Further c3 reductions

Further reduction in rewards smashed again c3 raiding reducing income for those on the war game.

Eb!!!!!!! If you read this message, please contact me in game. Thanks!

Jan i'll try

Now the game adjustments cost a heap more to take over a c3 losing double the amount of mid range missile batteries and less reward for taking a c3 so much for it being cheaper for weapons I am losing twice as much now doubling the time it takes your land units too replenish thus also doubling the time you have to sit on the computer to take a few c3 this has really ruined the game.

That's what I mean, its taking wayyy to much time out of my day to just make a few trillion. How about the game finds a way to stop changing the rules so often to make this difficult for those trying harder. When playing a game of monopoly, the rule book does not suddenly change mid game.

I applaud the changes. Raided four countries and used more weapons and making $2T less than last week for them but I am ok with that. I still make money.

I like that more weapons are being used as this will create additional demand for weapons that are needed. Also, I appreciate that the documentation has been continually updated to show the new units available to C3s.

back when WLs where introduced, i fought very hard to make sure the reward for going up in war levels was worth it. originally, the GM wanted a one time GC award, but a one time award, for a permanent increase in difficulty, was a sour incentive.

getting them to increase the cash per C3, was nice. but now, with the GC market gone, the new monthly award system, and a huge advantage given to higher GLs, and WLs. with advantages given for being out of protection, at higher WLs. i'm not sure huge cash amounts in C3s, is necessary.

i think that Aries is going in the right direction.

c3 raiding unprofitable?? WTF? its about the only way to make money in this game.... i support any measures to make the game more balanced and realistic and lowering profits from c3 raiding aswell as lowering costs of weapons and ammo are steps in the right direction

I applaud the changes. Raided four countries and used more weapons and making $2T less than last week for them but I am ok with that. I still make money. I have never heard a more ridiculous load of bull shit in my life what a joke please gm im happy I get less rewards and it costs me more weapons wtf are u five.

Well how about letting us have all the defensive weapons and ammo that doesn't get destroyed in the war. Like when the war lvls where 1st introduced. All the garrisons,air,and land units that are left over stay in the c3.

Why bother arguing on raiding? Why not simply make a suggestion that your account is gifted $25T every day?

The truth is values have been lowered. Product prices are fixed to maximum value and the rewards for c3s far outweighed weapons costs. C3 raiding is still profitable, I ended up raiding 10 countries in all yesterday, and the truth is that any concerns about not having the cash for pvp war are offset by everyone being in the same boat. This change was needed.

Regarding profits from C3 raiding,earlier Andy posted:
Tuesday, September 17, 2013 - 04:25 pm
"It should be cut by 50% more.
Prices went down and general cost too.
you make trillions and complain about it.

we will gradually bring the awards in line with the cost and you will make a decent profit.

the price of products, weapons and ammunition will keep declining.
we do not think numbers in the game should be in trillions."
Aries agreed and posted:
Wednesday, September 25, 2013 - 07:56 pm
"I applaud the changes. Raided four countries and used more weapons and making $2T less than last week for them but I am ok with that. I still make money.

I like that more weapons are being used as this will create additional demand for weapons that are needed. Also, I appreciate that the documentation has been continually updated to show the new units available to C3s."

Aries, while I respect your opinion, the GM's actions counteract what they claim they are trying to do. On the one hand, they say they want to reduce war costs by deflating prices while on the flip side they increase the amount of weaponry needed to take a c3. As you correctly state, this increases the demand for weapons which also increases prices. In any event, I really haven't seen weapons costs go down all that much. Other actions taken by the GM which increase the cost of war include the increase in forts from 100 to a max of 150 and I see that at higher war levels you will have to deal with conventional missiles. Who asked for that? Imagine having a 200 or 300 million pop country deccing on you and now you have to deal with increased forts which can be automatically replaced. How do you fight against something like that. Very profitable c3 raiding is the only way I can keep my defenses up and active as a deterrant.I suppose I could reduce my empire to a couple of 300 million pop countries. But then the game becomes a joke and really boring. I have other examples of ways the GM undercuts their stated goals, but why bother.

"Imagine having a 200 or 300 million pop country deccing on you and now you have to deal with increased forts which can be automatically replaced. How do you fight against something like that."

This would be like Christmas come early. This is not a scenario that I fear. In addition, how is this hypothetical enemy paying for his stuff?

Ive always stated that ALL WARS. C3 or PVP should use wepaons on the world market. The MASSIVE amount of red markets becuase of this would mean we need corps with MASSIVE amounts of production. This would MASSIVELY decrease the cost of weapons.

Think in a SINGLE C3 war level 11 there is 45 Heli/90 Inters as stated by the documents.

90Inters wings at 130 per wing = 11700inters
A corp only makes 32 Inters a year.

Meaning 1 C3 war would = 366 corps of a FULL years of production.

If corps made one wing/unit of production weapons would be at an all time low.

1T SC$ = 150,000 inter missiles. Which is 15wings.
If a corp made a wing of missiles a year. The cost would be 80% less. Missiles would cost MUCH LESS but profitability wouldn't stagger.

Again a corp could AND SHOULD make the defualt production asked and the markets wouldn't suffer id all C3 weapons where intimidate ordered from the market

Aries said "Raided four countries" at level 11
That's
360 Interceptor wings = 46,800 inters and 3.9M inter missiles
180 Heli wings = 28,400 helis and 1.95M heli missiles.

Dont forget about all the other weapons.
Making C3 pull weapons from the market would allow the GM to jackup production massively, the cost would massively drop allowing them to drop cash to lower levels, and would still allow players to build armys at a MUCH cheaper rate.

Aries, The smaller the empire in terms of countries, the less the GM punishes one for empire maintenance costs. Most players understand that extending an empire to several states will make your finance index more difficult to maintain at a profitable level, even if it is not a militarized country. I have a large empire and try to defend it.Forts aren't expensive to replace.As for "hypothetical", I don't know what you mean. On FB there are countries with powerful military machines and 300 million pop. What they don't have are large empires in terms of number of countries. I didn't present a hypothetical. Examples are War Chief, 300 million war rank 2, and Ameraq 300 million. I guess I don't know what you mean by hypothetical. Their finance index rankings are excellent. In part I am sure, because they are outstanding econ players, but also in part because they are not overextended in terms of countries which also helps the econ game. Maybe I'm wrong, but empire size effects your econ game. This has been true for the 5 years I have been playing.

On large empires and finance: Yes, larger empires have slightly higher govt costs. You also get rebels attacking your state corps at 10 or more countries. No, these costs are not significant.

On the players you mentioned: Yes, there are large countries out there. One of the ones you mentioned happens to be an ally of mine. I can assure you that any significant arms either of these players have was furnished by cash from raiding. That is my point. With raiding changes, they are in the same boat.

the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

Aries. The costs are very significant. They should not be minimized. I know this from experience. As for a 300 million pop country at war level 40 vs a 50 million pop at war level 1, I'd rather prefer the 300 million pop country. They are not in the same boat. I actually had this conversation with an extremely experienced player I will not name a few months back. A player I actually respect highly. I can assure you, he agreed with me.

I have some economic experience too. My country count fluctuates a bit, due to pvp considerations, but I typically have 10, currently have 18, probably will be at 15 for a bit next week, and I am trying to get down to 8 at some point.

I'd prefer the 300 million pop too which is why if someone decced me with one I would happily take the country off their hands. I mistakenly thought a very large pop country decced me, from a traditional foe, when I misread a message, it was regarding war but not a declaration, and nearly spit out my pop. It was like thinking you matched all the lotto numbers but being mistaken. Only war protection has protected the large countries of my enemies.

Good for you. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying there is such a thing as a invincible foe. Just saying I would rather be the near invincible foe. LOL.

Cost is not a downside. It is an expense that we all must pay.

yeah, trillions of trillions dollars is way more than most people can imagine. we gotta bring this game down to earth view so most of us players understand.

i'm guessing that about 99% of us players on sc have not yet seen even a million dollars

very few countries on earth have revenues/assets in the trillions of USD, but just about every single country on sc have trillions SC

i'm happy with billions...but everything needs to be scale down, and not just something but not other things.

for wars to cost less on sc, weapons have to cost less.

for corps to make more money in sc, be realistic in the staff levels of corps in sc. the vast majority of corporations on earth has less than 100,000 workers and just able every single corps in sc has over 100,000 workers?

let's make this game fun, but be realistic too so most players can visualize and understand.

how the hell you suppose to fight and win a war, if you got sc corps that cannot even produce enough military wares in a year that you can use in less than 10 earth minutes?

On a relevant note, has anyone else noticed that more C3s every day seem to have no state factories (on LU that is)? This is the main reason I'm making much less money from raids and not the increased costs

"how the hell you suppose to fight and win a war, if you got sc corps that cannot even produce enough military wares in a year that you can use in less than 10 earth minutes? "

Xon, careful. You are falling into a popular argument around here that is not actually true. Anyone with enough cash and any game skill has found a way to turn it into plenty of weapons and ammo if they need to. The arms shortage is a myth.

@aries,
i think one of the flaws in this game is that you can get anything you wanted even though there is shortage in the billions in the world is that "immediate buying" of any product.....this is a magic by the game design and can only happen in sc.

realistically would be that if there is shortage, and you want it so bad then you have to produce it yourself?

this "immediate" concept seems to be nothing more then to encourage players to be credit card warriors, and not gaining skills of actually managing the resources of their countries.