| Andy | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 02:37 pm 
1. Using Nuclear Weapons
Following a pre announcement on the use of nuclear weapons, we are now requiring a country to have a minimum population of 20M before it can use nuclear weapons.
The country can have the weapons or even produce them but will not be able to use them in war unless the population is at the required level.
2. The Score and your War Level/War Protection
The influence of the war level on the score is increased. A country with a high war level will see its score increase gradually, depending on the war level. This change also depends on the use of war protection. The increase will only take place if the country does not use war protection.
The use of war protection will have a negative influence on the score that will also depend on the war level.
Turning war protection on or off will not have any immediate effect. It may take a week or longer before a change of the war protection mode will have a significant effect on the country score.
This change will over time, give players who are not using war protection a better chance of winning higher gold coin awards.
3. Asset Reports
More improvements to the asset reports will probably show up in the coming days and will result in higher totals.
4. Empire Cash Transfers
Cash transfers were possible within the empire in two ways.
Direct transfers of cash to empire members took place on the empire pages, or by use of the direct trading feature.
We have now eliminated this double function. Cash transfers are now only available by use of the direct trading feature.
5. Maximum number of weapons or units per military base
Each military base can support a maximum number of weapons. The number is currently 20.000. Instead, we will introduce a maximum number of military units that can be supported with each military base.
To prevent any sudden changes, we have set the maximum number of military units per military base to 300. When you set up new military units and the number of military bases does not allow more units, you will be alerted and required to set up such bases before more units can be constructed.
Mobile units are not included in these numbers and do not require any military bases.
6. More pages improved
The process of improving pages continues and we have replaced more black style pages by new ones. The financial pages will be improved in the next update.
7. Expected Changes on March 5
One mobile unit will support the defense of an attacked target, if such unit is located close to that attacked target and has the capabilities to support the defense against the specific attack.
This feature was pre announced and discussed before. It will now involve a single mobile unit. {text] Mobile Air Defense Units
A mobile unit will be added that has 400 anti aircraft missile batteries as the only weapon in the unit.
More features may be included in the March 5 update. |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 02:38 pm
Ummm, thank you? I just wanted to be the first to say it if anyone does at all before the crying starts. Good job Andy. |
| Jo | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 02:51 pm
Andy ... it looks as though the score penalty for war protection also applies to Leader countries in Secured Mode. Was that your intention?
If so, I don't really see what you are trying to achieve. Historically, those players who want to make war don't play for score or GC awards. This seems to penalise peaceful players and force them to open their Leader country to attack from those who don't care about score.
More importantly, for newer players, it removes the protection you deliberately put in place when you introduced Secured Mode - that if they want to increase their score and move up the leader board, they have to risk their whole empire.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Andy | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 03:58 pm
Secured mode is not involved in this.
I wonder where this came from.
For now, secured mode is not included in the score.
The question however remains, long term, if we want to encourage more war in the game, should we reward players who take more risk or not, including the secured mode.
I know all the reasons for both secured mode and temporary war protection. It is separated from the score issue.
You can protect your assets but does it mean that you keep the same chance of winning awards? |
| Crafty | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 06:22 pm
I'm going to cry about one thing if I may.
I presume the cash transfer change will mean that you can no longer move out cash below a 5T limit, whereas by country to country, it could go to 2T.
The only reason for this is to remove more assets from players when they empty a country for de-registration. Why would you want to do that Andy? I'm sure it couldn't just couldn't be greed or avarice on your behalf. Perhaps you could change the direct transfer of cash limitations to 2T not 5 ? |
| Serpent | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 07:29 pm
I think these rounds of changes are good. I agree with the idea that peaceful players should be able to play peacefully but at a cost, just as war players should be able to play war, but at a cost.
I especially like the idea of #5. It makes sense to use unit totals and not simply weapon totals per military base.
For what its worth... thumbs up! |
| Josias | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 08:14 pm
totally surprised by #2 and 5, right on.
if you think about it, #2 will give peaceful players interested in competing for scores and awards a need to join a fed...
and with 5#, eventually, it will reduce the overall clicking for war, making it more attractive to players that before didn't want a second job clicking. 2 thumbs up on that one! |
| Crafty | Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - 08:38 pm
Ermm, ooops, I have to humbly apologise about my little cry earlier. It seems the DT transferring of money isn't as I presumed it would be.
Sowwy. |
| Jo | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 12:35 am
Hi Andy
There may be another reason, but my Leader country - Hanky Panky Hippy Land on WG - has lost 33 score points since the game update and the score is still dropping sharply. The country is pretty stable, and has only fluctuated within 10 score points over the last 6 RL months. I'm maintaining game level 15, and the other indexes are fairly consistent, so I can't see any other reason for the sudden drop in score ...
Incidentally, the one country I have that isn't in war protection has also lost a similar number of points, in the same timeframe, so maybe it is something else that has affected it ... However, all the score-drops seem to have occurred at the same time as the latest game update 
I'd really appreciate it if you could look into it ... it may be something I'm doing and nothing to do with the update but, if so, I can't think what.
With regard to your question about the long term, I think the issue is that there are many different goals to play for in this game, which is great! However, those who choose to play for score and ranking tend to be very different players from those who play to have fun with the war game.
And that is the crux of the conflict that you, the GMs, have been trying to resolve for a long time - how to ensure that the different types of players all have fun playing the game, without destroying it for others?
As the only (?) player who has made level 15 and managed to stay there, I can tell you that the higher levels (at a guess, level 12 and above) are only achievable if:
a) you have a large population (above the level at which it can be sold-off if the country is taken from you)
b) a proportion of your countries have absolutely no weapons, in order to achieve a high average finance index.
If the leader of that empire is forced to renounce Secured Mode in order to have its score recognised, it will automatically become a very attractive target for those players who get their kicks predating on others, don't care about score and who naturally target the most successful players for the kudos they get for taking them down. That country will be completely vulnerable, as it is unlikely to be defended. More importantly, that player risks losing their whole empire, as they won't be able to maintain a country in Secured Mode.
@ Josias:
Quote:if you think about it, #2 will give peaceful players interested in competing for scores and awards a need to join a fed...
That will only work if fed members are allowed to join-in with each others' wars, regardless of war level. If a player wants to get a high score, they will have to achieve a high war level, and give-up war protection and possibly Secured mode as well. But they can't rely on their fed to protect them as things are. Shared fed air-defence and mobile-unit-defence are still pretty ineffective against a well-resourced and experienced attacker. I have seen a huge drop-off in recruitment since I have been forced to tell prospective new members that I won't be able to defend them if they go to WL3. Most of them just don't see the need to join a fed any more
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| SweetPea | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 01:25 am
Can we improve the amount of offers for population on direct trade? When I go to buy pop there are 1 or 2 million left if I am lucky. |
| Rick | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 02:30 am
Loosing approx 10 pts./month per country since changes.
That includes all countries and they are at WL2. |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 02:35 am
My secured main on LU lost over 300 points last game month.
https://sim05.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=w3graph&miTable=cntrhist&miKey=1168&miColumn=vCmainScore
However, Bravo! to the new changes. I'm a fan. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 03:36 am
I dropped 17 levels myself in ranking. The idea of WP = score is kinda weird to be honest. I'm supposed to spend how many T defending myself to be Number 1 which I can only get coins once per 3month and get only 200coins?
Secure nations shouldn't be allowed to effected in these rankings.
The GM should spend less time adding band aids like this and just fix the real problem the war levels themselves.
although I do like the other updates +1 |
| Josias | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 04:25 am
Quote:That will only work if fed members are allowed to join-in with each others' wars, regardless of war level. If a player wants to get a high score, they will have to achieve a high war level, and give-up war protection and possibly Secured mode as well. But they can't rely on their fed to protect them as things are. Shared fed air-defence and mobile-unit-defence are still pretty ineffective against a well-resourced and experienced attacker. I have seen a huge drop-off in recruitment since I have been forced to tell prospective new members that I won't be able to defend them if they go to WL3. Most of them just don't see the need to join a fed any more -- Jo S
ok
A. the people competing for score, are naturally, going to go up in WL. thats the point. so putting 2 and 2 together, you'd have like minded peaceful people, of high war levels... competing for score.
B. as far as low war levels go, (or any war level.) i don't have a problem recruiting new players.
if players aren't interested in what your fed is selling. maybe you need to make an adjustment. |
| Jo | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 06:01 am
Quote:i don't have a problem recruiting new players - josias
On WG, your fed has 5 members, three of whom are vets with a reputation for warmongering, one of whom is a vet I don't know and can't comment on, and the other has been playing for just over a year.
And you "don't have a problem recruiting new players"? |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 06:06 am
He doesn't recruit on WG Jo. |
| Jo | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 06:28 am
Ah! That explains it.
So there is no common ground on which to draw a comparison ... |
| Josias | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 06:29 am
lol, thats it! |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 06:56 am
My score of a 205 mil pop country is currently "1."
Guess I won't win a prize this month
Conversely, Josias' main has a score of over 8000 now. LOL |
| Josias | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 07:20 am
check the score graphs for the top 10 on fb, they haven't updated yet. this is crazy |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 07:32 am
I have. I randomly am CURRENTLY number 1 on fb. Not next month though lol.
But check this out, score of 1:
1076 (-1075) E is Easy 0 is like 0 1 |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 07:51 am
Third place on FB is an 18 mil pop country. Can't even nuke!  |
| Borg Queen | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:50 am
Hmm...two game months ago my Score of my main Unimatrix 01 on KB was like 2200 now its 708 while my Unimatrix 08 (conquered a few real days ago with really low indexes) went from about 1500 to 2934 in the same two months. Hope that doesnt suggest I need to make that my main ;)
And the score problem is not one of War Level or War Protection. No.3 on KB at the moment: The US Of Boone, has War lvl 2 Like my main and has secured mode on and while my main score dropped in the same time his score increased from 1335 to 2825
BTW Andy, talking about Game Score and Level:
some updates ago you replied to one of my posts that, as the total earnings are now much lower than it was in former times, the required cash for the game levels would be lowered some time soon, so as thats only a really small change in the programming but a bigger for us: when will it come? |
| Laguna | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 11:41 am
Just out of pure curiosity and giggles, what does Judge my Empire as Peaceful mean to you people? Bananas? |
| Christos2307 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 12:43 pm
Perhaps I'm too new or too ignorant of the game rules, but could someone take a look and explain to me why I lost 835 points/places in just one month? (Apo Republic in Kebir Blue). Thanks in advance! |
| Laguna | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 12:51 pm
It isn't your fault, Christos: the Gamemasters screwed up.
Wee bit of advice? The next time you plan on changing how the score is computed, consider doing it at beginning of a month. |
| Gaz | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 03:03 pm
Until the cost of a standing defence is reduced dramatically war protection's by far the best choice. Punishing peoples score like this wont change a thing.
I just worked out what it's costing me in ammo use per month to defend an 80M pop country.
200 int and heli wings plus all cities/forts and 50 corps defended. Cost a staggering 50B+.
That's an unbelievable amount of waste every month. It's severly off-putting, especially when you have an empire to defend.
That 50B is just defence ammo alone. I didn't bother working out cost of supplies.
Seen as the game doesnt compute the monthly use in the overall cost per month. If I ain't making 50B per month on top of what it's saying im making a loss.
I could prob make that if I had alot more pop but then you start loosing pop after you go higher than a certain number.
Then you have to take into consideration the Off weapons your gonna want in a country. It's just NOT SUSTAINABLE.
It doesnt take a genuis to work out that 46B per GC for 10 months wp is far more attractive.
Honestly after working that out this morning I feel like packing it in and playing for free.
I dont wanna pay for a game were it's a constant struggle just to stay afloat. If I wasn't taking over c3's and providing cash injections that country would fall apart rapidly.
End of rant from a very disgruntled customer. Can you tell lol. |
| Gaz | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 03:41 pm
To put that into context. 50B+ ammo usage every month is more than half the total income of that country. A recipe for disater for a bare minimum defence which wouldn't be hard to break. |
| Jackseptic | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 07:19 pm
you hit the nail on the head Gaz ...so true every bit of it. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 07:36 pm
Weapons and ammo need to be dropped. period.
If the GM WANTS WP to cease they need to make it cheaper.
triple production a single inter corp should make 1wing of planes per year
tripling production would drop prices buy 66%
it would cost maybe 100or200B to blow up targets instead of 500B+
A single inter wing the cost of ammo would go from 100B(based it costs 10M a missile) a wing to 30B.
if a corp made a wing or unit of weapons and ammo. the GM could slash prices making war a much cheaper and viable option |
| Aries | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:18 pm
Game changes to weapons or ammo should not hurt the current market. As it is, defense corps are hardly where one looks to make a profitable corp. I would be against steps to increase supply or to lower demand through game changes such as increasing corp production, increasing weapon accuracy, or lowering ammo use by weapons active in countries.
The problem at hand is up-keeping an adequate defense. A more acceptable change would be to lower the personnel needs of weapons. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:20 pm
Aries you wanna know how to fix this issue?
Tripled production or the reasons above
All C3wars the ammo and weapons should be taken off the market, even a few C3 wars would drop these into the red allowing people to make a profit |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:39 pm
Changing manpower wouldn't fix the issue of cost. Ammo is THE cost. |
| Gaz | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 08:45 pm
Get rid of the monthly ammo use altogether, like it used to be. |
| James the Fair | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 09:03 pm
Also get rid of those soldiers and officers that are present at those forts. They are nothing more than men armed with sticks. |
| Jackseptic | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 09:09 pm
the weapons and ammo from c3 wars should come off the world market supply to make it more profitable for those of us that do produce these weapons and ammo...sometimes at a lose. |
| Aries | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 09:11 pm
How about this. Remove the utilization of unit ammo for training. The country auto buys, at 120qua, sufficient ammo for training use for all of the country's active weapons. This "training ammo" would only be used for monthly training use and order strategies for it will be added to the appropriate page.
Insufficient ammo creates a deficit that the country attempts to fill and also prevents using weapon quality and ammunition quality upgrades for the matching unit ammo and weapon that uses it until the ammo is available.
This keeps market demand the same but, for most countries, will cut by 2/3rds the cost due to training not consuming the high quality ammo often found in war fighters units. |
| Aries | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 09:13 pm
I like Jacks idea too. Have the C3s purchase the weapons and ammo they use to wage their wars against players from the world market. |
| Gaz | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 10:00 pm
Guys im pretty certain the GM's are propping up the weapons market so it wouldn't matter if c3's were buying ammo on the market or not, unless they stop.
Training ammo isnt a bad idea aslong as it's dirt cheap. In the real world there isnt an army in the that would be using all that high quality ammo for training purposes. Trust me I was in the british army and anytime we got live ammo to play with it was like chrismas had come, it was that rare. Even the Yanks(the best equipt army on the planet) wouldnt be so wastefull. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 11:04 pm
the GM shouldn't mess with those weapons are the only markets that aren't essential in the production of other corps.
These shouldn't be touched by the GM, let C3 take there weapons from the market triple production and problems will take care of themselves |
| Keto | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 11:07 pm
1. Good idea, but nukes aren't the issue with the current war game.
2. Get rid of this idea. Countries purchasing WP shouldn't be penalized by ingame scoring.The current cost of maintaining an army greatly out weighs the cost of WP, and this will cause well developed countries to be attacked and conquered by alot of players. Dropping WP, purchasing weapons to protect these countries will not prevent them from being conquered. You'll probably find alot of players quiting or downsizing.( I could add more to this but it's probably a waste of time).
5. The GMs are just adding to the cost of having/maintaining a military.
There are alot of could thoughts expressed above and I hope the GMs are taking them all into consideration. |
| E is Easy 0 is like 0 | Wednesday, February 27, 2013 - 11:23 pm
The war game is too expensive for 99% percent of players to START.
Mobile units are a decent idea. However, most people don't want to pay 15 gold coins for 5 mobile interceptor wings (which is about the price for the professional soldiers). There are about 5 people who will pay this cost. This further separates the average player from the asset-loaded, gold-coin loaded player.
All the increasing war game costs (and decreasing profits in general) have done is discourage people from playing. It's evident that premium members are becoming much more scarce than in years past. I don't see this changing unless general costs are lower. Not everyone wants to spend 100s of dollars on this game, and in order to be competitive, that's what it looks like it will take. It doesn't seem like a great business model.
Now, unless you pay for cash (which is obscenely priced and absolutely not worth it) or spend hours a day raiding c3s, there is not enough money to actually "play" around at all. The new players in chat are all teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. At best, they'll make 10b per game month. Awesome, now they can build 8 miles of road. |
