] [@Jozi] the only difficulty is how we should know if someone is going on vacation or just trying to reduce the risk of war. [16:23] [~Laguna] Basically, these players are asking for you to read and comment about a thread on the General forum. [16:24] [~Laguna] If you could comment regarding that thread later it would be best. [16:24] [~Laguna] They are refering to this thread: https://www.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/1/15394.html&lm=1281605017 [16:25] [@Jozi] lots of text. can you explain in short? [16:25] [@Jozi] I can comment on it later but this will leave the subject unresolved now. [16:26] [~Laguna] That is okay. [16:26] [~Laguna] They want the period between a war declaration and it's beginning extended and allow some extra political functions. [16:26] [@Jozi] OK I will comment on it this week on the forum. [16:26] [~Laguna] Thank you. [16:27] [~Laguna] I will give the word to Wendy now. [16:27] * Laguna sets mode: +v {Ru}Victim [16:27] [+{Ru}Victim] Hola Jozi, long time [16:27] [@Jozi] Hi Wendy, thanks for being here. [16:27] [+{Ru}Victim] I have two concerns, will keep it simple and short [16:29] [+{Ru}Victim] I am wondering, if empire/country/assets could be sold independently from the cash market. Like for example, I want to sell my empire, but can auction it on Ebay. I think it will make asset transfer available for new players that want to put more of an investment upfront, along with gaining some visibility from outside viewers who will see the accounts auctio [16:30] [+{Ru}Victim] ...auctioned, what do you think of this? [16:30] [+{Ru}Victim] done [16:30] [@Jozi] We are thinking about it for some time and the more generat idea of trading game assets outside the game. [16:31] [@Jozi] we have already decided how to implement, and we think t can be implemented rather simply. [16:32] [@Jozi] we want to have not only countries and enterprises but also gold coins. [16:32] [@Jozi] we also think that it will be a great way to expose the game to a larger public. [16:33] [@Jozi] I just don;t have a date for it but I will discuss with the others and get back to the forum with more details this week. [16:33] [@Jozi] done [16:33] [+{Ru}Victim] Outstanding, I have been hoping for something like this for a long time now. I think this in itself will make Simcountry more accessible to those who don't know about the game. [16:33] [+{Ru}Victim] Now, onto number 2 [16:34] [+{Ru}Victim] The war aspect of the game is now changing again. I understand that there will be changes concerning the c3 wars. I agree in some instances. [16:35] [+{Ru}Victim] Has w3 considered how this will strengthen those who only play to asset raid, and have you though of anything to help balance the disadvantage of outnumbered, or outskilled opponents, in order to compensate and maintain a balance [16:35] [+{Ru}Victim] done. [16:37] [@Jozi] I do not understand what you mean. You probably need to explain more. we do not specifically talk about c3 wars. we do not want to change the rules of the war game itself. we just want to force the attacking party to expose itself to a little more risk. [16:38] [+{Ru}Victim] Indeed. I guess you could say what I mean by disadvantage is this... [16:38] [+{Ru}Victim] I have 3 good countries on LU. [16:38] [@Jozi] If they must have more countries unprotected, they will have a chance of being attacked. why is that bad? [16:38] [@Jozi] done [16:39] [+{Ru}Victim] I have a primary opponent that has ten countries, 5 which are war slaves. He also has federation allies, with several war slaves each. [16:39] [+{Ru}Victim] If I drop war protection, the result is I lose, no matter what I do, because of the number of attackers. [16:40] [+{Ru}Victim] Even if I fight well. [16:40] [+{Ru}Victim] Then I am faced with now having to rebuild another good country which takes a very long time [16:40] [+{Ru}Victim] That is just an example. [16:40] [@Jozi] If you have 3 countries, one will probably be in secured mode and one WProtected. [16:41] [+{Ru}Victim] I understand, but one second. [16:42] [@Jozi] if you have 5 countries, probably 2 will be without war protection. It will be your choice of countriesand you will be able to setup excellent defenses. You do not have to setup a good defense in the current situation. [16:42] [+{Ru}Victim] If the desired result is risk, I get it. But in probably 90% of the instances I can show you. This will amount to suicide. Maybe a force rule should be applied to an attacker as well. [16:42] [+{Ru}Victim] Or group of attackers [16:42] [+{Ru}Victim] Like If all I have is one country, only one country or player can attack any other country [16:43] [+{Ru}Victim] I am technically not risking anything if I cannot win becuase of burte force of my opponent. [16:43] [+{Ru}Victim] Neither is it risking anything for them, becuase they outnumber and match me. [16:44] [+{Ru}Victim] 3 to 5 players jumping one person could hardly be considered risk on their part. [16:44] [+{Ru}Victim] Done. [16:44] [@Jozi] we have looked into this before and I agree that there is an issue here. but protecting all the countries except for one that is doing the fighting is too limited and does not introduce any risk at all. [16:44] [+{Ru}Victim] I agree with that [16:45] [+{Ru}Victim] I think there should be a balancing equation however, If I should bring my countries out of WP to fight, several players should not be able to gang bang a country, is what I mean. That would in a way balance the equation. [16:46] [@Jozi] I am ready for a good discussion on the issue. We are not trigger happy and want to find a solution where wars are a risk and you are not sure in advance how they will end. [16:47] [@Jozi] we can take some time and discuss on the forum but everyone should realize that too much war protection is diminishing the war game. [16:48] [+{Ru}Victim] Indeed. Maybe the better speaking players can think of a viable solution to create balance. I agree with the changes, I just would like to see a balance between this added measure and now what will inevitably happen as a reult. [16:48] [+{Ru}Victim] Thanks Jozi. Nice to hear from you again. [16:49] * Laguna sets mode: -v {Ru}Victim [16:49] [@Jozi] I think that the defense should be such that the attacker will suffer major losses compared to the losses of the defense. [16:50] [~Laguna] There's no one in queue to speak. If anyone else would like to raise or comment on an issue, please PM me. [16:50] [~Laguna] In the mean time, I will speak on my own behalf and request three things: [16:50] [@Jozi] ok. I will be back on this on the forum (either me or Tom will start this later this week). [16:50] [@Jozi] done [16:51] [~Laguna] 1. Raise the cargo capacity of space docks to that of six times of cargo shuttles. [16:51] [~Laguna] 2. Allow direct sales of cargo shuttles. [16:52] [~Laguna] 3. Read and reply to the bug reports I have sent you. [16:52] [~Laguna] Done [16:52] [@Jozi] 1. I will look into it. Maybe mail me some reasons to discuss here. [16:53] [@Jozi] 2. yes. very shortly and many more products too. These will be products that cannot be traded on space stations. [16:53] [@Jozi] 3. I did. We will react ASAP. we had several weeks of very small number of people here and most were on vacation. everyone is back now. [16:54] [@Jozi] done and I will have to leave you shortly but not yet. [16:55] [~Laguna] There's one else in line to speak. [16:55] [~Laguna] We can ended now, if you wish. [16:55] [~Laguna] end* [16:55] [@Jozi] no. let's have it. 06[16:56] * ~Laguna throws a rock at everyone in the list [16:56] [@Jozi] one or no one? [16:56] [~Laguna] Err. No one. [16:56] [~Laguna] We have a speaker. [16:56] * Laguna sets mode: +v Vicious [16:57] [@Jozi] OK. we have more time now so I think the best will be to throw some stones and bring some outregous news. This will generate more questions next time. [16:57] [~Laguna] LOL [16:57] [+Vicious] I suggest that presidents be allowed to add or withdraw money from country investment funds. [16:58] [@Jozi] I mean outrageous [16:58] [@Jozi] this is a problem. There is a very large amount of money there and it can destabilize the markets. [16:58] [@Jozi] we also think that there should be some more use of the money. [16:59] [@Jozi] Our suggestion is that a small part of it, will be added, each month to the income of people. This will do the same but in a slower way. [16:59] [@Jozi] done [17:00] [+Vicious] Investment funds only spend money on public corps. [17:00] [@Jozi] withdrawing it will mean that the money will become available for the player? [17:01] [+Vicious] It would be nice to at least have the option to add money to investment funds. [17:01] [@Jozi] That is less of a problem. why would you do this? to purchase more shares and corporations? [17:02] [+Vicious] If withdrawing money will create financial instability, then we shouldn't have that option. But adding money to investment funds should not create instability. [17:03] [@Jozi] no. true. but again, why do you want it? to purchase more shares and corporations? [17:03] [+Vicious] Yes, it would be good to be able to buy more shares for the country investment funds. [17:03] [+Vicious] That's a good use for the extra money of a country. [17:03] [~Laguna] I see a problem. If I were losing a war, I would send all of my money into the investment fund, if I couldn't transfer it out through the cash or direct market. [17:04] [@Jozi] I will discuss this and try to see the consequences. we will react to this, as to mome other issues, on the forum this week. [17:04] [+Vicious] Thanks. [17:04] * Laguna sets mode: -v Vicious [17:05] * Laguna sets mode: +v CC [17:05] [@Jozi] Laguna, it is easier today to transfer your money out. the funds will in this case go one way only. [17:05] [@Jozi] let's think about it for a little while and then decide. [17:05] [+CC] Jozi, I started some 2 or 3 years ago on KB [17:06] [+CC] Since then I have seen to decline to where it is known as the dust bowl of SC [17:07] [+CC] I wonder if you see any problem on this world, or could offer any ideas how it might be recovered. [17:08] [~Laguna] I'm nearly finishing the eight countries I have to offer to new players. [17:08] [@Jozi] We see movement in and out of worlds all the time. what we see recently, in general, is that the total number of players is smaller but the number of full members is higher. [17:09] [@Jozi] we will not add a world with different conditions to attract more players. if this works, we will expand to other worlds. [17:09] [@Jozi] We expect our marketing to attract players to all the worlds and numbers will grow. [17:10] [@Jozi] I will have to leave you. [17:10] * Laguna sets mode: -m [17:10] * Laguna sets mode: -v CC [17:10] [~Laguna] I understand, Jozi. [17:11] [@Jozi] we have a next date: Sept. 19. I will try to have 2 hours. [17:11] * Laguna changes topic to 'Next Jozi Chat: 19th of September' [17:11] [~Laguna] Later then. [17:11] [@Jozi] bye everyone. Thanks for joining in. [17:11] [GreenStarfish] thank you! [17:11] [Barrenregions] bye [17:12] * Jonni Quit (Quit: ) [17:12] [~Laguna] I will try to make some really outrageous news next time... [17:12] [Vicious] Thanks again, Jozi, and bye.
| |
| Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 09:44 pm Thanks for posting for those of of us who were not available!
| |
| Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 10:10 pm wow "[16:47] [@Jozi] we can take some time and discuss on the forum but everyone should realize that too much war protection is diminishing the war game. "
| |
| Monday, August 16, 2010 - 02:07 am I WAS THERE! [17:11] [Barrenregions] bye
| |
| Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:48 am Sorry I missed it, but the vacation was awesome! Overall the chat sounds pretty good, the war protection comments, especially the one Orbiter noted are very promising. Vicious - Still don't understand how guerrilla/terrorist warfare is not equivalent to sneak attacks. Also, guerrillas and terrorists DO risk something, their lives...in SC under the current rules, they risk nothing. Their life might not have value to the person being attacked, but it is invaluable to them, irreplaceable, certainly much more value than an SC players war protected countries. Since Barney has asked that no one comment on his thread until Jozi has a chance to read, I'll respond here and say again that I support it as do many of my mates. More warning and time to prepare is quite reasonable, however I'd again like to see it as optional. For example, I get a notice of 'Intent to Declare War' from someone, I can then choose to immediately declare war on them with a war that starts immediately or I can take the option of time, this will give the defender a little bit of surprise to dish out as well. I don't agree that overall the attacking party has an advantage, defense is actually quite simple, but if there is a specific advantage for the attacker, it's time and timing...I think his idea would help this. Overall it's great to hear that Jozi understands that the war game is dieing, quickly. W3C has to see that war is good for business, look at the jump in forum posts from the most recent big although possibly ill-conceived war. Wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that GC spending on WG had doubled over the previous month and then tripled over the past week.
| |
| Monday, August 16, 2010 - 05:23 pm Yup it was a cool chat. Dident have any ideas tho.
| |
| Monday, August 16, 2010 - 11:11 pm Readers digest... Any update on the price of war protection?
| |
| Monday, August 16, 2010 - 11:17 pm Non-Starter, Meastro.
| |
| Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 04:42 am "The next months will be dedicated to improve and correct current features." Thank you. :')
| |
| Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 07:52 am I agree with Whiteboy's idea to allow the defender to opt to start the war early. In additon, I think the following changes should be made to war: 1. make it a 48 hour pre-attack window. 2. As mentioned above, allow the defender to start the attack immediatly. 3. Also, allow the defender to declare with any country of his own against the country attacking him, and to start that war whenever. This way, if you attack one country in an empire, and of the other countries can fight back too. I forces the attacker to attack with multiple counties of his own or to also put up a good defense. 4. Give different worlds slightly different rules. For examle, set 1 world as a safer world where 3 countries are like secure mains; set another with 2, another with 1, keep FB with 0. 5. Change the alliance system slightly. Although the fed system works fine for inividual players and for small federations, for large federations, there are issues. This is best solved by adjusting the fed system as follows: -1, divide federations into global and local -2, for the global federation, allow unlimited members; HOWEVER, require that all countries by the same president be in the same global federation -3 for each global federation, allow for local federations. The local federations would operate similiar to the global ones, except that each federation would be allowed upto 3 fedeation administrators who can move players from one local federation to another and add/remove players from the federation. This way, federations can easily adjust their federation structures, and the concerns about having federations that are too large can be fixed. -4 allow countries to sign a war treaty for their local federation only, their global federation only, neither, or for both. These changes will make it much easier on federations, as large federations currently have multiple local federation branches as their way of getting around the 25 person limit. By dividing the federations between global and local, it can be insured that all players are only in one global federation, and that these federations can be more easily managed. of course, the option to build a global federation should first require that a federation obtain over 25 countries and at that point, it will become a global federation and it will remain so as long as it maintains 25 or more countries.
| |
| Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 06:44 pm Still like the war % index idea. (1)From attacker point of view you cannot attack an opponant under (.75 x his power). This allows players to move up the ladder without being eaten by players 10 times their size. A top player can attack a noob if he uses a country closer to the size of the noob country. The same index might apply to empires or FEDs. 6 top players with 12 massive war slaves cannot jump a fed with 2 weak slaves with 40M population each. Less players would quit SIM & less players would require WP. (2) From newer player perspective - you cannot attack a country or empire greater than 50% your power. Hence a terrorist with C3 cannot declare on a huge war giant. Problem solved. Only question is - is war index the right index to use? - HORDO
| |
| Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 06:47 pm In (1) above - you take your war index times .75. Anything under that threshold U cannot attack. Econ players may benefit as well.
| |
| Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 02:55 am There is no right index to use. That's part of what makes this game unique from all the boring and predictable games that do use that easily gamed 0.75/0.5 rule. Which would you use Defensive Index? That's 2x DF, 1x OF, and 1x SF divided by 4? DF? Easily gamed with MIBs. OF? Easily gamed again. SF for the calculation would be suicide. Really, if I wanted to play one of the games that used that boring rule, I could go play Archmage or something and get raped periodically as I clawed my way up to a #1 position. Most new players quit because this game is "hard". Not because of any threats. The "information" is overwhelming. The configuration possibilities are complex in comparison to any other online browser game I can think of. And finally, this game is slow. That's part of it's appeal, at least for me.
|
