 |
|
|
|
Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 06:36 pm  What's a Carrot? Other than an orange-colored root people eat as a vegetable, a carrot is a reward used as a means of persuasion or motivation. In Simcountry, players are motivated to run successful countries to earn sim-cash. They are motivated to increase their score to earn gold coins as a part of rankings, and so on. Imagine if the game rules were changed and all CEO profits were surrendered to the game. Other than the out-pour we would experience on the forum, we would see less player concern with running successful enterprises. What's a Stick? Other than the "woody" piece of a tree, a stick is also the punishment or threat of punishment to force compliance or cooperation. A Simcountry example are the rules that force us to maintain some level of financial state in countries or they will be released back to a c3. Maintaining proper defenses offer no financial incentives but prevent the possibility of losing your country to war, is another example of compliance. The War Game. Why we used to war. The war game offers the potential to assume the assets of another player's country. This led to several different game dynamics. One is that players would see a need to be part of a federation that can protect them and in turn they would contribute to the group's overall defense. Another is that powerful players learned they could easily defeat newer war players and assume their assets for little risk. Personally, I decided I was not interested in pushing around newer war players. However, since I made enemies that did attack newer war players many of my early conflicts were against what some called "game bullies". It was not necessarily something I did because I was a nice guy but it was in my interest to prevent my enemies from easily gaining resources (stick) and gave me the opportunity to make new allies (carrot). The Current State of the War Game. The war game is currently ailing because of the lack both of a carrot and stick. I believe the problem starts with the rewards side. There is nothing you can possibly gain from a pvp war that it is not possible to earn somewhere else. In addition, though you can earn gold coins from running a successful country, CEO, gaining game levels, and even warring a c3, for all its risks, you cannot earn gold coins from warring a player. Good or bad, the limitations of war levels, in particular, have all but removed what some war player saw as the rewards on the war game, namely the ability of looting less capable war players. Even the world where the risks and rewards of the war game were supposed to be pronounced has seen many of the top rankings and even the Hall of Fame populated by players of insufficient war level to even experience the war game. How do we fix the war game? It is astounding to me that, in some corners, there are still calls that war is too expensive and if we only lower its costs we would see a much more involved and competitive war game. On another thread, I detailed 20, yes 20, different game updates that involved lowering costs of weapons, ammo, or made other changes to lower the costs of war since November, 2012. This has not been successful in reinvigorating the war game, which has only continued a decline since then. Until there are changes to the carrot or stick side of the war game, there will be only very limited application of this important aspect of the game.
| |
Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 10:53 pm
their are very few players with your skill, and determination. yourself, if you figure the number of players that can stand up to you, you can probably do it, and still cut off a finger or 2. after the Mob war, which is largely considered the catalyst that created war levels, their was another war before war levels where implemented. i fought in both. the second, an entire federation, fired litterally everything they had at one of my countries, and only dented my reserve, after that, my allies clobbered them, 4 of us nuking and capturing dozens of countries, loosing none ourselves. in fact, war at the time was redesigned, as a general rule, it was changed to cost the attacker 2-3 times the cost of the defense. Air wing repsonce was increase from 2 total wings, to 3, all defensive weapons where improved. max number of wars where decreased. their where some other ideas that where promised but never implemented. all this was because many players, would rather quit, than start over. after spending several years building an empire, for it to just disappear in less than a week... most would rather quit than start over. for those that would rather quit, war levels where created to offer them protection, not force them to fight if they didn't want to. and not force them to fight outmatched fights against highly skilled, exceptionally active players at the time, i argued against war levels, very vigorously. now several years later. i must admit that the concept is sound. the main problem, was for a long time was skilled players bottom feeding at low WLs, now its a lack of players at the various levels, to offer sufficient competition. removing war levels might solve the problem, but the chances are those players at WL2 would rather just find another game. For myself, i play WL2, so that i don't have to fight. I enjoy the game, but i can not commit war-player type time to it. removing war levels, might cause me to revert to a single country. i'm sure i'm not alone in this thought. so you must consider that removing war levels, would cause a decline in the player base.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:03 pm you need to go a different rout the GM have mentioned "partial victories," that is a country might have a natural resource such as Oil, and during a war, the attacker might paint the location on the map that natural oil exsists. and when the war is over, the original country owner, would still own the country, but the attacker would control the oil. if defense itself is improved to the point that total victory is not cost effective, so capturing key resources becomes the focus, you'd see different offensive and defensive concepts, centered more around controlling territory than total destruction. further, the GM mention "monopolies," they weren't very clear, but indicated that monopolies of resources could pick their price. so several war players could set out and partially conquer dozens of countries, creating an oil monopoly, and charging exuberant prices to gas, aircraft fuel, and plastics corps. while another group can try to stop them, or counter attack, some how. every one has something significant to gain, while not risking what they've spent years building i'd recommend, leaving those alone that want to be left alone, and look a different direction for your revival.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:17 pm I have not suggested removing war levels. I have suggested adding a mechanism to enjoy the war game in a fun environment where your country is not at risk and you earn rewards. Such as battlegrounds or something similar: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24274.html?1435107663 There also needs to be a player option to participate in a larger conflict that war levels now prevents. This would be voluntary for the player who would only risk countries committed to the conflict. This is the idea behind the Total War idea, found here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24038.html?1434986948 I suggested rankings be introduced to recognize power levels of players, found here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24236.html?1426105397 I suggested that the decreasing costs and unit hard limits of weapons was making war increasing cumbersome. This is a particular challenge for newer war players. I suggested a war improvement in this area, found here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24775.html?1427724961 None of these suggestions remove war levels and only serve to give player choice and offer rewards for participation in the pvp game. I do predict a world absent of war levels would not be an unpopular world. I also predict, like every other game activity, unless there are incentives to participate in the war game, it will be a rare occurrence.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:27 pm The problem is that war levels was a subtraction of the game experience but the hole that was left was too large and was replaced with nothing. In its place, was an opportunity to reshape a pvp environment that was enjoyably for the players that choose to participate in it. It is time that such an environment was available.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:39 pm Look, bottom line: Since the era Orbiter talks about and the introduction of war levels there has been no great revival of the player base. It didn't encourage people to join or stay, let alone war. Neither have the 20 odd reductions in expense that Aries talks of increased war activity. All war levels did was drive away the vets, (who nurtured the new players more than bullied them). This saw the demise of many a good federation. Chat died. The forum completely changed. In short, the community died. All these silly band-aid ideas I keep seeing are a waste of pixels. This is the way W3C chose to go, this is the game they wound up with. Maybe they like it this way huh, have you ever thought about that ? Really, it may be time for the detractors to try to find better. I consider these endless posts nothing but negative and destructive to what little community might be reading them. In other words - Blow it out your ass ! so nice to be able to cuss in a forum again 
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:40 pm well, based on what you wrote above, its understandable that i'd see a push to remove war levels. beyond war levels, i have no opinion on the war game, as i don't play it. but like is said, w/o WLs, its unlikely that i'd have put the effort into space, that has actually created a space game. one thing that i'd like to see, is space fighters, at least depending on how they are implemented. it'd seem that if your fighters and shuttles remain docked, they'd be safe, so their would only be action, when you try to do something, limiting space war to just when you are active. they've talked about space blockades, space raiding, which would create another level of war, when players try to move hardware to a war, via space. given what i've done in space in the past, it'd seem that space is broken, with out some form of "space blockades" for my part, it'd be to my advantage to defend against raids and blockades, so i'd probably build a large fighting force to defend most space routs. if that was a possibility but as far as country versus country, i'd rather stay out, so my only interest is some form of WL protection for peaceful players.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:48 pm toe cutter, vets where leaving before that. the Mob war, was 8 players against the largest fed in the game, WGC. at the time, WGC was number one in every category, players, countries, pop, standing military, everything, not only #1 on every stat, but where bigger than the #2-10 put together, but they had zero war playing experience. it was a like a junior high dance, with all the boys on one side, afraid to talk to the girls. at the time of the Mob war, it was said that those 8 players, where about 2/3s of the remaining war players. the lack of war skill, and experience happened before WLs.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:51 pm Why are you so concerned about protection for peaceful players? In the days of lore, you played peacefully and appeared reasonably active, had a fed and didn't smack talk people and you weren't targeted (in general). Of course there were one or two rogues (Wendy *cough*, nix *cough*) who didn't respect the unwritten code but they were slapped down by the bigger players. There was a slight risk, sure, but it was advertised as a war game, or game with a war element. Surely you know the real reasons behind the game changes Orbiter, a certain old timer, probably the oldest, not liking getting pwnd by LDI elements, and this player had the GMs ear. There was a lot of politics going on between GM and big players back then, you know it, I know it, Romeo Vicardi knows it. Dont know if Aries was around at the time... anyway. read previous post.
| |
| Sunday, August 2, 2015 - 11:53 pm Maybe I'm going back before your Mob war orbiter. Wild, jason, etc etc and our own dear Laguna
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 12:25 am yes, i'm aware of that, although, i was only on the fringe, at best, so i have an understanding, in fact, its a theme that continues, the GM have a tendency to... well, you know how that sentence ends. i did fight in the VS/EBT war between (the original) Ares, L3, Wild, vs LG, KH. remembering LG getting spanked by Ares, and all wars stopped by the GM. Of course the GM had to allow the wars again, and the pause wasn't enough to save LG. I continued the war on my own after VS made peace. and learned more about war in a few weaks, than years of reading forum posts. which is the thing that i always felt was the biggest obstacle to sim-war. players tended to congregate in large feds, being promised protection. how ever, no one was willing to risk what they worked so hard for, to gain a little experience. so when war was forced on them, they where woefully unprepared. And would often quit. its very disheartening, to have weapons, but not enough trucks to deploy them. or not knowing the best units to create, and getting slaughtered. the first time you go against a player, you'd be over whelmed, a safer way to gain the experience would seem to be the answer, WLs where intended for that, but they largely ended up becoming bottom feeder protection.
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 02:56 am Puts on my thinking cap! Here is a idea to revive the War-Game, imagine living your sim life in fear 24/7 never knowing if a insane nocturnal player is watching over your assets... waiting for the chance to dec and take your shit. Now imagine the only way for such a thing to happen is this... make waging war instant upon declaring! No more waiting several game months allowing the prey or predator time to build protection/offense. See to survive in Simcountry one should already have a proper defense/offense ready for war at the drop of moments notice, with this cloud of fear hanging over vets and noobs heads, it will guarantee each player a chance at taking on a big or smaller adversary. Doing this will definitely turn up the PvP scene for the better, it needs to feel more alive and dangerous to really make people waste their time and money in a game like Simcountry, esp with the current state of things. Having the ability to strike anybody at anytime is the heart & soul of any decent PvP game. What do you guys think?
| |
Monday, August 3, 2015 - 04:20 am
>_> Lets just call it the Pinktator rule.
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 07:15 am sam, i was hoping you'd jump in, when i read that josias
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 07:14 am for the veiwers at home, the most powerful, and feared fed in sim country history, was the "Lacerta Defense Initiative," or LDI, they where always a small, highly skilled group, that thrived on daily communication. each member was a legend, in their own right, Sam Houston, Barney Rubble, Wildeyes, and of course PinkFloyd, being the most well known
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 04:20 pm LDI was a cute group. The members Orbiter mentioned were pleasant, and pillars of the community. But LDI was known as a defensive fed, not as a predatory fed. If you didn't bother them, they left you alone. Does that pleasant group sound like the most feared fed in Simcountry history? The most feared fed was the Northern Star Alliance (NSA). They were warmongers on Fearless Blue, years before Little Upsilon even existed. That was a predatory fed. Back then, there was no secure mode or war levels, and war protection boosters were not for sale. That caused real fear. There was no quarterly subscription fee. But players could extend game membership by using game cash to buy gold coins. NSA was predatory because it won many PvP wars motivated by its endless need for game cash. Some members of NSA believed the best achievement was to play for free by using pure skill. The history of those times were described in a memoir.
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 05:54 pm Looool, LDI cute !? Join the dark side.
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 05:58 pm All this history makes my case I think. Where the above past talks of clashing feds with multiple capable war players on each side, now only a few skilled war players exist in the entire game. "a safer way to gain the experience would seem to be the answer, WLs where intended for that, but they largely ended up becoming bottom feeder protection." This is what battlegrounds or something similar would be ideal for. A pvp environment that offers rewards with no country at risk.
| |
| Monday, August 3, 2015 - 06:46 pm Why ? It wasn't needed before. Whatever practice scenario you come up with is not going to be the real thing. War requires some risk by its very nature. Anyways, we've been through all this for years, and it hasn't changed since I was last here. Good luck with your efforts Aries, but you are banging your head on a brick wall.
| |
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 01:48 am WL's are just a distraction. I've said time and time again it isn't that weapons are MORE expensive, they are cheaper as you stated but not when adjusted for the GC rates and the fact that you can no longer exchange cash for GC. GC's used to trade at 450-500B per GC, now it's 36B set by the GM's. But far more than that it's that defensive weapons are far more powerful than offensive weapons. You used to be able to actually gain assets through war even against a decent war player if you did it right. Beyond that, there was no space or direct trading where it was so easy to move assets and cash into and out of a country. So, I don't know what assets I might gain if I take a country and I'm also unaware of what defenses I'll be facing. Look at my FB main or any of my FB countries for that matter, there are zero weapons in any of them. But, if I get a war declaration you'll be facing several hundred mobile units in each country (if not thousands) plus maximum garrisons at almost every location. Then, if something went horribly wrong, I could just yank all of it back out and all I lose is population but can keep all of my weapons and cash. Trace back the end of the war game, you'll see it wasn't war levels. It was space and mobile units. For some reason the GM's figured out very early on that unlimited spending space and transfers into/out of a country created a lot of problems but they haven't figured it out when it comes to space. They also figured out early on that you actually had to make offensive weapons strong enough in comparison with defensive weapons in order to make people even want to fight, but mobile units and other tweaks to the war engine have killed that as well.
| |
| Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 02:33 am Not sure I follow where the inability to trade cash for gold coins has to do with acquiring weapons and ammo. I can see how visa warriors would be hindered by less cash per coin but they have plenty of opportunity to buy in space at a discount. Some game changes have made better defenses possible but offense still has important advantages too. I believe defenses are being overrated by some players currently. A proper offense can take any country, last minute defenses included. It is very difficult to move everything out before the lights go out. I have captured plenty of well-stocked space centers, though I am usually quite content in picking targets with enough population to make my effort worth it. My "Total War" idea however solves this issue. All that said, I agree with what Josias said earlier. There is a lot to risk in the war game and an opportunity to gain experience for new war players with some level of rewards is needed. I still see an imbalance in rewards offered for pvp and other game endeavors that require similar effort and much less risk. A battleground-type environment as I suggested would be ideal to offer moderate rewards and giving players opportunity to test strategies in a pvp environment.
| |
Wednesday, August 5, 2015 - 04:02 am
Vicious spoke about NSA .Different time and different game. Just like this is a different time and game from LDI. However the idea that people are too attached to their imaginary simpeople lives on. SC needs to find a happy medium so war can rage once more.
| |
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 12:27 am All I know is I contributed the stick.........my broom stick. I did my part. :P Toecutter........are you Crafty? If so, good to see you back.
| |
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 12:34 am me is thick we don't get it!
| |
| Thursday, August 6, 2015 - 12:47 am Hey there, Chewy!!!! Long time no see. Hope all is well with you. Aries was saying that the game consists of three parts, the carrot, the stick and the war game. I was saying that I contributed the stick, in my case, a broomstick, since I have always played the character of a witch. Ughhh............ I think I fell short of trying to be funny.....ha ha ha ha end of a long day at work!! :P Dun mind me... ha ha ha
| |
| Sunday, August 9, 2015 - 05:51 am imo lack of community, unprofitibility, and refinement have declined the player base. The war game as it is now is far more refined and "better" than it ever was. However for the average person looking to get into a game and create a working economy, create a military and use it, I think its far too complicated. Many people built assets because it was far easier than it is now and there was far more help from the community. War was easier to prepare for and while some say war is cheaper now, I disagree,now I have a hard time building a country that can support a large military. In fact I have found it difficult to have any military and remain self sufficient. Perhaps this is because I spend little time learning but look around, most people aren't profiting much. Why try to build a military when doing so kills your finance index and then your weapons get automatically deactivated. Not many people have a lot of time to devote to a game like this so perhaps refinement and progress has been the wrong way to go in maintaining a large player base. In years past there was a pretty large and steady flow of new players building assets, there doesn't seem to be that anymore. I think it's the rl time and complication. This never would be a extremely popular game anyway because you have to be a total nerdfest to enjoy it but the more complicated it is and the more restrictive military interaction is the fewer people will stay for an extended period, invest money, build assets and be a public part of the community where they may help make it a community or make others think they should be raided.
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 03:27 am The ability to repeatedly raid novice level computer countries for unlimited cash was changed but the ability to build wealth through economic means remains the same. Examples exist of empires that earn considerable wealth. Duplicating much of this success is possible without considerable game knowledge. Players that attempt to learn from successful players have even more potential.
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 05:29 am The potential is still here to build wealth and there are examples that prove this, the potential for an active war game still exists, wars prove this but the ability for either isn't what it used to be. This game is largely played either for economic or military reasons, sometimes both. You have much ability, you've taken the time to gain that economic and military ability but that patience with a game is a rare thing. Game changes have been a large complaint from many people, why do you think that is? It takes time to learn how to make things work well here, not many people want to learn something and then find out some of what they learned is now useless or not optimal. I've played plenty long enough to expect it and am happy not to try to make the best of my country because life is just too busy and when I've spent time and effort to make it the best I can, inevitably something comes along and forces me to spend more time to keep the status quo, anyway that's just me, I'll keep playing but it will never be as active and I'll never have the empires I once had because the rl time it takes just isn't worth the reward. All the clicking,building units, moving units, supply units, air dropping, then moving them, attacking with whichever unit, obviously you enjoy this and that's cool but you're a minority. I think in a way the war game is far better than it ever was, but in another way that attracts more players and keeps them attracted its far worse. That's just my thought, I don't want to argue about it, you're a smart guy and you'll think what you think no matter what I say. I just felt like saying what I think even though it won't ever matter.
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 09:29 pm It doesn't help that half the game docs are misinformation
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 09:35 pm And you don't really need experience to win a war you just need to know what your doing which can b accomplished through talking to vets and asking questions reading the forums.... Fighting c3s and moving up war levels doesn't mean you are a skilled warfighter... Warlevels don't mean anything just another arbitrary way to keep people from playing the war game whch is why i choose to stay at lev 3 though seems some game changes have made that more difficult
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 09:35 pm And you don't really need experience to win a war you just need to know what your doing which can b accomplished through talking to vets and asking questions reading the forums.... Fighting c3s and moving up war levels doesn't mean you are a skilled warfighter... Warlevels don't mean anything just another arbitrary way to keep people from playing the war game whch is why i choose to stay at lev 3 though seems some game changes have made that more difficult
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 10:54 pm i've always seen war levels, like, well, i used to MUD, those that don't know, it stands for Multipul User Demention, its a precursor to Ever Quest, and World of Warcraft, same thing, but text based, like Zork. I used to enjoy PvP on these things, much more challenging than fighting computer generated monsters. But in MUDs where their was no level protection, their would of course be a couple of players that would level up really high, then destroy every one in the MUD, as often as they could. those MUDs died off quickly in popularity. How ever, their where a couple that offered some degree of protection, based on success, That is, until a player would only be able to fight those that "should" be able to defend themselves. In a contrast of 2 MUDs, the one with a large player based, had a stronger, healthier competition level. But the one with few players, few PvP options, resulted in the strongest few, again, destroying payers as soon as they came into range. fewer players where willing to invest time into a game that seemed more designed to benefit a handful of players, than give them a chance. WLs are a good idea, but their has never seemed like their where enough options, and competition to support 11 war levels. which leads me into the 3 big WL mistakes the GM have made. the GM keep adding WLs, while the current levels have never really filled out to offer compition. second, originally, you could only fight other players at your war level, no window. so with a lack of options, that same limited compition was spread thinner, and thinner, with the addition of further war levels. third, one time GC awards, and large cash piles in C3s, where offered as an incentive to move up in war levels, how ever, for some players, they would prefer using their skill and experience on low level players, making WLs, along with never ending WP, as a type of bottom feeder protection.
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 11:01 pm i suggested some where else, as a way to simplify the war game, while still maintaining its sophifistication, Remove the "attack" buttom make all attacks automated, based on movement and targeting preference, and give all units "x" number of attacks per sim day. winning and loosing will still be based on size, and skill, but some what reduce the severity of the learning curve, while reducing the time commitment. creating an environment that is more supportive of casual players.
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 11:13 pm I like that idea Of course there should be exceptions for sneak attacks and nukes The point I'm making is that war levels aren't an accurate indicator of warfighting skill so they don't accomplish anything except segregate players who would otherwise interact and give people some sort of pointless milestone to achieve
| |
| Monday, August 10, 2015 - 11:23 pm i'd agree, at least partially
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:09 am The "remove the attack" button has many problems that you have not solved or acknowledged. If this is truly a suggestion, take it to an appropriate thread where it can be appropriately thought out and discussed. I don't think you hit a real issue with war levels until your 3rd point. The addition of war levels were fine as long as there is adequate incentive to achieve them. As we experienced, many players with the ability to achieve high war level simply didn't because of the restrictions that would result in PVP play. Since war levels are the popular topic, here is how I would change them. 1. War levels offer no protection on FB. New empires are offered 21 days war protection. War levels still exist to offer the gold coin awards. 2. War level 3 is reverted to be like 1 and 2 and is unable to declare or be declared on by other players. 3. All players war level 4+ are free to declare or be declared on by other players. This still offers plenty of choice for players. You can: 1. Go to FB and be part of the war world where unlimited free war protection is abolished. 2. Go anywhere else. Dabble in war against the computer up to level 3 and retain war protection. Always, have the option to have a main country protected from war (secured mode)
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:29 am aries, this entire thread is a "suggestion" get over yourself, jeese and those concerns where addressed, just not to your liking, you don't like the suggestion, because it softens the blow of your hyper-activity, which it is actually designed for, not you particular, but to give casual players a better fighting chance.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:44 am It isn't to my liking because it doesn't work. About "hyper-activity", you don't know me like that.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 02:14 am it allows for a less intense experience, which is a common complaint about the war game. between the endless clicking, hours spent keeping on top of the latest changes, bugs, and exploits. months of building, weeks and weeks of planning, and preparation. playing like that, makes SC a second job, which many people are just looking for a casual hobby. but your argument against it, is that it does not reward such behavior. and there for does not work, no, no, no, it does not work for you
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 02:51 am I think im going to pop some popcorn and get soda...this is getting good...
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 02:56 am You don't play the war game. The only players I have seen advocate "a less intense experience" are you and Madoff. I know of no game with a less intense war experience than Simcountry. Your thoughts on other threads on how the pvp game currently works were out of touch with the modern game. The idea that you have an answer for the war game borders on absurd. The balance of the war system is better than it has ever been right now. It is possible to defend your country. On the other hand, it is possible to plan and execute very effective attacks. You have not explained how you would maintain this balance, at all. Offensive units are not effective understrength and would not work making multiple attacks on their own. Limits on the number of offensive attacks existed at Simcountry launch. It had issues, among them players would simply run an offensive from multiple countries (this made the war experience no less "intense"). It was changed. Here is the big question. Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:18 am Sorry to butt in...but..... ToeCutter Bro?....You said 'Of course there were one or two rogues (Wendy *cough*, nix *cough*) who didn't respect the unwritten code but they were slapped down by the bigger players.' As I am Nix I would like to know who smacked me down? There has not been one enemy yet that has not begged for mercy or jumped into war protection at the first opportunity Bro.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:28 am You can't be serious Nix.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:30 am you know, it wasn't that my thoughts where out of touch, but more aware of what would happen in a more competitive environment.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:47 am I wonder if either Orbiter or Aries can name a game with a war element that does work to everyone's satisfaction ? People are always going to try to gain advantage in any setting, apart from maybe some purist Zen monk or such. So if there is a way to make, or take someone else's, stuff, we are going to do it. That's the idea of a game isn't it, to win, to be the baddest, richest, most recognised, be it econ or war. So put restrictions on war and we are going to go the econ route. Make the risk too high and we are going to go the econ route. Make the rewards to easy and we are going to take advantage at a lesser (read newer) players expense. I've played quite a few real PvP games, and there has always been a bigger badder player than me and then another bigger and badder than them. So, if it is decided that players should have protection to do their econ thing then that's the way it is. The protection has to apply to everyone, I really dont think there is any "solution" to this conundrum.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 03:55 am and you know, their would need to be adjustments damaged offensive units/wings, are indeed not very effective. i did mention that their should be a player set minimum weapons % prior to an auto-attack, to keep offensive units from pointlessly auto-destroying themselves also, an auto-retreat option, facing considerations and stacking limits how ever, if you remove the create/attack/dismantle/repeat process, it will take considerably longer for the offense to destroy the defensive air. as i think about it, their are quiet a few things that could be done to counter huge defenses. but it would of course take time. one thought, is units with a better variety of weapons. similar to the Mobile Attack Units, or the Mobile Land Units. that can address a variety of on-the-field challenges, forcing defenses to create a variety of obstacles, rather than being over run while air defenses are still strong. their are many weapons, for many situations, lacking one, would give the prepared/experienced player an advantage, but not enough to swiftly over-run strong defenses. as it should be
| |
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 04:08 am
the war game problem, existed before war levels. war levels are necessary, to protect less experienced players, but removal of them, will not resurect the war game. only compition will. making player raiding valuable, has the same results of restricting it. their needs to be a middle ground. as far as the risk/reward, shrug, we need a middle ground, how ever it has always been a complaint about the war game, is how complicated/intense it is.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 04:14 am You brought up war levels so I answered it. You brought up a war game overhaul, which has issues, so I pointed it out. Still waiting for an answer to the big question though. Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 04:35 am Orbiter: "given our presence, and the high demand for weapons/ammo, you'd think one of the 33 presidents would take a moment to look at our empires, and notice huge war slaves. strategically located countries, and C3s. Massive clusters, with huge air d wings. all a person in WGC had to do to see this coming was look. Doesn't WGC have ministers of defense or something? " I think it is weird you point to a thread involving a world war on WG to make a point about the decline of the war game back then. One that you were involved in and appears to have involved dozens of players. Old threads are not easy to find but relevant ones to this conflict include these links: https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/3712/126002.html https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/1/126095.html https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/1/126269.html https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/3712/126303.html https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/3712/127469.html https://www.simcountry.com/statforum/3712/128018.html I only recommended removing war level protection from the war world. I know that sounds drastic to some but most count that as reasonable. again: Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 05:19 am whats the point aries? yea, i fought in that, i'm proud of that fact. but you should realize allot of players quit over that. SC has not been the same since. but the point of that was that death of the war game was happening before war levels. that war declaration, is what started a series of events that ended with war levels. it was the nail in the coffin. Aaron Doolavay, above, was in WGC at that time. i was on the Mobs side, not as a member, but active ally. forcing players to play at a level above their comfort level, caused many players to quit. that was the reason behind War Levels. and it is the thought behind my concept, "Remove the Attack Button," several players have agreed the idea sounds good, it allows for planning, preparation, experience, diplomacy, and size. with other obvious adjustments needing to be made, with out requiring players to work sim country like a job. you can only nit pick the idea, while having no actual argument against the concept
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 05:43 am Which point? The point I made is that the war game requires an inducement to participate in it. You supplied the quote. What was its point? To show a war that existed before war levels that involved more players than any wars since war levels? You brought up war levels, their history, and your radical change to the war engine. The premise of the change is that it would increase participation in the war game. Which leads to the obvious question, the point of this thread. Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game? That question is fundamental, not a nitpick. It is an attack at the very premise of your suggestion, all its other problems aside, for the moment. So what is it going to be. Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game? For everyone else: Is Orbiter's idea what you are waiting for to participate in the war game?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:20 am Alright. I thought about this and it is time I answer a few things I didn't start. #1. Am I "hyper-active"? Some know I was diagnosed with cancer last November. Less know that the tumor is over my lung and I now deal, not only with cancer, but what is called "restrictive lung disease". In short, my right diaphragm is paralyzed, it is raised up, and it, and my tumor, are pressing into my right lung. I have about half the normal lung capacity of an average person. I experience shortness of breath with light activity, think one flight of stairs, pulling clothes out of the dryer, and such. I now have a CPAP machine to deal with sleep apnea that it appears to have caused. With luck, it may assist with my excessive sleepiness I experience throughout the day. I rarely do not take, at least, one nap during the day. In addition, I typically have 3, or more, various appointments for my different conditions/week (tomorrow, I actually had to cancel one appointment to prioritize a different one) One term that does not apply to me is "hyper-active". #2. What would concern me about a war engine change. The last, and only, time I "lost" a war I was in the hospital. I was not able to be at the computer. This is something I have little control over and could easily happen again. I reported a fundamental problem with war weapons (introduced with a previous navy update), on August 24, 2014, which you can read here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/9/24089.html?1414165635 Several months later, I lost my entire FB empire to this issue. This included substantial assets including weapons, ammo, professional soldiers, and a population of about 450 million. Mere weeks after this event, the gamemaster realized the gravity of this problem I detailed months before: "November 18, 2014 38. The Navy [ top ] The navy is an effective weapon that can be used far away from your country. It is possible to fight the navy with offensive weapons but the defense against attacking navies and especially attacks by frigates and sea based cruise, was very limited. This is a problem for wars where auto defense is used. We have now added defensive capabilities that can help protect countries against navy attacks. Both defense helicopters and defensive missiles will counter attack navies in war, also conventional missiles and stealth bombers will participate in the auto defense. This change will not diminish the capabilities of the navy but will extract a price for navy attacks. The attacker will suffer more damage to the attacking navies." Since this fix, the ability to defend and attack has been fairly balanced. I could easily find myself in a situation that I am not able to be at the computer at a moments notice, for that matter, so could anyone. I am very concerned about changed to a system that I believe, now, offers adequate opportunity to leave an effective defense. It has nothing to do with me attempting to maintain some advantage with hyper-activity. I want my things reasonably protected if I can't be there.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:21 am i knew that was an attack, thats why i hesitated to answer it. i'm happy being retired yourself have proven, in your above comments that i've fought wars, i have experience in the war game. you were a newb in my fed, when i retired, you know that i'm retired, and testify to my experience. i know what i'm talking about, your own comments prove that. your agrument that my experience is out dated, is invalid, because my experience is from an era you'd see resurected.
so, you state that you'd see a time of higher competition return, while dismissing the warnings from players of that time. those that fail to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:28 am If you are not interested in what you are selling, is anyone else interested in buying it? I maintain that the change you are proposing would not increase participation and would likely introduce its own issues, like the navy update.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:49 am several players have stated that they like the idea. based on the merit of the idea
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 06:59 am You like the idea but that is irrelevant if it does not motivate you to participate in the war game. You are not invested enough that I would trust you to be the architect of a substantial change to the war engine. Further, it remains in question whether it is the missing component to generate interest in the war game, in the first place. We're back to the essential questions: Would your suggestion even entice you to participate in the war game? -Your answer is "Nope". Is Orbiter's idea what you are waiting for to participate in the war game? - Your entire suggestion hinges on this question.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 07:17 am no it doesn't hinge on that, you want it to, but it doesn't its merit is how it addresses the immensity of the war game, and how many are turned off by it. Remove the Attack Button automate all attacks, based on movement, time, and targeting preferences add player set minimum weapons level prior to auto-attacks, facing considerations, and stacking limits
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 07:42 am "no it doesn't hinge on that, you want it to, but it doesn't its merit is how it addresses the immensity of the war game, and how many are turned off by it." Circular logic? Nice one. You are saying people are "turned off" by the war game. Would the solution not be to offer something that would turn them on to the war game? Would not the measure of success of such a solution be the number of new war game participants? okay, how about I insert your words? Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 08:18 am circular logic, lol, how do you think an Orbiter would think? Its kinda my nature Aries, you've ignored Aarons and, Madoff, and many others. through out the years, this has been a common complaint. complaining the war game just requires to much attention, to play casually. you've offered no solution to these complaints, except to say its not a problem for you. offer another solution that reduces the time commitment, can you?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 08:22 am Aaron: Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game? Madoff: Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game? Anyone else?: Is the "immensity of the war game" the reason you are "turned off" by the war game and would Orbiter's solution solve this causing you to participate in the war game? Better?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 08:33 am still not a suggestion that addresses time commitment, those guys can speak for themselves, but what i was referring to.
so again, whats your suggestion to them, "get over it, it works fine for me!" ?? thats all you've offered so far.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 08:45 am I would not expect it to fix the war participation issue but a few things would fix some time commitment issues out there. 1. Fix Forts -You get up to 150 and never more than 150. If you contracted it to yourself, any over 150 are lost. -No forts are delivered if you are in an active war. 2. Fix Painting -Some countries are unpaintable (there is no way to defeat these countries at all). Change painting mechanic to % of country or some similar solution is needed. A balance here where smaller countries don't receive a map advantage would be ideal. 3. Reduce targets I agreed with Madoff on this. On the ignoring front, I replied to his thread on this (https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24778.html?1436549049) and you have not. Stop ignoring Madoff so much! More from Madoff: "Yes, I agree that tweaking is what the war engine needs, not a massive overhaul. Our esteemed gamemasters barely have time to answer emails. It's highly improbable they can find time to code the complicated schemes some people propose. " That is for you. Edit: and another from Madoff: "I've read your suggestion on another thread for simplifying logistics. It's insightful and worth considering." That was on my Unit Simplicity suggestion. Found here: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/24775.html?1427724961 This is from Kel: "I think multiple unit groupings is a great idea. I am all for a more streamlined unit movement process. Aries suggestion doesn't seem like it will have any unbalancing affect on the game. I don't see how this would be any different than making multiple units of the same configuration and moving them all at once in unison, aside from them being more organized and eliminate some potentially unnecessary clicking. This game could use some streamlining in areas.. And this is probably one of them." and from EO: "I'm all for Aries' suggestion AS LONG as the amount of weapons firing each time remains maxed at current numbers (such as 850 for an LRD)" and from Nero: "So long as this is an option and we retain the right to deploy individual units at 850 weapons and we do not have standardized amounts of weapons like the GM has done with the naval fleets, I can't find a reason to object to it. In fact, I think it is a great idea. I will place it up for vote, as your idea. I'm not being sarcastic, you have actually changed my mind about this." and from Blackeyes: "Yeah it's true, that a few of us are capable in the use of certain "tricks" to our advantage. Which is why i thought your idea was interesting...but it will not see the light of day. " and Brandon: "I like the idea would definitely help in managing large amounts of units and not having to go back and dismantle the unit and remake it, IS ALWAYS A PLUS ! supply units take to long for offensive weapons "
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 09:09 am 1 and 2 do not address the issue, but i'd agree with them, although in relation to #3, #1 should be reverted back to 100, like used to be. or maybe less i don't need to comment on everything, or force every one to believe what i do. i used to do that, thats part of why i'm retired, i don't want to play like that, i know i don't have to, but i have a tendency to. right now, i'm just defending my idea, from nitpicking. for #3, it would reduce clicking, but i'm not convinced that is a better idea. simpler, easier to implement. which might give it better value. but it does not really offer the defender a better chance of survival, by itself. of course you can adjust weapon inefficiencies. so to explore your #3, why don't you expand on that? of course every corp would be a target, can't really change that, you can change the number of forts, reduce the number of cities? towns? counties? limit number of units? how would you suggest that?
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 09:46 am just saw your edit, after my last comment *** Aries, i'm not gonna fight with you over madoff, like he's a child in a divorce, jeese, i've pointed out that him and others through out the years, have complained about clicking, and the amount of time the war game requires. their is no need to go back and forth about who's side he is on I'm sorry Madoff, i remembered your comments back in the old WL debate, about endless clicking, it has always stayed with me, and i wanted to offer an idea that would address that, while offering depth, it was not my intent to fight over which side you where on, just to point out that people do feel that way. as a need to give my idea meaning. how ever, i feel this has gone to far. Aries, i'm done, my idea has merit, and worth defending, but this has gone to far. it was my intent to offer a solution to a common complaint, and yet maintain a level of sophistication. I still maintain my idea, but this bickering has passed a healthy level. It was never my intent to create battle lines over an idea.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:31 pm #3 was Madoffs idea. I posted the link to the thread where you can talk about it there. I expanded on my Unit Simplicity idea, at the outset, on its thread and also posted a link to it. You suggested I was "ignoring people". Retreat of that like you should. Just like you retreated off calling me hyper-active, claiming that is my motivation to oppose your "idea", claiming that your idea is the solution to those "turned off" by the war game, and hiding from the fact that your idea is for other people, and not yourself. Then offer your solution on its own thread. This one talks about motivation for participation in the war game. A goal that you wont even admit your idea remedies, even for yourself.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 01:52 pm Helloa Brothers Aries and Orbiter. Ok. When I started this game back in 2008 I would see mans rolling around taking other mans countries who, for that week, had been in-active. For sure it scared me to think that will happen to me some day (reason I don't wear gold lol). At first I spent many nights pondering if I would be able to ever get to sleep while my slave country needed work doing to it to get it in a defend-able state. Then came the pondering of how profitable I should make my slave country. The more profit the more tempting he would be to the bandits out there. Then came the pondering of when I should open my mouth on the forum. For the forum would only bring attention to my slave country from the bandits. Then came the intensity of the first declaration....A bag full of mix emotions to say the least. Those experiences made my game. Its a shame some of you have never experience what I did. Brothers Aries and Orbiter. You are both looking for a way to enhance everyone else's gaming experience and a big thank-you to you both. You are both holding the same coin. If there is a problem with the game it needs sorting out....and sometimes to sort things out battle lines have to be created for the GM to make a decision. Maybe you should both make a list of the top five things you would change about the war engine so the GM can ponder on it? ToeCutter Bro/sis?. Back your words up with facts or shut up. I thought at first you were a ### but the more I read from you the more I'm thinking your a #####.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 10:47 pm When I first started playing the game, a substantial period of time before my serious stint c.2008, I had very little understanding of how anything worked. I can remember intently micromanaging every aspect of my one favourite corporation, and wondering why it'd never rise above 200bn in value. I also happily ploughed my way through a few c3's singularly through the use of heavy tanks (lol), most of them bought 'immediate order' from the world market. I didn't understand why my country was so much in debt, or how my 100k strong column of tiger-tanks could fail to take a puny country with the population of Belgium... But it was still incredibly fun, most especially because of the mystery and resultant learning curve. I kept coming back and survived as an empire despite my lack of knowledge and game protection mechanisms, even after (being the cocky noob I was) 'opening diplomatic relations' with the then #1 LU player; Pink Floyd. For that reason I do not believe the 'over complexity' of the war engine can ever validly be considered a detractive factor on gameplay, player numbers, or in fact be suggested as a reason to restrict how players make war - through the implementation of war levels or any other means. The war engine, and most aspects of the game, give back as much as you put in and learning is in fact the most exciting and unique part of Simcountry. Anyone who wants an entirely 'casual' gaming experience with no possibility of further investment in complex environments can sign up to Farmville. Make the engine more 'efficient?' Perfect. But 'simpler?' Nobody likes or needs to be patronised. Creating a country is virtually free in RL terms and new players have nothing to lose by experimenting with the economy/war modules and running riot as such. It is a world of meaningless 1's and 0's that won't illicit any tears or lasting emnity towards the developers if lost. That said, I see no problem with having a protection mechanism designed to reassure those players with something substantial to lose, and whom posses no desire or time to defend said assets by martial means. Players should be able to take a total of 4-5 countries and remain at war level 0 (inactive). Conquer any more and you become war level 1 (active) and all restrictions are removed. There should also be considerable bonuses for those empires at war level 1, perhaps to score, economy, that kind of thing. Experimentation and tutoring should happen during level "0." The transition from "0" to "1" becomes a spur for further political interaction, without the intricate and graded nonsense in having five thousand war levels dependent on how muscly a c3 you take. " The chairs are tall at the big boys table, but at least this way everyone can learn how to use their knives and forks without falling on them.
| |
| Tuesday, August 11, 2015 - 11:59 pm It's not so much the complexity of the war game as much as I is cumbersome and inefficient all the arbitrary rules and for example airlifting units one at a time and all the mindless clicking could be reduced
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 04:31 am Helloa Dubhthaigh Bro I agree with your "0" to "1" idea. Once you have taken 4-5 C3's (regardless of if you still own 4 or 5) you are ready for war. Hi Jackwagen Bro How many times have you had to defend your country's from multiple attackers bro? Or even just one attacker who knows what they are doing? Its hard enough keeping up with attackers as it is lol
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 04:41 am Not as much as I'd like considering there isn't much war anymore... Defense is mostly automatic anyways as long as your unpainting territory and have your defensive units where they should be you should be focused on your offense..... It is a simple fact that all the clicking involved is just boring
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 04:41 am Only reason why war is fun honestly is because of what a rarity it has become
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 11:18 am I'm not sure I agree that all the war clicking is "simply boring" Jackwagen, although I can see where you are coming from. Personally I see every click as an executive order, demonstrating a strategic decision to prioritise said target... When two players are facing off the main limitation they experience, other than the resources at their disposal, is the fact that one click means one attack and this can only be marginally supplemented by additional browsers etc. At this point both participants are having to gauge which targets represent the best options for attack, within the wider context of the war. As such every click is committing to a strategy that will ultimately succeed or fail based on the quality and effectiveness of your plan. Having automatic 'wave' attacks defined by prioritisation formulae (as proposed above) removes most of this aspect of the game and effectively turns war into an inelegant mud-slinging and slogging contest. That said, I do think there is room for some 'automatic attack' feature that holds no bonus over traditional clicking, but that can be activated to paint & finish off a country (especially c3's) that have already been neutralised.
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 03:02 pm I have added a new suggestion to the appropriate forum. Please comment there on my new idea, the War College. Also, let me know if you like the direction I am thinking in general here. I need some encouragement to continue to weave these ideas together. I think War College can work very nicely with Battlegrounds and then the Total War idea. I also have the suggestions for Player Power Rankings and Unit Simplicity on the suggestions forum. Are you guys with me on these ideas? thanks!
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 06:02 pm I had the ideas for a new Battlegrounds that fit in with War College in my head so I had to put it down. Battlegrounds (revised) is now available on the suggestions forum. take a look!
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 06:29 pm The gamemasters usually make only a very minimal effort to improve this game. They've shown a preference for tweaks involving relatively simple numerical changes. Therefore, suggestions for big coding projects are probably dead on arrival, even if they have merits. When I wrote elsewhere that the gamemasters probably don't have time to code complicated schemes, I was referring to Aries' "battlegrounds" and "total war." His suggestion for "unit simplicity" is good. But it could be the type of big project they avoid. Orbiter's suggestion for limits on attacks is great, and the right kind of numerical tweak. His suggestion for automated attacks is good, although it might be a medium-ish sized project. War suggestions are best evaluated by whether they satisfy the Jonni Doctrine, which Jonni decreed last March: "As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons and targets."
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 08:13 pm Limits on attacks and "removing the attack button" are solutions that do not work for problems that do not exist. I don't think you read how easily my new suggestions integrate into existing game systems. Jonni Doctrine is ridiculous. I am interested in feedback from folks who either participate in the war game now or would with their own suggestion. How about you, Madoff?
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 08:42 pm Aries, you're not a prosecutor and I'm not a defendant. Your prosecutor schtick is tedious. Seriously dude, you're unhinged. We're all happy that you enjoy your adorable, little 3-hour wars against poorly defended countries. But 99% of players avoid PvP. You're not one us. Therefore, you're not our spokesman. You're just a troll. I'm done feeding a troll.
| |
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 09:06 pm I have not asked for your alibi but I should be curious about your motivation for offering suggestions to the war game. If you don't want to PVP, that is okay but that makes you less invested in its success, especially if your own solutions would still not make you interested in the war game. You define troll better. I made specific comments on your suggestions you posted. You attempted to stir things up with a post on my suggestion. Your post lacked any evidence you read my suggestion at all.
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 01:58 am I would love the chance to raid PVP for profit again. Some of my favorite times in SC were with Barney and Jason fighting each other for practice or because someone had a new strategy. As for limiting units I am all for that. A more realistic war game with the strategy elements already in the game would be a winner in my book.
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 10:54 am Pretty sure I can hear the floor boards of this chat room creaking under the sheer weight of ego on display. We have to be realistic about what the game developers would be willing to implement, as they are obviously a small team with limited time and numerous priorities. Rather than fomenting grand plans for reinvigorating the game and overhauling the war engine, we should probably focus on small an simple changes within the existing functionality which improve the game for a majority of players. I'm fairly sure this would rule out tournament/pvp based league proposals ('Total War' etc) and fully automated war/ removing the attack button (a heinous idea that should never be mentioned again). We ought to focus on finding common goals we all share - and let the developers work out how to do it with the minimum effort - rather than fighting our own personal corners or defending big master plans that the gm's and most players have never shown any interest in despite months of plugging. These goals should reflect achievable aims that improve the game for the majority, rather than those with extreme vested interests e.g. players who only want to play a single player economy game or, conversely, players who happen to -currently- be the big fish and are in a position to threaten today's crop of players to the satisfaction of their megalomania, were war protection/levels to be revoked. $0.02
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 12:36 pm Please check out my suggestions without preconceptions about complexity. I have greatly simplified Battlegrounds in the revised version. War College is simply a 3 level system that is nearly identical to game levels. I plan to revise Total War but, in effect, it is simply a conflict that flags participants in a way to drop their war protection. Also, if you meant to characterize my motives, that description has never applied to me. I have seriously considered doing what is within my game power to setup a battleground where I go through the difficulty of setting it up and stocking the country with my own cash as the reward. The war game is fun and I believe players who are interested in the war game are having a difficult time gaining resources through use of the war game. My suggestions are to resolve this and provide a game experience to players who are less interested in the single-player economy game (I like this description).
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 05:11 pm Ok. I had written out a long piece, but before I had posted it the computer decided it was time to install updates and shut down. So I will cut to the chase as I have to go out. Dubhthaigh Bro. Your points on the game are valid. Your points on why players commit the time to come up with improvements are not valid. Brothers and Sisters like Aries only want to bring some spirit back into the game. Ok, back on point.....For me The fear of war was the reason I looked to join a fed when I first started. Fear was the reason I made friends and allies. Take the fear of war away and all this game is is numbers, letters and little pixel pictures. How many noobs look around and go....hold up...I need to join a fed for protection? I feel WL's have taken away that need and therefore the consequence happy and relieved feeling of being accepted into a fed and becoming apart of the game. The war engine is 1000 X's better than it was when I joined. Yet at the same time the reason for the war engine to be there has diminished. If the war engine updates had not been so successful (mobile units) WL's would be probably needed. We now have the capabilities to be apart of a fed and defend our fed without really needing to log on (Mobile units). So even not logged in you are a asset to the fed and won't get thrown out for not being an sim addict. Has WL's not been the down fall of Federations? It has been ages since a noob has asked for protection from my fed.
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 05:33 pm I'm sorry I you don't want to play the war game you don't have to there is secured mode if you want multiple countries you should have to defend those countries with an army diplomacy or temp war protection there is no need for war levels they aren't an indicator of experience or anything or that matter
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 06:59 pm The more opinions on this, the more it appears there is two sides to this with a few moderates in between. Nix, Jackwagen, Toecutter, and Xon represent the war player side. The war players blame war levels for the fall of the war game and would mostly advocate towards their removal. Orbiter and Madoff represent the econ players side. They want to keep war optional and advocate for the continued unlimited protections that war levels bring, often, even to the war world. Orbiter goes as far as wanting to change the war engine to a casually tweaked system that a player can change similar to eduction priorities before leaving the game to automate the rest of the experience. I think Dub is a moderate and I feel I am too. I enjoy the econ game and the war game differently. I spend the most time developing my countries and enterprises to be effective tools towards my own ends. I enjoy the war game too but don't wish the war game to mirror my single-player econ game experience. Like Nix says, I feel I should have to take steps to protect what I built and engage in diplomacy with other players. Where war levels have been the topic and certainly the first straw that saw the decline of the war game, I think WG and Aaron might have touched on what was the last straw which was the removal of unlimited rewards from low level c3 raiding. This definitely needed to be adjusted but, where it was thought that war players who funded most of their efforts with such raiding would simply use their reserves to change to a large econ income and lead their fed members to do the same, those players have largely left. Voices we currently do not hear from are from players who are mostly inactive or have left including Serpent, Stephen Ryan, Jackseptic, and others. War players at heart, without the ability to use the war game they mostly enjoyed to raise funds, they had no wish to delve into the economic game to replace their income. I feel my suggestions could bring back or spark interest in similar players that they would not otherwise have in the single-player econ game. I would ask that all players consider my Battlegrounds and War College ideas as the best compromise. The goal is to poke holes in war levels for just the players that make that choice and to offer rewards from within the war game again.
| |
| Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 07:13 pm Perhaps I was a little off the mark on the motive front, as brothers Natures Wrath and Aries have pointed out. That aside, I think what I said still holds true: We should focus on clearly defined small goals rather than endlessly plugging large cohesive mechanisms. I would bet good money the developers will not, in the near future, respond/take on board either the revised 'battlegrounds' proposal, or the idea to institute automated warfare (regardless of their merits or lack thereof). We should formulate a list of 5 simple goals for the game in order of preference, then ask Jonni very kindly for some form of moderated chat Q&A session. This would at least serve to publicise chat even if nothing is decided.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 04:12 am Sorry for not answering, I've been working 15-17 hour days. Anyway, I don't think at this point anything could peak my interest in the war game. It's just too time consuming and the number of accessible targets too small. I can deal with time consuming or I could deal with inaccessible targets but I won't deal with both.Perhaps if I could transport land units by sea I'd be more interested. I've never liked taking c3's just to get from here to there. That has definitely been a huge turnoff for me, as has land units and painting. I know it's made the war game much better as far as being refined and not so simplistic and unrealistic but I just never liked it, I never liked secure mains either, we had peaceful untouchable empires before that for people who didn't want to war. IMO there will never be a level of safety high enough for everyone. Too much safety leads to boredom and not many will play a boring game.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 04:15 am This game has become safe to the point of boredom. Boredom because of lack of interaction and boredom with clicks per event so to speak. I don't feel I have a lot more to say, I am not very knowledgeable about this game these days and don't really want to make complaints I have no constructive solution for.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 04:29 am I also don't like changes of any kind, I want to learn and not have to relearn, it's something I've come to expect and deal with because I've always liked this game for the 13 or 14(I can't even remember anymore) years I've been playing but I don't enjoy changes. The massive changes to the war game however and resultant lack of interaction was the last straw for me to desire more than a secured country. At one time I had a country profiting 300B/game month, one country, all by itself with no time input from me, that's more weapons than it could buy without boosting spending limits. I can look around the game some but given my work schedule I really don't want to, is it possible to profit enough only through your countries economy to continually outpace military spending? That's also been a huge turnoff for me is the difficulty I've had the past few years making enough of a profit to buy anything resembling a significant military.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 04:45 am Well that's all I have to say, what we have here was caused by people wanting to cause a change, if only those folks were as socially adept as they were technically it would have been known in advance the gm wouldn't change things in the desired way or in a way that positively affected the player base. I personally wouldn't attempt to cause changes, they far more often than not are worse than had nothing been tinkered with. IMO, my opinion based on 13 or whatever(I can't even remember anymore) years of playing. For whatever that's worth.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 05:03 am It is possible, but not easy, to support a large military with a strong economy. Acquiring the necessary weapons and ammo needed to compete in PvP is difficult, especially for players more interested in competing with other players than playing the single-player econ game. This is the reason I announced a new game feature. Check out War Games which I posted to this forum.
| |
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 04:06 pm I did quickly. I will look at it again.
| |
| Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 09:57 am I know bumping a 6 month old thread should be illegal, but as a long-term player who just returned to SC a week ago, this was a fascinating read. I read it this morning and thought about it throughout work, before giving myself the space to write my thoughts down. I played almost daily 2011 til 2013 on Kebir Blue. I was a member of the Protectorate. I was even its Leader at one stage (when it went democratic). I remember Parsifal and Crafty and Sunny and Wendy and Orbiter and the Shoe Lady on chat and on the forums. I nurtured an empire which eventually went to #2 on KB. I had a moderately large enterprise. To be honest, those two-ish years were the most fun I've ever had with a game. Nonetheless, I also remember the seemingly long shadow that the Mob War and WCG war seemed to have casted over the game. It still does, to an extent. I hadn't even discovered the game when those wars broke out, yet somehow, now that I think back, its legacy was everywhere in how I played back in 2012. Just think about it - here's a war that had such an impact on the game that it led to mass exodus the likes of which this game has not seen since. That war was still affecting SC back then, when only a few of the "old guard" still remained. At that time (2012) I remember thinking the game was deserted. I'm not sure if it is even moreso now. I have no idea about player numbers. To be honest, I'm in favour of the War Level system. I learnt the game with WLs. I think the system is workable and can foster plenty of entertainment (I say this, having never entered a PvP war during my 2 years playing the game). What needs to happen is for the systems around War Levels to recognise that WLs fundamentally change the nature of how people play SC. For starters, it's very conservative. Once new players start their country and complete their 'Win a War in 10 Minutes!' tutorial, there's nothing forcing them to keep playing the war game. What's missing is the fundamental need for group protection. Even in 2012 on KB, I never felt safe without a Fed. The Protectorate and the Soviet Federation were in a 'Cold War' of sorts on Kebir at the time, and it was fun to sit on one side and such banter at the opposites. I feel that Feds are integral, INTEGRAL to the ability for new players to stick around. The problem is that they've failed at remaining relevant. The basic issue is that the player base is spread too thin across the worlds for there to be any collective build-up. I can sit here on White Giant, out of protection, and no one will know I'm here or touch me. There are no major Feds with big disputes between one another. Everyone in the game is simply in one big Federation - Simcountry. A bit of PvP happens, but not really. It doesn't have the drama and explosive fireworks of the old forum threads on World Wars. So the Game Masters have a few options. Some of you made points above, which I haven't had time to digest and really critique yet. Nonetheless, I've got some ideas. a) making Feds intergalactic/interplanetary - countries can join any Fed on any world. Also, there is no limit to the number of countries that can be in a Fed. Instead, there is a limit to the number of players/accounts which can join a fed (maybe 25), and a single account/player can only have 10 countries in a Fed. This allows for the formation of large alliances. This requires for Feds to coordinate within themselves the defence of assets across space, using space ports and stations - an added bit of complexity. b) a player must fight a PvP war to continue past War Level 5 on Little Upsilon, Fearless Blue and Golden Rainbow. Kebir and White Giant remain the same (no PvP requirement). c) Put all new players on White Giant and Kebir Blue, where they can learn the game and get recruited into Feds. After a month, they're allowed to start a second empire, which gets no GC cost for 3 months, on either Golden Rainbow or Little Upsilon. This keeps new players concentrated on certain worlds, where Feds can recruit and teach them and Enterprises can find and open for business. I'm not saying that these ideas solve everything, but they might just alleviate some of the issues. Ultimately, I hope someone does something soon.
| |
| Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 12:45 pm I find it amusing that the econ players want to limit war gaming to a couple of worlds while the war players want to limit the econ players to a couple of worlds. In each case, the 'other guys' are corralled into a limited space. Although I'm very new to the game, I would like to throw my opinion in the ring, for what it's worth. It would be best if each type had one or two worlds each. Honestly, each world should be different; with gradations from a no holds barred war world with protection only if you pay coins and equal merit to attack and defense, to a peace world where the only way to buy weapons and wage war is to pay coins and/or import them from off planet. If the rules of each world is clearly presented to them, I'm sure most new players would chose a world somewhere in between the two extremes. Most online games are credit card driven - you simply can't win unless you pay. And those who do not pay are at the mercy of those who do. This game is far from that, and it's one of the attractions (other than the pure cerebral attraction). For most people, if they wanted to play war games, they could hit steam or play any one of a thousand first person shooters with tons of graphics and the excitement of constant motion... Let's face facts; this game attracts the MUCH more cerebral gamer. I'll bet most of you enjoy chess. Most of you are college educated, most of you are older than your teens. And almost all of you have an IQ above 100. This game has a whole different niche market than most other games. Honestly, the way things are now, with the exception of Fearless Blue, you could teleport an entire country from one planet to another and nobody would notice much difference. You could teleport a country from one continent to another and there would be zero difference. All countries are the same clones of each other - each world could be carved into perfect squares on a checkerboard and nothing would change. I know that what I suggest would likely be a massive strain on limited server resources. And that would cost money, which would turn this game more like all those other 'pay to play' games. That's why I'm satisfied with what we have now - a slow paced, complex, cerebral game with but a few opportunities to make life interesting. And by the way, you could make a war world far more interesting if you allowed for asymmetrical warfare. If there were guerilla units, saboteur units, spies, etc,. That would give small players an effective weapon against big players. "You can take my country, but your nuclear plants are disasters looking to happen." Create a fund that funds such units - but once you put money into that fund, it's gone forever. The more money you put into that fund, the more units it supports, and the longer those units will operate. If your country is taken or destroyed, the fund and the units are activated. The last thing a president does is select the target country(s). As for players preferring to quit than to start over from scratch... well, there's rage quitting in all games.
| |
| Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 10:08 pm Yes, old thread. Still the state of the Simcountry war game though. For the guys with new posts here, I am not sure your suggestions successfully met the criteria of creating an incentive to participate in PvP. The basic test is, does the idea you have come up with motivate yourself and others to participate in the PvP game? Answer for yourself and why you think it would motivate other players to participate in PvP that might currently be on the fence. My opinion is that the game currently lacks much to compete for/fight over. Proficiency in the econ game can duplicate and surpass rewards that can be earned in PvP and for no risk of asset loss in wars.
| |
| Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 10:18 pm @Jdlech The war world already exists as Fearless Blue is supposed to be the War World -and I say supposed to be as not being on that world and hearing what other players that are there say it needs fixing. But not all players want a war game and are found on the other more peaceful worlds. Not that wars don't break out on the other worlds too. There needs to be a balance and the ability to accommodate both war and econ players.
| |
| Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 07:54 am Old thread, but some refreshing new opinions from both Thomas Morgan and Jdlech. Most of these ideas fail to fully address the lack of incentives within the war game, as Aries has pointed out. That said, I really like Thomas' point (a), regarding intergalactic federations. The space game currently feels underdeveloped and thus somewhat gimmicky, but is ripe for real integration with existing war and federation mechanisms. Interplanetary war both gives Simcountry Space a purpose, and utilises the game's best and most unique features. Moving from Thomas' suggestion into a larger point, wars can already be very tedious, with hours of clicking and unreasonable demands on playing time. I feel this, to some extent, is a critically limiting factor on the number of players willing to engage in meaningful PvP. A multi-world federation, or even the existing federation model, should therefore offer central control over all member state military units and weapons which have not been specifically exempted. This command would be realised through democratically assigned 'General' roles with the game engine, sharing out and entrusting war-time clicking duties to those that are willing to fulfill them. This kind of change would both encourage players to join federations - inherently partisan and conflict-causing entities - and necessitate role play/cooperation within those organisations. Jdlech's observation regarding the game's user base are spot on. That Simcountry has survived for a decade, despite few meaningful changes to its gameplay, is a testament to both its uniqueness and the loyalty of its player base. So few internet games these days have a true niche, and it is frustrating to see this one not achieve popularity and full potential.
| |
| Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 02:42 pm Being able to join a federation across worlds would be "neat" but isn't a game-changing feature in PvP. Friends and allies already exists across worlds regardless of official federation tags. If wars were more prevalent, in general, interplanetary war would follow whether or not the federation tag allowed this flexibility. The ability to allow federation control is an interesting suggestion but might be a bit scary for a player to yield expensive formations by default. I do like the idea in a more limited and controlled fashion though. Perhaps the creation of a defined "battlegroup" created by any federation member where a controller, or controllers, is defined and allows any other federation member to lend forces they choose to the effort. From a coordinated effort standpoint a "battlegroup" would be an welcome addition. I do not believe the war game is any more tedious than the econ game though. I spend lots more time in clicking tedium in econ than I have ever done in the war game. Also, as Dub said, I don't believe fed tag changes, shared fed control, and guerrilla warfare solve the major issue of lack of incentive in PvP gameplay.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 12:42 am @Aries - the worlds are now connected via space trading. Why can't Federations therefore be stretched across 5 worlds instead of just 1? This gives feds far more interesting functionality. A great idea to add onto this is to allow fed mates to be able to transfer goods from world to world via space for another player. This would add an incentive for a player to join a federation, in order to get his or her goods transferred without having to dump a lot of GCs and $$$ into acquiring the necessary goods. It would also promote interaction and coordination between Fed mates. Other players will rely on each other to deliver necessary goods. Nonetheless, in spite of having put my own (rather ambitious) ideas out there, there is only one way in which the player base can be revived properly: a conscientious effort by a number of existing players to recruit new players into beginners federations and guide them through the early stages. This game has all the necessary aspects and features to be devastatingly addictive; what it requires is for new players to reach the stage where they feel they can understand the game and feel worthwhile investing more time into it. As it stands, I have some ideas which I may decide to implement to make the game more approachable for new players. I'm working on it You're right, Aries, in saying that the Econ game is no less tedious than the war game. If anything, the risk-reward factor of the war game is far more potent than anything the econ game can ever deliver. What the game needs is for a lot of players already playing the game to a) not be afraid of war; and b) not frown upon PvP. On b, it's true. While we all woe the loss of PvP's popularity, there is still a predisposition by many to condemn the war game as immature and barbaric. That needs to change.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 01:19 am Again, I approve of the additional utilisation of space game functionality. I'm sure many of us are open to recruiting new players, and guiding them through the game, but I really think that some kind of organisation is required... I suggest: 1. Interested players contribute war-game-revival specific ideas to a medium that is easier to moderate, organise and collaborate on. This might be a joint google docs folder, with the ultimate aim of providing a comprehensive (and uncrowded) list of suggestions to the GM. 2. The same as #1, but covering associate ideas such as inter-planetary war/feds, in game natural resources, and assigned in game federation roles. 3. A cohesive plan to recruit players from offsite, and bring them through a ready made programme of our own devising. Perhaps recruiters could be additionally rewarded from security council funds in a world of their choosing.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 04:50 am @Tom - Adding the ability to have interstellar federations and more flexibility, in general, again, is neat. Sure, why not do it? Does it fix PvP? no As far as adding the ability to transfer another player's goods, this is less of a problem than you might think. Check the market for shuttles. A half dozen shuttles can be had for a few coins. If this is price is out of reach of a player, they have an issue beyond trying to transport goods through space. Again, doesn't fix PvP. As far as guiding new players, yes, I am doing all I can. I have added the best c3 war guide ever written to the Beginners Forum. I have also added a guide titled "Path of a Warrior" there that provides an overview of how a new war player gets started in obtaining the resources to be a game force. I am also the most consistent presence on the forum and in chat helping guide new players into developing strategy and style. A half dozen or so players in the last 6 months are already very good. Again, all that said, there needs to be incentive to take the next step. Something that makes building and risking an army, or a country out of war protection, worth it. Further, the joke that the "war world" has become should be fixed. Sounds good Dub. More discussion into this problem can't hurt.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 10:31 am Great to hear Aries, I want to do the same. Another 20 experienced players in the game and on the forums would really make this place feel alive.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 05:13 pm jdlech: I don't think it's about limiting an activity to a few worlds. I think it's more about making sure new players start somewhere they can get off on the right foot. Dubhthaigh: I've created a page on the Simcountry wiki for collaboration of that sort(Using a wiki, instead of GDocs, to prevent vandalism). See http://simcountry.wikia.com/wiki/PVP_War_Suggestions - it's really basic for now, but I'm sure we can make it better. Tom: I'll vouch for Aries being a huge help to me when I started. I've tried to help as well.
| |
| Friday, January 22, 2016 - 08:09 pm A note - my link doesn't work, because the Simcountry forum software adds a "www.simcountry.com" in the middle of it for no good reason. Copy and paste it into your browser's address bar to have the link come up.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2016 - 11:15 am It looks good, gj Al Sadius! It's been a long time since I fired up the SC wiki account. If anyone wants a PVP suggestion to be summarised on the page, but doesn't want to register on the wiki, post in here and someone will do it for you. In terms of amendments and discussing suggestions, im not sure whether it's best to discuss them here or in the page comment section. I guess we are hoping to present a fairly comprehensive and clear selection of suggestions to the GM's at the end of this, making general consensus quite important.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2016 - 11:55 am Well, I own the Simcountry subreddit on Reddit. If anyone wants to become a moderator and also post some content/get a discussion going there, be my guest.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2016 - 12:08 pm Sounds good. Maybe a sub thread for each suggestions/discussion, and then we put it on the wiki.
| |
| Saturday, January 23, 2016 - 03:40 pm Honestly, I'm not sure Reddit is the right tool here. That sort of point-by-point discussion would probably be better on the forums here, so more people see it. The wiki was mostly designed to compile things people already like, not discuss the proposals in detail.
|
