Tried the new war game yet? (Kebir Blue)

I think the guys that involved themselves in asset raiding,noob bashing etc realise it wasnt helping the game, with the new war levels, as has been pointed out, if ur lvl 10 war....u aint econ no more.

I do agree tho,Parsifal, so many thing where profit could have been made, have been taken away from players.

Fed wars and ppl leaving is a lack of character and too busy worrying about 1's and 0's. if you get spanked,rebuild and come back stronger.

"well then at least there are cheap c3's they can start over with. But cheap c3's will not buy them more population or mil assets...it's not as if the old system was SO much more conducive to rebuilding, " -WB

you know that isn't true, come on man

before the slew of recent changes... i could gain between 10-20gc value of weapons and ammo each day from raiding C3s.

i am not sure thats to much or not. i don't think a person should have to spend real life years building up. infact, the harder you make it to build up, the less likely people will be to risk assets in war. which, is a large part of the problem with the war game. why spend 6-12 months building an empire, so some one else can strip from you in a matter of hours. making resources easier to obtain, will make loosing less risky. and winning more rewarding.

frankly, the best fix to the war game, is to reduce the sell-able pop limit to 15M. And increase the pop decline of large countries. forcing all of sc into a smaller game. meaning the build up to the higher levels wouldn't be as extreme, and their would be more value for the small guys to fight each other. additionally, how many countries can support the same size military at 40m compared to 50m? making the large sized country wars, well, more interesting. but i doubt thats the direction that W3C will take.

please, i'm not criticizing people that build up 80m war slaves. i'm saying that if every one had more limited manpower, they'd have to make hard choices between offense and defense....

the point is, as it is, large players are able to build max garrisons in "EVERY" target, buy and upgrade "EVERY" weapon, and still be able maintain TONS of offense. and make a profit with the country. should we be able to do this?

personally, i don't care, i think the game would better over all, if the over all size of countries and their armies were smaller. but its cool to build huge countries like that. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other

how ever, the "if," WB, that you seem to be irritated about... when you build up, and level up in war levels to that extreme, then you loose. now, in relation, to your available targets, don't have the strength to blow your nose. and you have extreme costs in taking c3's. unless you have a huge amount of reserves. or swipe your card... what are your options?

seriously, i don't think a player should get rich from c3 raiding, or rather, get rich from little effort, and that should apply to any thing really, space trade, or anything else. but you should still be able to make a profit from raiding c3s. or at the least be able to break even.

and to agree with a couple things said above, it really does seem that every avenue that players have for making profits, eventually gets tweaked, and become virtually useless. and most of these changes are based on the prize pay outs.

in the past, w3c has stated that they wanted the cash pay outs for only the most successful players. and i think we can all say thats a fair statement. but the results are that many of the things that we enjoyed in the game got nerfed, to being next to useless...

the interest rates where mentioned. players had allot of money on the loan market, and were receiving cash payouts, just based on that. so w3c fixed c3's so they didn't need loans, reducing the loan demand, they lower the interest rates, and added ff, to force players to convert the cash into gc....

c3s used to offer 1m pop in disaster relief, 4t min in cash, and at least 3t in military assets...

consider that if we could do that now? with out the cash pay outs? a new player could in a weeks worth of work, have something worth looking at? wouldn't that be more inviting to new players? i mean, older players would still have huge empires, and of course the knowledge to make them effective...

but thats a different subject.

i'm not advocating go back to the old ways, i'm saying that the harder you make building assets, you are going to have the opposite of the desired effect.

right on Orbiter

That's a good point. I think SC made its first mistake when "assets" became so heavily emphasized.

People criticize the players for placing value on their assets but that's how the game is built. It's hard to make profit and getting harder so unless you want to buy GCs at high prices you have to be careful where you lose assets. This is not conducive to a war game.

Maybe it'd help if they'd add some kind of non-permanent victory in war. Like, a "raid" or "pillage" option instead of capturing that damages infrastructure, kills a little pop, etc. Then the defeated player could re-capture their country. As it is, when someone conquers a country, they keep it in WP until they're finished stripping and then dump it at which point all the effort in creating it is gone forever.

Months to build a country, hours (of tedious clicking) to lose it. Way out of proportion.

I don't know if I should let you all crash and burn, or if I should make the effort to stop this. Actually, I already did an effort; crash and burn it is.

Maybe after you all crashed and burned, something intrinsically virtuous might flourish. As usual, I'll be here to see.

What are the game rewards once you each war level 7 and above? Anyone know?

Laguna - Chiming in with how we are self destructing while offering no description isn't particularly helpful, I have yet to see a valid argument where your idea of no one being able to take a country in war would help the game in the least. You are fully aware it would kill the war game which I understand you despise anyway, but I don't see how you can dispute it played a huge role in making the game as popular as it was...and at that time you played a huge part in the war game.

Parsifal - 15 to 1? Where do you come up with that? I've never seen any kind of returns on that magnitude with c3's and even if that was the case, seriously, you think that should be the standard? To both you and Orbiter I once again ask, where is the game supposed to make any money? Everyone continues to talk about their own troubles in figuring out the way to play this game completely for free without asking the question, why are you entitled to completely free entertainment? Further, if you are entitled to it, who IS paying for the game to continue running? With the only player base seeming to be a bunch of people playing for free and no new blood paying, how does W3C keep the servers running?

I understand the points you are making, W3C does continue to reduce player profit margins, but have you considered that it is in their best interest and to an extent your own? They have to make money somewhere...

The game isn't dieing because of a lack of veterans who leave because it becomes too hard for them to make a profit, it's dieing from a lack of new blood. For every person who has played this game for more than a year who chooses to leave I'd venture to guess that 100 people started playing and left in their first month. As Blueserp pointed out, this game is difficult to learn and the information isn't readily available to do so, one of the main avenues to get information to players (or probably the BIGGEST avenue) was the federation system. The federation system was based upon the war game, people uniting in common defense/offense, since there is no longer any real war game there are no longer competitive federations so new players are no longer being competed for by those federations....sooo...new players aren't getting the information they need which will encourage them to stay. I agree that game docs/training videos/etc. will help, however I don't think they would be nearly as helpful as true player to player camaraderie where new players not only get information but also make friends.

I guess ultimately there needs to be some kind of balance between us as players wanting everything for free and then us as players recognizing that if everything is free then the game collapses upon itself. Almost every post you guys (Orbiter, Parsi, Kitsune, BC, et al.) make the case for why it is not fair that building up assets/population faster than the speed of the game costs any money at all...but isn't that exactly the intention? Aren't they called 'boosters' and don't they cost GC for a reason? If you want to say it should be cheaper, I won't necessarily disagree with that...make GC's twice as potent as they are now...spending booster = 1/2 GC instead of 1, population for 2.5 GC instead of 5, I'd be cool with that. It would allow players to build up much more quickly without modifying the servers to run more game months which I would assume is costly. But you guys have to concede at least somewhat to the point that the game should cost you something because until then we'll be left with a system where the vets control everything and their particularly loud voices will ensure that no changes occur to make the game better.

WB, if you pay to play then there should be a system that keeps ones interest. as it stands there are fewer and fewer things to make the game interesting enough to plunk down $4/mo to watch grass grow. and yes, the game is somewhat difficult to learn, but if the benefits and payoffs are there, people will spend the time to learn the nuances of the game. but if there's little reward people will quickly lose interest.

and yes i was taking c3's for 60b and making 900b-1t.

It is obvious the we live in a world of 'instant gratification'. Dont you think we at least need to give these changes some time to develop? I mean Rome wasnt built in a day, and neither are all the issues many perceive to be wrong going to be solved in one fell swoop.

Give it some time before we jump to conclusions.

Jason

Via what method Parsifal? The cheapest method I'm aware of is about $350B...seems insane to somehow drop that to $60B.

Please explain to me how there are fewer and fewer things to make the game interesting...what was there previously that made the game so interesting that is no longer there now? Part of this whole system is to give players *something else* to do, a new challenge, new competition. But instead of focusing on that, the focus is on 'how does this hurt me?'.

Serpent - Great point...the system isn't done being implemented yet people.

A level three player cannot dec on a level 4 player unless the level 3 player first fights a level 4 war against a c3. Gee how nice. I'm sure this will increase the fun war time interaction among players. Won't it? Does this mean level 5 can't dec on level 6 and so on?... Is the GM our new enemy? As I told someone in chat. The new game is turning into a video game hybrid. One has to go through hoops on order to finaly play as they would like. That does not represent a true real world simulation and for me it destroys the game. GM, why not just get better graphics and turn the whole thing into a video game.

maybe the GM should have C3 have between 3-5T cash at all times aswells as pops at 25-30M and to make it sexy how about 2-3T in military assests id join the war game for those kinds of winnings

wb, do you seriously want to turn this game into the only way to compete at the top levels, is to buy your way their? forget about skill, its all about your pocket book.

Yes Orbiter, he does, those college Stipend checks make for good simcountry aids. One of the wonderful gifts of University.

Seprent, Rome wasn't built in a day but it certainly was doomed to fail regardless of how long it took. I think the Romans would have liked a heads up in any instance.

Whiteboy Kitsune highlighted the very benefit of Laguna's proposed system.

Everyone doesn't need to offer anything but criticism at this point because if you look over the history of every thread you are involved in, regardless of subject, you just seem to know a little more and seem to be a little wiser than whoever is offering an opinion. No one likes talking to walls. You have created a wall talking environment. You don't listen to anyone because you hold the belief that your infinite Wisdom is paramount in any event. People are complaining because there are people who are actually listening and perhaps agree to some extent.

Demanding someone enter into a fruitless argument with yourself isn't helpful either. Maybe now you see why some avoid it. I mean Parsifal is 70 and you speak to him and respond as if he were a child. I am positive his wisdom surpasses many of us on this thread and then some. Participate, learn that you cannot control every circumstance, you might here more ideas to improve your disaster, instead of complaints.

Orbiter - No, what I'm saying is that EVERYONE can't play this game for free...nor should anyone be entitled to do so.

Neidy - There shouldn't be an issue with a level 3 attacking level 4, everyone should be able to attack 1 level up but no levels down. The intent is to protect newer/inexperienced/econ players from more experienced players raiding them. Not being able to attack up ensures that experienced players don't intentionally keep their war rank low to take advantage of less experienced players.

Windy - Once again, nothing constructive. I'm 29 years old, I own a house and have a family...referring to me as if I'm a 20 year old college student really makes you look stupid. I've done quite well for myself without a degree, but with the state of the economy it was time to get one to give myself more options...maybe you should think about doing something similar instead of spending 24 hours a day playing a game, stealing assets from everyone and forcing people to leave just so you can somehow try to turn a tiny profit on all the time you waste here.

People make their arguments, I make mine, that's the way a conversation goes when it isn't with someone like you who tries to turn everything into a conspiracy.

I do Whiteboy, I trade forex. I don't need to go to school again, I graduated from Temple University with a teaching degree. I do not teach because I have found a great way to make money while I took time off to have children.

I gave you a suggestion, obviously I knew before I got my hopes up that you wouldn't accept it. For a 29 year old man, you act like a child. You took a chance once again to show that you are more interested in throwing insults and being "right" rather than at least act like an educated mature adult for more than 5 minutes.

And frankly, you typing on this forum IS a conspiracy. Your luck will run out sooner or later.

"Neidy - There shouldn't be an issue with a level 3 attacking level 4, everyone should be able to attack 1 level up but no levels down. The intent is to protect newer/inexperienced/econ players from more experienced players raiding them. Not being able to attack up ensures that experienced players don't intentionally keep their war rank low to take advantage of less experienced players."

WB. This reply confuses me. You seem to say two things."There shouldn't be an issue with level 3 attacking level 4. Everyone should be able to attack one level up but not one level down." I agree with that statement. The problem is the new set up DOESN"T ALLOW IT unless you are first forced take a higher level c3. Right now i can't attack a level 4 player. I am at level 3. I simply have no interest in fighting c3 wars for levelling up. I am now being forced to do it by the GM. The GM should allow us to waive our participation in this useless 3c war levelling and allow us to be subject to attack by higher or lower level war players so we aren't forced to do something we have no interest in. My understanding is that the underlying intent of these c3 war games is to give new players a chance to get some training and level up. That could easily be done by sticking some c3's out there with good defenses and designating them trining c3's and let the new players go at them if they want. It's about choice and freedom of action. I have lost all freedom of action in this game.I am not allowed to attack a level lower or higher unless I first dump trillions into a c3 war that I have no interest in.

One more thing. To be clear about my proposal. The GM should allow currently designated war level 3 players to waive participation in this new war levelling. If a player waives participation, that player will not be allowed to attack lower level players but can attack higher level players. Further, lower level players will be allowed to attack the player who waives participation in the new war leveling. That would subject me, as a level 3 player to attack by anyone but still allow me some freedom of action in game interplay. Under that scenario, no one can accuse me or any other player who waives participation as trying to take advantage of lower level new players and if I decided to go to war against a higher war level player regardless of their game experience, they can seek help from any high level war player since I will be subject to attack by anyone. This seems like a VERY FAIR proposal.

Neidy - If the case is that at level 3 you can't attack a level 4 player at this point then it is an error that should be corrected.

Your judgment of the system at this point is too early, the system has barely been implemented and for experienced players there is little yet to see at this point than downside. I'd ask that you wait for full deployment and for all corrections to be made before you judge it as pointless. At this point with only 4 levels, with c3's that don't have the assets in them that they should and with errors that need to be worked out like the one you noted it is easy to say that there is nothing to gain in the new system, but it will become more clear once errors are worked out and the system is fully implemented and tweaked.

My understanding/thoughts are as follows:
-C3's of all levels should have assets in them above the cost of taking them assuming they are taken efficiently
-The system will go up to very high levels in the future, not clear on exactly the number but I believe at least up to level 20
-Players will be able to attack 1 level above them up to level 10
-Players will not be able to attack any levels below them up to level 10
-After level 10 players will be able to attack 5 levels above or below, so a level 10 could attack up to 15 and vice versa (this hasn't been specified anywhere but it's how I think the system will work, at higher levels players won't need nearly as high of a level of protection)
-GC awards will be awarded for achieving higher war levels

No her judgment is spot on. Clearly it wasn't properly thought through. As is the case with many additions. An opinion is never valid or invalid, just because you say so. Your reasoning is that she judged too early, but again, that is your own opinion, and it is right just because you are ...you?

Even in this setup there is a problem. Say now I can declare on you at level 4 while I am at level 3. War ends. But I don't think we are finished. What if I want to continually attack you repeatedly without alowing you to finish the job?

Again I can demonstrate just one of an infinity of exploits, but why waste the effort typing? This system is imperfect just as the last system was, just with a lot more griping. And rightfully so. I don't understand how substituting imperfection with even more imperfection becomes a viable solution. I stated before that this setup clearly falls short of solving any problem all while creating another infinite set of other problems. Further complicating an already complicated game.

-3 points Whiteboy.

"My understanding/thoughts are as follows:
-C3's of all levels should have assets in them above the cost of taking them assuming they are taken efficiently
-The system will go up to very high levels in the future, not clear on exactly the number but I believe at least up to level 20
-Players will be able to attack 1 level above them up to level 10
-Players will not be able to attack any levels below them up to level 10
-After level 10 players will be able to attack 5 levels above or below, so a level 10 could attack up to 15 and vice versa (this hasn't been specified anywhere but it's how I think the system will work, at higher levels players won't need nearly as high of a level of protection)
-GC awards will be awarded for achieving higher war levels"

WB. I have great respect for you and high regard for your defense of your point of view. I therefore am not trying to be sarcastic when I tell you that I read this reply three or four times before I could understand this complicated new system. And I am still not sure I understand it. I want my freedom of action back!I don't want game awards which over the long run I know will in no way compensate for the effort.My proposal would make me a target of any player. I want the option of non participation.

I don't know Wendy. I know you two don't like each other. But I guess maybe Wendy and I have a general sense of why we joined this game. It is a simulation, we are supposed to be able to interact with other presidents, make war. MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS and suffer consequenses. I pay for this game. I joined it because it was billed as a simulation of real world interaction by nations and empires. THIS DESTROYS THE ESSENCE OF THE GAME!!! I can't and will not stay in Simcountry if this doesn't change.

I just took down a c3 that had a 60wi at level 3. It cost about 485b and it was not that difficult to take. however after the war was over, all the weapons went somewhere, so there were only those left in the targets. no defense divisions. that doesn't seem fair. so, we'll wait and see if that is a glitch in the system or if that's the way it's going to be in the future. also, whether leveling up and getting gc's will make up for this.

wb- i recalculated what the old method of taking a c3 cost and it is really about 40b plus some trucks and supplies. as to how it's done, since you're not into being concerned about making money in this game, i don't think you'd really be interested. but trust me, it can be done.

Parsifal - You misunderstand, it's not that I'm not concerned about making money in the game, it's that I've got plenty and I'm not particularly greedy. However, I am always interested in increased efficiency...plus I'm sure others would be interested to hear how you pulled that off.