 |
|
|
|
Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 03:24 pm  I as a member of the Soviet Federation and an advocate of activity to play the game have noticed that something has happened to the game recently. I think activity, in Kebir Blue at least has dropped dramatically and the amount of people regularly playing simcountry has decreased. Ive noticed this in my own federation through the use of the "Who is online?" tool and of course the absense of participation in my own federation through messaging and simple federation functions. I cant help but realise that this downturn is due to the world recession that i know has hit Kebir Blue on a massive scale and the severe slump on the international market. This is turning into a sick game. I think that the Gamemaster has some involvement in this and i think we should getting discussing this whole thing. I welcome all comments to this conversation 
| |
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 04:00 pm In my opinion, Simcountry died when war levels were introduced. End.
| |
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 04:15 pm Yea that may be true, but i think that this is having a huge impact on the welfare of the game. Less and less people are playing.
| |
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 05:52 pm There's an economic crisis on Kebir Blue too?
| |
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 06:21 pm I can only speak for myself, but I do not think things economically are very good on Golden Rainbow either. I think the GM's build too many corps in C3's. I know they have to fill gaps at times (availability of product), but as a president and owner of 2 CEO's, I would rather fill in those gaps! I'm also aware that the size of corporations is having an effect (getting larger). The moderate collapse of the FMU market on GR has probably been the largest negative effect here.
| |
| Saturday, February 25, 2012 - 11:28 pm What economic crisis?
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 12:15 am don't worry about a c3 building companies 1 you can buy em 2 you build they close so stop making FMU corps the reduced unit levels has pretty much killed the weapon grade and ammo comps so I killed all of mine along with some other unreliable company types like some 300 year old luxury companies
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 12:15 am ^ Says the person with hundreds of TRILLIONS and ceos that may i say, look smexy (Kitsune).
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 01:15 am He's right about stopping the building of new FMU corps. GR and LU are overbuilt now. WG and KB just about there. Look at the Factory Utilization Chart before you build. He is also right about closing CEO corps. Some corps that used to be profitable for a long time now are consistent losers. If your CEO can't profit you prob need to close a bunch of companies. The CEO game is trickier than it used to be.
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 01:27 am Kitsune is VERY good at what he/she does! I'm always impressed to look at the econ model used on GR by Kitsune. As a returning vet of the game, I am aware of the ABC's of running countries and CEO's......I fully agree with the things being said by Matt and others, and I just fleeced my CEO's of dead weight. I just stated something that I don't like about the game; my point was (and I wasn't clear) is that there are very few things that we can build that actually make $$$ reliably. Less competition from GM owned corps might mean more corps that make at least a marginal profit. No big thing, just a thought.............
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 01:32 am I still don't quite know why we don't have a "Battle world". Is it not a risk worth taking?
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 01:49 am We do have a battle world... Its called Fearless Blue. But all this discussion about economics and world prices doesnt take away from the fact that there is a huge deficit in activity. And we all know that if theres no players, theres no game. Although it seems along way off. I think there should be a proper interfederation forum or summit or something to discuss these kinda things.
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 03:32 am LOL. Devlin, Laguna was joking. It's because Fearless Blue has been a massive dustbowl for a while now. Back on topic and I suggest w3c do the following: a: advertise this game. b: use a better chat client c: use a better forum mode;
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 04:11 pm Agreed Tom with A and B. C is fine in my opinion.
| |
| Sunday, February 26, 2012 - 07:05 pm Might be that many players are scared away by the thought of a "battle world". Why invest in an empire that's so much more susceptible to raiders? If that's going to be case (and it should be on a "battle world"... I"m not advocating any changes to War Leveling or FB's status as a "battle world"), then the cost of setting up and maintaining an empire needs to be much lower on FB compared to other worlds. Say only 20 GCs a real-month to maintain your FB empire compared to the standard 30 GCs for all the other worlds. Lower government costs overall. Allowing upto 15 countries in an empire before revolts start attacking your factories. (OR, something I'd love to see across the board, allowing countries to protect their factories from revolts regardless of the number of countries they have with garrisons stationed at the factory. *What are they doing there while the corp is being attacked during a revolt? Why aren't they engaging the rebellion? Makes no sense. They'd be brought up on charges of neglect-of-duty in the real-world.) Something, anything, to make having a country on FB worthwhile besides committing yourself to constant warfare.
| |
| Thursday, March 1, 2012 - 08:51 pm The idea of a battle world was discussed in this 2+ year old thread I think it was first proposed even before that. Anyway, the point was to create a special round-based world where the focus was on combat and competition and away from hoarding/worrying about assets. This is different from Fearless Blue. The developers seemed to agree with the idea but I guess other stuff was more important.
| |
| Saturday, March 3, 2012 - 03:45 pm I like the idea too, always have, but at the moment hardly anyone seems to want to fight on FB or anywhere, period. So would the battle-world be used? Personally I feel it might make war a bit of a 'gentlemens agreement' just to have a friendly fight. The war game was, and should be, about settling grudges, earning bragging rights etc. It's a pity it was abused and bullies forced the GMs hand into introducing war levels. The GM has some major war plan additions in the pipeline he says, so watch this space; the battle-world may become very viable.
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 08:38 am While I usually enjoy a good lark, I was being serious about the Battle World. There wouldn't be the impediment assets are to war, nor the possibility of accumulating it over long periods of times. If a Battle World isn't coming, W3C better invest their time and thought in ways of generating conflict among players that do not put their assets on the line. And conflict doesn't have to be begin or end in a war.
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 01:35 pm LOL, I don't think W3C needs to generate conflict among players, just find a viable way for them to sort it out Interestingly, did anyone else see Little Omicron appear briefly on the list of worlds on the portal page about a month ago? I'm wondering what the plans are for that ... Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 02:29 pm I saw that too. I actually tried to set up a country there before I started on LU (unsuccessfully I might add!)
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 06:40 pm If fearless blue is a war world we should be able to buy all the weapons and ammo on the open market. Nukes on the other hand would need to be built, direct sales, closing contracts, or baught in space. just a few thoughts ....
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 10:31 pm Gothamloki I like your thinking. When a new player starts and they get assigned their country on a world, can the program assign them to FB? or is it just the peaceful world they are assigned to? If new players are never assigned to FB then for FB's sake FB should be cheaper to play on (20GC's month). I mean why pay to go to FB to war when you can go to war on the world your already on?
| |
| Friday, March 9, 2012 - 10:42 pm I would just like to add.....Big up to my FB Posses and Crews. Its been a hard Year with the FB markets being Green, war levels slowing down Empire growth and the odd punk every now and then having a pop. But I see Red skies ahead. FB will once again become bathed in Fire and the noise of War will echo all around. FB is Dead Long live FB
| |
| Saturday, March 10, 2012 - 04:28 pm I also saw the Little Omicron world about a month ago in the list of 'worlds' on my home page. I clicked on it to check it out, but it did not connect. I am intrigued.
| |
| Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 08:29 am Little Omicron was a test world. Or so goes the story.
| |
| Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 04:44 pm I still wish the GMs would open up a free, invitation-only test world to selected vets who know what they're doing and are prepared to give detailed feedback. That way they could trial new features with real players before they are implemented on other worlds and, once they are debugged and refined, have a group of advocates who could talk other players through how to use them and persuade them of the advantages ... Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Saturday, March 17, 2012 - 08:52 pm I agree with Jo A Test world Small world maybe 1500nations(thats 150players if they have 10nations each) Any Hall of Fame President/CEO Top 3 Repeating Presidents/CEO Anyone who does large amounts of registrations Anyone who the GM thinks really is worthly Atleast then they can easily test any new updates on them. They can give accurate feedback
| |
| Sunday, March 18, 2012 - 02:57 pm Although I favor the idea and agree with you Jo- If the new features are war related this would place non participants at a disadvantage. I would agree if all the new features that layers would be involved in testing were civil projects.
|
