W3C - War Game First Draft of Proposed Changes FB

This is what I said here Andy. I believe you missed it:

------------------------------
I am not providing a personal strategy, or taking a personal stance in each writing. I am saying that the best intentions when they are so complex, can have unintended consequences.
-------------------------------

Putin, these changes are for FB, the war world. What did you think you are getting into on that world? Perhaps, it is possible that you should work towards your own defense, or find allies, rather than finding some way for the game to protect you.

Madoff, yes, it is gimmicky, on that we can agree. On the other point, if deterring predators was the goal, do we have a war game? Not every war is going to fit into a neat box. As far as credit card warriors, who fears those guys?

As I said, we need to reduce the difference in power and there are ways to do it.

Beginners will not be attacked until they decide they are ready for it.

As to the awards.
we may do it differently but we will have strong incentives.
Winning a war against a small player/beginner, will guarantee that you do not get such an award.

Also, the power of the beginner is what we decide it should be. We can place there as many high powered military units/assets as we see fit, at any quality we see fit. We need to fix the problem.
It must for sure, be unlike what it is today.
And they will not win the war, but what will the damage look like.

Also, we have to make it, not just talk about it.

What is a beginner? Someone within their 21-day protection period? Do war levels determine who a beginner is? Is there incentive to remain whatever a "beginner" is, to benefit from game handouts, or incentive to graduate to a more advanced player? War levels saw powerful players remain among the ranks of "beginners". Will we see this again?

My suggestion remains to leave it to player choice. They want to join the war game, provide for their own defense, and participate in federations, or they do not. Incentives to join the world of diplomacy and risk should exist. Teaching basic skills of PvP and then being able to participate in PvP with reduced risk were the ideas behind my War College and Battlegrounds ideas. These suggestions, still on the suggestions forum, warrant a renewed look.

Guys,

Lets take a step back and let the GM make a few additions before we get heavy into criticizing or trying to make suggestions on their ideas.

Andy said the GM looks to make changes to FB first. This means as they make additions to the war game, those of us on FB can make suggestions. Lets give the GM an honest chance to make some additions before we start spamming them with "advice".

This is the first time in awhile the GM has proposed major changes and been so open about them. I for one think these will be great additions. I'm sure they will need tweaking at some point, but we can cross that bridge when we need to.

Look at it this way, Lets get the foundation of the house built before we go on and worry about the style of roof.

That could be good advice, but we got war levels last time. Then, remember the navy update that made cruise missile cruisers and guided missile frigates virtually unstoppable? I lost an 800 million population FB empire over those, cause I couldn't be at the computer (hospital). I feel I have spent years thinking of how to actually fix this, and that some of these ideas are just thrown out there and on the verge of being implemented.

Forgive my late response but Im starting to feel a bit unsettled by certain aspects. Earlier I talked about how "putting weapons transferred from your enterprises into reserve is still only going to hurt the defensive player" and your solution was "we can slow down the activation of weapons on the side of the attacker even more and allow instant activation on the side of the attacked country". If instant activation exists what will stop two players who are acquaintances from making a deal involving one president declaring war on the other so that his buddy can insta-activate his entire arsenal. Secondly you said that "we can slow down the activation of weapons on the side of the attacker even more" but that only applies if the attacker has already declared war, which means he is more than likely already prepared for that war anyways so that is also an ineffective solution and mirrors my original concerns. Finally I would like to say one thing. We started out on this journey of revision because a restriction known as war levels is suppressing the war game, I highly doubt adding more restrictions in order to negate previous restrictions will bring us anywhere helpful.

O_o

Lol i mean my point being is that if we leave it all to be, then what? i mean <--- not for no reason. There litterally going to kill the game, i mean guys adding shit like "attack from base" but the feature is just a bust waste; then what happens when that feature proves exploit, now they are making a fix for a fix that could be ready for another fix.

I mean fuck ill type it again and again!!! Fix weapon upgrades and begin implentation on features such as the ability to get off war levels. I say these because while it might not appear to be important; being able to raise weapon quality easier will prove that more weapons can be upgraded without such high costs; something only a high tier player can maintain. Opt out of war level idea. Recap


1. Upgrade ammo and weapons at bases

2. READ ARIES IDEAS! Sure they might not be all easy to all solutions but thing like 'ability to leave war levels' is something that is 100% gold. I mean you might think its just for small level players, but as a player who had previously reached war level 13; only to be stopped by my ability to declare war/combat any other person because the war level restriction on fearless blue is 3 to 13 plus i was in a federation, so i was not able to continue the process without being affected. This also affects the quality of the game.

3. Fix weapons lauching from the bases. You told me, Andy:

"Launching weapons from bases and upgrading ammo in bases are small features that will not be used by many, cost little to implement and you can just ignore them."

Really? thanks for the inside tip. Once this information is archived the players who can simple "ignore the feature" by walking right into it and loses double the missiles if they make the mistake of going to war. I mean lol! are advantage, go to war someone uses that feature, RIP missiles. Doesent bother me none. Might bother someone else real bad though. I can ignore it, someone else might not know to.


Really you and the bois say im a critizing prick with a dirty poo fingers all you like, but really adding fillers into the game and things the last of us can exploit i mean lol! come on guys. You cant expect some of these things to be serious.

2 things

These are just food for thought. Not really really intended for discussion, but something to consider.

1. Continue with your game changes. But we already have the best version of SimCountry we have ever had. The problem, might not be solved with rule changes.

As it stands, you're looking at trying to fill 5 planets, up to a competitive level. While looking mostly at FB, the thought is still 5 planets. But the hey-day of SC started with a single planet, KB, and more planets where added as more room was needed. Trying to resurrect 5 planets, is going to be 5 times as hard. Just keep that in the back of your head.

2. I'd suggest setting a time, like January 1st, where you archive and clear out the entire forum.

Why not remove War Protection and Secured Mode on all the planets (except for beginners). Countries in the real world don't have any protection. But they do make alliances and federations and I believe the removing of Secured Mode would foster more player interaction. Consider the ongoing situation of North Korea and the United States. The US has its allies to back her up. The same would occur in the game. Most prefer peace to war anyways (not that war is not exciting).
Continue with the changes. This is a good step in the right direction. I agree with SuperSoldier -get the bugs worked out first on the war world and tweak it.

Thanks Michael. Though I don't suggest a removal of protections on par with what you said, I could not agree more with your basic point to encourage more player interaction. Having reason to exit game protections and then enter the world of diplomacy, allies, and federations is what is needed to transform the game back to the massively multi-player environment that we expect.

I have bumped both the War College and Battlegrounds ideas on the suggestions forum. These ideas were grounded in providing a path for beginners to learn the war game, earn rewards, and progress to basic PvP in an environment with somewhat less risk. I believe these ideas to be superior to forcing PvP on players disinterested in the war game and looking to balance that with more unnatural protections.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Josias! You can't wipe out the forum..........I have history there! :P

@ Barry, you are forgiven. HOWEVER! No one pats Andy's bottom! SCOWL Hands off my son!

we will not make major steps but rather smaller ones.

Weapon reactivation:

The country being attacked, will have automatic weapon activation start directly after war is declared.

It takes 10 months to fully reactivate.
It also takes about the same time before war starts.

so by the time it starts, they will have everything reactivated.

So maybe this problem of the reserves is resolved.

We will have an upgrade coming Tuesday or Wednesday.
No major developments yet, and as I said, small steps.

I think that issues like some reduction in the price of defense may be part of it.
Cities will start growing and their numbers will start to decline a bit.
Also first changes to improve the situation for new players.

Excellent. Thank you for getting this train rolling

A new upgrade will be available next week with some war related changes and some bug fixes.

Good andy! i am happy for the updates, i just hope they are actually helpful and encourage anytype of battles, even with c3s.

I said before, it will come in small steps, no major changes.

Wars with C3s already changed a bit in the last upgrade, too small to mention, and there will be more changes in the next one.

Increasing the capabilities of new players will also start.

I don't see how artificially increasing the players of new players helps the game. Without skill, they are no more protected from veterans anyway. How will you determine a new player as well? From account creation? From how new they are on a particular world? Are we using war level still? An inaccurate tool for measuring how "new" a player is.

Ideally, you will want veterans to help them. To take them into federations and teach them the war game. This artificial capability should not deter new players from seeking this help, nor put veterans off from offering it.

There is one suggestion I put in some time ago that would likely help new players more than anything you could add. That would be changing how 3-wing federation defense works. The need for it in a proper PvP defense cannot be understated, and new players often lack this level of protection, leaving them virtually defenseless. My suggestion was that whether or not federation wings are available, the most powerful 3 air wings either native to the country or available from the federation, should always respond. This would bring most new players up several levels of magnitude in defense, compared to more advanced defenses now. Without this level of protection, no amount of defenses you could add to a country would be worth a darn.

I have to agree with Aries on this point.

I'd disagree with Aries.

'Ideally, you will want veterans to help them. To take them into federations and teach them the war game.'

I agree with the first point, and this can be done via posts on forums (Aries c3 air guide, as an example) or via other means of communication, IRC.
Plonking players into federations will just create even more unbalance to the game. You'll end up with two federations on every planet, one with veterans picking and choosing who they accept, and another with semi experienced players taking everyone they can to 'match' the opposing federations numbers, yet lacking in armaments.
It's simply ludicrous to think that adding people in federations solves everything.

I'm waiting to see the changes first, before commenting further.

There is no even semi-decent PvP guide out there that can get a new player prepared for PvP. My defense readiness guide is a good start, but without a veteran's help, a new player will be woefully unprepared. The only players that have really learned a lot about PvP, in years, were the ones that happened to be in chat during my war with Blackeyes or with Whiteboy, where I shared a lot of what was going on and why.

As for federations, this is a team game whether you like or not. If PvP becomes more popular, it is not a game of you versus some other. It is a game of diplomacy among a number of players, whether they are in federations or not. A number of times I have choose to assist a side of a war, where I did not belong to a federation of either side. If players do not develop relationships and engage in diplomacy, there is nothing the game can do to replace this artificially. Further, that you can guess, right now, how things are going to shake out with federations is arrogant on your part.

The two wars just mentioned, (I'm assuming one being the battle of Camp Foxtrot) were far more educational about the mechanisms of war because it showed how a war would actually unfold. This is in addition to the war guide that Aries developed; that effort alone gives good reason to consider his suggestions because anyone willing to take the time to make their own guide for a game this complex must be on to something.

My view of the federations should be more about developing in-game working relationships. Cross fed discussion was far more productive when negotiating ways of avoiding war, which is in itself a form of victory. Diplomacy is very underrated. This game is not like Risk or Stratego for goodness sake, war is just one component and just looking for ways to make it easier for anyone new to jump in and create havoc just for the hell of it is counter to what should be intended. War should be with purpose, a result of preceding conditions, struggle of resources, a breakdown of talks and seen as a tragic event that we must finally endure. That being said, conducting the war (the mechanisms), when it comes to that, must be clear enough for anyone to learn, to apply effort to become a skilled player. This happens with guides and with learning from others.
If somebody wants to join this game just for an instant fight, I recommend downloading clash of clans; instant war gratification with actual graphics. The reason our war maps are just red and blue blips shaped like triangles is not for the thrills of warring action. The most interesting part was the dialog that went along with it and the story that unfolded in the aftermath. That's true creativity. Reading over the war logs, the conversations, who was involved, the resulting damage, it all adds to a great "news article" someone could publish and add to the history books of the SC world. Like the battle of Foxtrot, it was a good read. I guess that adds a RPG aspect to it, I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but this is just from my standpoint.

Oh, and another point, if we want to see some worlds become a scorched earth of constant war, we had better see massive famines, economies collapse, disease, all of the horrible elements that come with war. Not just war, "bang boom done". Waging war means owning the consequences of starting one. The US learned that all over again when invading Iraq; look at where we are now 14 years later...

(an isolated environment to practice "war games" would be good, but it would need to be off worlds to not affect others. Just practice.. kind of like a war college..? Maybe this was suggested before) ;)

I agree that we need to teach new players how to protect themselves and convince them to join a federation.

we will try to do so and give serious incentives to those who do join federations.

On the other hand, we do need to improve the default capabilities of new players.

This can be done by a substantial increase of the air defense capabilities, adding powerful auto attack units that will do the work for them and making it much harder to win a war against them.

This is not one or the other.
It is a combination of both.

If they start with more population, much more defensive and offensive power, they will be in a better situation.
If they join a fed, (pushed hard to do so), their situation will be even much better.

Diplomacy and team work function much better if you are in a stronger military position.