 |
|
|
|
Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 02:44 pm  The initial income support for new players is now increased form 33B per game month, to 50B per game month and the duration is now 360 game months, up from 180. The amount is 50B in the first game month and it starts declining each game month, like it did before this change. It is reduced to zero after the 360 game months period is completed. This change is in effect starting today and it has consequences for existing players. All new players in the first 360 game months will see their finances improve as a result of increased beginners bonuses.
| |
| Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 10:19 pm very cool
| |
| Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 10:42 pm Tommi I LOVE THIS!!! It will help new players GREATLY but New players fail because of military/consumer overspending this will only INCREASE their spending. Can something be done to where they get reduced spending during this. They think everyone is out to kill them so they spend Trillions to buy defense when its not needed. They also take several countries thinking they HAVE TO. This will only take longer to get rid of people who dont play. Also 360months is alot. 360 / 6months a day = 60days(2 real months) 60days is way to much time most dont last that long anyways. If your going to increase the cash and time. Anyone who's a free player should have removal restrictions. If your a free player and you don't log on in 1month(It says president hasn't logged in 1month) your country is removed or considered Abandoned by the president. Same goes for the 8T loan limit most players get 8T and give up. Theres 100+ countries with 8T in loans and -7T cash that are free players sitting there hogging space. I agree with helping them since they need it. My issue is that if new players have all this extra cash it will raise the cost of goods, and almost ALL products in LU are deep in the negative and costing a fortune. They will buy a ton making both cost and delivery time(since most are in high demand already) harder on us that play and PAY!!! If your going to do this there needs to be a safe net -Removing them when they hit 8T in loans or not logging in for 1month -Reducing there spending when they get 50B. They think they making 33B profit they going to spend it on military and when they boosters don't they going to wonder why they now lossing cash. -Reduce the markets free players mass buy weapons/goods making it hard for us to stockpile. They buy a ton of interceptor missiles and its not a big deal cuz they can cancel a bankrupt account and start again. Us paying members have to deal. Something to help us out would be nice
| |
| Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 10:47 pm my last 2 where messed up sorry what i ment to say is. -Reducing there spending when they get 50B. They think they making 33B profit, they are going to spend it on military and when their boosters are done. They going to wonder why they now lossing cash. -Reduce the free players ability mass buy weapons/goods. Reduce there spending limits. Letting them mass buy Trillions is making it hard for us to stockpile(free's who really do play/paying alike). They buy a ton of interceptor missiles and its not a big deal cuz they can cancel a bankrupt account and start again. Us free/paying members have to deal. Something to help us out would be nice
| |
| Saturday, July 16, 2011 - 11:21 pm I agree with you super 110%.
| |
| Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 04:14 am I also agree with super 120%, it seems that players who dont play will be harder to get rid of, and those who do play will buy more weapons thinking they have too.
| |
| Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 06:24 am agreed super. I have a hard enough time buying ammo/weapons with the new setup, alot of mostly used weapons are in the red big time and very expencive and it because of the free player buying up this stuff and they're not even sure what to do with the stuff. Also, the time limit to where the country goes inactive from last used is far to long.. my space dock for example is being rented to an inactive acct... for 5 weeks! And i cant even evict him. I have to wait for over a month!! I want to use it, but i cant, i cant even message him to tell him that.
| |
| Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 06:38 am When I first joined the game, I was a chronic overspender. Three countries and $4T later, I finally realised my mistake. SuperSoldier you are right that the major turnoff of the game is that new players join, blow their budget and give up because they have no clue what to do. I think restrictions need to be put up- I'll put a vote up now.
| |
| Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 07:13 am Generally agree with above comments.
| |
| Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 10:42 am you know, guys, the reason for all the weapons and ammo being in the red, just might be with the fact W3C isn't putting stuff on the market, i mean, with bomber corps making 2 pb a gm, that means we need allot of bomber corps for the standard 10K standing bombers per country. thats one corp producing for a really long time, or allot more bombers corps than the supply system can handle. the game can't support the weapons and ammo levels than we are used to. i wouldn't blame this on newbs. The demand for this product was 1,279 last month. The supply was 223. This means there was a shortage of 1,056 product units. Delivery time depends on availability on the market. There are 125 companies producing Precision Bombers. a 1279 demand, is just over one country using all its spending, thats ONE country. meaning, for LU to accommodate that one country, we need 500 more bomber corps. or 5 times the current number. or, the entire current planetary production meets 20% of the demand from a single country.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 12:44 am Easier solution than tying them up in more rules. Just don't give them the money and then don't tie them up in rules. A lot of these new players don't go to war. They're just meekly following the game level routine because it's the only guidance they have. Defensive military in a secured country is only one thing, an expense. Ammo, weapons, and staff, all useless. Just take it away and default them to the peaceful levels instead. About the only time they come for help, they're game level 2 or 3, their beginner's boost has run out and they're asking for help due to having racked up 8T in debt. Amount doesn't matter. Invariably, the solution is slash and burn, and those useless weapons go out on the market. To be sold for rock bottom. The alternate levels aren't really published. I can go view the "including defense." requirements but not the other. Most of them don't understand that it's purely how they're viewed by the game engine. It has no bearing otherwise. It doesn't prevent them from going to war. If they want to do it, let them build up some offensive military and go for it. If they win, cool. If they don't. Oh well. Give 'em a little freedom, and some of 'em might have fun and want to stick around. For that matter, let the automatic systems actually stay off if you want them off. Don't force them down people's throats. And finally, I'll certainly agree that the production/consumption is probably severely out of whack across the board.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 05:09 am Hmm, yes, it used to be the standard answer to newbs - "buy MIBs, they're the most cost effective for levelling" but nowadays I dont think I've seen that advice anywhere, for ages. And yes again, making more rules is not going to help, just make it harder. Damn, I have a hard time helping people nowadays with all the changes, more this, less that. WD, I'm sure the level requirements for both were in the docs but yes, I cant seem to find them now :/
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 04:31 pm Great move by the gamemaster.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 04:39 pm I cannot find anything for the recently revised game level requirements, but the old ones are here.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 10:48 pm One way to reduce the cost of maintaining the army is making it smaller. We intend to reduce the size of all military units by 10%. This will make all units smaller, including existing ones. unused weapons will move back into the country stock. when fighting, a smaller number of weapons will be destroyed. The 10% reduction should be applied several times (it was already done once in the past). we should move to smaller armies and more realistic numbers. I also agree that we need to educate noobs and prevent them from overspending. When they overspend, they indeed become disappointed and leave. This should be done without adding rules and making it more complex. It should be simpler.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 10:52 pm Two months is quite long but after one month, the amount is reduced to 25B and it declines each game month. the total is 9T compared with about 3T in the past. they also get the login boosts of money and population.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 10:59 pm Just default new players to peaceful and rip out that defensive military. Don't give them defensive military gifts they don't need. If they want to war, they're going to buy offensive anyway. Why saddle them with something unneccessary? Your game levels are one of the few things they have to go buy. At least peaceful is focused on infrastructure and money. Every war player left in this game will agree that a little planning and a big bankroll makes things easier. Making the army smaller really doesn't seem to do much. All it means is that those of us down that path already, just field that many more units, made up from the little percentages you take off. I'm rather glad to read that you don't think adding additional rules is the solution. Heck, I don't even understand fully the chaos of the war levels. Simplest solution, free them up from many of the limitations then let them sink or swim. As it stands, that additional beginner's boost income is ultimately money that will go into my pockets (and a few other folks). So in a way, I'm glad for the change, except it's already almost impossible to swing a dead cat around on any of the non-war worlds for all the inactive countries. Which reminds me of something else you threw out elsewhere Tommi, how you used to feel back in the day when you weren't certain if you'd log in and find your country waiting. Gave you a bit of a rush every time though, finding it still there?
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 11:05 pm I do see your guys point maybe reducing there spending isn't the way to go but there's still things we can do that wont effect them. #1 - Removing those who don't play. If they don't log in for 1 month or have 8T in loans and 7T in cash there not playing. I mean they are free, if we say -10T(8T in loans and -2T in cash) = bankruptcy would be fair? Even give them a warning. Your country has past its loan limit it will soon declare bankruptcy.(looked @ my loans and found 9countries like that). All its doing is hogging space. #2 - The maybe its time the game master revise the game levels they still out of wack. Loans are nerfed so loaning cash is worthless. Requirements for Game Level 9 (Full Game) Required number of Countries: 1 Required number of Enterprises: 1 Required AVERAGE Population Number: 14 million Required AVERAGE defensive Index: 100 Required AVERAGE Defense Index: 80 Required AVERAGE Education Index: 110 Required AVERAGE Health Care Index: 110 Required AVERAGE Transportation Index: 110 Required AVERAGE Social Security Index: None Required Required AVERAGE Salary Level: 100 Required AVERAGE Financial Index: 80 Required AVERAGE Employment Index: 85 Required Average Net Cash Level: 1 Trillion Required Number of Corporations in the Enterprise: 150 Awarded Number of Gold Coins: 100 Requirements for Game Level 9 (Peaceful Game) Required number of Countries: 4 Required number of Enterprises: 2 Required AVERAGE Population Number: 30 million Required AVERAGE defensive Index: None Required Required AVERAGE Defense Index: None Required Required AVERAGE Education Index: 120 Required AVERAGE Health Care Index: 120 Required AVERAGE Transportation Index: 120 Required AVERAGE Social Security Index: 98 Required AVERAGE Salary Level: 140 Required AVERAGE Financial Index: 135 Required AVERAGE Employment Index: 88 Required Average Net Cash Level: 20 Trillion Required Number of Corporations in the Enterprise: 600 Awarded Number of Gold Coins: 100 How is that a fair comparison.
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 11:07 pm Loaning cash has been worthless for ages. Which why revise them? The free players can't go past level 4, and I've always considered level 4 easily attainable. Heck, I'm on the regular levels at this point and sitting pretty at 6. Why? They're cheaper now. But yes, let's clear out some of the dead wood. 
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 11:36 pm ...
| |
| Monday, July 18, 2011 - 11:45 pm nvm, the summery of my thoughts is that i welcome these changes to smaller militaries
| |
| Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 12:38 am I'm not sure I'm understanding this...If units are reduced by 10% and less weapons will be destroyed, doesn't that mean that more offensive units will be needed to compensate for their reduction in size and even more to compensate for their loss of effectivity. Sure defensive units will be smaller too but a good air defense is really hard/expensive to take down already. So I imagine we are looking at war becoming even more expensive for offense and basically even less feasible. Well, it seems like it will be virtually non-existant in this game eventually. *sighs* EDIT: Or will less offensive damage be done to an attacking unit too. You dont make this clear Mr Willard. Please dont do a politician on me and mislead or only tell half the story. I'm sure you wouldn't do that. Thanks.
| |
| Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 01:25 am maybe we should increase weapons production think about it 24planes now increase by 4 96planes u make 4times more weapons cost 4times less EVERYONE WINS
| |
| Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 08:56 pm Anyone who is here for a long time, may remember that we had wars with 50.000 or 100.000 weapons wrecked in a single attack. everybody said that we cannot reduce it but in the mean time, the numbers are much smaller. Then, some time ago, we have reduced the size of units and now we will do this again, starting mid August. If all units are smaller, the number of weapons destroyed will decline (per attack). All units will be smaller, offensive ones and defending ones. If the same number of attacks are needed to win a war as were needed before, then the total number of weapons destroyed and ammunition used during wars will decline. If you want more units and fight more wars, that will of course increase the numbers and that is true for all sizes of units. You can build more units now with the current number of weapons. In the previous change we did not reduce the size of existing units and the changes did take place but the effect took much longer to show. now, the change will include all existing units, returning some weapons to the country stocks. you can use them to build more units or you can use them as replacements to destroyed weapons. you can also sell them. which will bring up some cash and reduce the maintenance cost of the army.
| |
| Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 10:47 pm Tommi Maybe on top of shrinking units look at the costs for example Total size of Defensive Staff 303,239 Monthly Running Cost 3,220.32M SC$ Total size of Offensive Staff 540,449 Monthly Running Cost 43,304.43M SC$ i send 40B a month more on my offensive forces. Even if i doubled my defense to match my offence I'm still spending about 36B more a month. Thats based on FB where things are cheaper on other worlds it would well be in 60B plus a month. Smaller units and decreased losses are great but it does mean buying more which means more expensive costs. Maybe you should also find a way to reduce that. I mean in honestly 40B a month is alot of cash. How is that based on the cost of weapons? Most offensive weapons are very expensive as is. If that is the case then something should be done to lower those costs
| |
| Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:38 pm Cost will decline with the size. if you have watched the size of the army lately, you should have seen a decline in the number of soldiers and officers. Offensive weapons cost and maintenance was always much higher than the cost of the defensive army. it should be cheaper to defend but I also agree that the cost of the offensive army should decline more.
| |
| Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 01:13 am i did notice the offensive change, got allot of 400k mlm out of now where, a very necessary change, and much thanks
| |
| Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 07:03 pm Tommi, will the reduction in weapon losses apply equally to offensive units and defensive units?
| |
| Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 09:27 pm Tommi Is there any plans to fix weapons well the GM is reducing weapons numbers? Under the suggestions (called altering weapons) scarlet did make a valid point. Some weapons are either very weak, unneeded, or just it seem like their there for show. Anti Tank Missile Batteries(most wars are airbased so a weapon for just tanks is really unneeded) Land to Sea Missile Batteries(i tested them took over 1000 to sink a carrier, keep in mind it was undefended) Off Anti Aircraft Missile Batteries(really weak due to the fact that helis tear them up. Plus by the time helis are down these are rather worthless because the air force is down) Guided Missiles(just like cruise) Seals Units(I tested them took over 5K of them to clear/destroy a carrier with 2K navy missile/navy def batteries ). Scarlet made this comment and i agree. OAAMB could use a small (20%) firepower boost to be more useful. GMF would be better converted to a non-missile weapon (or an MIB/NMIB immune weapon) with the equal (or reduced firepower if unbalanced at equal firepower) to differentiate it from Cruise Missile Ships. Plus there's offensive jeeps and defensive? I agree with scarlet's thread Jeeps/Artillery are def only, Tanks and armor vic are off only. Doing that would save almost 600corps and reduce the amount of weapons/ammo people need to buy, maintine, and plan on. Also Navies are still sitting @ 100Q is this going to change? Until updates they weak. Plus ever think of adding some skills to units. SF all they do is paint there to impractical for real battles. Every think of making them stronger? What about letting they by pass garrisons and destroy Nuclear defensive missile batteries at the target. If the defenders got heli's/Land def units they are ok SF are dead but if not the SF sneak past the garrisons and destroy the Battery opening a chance for a nuclear attack. Just food for thought
| |
| Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 05:52 am for one, dont take a weapon, away, if it is useless as it is, give it a slight bumb. but OAAMB *REALLY* need a serious upgrade. just increasing their missiles per turn would be huge.
| |
| Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 08:08 am ID10Ts
| |
| Thursday, July 21, 2011 - 03:02 pm Very constructive and helpful Hymy, thankyou.
|
