Jozi Chat, 10th of January

The first meeting of 2009 between Jozi and the players of Simcountry will occur on the 10th of January, a saturday, on Total News Network's IRC server and I will be your moderator.

If you would like to discuss a certain issue with the Gamemaster in real time, this is your opportunity.
You should already prepare your intervention and make it short, direct and simple. Also, be sure to use accurate vocabulary.


This meeting will occur in a IRC server and, as such, you will need an IRC client in order to be present. One of the clients you may use is mIRC or ChatZilla.

Once you have one of the client set-up, in the lower bar, type:
1. /server simnews.mine.nu
2. /join #jozichat

If, on the other hand, you are having problems setting this up, you can use the webclient.


This meeting will take place at:
- New York: 10am
- Los Angeles: 7am
- London: 3pm
- Amsterdam: 4pm
- Sydney: 2am

Countdown clock.


Laguna

Thanks LG. I will be there.

It would be good if we could get Tom Willard in to one of these meetings too though.....

LG, you need to fix the Los Angeles time. That should read 7 am.

Done.

Ok, my other question is:

According to your countdown clock, its 6:54 pm UTC.

Its 1:54 pm New York time.


Which means, 2 pm UTC would be 9 am New York time.

I think all of your times are off by one hour. And isn't London on UTC?

Thought I had fixed that, but I guess I copy and pasted the wrong notepad. Fixed.

Ah... It was because of the "time has gone backwards" pop up.

Darn, have to be at work.
I don't know why I let RL interfer with this game.

Could somebody ask him why c3 corporations are being allowed to sell 100 quality goods @ 150 quality prices?

Even brand new corproations are listed as being 150 quality on their data page. I deem this as nothing but cheating in favor of c3 corps and possible future players.

Laguna, if I can't be around for the meeting, I would like you to present this for me. Additionally, if possible, could you alert Jozi to my following proposal so he can look over it and prepare a response? It might be a bit length and time consuming to explain just in the chat.


Some time ago, before Secure Mode and WP boosters, a level system was proposed instead, in order to prevent noobs from harassing vets, as well as protect noobs from short-tempered vets with much larger armies.

I would like W3 to reconsider this feature, as a replacement for Secure Mode, under the following implementation scheme and for the following reasons.


IMPLEMENTATION:

The level system would be based off of the gross empire assets, as opposed to number of countries or population, because this is the best way for comparing empires as well as player experience.

There should be brackets set up which limit the ability of smaller empires to engage larger empires, as well as preventing larger ones to engage smaller ones.

The following is an example I think would be a good start:

Under 500T assets, cannot declare on empires 10x larger than them, nor can they be declared on by empires 10x larger. Over 500T assets, empires are fair game, except to those still within the <500T bracket.

This is similar to other systems that work fine in other games.

EDIT: Also forgot to mention, this should be grandfathered in over half a year to a year, which is MORE than enough time for developed players to build a defense in their main.

This would be better than the present system for the following reasons:

1. Noobs would be entirely protected from vets, not just their mains, and they would have time to correct their mistakes and learn how to grow without being attacked because of their first appearance posting something disagreeable on the forum or in chat.

1.2 Noobs would still have to face the consequences of their actions, if they persist in loudmouthing, as they grow larger. For example, at 100T assets, one would be subject to experienced players with empires up to 1000T assets. However, the community is, on the whole, forgiving.

2. Warring between vets will be restored to its proper place. Notice all the feuds breaking out on the forum because players have lost their recourse to in-game dispute settlement. All one party has to do is build up in their main, and perpetuate wars - and forum conflicts - over personality forever. For example, in the old days, vets went rounds and lost entire empires, but they rebuilt and learned to live together, because there was no ability to sit in a main and taunt the other person.

3. Wars perpetuated out of a secure main will be stopped. One of the reasons Secure Mode was originally objected to was the fear that someone would build up next to a vet, the vet being unable to stop them, then come out of secure mode with a whole army and attack them.

Something similar is happening, inasmuch as armies are being build in secure mode, then transferred into C3s which do the fighting. I'm sure this is not what W3C intended for secure mode.

4. Finally, in the event that someone is persistently an annoyance, players can drop countries or give them temporarily to friends in order to deal with the said player. However, this will still level the playing fiend in the conflict, because of the Asset Level System.

ALS? Don't like that name... we'll think of another one.


I do not ask that W3 impliment this immediately, or even in its current form, but i would like to open the discussion about other ways to protect noobs and vets alike, especially since this is so similar to the systems that work fine in other games.


FINALLY, in addition to this, the removal of War Protection boosters should be discussed, since,

1.) entire empires will be protected under the level system from larger aggressors,

and

2.) a vacation mode which would freeze empires until the owner's return would be better


and

3.) war protection boosters can also be abused to build up next to someone, who then switches WP off to attack - the same as the original objection to Secure Mode.


Respectfully,
WildEyes

I like it Wild. Great idea!

Very nice proposal Wild!

I would also like to mention, that with the newest game changes intended to further "level the playing field," Secure Mode is already becoming less needed, since veteran players will no longer keep large cash reserves that can be leveraged against "newbies."

This new proposal makes more sense with the direction the game is headed, and I think it will in fact be beneficial in achieving W3C's aims.

Further, it will give disenfranchised veteran players a reason to stay, while still promoting a newbie-friendly environment.

I feel that this request has a bit of something to do with me. So I will offer a rebuttal in the most respectful manner possible, Lord knows I don't want to be attacked!

The following is an example I think would be a good start:

Under 500T assets, cannot declare on empires 10x larger than them, nor can they be declared on by empires 10x larger. Over 500T assets, empires are fair game, except to those still within the <500T bracket.


Impossible, and unrealistic.

Secured mode allows some people to continue playing despite some vets unilaterally declaring that any n00b or n00bs should be removed from a game over comments or forum arguments that are rarely started by the n00b, but rather the surly responses they get for such postings. This reason for "removal" by a Lesser God (Vet player) is very childish and immature. Vets should be secure in their status and know when and why to attack a n00b and also should have the wisdom th know what the consequences are. You already rule from an asset perspective so why the need to rule a forum. As Laguna would say, "Grow a thicker skin."

A more practical reason that this won't work, is because many smaller allies in federations would not be able to assist their mates because of the proposed limit system. This is unfair and still allows for dominance of the small group of vets who are known to take on other advancing players as a group, and then that person would in effect be limited in the assistance his/her fedmates could receive. And that is unrealistic.

"1.2 Noobs would still have to face the consequences of their actions, if they persist in loudmouthing, as they grow larger. For example, at 100T assets, one would be subject to experienced players with empires up to 1000T assets. However, the community is, on the whole, forgiving."

I am wondering why anyone in a free world has to be "Subject" to anyone.

The feeling this post is giving me is that the vets have found someone to counter and effectively defend themselves against vigilantes who decide for themselves who is and is not worthy of playing; and are looking for yet ANOTHER game change to slide things their way to Lord over the game with an IRON fist. The rules are as they are for a reson. You (LDI VETS) already have gotten rules changed to benefit you all in your crusades against me in our situations, all while exploiting the game bugs and trickziez you have learned about during gameplay. I don't think, I have seen one war while I have been here that LDI has not been cuaght cheating or using some hidden tactic that wasn't intended to be available for use, yet this is another request to have rules changed that can't be broken. Sad I say.

So now the n00b who manages to grow to 100T assets will be subjected to empires with 1000T assets. Still unreasonable and they would still be dominated.Not to mention the gang style war tactics that have been used by vets on n00bs such as myself when I didn't even know half a principle of war. No complaints to GM's there from me.

I adapted, without breaking, bending, or asking for rule changes.

Alot of the reasons this request is based on is are flawed and still designed for the novice even advanced players to become dominated by gang style game play with the advantage going to hyper aggressive vets who have a superiority complex, despite their success. Its unfair and the whole of it is asking to place the fate of waaay too many new players to be forced to leave the game over a loss of some kind they feel is unjustified. Just happend on FB, but that IS FB. But I was on LU. I was attacked 4 seperate times by a large successful group of players, Barney, Sam, Jason, Kain, Stuart, Loki, Dub, often more than three or four at a time and certainly almost all of them at at least one point when I was taking Loki's real war slave. If it weren't for secured mode, I would have had to rebuy or leave the game, and im sorry I don't think ANY player or group of players should have that ability. Most of you are making money from the game, new players YOU decide to ban are bringing new resources into the game for development, implementation, and growth of the game. So why the sudden cry of WOLF WOLF, when really its quite the opposite.


"FINALLY, in addition to this, the removal of War Protection boosters should be discussed, since,

1.) entire empires will be protected under the level system from larger aggressors,

Protected, absolute nonsense, in principle and in reality, you know it as well, I dont expect you to admit it.

and

2.) a vacation mode which would freeze empires until the owner's return would be better

No objections, but players would uses this to attack players and then retreat to vacation to avoid the consequences.

and

3.) war protection boosters can also be abused to build up next to someone, who then switches WP off to attack - the same as the original objection to Secure Mode."

Wow, just Wow. LDI attacked UC membersbacause of associations to myself, then retreated all valuable countries to wp indefinitely. Isn't this request you are asking to be changed exactly what LDI has done, and NOW you want it changed, thats just . . .I don't know what to call it. But it stinks.

Now Now, this was just a discussion concerning your request, Wild you know we are kewl, so don't take offence. Just my two bits. Please don't attack me now.

Further, it will give "disenfranchised veteran players" a reason to stay, while still promoting a newbie-friendly environment.


"disenfranchised veteran players"????

LMAO!!!

In General:

Wendy, this posting had nothing to do with you. It's a position I have held for a long time.

Besides, this proposal goes both ways.

If we were to relate it to the recent situation on LU, the wars still would have happened because everyone was within the range for the attacks, except maybe nute. I know his empire was a lot smaller at that time.

However, this would have protected you from when Barney, jason, Stu, declared on your C3s this summer, when you were in Valde.

Further, the warslaves that LDI put into WP would have been open and vulnerable to attacks. The reasons the GMs changed the use of WP boosters to prevent you from popping in and out is precisely because it was against their intent when they were introduced. They were designed to give players a way to go on vacation, etc, hence my suggestion to introduce a vacation mode.

For one thing, this would have protected Elaieva's empire while she was away with RL business.

In all, I don't see what you're complaining about. Besides, my initial numbers were a starting point. If you feel they are a problem, suggest new ones.


Also, because I did think about this before posting:

"A more practical reason that this won't work, is because many smaller allies in federations would not be able to assist their mates because of the proposed limit system. This is unfair and still allows for dominance of the small group of vets who are known to take on other advancing players as a group, and then that person would in effect be limited in the assistance his/her fedmates could receive. And that is unrealistic. "


Many smaller fedmates ought not fight in large wars, and when I've been a part of larger federations that have felt threatened, our largest concern has been making sure the "little ones" are protected and not attacked. This proposal would ensure that.

EDIT: Or it would at least pit them against rival players of similar size in the enemy fed.

However, you somewhat contradict yourself when you point out that this is a very flexible limit, here: "So now the n00b who manages to grow to 100T assets will be subjected to empires with 1000T assets. Still unreasonable and they would still be dominated."


Finally, "So why the sudden cry of WOLF WOLF, when really its quite the opposite."?

I decided to post it now, because I only recently learned from Tamara how the introduction of Secure Mode transpired, and this is the first Jozi Chat since then.

Please don't question my motives. I've been against Secure Mode for a very long time.

I am not complaining, just wondering why such dramatic rule change requests, if you are against secured mode, drop yours indefinitely and continue playing. Call it a secured mode hunger strike? I guess.

I think it's a great idea.

I think the game would certainly be more dynamic without WP and Secured Mains.
There would be consequences that would add another level of diplomacy needed in the game.

BC

Well, it wouldn't be too dramatic if they gave us 6 months to a year to prepare for it. If they do that, I will happily drop secured with everyone else. However, my main makes far too much money to junk it up with military.

However, before you call me on the personal hypocrisy, it would be a logic fallacy to invalidate what I am proposing because of just that. I'll do it when W3 implements it.


EDIT: It might not be a bad idea to keep the accumulated war protection that naturally accrues, though, for emergencies where vacation mode or something wouldn't work.

It would still prevent the buildup in protection and jumping out to attack, however, since you have to be unprotected for the protection to build up.

I have no problem with having Secured mains ONLY. But I am and have always been against war protection for slaves except for vacation purposes. But ongoing war protection that never ends due to booster purchases is stupid and allows noobs and trouble makers to have fun poking Veterans who would normally issue them a beat down and put them in their place and teach a little respect.

But if war protection went away entirely I would not complain. Be nice and Big Guys won't bug you. This doesn't mean ass kissing is due to veterans, but respect is due. If you can't fight with your weapons, then don't pick a fight. PERIOD.

I hate war protection.

It would be alot easier to stop giving n00bs reasons to poke, instead of spamming the gms with such dramatic game adjustments to suit your style of game bullying. Case Closed.

Although I know that was addressed to Dave, I personally am more interested in wars against other vets and how this would impact those. The extra danger would be... stimulating.

Wild

I think thats one of the best ideas I have heard in a long time. Besides of course Mannys trains lol. I think you would see old players possibly return to the game. But then again I could be wrong. But regardless I think its a brillant idea.

If this was a vote I would vote "I" for sure.

Nice work

JohnG

Would someone please inquire about a possible option to have message stay in the slaves instead of being forwarded? I know its currently a minor inconvenience but I for one would rather have my messages in my slaves than forwarded to my main. Thank you.

With Regards,
Dragoon

Down with ALL war protection. Let the n00bs fend for themselves and learn some respect. I mean really, I only see one n00b objecting to the removal of this game feature.

War protection. There is no war protection in a real strategy game. I second Wise One, get rid of it. Let the shyzy noobs fend for themselves.

Jack, although you and I and most active players would look in our slave countries regularly, some folks do not and would miss some of the messages. The mail used to stay in the slave countries a long time ago and had the interesting side effect that you could capture a country and read someone's messages if they hadn't deleted them.

I'd prefer a feature that would let you reply from the country the message was sent to but keep all the mail on one place, accessed by the main as it is now.