Tried the new war game yet? (Kebir Blue)

well, i think the last interesting part of the game has been eleminated. the new war levels makes declaring war on a c3 a losing proposition unless you're a newby. in the past it was one of the few ways to make a little extra money, but now there's little incentive to declare on c3's. also, it's my guess that the same thing will apply to declaring on registered players. and you won't be able to declare on inactives either if they're not at your level or above.

i fear that the game has degenerated into a game for neebs only and the rest of us will snore into oblivion until our memberships lapse.

another victory for socialism.

No. This was W3C responding to player requests. This was a players idea and other players put in their input. It may just be a good idea on paper but bad once you realise all of the drawbacks. I don't think people thought about how this would affect raiding inactives.

The lesson W3C needs to learn is that they can't quick fix the problems here.

The lesson players need to learn is that our ideas aren't always very good.

W3C needs to fix this. The REAL way people go from noob to war ready is by attacking INACTIVES with swag to get the resources (cash and GC) and experience with weapons they need. Making C3s more difficult was just a way for them to sneak an anti-C3 war agenda through.

yep, level three which is where i started has fourteen helios/interceptor squadrons. targets are all small garrisons. it wouldn't be that hard to take but with all the forts and only 400b cash and 2.5t in corps, it's not worth it. i'd probably spend at least that if not considerably more to take it down. bummer. and yes, i agree with you about the rush to fix something that doesn't need fixing or at least not in the manner taken.

LOL I just had the funniest eyedeer!

Why evan Make this? Its so pointless, And i can tell why

1. C3s when they are usally taken for a number a reasons, And one of those reasons are to expand your empire, Well, When i took my first c3, I dident destroy any corps or anything, And it was losing almost -10b a month - all the costs to repair it. Within 1-2game years, It was already in debt 2.5T. And it took a very long time to get it to stop loseing money. Basically what im sayin is that Not only is there a chance that it will cost u in the future, That the costs of ammo and weapons to take the country, Will just make it evan more expansive, And make you lose Evan more money!! for a country that might not evan be put together right.

2. Warring on countrys with presidents. I think that is so stupid. Iv heard things about "New players getting there countrys taken from them" and that is a problem, Well, 90% of those new player in there 21 day peroid evan keep playing, If they do, There will end up on the top 100 or so ranks, Have there own country flag or president pictures, And will be in a fed or Cm. So basically thats just protecting nothing, Some thing that will just be derreged later. I would go on, But im just saying this for now.

And if you dont wanna read this entire thing i wrote, I can get to the point:


IT IS COMPLETELY USLESS AND HAS NO PURPOSE IN THIS GAME. BUT TO CAUSE MORE DEBT TO EMPIRE TO BUY MORE AMMO AND WEAPONS TO TAKE C3S, AND PROTECT COUNTRYS THAT WILL JUST BE DEREGGED.

Repeal? Vote in Public Voting.

Thank WB. I think he claimed responsibility for this insanity in his own words on another thread.

Find a link on the forum that shows a Whiteboy post, and send him a "Thank You Dumbazz" for his blessings.

Parsi, BC - Yeah, can't say I get the complaint...the system has been implemented for not even 24 hours and from the experience I just had works perfectly which I was quite surprised by.

You guys are taking an extremely limited view of 'how does this affect me' instead of how will this affect the game overall. Under the system the way it was, *SHOCKING NEWS* - no one was learning the war game, they'd learn how to take a c3 and probably pretty ineffectively and that was it. An entire part of the game that used to get players really interested and actually kept a lot of players here (the war game and the federations that came with it) was effectively dead. From that point, there were 3 options:

1. Eliminate war, make the game econ only - some players lobbied for this, I think it's an honest perspective but ultimately I believe the game would die without war (check the forums lately?)

2. Encourage war by eliminating war protection (as the game used to be) and see what happened - This was the old way of the game and it was a lot more popular at that time but also a lot less stable with people being bullied around and eliminated from worlds.

3. Create a system which tackled the biggest problems in the war engine.
- Inequality in skill
- C3 warfare
- Excessive use of war protection

They went with option 3 because it makes the most sense. Under the new system players will be separated by their skill level/understanding of the war engine so that newbies and econ players aren't picked on. Then, not only does the new system separate players, it gives them tools and targets with which to learn on. Players will be encouraged through the leveling system to play the war game and learn how to do so effectively so that there are not so many clueless 'targets' out there.

Also, at higher war levels c3 warfare becomes a waste of time (at least at the volume it was being done at before) because c3's become extremely expensive at higher levels, I just took a level 4 country and it was nothing troublesome but it probably would be hard to make money on it, I can imagine what it would be like at Level 10.

I certainly understand the perspective that it sucks to not be able to score cash off of c3's anymore, but I don't agree that cashing in on c3's or raiding inactives makes a new player war ready, if that were the case...there would be more than the ~10 or so of us who can actually fight an effective war. So, give me a break, c3 raiding and inactive raiding is the veteran thing to do, it's not what new players are doing and it's not how you learn to effectively fight an aggressive war against a real player nor is it how you learn how to effectively defend your countries from a real player. It's target practice, which is exactly what the new system is but it is better because the countries are actually increasingly more well defended so they can work their way up.

I've seen plenty of posts about how the game is dead/dieing/in a lull, so let me get this straight, your idea to solve that problem is.........leave everything how it was? Seems a little silly at best and exceedingly selfish at worst.

Barren - Point #1 is irrelevant, level 1 and 2 c3's, the type that new players would be taking for empire expansion early on as you did, are almost exactly the same as they were. As for Point #2, you don't see a problem in 90% of players not ever making it out of their 21 day waiting period? I do...it's something that needs to be addressed and this system should help to create a little more interest and might help keep a higher percentage of them.

well, atm, i believe i'll at least break even on the first hasty L3 c3 i've taken. i'm optimistic that further expanse of tactics, will make it profitable, perhaps in time, we'll be able to make more profit off of high level c3's?!?

honestly, i enjoyed fighting a c3 of higher difficulty, i really did. however my biggest complaint, is their seems to be special tweaking to the weapon/ammo levels of c3's, i mean, they get good Q to shoot at you, but seem to be degraded when you get in and loot. although, i could be wrong about that, and any units on the map, still disintegrate, after victory, i really wish, that if we find a way to win with out destroying those units, considering the extra cost... give us something to loot!!!

How come I am -1 war level?

Cant even dec a C3!

LOL

Orbiter,

we will look into the war records of your recent war. if you give us the name of the country involved, and world, it will make it easier to find.
There was no change to the way the war actions are executed but C3s at different levels do have different quantities of ammunition.

We will look at what happens to the remaining units when the war is won and check this "disintegration" you mentioned. I know that there is indeed a closing process. It is inherited from the previous C3 war process and I am not sure if it was updated to fit the new situation.

We are also running more such wars to measure the cost and damage.
If you have more data, please give us names of countries and the world where it happened. This will allow us to tune the numbers.
The entire process is table driven and can be tuned quickly. This will be done, based on facts and recent experiences.

Whiteboy

Same story. Please give us details so we can look into the war.
Depending on what happened in these wars, we might decrease or increase the differences. we have also yet to decide at which level you will start winning War Level awards.
This too will depend on the war process, the cost and the remaining assets.

Serpent,

You cannot declare war on a C3?
did you try?
can you give us some details on this.
You should be able to declare anytime and start immediately independent of your war level.

tom...

thanks for the response!!!

The Grand State of Fonetta, on lu, is atm, the only one i've conquered

as i stripped the garrisons, the quality levels went down... so the garrisons where holding lower quality weapons than the country itself was??? i'm happy with fighting nice quality c3s but i should also be able to loot the same Q i'm raiding? right? but like i said, i'm not sure, that the weapons in the c3 shooting me were 120q or 100q, its a hard judgement when their are only 15 aamb...

as the "disintegration" any unit in a c3, (sense the changes from the old war engine,) are unavailable upon conquest... meaning, if you manage to take a c3 with out destroying the int wings, they are unavailable to disable and own...

previously, that made sense, but now, it seems that you should allow us to dismantle old wings, and "loot," them

i edited the above post to add that its hard to tell the difference between 100 and 120, when their is only 15 aamb...

i still don't like the level restrictions on attacking players, you should be able to attack any one that that can effect you, in game (including boycotts, and sc resolutions,) but that said, if we can flesh out this thing about c3s right, then i'll be ok...

Sorry Tom, I wasn't clear. I didn't have any issues. I do agree with Orbiter, it would be nice if units/garrisons remaining that were not destroyed were kept in the country to make it so that one could at least make a small profit/break even on the higher level c3's though.

Overall, I tried the system once and it worked impressively smoothly. I was quite surprised and impressed that I didn't encounter any issues considering just how big of a change this must have been.

Good job to you and the dev team for a very smooth big change.

Yep....just took a level 4 C3 and the remaining army units disappeared. The Democratic Union of Chelonia on LU.

Will this be standard protocol....that they disappear, or will we eventually be able to break these units down ourselves?

Would surely help offset the cost of taking the C3. No way I'm even breaking even on this one.

Is this also part of the desired intent....to eliminate C3 stripping in it's entirety? There is virtually no value in them now considering the costs of breaking the air defense alone.

Also, I had the C3 half painted and the capital, and cities destroyed before the war index even budged. Is this delay to be expected?

Thanks for your time Tom,
EC

i have to agree with wb, good work, really, just give us something worth looting, and everything will be ok, in reguards to c3 levels, anyways

not asking for much, in "looting," but it should be worth the effort, anyways, carry on

Useless feature. Nothing to discuss. Send it down the tube for everyone's sake.

Don't get me wrong WB, I think it was a good idea, but the implementation sucks, and that's because W3C gave us what we asked for.

As for noobs learning from raiding, I believe that's true for most people because 1.) you get swag, so there is an incentive 2.) that swag GIVES them the resources they need to buy more (which is a large part of going from noob to battle ready) 3.) it gives you a chance to test what you've learned without a chance to lose, so you can get the feel of how to attack, how much it takes, how long it takes, etc. while taking down an actual defense (not always, of course) 4.) attacking C3s has no rewards and (I'm guesing) are not setup with the same sort of defenses one would be going against when fighting experienced players, though higher war levels could prove this wrong. Still, the incentive is not there.

I could go on but I've got to go to work. Bottom line - cheating noobs out of inactive raiding is huge. You are making it that much harder for them to grow.

currently, there are limited ways to build and maintain an empire. even taking numerous c3's creates a situation where a new player most often ends up deeply in debt. so, the logic of raising c3 fighting levels doesn't hold true. how many of us have witnessed a newb take down a dozen or so countries in a short time, amass huge debt and then leave the game. it seems that w3c, in an effort to control players being able to amass huge empires is cutting off every means of doing so. only by investing more gc's can one maintain and build an empire under the system as it's evolved over the past couple of years.

the intent of protecting new players from seasoned players who raid those new players might be helped by making c3's more desirable to take. if you want to keep levels as they are for c3's raise cash to 3-5t and weapons to 5-10t for a level three or 4. raise those levels commensurately as you move up the levels. depending on the defenses, i wouldn't mind fighting at level 6 for 10-20t in swag. as others have said, there is little incentive to play when the deck is stacked against you.

BC and Parsi - I get what you guys are saying but it seems the argument you're making is that everything was working great and the game was doing well under the system the way it was...which we all know isn't true. No one was learning the war game, nubs were bailing in masses and as Barren pointed out, most of the time before they even reached the end of their waiting period. If it was the case that players were identifying c3 raiding and inactive taking as the best and easiest means to develop their empires then we would see a lot more activity and players than we do now.

People like to compete in games, SC offers several ways of doing so, HOF, FI ranks, leveling up and what was at one time the biggest competition, wars and federations. The war game has died over the past year or so, I don't know how anyone can really dispute that. This system offers the best chance to revive it while giving players something extra to compete for (top war levels and GC awards for them), obviously that won't really happen until very high levels get rolled out but that is in the works. In addition it gives players the ability to learn against a system that gets progressively more difficult without having to risk anything and the defensive weapons they are fighting against *are* the exact same weapons they would see against real players, the level 4 c3 had int/heli wings (no more air def wings), pretty much standard garrisons and I believe 50 forts instead of 20 (not 100% positive but it was definitely at least 40). That set up is something a player would expect to see against against someone else at that level, we'll see what is in the higher levels, but I'm pretty sure we can expect to see level 10 with 40k ints/20k helis and max garrisons in some places...with those numbers only growing into higher levels. It will become a challenge and a bragging point for players to be high level war players AND we will know that those players can't say 'I don't even know how to fight' or 'I'm just an econ player' because there is no reason for an econ player to go to level 10 or whatever.

I do agree with the idea that there should be at least enough cash and assets in each c3 to make it somewhat profitable if taken efficiently at every level, I think that will solve the issue and eliminate the one common complaint.

Ultimately I think we all need to step back and ask, was the system working as it was? Was the game increasing in popularity or decreasing? Are there more or less players actively participating? I think we all know the answer to those questions, so the status quo just wouldn't be acceptable...change was necessary.

EC - The reason the war index didn't move is because it hadn't refreshed yet. C3's start out at 60 wi because they have 20 forts, level 4 c3's start out with I believe 50 forts so the war index should be around 75 to start with but the war index only moves up when the monthly refresh occurs so what you'll see is the war index stuck at 60 until you've done enough damage to lower it below 60. The cap, cities, paint, etc still have exactly the same effect it just can not be seen in the war index unless you wait for it to refresh up to it's peak and then start shooting.

wHY ARE YOU ALL TYPPING LETTERS, NUMBERS AND PUNCTUATION MARKS!? wHY? why!?!

I don't think anybody here believes the system was fine the way it was. I've argued for a while that it needs a complete overhaul to compete in 2010. I don't think War Levels addresses the root of the great problems SC has and I think removing inactive raiding causes a huge effect on how players can develop in the game. The only problem that I can see this addressing is the C3 war issue.

LOL

Vote for repeal you do nothing congress members!

Check your public voting and cast a vote up or down.

WB the system may not have been optimal as it was before the changes. But the changes have only served the purpose of making c3 taking almost pointless and expensive without an incentive.

That *IS* what you wanted. So of course, this great and works wonders, for you and possibly only you.


However this in no way protect a newbie from attack or raiding. It does present an entire host of other issues.

How does this promote participation in federations?

How exactly does this protect a small or big inexperience fed from being wiped out by a few experienced players?

How does this benefit any part of the game overall?

What this will do is encourage more players to get higher war levels with even still yet inadequate experience and a c3 will in no way whatsoever prepare a newbie for an active war against a real opponent, regardless of level.

There is a hidden trap here. As a player moves to higher levels I guess this will be used as an adequate excuse for raiding inexperienced players. I can hear it now.

What stops a player from keeping his own war level low to prey on lower level players?

What stops anyone from starting over and coming back at level 1 with the knowledge and experience to take out large empires or federations that are not war oriented.

What if a player only attack players at level 4 5 6 and never moves up to higher levels yet having top skill. The more experienced players who will need to step in to prevent this from continuing will be prevented because of a higher war level.

And personally from my own stand point to yours, when you come out of war protection what will stop me from taking level 3 c3s and doing the same as before?

It is more expensive, yes, but what is to stop me from cashing out now and closing and opening a new account every 90 days, level up in game and war levels repeatedly and use the coins to continually attack you?

This is just a handful of questions that cannot be answered and demonstrating the way this change has not presented any real solutions and just creates another set of problems.

Done *****

This game used to be community oriented and communal in response to good or bad things within the game.

We have stepped out of this arena and moved in to GMS stop everything player does that the *I* doesn't like. And to accomidate the *I* we will end up with things like this. I know most of what you proposed was to change the fact that I can c3 war you but this doesn't change anything along those lines.

Overall this solution is dismal for the whole and beneficial(in your own mind) to you. But again, even that is not true. The gms cannot come in and effectively stop me along the grounds of morality in my tactics any more than they can stop you and the mob from raiding WGC or any other group for that matter. Right or wrong, the game needs to be played by players, not the GMS.

You really need to see that you have made things worse for everyone, and not better, only good for yourself if you perceive a positive benefit. I think there is a consensus here, I know you will ignore it, but should the gamemasters ignore it, after they have given you and your suggestions such considerations?

The gamemasters have been cornered by some recent harsh criticisms and I can see how we got here very clearly. Reactions cannot be knee jerk in nature and things need to be thoroughly thought through and evaluated for positive/negative benefit before implementation.

SimCountry is what it is. It is a simulation of the World. Everything is not fair and right in the world it simulates, but that is the way it is. Wouldn't it be neat if we could ask God to pop out of heaven and announce an end to poverty because we don't like seeing people not having the same benefit of the more privileged? It would be nice indeed but life doesn't work like that and neither should simCountry.

The game is suffering because if you look back 3 or 4 years ago, it has changed a lot. Some for the better, and more for the worse. Over time the people that loved this game and encouraged the promotion and continuation of it renew and continue to realize that this isn't the game they used to love. It is almost entirely different. Over complicating things can be negative and over time this is what you are witnessing.

Just yesterday an older vet returning to the game couldn't figure out why his corps aren't making money. I'm sure it wasn't that long ago he stopped playing, yet after only a brief lull he cannot figure out how to make a game work where he already excelled in some or likely many ways just a very short time ago.

The game isn't bad, it is great, it was great. The problem isn't that the game is broken or doesn't work. The problem is that it is becoming something the old sim was not. SOME Players also want the gamemasters to change sim into what it is not.

True it is a war and an economic game. The two can go hand in hand. What made this setup previously a success is social aspect. Social aspect of this game is all but diminished. This was the one part of the game that cannot be altered by anyone. The social aspect streamed into the political aspect of the game. War in this game will NEVER be fun apart from the political/social aspect being a direct reason for wars. Take a look at how wars are started and played out. If someone declares war on people for apparently no reason, any member or group of members would engage that person in war or wars. This is invited by both parties. When wars were fought for influence, dominance, deterrence, and for the game as whole, war works in simcountry.

What has happened in recent time is that wars are totally absent of a social/political driver. When the MOB just raids DTA because "just look at your name"(Quote WB) or WGC "because we thought it would be a good challenge (LOL! Quote WB) War is unpleasant and does not work. When people war for the sake of warring, this is what diminishes the enthusiasm to continue playing this game.

What is astonishing is that the approach to "fix" the game was really taken from the mind of the aggressor and not the victims. Although the rest of us gave inputs, this was totally surrounding the narcissist view of a single person, who in reality is more of the problem than the solution.

If you want to fight for the sake of fighting, and bragging rights, WB you need to find another game on the internet that caters to your desire to "win" There are many games that deliver the thrill you really say you enjoy.

SimCountry is setup slowly for a reason. It is fun. it is entertaining, but it is a very personal game that is setup in such a way that any player can participate in any number of ways and enjoy a satisfaction from it.

To force an entire community of members to subscribe to your narrow view of what is *good*, *fun*, *broken*, *Right*, *Wrong* is what will kill the game.

I have watched the game change an awful lot. Plenty of players have watched it change more than I have. But Changing things so dramatically on a mechanical level is really what is destroying the game, not anything about how the game was.

Before you would have people annoyed with a quirk here, or a glitch there, but now you have people upset that this game is moving into something many of us did not sign up for.

Just some thoughts I'm done now before I really get upset. I deal with things in the game, many of you should too. The game would become more stable like that. Asking the GMS to come in all the time is inviting trouble. Be careful what you wish for.

We have now looked into 4 wars against c3s of Level4. These are all the wars we found this morning.
There are big differences and we will check all of them.
the shortest took 79 attacks, the longest about 450.

As I said this morning, we will look into the remains of the C3 army and the disintegration as you describe it.
I also said that there will be GC awards for higher war levels. This will be part of the next update that will go up to level 8 or so.

Looting involves more clicking. we think that GC awards will be a better way but a combination of the two may win.

I agree that there must be a strong incentive to fight these wars, for beginners and everyone else.
Technically, creating such an incentive can be trivial. we just need to decide on the best way to do it, at which levels, etc. but a strong incentive will be there.

The wars at higher levels will be different as the C3s will fight back. We do not want to go as far as allowing the C3 win a war but fighting back can start simple and we are already planning for it and can go much further into a sophisticated strategy and real resistance.

As to wars against other presidents, we never thought that attacking a noob because he offered to pay for one of your corporations was a good idea.
Some of them where astonished and demotivated when it happened and turned to us to resolve the conflict. there should be other ways, economic ways to settle or fight such disputes.

Attacking the same level country or a higher level country (up to 2 levels difference or even more in even higher levels) will allow for a lot of fighting.
This is a limitation but after a long period when many left the game after being destroyed by a war experienced player, we might just try this and see if these people can survive in the new circumstances.

There are many more things we can do to improve this without a major development effort which means that such improvements can be added quickly.

we want to get to other issues too but we will give this a lot of attention in the coming weeks and months and will add several rounds of improvements and many new war levels.