W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Roll back to where? Maybe I should say, when? For the majority who likely didn't play then, why don't you explain what that means? You have a problem with robotics? Yes yes, very unclear. Very unfollowable.

Also, every one of your outcomes can be argued are in the game already. Raiders can raid. PvPers can PvP. GC war protection is still there. There is no explanation of what your "solution" does to change any of those things. It could be said that since all of your outcomes already exist in the current state of the game, your solution is not needed.

So yes. Your solution is as plain as mud and your outcomes can be said to have succeeded in the current state of the game.

Yet, the state of the game is a shadow of it's former self

I don't have all the answers to fix it, but I do know that it used to be better than what we have now...with many more active players

Exactly EC. We agree there is something wrong. We both think changes are needed to accommodate game-play outside of just econ. I just don't buy that since some former time had more players, the answer lies entirely in rolling back the game to that time. I do buy that war players need more. They need more incentive, they need their war world back etc. as I have described.

Well Aries, how do you explain the current diminished state of the game... oh you can't. You keep attempting to by attacking common sense. It amazes me how you're arguing with people who can see clearly the stark contrasts from then til now who have been here longer than your present incarnation.

But I'll play ball.

1. War College - A system similar to game levels

Really, because war levels are a stunning improvement backed by any data that supports that position? We should task resources and engineers to code a similar concept that has clearly failed in every aspect... Try again.

2. Battlegrounds - Real player PvP fought over a neutral ground.

Similar to a battle royale world suggested by myself many years ago. The devs liked the concept, but rejected this idea because it would have to be coded and they weren't sure enough players would be interested to justify undertaking such a task.

More importantly, it would take away from war within the game. War in the game is important. It provides substance and history. A reason to log in, to read the news, to come to chat, to promote and interact within federations. By replacing this with a system with no consequences, it diminishes the overall benefits of war brings to the game. (Note, assuming forces for warring are even and not based on arbitrary levels, I'd easily kick your ass all over that "arena" *facts* exactly why it wasn't introduced, made this point a while ago as well. You don't really "want it".)

3. Natural Resources -

Albeit interesting, a menial and pointless coding task, creating new subsets of problems for coders and devs in terms of balance and watching mega players dominate those resources, widening the gap between players who have tons of resources and those just starting the game hoping to compete. Similar to the notion, the rich getting richer and the poor stay that way. Easily a non-starter. Assuming these resources would be balanced for everyone's benefit, they again become really pointless and add very little to the game. Perhaps there is some benefit to this addition after much discussion and trial and error, but it isn't the easiest path toward achieving the goal of "restoring the game". An idea better suited for a different outcome.

4. Total War/All-Out War - A system to spark fed/large wars.

Is this a joke? The main reason war levels and added protections were introduced was allegedly econ players being swept into wars and conflicts by war mongers they otherwise had no interest in participating in. This idea limits the ability of players playing econ and war to have an opportunity to represent a federation despite their style of gameplay. We are goin gback to player satisfaction and giving choices to players, not forcing anything on them. This limits that and has been identified by scores of players present and gone as a primary factor in putting them off to the game.

5. The War World - Remove war level protection for all Fearless Blue countries. Only 21 day protection applies here.

OMG... its like you want to agree with everyone and just let it be how it used to be. No $#!7! Who would've thunk it?

6. Gold Coin War Protection - Increase the cost of gold-coin purchased protection ....

Um... why? Becuase you don't like the price? How is the game supposed to know when each individual player has an emergency, or a vacation, or any other legitimate reason to protect their assets? Why can they simply be offered the choice to never participate in a war game they don't wish to indulge? Again, you are micro managing everyone else's decisions and style of play based on your own whims. Make it so expensive so that only players like you and I can afford it, while the new and not so profitable player's assets are swept aside? This makes sense how? Are we trying to bring players in or chase them away.

You have to do better...

Where are your ideas?

Objection!!! Asked and answered!

I'll just throw this in here because I'm new and don't care.

I've read the thread. Digested it. There is one thing I am not seeing in anyone's argument.

This is the way the game is played now. Not many see it changing or reverting back to anything. Why are we not recruiting more people that would be attracted to the game as it is played now? Or for those of you that prefer the major war game, why aren't you messaging players in game and working with them to reach fighting shape and level? If you did this, the population of warring players would increase.

Seems like all the answers for me anyway go back to the that people are more inclined to have a game cater to and form around their playing styles...when in reality it should be the players operating within the game catering their gameplay to the game rules. The rules as of now still allow wars etc.

Don't let the game master you. Master the game.

Heisenberg.....if you had been around a few years ago, you would have seen the full chatroooms and the popping forum.

The changes didn't work

The game is half of what it used to be

The community has dwindled

Nobody can deny it that played back then

I get that. But the past has passed, it's really up to us to decide if there is a future.

I haven't included it in my answer because it isn't the argument I am trying to make. I am not going to defend failure. It's irresponsible, like making excuses.

I think if you want to pose a more applicable subject then here's one.

For everyone who thinks the game is okay... assuming "they" are doing everything Heisenberg assumes is every players responsibility to do...

Why isn't it working? For those who message and work with players and mold them into the non existent fighting base absent today, how is that working out for you? If it isn't working out, then why? Why were these tasks so easy and productive then, compared to now?

Very important side note, most of the great econ players are gone too, this isn't jjust a war thing. But an outcome of too many added protections. It has destroyed both active player bases. New and old alike. I want that improved. Most of the past greats are here for nostalgia and nothing more. Why waste an asset of experienced players like that.

I noticed Sam, Dub, Romeo V. Stephen Ryan, Rob K, Aaron, Yankee and many many more here. yet oddly disengaged from the bigger picture. That is telling.

I think some changes should certainly to improve the war game or perhaps we just need a completely new and reworked war game. Regardless I believe there are 2 major problems currently that make the war game not practical and extremely difficult and time consuming and should be addressed soon at some point. Additionally there is another problem which could be addressed sometime in the far future.

1. To Much Clicking!

This is one of my greatest problems with the war game. The clicking is literally insane. Improvements could be added such as possibly making it easy to simply search for forts and then select them all and then you would be able to select which units to attack with. To make this balanced the attacks would not be instant but would use realistic times which could be calculated by the distance from the attacking unit to the target.

For example if a air force bombing and attack wing is 1,000miles from a target and if it did fly at 200mph it would take 5 game hours for it to get to the target and another 5 to get back.

Of course you would be able to use multiple air wings at a time with each of them taking time to get to the target and back. therefore the more air wings you have the more targets you could destroy at once. This would be a huge improvement to the game and make wars easier to fight as significantly less clicking would be involved while being balanced with non instant attacks which would take flight and travel time into account.


2. Not many countries to attack and very few potential targets:

Currently there are very few countries and targets in some of the worlds which also significantly affects the war game in negative ways. I am proposing changing the way war levels work based on activity, premium membership, and other factors based on how new a player is.

I believe that if a player leaves the game and or is inactive for large periods of time they should be vulnerable to attacks such as players with higher war levels could attack them after a certain time period.

Additionally players without premium membership perhaps war levels would not apply to them or they could be vulnerable to attacks in other ways. This would also provide another reason for players to purchase premium membership.

Finally it could also be reasonable for new players to receive war protection regardless of any changes to the war game, and with the additional help by war guides which simcountry should update explaining in very simple terms how to defend your country effectively based on current player attack strategies .

3. To Many Worlds

Currently I believe there are to many simcountry worlds that have very few players above war level 3 such as GR which is essentially dead. It would be reasonable for simmcountry to consider discontinuing or finding ways to merge some of the worlds perhaps sometime in the future. This may seem extreme and it certainly is currently but at some point it may be something that is a reasonable idea considering many of the worlds are too big with few large empires.


I hope that you at least have considered these ideas which could in the future be implemented in limited forms, especially the problems with the extreme clicking involved in large scale wars with hundreds of forts and corps.

I'm not here for the war game. So I plainly could not care less about this entire subject. The way I figure it is if the GM is running this game the way they want to, that is all that matters. As far as I know, and have experienced in other games, ideas from players are taken, and sometimes implemented at the GM's discretion. If people did not enjoy the changes, they quit. In the overall scheme of things, money talks...and obviously the money isn't telling the owners of this game to change back. Maybe if the benjamins slow down coming in, then the GM will do something.

Withhold your cash if it is that much of an issue.

I may not renew my premium membership in the next 2 months if the war game is not fixed in some way or if the game masters don't announce a upcoming fix.

There probably won't be a future for this game if changes aren't done in the next few months.

The game is in a gradual decline and to fix it the GM's need to advertise it along with lots of fixes and major radical changes to the game.

(It's only a matter of time before their money tap dries up and stops coming in)

Well, that's blatantly false, I was brought here by an ad. So the Gm's are actively advertising this game.

I've noticed a lot of newer players enjoy the game, as it makes them think. Two of the players I've brought in have already stated they don't have any interest in conversing with people, and one of them said a read through these forums disgusted them and they'd never participate. But I have one friend who thinks he's unlocked the secret to the war game and he plans on going that way.

To each their own. And this game has something for everyone in my estimation.

Well they certainly aren't working hard enough as there are numerous complaints and issues involving the war game. It's pretty obvious there's been a major decrease in the number of players playing the game.

Look at the participation in voting polls on game suggestions.

If you scroll down to see the results of multiple polls you can see almost 5 to 20 times the players voted on polls 4 years and more ago opposed to the more recent ones when only a few player voted.

(You may say players just don't like to participate in votes anymore but any reasonable person could tell it's a result of inactivity and game decline.)

I didn't say votes. I said participate. Period. And going through the votes, your argument is invalid. Even when this game was more populated, averaged 20 to 40 votes. The player base was hundreds back then I am told. So it doesn't seem like they were all that active voting back then too. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's in a direction that you're trying to use a straw man to make your point.

I have seen so far 6 different players complain about this. That is not numerous. That's like saying that since 100,000 people in the US are in favor of allowing people to drink and drive we should just let it happen, because yknow, it's what they want. It doesn't work that way because the GM's have a job to do, and that is to balance their game as they see fit.

Fact is, all you have been talking about since you started was taking out empires. If you'd just be honest and say you don't want war levels because you want to rob inactive, I'd have a lot more respect for your positions.

The GM's are supposed to listen to the people who play the game, well they will if they want to continue to rake in money. You yourself have admitted it there used to be hundreds of players back then actively participating in the game and now there is 6 wanting to remove war levels opposed to 1 (Heisenberg) defending war levels, that seems like a huge decrease in players, even when you count all the players that didn't participate in this thread your still looking somewhere between 10-50 active players opposed to hundreds.

[It's pretty clear to everyone except Heisenberg there's been a decrease in active players.]

This should be addressed right now by removing and replacing war levels along with a numerous list of other desperately needed changes followed by a enormous advertising campaign.

I said I was TOLD there were hundreds.

I'm also not defending anything. The GM is not obliged to institute ANY change it doesn't want to. You're just another player who thinks just because you play a game it entitles you to some kind of partial ownership. It does not.

Once again, we all know why you want war levels gone.

Of course there not obligated to change anything, there is no law requiring games to do what players won't. However I'm sure the GM's want to hear these suggestions and it's likely they will want to remove war levels if they want money as otherwise there will be a huge decrease in revenue in the next year.

Also most games that are successful usually suit there games to the players wants otherwise they simply can't sell there game.

If you ever wondered why the GM's have a topic (suggestions) it's so people can post there suggestions and there has been numerous complaints on these issue already.

Alright, was out for Mother's Day stuff and couldn't type much then. As far as your critique of my ideas. War levels and game levels are not the same thing. Reading comprehension can help with that. So with War College, it was obvious you didn't understand it.

I am not convinced you followed the link and even read Battlegrounds. As far as your reply that it would replace "real wars", the idea is that it would instead replace endless raiding for those who miss it. In that respect, it is much more "real" and could create a spat to lead to larger conflict.

The idea with Natural Resources is to create an incentive to have actual empires with actual econ protected with force of arms and federations rather than artificial war protection. This would replace your notion of any econ savvy player should simply throw up magic war protection. This leads to actual feds with actual purpose and actual diplomacy. Thought we were going for "real" here, so I though you would be a fan of this one.

Doesn't seem you read Total/All-Out war. You should take a look. Actual old time war players liked the idea when I introduced it. It still requires players to make a choice to participate.

Glad you agree on the War World. Yes, very limited protections there make sense.

On gold coin protection, the idea is to discourage continuous use of these feature to, again, incentivize use of real federations, real force of arms, and real diplomacy over unlimited and unrealistic game protections. As I said, provide some number of days free each month with membership and then raise the price of additional buys to discourage continuous use. This allows anyone to have free protection for important days/emergencies/vacation.

To sum up. From your first posts you seem to be for more war freedom and less game restrictions but it seems your responses carry a different motive. Which is it then? Do you want anything other than unlimited fake wars and creating a temporary war protection system that is a no-brainer to participate in with those following out of it identified as inactive prey? How valiant of you fake war players who only wish to face a computer opponent or inactive players, both of which don't shoot back. Cowards!

I can see there are many different opinions on this issue and it's probably best if there could be a compromise on this issue that we all could agree upon instead of simply arguing about this issue. I do apologize to Heisenberg for not considering any of his ideas however I do still believe that at some point in the future or sometime soon changes should be implemented into the game.

I can see Aries seems to support wars against other active players, although I'm not sure if it's possible to be fully implemented as it would lead to conflict against new players who simply cannot win against a player like Aries. However Aries did have other good ideas such as providing reasons for players to choose a war path which could improve the game, unfortunately removing war levels completely is probably too extreme.

Therefore I have proposed a plan below which I hope everyone will at least read.



War Plan for Replacement of War Levels

[I hope everyone can at least consider my suggestions below and I would be encouraged to hear reasonable critique on problems or potential improvements to my solution.] The goals of this plan are listed below my list of changes the plan would in act.



List of Changes that would replace war levels



1. The system would give new players a certain time period of protection. They would be by default econ during this period and after be auto changed to war if inactive and do not make a decision to be econ or war.

2. C3's would have random amounts of defenses with different amounts of cash based on their defense.

3. After the time period of protection the new player would choose whether he wants to be involved in war or be a econ player. (he could end protection early to decide sooner)

4. It would cost the player gold coins to change from econ to war, war to econ would be extremely expensive but not impossible.

5. If a econ player is inactive for a certain period of time he would become a war player and be vulnerable to attack.

6. Economic benefits would encourage players to decide to be war players.


Goals of the Plan:

1. Would allow new players protection from war

2. Would allow players to choose a war or econ path.

3. Would allow active players to expand their empires by conquering inactive targets.
4. Would allow active players to fight other active players in limited ways if they choose a war path.
5. Would give economic benefits to war players.

6. Would encourage players to be active


Overall I hoped you considered this plan and I thank you in advance for pointing out any potential improvements or problems in this plan. This is hopefully a compromise between war levels and no war levels at all.

Trust me new people.

It is a lot more interesting politically, militarily, and towards your sleep patterns to be at risk.

No risk, no reward.

what is a sleep pattern? that must be something people without kids have?

Why would a any player, let alone a new one, want war with me? I am just a disabled cancer cripple. Why not seek to join my fed and be my friend instead?

Johanas. Your side is only advocating three types of players I described earlier. Those protected by GC war protection (which Wendy wants to keep cheap), those who build nothing worthwhile and look for inactives/prey, and the inactives/prey, who let their protection lapse. There is no role for federations, friends, and diplomacy in that. Nothing of value out there that remains "at risk".

Guys, why don't we just start a revolution and overthrow the evil GM's we can rebuild the glorious system, for to long the capitalists have ruled over us. Now we will reorganize our glorious system into a modern architectural community of communism and I'll lead us into the future. And naturally comrades anyone who disagrees will be sent to a fun camp especially those GM's.

The future of this community must be built by the people and not the corrupt capitalists. Forward to Victory comrades.