 |
|
|
|
Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 02:22 pm  "Vote yes if you agree. The number of game months on all worlds should equal 6 per real day." The final vote tally Yes 28 70% No 12 30% --- Total 40
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 02:45 pm *sighs Im trying to recall a vote you have started, that was for the good of the game and not your own selfish ends.......................................................................That'll be a no then
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 03:05 pm no
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 03:52 pm This is for the good of the game. Speeds up gameplay.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 03:54 pm ...and 27 players agreed with me on this proposal. You Yoda and 11 others disagreed.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 04:04 pm Are you for real? not e1 is available to play 6 updates a day. How is that good for the game? All the vote tells us is 38 ppl could be bothered to look up the vote page.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 04:11 pm "not e1 is available to play 6 updates a day." So then increase the blackout periods if thats your concern.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 04:13 pm What the hell have blackouts got to do with you wanting 6 updates? Im talking workers, corps etc. war hasnt been mentioned once I can see it now...Maestro logs in and has missed 4 updates cos of work.... Ppl of simcountry i have started a new vote. Through massive worker shortages and the need to close corps we need to go back to less spins a day. Thank you for listening Maestro2000(biggest **** in sc )
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 06:11 pm assuming Maestro doesn't work the bar at the local Karaoke place and has his trusty laptop on the counter. Meastro = greedy. He's war level 0 on all worlds, pays for no war protection and wants even more from the game. Right. When I'm done... they'll remove war levels. Sooner hopefully more than later. Then Maestro will learn to play the game instead of crab off it.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 06:22 pm Greed Wendy? Are you looking in the mirror?
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 06:24 pm War levels are good for the game. We just need more players....New players.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 06:39 pm No I'm looking at you. You have war level zero on every world, two ceos on every world, and you make decent money. The only incentive and motivation for you to push for more spins on all worlds is you get paid more rollover in a day. Duuh Losing! Now when I look at myself I see that I do many things you could but won't ever do. I have paid for War protection on LU for at least 6-8 countries every single month for more than a year. You don't. Did the same on GR last year. I buy weapons for random purposes. You don't. Even if you do, it is to make a dollar, not to defend anything. See I make money, and I spend a lot of it and put it back into the game. You just crab, PERIOD. I don't cry for cheaper war protection like you do, even though hands down, I have paid for more war protection than maybe any other player in this game, possibly ever. If not the most, the first player place couldn't be far away at this point. You try manipulating different aspects of the game especially on the war side, but you don't fight war. So it is either for you, or whoever you are financing to fight. You ask for cheaper war protection because with all those countries and your big mouth, if war levels ever dropped, you'd sure need it. Long story short, you make all income, and no expense, yet you want more? Greedy is an understatement. Did you have any other questions?
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 07:14 pm I noticed a number of players posting on the board looking for more spin, so I put it up for a vote. 70% voted yes (28 out of 40 players) In my simcountry career I have paid plenty for WP. (A boatload)
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 07:34 pm There's a lot of players want no war restrictions back...you gonna put a vote up for that too?
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 07:48 pm Maestro, Pertaining to your statement, "War levels are good for the game. We just need more players....New players." I, also, who have played the eco side of the game, disagree. War levels are stupid and prohibitive, especially on the war world. The ability to play a friendly economic game was put in place to those who didn't want to be bothered by war. So if you want no war, play peaceful. Simple as that. This game in my opinion to sustain and offer full advantages needs to lift the war level restrictions. I think you will see that most players do not like the war levels in place. I have paid my share of WP over the years, and have never complained. I like the 'federation' concept. You want protection, you want unification, you want to learn.... join a fed. If you don't want to fight, then just set up air defense to contribute and help your fed in boosting their economies. The war levels even make it impossible to be a decent fed in times of war. I'm so sick of changes. Leave the time clocks alone in the various countries. Leave EVERYTHING alone. I have heard over and over of players being sick of pouring money into the game, and then change upon change screws everything up. As far as new players, yes we do need new good players. Sadly, because of multi account abuse, it deters players from wanting to invest their time and energy in teaching new players. It's gotten to where every new player that comes into chat, you question. I say this with all due respect.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:03 pm If they removed wp then would that count for free players to or just ones that pay? I play for free and am part of a fed. If Wp is taken off I should be allowed to fight with my fed aganist other presidents what is the point if I am forced to sit on the sodelines and watch my fed lose if it comes to that . For people that pay the GC you get should be advantage enough.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:17 pm Free players shouldnt be allowed to war PvP.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:25 pm WG should be 3 months KB/GR should be 4 months FB should be 5months LU should be 6months. If you want WG to compete with LU double its production..... Leave time as is
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:26 pm On FB world, the war world they have unrestricted war. War Level 3 and above. So just get some more people interested in the game and this conversation goes away.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:36 pm how does e1 sat at under war lvl 3 allow a war game to be played? regardless of the world. more ppl = more sat at war lvl 0 Simple answer.. do away with war restriction and re introduce WP as it used to be. Those that dont want war buy WP. War lvls i have no problem with them, ppl can learn basic war.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:39 pm Do a better job of talking to new players and they will join the ranks of war level 3 players on FB world and other worlds. Send them the links for player simcountry websites. Send them free advice on how to better their econ. Send them advice on how to take a C3. Send them advice on basic warfare. Pointing a finger at me is a waste of time. We are all here for our imagine time. Start imagining a strategy to add 50 new war level 3 players every month on each world. Them implement the plan. You can do it.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 08:40 pm LOL have you seen how many FB players are under war lvl 3? Maestro, get a grip dude War has all but been eliminated
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 09:32 pm Maestro takes too many drugs...
And there you go, when you did it was keeping your GC stash at bay wasn't it? And then you screamed for cheaper War Protection. A self serving request. Which points us back at your request for more spins on ALL worlds. If people loved more spins more people would go to LU. if LU filled up, you'd have a realistic expectation to speed another world to 6 months per day. Until then, a blanket move for all worlds is unwarranted when there are some people want to play slower. Maestro, this game isn't just about you. You did a nice job of trying to make this look like an everyone issue. No duuh, people do like playing 6 months that is why LU is so popular. But if everyone liked it, that world would be at capacity, and the other worlds empty.
He wouldn't know because he has never played. At least under his new name.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 09:49 pm Hey I'm not the only person who voted for the increased spin. As far as name goes, my game name has never changed and my ceo names are still the same.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 10:13 pm I fail to see why free's shouldn't be allowed to engage in PVP combat. The free countries already don't have nukes so we are behind the eight ball in that regard. There are more effective ways to ensure that free players aren't just flooding in to create war. Like having a mandortory active period (2-3 months realtime) before being able to declare war on another player this would ensure that the player would have at least somewhat a good understanding of the game and the politics that play into his or her world. A second option would be to give the SC some "teeth" and actually make them a threat to rouge countries.
| |
Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 10:27 pm
This is the indicator to follow and it says no. Why didn't this continue in the previous thread?
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 10:37 pm More people than ever have, played this game when it was free to all, and there were no GCs and cash accounts. There were no restrictions on war because nobody could go whining about the loss of their real world assets, when somebody took all there countries. But noooo!?! W3C wanted more money?!?. So came GR and resets. People left, and people whined, and people made stupid polls. The participation in the game declined each and every time W3C tried to make a smaller and smaller active player base happy. The number of players registered may improve, but the number players actually engaging in the game has been in freefall for a long time. W3C, needs to hire a consultant to help them come up with a profit model that actually works. Also historically the number of spins, has depended on the speed of the server, If your good you don't need to log in every month to keep your country running. And on a side note: In the olden days, everyone one of you would have been eliminated by the endless Whack-a-Tard game, that we played. Well except Parsifal(and Laguna who was posting while I was)..... However perhaps that game was a part of the problem.
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 10:43 pm I know, I know Laguna... cuz maestro likes random posts of tard strength.... like this one...
apparently trying to spark the conversation we are now having...
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 11:13 pm "Whack-a-Tard..."!? Excellent. Where do I sign up?
| |
| Sunday, April 10, 2011 - 11:36 pm I do not take any of the comments above personally. But personally I will continue to speak my mind. It is unfortunate that only a handful of players speak their mind on the board.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 12:08 am Well if it is any consolation, Maestro.... At least what you write does get responded to. My comments here weren't even note worthy lol
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 12:10 am Agreed with Hymy. This game is suppossed to be a sim in the real world in theory every country could attack every other one. So why is not every single country involved in perpetual warfare? because of economic concerns,and the threat of U.N. action. For this game to call itself "sim" it needs to incorparate these real world elements into gameplay. If you have money invested in the game and don't want to be invaded simply join a fed or appeal to the (hopefully) stronger SC. There are no artificial barriers to keep some players pride intact at the expense of the game as a whole.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 12:58 am Whack-a-tard, became impossible when W3C implemented secured countries.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 02:18 am Don't we all want to give someone a piece of our mind?... That's what lobotomies are for. ~ Laguna
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 02:34 am LOL I can see the ban hammer swinging soon
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 03:21 am I see another hammer swinging soon. bb2
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 03:24 am Wow, and I thought I was bad...
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 03:28 am Speaking of speaking minds... Although I do not condone this kind of behavior Double-Bob is now my hero... He will be missed Hail
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 07:51 am i died when i read wendys comment +5 points
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 04:36 pm "This game is suppossed to be a sim in the real world in theory" ...Muslimsk8r So explain how in the real world countries can sell 1 million of it's citizens in one shot. How real world is that?
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 07:49 pm i must say, that was pretty classy lg, i'll give you 2 point for that
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 08:28 pm I'd be up for moving GR or KB from 4 to 6, but aside from that the game speeds are fine how they are. I like speed at 4 game-months per day quite all right.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 08:30 pm "So explain how in the real world countries can sell 1 million of it's citizens in one shot. How real world is that?" I'm only talking about how this pretains to the war game. OF course thier are other unrealistic elements in this game due to the inclusion of the GC and cash market. So are you saying that the point of this game isn't to mimic real world countries in a Sim format? Hence the word theory that I used.
| |
| Monday, April 11, 2011 - 10:16 pm I thought the point of a game was to enjoy it, and to be successful at it if you're a competitive type of person. Any other game I've ever played has a rule book or set of rules and those are what you play by. (excluding me making up rules on my little brother when we were about 10  ). If there's an issue, highlight it, but otherwise keep your daft suggestions to a minimum. Careful what you ask for, you can all see the results of the much asked for but badly implemented war levels.
| |
| Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 01:02 pm Nonsense! This is the real problem with Simcountry.
| |
| Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 05:27 pm Agreed
| |
| Tuesday, April 12, 2011 - 06:58 pm lol
| |
| Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 03:46 am Does this mean I'll still be playing SimCountry when I'm in my 80s and 90s???? :S Yikes! lol
| |
| Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 02:58 pm Uh oh! We've been rick-rolled...
| |
| Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 02:29 am Nonsense! That is a detailed and informative video. Watch it until the end.
| |
| Sunday, April 17, 2011 - 07:13 pm I'm afraid my firewall will not allow more than 5 seconds of Astley, or Alicia Keys for that matter...
| |
| Monday, April 18, 2011 - 05:44 am Open Sesame....what would you at AGE 13 know about detailed and informative. lol
| |
| Tuesday, April 19, 2011 - 12:20 am Enough to see the underlying implications of an Astley video in any context. On topic: I'm also against increasing the spin.
|
