Will there be a reset of the game?

Hey guys, been along time listener but a first time poster. Just have a question will there ever be a reset of the game across the worlds? I've been playing on and off for ten years and just wondering if there has ever been a server restart before? Just like Fight Club and Project Mayhem I think it would be cool if everything got reset back to zero and everyone started over again.

Thanks.

There has never been and never will be a game-wide reset.

A reset would cost the game many vet players! People have put years into building an empire myself included.it pisses me off even thinking about it.only someone with nothing would mention something so silly.

as a long term player, with considerable assets, i'm not opposed to a reset, although, i'm probably the only one.

one of the time game flaws, is the vast difference in wealth, and assets between long term players, and new players. i've lost more game assets to experimenting with game features, than a new player would even realize is possible. i've even just plain deleted more assets than most players will ever earn. the uneven playing field, makes it difficult, (but not impossible,) for a new player to break in.

i must say, jammie brown, that i completely understand your point, after working years on something, with assumption that it wont just go away, you'd feel betrayed if it did! and may not have the enthusiasm to do it again.

A few thoughts on this. One, games with resets are structured as such. I have played games with resets. You invest in the game with the game reset in mind and typically are awarded in some way at the end by meeting certain goals that molded your game play. Simcountry is not setup in this way.

Second, the game flaw is not that there is a difference in wealth itself but the game structure does not offer sufficient motivations for new players to compete. There is not a compelling top level game structure to participate in nor is there an environment that encourages group play. Diplomacy with the motivation to achieve rewards or ensure survival is all but dead. This is a costly game flaw.

All that said, the guard does change in regards to the players with the most assets in the game. Unfortunately, it has often been the result of high end players becoming inactive or retiring altogether.

I'm torn personally. A reset has its pros and cons.

People spends years getting empires to be the way they envision it. A reset would really limit the stride to seek perfection. With that said the basic five should NEVER see a reset.

Now if there was a planet(s) with resets I would play.
Just my personal opinion.

I would love a world that was separate from the SC universe(no direct trading of cash or space travel). I could see a planet running 12 months per day on either 30 or 45 day time frame. Set it so that all nations are 25 million starting pop and there is triple or even quadruple weapons production. In addation there so be no war level at all. When you start your nation you have 7 days protection after that it becomes a free for all, war levels should not apply. The GM could even set a buy in standard where in order to join the world its 50GC for the duration of the reset. From there the GM can come up a ranking system. At the end of the round there is ranking system. The top players win gold coins.

Fist place = 250GC
Second place = 175GC
Third place = 100GC

Even throw in some from of ranking system.
Top 3 Military players = Number of conquered non-C3 nations + war level
Top 3 Econ players = total value of empire by games end excluding country base price.
Even add prizes for the top feds and common markets.

I think a separate planet with resets where you had the chance to win some GC would really go along way to helping the game.

Having a place where I could play a country and CEO with a reset would be fun but there must be a significant reward to do so and it must be completely separate from the SC universe.

If you want a re-set just cancel your stuff and start over. Re-set, yeah right. What Jonni said.

I like your idea SuperSoldierRCP. A planet like that would encourage someone to play just to experiment with a strategy in high speed. Completely separate would encourage the free players to participate too, getting more of them hooked.

Don't like the GC buy in since that will limit participation though. I think the key will be encouraging as many people as possible to use it in addition to the empires they already have.

Yes I too like your idea SuperSoldierRCP. (y) Please GM give me a like thumb with (y) pleaaase

A new world not connected to existing ones via direct trade or space? I posted that idea nearly two years ago.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/22798.html?1379670825

The other ideas in that thread are still good ones. I still think Simcountry lends itself to more of a long-term simulation than one that would have regular resets though. I think a new world with a more aggressive rule set not connected to existing worlds would have a lot of appeal though (As Super suggests, 7 days protection/No War levels). "Fearless" Blue was envisioned as a world where survival was an accomplishment but instead the majority of the players there truly have no fear due to being war level 0-2.

Edit:

Anyone notice this line in the docs about "Fearless" Blue?

"Peaceful playing is not permitted in Fearless Blue but temporary war protection is an option. "

This line no longer applies to that world. 7 of the "top" 10 countries on the world are war level 0-2. They are breaking this rule..

your right aries, their is no need for that, all a person has to do is use map controls to stack up the cities, forts, corps what ever, in one pile, then surround it with a couple dozen Mobile Missile Defense, and a couple Mobile Nuke D, quick and easiy sim-invulnerability.

its much more efficient for your defense if your 100M pop all worked and slept in a 1 square mile radius.

i can point out, that those that are playing at WL2 on FB probably wouldn't be their at all, if they where forced to fight. although, for a "war world," you'd expect the top players to at least be of a PvP WL

There is no sim-invulnerability let alone achieving it with ease. I can defeat the defense you described. Enough so that I have been evolving my defense strategy and resources to withstand my latest offensive theories. I believe there is a good balance between offense and defense right now though I see offense still as having an overall edge.

Edit:

I am sorry. I was wrong. What Orbiter described is not sim-invulnerability but it obviously exists in war levels, temporary war protection, and war levels.

If you are suggesting I am a game wizard or that I am drawing attention to your war level 2 curtain I will accept either way.

lol, your funny, and kinda predictable.

how ever, what i'm actually highlighting, is that your need to assert your dominance, makes you easily antagonized.

Orbiter Bro.....Its not like you to be antagonizing.
Keep focused on the point.
Like Brother Aries Said.... 7 of the "top" 10 countries on the world are war level 0-2. They are breaking this rule..

thanks for the vote for my character. and i'm focused on a point, that long term will be good for sim-country. i've played this game for a long time, seen allot, and know how things happen.

as far as the subject. i'm not sure you want to remove war level protection from WL2s on FB. they contribute to the econ of the planet. the more people playing on a planet, the better everything works. LU has about 50% more countries with presidents, and the Econ works much better. FB keeps plugging away, but running a CEO on each, about the same way, my LU CEO is more successful.

If you chase off players from FB, because they aren't interested in your version of the planet, it will suffer. Now i can sympathize with the concept, i'm not sure its for the best. And i'm not sure "breaking the rules," is a fair way to put it. Considering that the GM are the ones that have created the ability to play a non-PvP WL long term, and have had highly aggressive players on other worlds, at WL2 on FB, for a very long time.

Then again, i see your point, it is the war world. over all, for some one to have the econ access to FB-only products, all it takes is a CEO, and players can play peacefully on other planets.

shrug, over all, i'd be against forcing these players to defend themselves. it would hurt the planet, more than it would help, only a short term benefit to a handful of players. which ironically, is what War Levels where meant to prevent.

I agree with both sides.
I was around long before the war levels. So I understands both sides.

Aries - what Orbiter is trying to say is long ago before the war levels you only had 21 days of war protection. When I was a noob I was chased off the planet several times quickly because back in those days war was dramatically more profitable then it was today. It was not uncommon to see vets gang-bang noobs. Sometimes a nation would have 10-15T in cash and no defenses at all. Plus another factor was that nuking was dangerous. People would often take dozens of C3 nation(like Wendy) and nuke just to cause chaos. Once kicked off they would make a new nation take a dozen C3 an repeat 21 days later. There was no way to defend against it and fallout would hurt players and CEO alike.

Orbiter - I do agree with Aries that Fearless blue needs to be more war based. A lot of changes and advancements have been made in the last few years. Nuking rules, weapons stats, costs, and CEO have great protection making war a more viable option then it was the past.

----Overall----
I do think the GM should lower the war levels. In the case of Fearless Blue it should be war level 1. How ever I do agree more needs to be done to help build up new nations. It is to some extent harder then it was years ago.
I personally think that all nations should start at 20M population and start with a basic 10T cash fund.
After a player moves to war level one a notification is provided saying that you are now able to be attacked by players and you have 21 days of war protection. After which said point it becomes a free for all.
This way those who want to help contribute economically can and the war games see a great range of fighting.

I did not suggest changing FB, though I would not oppose it. I made the point that war levels made FB laughably tame and that it was not serving its original intent, which the above econ argument highlights nicely. I believe the appeal for a world with an aggressive rule set still exists.

If a new world were to be added it should be an aggressive rule set to fill FB's original purpose. I believe the "handful of players" Orbiter talks about is all that is left of the war player population which has little prospects to recover in the current rules.

I do not believe changes to weapons production, starting pop, cash, or a game reset system is needed. Giving out large amounts of pop or cash in an aggressive rule set to new players will simply reward the noob raiding you talked about.

Another thing. Orbiter, I do attempt at humor and I feel my views are predictable. However, you missed what my motivation is. It has nothing to do with "asserting dominance" although I see nothing wrong with that either.

Check my suggestions on the appropriate forum for the last year. There is a theme to it. I shall make a new thread to tie it together shortly.

*yawns*

aries, if you consider what you just wrote, you'd realize, that you have made my point.

Gosh. I must be out of touch. The keys to appearing to be superior must be to call people predictable, pretend that my writings have hidden intelligence beyond the understandings of others, and to pretend that I had to be bothered to post.. but then post anyway.

Orbiter, you are so predictable. How was that?

your catching on, grasshopper, keep up the practice until the next lesson!

Lmfao

We once considered running a world that resets periodically as a sort of "tournament world". The idea was:
- Small number of available countries.
- Very fast game speed.
- No opting out of war.
- Reset every X months.
- At the end of a "tournament cycle" scores are calculated (taking both war and economic stats into account) and winners are rewarded.

It is a little out of character for a game where persistence is a key feature but I do think that the warmongers among us could enjoy this a lot. The barrier to entry would also be lower as you would not be putting your hard work at risk.
Not to mention that it would provide a great testbed for improving the balance of the overall war-game.

What do you think?