 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 05:54 pm  1. Quality of Supplies in the Country The quality of products the country is purchasing has and increased influence on the welfare of the country and in turn, an increased influence on the welfare in corporations and their production level. Higher quality supplies in the country will increase the cost for government but a higher production levels in corporations will increase their profitability and income for the country. The higher ordering quality will also improve the average level of requested quality in the market and bring it closer to the quality of products that are produced in corporations. We intend to continue and increase the influence of quality on the welfare even more in the future. All such changes are slight and they effect of the corporations will take time before it can be noticed. 2. Trading menu and Pages The trading menu is improved and some of the underlying detail pages are improved too. The order and sell pages are simpler and the product pop up page is clearer. 3. Product Shortages When countries have product shortages with negative stock, they now issue and immediate order for a 12 month stock of the product. This used to be 3 months and did not solve the problem, resulting in many small orders on the product market. 4. Radar Missions The radar plane function was largely broken and it is now restored and can be used more easily. 5. Spending Limits and Military Spending Limits Spending numbers have been reduced a bit. The numbers dated from the time when prices of products and weapons were several times more expensive and are now updated. More updating might be needed. Also spending boosters have been reduced. 6. Reduced Numbers of Ammunition in New Military Units Some land units now have a smaller amount of ammunition, both at creation and when they are resupplied. The reduced numbers do not change the use of ammunition but do reduce the cost of creating the units. When in war, supply units will have to resupply these units more frequently. Mobile units and the Long Range land units will retain their larger ammunition numbers. 7. Assets The nominal value of countries is improved. The double counting of some military assets is eliminated. A more complete report of assets will show up on the improved financial pages in the next upgrade, expected next week. 8. Blackout Periods With a changed user interface, including some menus and screens, messages about blackout periods did not always come through. Attacks were blocked during such hours but the attacker was sometimes wondering what happened. This is now improved. 9. Counter Attacks A C3 country can be attacked during the blackout hours of the attacker. The C3 country tried to counter attack and was blocked. The problem is now fixed. Messages have been corrected and the C3 counter attacks do come through. When you attack, you should also accept counter attacks. 10. Corporation Auctions A bug is fixed. It does not display "you can bid in 0 months" any more. When 0 months left, you can place a bid on the corporation again. 11. Closing Corporations by a Free Player No economic reason to close the corporation is now showing at corporate market value > 250B (was 150B). Corporate values are now generally higher than before. The feature prevents new "free players" from creating an account for the sole purpose of closing corporations. 12. Supply Units An improvement in the processing of supply units eliminated some unneeded movements that resulted from an error.
| |
| Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 06:08 pm An error in the computation of corporate assets caused this drop. We will fix it ASAP in the coming hour or so. I am sorry for this problem. nothing is lost. There is no damage to any country.
| |
| Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 06:15 pm Andy why cant the blackout messages show the entire blackout period? That way I'd know exactly when to log in and attack. The way it's showing now is hour by hour. Meaning I have to log in each hour to see if I can atttack. It would be so much easier if knew when I could login and fight.
| |
| Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 09:59 pm I dont think the attacker should be given any information about the defenders blackout times, just the statement that the country is in blackout, to prevent confusion.
| |
| Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 10:17 pm Andy How much of a boost does higher Q consumer goods give? I tried it awhile back and only got a few points when buying 200Q, if I plan to self contact the Q boost would have to be somewhat large. Can you give expect numbers 300Q average equals 30% increase? what kind of benefits are we getting?
| |
| Wednesday, February 6, 2013 - 11:03 pm I nearly had a war go inactive on me Crafty because of blackouts been active when I was online. Wouldn't take long to figure out anyway so dont see why they shouldn't just tell you. Would save the confusion of wether the war would go inactive or not.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:37 am I support public blackout information!
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 10:06 am The boost of quality in countries has a very small influence on the welfare index. It is now increased a bit and will increase more but it will be a small percentage. The cost increase to the country is not very significant while a small percentage boost in production is running in large numbers.
| |
Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 01:50 pm
I have to agree. As I have been in several wars where the feature is being used in a manner inconsistent with the reason it was implemented. During several wars with Jackseptic, his blackout period seems to span an hour at a time over several hours. Meaning one hour on, and hour off, an hour on, an hour off and so on. The feature is being used in this instance to gain an element of surprise when naturally an attacker would assume the start of a blackout period means the player won't be available to fight for several hours. This feature is not being used to avoid being conquered while being genuinely unable to login and fight, but to gain some advantage becuase the opponent has absolutely no idea when these periods will be set. Not to mention the feature is not universal for every country, it can be randomly set for each country. If the feature is intended to avoid war when a president cannot log in, allowing the person to setup the blackout period on and off and off and on, defeats the purpose and the feature is being exploited. In my wars it didn't matter because the country I was using was expendable. However if I was to use a valuable country to attack and lost my country to these shenanigans I wouldn't be too happy. A possible solution would be to make the information on set blackout times available to the attacker. Another is to disable the ability to set the periods hour by hour, but rather a start and end time of a contiguous blackout period. This could also be enhanced by forcing the set blackout period to be universal across an entire account. It should be set from the user profile/preferences, versus set by individual country.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 02:41 pm "This feature is not being used to avoid being conquered while being genuinely unable to login and fight, but to gain some advantage" -Wendy sounds allot like how you use war protection, and c3 warfare. "If the feature is intended to avoid war when a president cannot log in, allowing the person to setup the blackout period on and off and off and on, defeats the purpose and the feature is being exploited." Wendy also sounds like a wendy tactic. you'd think that you'd applaud such behavior in others, that you yourself are a shining example of.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 02:57 pm Ok, then lets have w3c drop war protection and blackout and see who lasts. That conversation has been had already and is in large part to blame for c3/war levels. The war levels served to make c3 warfare more complicated. It has been for the most part successful too. I am not as enthusiastic when I have to go about doing things the way I do, but you can't stop a determined opponent committed to action whatever the cost in time or resources. But yeah, if you wanna drop war protection/war levels and blackouts, I'm down to wipe you out the moment they do. Trust me, unless you are swiping that plastic you can't keep up with me, this is fact. Any day they are ready I am too. Let's stay on topic here and not derail the truth for some worn out argument that has been had numerous times.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:04 pm Oh, and my bad. I apologize Josias. Let me take two steps back. On the surface it appeared to me you wanted to criticize my observation but given what you just said evidences the fact that the blackout period abuse should be addressed like the numerous measures implemented to counter c3 warfare addressed those concerns after numerous lengthy conversations. Thank you for agreeing. Two different types of perceived or implied abuse. The issue here is that one has been addressed several different times in many different ways while the other still persists. I need to read slower next time Josias and I apologize again.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:24 pm i don't think the C3 thing has been properly addressed. the W3C has clearly stated, that if you fight a war. If the defense fights hard, you should not be able to "just walk away," how ever, the use of C3s, only, does not allow some one to do enough damage to cause you to go away. and allows you to harass better players, for weeks on end. claiming victory, not by superior game play, but by just forcing the other guy to yield, or spend countless hours fending of an inferior force mixed feels about the black out issue, i get the point, but i'm not sure why one thing must be stopped, but another thing not. Especially, when the one getting the pass, has been a blatant feature abuse for years. the other, not so much but for all your talk, and bravado. its you who could come up the war level latter, and fight me. Say what you will, but it is you, who is avoiding me. Its really easy to talk tuff, when your opponent can't do anything about it. which is why you fight the way you do.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:29 pm ~War protection cannot be toggled on or off for 24 hours. Note: EVERY veteran good at war, even the legendary war players used war protection all the time in the very same manner I have used war protection. You just mention my name, because I brought the efficiency of my tactics to an unprecedented level. I get it, but keep it real. ~War levels and increasing difficulty when moving up the war levels dramatically reduces the effectiveness of c3 warfare. Therefore, most of you moved up the war levels. I choose not to play that game. As long as you are not a threat to me and the other way the same, war is avoided altogether. ~The range of nuclear weapons, especially strategic bombs, have been reduced, because I bombed the crap out of Budman using a plan to keep his land weapons out of range, making it nearly impossible to paint my country. Note: The very same tactic used against me while facing several opponents at once. Budman had only me to deal with. ~The range of special forces and air transport units were increased to 10,000KM, in tandem with the reduction of range of strategic bombs.... These are just a few of the changes that came about from certain conversations about c3 warfare. I can go on and on... this is just off the top of my head.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:41 pm which is another point that was brought up a while back. based on what you said, wendy. "I'm down to wipe you out" "Trust me, unless you are swiping that plastic you can't keep up with me, this is fact. " "Any day they are ready I am too." it would sound that you are my better. If thats the case, why are you still low war level? The last thing W3C wants, (accourding to andy,) is an experienced war player at a low level. So why are you still at a low war level, bragging about how great you are? probably, because your use of C3 only wars. which of course, would mean hours of me popping forts. while you just take more C3's
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:45 pm every one HAS, how many ONLY? only you and as you just said, you can't fight me at the higher levels. you are weak. a one trick horse. you obviously can't actually fight any one who should be your own skill level, because you'd loose. you rely entirely on cheap tactics to brag about your own prowess.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 03:52 pm If that's the case, why are you still low war level? As I said, I choose not to play the war level game. If you don't want to face c3 warfare, you moving up war levels solved that problem. YOU moved, I was always readily available. You had a problem with how I operated, and you got your fix. As far as being in a position to face more war and pooping forts, you could always choose not to piss people off, or be an antagonist and find yourself in that situation, like you have done in the past, and continue to do on this thread. You bait, then complain when I come calling. I'm not bragging about my greatness, this status was mentioned by Andy himself in a thread on a similar subject. I know my capabilities, in making money in the game and putting it to good use. Knowing where I stand is far from bragging. You only know how to amass countries with large amounts of weapons and ammo, declare war in a pack on unsuspecting players, including n00bs, and claim your greatness. All while declining the fair fight those players deserved. You've danced around your own crap for so long while slinging mud, just keep it real. You don't want problems with me, therefore YOU moved up the war levels, and as intended it solved your complaint about having to solve c3 warfare. Case closed.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:16 pm All this tomfoolery is exquisite I admit. but I am not here to knock the chip off anyone's shoulder in this thread. I mentioned an issue and would like to know the gamemaster's position on how this is being used. I'll requote myself and ignore Josias here. I don't want this to get lost in his valiant attempt to bait and hook. I'm not a fish, it's that simple. You can have the rest of the thread to throw whatever mud you like, but it is pointless here.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:16 pm "You only know how to amass countries with large amounts of weapons and ammo," wendy isn't that part of the point. its not entirely about assets. but building countries and defending them is a cornerstone of the game. when you build something you care about. you don't want to loose it. so you defend it. and might be willing to step down before you loose it. that creates politics. with a balance of power, and conflict. it creates political maneuvering, to gain allies, and tactical advantages. as players must weigh their goals, against the risk the use of C3 warfare, does not encourage that. their is no risk. it does not offer interactive politics, because you do not need allies, and never risk anything. it makes this a one person game.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:18 pm Perhaps you didn't get the point of my last post. But go ahead, have at it.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:22 pm I dont agree that black out periods are for extended periods of not be able to log in. Some people may have other schedules that require different blackout periods. You cant assume all have the same sort of day as yourselves. Cease suggesting ways to make the game easier. What do you want, SC for dummies? Wendy, you know damn well that your methods of fighting, (from what I have observed, not experienced I might add), are designed to use harassment to get your own way. Josias, why do you bother argue with Wendy about this? You have avoided her with WLs. Dont use that as a safety net to get away with critisising her.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:30 pm well, my suggestion about C3 warring would be a GC charge, based on the pop of the attacking country. If a player uses a country under 30M, to dec a country 30M or over, their'd be an additional GC charge. for the dec. it the attacker wins, nothing special happens, if the defender wins, he/she gets half the gc for instance. if some one was to use a 20m country to dec a 70M. The 20M being 10 under 30M, would cost the attacker 60GC to make the attack. if the 70M wins, he gets 30GC. less than a C3 raid, but atleast the attacker isn't "just walking away," perhaps a certain amount of free dec's could be asigned to each player account. for instance, you could use 5 undeveloped countries per real month, to dec on others. but after that, you have to start paying GC. it would allow the tactic, but still limit it. And provide a way to slow down weeks of endless fighting against undeveloped countries.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:37 pm Yeah, that would be a cool way of gifting coins. Abuse? Much?
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:43 pm their are better ways to gift gc, shoot, we used to be able to just give GC away. And we didn't loose it because they didn't want us to give each other gold. "Wendy, you know damn well that your methods of fighting, (from what I have observed, not experienced I might add), are designed to use harassment to get your own way. " Crafty and thats my point crafty, she is out to harass players. you have to ask, how many people would sign up for a game. if they knew that after a few months of building up, if they try to do anything, they are going to have a person attack them endlessly, until they quit or run away? i'd bet most people would keep looking.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:49 pm I am sure you are right in your own way Josias, and I understand where you are coming from. But I must add that, in 4 years of playing here and Wendy being around too, I have so far managed to maintain diplomacy with her. Is it because she fears me? I very much doubt that. Is it because I talk, am civil and reason with her? ah, maybe we are onto something there...
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 04:57 pm i've tried that crafty, i really have.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 05:29 pm Crafty is no better than Wendy in that regard, Josias, as far as harrassment/abuse. I am going to recount a conversation that he and I had yesterday. Now you know I got kinda snippy with Crafty in the forum the other day........and this is how he wishes to retaliate: I popped in chat yesterday to cut up while I was waiting during my 3.5 hr layover at airport. I was telling a story of how I made a fool of myself at my work cafeteria on Monday. They served neck bones as an entree for lunch. Well I had never heard of such and was gagging and saying ewwy and going on about it. There were huge bones sticking up out of the meat!! Everyone at cafeteria was laughing at me...people of all nationalities. Then I told chat that my friend that was with me whispered to me that it was a special in celebration of Black History Month in the states. Well I didn't know, and I had made a fool out of myself. lol I ended my story in chat by saying "people {in general...not black people} eat such weird things." After all, Crafty and I on many occasions in chat have shared my aversion to Black Pudding, Haggis and other gross stuff. No issues were made of that. For having said this yesterday, I was called down in chat by Crafty for making, and I quote, a racist statement. I thought he was joking, because there was nothing racist in what I said. Well I take offense at this and especially because he was acting the "twat" (to use his british slang) because he was put out with me. Well I don't take too kindly of being accused of something that I didn't do or to be referred to as being racist, because I am nothing of the sorts. So I approached him in a PM to ask if he was serious, and he replied yes. Well because I was upset over his unfair statement, he proceeds to heap further insult by telling me that I am "losing it" and need to go see a doctor to get help. Since he called me Jan, I can only assume that this was a personal insult. I'm sorry this is uncalled for. This is what I have fought against in this game for years. It infuriates me, and it has no place here. I'm sorry Crafty, you have no clue about me. Furthermore I work for doctors, internationally renowned ones who travel all over the world about their research. So I think that if I were mental, I wouldn't have such a reputable job with reputable people. So while the "high and mighty" Crafty sits back and says anything about anyone in this game, he needs to evaluate his own behavior. I have smacked in this game, most recently Wendy, but never have I used these sorts of tactics to fight or get back. As I have said, I have come to this game to laugh and have fun, but as a result of yesterday, I just don't wish to contribute any more. I do appreciate all the sweet notes and messages I have received in here and ingame. Thank you for making me feel like I did make a difference in the chat and forums. But I have to thank all of you for the smiles and laughs YOU game me, and I am really really going to miss you. We have some really nice, fun personalities here. Now for the sake of the game and the community, some game vets need to lose their arrogance and this righteous feeling that they have that they "own" this game and can say and do as they please. New players who don't understand this attitude will quit or run away. I wasn't going to state why I was leaving, but I think now that it is important that people know.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:15 pm OMG... *facepalm* on all fronts.
An essay with very little to stand on. I told you she acts this way with anyone who disagrees with her on anything. Suddenly they become abusers and whatever else the mind has the power to conjure.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:26 pm CC, the difference between myself and Josias, is what he defines as risk, is no risk at all. This is of course self serving. I know what my tactics do and I am in no rush to use them on anyone. I will however, defend myself how I see fit, especially in an effective and efficient way as possible. The point of my post even after his was, this feature is being misused. I am not asking for it to go away, I am asking for it to not be misused. The same has happened for war protection as mentioned above. You can't toggle it on or off, the way you used to. Same for c3 warfare, and for just about any other aspect of the game they don't prefer. Funny thing is, even after they get their wish, Josias and others like him wish me to sidestep the solution they were given, because when I put them on the ropes again, they will only ask for more protections. I stated I don't wish to use the war levels, they went up the war levels wherever possible. This is coincidence? Nah, they don't want any problems. They want to whine their way to victory when they cannot outnumber or out skill their way to one. This as old as I have been playing the game with each and every one of them. When they dropped Armies out of the sky with no personnel in place to use the weaponry, was that not abuse? How much was gained through that exploit? You never hear that crowd complain of any foul play there do you? No, it is all one sided until it is them on the ropes, then it is abuse. Same with Jan, as soon as you don't butter her cup enough, you're an abuser, a problem, and what the fuzz ever. That is just about as good an example as one could display. I told you, and boom there it is Andy. I'd like to stay on topic of the many players that agree, there is no good reason for the secrecy of blackout periods, especially if they are intended to be used to avoid being conquered while you sleep or at work. I didn't attack anyone, I gave an example of misuse. I offered a few practical solutions. To address Crafty's concerns with my suggestions: If you disagree with a contiguous blackout period, then certainly making them public to the attacker or making them uniform across the account whatever they are set to certainly doesn't undermine that idea of leaving the freedom to choose how to use blackouts, even if it is an obvious example of misuse.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:36 pm Dear Crafty, Because I raise issue on something that I don't agree with, I am a so called "nut case"? Is this what you, Wendy, Lord Lee dole out just because someone argues a point with you in the game? Such a childish retort in an argument. You are supposed to be a mature 50ish year old man. Wendy and LordLee I can understand, as they are kids to me in my perspective, given my age, and they didn't address me by my real name. You, I actually held to a higher standard. I always regarded you as fair and someone to respect in this game. Now I put you right there with Wendy and her childish insults and tactics. Furthermore, are you certain to what degree my anger is on this side of the computer? Can you hear anything, see my facial expressions? Then how do you know if what I am typing is being screamed, yelled or what not? YOU DON'T. I do possess the ability to get angry. I think we all do, but that doesn't qualify a person as needing help. ha ha ha ha You want to argue a case of semantics that you addressed the chat in general "no racism in chat." Well I was the one doing the talking. Darcus, Aries, Hezzy, you all were present, was Crafty talking to you??? Furthermore, who ARE you, Crafty? Despite your attempts to contact the GMs about volunteering as a game moderator, I don't believe the gamemasters have bestowed this privilege upon you. Now I have to raise a brow as to perhaps why they haven't. Maybe they know something we don't know. And after this debacle, I don't think you are qualified to do the job as you obviously do not possess the ability to be fair and you issue out personal un-called for insults. This is behavior not befitting a moderator role. So right above in this post you address me by name, and try to diagnose me? Did you go to medical school, specialize in psychiatry even? Do you have credentials behind your name? I didn't think so. I work for educated people with credentials behind their names. I have credentials behind my name. So don't even begin to state that you are qualified to determine if I need "help" or not. You are a layman, not a medical doctor or psychiatrist. You do not know me outside of the words that you see typed in this forum or in the chat. If your wife observed you, she observed you in person. You have never witnessed me in person, so that argument doesn't really hold water, now does it? As for being the person I once was? I don't really think I have changed. I have always come in here, laughed, joked, posted, engaged players in conversation. I have always spoken my mind and if I feel like I or someone was wronged, I have spoken up. You see the problem here, is you and Wendy and some of the vets are sooooooooooooooo arrogant, you are "above" anyone trying to point out that what you are doing might be wrong. But you sure do dish it out, don't you??? I accepted your admonishment in the forum, relative to Wendy, and that I may have overstepped. Again, where were you and your commentary the thousands of times she has done so? Selective, aren't you? I hope that this community sees what a jerk you can be. This, in my opinion, is un-called for. The above post is even more uncalled for than the conversation you and I had in private yesterday. I will report it to the gamemasters for it has no place here. It is this sort of behavior that ruins the game, ruins the chat, ruins the forum. I have received in game messages from several players asking me not to leave, but honestly, I don't know if I want to be a part of this any more. I can only shake my head at you. I would say that the mental problem lies more with a player who just can't offer a simple apology for being wrong, but you will never admit that, will you? Well I will end with offering my apology to anyone in this game that feels like I have wronged them. You see, I'm not above admitting being wrong. You should try it, Crafty.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:37 pm And for the record, she's not leaving. If so, she would have left already. What is this the 7th time in as many weeks? I hope you stick around.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:45 pm Today, Chris Christie took offense to the White House doctor calling him out on the unhealthiness of his obvious obesity. Chris Christie took to the media calling her out on it, supposedly. Instead of getting all upset at the accusation, the White House Doctor says, you don't necessarily even have to be a doctor to see something is obviously wrong there. I know it doesn't relate to anything in this thread but you know. since we are going for a record derail of a thread that actually has to do with the game some of us are actually playing, what the hell :s
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:52 pm The game master should just ignored Wendy's war advice at this point. If anyone exploits the game it be her more then anyone. Please Wendy tell me? How is taking a 10M pop country then using it to nuke fair? How is this fair Andy? Should she be allowed to us a 10M pop nation with no assest to attack a country with 30or40M nuke them so they lose millions and cost them Trillions? In the end I would lost trillions and millions of population. In the end the only way to stop her would be to take the nation which means I lose more assists then she does, hardly seems fair. Just cause I love Wendy and I want to help her game ID like to propose the following Andy. When attacking the declaring nation MUST have the following - The min pop needed to transfer between countries(right now that's 20) - The nations indexes must be of at least 100(not including employment) - The country should have a few trillion in assests. Not counting corporations values. - With Bombers being contract only why can she buy nuke bases freely either make bombers able to be bought on the world market, or make nuclear bases contract only aswell
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:57 pm You know what Wendy, my 12 and 13-year-old godchildren are more mature than you. I'm sorry I can't relate to you and what you say, it's like dealing with an incoherent toddler. Perhaps I should stay and bring out my inner child and entertain you. ha ha ha ha ha Enjoy your game, Wendyloo. lol
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 07:59 pm Oh noes... was that a personal attack?!?!?! ANDY!!!
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:00 pm Maybe, maybe not. ha ha ha ha ha ha
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:03 pm Simple concept Super even you should understand. A 30-40 million pop country should under no circumstances should come under duress from a c3 that is ONLY lobbing nukes. And if it does, the owner of said country should rethink his or her position in playing the war game and master econ instead. If you cannot put up an adequate nuke defense when a player is obviously going to launch nukes, then yeah, you need to find another angle. Enterprising, or staying out of politics that lead to war. Tell me Super, do you really get that?
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:07 pm Super you still don't get a lot about this game. Why do you assume I need to buy bombers? I produce and stockpile them like everyone else. You are aware you are only a single war level out of my reach and out of war protection. Your outbursts are an example of knowing when and when not to antagonize. The day you help me I'll quit simcountry furrealz yo.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:25 pm this is my point Andy Why should all she have to do is make a few airwings and buy a nuke base then start non stop nuking when in order for me to protect against her nukes I'd have to protect and spend assets for defending dozens of targets. I'd spend more the what the nuke costs to defend one target. If your going to make up war levels and all this stuff you need to eliminate these underhanded tactics what I proposed above is fair and wouldn't limit the war game in anyway a what so ever
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:38 pm Also Andy When it comes to the Q boost from consumer goods, I looked if my total costs tripled, based I bought 300q, I'd spend around 450b a month, I'm not sure that would increase my production enought my income would have to double then some for me to be making a positive income. if I may suggest an idea, not only should these higher Q good help your welfare but use a bit less. Maybe using 300Q you use 30% less? that would mean instead of using 450b of goods I'd use 330b this means my production should only need to see 30or40% increase instead of doubling. Bring back an old suggestion I don't see why a player can't have 200 or even higher corporation production. I 1million times support this update in my opinion. I thinks his kind of update needs to happen all at once, not over time
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 08:46 pm I agree with Super's idea about some type of declaration requirements. However, I would add an exception to a country that has belonged to the same player for a certain term of years. Say if you own the country for 20 game years or such then you can avoid any index requirements. This is similar to the delay in the ability to nationalize corps for a new player to prevent a far less damaging activity.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 10:09 pm I have a good suggestion for andy. during a C3 war you see the country is negitive in construction, This is needed for rebuilding ECT. Id like to suggest the following. After a C3 war(non PVP) after the war the stock is pushed back up to a positive number and life begins anew. During a PvP war however the number stays. Should they player keep or dispose of the nation there should come a price. If the country is short on lets say meat, oil, construction. They game would push those negitives up to a positive number, but it should come from the losers funds. Lets say player A attacks player B Player be wins taking Player A nation. Player A is short on construction and oil. The Game should take the SC$ vaule from the main country of that player to pay for the cost of goods. Meaning Player B would gain the nation plus a clean slate. This would be most effiective in C3 warring or even boycotts. During a boycott the president would have to sign contracts to keep the goods in a positive slate or suffer problems later, Should the boycott end the country will auto buy all goods needed maxing spending space until all goods are postive. This would help limit C3 warring and make the boycotting system MUCH more important when trying to fight an economic warfare senario. This would also help long term when Q has more effects in nations allowing players to have more reasons to become more selfsufffient
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 10:38 pm Lor' no one called you a nut case. Seeing as how you work for these senior doctors you should realise that drepression is common after what you have been through. Nut case is a politically incorrect term. A mental illness is just like any illness, a cold, or diabetes or a blood disorder. The notion of it being some great secret to be hidden to avoid any stigma is so old. I openly admit having had mental issues after treatment for my failed liver. My wife made me talk about it, and I got sorted. As for moderation. Any moderated chat has far stricter rules than a call for no racism. It doesnt matter if you thought I was wrong, anyone else would have said shut up or mocked me or something. But you have now made a public spectacle of yourself over the issue. And it's something you have done a lot of recently. Hence my suggestion you seek advice. Now, again, rest, stop thinking about people you havent even met and have no part in your real life. Have your break. DO IT! and stop keep posting back here and winding yourself up even more. Peace be with you.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 10:47 pm Crafty, Please refrain from telling Lorelei she needs mental help. What she said could have been taken into racism but it was no intent to do so. Lorelei isnt the type of person to go out and make fun of blacks. Im friends with a lot of black people and some of them didnt even think it was racist. Weather it was ment that she was being racist (which i dont think she ment to) or weather she didnt mean it in a racist way, you dont go out and tell her to go see a doctor. I dont know if your mom didnt teach you how to respect a woman, but my mom did for damn sure. My family would kill me if i ever said that to a women. I was learned to let them get the last word lol. And yes, in real life, i respect woman more than men. If you repect woman then you tend to have a better love life (unless you like guys and i have no problem with gays since my cousin is gay). Im married to a beautiful wife and i have 2 one of a kind kids. How did i get there? I respected women and i expect you to do the same. So lets see, you told Lorelei to go to a doctor and now shes leaving because of your rude comment. Unless theres something screwed up in your mind, you dont go out and tell a women to get checked. Thats just like telling a girl shes ugly right to her face. Lorelei is my friend and i will back her up weather shes here or not no matter whats at sake. You hurt her, i hurt you. Well i hope you Crafty learned your lesson for today.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:04 pm Oh and Super, 2 nuke def missiles are 3.62B, 1 strat bomber is 8.5B, + 9.5B for the bomb. 300Q will still have the same ratio of price. So defence is not more costly than the attack. I would say it's a good idea to have a nuke def in place regardless of if wendy was here or not. But the persistant harassment thing does seem to be a problem. I certainly cant/wouldnt fight off endless C3s. I lost the only country I have ever lost, to a C3 on FB, because I wasnt/couldnt be there to fight it off. Thats my fault, it was the one and only C3 that attacked me. perhaps a limit on the amount of new countries that can attack one country in succession is needed. Like 1 country would need to be 1 year old, 2 countries would require a 4 year average, 3 countries a 9 year average, or some such formulae.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:14 pm crafty, do you know what you call a country running 2 NDB per gar? a crater nowa days, you needs at least 4 times that, minimum. plus, you must also have something else in your gars, or your country will glow free of charge. not to mention, thats ONE nuke, how many targets must be defended? allot more than one! but yes, you should defend it anyway.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:19 pm Crunch, keep out of it. I didnt suggest she get mental help for possibly saying or not saying something racist. For the record, no, I am certain Lorelei would not and did not mean it to be racist. Like she said, me and her have laughed about our particular food habits. I suggested Lorelei talks to someone about how she reacts to such incidents. There have been several recently. Witness Wendy, Josias, wild/jess whoever (who hasnt played for months but Jan still gets upset about). And you seem to be yet another one stuck in the dark ages thinking there is something terribly wrong with having mental issues. There isnt. It doesnt mean dribbling, muttering shells of people shuffling around victorian corridors in straight jackets. BTW, if you are concerned about a friend, than yes you DO go out and tell them to check it out. Maybe thats the difference between your upbringing and mine. And...( I'm getting tired of correcting you ) Lorelei has said she was leaving the game several times before this last thing happened. I have known Jan on here a lot longer than you sunshine. So hush. Dont yelp your opinion until you know what you are talking about. Oh, and +1 for sticking up for a friend.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:28 pm I know me and you never really talked before and i apologize but i was raised to defend a friend no matter what the danger lays ahead. And you shouldnt suggest Lorelei to go see a doc. You know everything you say, she takes into heart. If you have a issue keep it to your self. I mean im not trying to be rude but if you know she takes that stuff seriously, you shouldnt say it at all or at dont tell her. I mean what would you do if i went up to a girl you were friends with and tell her to get mental help because shes saying something racist. And i know there isnt anything wrong with having mental as i have many friends that have disorders and issues with their mind and i dont treat them differently. And she might have said that many times but nothing ever escalated this and that case i would leave too if i were. You cant blame to poor women
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:29 pm NDMB can be destroyed you need at least 5 per garrison plus you need about 5 missiles per so in total you need about 5batteries and 25missiles from there you can do the math, plus you gotta garrison atleast 30targets and that's in the lower pop nations, I think in my 160m nation I have we'll over 50 cities alone
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:29 pm Er, last I checked, 2 NDM still took out a strat bomber. (Q ignored). And if you want to add in the stealth factor, then the attackers expenses rise a lot too. But I bow to your superior knowledge of the new war game. Anyways, my point still is, it's wrong to try to suggest these changes based on money. One must learn to adapt. What should be discussed is whether it is wrong to take advantage of things that a player cant control in game, like being available to defend 24/7 for a week.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:48 pm Dear Crafty, I have a couple of real life friends who play this game and one work colleague...people that I brought to the game and some I brought back from the past. We will all be pulling our game accounts and leaving Simcountry. Two of my friends have already left. You state here whatever you must to make yourself feel better for being a bonafide ass and less of a decent man. You KNOW you nitpicked me in chat with that "racist" crap, because your panties were in a wad. You know there was nothing stated that was offensive. You were being a "prick", pardon my language. Well yes, I was angry, because I am not racist, I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds. Thank you, but I don't choose to ever come back to contribute to this gaming community, after this rapport between you and I. So pat yourself on the back, Martin, for running someone off from the game. You will make a great moderator one day. NOT! I have talked and played with many of you for years and years and years. You do form ties with people. The thing you didn't get, Crafty, is I actually thought the world of you, held you above all others in the greatest respect, but as so often, what I thought of people and who they are as individuals have ended up being great disappointments here. Perhaps EO is right. This is a game that you don't make friends and you shouldn't care about anyone here. He even told me.....stop arguing with Wendy, she doesn't "care." Well I don't fit into that genre of people, and if that makes me "depressed" or "mental" or whatever you people wanna call it, well so be it. Then I choose to be that way, because I uphold my principles even in an online game situation. Sorry I went against the so call forces of your all-powerful game clique here. But I have no qualms for standing up on issues, even if it doesn't make me popular. So save it, Crafty. Your pathetic attempts to even try to say you care about me, for me to rest, to go get help.......blah blah, I don't buy it. And to Wendy and those of you, questioning why I haven't already left. I have taken these last two days to obtain contact information of people that I wish to resume contact or a relationship with, thus WHY I have not already left. But after today, my account will be gone, and I will not look back to this game. Thank you to all of those who sent me ingame messages. You will be greatly missed. I hope you have fun with Simcountry, will continue to play Simcountry. My advice is play the game, and don't get too involved with certain players in this game. Hopefully I will be remembered in a good way. Hopefully this community will learn the lesson of how to play well together for the betterment of the game. As it stands now with "some" players, the game is fighting a losing battle. Farewell, fellow simmers! *waves Lorelei/KissOfDeath/WickedLady/Jan
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:49 pm ok, so, the dude with nukes and stealth, buys and sets up the wings.... the dude with gars. has to buy NDB, NDM, at least 8, preferably 20+, with 50+ missiles, preferably over 80. They need MIB to reduce the stealth effect. They need other batts in the garrison, to abosrb damage, per target. and they need a strong Air defense, to destroy the SB asap, and they need federated air defense, to further reduce the stealth damage. its lot more work, to defend against nukes, than to use them. thats probably best. but the point is, that the all nuke, or the nuke/stealth combo, when used in "expendable," countries, is much cheaper, than a proper defense. and considerably easier. then you add to it that the defender, has no option to end the conflict. as they are unable to do enough damage in return, to stop the waves of C3s
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:57 pm Wow. This thread got off topic. Thanks so much guys.
| |
| Thursday, February 7, 2013 - 11:59 pm Yeah, bye Lorelei.
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 12:07 am Last word here, Old Man. Change your avatar, you are not worthy of the shoe.
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 12:22 am I tried to keep it way on topic EO. Since we are on the topic of war changes. Lets stop the transferring of hundreds of trillions of dollars in war assets in minutes once a player knows they are going to lose. Like I want to waste 100T dollars in weapons and ammo to get a country I can't even sell pop in, and the player shifted the assets outs with shuttles as I am destroying forts. There is your real problem to my approach on war. I detest wastefulness. Going after a country is a great big exercise in wastefulness. So yes I agree add the restrictions for countries, and at the same time, lets make the transfer of assets into a country for war one way once declared. And CC, there is no constant harassment. There is war, and there is war. It takes on many forms. I have not constantly harassed anyone. Especially after many changes. I have not fought with anyone but Steve Ryan, and Jackseptic. 2 players in about the last what? Real Year? Not to mention I actually took one of Jacks real countries. The point I am about to make has been proven time and time again. I will adapt to whatever changes are made, they will continue to cry when they cannot deter me from attacking. THAT is the issue. There has been change after change and this war never stops. If they didn't come on here and insult/antagonize,(Super and Josias gave great prime examples) conversations wouldn't devolve into fighting talk, and the whiners wouldn't have to whine when they get what they so clearly ask for.
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 12:28 am I would also like to see the stoppage of the falling of armies from the skies. Mobile units are one thing. They are formed with personnel. But as it stands you can just drop units from the sky, and as long as they are destroyed or stored back in the space center, you get a pass on not having the manpower available, something Josias, and Super, and so on are very aware of. No complaints there though. Because it supports their tactics. What a surprise. Also, lets stop the abuse of blackout periods. ~Make the blackout period across accounts and set from the user profile, not by country. ~Stop the toggling of blackout periods like the toggling of war protection was stopped. ~Make the blackout period times available to the attacker. When implemented, they were never intended to disrupt or prevent wars, but rather to prevent players from being unable to login due to work or sleep from being conquered. Another very cruel but rarely discussed aspect of the dark side of the war game is gang-style tactics. This behavior has had a very real negative effect on many players past and present. Maybe fights between Presidents need to be one versus one. Maybe federations should be allowed to contributed a very limited federation air response in order to even the odds between players that continuously align themselves and eliminate the possibility of a balanced war between players. Declarations against a counterparty would not be allowed. This in turn would go a long way to curb the behaviors many of those same players are complaining about.
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 12:55 am actually, i really don't have much in my Space centers. i might keep ammo, to segregate different quality levels, or if i've decided i want to move something out, and i'm not really sure where to put it yet, i'll leave it in the SC, but not to avoid using manpower, or monthly cost. that is a feature/bug that i have used in the past, but it kinda defeats much of the purpose of the game, to just stack a ton of stuff in your SC, and avoid the normal upkeep. i don't do that any more. at least not at a scale intended to bypass game restrictions. so yea, those 2 huge countries on LU, are legit, income, war rank, and everything
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 02:45 pm Seems like you guys are determined to kill the war game altogether one way or another. Stll, never mind. Its just a shadow of the game I originally learned anyway. Looking forward to a new chat and forum system is the most exciting thing to me. Yay, come on Andy, let us have it.
| |
| Friday, February 8, 2013 - 03:28 pm Well aside from the posts about blackouts, I am just playing along with their newest campaign to throw everything into an advantage for them. I thought it would be necessary to address more than just a single concern. If we want to start pointing out flaws, there are more serious flaws than c3 warfare, although c3 warfare has been addressed several times in many different ways. It also displays a bit of fear on their part to take a conversation of blackouts and try to drown it out with an old has been had conversation or argument over the ethics of c3 warfare. Really it is not the game that is flawed. It is their knack for turning conversation into fighting words and their inability to use common sense when discussing things. If you insult someone in the game, it is very likely that you may come under attack. You CC have been a very fine example of how players and myself can totally disagree over any number of issues and never come to weapons being used. This is not the same on their part. It is even more ironic when Josias or Super have not come under any c3 warfare, one makes the rudest comments that invite war, and the other is trying to bait me to sidestep the barrier that war levels have granted him in order to make a new case for any tactics I use against him. I have resisted the urge to use these methods against any and everybody. I chose to defend the NLUO and King Hez II but no player is being harassed. The war with Steve ended. I could have super leveled Jack's empire but chose to let up. his countries are intact and in rebuild-able condition. It is really funny because the alternative they argue for is for me to come and completely wipe them out. Which is not only very possible but very likely given my ability and resources. Would they be any happier if that were to happen? No, they would still act the way they do now, except they would not have empires. I'm not sure how that solves the issue other than they are aware of how much it costs and hope that I'll waste a considerable amount of resources with very little upside or incentive for me to risk wasting those resources. Countries are worth nothing when the assets are moved out in a jiffy and you can't sell the population. When am I supposed to fall for that?
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 12:51 am Wendy, its like you told me,
the game that the rest of us are playing, is sim country
Just the name itself, SimCountry, would lead one to think, "like sim city?" at least thats reaction i get when ever i tell any one about the game. That is, a building game. Ofcourse every aspect of a country is included in the game. Politics, war, trade, internal development, even space exploration. how ever, like you said, its all a game in your head. you've bypassed the building part, finding a way to operate with in the game rules, to have the same power base at a fraction of the effort, while taking advantage of players who would play the game, with the assumed theme. your statement,
well, the very theme of that use of black outs, falls more in line of your MO. How ever, it still allows players trying to play according to the actual game, a method to frustrate you. Where as what you are saying, about black outs, is true. It is very "do as i say, not as i do," of you. and i felt i needed to say something.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:52 am "Another very cruel but rarely discussed aspect of the dark side of the war game is gang-style tactics. This behavior has had a very real negative effect on many players past and present. Maybe fights between Presidents need to be one versus one. Maybe federations should be allowed to contributed a very limited federation air response in order to even the odds between players that continuously align themselves and eliminate the possibility of a balanced war between players. Declarations against a counterparty would not be allowed. This in turn would go a long way to curb the behaviors many of those same players are complaining about." ~Wendy That is one of your most dangerous comments ever. Implimenting what you advocate would simply allow your C3 tactics to become an unchallenged raid machine. It would allow you to flatten entire federations by picking off unsecured empires, one president at a time, leaving Fedmates completely unable to respond. That, my friend, is a dangerous concept, and one which everyone who has any respect for preserving this game should prevent from happening. By the way, there is rarely any "ganging up" of one federation versus a single player, unless that person is stupid enough to piss off an entire group of people. If someone wants to cause trouble or declare on a person within a Federation, he or she should be prepared for a retaliation, and that means a full counter-attack by the federation. And if you don't want to be raided by a bad federation, for god's sake, join another Federation to defend yourself. Safety in numbers.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 04:04 am That would be a great idea, Tom, and totally part of the ethos of the game I started playing 7 years ago, if federations actually still worked. Unfortunately, the implementation of war levels has stymied that for good. Plus, there is no longer a reason for new players to join a federation. They can stay below WL3 and not need any protection, and go into chat or on the forum for advice, and then disappear without having to really engage long-term with other players. Wendy is right. Those players who wish to predate can stay at WL5 and gang-up on anyone gaining WL3. The vulnerable players (some of whom didn't understand the complexities of the rules and got moved up to WL3 without realising) then have to get to WL8 or 9 before they are safe. The best way for them to be protected, under the current WL system ... and, remember, I know full-well what it's like to be ganged-up on ... is to prevent attacks by more than one player. How many times have you seen players on this forum say "Meet me one-on-one and we'll have a fight", only for the 'offer' to be turned-down by a gang member? Why would they give up their advantage? The problem is that the attacker (even on their own, and more-so if it's a gang) still has the advantage. If two-or-more players decide to gang-up against one, they can decide when the declarations take place (meaning any fedmates not in the same branch are behind in counter-declaring by however long it takes for them to realise they need to ... and always providing they are within WL reach), plus the game is weighted in favour of the attacker. Don't get me wrong. In the old days, if a player behaved unreasonably, the player-base would punish them and that was good. I was part of that myself a long time ago. Unfortunately it got used the wrong way, by bullies and thugs, and the GMs stopped it happening. But it has gone too far the other way. I'd like to see a return to no secured-mode and no WLs. But it ain't going to happen. So the next logical step is to stop the ganging-up. I can no longer effectively protect my fedmates, so I would far rather they face Wendy on her own, than a group of bullies en masse. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 04:22 am Josias, the game is simcountry, not whiners-r-us, which you do way too much of. The point I was getting at, is that blackout periods are being abused. I don't have the time to debate your view of an opponents methods. Of course, they are all wrong and you are of course so right. Next... I'd like to stay on focus: These are practical and reasonable solutions to a problem that attack no player or style of play. Why they would provoke a useless discussion of c3 warfare, leads me to believe it is these same players that are threatened by closing the loopholes in blackouts and they obviously planned to exploit them even further.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 04:27 am Tom, you need some time in before I validate you with a response. The most dangerous statement you've made is by far no comparison.
Remember that? I do, how did that end up working out for you? Tell dubletar I said hello when you get the chance. As a matter of fact, don't. Other than that, we have nothing to talk about. I'm glad to see you returned to reclaim your newbie status and put it on display for us all.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 06:25 am Nice one Wendy. Your ulterior motive has been exposed and you can't respond or rebutt my point. So what do you do? Say useless stuff. You excel at weak responses. Furthermore, I wasn't attacking you - I was simply pointing out the obvious motive behind your idea. You read my comment, panicked, and fired back the one thing you thought could offend me, and subsequently brought the integrity of any future debate down with you. Quality stuff. I had hoped for a constructive response, but I guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. Jo's response is an example of a good response, but you Wendy clearly can't put together a reasoned argument. Check what I quoted you as saying in my first comment. Its pretty clear why you want those changes to the war game purely out of self-interest, but obviously the truth wouldn't stick with the majority of the population. So... you lied. You cloaked your idea behind the idea of "fairness", and didn't in any way, shape or form, acknowledge the possibility that your idea might be abused. Which it can be. And will be. I do, however, agree that blackout periods should be done account-wide, rather than by individual countries.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 06:40 am Jo, great response. I understand why such rules could benefit the player base. But I also fear that, as I have said multiple times, it would be abused. Whatever system the GM decides to do - go with Wendy's idea or keep the current system - will be abused. I think the current set-up is the lesser of two evils. This is why, in my opinion, the GMs need to fix Federations fast. Make them the centre of the game again. The War Level system is here to stay, but Federations haven't been integrated at all. This needs to change. I don't know how exactly, but then again I don't have an influence on the development of this game. W3C does, and in my opinion they need to pay attention to the federation part of the game.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 08:53 am Been saying it for years now, WL's dont work, but I have a suggestion. 2 servers types, just like in some of the most successful games on the net. PVP and PVE. (Player vs Player and Player vs Enviroment). 2 totaly differnt servers based on this game but differnt rules. Eco's rules and the war monger rules. One always in safe mode the other never in safe mode. Problem solved and we actualy see whos the best, in either case. Every one happy and no one saying... well... and if.... play to fight or play to make coin. Or both, if you are able to.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 08:56 am I can only gusse where the biggest feds would reside...
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 12:38 pm There are two main points stick out to me in this thread. Both put most clearly by Jo. and So yeah, the erosion of federation function is a downer. The ability of feds to be able to defend their members regardless of WL should be looked at again. I have yet to hear an arguement highlighting any possible abuse of this. If a fed member gets decced on, then the entire fed should be able to respond fully. The potential attacker should think about what fed his target is in. This is how it always was, and there was more community. Now, its too solo. My opinion for what it's worth.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:12 pm The abuse with war levels and feds goes both ways. If the argument is that higher levels should separate from lower levels, then no you shouldn't have higher levels being able to declare on lower levels. Also, I have always seen a huge problem with free accounts and players under war levels participating in fed air defense. In the case of say Madoff, who has accumulated 130Trillion in cash, if a player like himself decided to contribute that sum to fed air defense, that in no way benefits the war game. Federation or not. You have no direct way to confront those wings, just his/her ability to continue to replenish them repeatedly. Tom you are yesterday +1 day. Give me 6 months of continuous dedicated play and I'll acknowledge you and not a moment sooner. Just because I won't give you a rebuttal doesn't mean I cannot. You know why and only time will deal with that. In your case that will be 178 more days
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:36 pm There is a great point for 1 versus 1 scenario as well as a case to reference. ~First of all, the idea eliminates gang-style federation play altogether. ~Feds should still be able to supply an ally with a limited air defense, say 50 wings worth of air defense per allies player. All would agree, that is a healthy sum. If a player has 5 allies, then he would get up to 250 wings of free air defense in the case of war provided these players setup near each other. 250 wings are more than enough. Which would preserve some meaning and purpose for feds. _________________ With these things in mind. Case in point. Super makes a very bold statement that I only declare on noobs. I setup near him, and then he moves into war protection. Jackseptic also begins making weird science statements about me on the forum. I beckon to his call, and he moves up 2 war levels as well. There is an unprecedented era of peace that follows. Super even goes so far to drop his war protection given the security that moving to higher war levels has provided him. Discussion on blackouts takes place, again Super and his comments get him back in a situation where he has to put on war protection. The point here is that there is the idea being floated that there is some harassment of some kind going on for my part. There is little truth to this false information as demonstrated above. All instances of potential conflict are clearly a result of cause and effect. When you use fighting words, you may end up in a fight. This is the game. You see Josias baiting several posts above in response to my bringing the blackout issue to the floor. If I were to move up the war levels and begin fighting him, would this be harassment? Gaz has vowed to fight me indefinitely, and has found it as a reason to "not quit the game". If I were to begin flattening his empire as I could, would this too be considered a case of harassment? No. All is a result of cause and effect. the notion that all actions on my part are for no rhyme or reason is absurd. ________________________________ In the case of SkyWalker. I declared on Jack due to his positioning his c3 empire on the doorstep of my country along with Gaz, Josias, Scarlet and others. The NLUO situation hit a head for me and it was time for action. I declare on Jack, Skywalker returns declarations. I have to take that player seriously as a threat to what I am going to accomplish and I had to conquer him. If there was a bit of one versus one, this would not have been necessary. The one versus one scenario makes sense because given how long some players have been in the game, a canyon will always exist between newbie player and veteran. Each player would still have the assistance of their federations but not the ability of stronger players to pave the way of conquering an enemy for weaker members of their federations. The whole idea of higher levels attacking lower levels has been floated before and the motive of that suggestion is as clear as day. Super is happy gang banging newbs all day but won't fight qualified opponents even with the help of his fedmates, as noted in the case of me setting up a single main country on his border. In my idea, the only way to keep those who wish to play in the NLUO from coming under attack from Hydra members en mass where possible is to force them all up the war levels to a place where they cannot attack NLUO members who come from under war level 2 to 3. So if you see me pressuring these players at level 4 or 5 you should already know why. All of them are super capable too. So it is a fight, not a harassment. This is proven time and time again. The assertion of such an idea is absurd altogether and those making it know this 100%.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:47 pm But you just acknowledged me? LOL. That's about it really. See you in 6.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:49 pm Don't mention that(simnations) here anymore. Unless you intend to tell us the mistake you made assuming the grass would be greener on the other side. And don't edit the part about simnations out so quickly :S
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 02:54 pm Hahaha I decided that part was too harsh. We're supposed to be civil, after all. I'm surprised you saw that... I edited it so quick. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for anything too good to be true. I'm like the fat kid in Willy Wonka.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 03:03 pm I'm glad you saw the light.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 08:15 pm I heard Dub had pulled simnations... Just to be ultra clear: I wasn't recommending players in feds should be able to attack any war level, that is - initiate the fight, just respond if one of their members is attacked. And if going up war levels is running away, what is the point of having them, there are rewards for going up them. But if you are one of the older players in a fed, then how can you assist noobs (except fed air) if you go up war levels. So the way it is set up atm doesnt encourage feds, a bad thing IMO. It just encourages people to go solo or creates feds of many experienced war vets ( which apparently most dont want ), at higher war levels.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 08:47 pm well, the fed system can thrive under warlevels. infact, it can be better than before. it really is how it is approached. what often happens in simcountry, is that vets wait for ever for something to happen, and when it does, they tend to crowd out newbs that want to be involved. if a fed sets themselves up, in such a way, that they rely on newer players for location, it makes the newer players valuable. allowing fed wars to be fought on multipul levels, and reguardless of a players position on the WL ladder, they are important. Which is key. If a player is told they are important, but have nothing to do, or aren't strong enough to participate, they will go away. if you make it possible for them to do something of value, you'll most likely gain a loyal ally. which i think that most vets fail to realize, these new players that are of a PvP WL, have signed up to fight. drowning them out, washes them away
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 08:54 pm a for instance, recently, some one of much lower wl took a couple C3s next to my big countries on LU. And that person was fed'd with enemies (at the time,) so i was looking at a powerful enemy in my WL range, who had an low WL ally holding a country on my boarder. I was able to get a low WL fed mate to prepare an assualt to remove the threat from my boarder, that i was unable to do myself, because of WLs. i'm not complaining, actually, i think that more of this kinda of involvement would be healthy for the game. this kind of thing, managed to involve 2 lower war level players, in an important role, in a bigger fight. war levels can work. they were in fact created to give newer players a more survivable chance at gaining XP. allowing high level players to attack lower level players in fed defense, would kinda be shooting ourselves in the foot. we need to let newer players play the game, rather than playing it for them.
| |
| Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 09:07 pm The GM needs to fix the war dec issue. Plain and simple if i sign the war dec and my buddys attacked i should regurdless be allowed to help. If im war level 3 and hes 7 and hes being attacked by and 8 its MY CHOICE to help him out NOT the Gamemasters... PERIOD! The only time anyone either higher or lower should fight someone out there bracket is with a war dec, otherwise the normal 2above or below rule should stay in place.
| |
Saturday, February 9, 2013 - 11:50 pm
Very well spoken Josias.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 12:22 am at least we can agree on something. i hated WLs when they started. but as time goes on, they make more and more sense. even w/o the mob war. older players tend to push newer players out of the way. War Levels are suppose to give newbs room to operate.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 08:20 am i cant believe im being accused of abusing blackouts because i have to eat dinner , play with my kids,talk to the wife ,use the toilet and maybe even call my mother. My blackouts our set for my conviencence not wendys lol....and why i need to explain that to anyone i dont know. My wars with wendy have gone on for days and even weeks i usually have to take around 10 c3s from her before she hides in war protection and builds up another c3 empire. So my blackouts are not set to abuse anything they are beieng used so that i can still enjoy the game when i exactly want to enjoy it ....stop crying wendy and come out and fight nobodys running from you, we could fight tomorrow if you had the guts !!
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 12:44 pm What you suggest can be done electively Josias. Thats down to the fed leaders. You are not talking about anything the game rules dictate. Should the need arise where fed members are needed to help, they should be allowed to. If you want to encourage low level new players, then let them have their fight solo. As it is, a noob cant feel secure or protected by his fed.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 03:38 pm Jack you've gotten 3 straight beat-downs and the latest at the hands of 2 c3s I actually had the chance to use. Your chest puffing is noted. I'd hate to be accused of harassing you. I even took a country you bought and really leveled the rest of your empire. I could have taken any number of them too, but I actually felt bad for you because you paid coin for them. Where were your allies then? I only stopped this last war early because it was apparent very quickly that it was going to be an instant replay. No fun in popping hot air balloons :s I would find a good mentor and get some lessons in. I'm sure there are many teachers who hate my character in the game enough to give you free lessons. When you have improved a bit, come and see me.
| |
Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 04:34 pm
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 04:37 pm I hardly call it a beat down wendy. In your own mind yes. You fight from useless c3s, throw a few nukes and suddenly you are a supreme warrior? You ran from Jack and hid in wp because you knew you would never win. Now go away and let the grown ups play the game.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 08:08 pm I'm sure you wouldn't Keto. If your real countries in your empire are getting carpet nuked after building up c3s for weeks on my doorstep and call that a win, then feel free to continue fooling yourselves all you like. You need to help the man get his priorities straight. Defense of your empire while threatening a player you want to attack should be high on the list. Don't give up on the suggestion that you get some lessons Jack. The fact that the defense is coming from Keto, who also has been extensively carpet nuked for the great warrior he is, is astounding and lends weight to my assertion. Keto's former dilemma is very well documented on this very forum. Dig if you must.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 08:22 pm In the latest war with Jack I didn't have to take any measures to remove any nuke garrisons. There were just poorly maintained targets with little or no defense. In your real empire countries? Wow.... But call yourselves setting up on moi? And speaking of Keto, I doubt he'll be any assistance to you Jack other than continuing this pointless charade of chest puffing. Here is a blast from the past :S Note: the date = 2010 there. It is now 2013. I'll even go a step further and extend the same offer I once gave to Keto. If your pride can handle it- I will myself go through the necessary steps with you on how to properly install, at the very least a nuclear defense garrison at your nuke-able targets, and leave it there. I hope to be able to help you before I'm tempted to meet up with you again on a battlefield. Alternatively, you could continue taking war advice from Super, which... explains a lot actually. LMAO. I'm sorry I couldn't help it.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 08:31 pm put your military where your mouth is. Any county you attack me with you will lose and you know this i too have been hopeing for a lot more from you but have now realized your just a bunch of hot air.
| |
| Sunday, February 10, 2013 - 10:09 pm I love the smell of diplomacy in the morning.
| |
| Monday, February 11, 2013 - 12:33 am Sooo... you'll be as hardheaded as Keto was... Pride goes before a great fall Jack. I tell you what. How about you, Gaz, and Super join your friends on war level 6. And I'll join myself and we'll all have one great big party and give you n00bs a fighting chance. Deal? We'll see who is scared of what. I can hear your collective cries of agony going to the sim heavens begging for game changes. I'm excited.
| |
| Monday, February 11, 2013 - 01:22 am It's been a while were you all discussing odds or what?
| |
| Monday, February 11, 2013 - 06:09 pm What a let down.... Talk about hot air balloons :s
|
