| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 01:38 am 
well, i think the last interesting part of the game has been eleminated. the new war levels makes declaring war on a c3 a losing proposition unless you're a newby. in the past it was one of the few ways to make a little extra money, but now there's little incentive to declare on c3's. also, it's my guess that the same thing will apply to declaring on registered players. and you won't be able to declare on inactives either if they're not at your level or above.
i fear that the game has degenerated into a game for neebs only and the rest of us will snore into oblivion until our memberships lapse.
another victory for socialism. |
| Border C | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 02:54 am
No. This was W3C responding to player requests. This was a players idea and other players put in their input. It may just be a good idea on paper but bad once you realise all of the drawbacks. I don't think people thought about how this would affect raiding inactives.
The lesson W3C needs to learn is that they can't quick fix the problems here.
The lesson players need to learn is that our ideas aren't always very good.
W3C needs to fix this. The REAL way people go from noob to war ready is by attacking INACTIVES with swag to get the resources (cash and GC) and experience with weapons they need. Making C3s more difficult was just a way for them to sneak an anti-C3 war agenda through. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 04:11 am
yep, level three which is where i started has fourteen helios/interceptor squadrons. targets are all small garrisons. it wouldn't be that hard to take but with all the forts and only 400b cash and 2.5t in corps, it's not worth it. i'd probably spend at least that if not considerably more to take it down. bummer. and yes, i agree with you about the rush to fix something that doesn't need fixing or at least not in the manner taken. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 05:04 am
LOL I just had the funniest eyedeer! |
| Barrenregions (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 05:22 am
Why evan Make this? Its so pointless, And i can tell why
1. C3s when they are usally taken for a number a reasons, And one of those reasons are to expand your empire, Well, When i took my first c3, I dident destroy any corps or anything, And it was losing almost -10b a month - all the costs to repair it. Within 1-2game years, It was already in debt 2.5T. And it took a very long time to get it to stop loseing money. Basically what im sayin is that Not only is there a chance that it will cost u in the future, That the costs of ammo and weapons to take the country, Will just make it evan more expansive, And make you lose Evan more money!! for a country that might not evan be put together right.
2. Warring on countrys with presidents. I think that is so stupid. Iv heard things about "New players getting there countrys taken from them" and that is a problem, Well, 90% of those new player in there 21 day peroid evan keep playing, If they do, There will end up on the top 100 or so ranks, Have there own country flag or president pictures, And will be in a fed or Cm. So basically thats just protecting nothing, Some thing that will just be derreged later. I would go on, But im just saying this for now.
And if you dont wanna read this entire thing i wrote, I can get to the point:
IT IS COMPLETELY USLESS AND HAS NO PURPOSE IN THIS GAME. BUT TO CAUSE MORE DEBT TO EMPIRE TO BUY MORE AMMO AND WEAPONS TO TAKE C3S, AND PROTECT COUNTRYS THAT WILL JUST BE DEREGGED. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 05:40 am
Repeal? Vote in Public Voting.
Thank WB. I think he claimed responsibility for this insanity in his own words on another thread.
Find a link on the forum that shows a Whiteboy post, and send him a "Thank You Dumbazz" for his blessings. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 05:50 am
Parsi, BC - Yeah, can't say I get the complaint...the system has been implemented for not even 24 hours and from the experience I just had works perfectly which I was quite surprised by.
You guys are taking an extremely limited view of 'how does this affect me' instead of how will this affect the game overall. Under the system the way it was, *SHOCKING NEWS* - no one was learning the war game, they'd learn how to take a c3 and probably pretty ineffectively and that was it. An entire part of the game that used to get players really interested and actually kept a lot of players here (the war game and the federations that came with it) was effectively dead. From that point, there were 3 options:
1. Eliminate war, make the game econ only - some players lobbied for this, I think it's an honest perspective but ultimately I believe the game would die without war (check the forums lately?)
2. Encourage war by eliminating war protection (as the game used to be) and see what happened - This was the old way of the game and it was a lot more popular at that time but also a lot less stable with people being bullied around and eliminated from worlds.
3. Create a system which tackled the biggest problems in the war engine.
- Inequality in skill
- C3 warfare
- Excessive use of war protection
They went with option 3 because it makes the most sense. Under the new system players will be separated by their skill level/understanding of the war engine so that newbies and econ players aren't picked on. Then, not only does the new system separate players, it gives them tools and targets with which to learn on. Players will be encouraged through the leveling system to play the war game and learn how to do so effectively so that there are not so many clueless 'targets' out there.
Also, at higher war levels c3 warfare becomes a waste of time (at least at the volume it was being done at before) because c3's become extremely expensive at higher levels, I just took a level 4 country and it was nothing troublesome but it probably would be hard to make money on it, I can imagine what it would be like at Level 10.
I certainly understand the perspective that it sucks to not be able to score cash off of c3's anymore, but I don't agree that cashing in on c3's or raiding inactives makes a new player war ready, if that were the case...there would be more than the ~10 or so of us who can actually fight an effective war. So, give me a break, c3 raiding and inactive raiding is the veteran thing to do, it's not what new players are doing and it's not how you learn to effectively fight an aggressive war against a real player nor is it how you learn how to effectively defend your countries from a real player. It's target practice, which is exactly what the new system is but it is better because the countries are actually increasingly more well defended so they can work their way up.
I've seen plenty of posts about how the game is dead/dieing/in a lull, so let me get this straight, your idea to solve that problem is.........leave everything how it was? Seems a little silly at best and exceedingly selfish at worst.
Barren - Point #1 is irrelevant, level 1 and 2 c3's, the type that new players would be taking for empire expansion early on as you did, are almost exactly the same as they were. As for Point #2, you don't see a problem in 90% of players not ever making it out of their 21 day waiting period? I do...it's something that needs to be addressed and this system should help to create a little more interest and might help keep a higher percentage of them. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 06:48 am
well, atm, i believe i'll at least break even on the first hasty L3 c3 i've taken. i'm optimistic that further expanse of tactics, will make it profitable, perhaps in time, we'll be able to make more profit off of high level c3's?!?
honestly, i enjoyed fighting a c3 of higher difficulty, i really did. however my biggest complaint, is their seems to be special tweaking to the weapon/ammo levels of c3's, i mean, they get good Q to shoot at you, but seem to be degraded when you get in and loot. although, i could be wrong about that, and any units on the map, still disintegrate, after victory, i really wish, that if we find a way to win with out destroying those units, considering the extra cost... give us something to loot!!! |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 07:56 am
How come I am -1 war level? 
Cant even dec a C3!
LOL |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:10 am
Orbiter,
we will look into the war records of your recent war. if you give us the name of the country involved, and world, it will make it easier to find.
There was no change to the way the war actions are executed but C3s at different levels do have different quantities of ammunition.
We will look at what happens to the remaining units when the war is won and check this "disintegration" you mentioned. I know that there is indeed a closing process. It is inherited from the previous C3 war process and I am not sure if it was updated to fit the new situation.
We are also running more such wars to measure the cost and damage.
If you have more data, please give us names of countries and the world where it happened. This will allow us to tune the numbers.
The entire process is table driven and can be tuned quickly. This will be done, based on facts and recent experiences. |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:15 am
Whiteboy
Same story. Please give us details so we can look into the war.
Depending on what happened in these wars, we might decrease or increase the differences. we have also yet to decide at which level you will start winning War Level awards.
This too will depend on the war process, the cost and the remaining assets. |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:17 am
Serpent,
You cannot declare war on a C3?
did you try?
can you give us some details on this.
You should be able to declare anytime and start immediately independent of your war level. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:53 am
tom...
thanks for the response!!!
The Grand State of Fonetta, on lu, is atm, the only one i've conquered
as i stripped the garrisons, the quality levels went down... so the garrisons where holding lower quality weapons than the country itself was??? i'm happy with fighting nice quality c3s but i should also be able to loot the same Q i'm raiding? right? but like i said, i'm not sure, that the weapons in the c3 shooting me were 120q or 100q, its a hard judgement when their are only 15 aamb...
as the "disintegration" any unit in a c3, (sense the changes from the old war engine,) are unavailable upon conquest... meaning, if you manage to take a c3 with out destroying the int wings, they are unavailable to disable and own...
previously, that made sense, but now, it seems that you should allow us to dismantle old wings, and "loot," them |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:08 am
i edited the above post to add that its hard to tell the difference between 100 and 120, when their is only 15 aamb...
i still don't like the level restrictions on attacking players, you should be able to attack any one that that can effect you, in game (including boycotts, and sc resolutions,) but that said, if we can flesh out this thing about c3s right, then i'll be ok... |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:10 am
Sorry Tom, I wasn't clear. I didn't have any issues. I do agree with Orbiter, it would be nice if units/garrisons remaining that were not destroyed were kept in the country to make it so that one could at least make a small profit/break even on the higher level c3's though.
Overall, I tried the system once and it worked impressively smoothly. I was quite surprised and impressed that I didn't encounter any issues considering just how big of a change this must have been.
Good job to you and the dev team for a very smooth big change. |
| EC (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:17 am
Yep....just took a level 4 C3 and the remaining army units disappeared. The Democratic Union of Chelonia on LU.
Will this be standard protocol....that they disappear, or will we eventually be able to break these units down ourselves?
Would surely help offset the cost of taking the C3. No way I'm even breaking even on this one.
Is this also part of the desired intent....to eliminate C3 stripping in it's entirety? There is virtually no value in them now considering the costs of breaking the air defense alone.
Also, I had the C3 half painted and the capital, and cities destroyed before the war index even budged. Is this delay to be expected?
Thanks for your time Tom,
EC |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:19 am
i have to agree with wb, good work, really, just give us something worth looting, and everything will be ok, in reguards to c3 levels, anyways
not asking for much, in "looting," but it should be worth the effort, anyways, carry on |
| Laguna | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 11:54 am
Useless feature. Nothing to discuss. Send it down the tube for everyone's sake. |
| Border C | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 02:47 pm
Don't get me wrong WB, I think it was a good idea, but the implementation sucks, and that's because W3C gave us what we asked for.
As for noobs learning from raiding, I believe that's true for most people because 1.) you get swag, so there is an incentive 2.) that swag GIVES them the resources they need to buy more (which is a large part of going from noob to battle ready) 3.) it gives you a chance to test what you've learned without a chance to lose, so you can get the feel of how to attack, how much it takes, how long it takes, etc. while taking down an actual defense (not always, of course) 4.) attacking C3s has no rewards and (I'm guesing) are not setup with the same sort of defenses one would be going against when fighting experienced players, though higher war levels could prove this wrong. Still, the incentive is not there.
I could go on but I've got to go to work. Bottom line - cheating noobs out of inactive raiding is huge. You are making it that much harder for them to grow. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 03:03 pm
currently, there are limited ways to build and maintain an empire. even taking numerous c3's creates a situation where a new player most often ends up deeply in debt. so, the logic of raising c3 fighting levels doesn't hold true. how many of us have witnessed a newb take down a dozen or so countries in a short time, amass huge debt and then leave the game. it seems that w3c, in an effort to control players being able to amass huge empires is cutting off every means of doing so. only by investing more gc's can one maintain and build an empire under the system as it's evolved over the past couple of years.
the intent of protecting new players from seasoned players who raid those new players might be helped by making c3's more desirable to take. if you want to keep levels as they are for c3's raise cash to 3-5t and weapons to 5-10t for a level three or 4. raise those levels commensurately as you move up the levels. depending on the defenses, i wouldn't mind fighting at level 6 for 10-20t in swag. as others have said, there is little incentive to play when the deck is stacked against you. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 06:01 pm
BC and Parsi - I get what you guys are saying but it seems the argument you're making is that everything was working great and the game was doing well under the system the way it was...which we all know isn't true. No one was learning the war game, nubs were bailing in masses and as Barren pointed out, most of the time before they even reached the end of their waiting period. If it was the case that players were identifying c3 raiding and inactive taking as the best and easiest means to develop their empires then we would see a lot more activity and players than we do now.
People like to compete in games, SC offers several ways of doing so, HOF, FI ranks, leveling up and what was at one time the biggest competition, wars and federations. The war game has died over the past year or so, I don't know how anyone can really dispute that. This system offers the best chance to revive it while giving players something extra to compete for (top war levels and GC awards for them), obviously that won't really happen until very high levels get rolled out but that is in the works. In addition it gives players the ability to learn against a system that gets progressively more difficult without having to risk anything and the defensive weapons they are fighting against *are* the exact same weapons they would see against real players, the level 4 c3 had int/heli wings (no more air def wings), pretty much standard garrisons and I believe 50 forts instead of 20 (not 100% positive but it was definitely at least 40). That set up is something a player would expect to see against against someone else at that level, we'll see what is in the higher levels, but I'm pretty sure we can expect to see level 10 with 40k ints/20k helis and max garrisons in some places...with those numbers only growing into higher levels. It will become a challenge and a bragging point for players to be high level war players AND we will know that those players can't say 'I don't even know how to fight' or 'I'm just an econ player' because there is no reason for an econ player to go to level 10 or whatever.
I do agree with the idea that there should be at least enough cash and assets in each c3 to make it somewhat profitable if taken efficiently at every level, I think that will solve the issue and eliminate the one common complaint.
Ultimately I think we all need to step back and ask, was the system working as it was? Was the game increasing in popularity or decreasing? Are there more or less players actively participating? I think we all know the answer to those questions, so the status quo just wouldn't be acceptable...change was necessary.
EC - The reason the war index didn't move is because it hadn't refreshed yet. C3's start out at 60 wi because they have 20 forts, level 4 c3's start out with I believe 50 forts so the war index should be around 75 to start with but the war index only moves up when the monthly refresh occurs so what you'll see is the war index stuck at 60 until you've done enough damage to lower it below 60. The cap, cities, paint, etc still have exactly the same effect it just can not be seen in the war index unless you wait for it to refresh up to it's peak and then start shooting. |
| Laguna | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 06:31 pm
wHY ARE YOU ALL TYPPING LETTERS, NUMBERS AND PUNCTUATION MARKS!? wHY? why!?! |
| Border C | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 06:43 pm
I don't think anybody here believes the system was fine the way it was. I've argued for a while that it needs a complete overhaul to compete in 2010. I don't think War Levels addresses the root of the great problems SC has and I think removing inactive raiding causes a huge effect on how players can develop in the game. The only problem that I can see this addressing is the C3 war issue. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 07:43 pm
LOL
Vote for repeal you do nothing congress members!
Check your public voting and cast a vote up or down.
WB the system may not have been optimal as it was before the changes. But the changes have only served the purpose of making c3 taking almost pointless and expensive without an incentive.
That *IS* what you wanted. So of course, this great and works wonders, for you and possibly only you.
However this in no way protect a newbie from attack or raiding. It does present an entire host of other issues.
How does this promote participation in federations?
How exactly does this protect a small or big inexperience fed from being wiped out by a few experienced players?
How does this benefit any part of the game overall?
What this will do is encourage more players to get higher war levels with even still yet inadequate experience and a c3 will in no way whatsoever prepare a newbie for an active war against a real opponent, regardless of level.
There is a hidden trap here. As a player moves to higher levels I guess this will be used as an adequate excuse for raiding inexperienced players. I can hear it now.
What stops a player from keeping his own war level low to prey on lower level players?
What stops anyone from starting over and coming back at level 1 with the knowledge and experience to take out large empires or federations that are not war oriented.
What if a player only attack players at level 4 5 6 and never moves up to higher levels yet having top skill. The more experienced players who will need to step in to prevent this from continuing will be prevented because of a higher war level.
And personally from my own stand point to yours, when you come out of war protection what will stop me from taking level 3 c3s and doing the same as before?
It is more expensive, yes, but what is to stop me from cashing out now and closing and opening a new account every 90 days, level up in game and war levels repeatedly and use the coins to continually attack you?
This is just a handful of questions that cannot be answered and demonstrating the way this change has not presented any real solutions and just creates another set of problems.
Done *****
This game used to be community oriented and communal in response to good or bad things within the game.
We have stepped out of this arena and moved in to GMS stop everything player does that the *I* doesn't like. And to accomidate the *I* we will end up with things like this. I know most of what you proposed was to change the fact that I can c3 war you but this doesn't change anything along those lines.
Overall this solution is dismal for the whole and beneficial(in your own mind) to you. But again, even that is not true. The gms cannot come in and effectively stop me along the grounds of morality in my tactics any more than they can stop you and the mob from raiding WGC or any other group for that matter. Right or wrong, the game needs to be played by players, not the GMS.
You really need to see that you have made things worse for everyone, and not better, only good for yourself if you perceive a positive benefit. I think there is a consensus here, I know you will ignore it, but should the gamemasters ignore it, after they have given you and your suggestions such considerations?
The gamemasters have been cornered by some recent harsh criticisms and I can see how we got here very clearly. Reactions cannot be knee jerk in nature and things need to be thoroughly thought through and evaluated for positive/negative benefit before implementation.
SimCountry is what it is. It is a simulation of the World. Everything is not fair and right in the world it simulates, but that is the way it is. Wouldn't it be neat if we could ask God to pop out of heaven and announce an end to poverty because we don't like seeing people not having the same benefit of the more privileged? It would be nice indeed but life doesn't work like that and neither should simCountry.
The game is suffering because if you look back 3 or 4 years ago, it has changed a lot. Some for the better, and more for the worse. Over time the people that loved this game and encouraged the promotion and continuation of it renew and continue to realize that this isn't the game they used to love. It is almost entirely different. Over complicating things can be negative and over time this is what you are witnessing.
Just yesterday an older vet returning to the game couldn't figure out why his corps aren't making money. I'm sure it wasn't that long ago he stopped playing, yet after only a brief lull he cannot figure out how to make a game work where he already excelled in some or likely many ways just a very short time ago.
The game isn't bad, it is great, it was great. The problem isn't that the game is broken or doesn't work. The problem is that it is becoming something the old sim was not. SOME Players also want the gamemasters to change sim into what it is not.
True it is a war and an economic game. The two can go hand in hand. What made this setup previously a success is social aspect. Social aspect of this game is all but diminished. This was the one part of the game that cannot be altered by anyone. The social aspect streamed into the political aspect of the game. War in this game will NEVER be fun apart from the political/social aspect being a direct reason for wars. Take a look at how wars are started and played out. If someone declares war on people for apparently no reason, any member or group of members would engage that person in war or wars. This is invited by both parties. When wars were fought for influence, dominance, deterrence, and for the game as whole, war works in simcountry.
What has happened in recent time is that wars are totally absent of a social/political driver. When the MOB just raids DTA because "just look at your name"(Quote WB) or WGC "because we thought it would be a good challenge (LOL! Quote WB) War is unpleasant and does not work. When people war for the sake of warring, this is what diminishes the enthusiasm to continue playing this game.
What is astonishing is that the approach to "fix" the game was really taken from the mind of the aggressor and not the victims. Although the rest of us gave inputs, this was totally surrounding the narcissist view of a single person, who in reality is more of the problem than the solution.
If you want to fight for the sake of fighting, and bragging rights, WB you need to find another game on the internet that caters to your desire to "win" There are many games that deliver the thrill you really say you enjoy.
SimCountry is setup slowly for a reason. It is fun. it is entertaining, but it is a very personal game that is setup in such a way that any player can participate in any number of ways and enjoy a satisfaction from it.
To force an entire community of members to subscribe to your narrow view of what is *good*, *fun*, *broken*, *Right*, *Wrong* is what will kill the game.
I have watched the game change an awful lot. Plenty of players have watched it change more than I have. But Changing things so dramatically on a mechanical level is really what is destroying the game, not anything about how the game was.
Before you would have people annoyed with a quirk here, or a glitch there, but now you have people upset that this game is moving into something many of us did not sign up for.
Just some thoughts I'm done now before I really get upset. I deal with things in the game, many of you should too. The game would become more stable like that. Asking the GMS to come in all the time is inviting trouble. Be careful what you wish for. |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 07:59 pm
We have now looked into 4 wars against c3s of Level4. These are all the wars we found this morning.
There are big differences and we will check all of them.
the shortest took 79 attacks, the longest about 450.
As I said this morning, we will look into the remains of the C3 army and the disintegration as you describe it.
I also said that there will be GC awards for higher war levels. This will be part of the next update that will go up to level 8 or so.
Looting involves more clicking. we think that GC awards will be a better way but a combination of the two may win.
I agree that there must be a strong incentive to fight these wars, for beginners and everyone else.
Technically, creating such an incentive can be trivial. we just need to decide on the best way to do it, at which levels, etc. but a strong incentive will be there.
The wars at higher levels will be different as the C3s will fight back. We do not want to go as far as allowing the C3 win a war but fighting back can start simple and we are already planning for it and can go much further into a sophisticated strategy and real resistance.
As to wars against other presidents, we never thought that attacking a noob because he offered to pay for one of your corporations was a good idea.
Some of them where astonished and demotivated when it happened and turned to us to resolve the conflict. there should be other ways, economic ways to settle or fight such disputes.
Attacking the same level country or a higher level country (up to 2 levels difference or even more in even higher levels) will allow for a lot of fighting.
This is a limitation but after a long period when many left the game after being destroyed by a war experienced player, we might just try this and see if these people can survive in the new circumstances.
There are many more things we can do to improve this without a major development effort which means that such improvements can be added quickly.
we want to get to other issues too but we will give this a lot of attention in the coming weeks and months and will add several rounds of improvements and many new war levels. |
| Maestro2000 (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:27 pm
I'm an econ player. Why am I starting at war level 3 on four worlds?
WG - Level 1
FB - Level 3
GR - Level 3
KB - Level 3
LU - Level 3
Is there an option to be at level 0? |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:46 pm
Some good points Psycho honey. The conclusion is wrong.
2 months ago, the war game was given up as dead and we know about all the problems it caused to new players and on top of that, everybody was hiding in WP and complaining about the cost. The idea was that W3C does not want a war game.
We have now an entirely different situation that solved some of the most severe problems we had, reduced the need for WP and it is clear that war is part of the game. WP is not eliminated but its use will probably be reduced to a fraction of what it used to be.
So now we still may have some issues. We have already looked into many of your points and we have solutions.
you may see the incentive as an issue but it is trivial. not all the problems we see are trivial.
in the previous discussion, we produced some ideas and we have taken some from many players and changed some.
If you have some ideas on the president versus president wars and fed wars, let me know.
these wars will be a very important part of the war game and fed wars will remain here too.
As to players remaining in the same (low) level, we have solved it for levels 1,2. if needed, we can extend the solution for higher levels.
peaceful players will not get to these war levels.
any constructive ideas are welcome. we still have some from the previous discussion. some remain relevant and some are not relevant any more after the recent change.
4 players played a war against a C3 country. I am sure they have some ideas on tweeking it but did not hear such comments yet.
Most players who participated in the previous discussion supported this change or loved it. There were some short comments against it but they never brought any argument.
It seems that writing is much easier than reading.
Everyone repeats the argument of no incentives for wars and the attacks on in-actives while we have said several times, that there will be strong war incentives and that we think GCs may be a better way to award winners than having them click another 500 times to recover the loot from the country they conquered. |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:50 pm
We have automatically awarded initial war levels, depending on how many wars you have won in the past.
war level 3, if I remember correctly, means you have won more than 6 wars.
is this an error?
did you fight in the past and want to play peaceful now?
explain and we might just patch you down.
we will not do this as a rule but if people are unhappy about the initial status, we might just patch them down. |
| Maestro2000 (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 08:57 pm
I have not been in a single war with a human player in 13 months. (The day I joined Simcountry)
I've only been in three c3 wars in 13 months.
Perhaps purchasing a country with a previous war record is effecting the war game settings.
I'd like all my countries to be reset to level "0" for war.
Regards,
Maestro |
| Tom Willard | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:01 pm
I am forwarding your messages to an engineer who will look into it tomorrow morning and mail you. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:20 pm
... |
| Kitsune | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 09:30 pm
There are differences in opinion about what was wrong with the war game.
Some think that new players not understanding it is the primary problem.
I disagree. The primary problem is that the war engine is tedious and uninteresting. It appeals only to a small minority of people.
I do not believe that adding war levels has made the business of fighting more interesting. C3s are more irritating to capture, but that's about it. If nothing else you should start all players at level 1 and let them stay there if they don't want to be bothered with this stuff. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 10:20 pm
Kitsune - That's not a very good argument, what is SC in general if not tedious? Econ is even more tedious than war and if that is something people aren't interested in, then the game wouldn't even exist.
That wasn't the problem, otherwise people would have never learned how to level up or take c3's effectively or how to get #1 FI ranks or using ASQ's in corps or debt bombing or cornering the soy bean market or naming every one of their 1500 CEO corps or...you get the point. All of those things are tedious and require a lot of clicking, but they are all things that you and many other players do. The biggest problem with war is that it involved a lot of risk to learn, I had my first two empires on FB wiped out completely for example. As people became more attached to their countries due to no longer being able to completely strip out c3's, then subsequent changes that made stripping even more difficult/less effective ultimately led us to the situation where there is no war, with most people in WP and war being treated as an abhorrent action when it used to be commonplace and fun. Of course the war levels haven't made fighting more interesting for you yet, nor probably anyone posting in this thread, as we all know how to take out a country with 6k ints and 50 forts with standard c3 garrisons, but when it becomes 80k ints and max forts everywhere with no nukes allowed and 15K km away from your country and it's to score 50 or 100 GC? That's interesting...add on to that the country fighting back, once again, interesting. Lots of strategy involved, lots of challenge and a way to compete with others, all without having to risk your country if you choose not to.
Another big problem is/was the time it takes to fight wars, this has been mitigated somewhat by the introduction of 8 hour blackout periods although not eliminated completely, but really, there is no way to eliminate that issue completely unless you go the LG option and just eliminate war completely...
As far as how this will bring back federations, the following:
Brings in/keeps more players
More players interested in war
Players want to learn effective techniques to war level up just like they have always for regular leveling
Players seek out federations to share such information
Also:
More players interested in war
Players interested in defense and strategy
More players interested in federations
Pretty simple.
EDIT: Also, saying that the problem is that it is too tedious ignores the fact that it used to be wildly popular...lots of people played the war game, quite often and quite actively. The system itself hasn't changed so that can't possibly be the reason. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 11:08 pm
No, Laguna said eliminate the "takeover" button. Not Eliminate War.
War can be fun with this suggestion, war will not be so detrimental in this situation.
If I had to choose between Laguna's and yours, no doubt I would go with Laguna's. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 11:12 pm
And Laguna I hope you are steering clear of those European Austerity Cut demonstrations. I hear your little country is revolting. Don't get hurt we'll miss you if something happens. Maybe, I'll just nuke the IMF building. It is all their fault. Really, it is. |
| Blueserpent (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, October 5, 2010 - 11:53 pm
The problem with knowledge is that no one is prepared to part with it,econ or war.
What few ppl there are that play both war and econ and the information they have...i find difficult to believe will be shared. So how feds and info shared are gonna help, i dont know
Wild tried to give a great understanding of econ...how many took a blind bit of notice? |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 02:51 am
Eliminating the takeover button will eliminate the war game, that's obvious and excuse me if I don't take your opinion as particularly important...you'd disagree with the sky being blue if I was the one that said it.
Blue - It's not that people won't part with it, it's that they won't part with it to just anyone. Also, information without experience is not particularly helpful. I've shared everything I know about the war engine with many people as has EO, has that information made those players as effective in war? Not really, they don't have the experience to know what decisions to make and when. That's the key part of having functional war game and a war system that allows players to progress instead of be treated as equal after 21 days. Working with fedmates under this system it will be much easier to test out new ideas, attack methods, etc. I could type out everything I know about the war engine right now (assuming I had the time) and it would make a difference for the few people who are actually participating in the forums and who actually understand it, but the problem isn't with those people, it's with the game as a whole...it's dieing...there are like 20 of us who talk to each other in the forums. We need more.
Anyway, as you pointed out, Wild had a lot of information and put it into a great guide, where did she get that information? Federations. We all develop ideas and share them with our friends/fedmates in game, those ideas then get disseminated out to the rest of the game over time and as new relationships are formed. The problem now is that the war game doesn't exist, so federations are basically a shell and everyone is basically playing the game on their own little island which leads to no information being shared, little interaction and ultimately a pretty boring game. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 05:59 am
LOL this kid is a real fn joke. WTF. I need to go back to University to get a dose of 'know all'.
So lets get this Str8 WB - your argument is retarded at best.
"liminating the takeover button will eliminate the war game,"
So you think that eliminating the takeover button is what will eliminate the war game? Really.
Wasn't your motivation the fact that the war game is already dead? Even while the takeover button exists already?
So how will this change what you have already concluded?
Your peanut brain has somehow mangled reality with your delusions.
"As far as how this will bring back federations, the following:
NO - Brings in/keeps more players
(where are all the players joining in feds?)
NO - More players interested in war
(again, where are they?)
YES! - Players want to learn effective techniques to war level up just like they have always for regular leveling
(Yet another way to avoid actually learning economy and leveling up in order to get coins to build and grow, then quit when the leveling is done for lack of know how in the real game.)
No - Players seek out federations to share such information "
(silly assumption. This is what the boards and chat are for. Yet with all these tools and people willing to give the advice, less than 1 out of 100 will actually listen and learn.Federations offer no new stellar ability to build up players apart from what is already available. Fed has forums just like sim. Wildeye's guide was copy and pasted to every major fed forum of the time from WGC to GREF Not the other way around.)
It amazes me how the kid makes assumptions and has no relevant data to show these mystical results he is already claiming. Where is everyone who thinks what you have caused is a great improvement to the game?
When you finish rubbing Madam Babushka's crystal ball and snap back to reality you will see that the opinion you don't really take as particularly important is not my own.
Its great to be the center of the Puniverse and make yourself the only thing that matters. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 06:23 am
Idiot - There are like 5 people who have posted with issues with the new engine and the most pressing issue came about because implementation didn't go as intended (war units/garrisons disappearing instead of remaining after takeover) and your public vote is a MASSIVE 6 to 2 and none of my friends have voted on it who are excited about the changes, nor has my brother who is also quite excited. So where is this massive public outcry that is so huge that you actually have to lobby to get people to vote for it?
When was the last time a change anywhere NEAR this size was made and there was this little opposition to it and it worked so smoothly?
Stop with your BS spin Windy, of course there has been no actual game impact...IT WAS IMPLEMENTED 48 hrs ago...and it's like 1/5th implemented...give me a break idiot.
Relevant data...hmmm...was the game more or less popular when the war engine was at it's peak...or even a year ago? or even 6 months ago? As the war game has died so has activity in the game, if W3C didn't recognize this then they would never have made the change...get a clue idiot. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 07:25 am
THIS IS ALL B.S.!!! These game changes are needless. If there was a c3 war issue, then it seems all we had to do was force the attacker to take all empire countries out of WP so he/she would be vulnerble. I just tried a level 4 war and ran into nothing but quirks in the war engine. Almost entire attack wings and attack and bomber wings lost with no damage to the air defense wings and I had long range division ground support on the attacks. I had navies that wouldn't move and fully equipped land divisions wiped out with no real dent on defenses. AND I AM NOT A NOOB ANYMORE! I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING! I will quit this game unless this reverts to the old way or find a better solution. Sorry WB, but I agree with Psycho. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 07:33 am
That has nothing to do with the changes Neidy, that has to do with the distance issues that have existed for some time now, where when you attack close by c3's the ratios are horrible, if you are noticing a difference now it is just because what you are attacking is no longer af def wings (200 int/200 heli) but instead full int/heli wings (400 int or 400 heli) and the fact that the units are high quality instead of 100Q. Spotting units don't make a difference when attacking close by c3's...at least not as much of a difference as you would expect/hope for and his issue has been laying low for some time because the c3 defenses were so weak.
Find a c3 outside of 1500 km and dec it at lvl 4, you'll see that the ratios are in line with what you would expect.
Nothing wrong with bringing the issue to light but blaming it on the changes made are inaccurate. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 08:06 am
I was well aware of that I was attacking full air defense wings and not divided wings. I USE MY RADAR PLANES! As for "spotting units" it makes a huge difference. I have been at war with active players and not just c3's in my past. The forum posts by the gm seem to indicate that attacking countries further from you would require more effort thatn those closer to you. Which only makes sense. You are sayng that it is easier to attack further away than to attack by land with air support? If the GM set up the war engine in that fashion, than that makes the game less realistic and is even more of a reason to scrap this whole new set up. Example, IN THE REAL WORLD, THE NAZIS INVADED BORDERING COUNTRIES WITH GOUND AND AIR FORCES AND EASILY OVERWHELMED THEM. WHEN THEY ATTEMPTED AIR OFFENSE ONLY AGAINST TARGETS FURTHER AWAY (BATTLE OF BRITAIN, ) THEY FAILED MISERABLY UNLESS THEY COULD SUPPORT THE ATTACK WITH LAND FORCES AND SUPPLY THOSE LAND FORCES (NORTH AFRICA, STALINGRAD). THE FURTHER AWAY A TARGET IS, THE HARDER IT IS TO TAKE IT DOWN. THAT IS JUST COMMON SENSE DICTATED BY GEOGRAPHY. I don't buy it. You are saying that if I attack a country out of drone range it is easier? Naw, this has to change. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 08:19 am
One more thing. Regardless, of the GM war set up. If I attack an air wing with a full attack and bomber wing from a bordering country, I should at least expect SOME DAMAGE to the air wing. I had none. I also used 1000 precision bombers from one country 5000 miles away and saw NO DAMAGE to the air wing while loing 400+ precision bombers. That is ridiculous. This went on and on. |
| EC (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 08:49 am
WB...I never thought about the war index being at 60 when it should have been higher...that makes sense...thanks.
Just wanted to point out that my only complaint is that the units disappeared once the war was won. It actually wasn't too tough to take the level 4 C3, just a little pricey...especially with virtually no return in loot.
Also, for those wanting to learn the war engine, these C3's are a great way to do so. Most aspects of the war game are needed to defeat them...breaking the air defenses (interceptor and helicopter wings)...painting...and clearing defenses in the targets before destroying them.
These are all typical parts of the war game. I agree with WB that if you really want to learn the war engine...join a federation with members who know how to fight. Then, have them walk you through taking one of the C3's. No risk of losing your country as compared to a P vs P war, and you still gain priceless experience.
Neidy..the range issue has existed for a long time. Loss ratios are very bad typically when taking countries very close to your own borders, this isn't a bug from the new changes, it has been that way for quite some time. I agree that maybe it needs addressed, but it isn't a byproduct of the new system.
One last note...there are many players experienced with the war engine that would be more than willing to teach players how to fight using these new C3's as a template. I'd be willing to bet that just by simply posting your desire to learn the war engine on the forum somewhere will lead you to the experienced fighters. The ENTIRE reason that the biggest fed on LU broke up is for this. To teach others the basics of using the war engine and help you develop your skills...showing you the proper way to break air defenses...clear garrisons, etc.
Hopefully this brings a revival to the war game. Sure there will be bugs to work out, but there always will be when changes this big are implemented. With feedback, which has been happily received and discussed on this forum,(thanks Tom) the new war system can be made to work. Its no different than all the eco issues that have been going on lately...give it time.
EC |
| Tom Willard | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 09:29 am
Nothing was changed in the war process itself.
the changes are only in the defense level of the C3 countries in each level.
In the 4 wars I looked at, one was won in 79 attacks.
The quality of the air wings in C3 countries at level 4 is 150.
I saw 400 interceptors destroyed with 50 to 70 destroyed bombers.
I also saw, in a different war, 230 bombers destroyed.
Nothing shocking in any of these wars although we may tweak some of the numbers when we create the next levels.
If anyone has a war we need to look at, just let us know.
we have a detailed, blow by blow, missile by missile log of all recent wars and can see what happened. As I said, we did not touch that process for a long time. |
| Blueserpent (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 03:12 pm
lvl 4 c3,3 countries away, using a navy and special forces to paint.
I found nothing i didnt expect and was satisfied with how it played out.
I agree, that with the added costs,more removeable assets need to be added to a c3,varying up thro the lvls.
My issues and that of many others are still present and have been for as long as i have played....
The amount of clicking involved in taking a country is ridiculous.
Halve the number of forts in all countries but still allow the current rates of damage to the war index.
more ppl will find war less tedious and may actually start to use it.
Taking up to an hour for special forces to be dropped and ready to move is too long. This needs to be lowered.130 mil trans units shouldnt be taking this long to drop 15 sf's. |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 04:58 pm
level awards, are a one time thing. in regards to taking upgraded c3's, a one time gc award, for a permanent increase of difficulty, isn't very enticing. |
| Blueserpent (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 05:28 pm
i agree, coin rewards should be worth the effort. |
| Border C | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 06:56 pm
and instead of assets, just put cash in them to reduce clicking.
In fact, to remedy the loss of inactive raiding, I think W3C should introduce some random C3s with pops that range from 30 - 50M and have a substantial amount in cash. They can be more rare, and only available for those players at a higher war level to incentivize players to 1.) Work the levels 2.)Log in each day to find the rare C3s.
Maybe something similar but smaller in scale could work for lower levels to encourage people to log in daily. |
| Tom Willard | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 07:11 pm
Blueserpent
I agree.
I just fought a war against a C3 of level 2.
Took me more than an hour. no navy.
It is too long and difficult. Too many forts.
I will try to have it adjusted tomorrow. Also, we have some ideas on reducing the clicking and making the war process simpler.
To cut numbers, we already planned on a reduction in the size of all the units and a reduction in the numbers of ammunition needed by shooting a smaller number but making the ammunition more effective per piece.
most time you will fight once per level but the rewards will be a mix of what is in the country and gold coins.
This will not be an effort to compensate but sometimes it should be very rewarding. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 07:14 pm
Contrary to popular opinion, I think we can all agree that Tom really cares. You can't ask for much more.
And a damn good idea BC. |
| Blueserpent (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, October 6, 2010 - 07:25 pm
As an edit, i meant to suggest president countries use a max of 50 forts. Wasnt just c3's as i had mentioned previously. |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 05:48 am
So, I just took a C3. What was once just boring is now costly and incredibly boring. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:19 am
Wow Really Joe?
I agree.
Blame Dufus
We call him Whiteboy
Vote to repeal on the public voting. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:25 am
Good idea Blue and I like your idea too BC although I really don't think inactive raiding is as big of an issue as it's being made out to be.
As far as level awards, the entire point isn't just the rewards, I know it's hard to see right now with the system up to level 4, but if/when levels up to 25 are implemented it will be about a challenge, about honor and most importantly, about competition. People already compete, or at least used to (for no real reason), on war ranks which we all know are meaningless. To achieve a high war level there will be a challenge involved and accomplishing it will mean something.
Also, part of this was W3C agreeing to make sure that workers weren't constantly needed at the rate they are now so that we all aren't having to constantly take and strip c3's to fix worker issues which is quite annoying. The only reason there should be to take c3's in the future is to expand an empire (which is not the normal way vets expand their empire) or to set up on an opponent. Tom said they understood that the issue with workers would have to be taken care of under this system which in and of itself is a big gain for all of us.
I understand everyone wants to criticize the downside of any change, but give it some time and let it get implemented completely and the kinks get worked out before you declare it a failure/waste of time/death of the game/etc. Feedback is necessary for improvement, but overt negativity doesn't help anyone...especially when it refers to features that have not yet been implemented (the challenge/respect of higher war levels) or that have had time to take place (more players/feds/etc). |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:29 am
Idiot, shut up, know your place. If you have to beg people to vote on something and are still getting barely any results, it's pretty sad.
Add something constructive or take your trolling elsewhere. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:43 am
Maybe the kid thinks he is still on campus? |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:59 am
LMAO the Federation Forum is really jumping with all these players asking for membership!
Last time fed posted on the forum was Sept 9th. I though they would be way active thanks to Whiteboy.
I see nothing here to celebrate. Just more people wanting to leave becuase of Whiteboy... again.
You talk about credibility, like you have any? This coming from the one telling WGC we are attacking you to protect you from the likes of Wendy. LMAO oxymoron much. Pun intended. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 07:00 am
Constructive... ok let me think.
Repeal Whiteboy's War Engine on the Public Voting Section.
%100 constructive. Maybe half the players will stay if the Gms listen.
I dunno, maybe WB wants to play this game by himself. |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 07:26 am
Mr Willard please post here when you have made the adjustments and I will try another C3. I know you are sick of hearing this but there really needs to be some small reward for taking a C3 of your own level or it needs to be made easier. There will still be reasons to take C3's other than leveling up. |
| Serpent (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 08:08 am
I had an intresting experience last night with a level 4 C3 on WG.
First of all only 15 int wings and 8 heli wings. The garrisons were the same. Two attack and bomber wings made light work of the air d. The garrisons were not much problem either. Only 1 or 2 bomber loss per garrison.
But what was odd was that war started on May 25. In less than 5 min the air d was down, so I began hitting the cap and city garrisons. The country shared borders with Eastern Diamondback which I used to paint. Bushmaster was the primary attacking country. When I made sf to paint I went back to country and the date was May 26th. The capitol had moved and changed names from Shearing Hill to Keely and respawned as did all the cities and int wings. So I had to make another off wing to finish them off again.
Anyway the whole thing took a GRUELING 29 whole long excruciating MINUTES. Furthermore my losses were 2730 bombers only, but remember I had to take the air d and garrisons down 2 times. So it avg approx 91 bombers per 400 int's. Typical results.
After the war was won there were NO air wings, NO land defense divisions as the target list indicated. Only some banged up garrisons.
The first time I hit all def wings, then all garrisons in cities, the WI finally moved when I destroyed the cap. The second time thru as I was painting the WI moved rather quickly. I only had to destroy the cap, cities and 2 corps to get the WI to 0.
So there were a few issues, but Im sure they will be cleared up. Any new toy has some bugs to fix.
I give this experience (other than having to do it 2 times) an A!
Jason (Serpent) |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 02:48 pm
wb, what do you do if you've got all the countries you want and the only reason to attack a c3 is for the swag? before the change, it didn't amount to much but it sure made those hot summer afternoons bearable. furthermore, i don't have any problems with my neighbors and don't want to attack any of them. since i typically sit at the top of the sand box in the standings, if the war game isn't changed to give a monetary incentive, then i'll have to just eliminate all my countries other than the main and clip coupons until my membership runs out. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 04:22 pm
Parsifal - I've noted multiple times in my posts that it was never my understanding that the c3's would have nothing in them, my understanding was that they would have approximately equal assets in them when they were taken over as what it would cost to take them efficiently. If taken ultra-efficiently, then there would be room for profit. In Tom's posts he has stated that they are looking into that as it was an unintended consequence (the c3's respawning like normal c3's once taken over). |
| Parsifal | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 05:53 pm
wb, i understand. but the only reason to make that kind of trade is to expand the empire. a "little" profit with the risk involved is not worth the effort. the problem is not whether i can take the country. it's whether it makes economic sense. if i go into business or buy a stock, i don't expect to just break even or make a "little" profit. my expectation is that i will make a substantial profit. so, the risk reward ratio needs to be adequate (at least 5-1 if efficiently taken and more if ultra-efficiently taken).
that is not to say that the concept that you and others including w3 have conceived is not valid, just that the rewards need to be adequate to play the different parts of the game. i'm hoping that the tweekings will make this a solid part of the game. |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 06:45 pm
I agree with Parsifal 100%. I was not trying to say the whole new concept of war levels, etc should necessarily be abandoned but was complaining about the difficulty and lack of reward when taking a C3, a C3 of your own war level to be more specific. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 08:40 pm
"that is not to say that the concept that you and others including w3 have conceived is not valid, just that the rewards need to be adequate to play the different parts of the game. i'm hoping that the tweekings will make this a solid part of the game."- Parsifal
i totally agree, i think the extra difficulty of taking c3s is fun, but their also needs to be a reward... a one time gc award for leveling up, just isn't enough.
i mean in the event that some one levels up, and ends up loosing a war against another player, if they try to take c3's to rebuild, its only cutting into the few resources the player has left, if they even have enough to take a c3 (considering what is promised for the higher c3 levels,) meaning, a player may just end up shooting themselves in the foot by leveling up
their is of course going to a be allot of judgement of what level this or that player should be... but staying a level, that allows a player to fight competitively, and have reserves in case of loosing...
i mean, currently, the way, "most," players build up... is they get their one time level awards, buy pop, build corps, then save up the pittance of profit they get for registrations... or they swipe their card.
so now think, a player pays their membership, levels up, buys pop, builds corps, and buys weapons. looses a war. and now has no way of rebuilding, they've already resieved their level awards... and the fire power they needed to take c3s has been destroyed, (yes you can save some in you main, but its begining to sound like you're going to need a full on ws to take some of the really high level c3,) so this player, has effectively painted themselves into a corner. and for most players, it means their only option is to either put their main in autopilot, or swipe their card. |
| whiteboy (Fearless Blue) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 09:40 pm
There is a lot of 'if' in all of these scenarios, we can all come up with some scenario where whatever system there is will not work but that isn't necessarily productive. As far as the 'if' someone were at a high level and were wiped out, you gave the scenario in the old system that people level up to buy population, mil assets, etc and then if they get wiped out, well then at least there are cheap c3's they can start over with. But cheap c3's will not buy them more population or mil assets...it's not as if the old system was SO much more conducive to rebuilding, that player would always have little recourse but to swipe to rebuild if they hadn't already built up a large GC savings account. I get that there is a difference in the cost to take the c3 at that level, but if those costs are offset by assets in the c3 itself, then everyone is in pretty much exactly the same place as they were. This is another argument which seems like a red herring to me as are most arguments that are VERY specific scenarios which do not occur often.
As far as taking c3's being 'highly profitable', it wasn't highly profitable before, why would it be now? The system should be set up such that taking a c3 provides for some profit if done efficiently just as the old system was.
On a greater point, I hear so much from everyone about how substantial profits must be made to: pay for registration, pay for war protection, maintain an empire, etc. or one must 'swipe' their card. Do any of you give any thought to the game actually being profitable? Is there some reason you believe you're entitled to play a game which provides you with countless hours of entertainment for free? If so, how exactly do you expect W3C to make money to improve systems, monitor forums and respond to issues? Even bigger, we do all know that the war engine itself is pretty outdated and could use a complete revamp to make it more efficient, reduce clicking, make more sense in general. I hear many speak about this but no one is willing to actually put their own money into the game so that something that could happen...it seems like such a contradiction.
Everyone...the game is dieing out...I don't see how anyone can argue that point. The reason things have gotten to this point is in large part due to it being completely controlled by a very few players who have only their own and maybe their closest friends interests at heart and the worst part about it is, those players for the most part aren't contributing anything financially to the game as they have huge GC accounts, econ slaves which pay for themselves plus more or war slaves which suck up assets from the weak. It's time for all of us who actually enjoy this game to think about what we can do to improve upon it's condition instead of continuing along the same selfish lines that have gotten us to this point.
I know some will argue that the game is outdated and thus players just aren't interested after they've checked it out, if that is the case, then the game will die no matter what we do. I happen to believe that this is still just as good of a format for a game as any other but the problem is the status quo, the lack of a challenge, the lack of competition. Those of you who have been around for a while know that there used to be ALOT more competition in this game and that competition was MOSTLY based on war between individuals or federations. There are threads from 2 years ago where one fed finally overtook another in size in the Fed Stats and there was congratulations to them and it was a real source of pride for them and a let down for the fed that was now 2nd. Does anyone care now? Doesn't seem like it to me, the competition is gone from this game. Everyone is just trying to figure out how to keep their own stuff or even worse, keep their own stuff safe while taking stuff from others. The natural defense when a war breaks out is to first assess your opponent, then, if you can win you take their stuff, if you can't, you whine about it as if war is immoral. No competition.
It's time to bring back some competition, that was the point of this idea. Is it implemented perfectly right now? No. Does it need tweaking? Of course. Has it even been ROLLED OUT COMPLETELY? No...all you can see now is the possible downside because the upside doesn't even exist. Give it some time and try to look at it from the perspective of improving the game by bringing in new people, giving them a system to compete in and reinventing the war game so that people actually want to play this game again. That will create new markets and players for those of us who have been around for a long time, we'll always figure out a way to make our money...give it some time. |
| BunnyFace | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 09:51 pm
Whiteboy you aren't conducive to the game. You are a spoiled punk B*TCH who cried wheeeeeeee all the way home. You need to watch how you talk to Women and everyone else on the forum. Calling someone a bitch doesn't make you cool. Maybe where you are from it does. You need to grow the F*CK up you F*cking pussy and keep the forums clean. You just f*ucked up the game for everyone else. Your changes suck, and judging by how you carry yourself on the forum, you F*cking suck too. So shut the f*ck up. You had your chance and you f*cked it up. You aren't a game maker, you are a game spoiler.
I'd expect to be banned from the forum for this, but I guess we can all play by your rule. So F*ck You Whiteboy. |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:07 pm
I wonder who BunnyFace is??? |
| Psycho_Honey | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:09 pm
Your Mom?
Does it Matter? |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:10 pm
My mom dont play SC. If she did I would prolly dec war on her! 
Simple question! |
| Psycho_Honey | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:14 pm
LOL says a lot. |
| Blueserpent (Golden Rainbow) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:36 pm
I not sure how anyone can say the game has been ruined due to recent changes. Simcountry has been on its ass for a long while.Everyone has contributed to its slump, not one persons suggestions.
As i said in an earlier post, i thought the scenario played out well.
If ppl bothered to look at some of the products left in these c3's,you may just be suprised at the value.
I have lost count of the ppl that have entered chat and asked for advice.....tell a new player to have just enough weapons to lvl up and concentrate on making ur country profitable, falls on deaf ears. So e1 starts to war,decs,then finds they havent a clue. They then come back to chat, advice is still the same.
My point..we have game docs,they explain econ,weapons,how to run a country...does anyone read these things,NO.do they take advice,NO.
Yet e1 wants to complain.
When i first started i learnt econ then war.The cash u make is what makes you able to war.Either that or you raid ppl.
Vets and new players alike...c3's arent there to pay for your game |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 10:58 pm
wb, to the contrary, taking c3's would result in a 15-1 profit margin. without changes,which i know are coming, you can only recoup about 600-900b with an outlay of about 2t. that doesn't make sense. as to why the game is dieing, consider each round of adverse changes to the game, starting with cutting back weapons/ammo/cash in c3's, cutting back on interest to be earned from loans, cutting back on profits to countries, making ceo's at best marginally profitable, to name a few. with each of these changes the base of experienced players dropped and those remaining empires became weaker. instead of protecting newer players and giving them a hand up, we continued to see many of these players quickly take down c3's and incur staggering debt making it impossible for them to dig themselves out.
i personally dropped my two ceo;s that had consistently been in the top five for a year or so, due to the low return. it was not worth the 30gc's to keep them. i also downsized an empire of eight countries with 40-50mill pop each and 40t+ weapons/ammo simply becuause it made more sense to have small countries with only 10-11 mill pop. currently, as i've said in other posts, i'm seriously considering dropping the other countries in the empire and only keeping the main (at least in the near term).
the new program if implimented properly can bring back a degree of support from players by giving them great incentives to play and develop empires. there is much to be said for these changes, just don't cut out the last possible profit center. i've seen a lot of changes and i'm hopeful that w3 will respond appropriately. Tom has been very open to suggestions and i know he is working very hard to fix the situation. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 11:11 pm
on the other hand i haven't mentioned the other leg on this stool and that's fed wars and gang banging of smaller players. even in situations where a person/fed is the winner of a large war, it takes a toll on the members. i've seen big wars result in most of the combatants leave shortly after the war was over. it currently has resulted in wp being used by many players to protect themselves. i realize that the changes that have been made were to help stabilize the war program and make it so players wouldn't have to be on constant alert, even when they won. some of us are not as thick skinned as Wendy (he tips his hat). So, there needs to be some balance and i commend all of us who have been in the conversation and hope that we can come to an amenable resolution. i've enjoyed SC and i'd like to be a part of it for some time to come. here's hoping. |
| Blueserpent (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 11:22 pm
I think the guys that involved themselves in asset raiding,noob bashing etc realise it wasnt helping the game, with the new war levels, as has been pointed out, if ur lvl 10 war....u aint econ no more.
I do agree tho,Parsifal, so many thing where profit could have been made, have been taken away from players.
Fed wars and ppl leaving is a lack of character and too busy worrying about 1's and 0's. if you get spanked,rebuild and come back stronger. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 11:31 pm
"well then at least there are cheap c3's they can start over with. But cheap c3's will not buy them more population or mil assets...it's not as if the old system was SO much more conducive to rebuilding, " -WB
you know that isn't true, come on man
before the slew of recent changes... i could gain between 10-20gc value of weapons and ammo each day from raiding C3s.
i am not sure thats to much or not. i don't think a person should have to spend real life years building up. infact, the harder you make it to build up, the less likely people will be to risk assets in war. which, is a large part of the problem with the war game. why spend 6-12 months building an empire, so some one else can strip from you in a matter of hours. making resources easier to obtain, will make loosing less risky. and winning more rewarding.
frankly, the best fix to the war game, is to reduce the sell-able pop limit to 15M. And increase the pop decline of large countries. forcing all of sc into a smaller game. meaning the build up to the higher levels wouldn't be as extreme, and their would be more value for the small guys to fight each other. additionally, how many countries can support the same size military at 40m compared to 50m? making the large sized country wars, well, more interesting. but i doubt thats the direction that W3C will take.
please, i'm not criticizing people that build up 80m war slaves. i'm saying that if every one had more limited manpower, they'd have to make hard choices between offense and defense....
the point is, as it is, large players are able to build max garrisons in "EVERY" target, buy and upgrade "EVERY" weapon, and still be able maintain TONS of offense. and make a profit with the country. should we be able to do this?
personally, i don't care, i think the game would better over all, if the over all size of countries and their armies were smaller. but its cool to build huge countries like that. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other
how ever, the "if," WB, that you seem to be irritated about... when you build up, and level up in war levels to that extreme, then you loose. now, in relation, to your available targets, don't have the strength to blow your nose. and you have extreme costs in taking c3's. unless you have a huge amount of reserves. or swipe your card... what are your options?
seriously, i don't think a player should get rich from c3 raiding, or rather, get rich from little effort, and that should apply to any thing really, space trade, or anything else. but you should still be able to make a profit from raiding c3s. or at the least be able to break even. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 11:49 pm
and to agree with a couple things said above, it really does seem that every avenue that players have for making profits, eventually gets tweaked, and become virtually useless. and most of these changes are based on the prize pay outs.
in the past, w3c has stated that they wanted the cash pay outs for only the most successful players. and i think we can all say thats a fair statement. but the results are that many of the things that we enjoyed in the game got nerfed, to being next to useless...
the interest rates where mentioned. players had allot of money on the loan market, and were receiving cash payouts, just based on that. so w3c fixed c3's so they didn't need loans, reducing the loan demand, they lower the interest rates, and added ff, to force players to convert the cash into gc....
c3s used to offer 1m pop in disaster relief, 4t min in cash, and at least 3t in military assets...
consider that if we could do that now? with out the cash pay outs? a new player could in a weeks worth of work, have something worth looking at? wouldn't that be more inviting to new players? i mean, older players would still have huge empires, and of course the knowledge to make them effective...
but thats a different subject. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Thursday, October 7, 2010 - 11:59 pm
i'm not advocating go back to the old ways, i'm saying that the harder you make building assets, you are going to have the opposite of the desired effect. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 01:09 am
right on Orbiter |
| Kitsune | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 01:09 am
That's a good point. I think SC made its first mistake when "assets" became so heavily emphasized.
People criticize the players for placing value on their assets but that's how the game is built. It's hard to make profit and getting harder so unless you want to buy GCs at high prices you have to be careful where you lose assets. This is not conducive to a war game.
Maybe it'd help if they'd add some kind of non-permanent victory in war. Like, a "raid" or "pillage" option instead of capturing that damages infrastructure, kills a little pop, etc. Then the defeated player could re-capture their country. As it is, when someone conquers a country, they keep it in WP until they're finished stripping and then dump it at which point all the effort in creating it is gone forever.
Months to build a country, hours (of tedious clicking) to lose it. Way out of proportion. |
| Laguna | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 01:12 am
I don't know if I should let you all crash and burn, or if I should make the effort to stop this. Actually, I already did an effort; crash and burn it is.
Maybe after you all crashed and burned, something intrinsically virtuous might flourish. As usual, I'll be here to see. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 01:21 am
What are the game rewards once you each war level 7 and above? Anyone know? |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 01:50 am
Laguna - Chiming in with how we are self destructing while offering no description isn't particularly helpful, I have yet to see a valid argument where your idea of no one being able to take a country in war would help the game in the least. You are fully aware it would kill the war game which I understand you despise anyway, but I don't see how you can dispute it played a huge role in making the game as popular as it was...and at that time you played a huge part in the war game.
Parsifal - 15 to 1? Where do you come up with that? I've never seen any kind of returns on that magnitude with c3's and even if that was the case, seriously, you think that should be the standard? To both you and Orbiter I once again ask, where is the game supposed to make any money? Everyone continues to talk about their own troubles in figuring out the way to play this game completely for free without asking the question, why are you entitled to completely free entertainment? Further, if you are entitled to it, who IS paying for the game to continue running? With the only player base seeming to be a bunch of people playing for free and no new blood paying, how does W3C keep the servers running?
I understand the points you are making, W3C does continue to reduce player profit margins, but have you considered that it is in their best interest and to an extent your own? They have to make money somewhere...
The game isn't dieing because of a lack of veterans who leave because it becomes too hard for them to make a profit, it's dieing from a lack of new blood. For every person who has played this game for more than a year who chooses to leave I'd venture to guess that 100 people started playing and left in their first month. As Blueserp pointed out, this game is difficult to learn and the information isn't readily available to do so, one of the main avenues to get information to players (or probably the BIGGEST avenue) was the federation system. The federation system was based upon the war game, people uniting in common defense/offense, since there is no longer any real war game there are no longer competitive federations so new players are no longer being competed for by those federations....sooo...new players aren't getting the information they need which will encourage them to stay. I agree that game docs/training videos/etc. will help, however I don't think they would be nearly as helpful as true player to player camaraderie where new players not only get information but also make friends.
I guess ultimately there needs to be some kind of balance between us as players wanting everything for free and then us as players recognizing that if everything is free then the game collapses upon itself. Almost every post you guys (Orbiter, Parsi, Kitsune, BC, et al.) make the case for why it is not fair that building up assets/population faster than the speed of the game costs any money at all...but isn't that exactly the intention? Aren't they called 'boosters' and don't they cost GC for a reason? If you want to say it should be cheaper, I won't necessarily disagree with that...make GC's twice as potent as they are now...spending booster = 1/2 GC instead of 1, population for 2.5 GC instead of 5, I'd be cool with that. It would allow players to build up much more quickly without modifying the servers to run more game months which I would assume is costly. But you guys have to concede at least somewhat to the point that the game should cost you something because until then we'll be left with a system where the vets control everything and their particularly loud voices will ensure that no changes occur to make the game better. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 04:13 am
WB, if you pay to play then there should be a system that keeps ones interest. as it stands there are fewer and fewer things to make the game interesting enough to plunk down $4/mo to watch grass grow. and yes, the game is somewhat difficult to learn, but if the benefits and payoffs are there, people will spend the time to learn the nuances of the game. but if there's little reward people will quickly lose interest.
and yes i was taking c3's for 60b and making 900b-1t. |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 04:33 am
It is obvious the we live in a world of 'instant gratification'. Dont you think we at least need to give these changes some time to develop? I mean Rome wasnt built in a day, and neither are all the issues many perceive to be wrong going to be solved in one fell swoop.
Give it some time before we jump to conclusions.
Jason |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 04:56 am
Via what method Parsifal? The cheapest method I'm aware of is about $350B...seems insane to somehow drop that to $60B.
Please explain to me how there are fewer and fewer things to make the game interesting...what was there previously that made the game so interesting that is no longer there now? Part of this whole system is to give players *something else* to do, a new challenge, new competition. But instead of focusing on that, the focus is on 'how does this hurt me?'.
Serpent - Great point...the system isn't done being implemented yet people. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:22 am
A level three player cannot dec on a level 4 player unless the level 3 player first fights a level 4 war against a c3. Gee how nice. I'm sure this will increase the fun war time interaction among players. Won't it? Does this mean level 5 can't dec on level 6 and so on?... Is the GM our new enemy? As I told someone in chat. The new game is turning into a video game hybrid. One has to go through hoops on order to finaly play as they would like. That does not represent a true real world simulation and for me it destroys the game. GM, why not just get better graphics and turn the whole thing into a video game. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:50 am
maybe the GM should have C3 have between 3-5T cash at all times aswells as pops at 25-30M and to make it sexy how about 2-3T in military assests id join the war game for those kinds of winnings |
| Orbiter (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 11:18 am
wb, do you seriously want to turn this game into the only way to compete at the top levels, is to buy your way their? forget about skill, its all about your pocket book.
|
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 03:09 pm
Yes Orbiter, he does, those college Stipend checks make for good simcountry aids. One of the wonderful gifts of University.
Seprent, Rome wasn't built in a day but it certainly was doomed to fail regardless of how long it took. I think the Romans would have liked a heads up in any instance.
Whiteboy Kitsune highlighted the very benefit of Laguna's proposed system.
Everyone doesn't need to offer anything but criticism at this point because if you look over the history of every thread you are involved in, regardless of subject, you just seem to know a little more and seem to be a little wiser than whoever is offering an opinion. No one likes talking to walls. You have created a wall talking environment. You don't listen to anyone because you hold the belief that your infinite Wisdom is paramount in any event. People are complaining because there are people who are actually listening and perhaps agree to some extent.
Demanding someone enter into a fruitless argument with yourself isn't helpful either. Maybe now you see why some avoid it. I mean Parsifal is 70 and you speak to him and respond as if he were a child. I am positive his wisdom surpasses many of us on this thread and then some. Participate, learn that you cannot control every circumstance, you might here more ideas to improve your disaster, instead of complaints. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 06:35 pm
Orbiter - No, what I'm saying is that EVERYONE can't play this game for free...nor should anyone be entitled to do so.
Neidy - There shouldn't be an issue with a level 3 attacking level 4, everyone should be able to attack 1 level up but no levels down. The intent is to protect newer/inexperienced/econ players from more experienced players raiding them. Not being able to attack up ensures that experienced players don't intentionally keep their war rank low to take advantage of less experienced players.
Windy - Once again, nothing constructive. I'm 29 years old, I own a house and have a family...referring to me as if I'm a 20 year old college student really makes you look stupid. I've done quite well for myself without a degree, but with the state of the economy it was time to get one to give myself more options...maybe you should think about doing something similar instead of spending 24 hours a day playing a game, stealing assets from everyone and forcing people to leave just so you can somehow try to turn a tiny profit on all the time you waste here.
People make their arguments, I make mine, that's the way a conversation goes when it isn't with someone like you who tries to turn everything into a conspiracy. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 06:52 pm
I do Whiteboy, I trade forex. I don't need to go to school again, I graduated from Temple University with a teaching degree. I do not teach because I have found a great way to make money while I took time off to have children.
I gave you a suggestion, obviously I knew before I got my hopes up that you wouldn't accept it. For a 29 year old man, you act like a child. You took a chance once again to show that you are more interested in throwing insults and being "right" rather than at least act like an educated mature adult for more than 5 minutes.
And frankly, you typing on this forum IS a conspiracy. Your luck will run out sooner or later. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:06 pm
"Neidy - There shouldn't be an issue with a level 3 attacking level 4, everyone should be able to attack 1 level up but no levels down. The intent is to protect newer/inexperienced/econ players from more experienced players raiding them. Not being able to attack up ensures that experienced players don't intentionally keep their war rank low to take advantage of less experienced players."
WB. This reply confuses me. You seem to say two things."There shouldn't be an issue with level 3 attacking level 4. Everyone should be able to attack one level up but not one level down." I agree with that statement. The problem is the new set up DOESN"T ALLOW IT unless you are first forced take a higher level c3. Right now i can't attack a level 4 player. I am at level 3. I simply have no interest in fighting c3 wars for levelling up. I am now being forced to do it by the GM. The GM should allow us to waive our participation in this useless 3c war levelling and allow us to be subject to attack by higher or lower level war players so we aren't forced to do something we have no interest in. My understanding is that the underlying intent of these c3 war games is to give new players a chance to get some training and level up. That could easily be done by sticking some c3's out there with good defenses and designating them trining c3's and let the new players go at them if they want. It's about choice and freedom of action. I have lost all freedom of action in this game.I am not allowed to attack a level lower or higher unless I first dump trillions into a c3 war that I have no interest in. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:23 pm
One more thing. To be clear about my proposal. The GM should allow currently designated war level 3 players to waive participation in this new war levelling. If a player waives participation, that player will not be allowed to attack lower level players but can attack higher level players. Further, lower level players will be allowed to attack the player who waives participation in the new war leveling. That would subject me, as a level 3 player to attack by anyone but still allow me some freedom of action in game interplay. Under that scenario, no one can accuse me or any other player who waives participation as trying to take advantage of lower level new players and if I decided to go to war against a higher war level player regardless of their game experience, they can seek help from any high level war player since I will be subject to attack by anyone. This seems like a VERY FAIR proposal. |
| whiteboy | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:44 pm
Neidy - If the case is that at level 3 you can't attack a level 4 player at this point then it is an error that should be corrected.
Your judgment of the system at this point is too early, the system has barely been implemented and for experienced players there is little yet to see at this point than downside. I'd ask that you wait for full deployment and for all corrections to be made before you judge it as pointless. At this point with only 4 levels, with c3's that don't have the assets in them that they should and with errors that need to be worked out like the one you noted it is easy to say that there is nothing to gain in the new system, but it will become more clear once errors are worked out and the system is fully implemented and tweaked.
My understanding/thoughts are as follows:
-C3's of all levels should have assets in them above the cost of taking them assuming they are taken efficiently
-The system will go up to very high levels in the future, not clear on exactly the number but I believe at least up to level 20
-Players will be able to attack 1 level above them up to level 10
-Players will not be able to attack any levels below them up to level 10
-After level 10 players will be able to attack 5 levels above or below, so a level 10 could attack up to 15 and vice versa (this hasn't been specified anywhere but it's how I think the system will work, at higher levels players won't need nearly as high of a level of protection)
-GC awards will be awarded for achieving higher war levels |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 08:55 pm
No her judgment is spot on. Clearly it wasn't properly thought through. As is the case with many additions. An opinion is never valid or invalid, just because you say so. Your reasoning is that she judged too early, but again, that is your own opinion, and it is right just because you are ...you?
Even in this setup there is a problem. Say now I can declare on you at level 4 while I am at level 3. War ends. But I don't think we are finished. What if I want to continually attack you repeatedly without alowing you to finish the job?
Again I can demonstrate just one of an infinity of exploits, but why waste the effort typing? This system is imperfect just as the last system was, just with a lot more griping. And rightfully so. I don't understand how substituting imperfection with even more imperfection becomes a viable solution. I stated before that this setup clearly falls short of solving any problem all while creating another infinite set of other problems. Further complicating an already complicated game.
-3 points Whiteboy. |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 10:13 pm
"My understanding/thoughts are as follows:
-C3's of all levels should have assets in them above the cost of taking them assuming they are taken efficiently
-The system will go up to very high levels in the future, not clear on exactly the number but I believe at least up to level 20
-Players will be able to attack 1 level above them up to level 10
-Players will not be able to attack any levels below them up to level 10
-After level 10 players will be able to attack 5 levels above or below, so a level 10 could attack up to 15 and vice versa (this hasn't been specified anywhere but it's how I think the system will work, at higher levels players won't need nearly as high of a level of protection)
-GC awards will be awarded for achieving higher war levels"
WB. I have great respect for you and high regard for your defense of your point of view. I therefore am not trying to be sarcastic when I tell you that I read this reply three or four times before I could understand this complicated new system. And I am still not sure I understand it. I want my freedom of action back!I don't want game awards which over the long run I know will in no way compensate for the effort.My proposal would make me a target of any player. I want the option of non participation.
I don't know Wendy. I know you two don't like each other. But I guess maybe Wendy and I have a general sense of why we joined this game. It is a simulation, we are supposed to be able to interact with other presidents, make war. MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS and suffer consequenses. I pay for this game. I joined it because it was billed as a simulation of real world interaction by nations and empires. THIS DESTROYS THE ESSENCE OF THE GAME!!! I can't and will not stay in Simcountry if this doesn't change. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 10:15 pm
I just took down a c3 that had a 60wi at level 3. It cost about 485b and it was not that difficult to take. however after the war was over, all the weapons went somewhere, so there were only those left in the targets. no defense divisions. that doesn't seem fair. so, we'll wait and see if that is a glitch in the system or if that's the way it's going to be in the future. also, whether leveling up and getting gc's will make up for this.
wb- i recalculated what the old method of taking a c3 cost and it is really about 40b plus some trucks and supplies. as to how it's done, since you're not into being concerned about making money in this game, i don't think you'd really be interested. but trust me, it can be done. |
| whiteboy (Fearless Blue) | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 11:54 pm
Parsifal - You misunderstand, it's not that I'm not concerned about making money in the game, it's that I've got plenty and I'm not particularly greedy. However, I am always interested in increased efficiency...plus I'm sure others would be interested to hear how you pulled that off. |
| Joe Green | Friday, October 8, 2010 - 11:56 pm
I had about the same Level 3 experience today as Parsifal with a bit lower costs. Military units disappeared but country had 3T assets. I'm happy with this (Level 3 anyway) as it is. Thank you GM. |
| Joe Green | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 12:03 am
I lost only 385 (or 387?) bombers. Used about 12,000 air to air and 17,000 bombs. 280B? |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 12:04 am
wb- it doesn't matter anymore. the games changed. |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 12:26 am
Look ... whatever criticisms we all may have of this it should (more or less) protect new players and econ only players. I'm guessing that means a lot to a number of people. Econ players can build their empires and not have to worry about warlords wiping them out in a day. New players are untouchable until they come out and take a few C3's. If they want to stay at level 0 or 1 they can just buy countries. They can take their time learning the econ side of the game and join the war game when and if they are ready.
If you have been playing this game for years you may have enough GC/SC$ that you are playing for free, and if you do have to put some RL money in now and then is that so bad?
If the c3's at any level have enough assets to cover the cost of taking them + that should be good enough. Raiding inactives might be more or less out but so what?
The people at higher war levels will be able to blow each other up to their hearts content, the lower war level people won't be preyed upon. The general idea seems pretty sound to me, and I am assuming the kinks will be worked out over time. The response to the excessive difficulty of taking Level 3 C3's was about as quick as you could expect. |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 12:39 am
Bottom Line:
The people who have been in the game for years that want to stay in the game can make suggestions to GM (they are apparently listening), adapt to changing circumstances, level up, work with each other (war games, etc) to keep the game interesting for them.
What is more important is that this new system may keep new players hanging around longer and keep econ only players from quitting because they went to work one day and came home to find they no longer have much left in the game. This game needs lots more players, the more players there are the more interesting it will be. |
| Aaron | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 01:02 am
Wendy, I'm not sure we should be calling this WB's war engine, even though he says it was his suggestion he also says none of his suggestions were implemented. Like I said though, I'm not sure because I'm obviously too much of an idiot to follow well thought through reasoning like that. |
| Spock President Utopia (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 01:10 am
Fascinating. Mr. Green, you state "The people who have been in the game for years that want to stay in the game can make suggestions to the GM (They are apparently listening)"
I voiced my opinion in a poll calling for the repeal of the new war rules. I voted for repeal. I just checked the status of that poll. 16 voted to repeal and only 8 are in favor of the changes.
In light of that, your statement does not appear rational. Just like the mythical Earth in which a group of donkeys attempted to lead some stray elephants to water in the midst of a drought. The elephants just said no! Apparently here, only the voice of the minority counts. In light of the current poll results, your comment is irrational. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 05:52 am
Exactly Joe, great points.
Aaron, try reading a bit more, you might then know where the suggestion came from. The GM's took my initial suggestion of having varying strength c3's so that players could learn how to fight without risk of being demolished by others and to load up those higher level c3's with assets to give players an incentive to learn. The GM's then turned that into a system with the hopes of solving multiple issues in the war game. I happened to be one of the many who were quite interested and excited about that system. It hasn't been fully implemented yet.
Spock, the GM's are listening and the system has already been modified once even thought it had been in place for only all of 4 days at that point. They are responsive to the issues, quite abundantly so when you consider what response was like 6 months ago. This system will work and it will change the game in a positive way, it just has to get implemented completely and then have the kinks ironed out.
Good for you for voting to get rid of a system you haven't even had the chance to completely experience yet or for the issues to be ironed out of...you like some others will choose to jump on any change because of a small negative consequence (which makes your whole 'elephant' and 'donkey' comparison seem that much more ironic) while ignoring the positive change it can bring to a game that has been on a fast decline for about a year now. But you'll have to excuse the GM's if they don't take a WHOPPING 8 person vote difference to dismantle an entire system that hasn't even been implemented completely. Majority rule isn't always correct or right, just ask American Indians, African Americans, Jews or the LGBT community. Plus if we're going to go by votes and vote differences, the priority should apparently be to "create some sort of sport game between nations every 4 years" as that received a whopping 23 votes with just 4 against...19 vote difference! I guess repeal will have to wait in line. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 06:12 am
It is possible... and likely, the system sucks.
It is called WB's War engine because unlike Tom, you wet your pants every time someone says they don't like it. Should you be surprised? Really? I mean... REALLY!? |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 06:14 am
Well four days after implementation the fed forum Dead as ever. I'm waiting for the flocks of traffic to overload the server with the federation forum flying off the handle. So much for improving the federation aspect. Any else have ideas? |
| Straight Jacket II (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 06:46 am
Im not sure about lower level players not bein preyed on,not all players will level up also any fed can recuit a new or low level player then teach him war game ,bingo you got your self a low level raider....me shrugs... can anyone verify that ,also if this can happen then all this for nothing? |
| Joe Green (White Giant) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 07:12 am
The level 3 players could still be at risk of unwanted wars but my understanding is new players are at level 0 or 1. Until they start taking C3's they can't be touched by anybody who is now in the game because we are all at least level 3 ... unless you have never conquered C3's, and if that is the case you are probably not much of a war threat to others. Players that just want to play the econ game are good for the game too (selfish thought: because their countries are where I want my CEO corps to be). |
| Straight Jacket II (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 07:24 am
Hey Joe yes new players are on level 0-1(and can be a threat),and im not sayin encon players are not part of game.im just saying what i think could happ. sorry if i didnt explain it better |
| Keto (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 07:37 am
Wendy, there is a new thread for bickering. Use it there. |
| Spock President Utopia (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, October 9, 2010 - 09:00 am
White Boy, in the second paragragh of your last pos you addressed my reposnse to Joe Green. Your initial first response seemed reasonable even if I disagree with it. However, your analogy concerning a game vote to historical wrongs done among entire ethnic, racial, religous and sexually oriented groups of peoples over the past hundreds of years is to me appalling and speaks of a person who places much more weight on the insignificant versus the real world reality.
I could understand and even chuckle if you compared the current Simcountry poll to lets say, American Idol. But to compare it to the near extermination of Native Americans, the forced transfare and later enslavement of an entire race (my great, great grandmother was an African slave in Puerto Rico), the demonic evil of the Holocaust against the Jews, and the ongoing civil rights struggle of people of a different sexual orientation, is to me beyond the pale. Where you find the moral equivalancy, I do not know.
Regarding the Simcountry war rule change. I suppose it would surprise you if I told you I agree with many of your points of view. A change allowing for addition of the ability to fight benign high level c3's with potential rewards, even if they only compensate for the effort would make sense if it ran parallell to the current game so as not to upset the efforts of long time players who have already gone through a minor peronal treasure to achieve what they now have.
Also, C3 war has always been a personal concern to me and I have always felt empires should be completely out of war protection in the event they become agressive. As for new players, we already have a Federation system. A new player only needs to petition to join one for protection. I do no agree that new players are as vulnerable as it has been claimed.
Your dismissal of what is now a 17 to 8 vote against the current game rule changes is dissapointing. Mostly veteran players vote in these polls and you have decided in your mind that their opinion doesn't count. Honestly, I find that insulting.
I am not angry at your reply. I am angry at the GM. They have hijacked your important message for their own designs, and you are now boxed into defending certain decisions of theirs which I don'think even you agree with. I for instance was told this afternoon that at level 3 I can't declare war on a level 4 unless I play this new forced c3 war game. I read through the posts and find even you don't agree with that based on your reply to Neidy. (My sister in law). Almost every game addition you have promoted can be implemented without these new GM rules.
I believe my analogy is much more applicable than the analogy you drew. I see no Irony in it. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 04:59 am
Spock, you're right, I apologize...shouldn't have blown you off or made such a drastic comparison.
I still disagree with you, but I should have done so more respectfully. There are aspects of the system I really like and aspects I could do without but I do support it overall and I believe many players already do and once implementation is complete most will.
As far as public voting, people often only see the negative consequences of any change immediately and would therefore vote against things that are over time in their own best interests, I believe that is the case now. If in 6 months time the system is fully implemented and the kinks are worked out and it still is viewed negatively and hasn't made a positive impact in the game, then I'll be out there lobbying with you for it's repeal.
Give it time...please...the path we have been on isn't sustainable.
WB |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 05:34 am
Normally I wouldn't want to be a lab rat for six months. I pray it doesn't take long.
6 months... wow. |
| Spock President Utopia (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, October 10, 2010 - 07:03 am
White boy, You did not need to apologize. I was only trying to point out flaws in your comparisons. Your ideas to improve the game are sound and with merit. They are being implemented by the GM as a subsitute to the current game rather than useful additions. Since I am boycotting the war level game, I am now being forced to play a solely economic game as I have no ability to support friends and friendly federations. I will be on the sidelines over the next few months watching how this works out. Hopefully your faith in the GM will be vindicated and I will become a full active game participant. If the game changes for the worse as I believe it will, I will probably leave. The game will survive without me in either instance. |
