 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, May 20, 2014 - 06:04 am  So, one issue that many of us in federations have is that we are torn between two desires. The one, is to be able to progress up through the war levels, and the other is to be able to still protect our allies. I would like to get feedback from everyone before putting this up for a vote. So, give me your thoughts on how we could do this. I was thinking perhaps allow auto counter-attacks regardless of war level as well as for defense helicopters and interceptors to work. Perhaps even making all defensive weapons and counter attacks free of war level restrictions. Clearly, the war levels are here to stay, and I support that decision, but that is to prevent veterans from taking out new players and preventing them from growing their empires. Many of us though, are not interested in attacking new players, we just want to rise in war level while still being able to defend our federations. What do you all think?
| |
| Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 01:31 am why would you want to raise your war level?
| |
| Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 05:28 pm The GREAT GREAT majority of vets were not and never were interested in taking out new players. War levels are just another attempt to, for lack of a better phrase 'dumb down' SC. It is soooooo easy to properly defend a country. With just a little effort, the defender can make it extremely costly and difficult to have their country conquered. This is the purpose of federations. If at times you get lazy (which I have done) then you are vulnerable. Thats the way it should be. But of course there are those that dont want to learn the military aspect of SC, so they have changed the game to fit that style of play. Because before a new player would build his country, BOTH economically and militarily. If he focused to much on military his economics would suffer. If he focused only on eco then he was vulnerable to attack. The balance and the struggle to maintain that balance was much of the allure of SC. However now with this 'dumbed down' style of play you can play only the eco aspect without regard to a real simulation where you must have a balance between eco and mili. It also largely defeats the purpose of having federations. Previously, federations provided protection for their new members and taught them the game, thereby improving the learning curve and fostering a type of community and belonging, now thats gone! So as long as war levels are in place it will be difficult to make federations relevant.
| |
| Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - 09:20 pm when I'm a millionaire ill buy out SC and put serpent in charge
| |
| Thursday, May 22, 2014 - 05:52 am you hit that right on the head serp
| |
| Friday, May 23, 2014 - 09:12 pm Well, the reason to increase war levels is clear... game rewards. Game level 11 is much easier with war level 7 than 6. That's not to mention the score bonus, and the bonus for actually reaching those war levels. But, as we know that totally precludes us from most military action afterwards. Now, Serpent. I think we know that war levels are here to stay. But, I wonder if some sort of compromise is possible.
| |
| Saturday, May 24, 2014 - 04:29 pm I agree with serpent. I've been here 5years, and i know of only 3-4players that would attack new players. Heck in most cases myself or others stepped in to stop them either would talks or force. The war levels are hurting SC, in my opinion the war level shouldnt matter in feds. for example Player 1 - war level 4 Player 2 - war level 3 Player 3 - war level 10 Player 4 - war level 11 If all 4 players sign the war dec if ANY of them are attacked they SHOULD be allowed to dec back, this should be the ONLY time someone of a higher or lower level attacks. The ability for someone to attack a lower level but know the highers can support them is huge. It would "protect the noobs" but still allow feds to play a active roll in defence.
| |
| Saturday, May 24, 2014 - 11:29 pm How is game level 11 easier with a higher war level?
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 02:42 am as serp says, but with a few things. in the past, fed "protection," was more commonly an establish social pattern, that would ostracize, and vilify, any would be aggressor. their where aggressive groups, but they were usually small, with their strength based more on organization, and skill, than size. with large federations recruiting players, to beef up their numbers, and be difficult to defeat based on sheer numbers. the second type of fed, was the most common. recuiting players, en mass, became more and more relucant to actually fight, as the skill to player ratio continuosly declined, these feds created a social system that would value war players, but vilify any one that would choose to fight. creating allot of players that where just waiting for some one else to start something, while the most influenctial players did everything they could to prevent any damage to their power base, even to the point that their own soldier/members would quit from boredom. eventually, a group formed that despised the social pecking order, while being highly skilled, they began fighting to recreate the game. my self, i originally fought against them, and eventually with them. how ever, the GM, remembering the pre-secured mode days, and valuing the players-that-be, actively tried to prevent an aggressive power shift. one thing led to another, and we got war levels. war levels provide protection for newbs, and a safe means for federations to grow their power base. but it also largely removes the need for federations, allies, and even friendships. although, i'm not entirely convinced that it so much is the war levels, as the extreme levels of defense, and the over all cost of an aggressive war, compared to the gains. if their was more value to winning, their'd be more war. as it is, when it comes to fighting, it costs more to win, than the value of the conquest. if their was more to gain, things would be different.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 03:18 am well said orb
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 04:49 am Super soldier, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for your eloquence. Squanto, if you are ranked as a war player, the requirements are either a defence index of 1170 so some ridiculous number, or war level 7.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 05:55 am me and super have been talking about this problem for a couple of years now, we have tried to explain it on the forums in the past due to certain situation in wars with other fed members but again another major faux paux in the game.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 06:42 am thanks jack, you rock, you are a sim-superstar, out of your time, i hope you stick around, i hope sim-country comes back, to the AF/UC days, i still see that war as the high point of simcountry, ironically, a war i wasn't in, and never really on that planet! but wow, that one was fun to watch! with shock waves that only recently stopped! we need a middle ground, dayly blood shed only cost players, but the endless grey void we are in, does the same. true power struggles, between the likes of ameche, and diz, between Sam and Dirt, LDI and VS, WGC and Manny, even Stewie and Wendy, these things are what build drama, and make the game fun. but when the GM change the rules every time a player quits, you can guess their is 3 more players that will quit, and 4 more that just wont stick around. myself, i've just moved across the country, 2300 miles, with my family, to make our life better, people grow, change, and move on. with out the game drama, to draw in new players, the game will become stagnant, the GM have to loosen the noose, or they will loose their own game.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 08:10 am Huh
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 08:35 am I am just a observer on this topic, but i really enjoy hearing about the good ole days of simcountry.. and i love to hear the stories about the past players & the awesome war scene this game once enjoyed, i have even read old wiki's for information about this games amazing history, whats even more amazing is how damn long this game has existed that's one heck of a accomplishment not many games have acheived such success, even with all the problems. I saw this game several years ago while searching for related topics on the net, i took a look but never joined at that time.... which is something i deeply regret, because i clearly missed out on some great years. Hope in time the few like me whom never had the chance to experience those days, can at least try to reignite that spark and carry this game into the future & i hope the remaining vets keep pressing the GM/owners of SC and make them fix what they broke.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 10:16 am We think that the was level limitations, in fed wars but also in one to one wars, should be relaxed. we will look into it in the coming days.
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 11:17 am which meanz squat, until you do something, and you've hinted at such before!! considering this is a suggestion forum, and every thing else, what are your thoughts? to "relax" this?
| |
| Monday, May 26, 2014 - 08:11 pm -------------Playing both sides----------- Andy has made much more of a resent effort in the forums compared to a year ago. When he made non, The GM is listening to us just not as much as we would like, i really think having a Jozi chat or something to that extent would help the play base MASSIVELY. On the same token, i think the GM wants to see quality ideas from the players. I think the GM wants to keep the war levels to help foster new players and non paying in the chance of making them paying members. The problem as pointed before is the MASSIVE amount of cost to take a nation. Maybe we should as players identify the issues to better help the GM For example... -Why don't nukes effect the war index?(dead should lower the war index) -Why does GROUND warfare cost MORE then air-based warfare in some cases? -How come ground based weapons are weak and easily destroyed? Considering the massive amounts of work needed to drop them into an enemy county? -Land based weapons SHOULD be extremely effective in destroying targets. I don't understand why 850 tanks/art need several attacks to destroy a target. They should be able to do it in 1 -Some players like myself like helping others. Why aren't there points and GC associated with helping others during disasters(give incentives to be more political) -Change the Security council make it more effective. The first of every month the top 15 players are added to the council. Allow the council to ban a nation from buying weapons on the market, allow them to issue boycotts(with public vote), allow them to send money to a nation after a war/disaster.
| |
| Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 06:00 am Thanks Andy, this would be a great change 
| |
| Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 01:56 pm As always well said Super
| |
| Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 02:03 pm Yes, we owe you the details of the planned change. I will make sure it is published here in the coming days. Supersoldier I appreciate your constructive efforts, just please don't swamp us with numbers and specific proposals. These very frequently miss the point and are then ignored. stating the main issues and the logic behind them in a short way, helps a lot. we will listen to reason as we always did, and will continue to make changes to improve Simcountry. Sometime it is hard to find the pearls between all the shouting.
| |
| Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 09:18 pm i wasn't expecting you to say that, if anything, right on! i'll wait patiently
| |
| Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 05:21 am I understand that Andy I think both of us have been working hard, I know we haven't had the best of "talks" but i know you care, and i know you know i do to I just want to see your game become a success and I'm willing to do what i can to help, as MANY others are. Just give us an idea of what you want to accomplish and I'm sure between the many vets of SC and your future of this game we can achieve something great
| |
| Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 06:30 am http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9_nXlvY6Io
| |
| Thursday, May 29, 2014 - 05:38 pm hahahahahaa Serpent good timing. Totally agree with supreme I listen with envy to stories of "the old days". It seems like players where very active back then. I too stumbled across this game years ago. I actually started playing it but didn't continue. Unfortunately I was a bit to young to understand the concepts. I really do think this is a great game. Just wish there was more of a reason for interaction between players in game not just the forums.
| |
| Friday, May 30, 2014 - 08:27 am Andy maybe you should listen to what you're reading from veteran players. All these changes in the past few years has made this game go down hill. I am a returning veteran player and it sickens me to see the lack of chat and forum posts like we had years ago. Lose the war levels, make the game more affordable to play and get rid of the added expense for countries with all those upgrades for weapons/ammo/maintenance for weapons. I'm truly surprised this game is still going at the rate its going with all the nickel and dime expenses incurred to each country.
| |
| Sunday, June 1, 2014 - 03:39 pm There are many here paying $ 4 a month. In the great old days, nobody bothered to pay to support the development effort. I think that this might be the difference. There are now more players joining who understand that the entire thing cannot go for free. so all this advice about getting rid of this and that is not relevant and when you talk about declining numbers or increasing numbers, that too is not relevant. The question is: are these players only talk the talk or are they also ready to walk the walk.
| |
| Sunday, June 1, 2014 - 03:44 pm Orbiter, Supersoldier, Serpent: Thanks for your words. We want of course to increase the participation in the game. We agree that some tuning is needed, also in the war game but we do not want to return to the days when some veteran players used to kill newcomers. and as before, despite many changes, we will need to make more effort to make it easier to play as many of those who visit just don't understand how to play and leave.
| |
| Sunday, June 1, 2014 - 06:17 pm Andy My i offer a suggestion to the GM. I would HAPPILY pay more for simcountry. I know ALOT of people have been complaining about the VERY weak amount of GC you get for paying. $36USD only gets you 13 Trillion which is little compared to when you have to buy weapons or pay off debt. I personally would buy more GC if there was a better rate?. If i may suggest adding sales by 10? Instead of the 12-24-36 rates? $10 = 100GC $20 = 220GC ( 10% bonus) $30 = 345GC ( 15% bonus) $40 = 480GC ( 20% bonus) $50 = 625GC ( 25% bonus) BEST OFFER --- $100 = 1500GC ( 50% bonus) If you offer better deals for GC i and MANY others would buy. I have countries with 14T in debt. Im not going to pay 36USD to clear the debt of 1 nation. But if i could pay 50 to clear 3 of them i would. Just a though If you offered 1000+ GC ill be the first in line to buy them
| |
| Sunday, June 1, 2014 - 11:05 pm theirs a good point, the 4 dollars for the minimum, seems nice to me, but anything past hanging out with one empire, it just to expensive, 1 space dock, cost 20 dollars of GC, doing anything significant cost allot. some things like professionals, should be cheaper. i'm hating myself for saying this, but its been 4 dollars/month since i started playing, maybe 5 or 6, to justify lowering the prices of other things, like making the first ceo per world free with the empire? i realize these are business designions, that are entirely yours, i'm not trying to meddle. just offering some feedback and thanks for the discussion
| |
| Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - 06:54 pm The war level limitations when declaring war will be relaxes a bit within the coming two weeks. There will be several changes: 1. When declaring war, the difference in war level is now maximized to 3 war levels. It will be increased to 4. The same will apply to participation in federation wars and war treaties. On FB there are no such limitations. 2. Players in war level 3 who fought more than 20 wars, are considered to be knowledgable enough to move to war level 4. when they declare war, they will be moved to war level 4. The change will not take place automatically but will be executed only when they declare war. A player in war level 3 who fought more than 20 wars will remain in war level 3 until the next war. 3. The number of gold coins you win when moving to war level 4,5 and 6 will increase to 50 (from 30) on all the worlds except for the FB world. On FB, the award will increase to 90 gold coins (was 60). 4. The amount of money that can be won when winning a war in war levels 2 and 3 will be reduced somewhat. The amount will increase substantially for war levels 4, 5 and 6. 5. Free players will be able fight 80 wars.
| |
| Wednesday, June 4, 2014 - 07:05 pm Thank you Andy Those are very reasonable and very welcome changes. Thank you for taking the time to talk with the other GM and bring this matter to their attention. Since we are talking about war levels, I'm not sure if your aware or if this was done on purpose but there is very little incentive to warring at the high war levels. I was looking at taking a war level 12 and the stats are HORRIBLE. Only 6T in cash? I spend more then that on clear defenses. I know a lot of people have complained. If you look you see the cash value grows at the normal increased rates even though the defenses grow dramatically. If i can offer a suggestion to the GM. I know your looking to allow people to war and gain 100's of trillions, but maybe some other things could be beneficial? Maybe leaving some professional soldiers/officers in the nation after words? Increasing the pop more? I dont know these are just ideas. As i said im unsure if you where aware but to clear stealth, conventional missiles, garrisons, air units. That costs WAY more then 6T
| |
| Sunday, June 8, 2014 - 10:05 am ok. so 20 for 4, will you enforce higher? i'm also interested in hearing sup's questions questions answered
| |
| Friday, June 13, 2014 - 03:03 pm supersoldier will never surprise us and thanks for the compliments. The other GMs are responsible. you always have numbers for us and they are always going the same way. it seems that the war game for you, is about fighting fake wars. My advise is to stop it and start fighting real ones. we should help of course. It should become more attractive and possible to fight real wars. the cost may decrease more and permanent protection should cost more. on the other hand, the "loot" from fake wars, should decline (it has some, but did not catch up with the declined cost of war). It should decline more and make it less attractive to fight fakes. This is not what the game is about.
| |
| Monday, June 16, 2014 - 02:08 pm That's true Andy, but most of us have usually got to fight these 'fake' wars or C3s, in order to receive a vast amount of money to develop our economies or pay off debts, its the only way many of us keep going here in this game. If you could somehow make the economies in countries function so much better such as cutting back the total number of workers that are required at each corporation by 50% for example, we would be able to approximately have twice as many corporations in a country, as well as the country making twice as much profit per game month. This is only just a suggestion, but if you're planning to make C3 warring much less attractive to us, you should really start making up for it by improving the economy of our countries instead.
| |
| Monday, June 16, 2014 - 05:50 pm i completely agree james
| |
| Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - 06:18 am andy, your the only GM that actually talks to us, to us, you represent them all, and talking to you, is like talking to all the GM. serious dude, don't "pass the buck" unless joni, josi, and robocop suddenly start talking, which, by the way, we'd love
| |
| Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - 06:41 pm Most countries are very profitable. Much more profitable than in the past. We will also continue the trend of lower pricing, especially for weapons and ammo so that the monthly profit of the country will enable you to purchase more. This should continue to improve, and on the other hand, make the fake wars less relevant.
| |
| Thursday, June 19, 2014 - 03:53 am Normally I'm the first to jump all over Andy, but he has been respectful for the most part and seems willing to help us. Lets show him a bit of a better attitude, we know once the yelling starts, no one gets heard. Andy I think what most people are worried about is if you keep cutting the profits why bother warring? everyone will sit at war level 3, maybe a few wars will happen with players but not enough to move a lot of people up the levels. I'm not sure if your aware but the increase in score with war levels is REALLY low, the costs are EXPENSIVE. I think for everyone to understand everyones view point. Can you please explain HOW moving to war level 12 will benefits me instead of WHY you think it would be good?
| |
| Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 05:18 pm As I said before, it is not about fake wars. we should, step by step, make fake wars less profitable and winning real wars more relevant/profitable. It is more challenging as is but not everyone is interested in a real fight. Climbing the war levels pays many gold coins, and increasingly gives you a score boost. The trend will continue. Game levels also depend on war levels, and there are, and will be even more gold coins to win there. The cost of war declined a lot and this too will continue.
| |
| Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 06:36 am bump
|
