 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 01:00 am  I think CEO's corps should also be allowed to be destroyed. it would make the game more realistic and closer to a simulation of real events. Another thing, this would take off the secured path of economy for CEO only countries. Making their protection of their corps more valuable.
| |
| Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 02:32 am Back in the day, CEO corps were attackable. That was extremely fun. That made sneak attacks very useful. If one had a small empire, say, 4 countries, one could kill 8 corps per month using sneak attacks. If one waited till the end of the month to attack, then attacked again at the beginning of the next month, one could kill 16 corps in about 2 hours. Guerrilla war was alive and well. But that was before all these restrictive war levels, and before good weapons had to be purchased from flying saucers. Those were the glory days.... I endorse this suggestion.
| |
| Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 02:49 am Thank you Madoff
| |
| Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 03:14 am CEO corps can still be closed by war. You just got to know how.
| |
| Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 03:37 am how? this game sucks the more i think about it why isnt there any war war war war there should be 4 war worlds and 1 peaceful world for all the nannies
| |
| Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 04:15 am Crafty is right. The CEO corps can be destroyed in war, if you know how, and they are vulnerable to disasters. Things are fine how they are.
| |
| Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 06:42 pm The reason the game is the way it is is because we get a bunch of new players who want to nuke nuke nuke, get bored, and quit... That's why there is war protection and protected CEO corps. It isn't fair for the CEOs because of noobs coming just to nuke their assets and then never even logging on again.. MAYBE I could understand this if CEOs could buy mercenary units for their plants and the garrison had a defense bonus. Then it might be fair.
| |
| Sunday, March 10, 2013 - 06:46 pm genius
| |
| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 06:14 am As the original post says, if CEO corps were attackable, CEOs will prefer countries that provide garrisons for their corps. Player v. player war has become rare because of how time-consuming it is. At least allow sneak attacks to become a more interesting feature.
| |
| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 12:26 pm PvP wars are indeed becoming rare and I'd like to change that in the future. Aries just made a thread on this subject. Any further input on how you guys think we could promote more war is very welcome! As for promoting sneak attacks against CEO corps. This is a tricky subject as there are no direct ways for a CEO to retaliate if you destroy his/her corps. I'm not sure how we'd go about this without making CEO's extremely vulnerable to 'bullying'.
| |
| Saturday, March 28, 2015 - 03:34 pm As already stated by Aries CEO corps are vulnerable during a war. There is already a limited number of player countries worth investing in and even less who are equipped to provide protection to a CEO corps if it was required. So if this is the direction the GM wants to go then here is what needs to be done to give the CEO the ability to protect his corporations. 1 Remove ALL limits on the number of corporations a CEO can build in any country. That way the CEO can build in only his countries (if he has any) or he can choose the ones where he knows his assets are protected. The other countries will just have to rely on state run corporations. 2. Also allow the CEO to choose to add security forces to his corporations. Only makes sense. And yes this will have an impact on the world economy because with these changes CEOs will have the freedom to manage where they locate their corps. Things will look much different than they do today. But unless the GM makes these 2 changes then nothing should be done to put the CEO at risk when he is powerless to manage the risk. The CEO is already at the mercy of too many things like enterprise taxes that he cannot control.
| |
| Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 12:27 pm I do think this has merit. Making CEO's more directly involved with the world would be lovely. Right now they pretty much play their own game without much regard for what's happening around them. Now the bad news. This would require a big time investment to implement and would have a comparatively small impact on the game as a whole. I'm not saying it won't happen, but don't hold your breath. At the moment we have much more urgent matters which will (hopefully) seriously improve the overall gameplay experience.
| |
| Monday, April 13, 2015 - 12:13 am Personally, I would love to see CEO's have more control in the terms of economics. Maybe give a boost to welfare in nations that have more CEO then states. Also I think that CEO's in countries should be attackable. ---During war only---... Allowing them to be destroyed would allow for more population damage and would really bring CEO/country players together. Also I know that the GM is make great advances in the areas of mechanics. Maybe we can create business that are CEO only corporations. Sports, shows, vacation are 99% of the time private not state industries. Maybe we can change the settings so they are not "required" population items but instead they are special items that increase the welfare index. Give the CEO something to focus on
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 03:36 am I agree with SS on this. Also, i would like to add ( though without suggesting how, Cuz i'm an arse like that ) That CEO's be able to go up in Game levels.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 04:16 am If Enterprise tax was removed, I'd be ok with this.  That, and a way to make it easier to track down WHEN your ceo corporation was destroyed (a notification of some sort). As of now, it just goes in the news.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 04:24 am Yea. it takes me a few days to notice i am down a Corp or two. then it takes 30 mins going though all the newspapers piled of the floor to find out what / when/ where and why. 
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 05:39 am When CEO corps were attackable, there was a notice given if an attack destroyed a corp. It was the same type of notice that is given now on the CEO page for corps when the CEO closes a corp. This notice said that the corp closed, and linked to the newspaper story. It stayed prominently near the top of the page for several game months. It was normal to lose occasional CEO corps during wars or sneak attacks. We considered this a cost of doing business, mostly. (There was no enterprise fee then.) Sometimes a CEO who also owned a country retaliated for any destruction of his CEO corps. Occasionally the Security Council or feds intervened. See how having attackable CEO corps provided interaction between CEOs and presidents? Presumably this coding is still around somewhere. Bringing it back to the game shouldn't require 5 years on a work list, as happened with most items of the epic work list for improving war.
| |
| Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - 07:25 am Nice bump, Madoff. I like Barney's idea at this stage.
| |
| Friday, May 29, 2015 - 09:16 pm The old Sneak Attack rule? I had fun with it a couple times. Another possibility is something else I once suggested: terrorism. Allow intelligence agencies to strike against CEO corps, or hire surrogates to do so.
| |
| Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - 11:14 pm I am not if I have a specific suggestion for more PvP wars. But I have a few thoughts on making more active players(and there fore more activity which MAY lead to more wars) 1) bring back change cash to GC. There are several Items that can be bought with GC only and making a way to get more of those would help 2)(I think you are doing this already) reward for simply being active 3) While I agree with keeping secure more in all but FB make it so ALL weapons can be made in all worlds Just my thought on getting more wars going
| |
| Wednesday, August 31, 2016 - 08:57 pm "Player v. player war has become rare because of how time-consuming it is." Aries has made a thread about increasing unit sizes to decrease the time. On a personal note, decreasing the number of fortifications in a country to 150, regardless of how they got there, would also decrease the time for destruction before it's possible to attempt to paint. A couple thousand clicks saved anywhere is always helpful. While this could make war more attractive, I don't think it would be enough incentive to bring back the activity, of say 2003-2005 or so. There have been a number of changes, and to bring back the activity of old, you'd pretty much have to get rid of a lot of stuff. Some of the stuff that was implemented to enforce players into wars, i.e. mandatory war levels, instead has driven players from the game. Bring back unlimited C3 warfare, so a player isn't completely without hope if he loses a war. Not too many folks are going to build stuff up, lose it all in an afternoon, and take the sweat to build it back to level over the next few years. You have a small number of players, who outside the top percentile, can remove the rest of the player base across the worlds, single handed. Staying at a lower war level gives one the chance to grow and become competition. While the current crop of veterans may not choose to do so, that situation is static. Introducing another few hundred players per world isn't going to change that. Not in the foreseeable future. This idea is worthy of implementation, even if I am right, and it does not greatly increase the war activity. Enterprises should be attuned to the countries that they are in. And yes, they should be concerned with garrisons. If this feature is implemented, it should be implemented in all wars, not just PvP. The CEO should be able to provide defenses for these - perhaps from the professionals, or some such mechanic. This provides a degree of realism sorely lacking in a simulation game that is so complex. This would be a good first step. Mandating that enterprise stocks have to be warehoused somewhere other then in astral space would be a good second. Any game is an escape from reality, but the participants have to believe in the internal structure of the game's reality. Too many deus ex machinas destroy that. Madoff, thanks for the attention getter. Always nice to see a great player in these Hallowed Halls. Please give my best to Bert. Cordially yours, MNey
| |
| Thursday, September 1, 2016 - 08:55 pm Post in haste, repent at leisure. There is unlimited C3 warfare.
| |
| Friday, September 2, 2016 - 04:41 am "Aries has made a thread about increasing unit sizes to decrease the time." I'd rather allow players to create multiple units and attack multiple targets. When creating a unit there should be a text box (which could, for example, be at the bottom after weapons and ammunition and called "units") that multiplies everything to no limit, other than available weapons required. For example, instead of 850 tanks, you put 2 in that box and it creates 2 units, which would require 1700 tanks. If you have 1700 tanks, then 2 units are created. When selecting targets to attack(before you hit the 'attack' button that brings up the window for attacking that target), there should be checkbox besides all targets of that type, along with a button at the top and bottom of the target lists that toggles all checkboxes, not unlike the corporate shares page. After you have selected all or whichever targets you wish to attack, there should also be checkboxes beside units you have which are within range of at least one of the targets. They should not be required to be within range of all of the targets. Then, once you proceed to choose which weapons to attack with (for example, attacking with 2 divisions comprised only of 850 tanks each, would allow you to choose up to 1700 tanks), any weapons within range of targets will begin attacking the targets one at a time until either all attacks have been completed, or you have no more weapons/ammo to attack with. To not overload servers, there could be a delay between attacks (say for example, an attack every 1 or 10 milliseconds or even 1 second) Really I am surprised it doesn't already work like this.. . but whatever. I guarantee there would be A LOT more warfare if a system like what I just laid out was put in place. As it is now, I will probably only attack somebody if they have somehow considerably upset me, because it would require a lot of clicking, and I often have distractions when at my house. I wouldn't mind setting aside the time to make all those clicks, however, if as I said I was bothered enough by somebody than I would suck it up and click away (but I shouldn't have to do click so much. That is not fair to me or any other player, including my enemy!). If I could simply use a checkbox system to create units and destroy targets just as we do with trading shares, I'd probably be among the more warmongering sorts around here. It's still 'do-able' as it is now though, I guess. . .
| |
| Sunday, September 11, 2016 - 09:48 am Madoff and Brandon, can't agree with you more...
|
