The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

(let's just say there's a reason they will only let you move 10 mobile units at a time now)


That is not a trick. That is an exploit. I ran into forms of that three times and reported it to the GM each time. Taking advantage of that bug is classless. I would bet a good part of your coins and cash are from selling duped weapons, ammo, pros, and mobile units.

I reported it as well as I have reported many other bugs including bugs that had been floating around for a long time that many players knew about and those bugs ultimately got corrected. The speed at which the GM's move on this kind of stuff is the issue, like you said, you reported it three times.

I've also had mobile units straight disappear as well as professionals, I'm having an issue now where mobile units can't be moved out of a country because they are 'incomplete' even though they were just created and you can't create an incomplete mobile unit and then when I go back in and dismantle them all the sudden professionals have disappeared. I've lost hundreds of trillions in wars with bugs in the maps and lost giant countries that I put tons of resources and work into because of unexplained game freezes that kept me from logging in while somehow the attacker was able to keep shooting. In our war space completely froze for me for about 8 hours and that easily could have been the difference between winning and losing that war. All of these reported to the GM's, pretty much all of them with no response.

Pass judgement all you will, but I've put far more into this game and lost far more than what is redeemed by the duplication of a few hundred mobile units which occurred because I was trying to do something with a clear basis in the game, move mobile units from country to space center and then ultimately reported.

As far as selling, I sold probably 500 mobile units at a significant discount to other players and I've never sold professionals that I can recall.

Obviously, we all have experienced various game issue with various levels of response. I reported that there was no effective way to defend against cruise missile or guided missile ships months before losing my first FB empire (2 of the countries had about 550 million pop between them) to that very thing while I was in the hospital (being treated for cancer). I experienced several issues you described. Off the top of my head, I have had units I could not recover because they got stuck somewhere. I have had mobile units disband for no reason at a remote depot. I have even found a hard cap for cash a single country can hold (losing the cash that accumulated above that level before I noticed the problem).

Despite all this, I have reported myself multiple times when I first encountered a beneficial bug and stopped the activity that benefited me immediately. I could not fathom doing otherwise. I am proud that all of the assets of my account I have legitimately earned, 100%. I share my knowledge of econ and war with any player that would listen and I can tell them that everything I have gained in the game is possible for them too.

I would find it disgusting to use use illegitimately gained assets to war another player. You boast of having the resources to take down most players in the game and, indeed, that is true. However, is it not hollow if you didn't earn them the right way?

Numbers-wise, you say you had 500 mobile units to sell. Overlooking the fact that this compounds the problem, putting duped mobile units on the market versus legitimately constructed ones, that had to add 2000 to 3000 coins to your account. How many duped mobile units did you keep? How many did you disband and simply sell off duped weapons and ammo for cash?

I am very familiar with the gains from game level, war level, and raiding of old. Your account assets don't make sense unless you duped around a few thousand mobile units. I know what it takes just to upgrade the things, let alone the 7000 to 10000+ coins worth of professionals you have. Hundreds of mobile units are possible if you gain assets at the highest clips any player has the last few years. Thousands of mobile units with hundreds to spare to sell, just isn't.

Umm, weren't you the one who was raping empires using the same cruise missile ships? I can't find the post but I remember posting in a thread that it was ridiculous that there were no defensive weapons vs. cruisers and I swear it was because you had just taken down several large countries with that strategy. If it wasn't you, then my apologies, but I did argue on your behalf. I then proceeded to take a couple hundred c3's using that strategy. If the GM's are going to leave a clear vulnerability open even after they've been made aware of it, I'm going to take advantage of that.

I'm also proud that I've earned 100% of my assets and even more than that. The GM's show no remorse and provide no reimbursement when their screwups cost the players assets/coins/cash, I have no remorse when going the other direction and what they've cost me in screwups far outweighs anything I've gained from them. There is also no speed to respond to those screwups or speed to respond to found exploits (again as you mentioned you had to contact them about the same thing that was costing them 3 times). You know it's funny, if the GM's implemented a double entry accounting system that kind of thing would never happen and I know that's been suggested for as long as I can remember and there's no real reason not to do it other than not wanting to be transparent.

I also share my knowledge with anyone/everyone with any questions and unlike you, I actually built, together with the original Aries, giant federations which taught a lot of the players that are known as some of the greats of the game. Also unlike you, I never went after solo players who were weak in war relative to what I could do. I even mistakenly set up on players like that who had massive war indexes but who turned out to be just econ players trying to level up (before there were peaceful requirements) and I worked out deals with those players and left them with their assets instead of taking from them. I've also given away more assets than you have now to friends and fedmates. So, you can go holier than thou on me about screwing over the GM's who screw over the players all the time (and have screwed me over far more than I have them) but I never screwed over another player by taking their assets. I'd feel far worse about taking assets from a clearly inferior player than you seem to. I'm also the one here arguing against my own self interests and telling the GM's they should devalue mobile units because they distort the game.

Also, I never really intended to use any mobile units against other players, like I said, I wasn't interested in PvP war with the war engine as currently constructed. You forced that issue, not me.

I'm guessing at how many I sold, even very cheap there wasn't much of a market out there. But, I think 500 is a good number. I never disbanded any of them, they were much more valuable whole to me as I didn't need game cash.

You're very familiar with what you know now and I have to admit you're very connected and notice a lot. But, maybe when you were away or maybe just some world blindness caused you to miss a lot. I raided literally thousands of countries when it was 3.2T for WL4 countries on many worlds including taking down almost the entire continent of CD on FB for Xon where we had a deal worked out for GC's in exchange for the effort.

There's something you should know about me, I'm not like anyone else in the game at this point, I would have had the same number of mobile units regardless because I find ways to get things done and I wanted to have that number of mobile units. Maybe I'd have a few thousand less GC's or a few hundred trillion less in cash, but I wanted to have a defense that was as close to guaranteed to hold up as possible. The OA2A/MRMB wrinkle tossed me a bit, but guess what, now I know and I've been doubling down on mobile helis to slow it down (and there is no longer a way to duplicate units). I don't have the same passion for this game as I did before (although you definitely grabbed some interest), but I can't find a purchaser of my account that makes it feel worth the cash so I am just trying to figure out what the end game will be.

Now, can we get back to my other very important points in the post that started this all off? We're not going to get anywhere with you questioning my bad deeds as I'm sure I'm not going to get anywhere with questioning yours.

I used navy once against an opponent that heavily used the same weapons first to hit an ally. After that conflict was over, I posted again about the problem. I originally raised concerns in the thread about the game update that created the problem in the first place, and was ignored. Your version of events is not close to accurate. Several players, including Josias, posted on my behalf, pointing out I was not the first to use the weapons and had no other recourse.

On going after weak solo players, who do you have me confused with, or who do you consider that I fought to be weak. Indeed the majority of my conflicts were imposed on me. Even if it was possible to find any truth to what you are saying, what are you saying I am guilty of? Playing Simcountry? There are a number of ways to opt out of PvP in Simcountry.

Wendy, who is much more known to setup on weak and new players, could come out of hiding/retirement/whatever and have a completely valid point if she were to say how wrong it is that you exploited a bug to generate game-breaking amounts of assets. You don't get bonus points because you gave away or sold under-priced duped units. Nor is it okay to have a pile of duped units because it is your opinion that it would be any attacker's fault to declare war on you. Further, what does it say about you if you say you could have achieved the same results without duping?

Quick search revealed this: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/3711/24302.html?

That was clearly someone who may have thought they were a war player but definitely was not.

I also remember the complaining on the thread with regards to cruisers and I knew your name did come up, I obviously don't have the complete backstory but I wasn't incorrect in what I remembered clearly.

We fundamentally disagree on when it is or is not OK to take another players assets, in my mind unless the player is at least somewhat of an equal from a skill perspective you are basically just robbing them and at the same time turning them away from the game. I find it far more disturbing to take assets away from an inexperienced player than any tweak/twist in the game that can be taken advantage of, especially because I do report those when I find them.

Like I said, you're not going to get anywhere with convincing me that I've done anything wrong or that I have any more assets than I've earned, so keep going on that if you'd like but it'll be a one sided conversation.

That was Gaz in disguise and was the aggressor. He wars from the school of Wendy, using the whole "fighting from c3" war thing that you so hate facing. The reason the war started as a war of attrition was because I had little time to fight him, going from appointment to appointment. He ended up taking my whole FB empire using the navy thing we just talked about while I was in the hospital. Try again? You are so clearly wrong. Why don't you stick with stuff you know?

Edit: the thread with the rest of the story I will post below. I stayed mostly out of it but several players came to my aggressive defense on the forums over the whole thing. Long thread, the discussion over this conflict is mostly at the end of it.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/24362.html?1422398159


Start at Tuesday, January 13, 2015 - 09:43 pm

Fair enough, I'll stick to what I know. I know from a war skills perspective you're a lot more like players of old in skillset and there aren't players with that skillset around anymore that are still active in the war game (I know a few are still around but don't play the war game any longer). That's the same boat that I'm in and because of that, I have chosen not to participate in the PvP war game because I don't want to just take assets away from players. I have tried to provide you and the GM's with reasons why there are no longer players with strong war capabilities and why those who do have those abilities are inactive in the PvP war game.

You are fine with taking away assets from players regardless of the fact that they aren't on your level, I judge you on that but you don't see any problem with it, just a difference of opinion. I'm not going to dig through the forums to find every war you've been in, but you've developed the reputation that you can take down whomever you want and that no one can take your countries. That's enough for me to know that you've taken down several/many players with skills far below yours and you didn't have any real challenge until you went after me and frankly, in this state of the war game, I'm not that good.

Now again, we can continue with the personal attacks or we can move on to trying to figure out how to progress the game forward assuming the GM's ever decide to do something about how dead it is. I've got no personal issue with you, maybe you have a personal issue with me, I really don't care one way or the other. I don't particularly care about what you have or haven't done in the game and I may know very little about that, you also know very little about what I've done in the game. So how about we both stay out of that?

Where are you getting that I take assets from players not at my level? Your one example was horrible. I will say I essentially don't have something wrong with it but it has never been my style, ever. I have intervened more than once to protect weaker players and I have even taken countries back that were lost and given them back to the player that lost them. Again, even if you were to judge someone else out there that is notorious for the thing, warring another player is an entirely different thing than feeling you are entitled to exploit a bug for 1000s of Trillions in assets.

You were on my radar since were putting up those first mobile interceptor units for 3 coins each. You then offered details of your mobile units on the forums when you looked to sell your account. I was pretty certain then that you gained your assets in a dishonest way. You might not have time to "judge" me. You stumbled unto the reason you were my target in the first place. It isn't personal, I just don't think you deserve the leg up on players you achieved in that way.

Apply any suggestion out there, yours, mine, anyone's, to make it easier for war players to get the assets they need for the war game. Why should they work to catch up to dishonest amounts of assets out there? I usually shoot down suggestions that gaining asset speed isn't important as parity in how to gain them but, in an environment with stacks of dishonest assets out there, it starts to make more sense than it should. The solution that makes more sense is that these dishonest assets should be removed from the game. There should be some room on my list for that suggestion.

Well congrats, because that's pretty much what you did, I lost about a 3rd of my mobile units and was left with zero 600Q helis/ammo and I gained nothing from that war, you are the great equalizer.

Since you discovered the same issue and reported it, what exactly happened to your duplicated units? Did you destroy them? Did the GM's take them away? How exactly is everyone supposed to know?

I was careful to limit repeating any step that would repeat the bug. My concern was more about the integrity of the game. I have worked too hard to understand how to play the game well than to replace my work with a cheap exploit and, as I said before, no player should have to compete with players who abused such means for their benefit.

I just checked over the records of my communications to the GM on that issue. I emailed the GM 8 times about it from updates on experiencing the issue to odd market activity that seemed to stem from selling mobile units assets. The three separate situations I experienced the bug, I did not get many mobile units and identified to the GM exactly what happened and where the duped mobile units were located. The GM replied to my concerns 6 different times about progress in fixing the bug.

In the end I was told to hold unto the few mobile units that resulted from the bug and was awarded a few coins for my assistance. The units I got were so few in number that they effectively have never left my space port in one of my LU enterprises. Of the mobiles I have remaining, sold, or lost, no more than 5% resulted from the bug and the rest are ones I made or captured in a pvp war.

There are only 3 players I am aware of who have or had 2000 or more mobile units. No other player I am aware of, including me, is close to that number. Of those three, one no longer players the game, one had their assets seized by the GM, and only one still has that number or more.

So, because I was actually trying to save myself money by not having to pay maintenance/ammo costs on units, I'm the a-hole? I literally was moving hundreds of units when it started happening and those were all completely built on nothing but earned assets, I spent tons of game cash on maintenance/ammo and upgrades to get those units to 600Q while dealing with the stupid deactivation rules that would constantly throw multiple game months long kinks in trying to get it done. But, it was wrong for me to then try to move those units into my space centers to transport out? When hundreds of units got duplicated in one country and in other countries they disappeared and I emailed the GM's about that (they ultimately reappeared), what exactly did I do differently than what you did in the *8* times it happened to you?

This seems to be a fundamental difference between the way you operate in the game and I do and it is why I said that I would have ultimately ended up with the same amount of units but with less game cash/GC's in the bank. I was moving/upgrading hundreds (and by hundreds I don't mean 1 or 2 hundred, I mean 5 or 6 hundred) of units at a time, I spent the GC's to get the professionals and I raided like a madman to get the upgrades/cash. In the meantime, you were focusing on your econ which was the most important thing to you, the most important thing to me was developing these magical units that could be transported at insane speeds so that I didn't have to pay maintenance/ammo costs on my defenses.

To put it in perspective, just since our war which left me without any mobile heli wings, I have developed over 2K mobile heli wings and that's with the new rules that only allow you to move 10 at a time and definitely no duplication in addition to the difficulty I've been having with professionals disappearing (which the GM's apparently don't care about either). At the same time I also built several hundred mobile int/AA/nuke def units and upgraded them as well. You can't understand how I do what I do in the same way that I can't understand what you do with the econ game.

Also, have you considered the fact that pressing on a game issue might actually be what finally gets the GM's to respond to it? You messaged them about the mobile unit issue *8* times, I messaged them about it once, but it wasn't until it was no longer that just a few units were duped that they actually responded and fixed the issue (in the most terrible way possible so that you can only move 10 at a time into/out of a country despite the fact that you can transport over 800 a month to a country). You told the GM's about the issue with cruisers and I commented on that thread too (or at least one thread after it was exploited) and nothing happened until I used that same fact to take over several hundred c3's. Sometimes when there are issues in markets that aren't being addressed despite the warnings (ahem, housing market), the best thing you can do is stack up bets on it to really force the issue and just like all bad systems they will eventually crumble (the more pressure the more quickly).

I would believe in your benevolence if you discarded with your duped units and pros now that the bug is fixed. You remain the only active player in the game, that I am aware of, that still has a direct residual benefit from the existence of that bug (leaving only those that bought under-priced units or inherited units from that player who no longer plays). The assets I have already expended removing the first handful of your mobiles from play has already far exceeded the few mobiles I reported.

Send them to a recently taken c3 and release the country. Only three people have the power to remove them from play. You, me, and the GM.

There's a difference between the GM saying "Keep them, it's your reward for reporting the bug", and deciding to keep them yourself.

You're ridiculous, like I said, you already disposed of them, congratulations to you.

You would believe in my benevolence if I had disposed of them??? How am I supposed to believe in your benevolence since you did not dispose of yours? Oh, I get it, you're benevolent after the fact because you kept them but you now consider it your honorable duty to have taken mine away. Although at the time you declared war on me out of nowhere, you had no idea about anything to do with mobile units other than that I had a lot of them. Wow, so benevolent of you.

I'll put it extremely simply for you, I lost all of the units that were duped and more when you attacked me without any provocation other than either an asset grab or to try to prove that you were better than me at the war game despite the fact I wasn't even active at the time. Either way, I gained nothing in that war and quite the contrary, I not only lost a few thousand mobile units but also 100K+ bombers and fighters each plus all of the ammo to go along with them. So, I'll go ahead and give your suggestion a giant NO and will not address it again.

And Al, the GM never told Aries 'Keep them, it's your reward for reporting the bug' just like they never said that to me after I reported the same bug. We both reported the bug and neither of us got any response and we both kept the units. Because I was aggressively pursuing building huge amounts of mobile units and Aries was focused on econ, there was a large variance in the amount of units we each received (based on what Aries is saying, although I have no evidence either way).

Stick with what you know.

-----------------------------------------
Re: Mobile Unit Duping Bug�
Re: Mobile Unit Duping Bug
Simcountry Gamemaster
Add to contacts
9/03/15
[Keep this message at the top of your inbox]
To: XXX
simcountry.gamemaster@gmail.com
Hi XXX,
The duping bug has been fixed.
I sent you 50GC as a thank you for your assistance. You can also keep the units that resulted from your discovery of the bug.
Regards,
Jonni


----------------------------

Yes, you aggressively pursued exploiting a bug. I did not. You still have the coins. You still have massive numbers of duped professional soldiers and officers. You still have massive numbers of weapons and ammo that were upgraded by the bug that you are simply forming into new mobile units.

also you guys forgetting the fact you lose your country if you lose the war form a attacker i don't like that idea so when you take away war protection for good it make it easier for noobs to lose there country and quiet the game

I'm interested to know what you mean Aries re your 16th March 5.23am post and 17th March 3.38am post re you limited repeating any step to exploit the bug. Do you actually mean you completely stopped repeating any step to exploit the bug, or that you did know of the bug and at that point being aware of it had you exploited it at some point on one or more occasions? It's good that bugs that unscrupulous players use to benefit themselves are reported so that they can't be exploited, it's strange though how the decision to credit you 50GC was made for your assistance and you were also allowed to keep the units as well. A fairer "fix" would have been for you to get the 50GC and for your account to have been put back to the same figures before you'd made the decision to create those units. Only an opinion - no right or wrong, what's done is done and it's past history, but how many more "bugs" are still being exploited that players ARE using to get one over the lesser experienced players or other experienced players that may not be aware of them?

It's messages like the one above my WildStallion that made me quit the game the last time I was playing. Bluntly, it's none of your business what the admins did with regard to another player, and if you have a problem with it, take it to the admins.

Wildstallion, when I encounter a bug, I report it. When I benefited from the bug, I include in the report exactly what I gained and where to find the stuff. I don't continue the bugged activity. It is likely the reason the GM even addressed the units in the email is because I advised where to find the units and fully expected them to be deleted.

Unfortunately, at least 2, and very likely 3, players continually repeated the exploit to create very large numbers of assets. Most of my recent PvP wars have been as a result of trying to contain these players, as the GM has not taken action on all the exploiters.

The General Forum is where things can be discussed openly, in this instance thenewteddy I made the mistake of not messaging Aries directly to just ask what i'd put in my message in the forum. Aries knows I've not got a problem with whatever the GM decided, it's just an opinion which we're all allowed to have. I'm glad thenewteddy you've made the decision to return to the game and wish you all the best. Regards W.S.

At the risk of being called a necro lord, I really want to revive this thread. As per the conversation between Aries and Whiteboy. Not the tangent the last few posts got into.

Unit Simplicity. Having a factor increase is definitely an improvement over the other suggestions I've seen advocating an unlimited number, or one so high as to be the same thing. I think the echelon attack as suggested by another player is superior to this suggestion, however. If this is accompanied by a change in how war levels can be used to determine who can be attacked via war levels, I would support it. It's too easy to reach the current war levels that remove protection, - I think that is a perception that matters. Personally, I'd like to see two different war levels. One for PvE, and one for PvP - and have the second category dictate who can attack who.

Countries not Paintable - this needs to be fixed ASAP. Failure to do so by the GM's is in effect handing long term players who know of these locations an unloseable country. This problem is well over a decade old. It's time.

Defensive Fortications over 150. Regardless of how they got there. (via contracts was stated as an issued to be put on improvements to the war engine on June 2015.) Defensive fortications should have war damage each, of the max divided by 150. Defensive Fortifications over 150 should not be allowed. Allowing them to be built over the maximum allows Zones of Control, which are not breached until the fortifications are destroyed. If the GM's desire a slower game pace in PvP, this can be addressed elsewhere.

Player Power Rankings. I think this would be a great replacement for war level ranking in determing PvP. By all means, keep the levels for GC awards. But add this in as a determination of who can be attacked rather then an arbitrary number which has no relation to any skill set. The rule was changed to promote more PvP, and it has failed disastrously. Time to try something else. Going by power ranking would ensure more equal contests - and perhaps remove the fear of either having to risk losing everything within a few days of start, to the humiliation of being forced to being protected by a small handful of plaayers, who have donated their time and effort to doing the GM's job. While these players deserve our utmost respect and thanks, we simply have no guarantee that this will continue. I'd like to see a double power ranking stat. Per world, and across all worlds.

War College. A lot of games have a quest type system that helps you learn the skills to play the game. I think this is similar, and a good idea. I think the system should be open to all players, not just premium members (with the exception of any goals that specifically require membership, such as taking over a third country.) I think that any advancement in war levels that occur during this training should receive the award as they are earned. Not at the end. I am not sure why a player would forfeit war level protection upon completing the course of instruction. Any awards for the completion of specific events should be tied to both the difficulty of the task, with an eye towards the new player benefits upon log on. I think it is similar. They should be waited toward PvP. Extra units or ammunition, weapon or ammo quality upgrades, perhaps some small populations of low level workers or managers.

Battlegrounds. No country gain at the end. A grace period given to remove assets etc. Selection of Country. Any unpaintable country can be chosen as a Battleground. This would remove it from the player base entirely, as it seems the GM's cannot do so. Instead of having to completely reduce the war index, it need only be reduced to it's maximum capacity. Award more then 10 trillion to make up for the loss of owning the country afterward. Remove the war college degree requirement. If a limit is desired, input a war level or power ranking requirement instead. (and please keep at least one open for us lowbies.)

Natural Resources - I think it's a great idea. Perhaps a two tiered system. Renewable and non-renewable. For the renewable, perhaps a bonus for production etc of certain products or in their quality. For non-renewable, a finite supply. This affects both PvE and PvP. I see no reason to tie war level or protection into this as a requirement. Unless we are stating that this asset can be seized and moved. I'm failing to see why war protection is tied into this as well. This would greatly be to the detriment of Econ only players.

Total War: I tied myself in knots on this the last time I was in SimCountry. Discretion is the better part of valor, and I chose not to make a fool of myself again.

The point I made about using Power Rankings as a determinant instead of war levels goes along with a bit of what Whiteboy said. Games created more worlds, power structures etc to keep the established players happy, while keeping space to entertain the newer/casual player. A lot of things that affect one side, affect the other disproprotinately.

If the community hasn't noticed, I am a little bit of a curmudgeon. I hereby apologize for any offense I have caused or may cause in my posts. My heart is pure, even when my tongue isn't.

Cordially yours,
MNey

On player power rankings: The current restrictions on player combat already create an environment where one feels they are no longer a part of a community of competing nations but more of a single game experience. This is one reason for the fall of the importance of feds and the rise in power of solo players. The state of the game does not lend itself to players feeling they need to invest in the social game and seek the protection of a fed. This is why the social outlets of the game, the chat and the forum, never talk of game politics and rarely speak of superior game strategies. For this reason, new and creative ways to limit PvP combat should be put on hold until a way to bring back the feeling of an immersive world environment is found and preserved.

On War College: The idea is to graduate players to a level of knowledge and provide the resources to get them involved in world affairs. The should be ready to join a fed or maybe even form their own with other friends finding their way through the rewards of the War College.

On Battlegrounds: War College, though doing its best to simulate PvP, cannot replace the experience of facing a real player opponent. Players should complete War College to have a base level of skill before competing against real players. This should also be an activity reserved for players who have committed to join game politics and not be protected by solo/econ game protections. The game already is filled with solo/econ players. These enhancements are to bring back the promise of a real "Massive Multiplayer Online Game" as presented on the sign-on screen.

On Natural Resources: The idea of this is to have something to fight for on the world map. The truth is that in most player war instances, nothing is at stake other than ego. Player wars usually cost far more than anything that can be gained and nothing can be gained in a player war that can't be gained, often more easily, through econ. Natural resources are a stab at changing that. Again, the solo-play econ players don't need additional incentive. Currently, those are the only players that exist.

I can only say after reading this entire thread, I told you so.

the changes?