The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

No the changes, on many levels are good. The lower active number of players cloud that. Many unhappy older players, who drove a large portion of the action have stepped back. There have been few able 'and' willing to fill the gap. This doesn't mean the changes are all good or bad, but ultimately for the better. A balance of indefinite war level protection vs progression to pvp levels has surprisingly been achieved in my absence. And perhaps that absence was necessary to see it through.

My comments were geared toward an observation I made within the initial wave of Aries' problem/reaction/solution series. The sentiment being thoroughly seconded by other players throughout the thread. As in ~The changes you(Aries) suggests strikingly have a clearly placed self benefit neatly tucked into them behind a veil of improvement or protectionism or advancement of x,y, z.

There were some great points and counter-points made. I'm just troubled that through most of the initial posts, Aries made a significant effort to completely ignore counter arguments(detailed, valid and compelling btw) and deflected the conversation back to players addressing his suggestions rather than acknowledging the core issue. The argument as it progressed here is moot however, these same infinite circles of illogical suggestion have been had before and for example led us to war levels. The newest version of which, has flaws yet is far superior to the initial introduction.

Not to get too deep into it, but yeah. Too many of these self benefit suggestions are camouflaged with white-knight like intentions. It is at the point of suggestion itself where naturally everyone reading should begin to suspiciously and objectively examine the motive and potential outcomes of any proposed changes, period. If the suggestion is valid, everyone BUT the author of the suggestion should vet it out, not the author. If it is indeed good, and well intended, the author need not defend his position at all. The suggestion alone will defend itself when placed under objective(<-- KeyWord) scrutiny from other players to be affected by said change.

Naturally, these things should be voted on through the polls system, or in the suggestions section. But they frequently with great uproar end up here in the general. Where the spiral of logic within posts devolves to sim-character assassination and the good points are drowned out among the pointless posts that have nearly nothing to do with the original post. That too, is a well observed practice in many other threads of suggestions by the original author. This occurs when a well crafted logical suggestion is met with an even greater logic. *Thinking* -"If you get on my suggestion threads making sense with logic I can't counter, we will move into why you aren't qualified to be in the conversation." Either you use questionable tactics(i.e. Wendy as referenced) or you took your assets 'dishonestly' and so forth. That's nonsense and utterly useless to the thread imo.
Then we get what happened with the rest of the 45-50 remaining posts. Noted. But as Nate Diaz would say..., "I ain't surprised mo*explitive*rs."

What possible self-benefit for me exists in these changes? Honestly, I already have all the stuff I need. The suggestions were all geared towards new players having an easier progression to gaining the knowledge, motivation, and resources to participate in PvP, fixing a few game issues that are obvious to everyone, and fixing a problem with managing units in high-level PvP wars.

For my part, I have done about all I could for some time towards reviving the war game portion of the game. I was a consistent presence in chat, offering advise to all players with no bias and I published a number of guides on the forum. Many of the suggestions I made was based on feedback from the players I would talk to. I also tried to glorify how fun PvP can be by posting a number of stats and stories from actual PvP wars, see "The Battle of Camp Foxtrot" or "First Day Stats: Lucky vs. Aries" on the FB forum or "Operation Complete" on the LU forum. I even offered to sponsor competition between players, see "Sign up for War Games. Win up to $20 Trillion" on the General Forum. I have had some successes. Several new players over the past few years have acquired considerable resources and knowledge of the game.

I have seen your recent posts and read your blog. I wish you luck in shaking things up and hope you are successful in making things more interesting. The social game is lacking and I believe that reviving interest in the war game is the key to changing the game experience from a solo-play one to the immersive experience it should be. If there is anything I can help with let me know.

Aries, first of all, I wish you health above and beyond all other things.

Somewhere in the first few posts, the original player countering your ideas explained much better than I will, point by point what changes would benefit the class of players to which you belong. I couldn't have done a better job of making the case, and short of making references and quoting snippets of previous posts, my effort to rehash it plainly ends there.

I have been on a number of your previous posts throughout the years and mentioned the same thing nearly every time. The changes benefit you. More generally your class of player, a class that I used to belong to. In some important instances, the changes suggested that were eventually implemented in the name of

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

geared towards new players having an easier progression to gaining the knowledge, motivation, <--read *White-Knighting*<!-/Quote-!>

actually protected this class of mega-rich players and nearly shut the door for new entrants.

Case in point, two of perhaps your legacy achievements. Ending c3 raiding, and devaluing the gc to cash ratio.

Ending raiding of c3s. While you somehow in the shortest time possible appeared from nearly nowhere(when you started), gained a mega account with mega resources (I know you put a lot of work into it too, don't fall over), then went on to champion the one change that would essentially stop any newer player who desired to gain a meaningful amount of assets(in relation to your/my assets) with a bit of diligent c3 raiding. To put this in econ terms. This makes no economic sense, unless of course, you are a mega player and don't need this feature because you already have so many assets.

It's a carbon copy scenario with the gc rate. When the gms began moving the rate down to something like 200B per coin, you made a huge post about how you think it should be even lower, even less than 100B. There too, I objected and stated the same thing. This ONLY benefits those of the mega class. If I have nearly a quad or several quadrillions of cash at my disposal, I don't need to worry about exchanging more of my coins, for progressively smaller sums of money every time I log into the game. See how that only benefited players like us? I'm sure you did then, and I know you do now. I also know without question you are going to defend it to the death, however it may appear and if it contradicts the reality created by it. So we shouldn't go back and forth over it. I already objected to these things, and the reasoning behind it.

Making my way back around to the topic at hand. The player at the top of the thread with you, explained to you more coherently than I ever will exactly what your proposal would do. I'll quote it if I must, but people can and should read if they find themselves interested. Scroll up. His/her arguments were sound and valid. Even more valid when they are viewed through his eyes and position in the game. You disagree and refuse to address his points from a view other than your own mega class-view, if you did at all. This is a problem to have such a narrow view.

Suggestions should be made no doubt. But the merits of those suggestions should be debated by objective 3rd parties. There is a track record of these suggestions benefiting a class of players if not you yourself. You are aware of how small that class size is and is becoming.

I can roll down this hill with older war level suggestions, the quality of weapons and ammo and more. But why?

I know without question you have tried to ignite a war game. I only ever questioned your motives. I also don't like how you did WB. At all. If you had any bug problems you noticed, that should have been the end of all the wars right there. Especially since he was willing to put up a fight, not complain publicly or diminish your gains. He actually played it out the exact opposite of how I would have. No posting, no hard feelings, no forum banter. Yet you still went on to take the rest of what you could from him. It is never a good fight you have been looking for. It's assets. You'll say you have so much and you didn't need his stuff. But if this were true, why do it after the first victory? It is plain.

I want a good fight. I asked for a battle royale world years ago. Because players like you, set up, you had the numbers, you took something. New players think this is some measure of skill or greatness. I read it endlessly. "Aries is a war God." Perhaps in mythology, but not in this simulation. Aries is a nickname. I know without question, in a match setup with even numbers and no "tricks", "gags", "exploits" or whatever else we can call them, I wipe the floor with you 99 out of 100 times. Players like Whiteboy, wipe the floor with you 99.9 out of 90 times. This game is set up to make the war index move to zero, but that is just numbers and more importantly preparedness. Skills and tactics actually factor in less than ammo quality.

It took me a long time to get to that point, forgive me. I want you to heal up. It'll take me some time to get some meaningful things going. I started completely over. I want you to take care of yourself above all things Aries. I am a little crazy but I am human. If you want to help me I would greatly appreciate it. We can balance our Sim-Karma together. Start suggesting the battle royal world/platform. No space centers, just weapons, skills, and tactics. No prestige or account size to hide inconsistencies. Just straight up pvp risk free or friendly wagers. They do pay attention to your suggestions, suggest that.

Well said Wendy.

As a returning player I haven't found any new possibilities with the new changes Aries pushed for. In fact in the six years since I left the game has stagnated.

Raiding C3's and inactive's for population and money was the only free way to grow an empire. Now that path is gone.

Sad that the days of great world wars are gone, the fact that federations are basically useless, and player interaction is so low.

I assume that we can either change with the times or become extinct.

Sam.

I don't Always agree with aries or the changes he proposes but you've got to give him some credit. He's helped more new players (including me) then a LOT of other people over the years.

Did he do it to benefit himself? I doubt it but even if he did he still deserves respect for all his hard work.

I didn't change how c3 raiding worked, the GM did. I did message and post about how easy and unbalanced it was to gain game cash compared to actual country/empire building. The effort to actually build a worthwhile empire was not rewarded on the same level as following a simple guide. Some changes were made but there are still substantial rewards to be gained by completing trivial wars with the computer. See "The Path of a Warrior-Aries" post I made on the Beginner's forum where I document how some $78 Trillion in cash and 640 coins can be gained post-changes.

I don't recall a post about changing the exchange rate for coins with the GM for game cash. I can say that I had worked to make it easier for players to get more game cash for the coins through player trades in electric power. See my post "Get $180 Billion per Coin" on the general forum. I do believe that it should be up to players to offer a better deal on exchanges than the GM does. Direct and Space trades should be meaningful and highlighted above dealings with the GM.

On the suggestions, I will give you some time and see if you have your own solutions for reviving the war game. I feel I have tried all I could but have been mostly inactive in recent months. Keep in mind, the interest you have thus far on FB from players is from players I consider my allies. Players I have given advise in the past to and fought wars together with. In particular, you have more to learn from Zen and Zentrino than they have to learn from you.

On the war with Whiteboy, you are simply wrong on the facts. I took nothing from Whiteboy. We fired at each other for 24 hours and no countries were taken. A draw was reached when after heavy amounts of weapons were lost on both sides, my 35 million pop country's war score was effected by casualties more than his 300 million pop country. We both had the weapons to continue but I had no stable base any longer and for his part he was having difficulty painting my map, as he had no direct access to it by ground. Neither of us "wiped the floor" with anyone. More details on the war can be found on WBs forum post "WBs last fight" on the general forum and since that war, WB has been in WP since.

My two most recent opponents, Whiteboy and Blackeyes, both would not question my skills at the war game let alone my allies. I don't feel I need to prove myself to you, considering I was getting the better of you when you had the mega-assets and I didn't. Since my goal is to expand the game to include more war players, I would be more impressed if you could pass on whatever knowledge and tactics you have to two of your own recruits and have them compete against Zen and Zentrino. I will offer a substantial reward to the winners of a fair contest.

Johanas: Did you try my simply guide to gain some $78 Trillion and 640 coins by beating on the computer? Why don't you try some econ as well and build a profitable empire?

Thanks Let Sie, I appreciate it.

LetSie what is in question is the track record and consequences of changes that have been proposed by Aries. Not him helping or not helping. Honestly, his sainthood and everyone else' lack of ethical actions are not on the table at all. There are more than enough players falling to their knees to praise Aries and his benevolent guide-making. They are very useful to new players. Many of them should also have a publishing trademark - "Brought to you by Aries, who suggested the changes that made the need for this guide." I also lost whatever point you were trying to make in relation to my post. Not purposely, it might have been due to how far off-topic your comment was, I can't be certain either way.

No I didn't try your guide and I am already profitable ,but that is neither here nor there.

I miss crushing my sim enemies, driving them before me, and hearing the lametation of their women.

Also I dispute anyone ever got the better of Wendy. We fought wars on multiple worlds for real months. I would never claim to have gotten the best of her.

Aries...

I know you didn't change anything. You fear mongered the entire newbie population into war level conversation threads, which you either started or hijacked.

The GM wanted changes because threads like those, which in many cases completely skewed my activities were a primary driver. With new and semi new players dying in fear thinking if they didn't have war levels Wendy would come along and soak up whatever they had so painstakingly clicked into existence. With multiple threads and posts like this which skew reality of course, no you didn't change anything.

Its a FACT, my riches in this game were acquired economically. Like nearly 90% of them or more. I know that is hard to understand, because you make guides and give advice, not listen much. Yes I raided inactives. Yes I even warred with many people, even newer ones. What was the result? Stuart, Homer, more and more I cannot name went on to become active members in powerful feds capable of developing them into real players. No one ever left this game because I ever took everything they worked for. I rarely took anyone's countries ever. Look at the war threads. Link them. People constantly posted about how I didn't take anything. I only prided myself on trashing countries of stronger players or groups of players mainly in Historically Legendary feds who's ranks included the who's who of all time fighters to grace the game. In maybe more than 95% of all wars I was severely outnumbered by fighters far superior to my assets and true war abilities.

Unlike you, I fought my wars at a disadvantage. You are not a warlord. You have participated in the war-game, no doubt. The ONLY reason you can be mentioned on the topic of war was due to quality changes in weapons and ammo space transfers. You had prepared yourself with higher quality air units which I never cared to. Do you really have yourself convinced you ever got the better of me? I had enough gold coins in my account to keep the country I let you attack on LU. I had the conversation with 4 or 5 other players and your exercise proved the entire conversation's point. We concluded that war is now an exercise in futility and asset wasting was a way to reel assets back in to the game from mega players. I had over 100K ints and 60K helos and countless millions of ammo. They were all 300q. what an incredible waste. What makes you think I couldn't have wiped you right back out if I so chose to use the mega assets you assume were so much larger than your own? I could have easily, I am certain. I likely could have done it with not a single mobile unit. It may have taken some time and a few wars but it's just numbers and I am Wendy bruh... get real.

This is the type of conversation that is unnecessary and unproductive. You can believe you got the best of me, or you can think I let myself see how many attacks it would take 450q air wings to take down a crapload of 300q air wings. I know its a lot. I only need to open some old notepads and find out. It was a few hundred Trillion sc$ experiment but the data ensures me your saving grace was quality enhancements, a newly added feature championed by who!!! Who!!! Am I an owl or was it Aries? (<--- Trick question)

If we could both be afforded a fresh country, filled with necessary weapons and ammo, no quirks, no glitches, a clean war... If you beat me I would gladly give you your due credit. I wouldn't want to let letsie and the other's who believe in you down. Sadly that server doesn't exist yet. But it will if you start suggesting it. Maybe it's the way you layout the requests or how you present it. Just give the suggestion the way I asked clean. The confusion between skill vs willing to choke up coins on "thousands" of mobile units will quickly be made clear. I hope your next post or thread is the framework for the battle world/server suggestion.

On WB's last fight, it is my understanding, perhaps the way the thread ends is misleading. The first fight between you was a 'draw'. Then near the end, you declared again. The somebody ended the thread with some snarky remark implying you gained whatever it was you declared on. Perhaps you could post the ending on it to make sure there is no room for confusion. Did you end up following through with the war or not?

I lost where we are going on war levels. I thought the original discussion was on gaining wealth through endless low-level c3 raiding, which was changed and I advocated. The existence of war levels came about at a time I wasn't playing Simcountry, before I started this account. The ability to take countries for war positioning in the new system was preserved by the ability to take countries at war level 3, regardless of whether you are at a higher war level. That change was my suggestion and preserved your preferred way to war. I am not sure what points or counter-points you are saying I made, "fear-mongering" and such. When I first made this account you had me confused with someone else. Perhaps this is still the case?

On quality, I am a bit confused where you are going here too. I played long ago, when the game was new, starting up a bit before White Giant came out and moved there to start over fresh when it was released. I then took over a 10 year break from the game until 12-2012. When I came back, the whole quality thing was new to me and was one of many new systems I had to learn. I was never there to champion a change related to quality and not sure how whatever issues you had in managing your mega-stocks compared to my newbie account relates to a handicap in our wars to follow.

How did we get to how you made your account riches? I really don't care. 99% of my account wealth is through econ. I started as an econ player and learned the war game to protect my stuff. Like you claim to do, all my wars have been against the most capable opponents around. I seem to remember you declaring war on my empire as soon as you realized I was out of war protection though. By your post, I must have been a "stronger player" some 5 months after I made my account.

On the WB war, this is why you shouldn't try to make points on stuff you don't know about. At the conclusion of the "draw" WB went into WP on FB and created countries on LU to threaten my empire there. As he was building up those LU countries I declared war on them as they left war level protection. In retaliation, he declared war on my FB countries with some small countries while his mains stayed in WP. The result of that war was that I wiped out his new LU countries, of very low value, as WB says on that thread, and WB messaged me that he would not be warring me on FB either. This was a forgettable war for me. I simply ended the threat to my empire on LU and consider our last real conflict, as WB would too, to be the draw.

Again, I feel I have no need to prove my prowess in war. If I much teach you a lesson directly, I will attempt to make it costly for you. I am more interested in helping you generate more general interest in the war game though I still believe some of the suggestions to begin this thread to be the best way to do that. In my view, if you feel there is another way, I am ready to help and be impressed.

Johanas: Because she gave you trouble, no one can handle her in war?

That isn't how the WB's last fight thread ends. Why not just link or quote the latest messages. You do that well.

I wouldn't have anything to prove either if I were aware of a different outcome other than winning. Just sayin.

I'm down to help the game with you as well. Regardless of a future conflict. But I will be clear, you have no interest in a level conflict because we are both aware of your ability to do math and you know why you got the best of me lol. As for any demonstration of skills other than spending gc on pro soldiers for thousands of mobile units, it remains to be seen. I would like to see it, if its skill indeed, or just a bunch of mobile units. I already know the answer to that, as you do. But the public needs to know. Is the hype about either of us really real?

The other points about war levels and stuff go back to you justifying war levels using me as an excuse or at least the main case. There are numerous threads on that too.

I said that the last battle with Whiteboy is forgettable. Why would I post about it? I can only think about posting about wars if I need to engage in politics or am trying to make wars interesting, by providing stats and things. That war didn't apply.

The math I remember is that my account was about 5 months old when I started defeating you despite your mega-stocks. Fighting from c3/useless countries is just about your trademark around here but I managed to take some important countries when you neglected WP. Fort TNA was the biggest battle but the country that I kept as Camp Victory was the most valuable.

Another correction. The last few wars I was vastly outnumbered in professional soldiers and mobile units. Whiteboy had over 10 times the mobile units and pros that I did. I have had to have a strategy for this type of conflict for some time. If I simply tried to compete mobile unit for mobile unit, the last two players I fought would have achieved easy victories. Is this the related to the "math" you were talking about?

On war levels, you are going to have to clarify what you are talking about and what your position is. For my part, I have been suggesting things to loosen war levels a little for years, including a few suggestions at the top of this thread and I have suggested elsewhere to remove war levels from the "war" world.

Utter blasphemy. You are running circles around yourself. You declared on WB again after the stalemate. Did you follow through or not? I read the thread that is what is there to read.

Who cares, my case is already plain.

I could dig up the threads on you and your suggestion, but I find watching water come to boil a far greater use of my time. I'll save my eyes for old age.

I don't have to clarify something that is already transparent from the top of the topic to the bottom. You continually suggest and champion changes that solidify your class.

By this point we are so far off topic, no surprise. We get away from what is plain and begin rewriting history, contradicting ourselves and each other. I know you need some time but you have very little to lose from a fair battle on a level playing field other than your title of "God of War" to the Queen of c3 Battle. I understand how that may seem important but it would really confirm or deny these rumors you have seemingly earned. Imagine someone in a 5 month old account mysteriously beating a years long mega-rich player as you state. The idea of it escapes even basic logic. It's not that you are good it's that no one cares to expend the figures on mobile warfare needed to expose the shenanigans.

Make the suggestion and move on. You are right on one point, you do have nothing to prove. Only something to lose. Even if it is a facetious title. I wish this were implemented while I was gone, would be really cool to get this underway already.

To return to the original discussion, or some facsimile of it.

Why not split the war levels completely? Have one for sims only for the econ minded player, and one for only pvp for those who enjoy the full game?

You'd have to fight 4 wars against a player of the appropriate level in order to advance your war level for the full game.

And no matter how many wars against a sim led country you fought, you would never be forced up in war level beyond 1 for pvp, even on Fearless Blue. There are other mechanics at work there.

(I'm not a fan of the endless C3 raiding at lower levels. That has a finite threshold. Once the game gets more popular, it will start spiraling down. Just due to the mechanics to return the conquered to the game as a target)

That should satisfy both sides, no? Someone mentioned world of warcraft in one of these threads. As a long time player of that game, let me say something about the pvp there. It's by choice. There are servers that are PvP - but you do not have to play on them, nor visit them. Just like on here there is no mandatory requirement to go on Fearless Blue. The only other places to go into pvp would be similar to the suggestions of Aries above.(battlegrounds,arenas, and skirmished that you have to queue up for. Duels that you have to accept to participate in.) And limited strictly to them. And thats in a game where you lose only the time spent participating or ranking. You don't lose any kind of loot.

When it comes to it in the end, any suggestion that a player who is only playing the peaceful game should have to participate in PvP isn't going to work. The only suggestion along that route that would is to completely remove the peaceful only option in the game. And instead of a lot of players hiding at lower war levels, I think you'd just see a mass exodus from the game.

Thinking of warcraft, going to offer one suggestion. Something they came up with, when not enough folks were participating in a battleground to make it viable to play. The lower side received a buff upping their power ratio to put them back into near contention with the more numerous side. How that would work here would be off something akin to your power levels. If you go up against someone 1 power rank above you, your combat output would double. Double the casualties inflicted, half of what would normally be received.

As I said, something akin to the power levels you described. The only meaningful measure would be the actual number of military units and their quality. The rest only describes a capability of putting power into the field. Not that it has been.

I am not a fan of boosting the weaker player. Why would I spend money buying high quality weapons and spend time and resources upgrading units if my opponent is going to be rewarded with a force nearly identical to mine? That would seem to encourage new weak players to attack seasoned players. What would they have to lose except the forces given to them freely by the game?
If something like this were done, it would have to consider who attacked whom. If a strong player attacks a weak player, than maybe I could see an argument for that. But if some weak player with 50T in military assets attacks me, I would not be happy if the game just gave him several 100Ts of weapons to make it "fair."

Wendy's post is just not comprehensible at this point.

Marshal: None of my suggestions push any peaceful player into PvP. The econ-only option already exists in the game and is well protected by numerous game systems that my suggestions do not change. The suggestions I offered simply are options a player can choose to deliberately enter the war game. From your post, I cannot understand your objection to a particular suggestion.

As far as leveling the playing field, my suggestions address that as well, by offering a tutorial of PvP, of sorts, before facing an actual player. They also offer resources for such a player to get started. Beyond that, players should interact and engage in politics to seek a level playing field with any potential opponent. Not rely on some game system to make a fair 1 on 1 battle. The game is not and should not solely be based on balancing a 1 on 1 battle. It is supposed to be a "massively multiplayer" experience. Make friends. Join feds.

The most exciting parts of Simcountry history are about clashes of feds where even newer, smaller, empires can have an important role to play. Regardless of the amount of forces I have at my disposal, the presence of another set of eyes on the war situation, the other set of hands at a keyboard, can still have much value. After a simple adequate number of resources is reached, skill becomes a more important factor than adding more resources to a player.

Beyond that, Zentrino brings up other important points. Another consideration is that an important components of PvP is the capture of countries and their associated assets, including military. The game adding forces to a side would be exploitable in this way. A change of "combat output" would introduce its own set of problems.

Power rankings was a suggestion to show a true gauge of the top players in Simcountry free of world bonds, which are easily broken, and score penalties. The idea is to aspire to higher levels of a "truer" power measurement as motivation beyond world rankings, that don't fulfill this purpose. Power rankings are not meant to handicap wars, reversing the motivation to reach the higher tiers.

They should just. Remove the country cap for free players. No more no less.

There are tons of rewards for paying members. And paying members will still have a huge advantage. But as long as I can conquer 100 countries without ever having to go to war against a player because there is simply enough space there will never be real tension.

In all other online war games, space, not resources is the limiting factor. Everybody can, with some time and effort, get enough resources. And yes even YOU can get those 10.000 mobile units if you really want to. It's the amount of provinces somebody can or can't control that makes all the difference. If free players can control more countries you'll get a natural tension and wars will be fought.

The empire building mechanics in this game are enough of a barrier to prevent everybody from running 30 countries. It's the most simple and effective way to make people more active. It works for the other 99% of war games out there so why not here?

As a side note, I'm really against artificially pumping people. That seems just bad...

You comprehend just fine.

For the record, a large class of previously actively game-engaged players were not pleased with war levels. I was among them. However the way they are now, is just fine, and I am totally satisfied with their evolution. Protection is offered, with a clear path up the ranks. Forcing a player to face tougher c3s and ultimately a pvp war. This is ideal.

However to test Marshal's theory, I think he is onto something. Fearless Blue should be as-is yet all out war. There should be no protections there at all. It is after all, "The" war world. On the opposite end of that, perhaps a single world can be set apart for ONLY peaceful play. Kebir Blue maybe. Nothing war like ever happens there and that is historically valid for about a real-time decade. Wouldn't you agree. W3 can and should track the participation rates of these worlds and get a true sense of what their players want. The default when you start should be to drop players on 1 of the 3 traditional worlds and then track where they migrate to.

As far as the space issue. Without imposing limits and being too intrusive, why not just limit space transfers to empire to empire on the same world? Weapons and good can and should be purchased in space for transfer to any world. However, good originating from a world economy should stay present in that world. So if I have a space center on LU packed with 500T of military hardware and ammo, it should be transferred to any country within my empire on LU. Why should it be available to my White Giant Empire? This will also curtail universal powerhousing, and level the playing field somewhat for new entrants to the war game. This actually makes more sense than I previously imagined. Heh. The mobile units should be the ONLY units that should be available to move off-planet for use anywhere in the galaxy. That is why they are mobile units, no? I know the space aspect was intended to increase trade between the worlds, but the game itself is simply not in a robust state to realize any benefit from this. This unnecessarily exaggerates the advantage of superpowers to the detriment of newer players.

The one flaw that is obvious with war levels is the abuse of sub war level presidents participating in air defense in a PVP war. This makes no sense. If you are under a pvp war level, you should not be participating in a PVP war, even on defense. I know it is costly to the defender, but it is more costly to the offense when these defensive air units are constantly replenished and or reformed yet cannot be destroyed.

I will say this in opposition to separation of the game entirely. The truly peaceful game is offered. It is the enterprise game. There is no realistic situation where a government can run a country without the aspect of defense of the homeland and potentially offensive wars to protect their interests. A realistic medium would be to test the extremes out. Peaceful mode on KB where it exists by default oddly enough. Prewar level SC on Fearless Blue where the mode should exist by default.

And Aries... I'll tell you like LG told JohnFire, "Don't be Coy, Scarlett!"

On unlimited countries for free members: I think you have a misunderstanding on how assets are obtained. Several players do have dozens of countries out there but they do no better than players who run a few very good countries. In fact, the top players run no more than 2-10 very good econ countries.

Several other issues are that the war game does not handle well wars encompassing many countries. It takes time to take each country, which is why fighting from just several trash countries can be effective, let alone an empire of some dozens. Lastly, this change makes it more difficult to monitor multi-play and other cheating activity. Limiting certain paid features, such as the country limit, to paid members helps the GM in that it limits the damage that one, or a number, of new free accounts can do if the GM does not act quickly to enforce game rules.


On no war levels on FB: I have repeatedly suggested that FB have no war levels. The "war" world is a joke. 21 days protection is already offered when you start on the world.


On a peaceful world: They are all peaceful right now. Is any change really needed to add more peace?


On limiting space transfers to within one world: This defies the promise of space. This is a non-starter for most players and the GM. Nice try though.


On limiting air defense for low war level players: A change only effecting them is uneven compared to the ability of higher war level players simply basing the same air wings from secured mode countries, countries they threw temporary war protection on, or simply a newly conquered c3 country on the eve of war. That player can easily have as many countries as they choose that are not involved in the current war to base their wings. No different from the lower war level player.

Overall, I dislike this change because it is unnecessary and is counter-intuitive to what the game needs. Larger, active feds of players that each have something to contribute.


Hey look. I commented on specific ideas. The trend on this thread is that my suggestions are overly generalized by posters, often in a why that is totally inaccurate. It is as if most responders didn't even read them.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On limiting space transfers to within one world: This defies the promise of space. This is a non-starter for most players and the GM. Nice try though.<!-/Quote-!>

Well thank you for the view of someone who would entirely benefit from being able to swing assets from planet to planet. Again, a major benefit of players with huge accounts not afforded to those without. One should not be able to swing assets so easily to a world where they have not put the time or work in. This benefits players like us Aries, who regardless of our start, will endeavor to become ever larger. Not every player has the time or the ambition to compete on 4 or 5 worlds. Some only have the time to maintain a single empire on a single world.

It wasn't a nice try, it's common sense. Again, your objection to this is that it limits your ability to project yourself asymmetrically to whatever world you desire to war on. A very self centered view. And keeping with the current theme, (In my Nate Diaz voice)" I'm not surprised M***********S.

Changing it would help others compete. I will be space bound and asset rich no doubt, in time. But not everyone will, and certainly not those just starting to learn the game much less attempting play war at a competitive level.

You should really abandon the narrow view when discussing these things. It doesn't exactly come across as genuine input, it looks rather selfish. Although this is a good survival instinct in the real world, this is a simulation. It is a game, you maybe have one of the top 5 positions in the game from what I read, you can have some concessions in a discussion. Or is it that important to you?

This would only limit your 'power' to planets you choose to not place the bulk of your military assets. Not take from you in any way. Besides, if you want to play as a superpower on a world, should you not have adequate assets on that one world? Being able to produce wares and ammo on 3 or more planets only ensures that no newer player will be in a position to defend themselves adequately from you much less pose a challenge offensively. So why the objections?

It doesn't defy anything. The only thing that defies logic is how someone could transfer hundreds of trillions of not just ammunition but weapons in a matter of minutes. That defies the promise of a 'realistic simulation', something this game is actually based on. While it is not realistic in every way, this aspect has to be the most unrealistic and serves just a narrow sliver of the total players present and active.

If not removing altogether, limits on military should no question be imposed to create balance. If you can't admit that you can dismiss yourself from any rational conversation about space and weapon ammo transfer.

I am at least the second player of note to mention the need for at least 'some' measure of controls. Going with common sense, the war game got on just fine without space transfer of weapons. The space feature was introduced as a way to promote 'trade', but has become incredibly lopsided to high asset wielding players transferring an enormous amount of military in just minutes in a time of war.

Currently, there is no technology that can lift 100,000 interceptors or fighter planes to the next planet in any fashion whatsoever. Keep in mind these planets I thought were located in their own star systems.vWe are talking about only minutes Perhaps the planet bio's changed I haven't read them in years?

Imagine how someone can be so against raiding because of Helicopter Money in C3's yet be such a strong advocate of throwing real life months of military production into a war zone on an entirely different planet. One example actually happens in the real world, meaning money is printed out of thin air. The lightest of items aren't even transported to the moon regularly. Your line of reasoning escapes anyone with a brain. Nice try though?

Yes, nice try. It wont happen.

Space is available to everyone and is not expensive. Over 1500 shuttles are on direct trade, starting at .16 gold coins each. Having a powerful interstellar empire is a game motivation. Something that many players work towards and is readily achievable, as my "Path of a Warrior" guide outlines. The game needs more motivation and stuff to achieve, not less. Further, weakening the inter-connectivity between worlds would further damage the already lacking social and political game.

Lastly, it is counter-intuitive. Imagine new player after new player starting in a Sim-galaxy that offers space and runs into these limitations. Docs would need to be updated and take great pains to explain such a limitation. Even then, it would make no sense, generating much confusion among players. Such a change would create many problems and attempt to solve an issue that doesn't need solving. Yes, some players achieve stuff. Get over it and play the game.

Aww, you mad bro? I keep making all this sense lol. Tough pill I know.

Wow. How can I argue with that? You win. gosh gee.

Like war levels, the initial implementation needed some tweaking and a refined product has emerged. Same thing with space. I know you can't agree, you need to protect your position. No worries though. I am certain you'll feel the same sooner or later. The shoe goes on the other foot from time to time.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Imagine how someone can be so against raiding because of Helicopter Money in C3's yet be such a strong advocate of throwing real life months of military production into a war zone on an entirely different planet. One example actually happens in the real world, meaning money is printed out of thin air. The lightest of items aren't even transported to the moon regularly. Your line of reasoning escapes anyone with a brain. Nice try though?<!-/Quote-!>

It has nothing to do with protecting "my position". Removing the ability to create an interstellar empire removes a primary motivation in Simcountry. A motivation to be premium is to setup on multiple worlds and achieve this. The GM will not make a change to curtail a primary motivation to be premium and players with not put up with such a low ceiling on advancement just so some type of "balance" can be reached in your eyes. Never going to happen.