What Simcountry Needs.

What does Simcountry Need?

(Note: Whenever you see a word with these “ � around it. You are actually seeing quotation marks, for some reason they still show up as these weird icons. Just subtract the a on each side to make sense of the word)

I have played this game far too much over the years. Although I have officially quit twice, I always end up coming back for one reason or another. This time, I had been keeping up on the changes being made to the game and decided that they were progressive enough (in the sense that they helped remedy frustrations I previously had held towards the games mechanics) to give Simcountry another try. Specifically, the change that restricts each country to only being able to fight one C3 war at a time. Before such a change a player could declare an infinite amount of WL1 wars at a single time and expand their empire as far as they wished while still being guaranteed War Protection from all other players. There are still technically ways around this ( A player declares their first war, takes over that country, then declares 2 WL2 wars (one with each nation they own) but I believe this is a massive step in the right direction. Therefore, if a player truly wishes to expand into Empire Status militarily, it is much more likely they will also have to plan for the possibility of war with another player. Such speculation leads to interactions with potential allies, federations forming, and a game that feels much more alive. So of course, good job developers. It is also quite a positive thing that the GMs are looking into the war game and are trying to make it less tedious by expanding unit size and lowering the costs of militaries. This, along with working on making countries more profitable are stepping stones towards making Simcountry more engaging to larger audiences.There is, however, still a problem that can be easily addressed. One thing I have noticed is that the developers are working hard to ensure that smaller players can become more competitive against established empires. Which, by all means, is a decent move if one is trying ensure the retention of newer players. One thing I believe all of us who regularly play Simcountry understand is that there are literally thousands upon thousands of ghost town countries that people have quit playing only a few days into joining the game. I think we can all agree that having more players active within our worlds would drastically improve the experience. I believe that, although these changes are generally positive, they may also directly discourage new players in a way. First off, if any new player attempts to grow beyond 3 countries (which I believe many players aspire to) they are to become instantly vulnerable to the massive giants. Who, despite any mechanical advantages the developers give to the newer player, could easily run them over without breaking a sweat. These players, or I should say most of these players, have within their arsenals 10 plus years of weapons stores built up. Remember, you do not have to play for that long to acquire such massive stores of wealth and power. You simply have to target an old inactive dying empire and raid their stockpiles. I have done it, my friends have done it, and I know for sure that some of the leading war fighters of this age have done it. This leaves a gap in ability so wide, that I highly doubt most who have not seen the now ancient “account� page (the one that tallied up all assets of a player), could even comprehend. Now, do not doubt for a second that I blame these players for being smart and tactical about how they play the game. Nor do I believe that anything should be done to curb these player’s assets. I have nothing but respect for people like Natural Adder who have won what must be 30+ pvp wars. But, I do believe that any attempts by the GM to level the playing field between smaller, newer nations and the literal giants of the solar system are quite futile in the current state of the game.
What then is to be done? Well, we give the players a new world. Now, I can only guess how disappointed the devs were when Crimson One turned out to be a flop. I believe the reason for this is simple, no one wants to play on a world that is inevitably going to be reset. I know for sure I was interested in the idea of a new war world until I found out it was going to be reset at the end of the season. Both I, (my good friend) Stannis, and many of my fed mates did not want to build a temporary empire on new planet.Simcountry is a game where you build empires, empires meant to last. It takes considerable effort to forge a nation you can be proud of in this game, effort that no one wants to see vanish into the wind. This being said, this new world should take on an aspect of Crimson One that I believe is necessary.Put it in a different solar system, one that does not connect to the current one in any way (in other words, no space travel between this world and the others). A fresh start, give the players a world that these newer positive mechanics I mentioned above can be given room to breathe and grown into their own. Such a disconnected “New World� (especially if newer players, upon the creation of their accounts, are trafficked towards it) would also make the game feel much more alive because it would be far less decentralized than the current player base which is effectively spread across 5 planets. A more centralized playerbase feels much more alive and healthy, which should assist in player retention. While you are at it, this is not exactly a necessary aspect but I think it would help keep the game alive, design this world with a lot more smaller islands and interesting continent shapes. Give the players a reason to try an coorden off certain sections of a region because they want their empire to look cool on a map. The mechanics being implemented into the game right now have the perfect potential to unleash a new era in Simcountry.This way, veteran players not interested in a new world can keep their empires but those like myself wishing for a younger world where history is still yet to be forged can reignite their passion for the game. There are those, like me, who feel as if the game has been stagnating over the years. I truly believe that a “New World� and “Fresh Start� would reinvigorate the love many older players, both active and those who have moved on,have for this game. While at the same time providing fresh proving grounds on a presumably active, healthy world with unlimited potential for newer players yet to fall in love with the game. Here is hoping.

Porter9634,

Aren't new players already protected from veterans by the war level system? You have to be a similar war level to attack a player, so veterans can't just simply hit a new empire, as soon as it reaches war level three.

Wouldn't creating a new world just further decentralise the player base? Spreading us across six worlds instead of five? I agree that we are too thinly spread, and that it would be better if we could all interact on the same world. Unfortunately though, we don't have any way to merge worlds (yet?), so we're stuck with having to be spread across all five.

Signed President of DanNation on LU

Hi Dan,
1)
/Aren't new players already protected from veterans by the war level system?/
-The answer is no, take Natural Adder as an example. it is quite arguable that he has been the most proactive war fighter recently. Winning 9 pvp wars on WG this season. He is still at WL3 on that planet. I know for sure that back when I had my old empire it was a strategy to keep lower war levels specifically to snipe inactive accounts that are less risky to take. He also has 3 wars won on LU (WL5, still within range of 3), and 5 on FB (WL5 again). It would also be very easy for someone with an empire on FB to colonize a country on LU (on LU their war level will be reset to 0,which can easily be brought to 3) and they can freely send weapons from their massive empires over to assist in pvp wars against other lower war levels.So no, new players are not necessarily protected from veterans by the war level system.
2)
/Wouldn't creating a new world just further decentralise the player base?/
-Perhaps I did not make this clear in the original post.I stated /Such a disconnected �New World� (especially if newer players, upon the creation of their accounts, are trafficked towards it) would also make the game feel much more alive/. Large emphasis on trafficking new accounts to the new world. Then instead of spreading new players across the 5 worlds when they create their accounts, they would be hypothetically redirected towards the fresh start world. Therefore giving them the impression of a much more centralized world and game.

Porter9634,

1). True, those are valid points. Although I don't know if there is really much we can do to fix that? Short of removing PvP entirely. Richer/larger/older empires are always going to have an advantage.

2). If all the new players are funnelled to a new world. Then there will be no one new coming to the existing worlds. Existing players aren't just going to abandon years of work to move to the new world. Ultimately, given time, the new world would reach a similar position to the current ones. However, then there would be 6 worlds instead of 5, and even fewer players per world. Whats more, the existing worlds would suffer greatly by being deprived of new players. Ultimately, if the current worlds were starved of new players long enough, we could then see long term players quit, because all their years of work was left stuck on a dead world.

The intention is good, but implemented like that, it would be a disaster.

Signed President of DanNation on LU

I think the point being made by Porter is that conditions on older worlds stunt growth for new players looking to take chances. They would need a leveled playing field. If not, only the risk averse, new players survive instead of being devoured by predator countries looking for low hanging fruit.
Piranhas don't eat each other, they wait for something that can't swim.

Porter, am I close

-Yes Khome that sounds about right in essence.

-Dan
1)
/Although I don't know if there is really much we can do to fix that?/
-Well my proposal does just that. You are correct in asserting that Richer/larger/older empires are always going to have an advantage. That is one of the major points I attempted to argue in the original post.Perhaps I did not make it clear but I am struggling to comprehend why you believe that a New World would not be a solution to negating all of the /richer,larger, older empires from the equation on that world?For at least a few years things would be relatively parallel. Of course I understand that empires will also grow on this world as well given time, but it will be years before any of them reach the same status of power that many in the 5 worlds have today. If, lets say, 5 years from now players from the New World wish to join the other 5 planets in the Solar System. Then we should probably let them.
2)
-I agree with your point here. Forcing new players to come to the new world will probably hurt the old world planets. Even though it can be argued that they more or less feel dead even right now. This being said, I never thought that new players should be absolutely forced to play on the new world when I used the word /trafficked/ but I understand that a lack of articulation on my part may have made it seem so.To your initial concerns, I believe that players creating new accounts should be given the two options. Option 1: The Original 5 Worlds (with a short summary of the pros and cons of playing on it). Option 2: The New World (also with a short summary of the pros and cons of playing on it).
3)
/Existing players aren't just going to abandon years of work to move to the new world/
-That is the beauty of it. They do not have to. Whoever wants to, can.

Great post. Well thought out. I will have to read it again (or two) as there is a lot there -lol.
But I think that is a great idea a new world for new players. Instead of a war world have a new player world. Speaking first hand as I have three older (tho small) empires on three of the worlds, I would not be inclined to go to this new world as I am happy and slowly expanding my empires on the other worlds.
To go a bit further to (listening to what others have posted over the years) -do away with war levels and also war protection. That will get players talking and communicating again and will make federations that much more relevant.

@Dan - I am not too sure I would want all the players to interact on one world. I like the current game of five (possibly and hopefully six) worlds. I have seen some pretty nasty and mean players over the years and was always thankful that they were on another world then the one I was playing on. There's an old saying -best not to have all your eggs in one basket (or in this case world).

@Dan -the point basically is simcountry needs new players period. And also player interaction and communication. Just within the past couple months I have finally seen the player base grow. (from 5800 to over 7200). Still needs to grow more but its on the right track and I think Porter's idea will help the base grow even more as it will spread by word of mouth. One player tells his friends of this exciting new game he just joined. Then they join and so on and so forth. Also once a new player establishes themselves on the new world there should be nothing from preventing them from establishing a country or empire on the other older (5) worlds.

It would be nice if all the worlds could just be merged into one world. Im not sure if that is even a possibility server side, but it would make things more populated.

@John
Honestly, I would not be opposed to such a thing. You are right when saying it would make things appear to be more alive. Whether or not it is possible, idk. I believe that the New World idea would be the most viable solution for creating at least one centralized world when things appear to be more active.

I would love to see an active world!! With war included ofcourse!!

I heard something about crimson one I believe name was. Which was a war world that many didnt sign up for? I am newly back to the game and missed that

But I love the idea of a world opening and lasting say 100 years and see who wins it. Then repeat with a brand new world

Brilliant idea. I for one would enjoy burning the heretics and cleansing the unclean in a single world. Maybe bring back a use for Federations.

I will do some reading here later this week and respond.

I would prefer the current format of five (or possibly six) worlds, as I have countries and enterprises on all five worlds. If the decision however is made to move to one (or two) worlds solely then I would expect (as would other players in my situation with multiple countries and enterprises on the other worlds) to be fully compensated.
I feel moving from the current format of five worlds to just one world would be a mess. Which world would become the one world? Who would decide this? This would also entail a lot of work on the part of the GM's as it would involve massive programming. For the five worlds!

@Johans Bilderberg - It is your country(s) that is filled with heretics and unbelievers and should be fully purged and cleansed. Perhaps a lesson needs to be taught. And federations are already in use (if you know how to manage them).

Michael,
I believe he was referring to combining the worlds making a super planet. Technically no one would need to be compensated for anything. Although I am not fully opposed to this I believe that the concept of the New World, as presented in my original post, is far simpler and more effective route to take to ensure the stability of the game in the future.

Fellow players and to the GM,

I would like to weigh in as a long time player. This is long winded, but I ask that you read this with an open mind. This account has been here since Aug-09(I did have an account before this one) so I speak as a player with 10+ years of experience.

The issue players have had with the war levels had ---NOTHING--- to do with the war levels themselves, but with the side effects they caused. Andy will tell you in the past I was probably one of the most VOCAL advocates against the war levels which lead to me and the GM getting into heated arguments(which lead to me being forum banned a few times).

I fully understand and respect that "Vets" shouldnt be able to attack noobs, HOWEVER, the war levels solved a small problem and created a much bigger issue.

You see when I was a new player(pre-war levels) I did what most new players do. They come in run their mouths, make enemies, and with a few nukes feel like they are invincible. This lead to my ENTIRE(3 countries) empire on FB being taken over by SirSmokesAlot, after which I relocated to LU did the same thing and got my ass handed to me by Blueserpent. What happened after that was Blueseperent reached out to me and helped me grow my empire(he become a mentor) word spread after that and I quickly become friends with Blue, Sirsmokesalot, and dozens of other players.
The ability to use war as a bridge to make friends and allies is what the game ---WAS--- about.

When you joined Simcounty in the old days you had 21 days of war protection after that you where fed to the -WOLVES-. You either built a giant military, joined a strong fed, or you become very diplomatic to the people in your region.

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

Long story short you where forced to engage. The issue with the war levels is that you are not FORCED to engage! This lack of engagement is what has over the years eroded and destroyed what a lot of players feel was a good game. It was the threat of war that caused the game to grow.

As an example on LU only 13 players out of 881 players are war level 3 or higher.
799 players are war level 0
64 players are war level 1
5 players are war level 2
13 players are war level 3 to war level 14

What does that statement say about the game? You have 868 players in just war level 0-2 with no threats, no reason to reach out, or advance in the game!

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

In my opinion, to fix the game the GM has to take a real look at themselves and the player base and make some hard changes. These are just my opinion.

#1- War levels 1 and 2 must be vulnerable to attack. This will massively stimulate the war game in terms of federation creation, communication, and player collaboration. On FB once you become war level 1 you should be vulnerable to the entire planet. Any other world you follow the current safeguards meaning that only war levels 1-4 can fight each other meaning that players can still grow and evolve without the fear of "smurfs"

#2- Increase safeguards. I suggest that once a player wins a PVP a war of equal or greater war level they automatically move up. This prevents some players from sitting at lower levels and creates a forced, but natural level of movement meaning that as a player wins wars they are scaled up creating a ever evolving level system.

#3- Military Corporations should tied to war levels not game levels. Weapons corporations are the most productive and profitable corporations in the game and should be treated as such. War levels should be required to build these corps and not game levels. For example,

All defensive corps require war level 1
All offensive corps require war level 2
All strategic corps require war level 3

This give a player a reason to grow their empire, give them a reason to chase the money, and allows again a state of progression...

Again this is just my 2 cents on the topic

I disagree about war levels 1 and 2. Free members are too restricted in their population and empire size to be able to afford enough corps to build a military that can compete with premium members who can have populations over 60 million per country. You would discourage many players to quit rather than always trying to fight wars they can't afford to support. There are worlds where wars can be fought if the costs of building a military was cheaper and the war system was simpler. LU should remain the way it is. Premium members could move those other worlds if they wished to engage in wars. Personally I don't care for the current war system, but I do enjoy the economic side of the game.

I agree so much super soldier. I feel like we actually get a lot of new players here in Simcountry, but they all end up leaving fairly soon because there is no one to talk to. interaction starts when people attack eachother. the threat of attack also makes you log on more often to check on your assets. I think its fairly obvious that this is the reason the game is failing. im so surprised the GM ignores the main reason for all the problems.

I also agree in principle. That is one reason I praise the idea that only a few C3 wars will now lead to players participating in the wargame in the original post.The problem is that many have asked for similiar in the past and extreme changes are rarely implemented by the GM. I assume this is because they do not wish to alienate players who are already reliant on these mechanics to avoid the war game. That being said, I once again beleive that the concept of the NewWorld is the perfect inbetween. Implementing policy similiar to that proposed by SuperSoldier would be much more fluid if done so in a fresh start world, disconnected from the others. That way those who object are content and those who wish to participate can.