Ignoring the OBVIOUS (White Giant)

dammit Messiah. Didn't you ever see Beetlejuice?

wtf? how have "ignoring the obvious" turned into *wendy vs everyone*?

/me shakes head


Since I have the time let me babble on my fav subject.


In every online game - which had elements of economy and warfare - I played, starting players were provided with starting virtual piece of land - "resources" and means of adding some value to them - "workers".

Using "resources", "workers" and basic economic principles known from the so called real world players, with more or less success, either expand - over a period of time - their virtual lands, or virtual workforce, or produce virtual money, or combination.

So far so good? Lets see what happens next.

In every online game - which had elements of economy and warfare - I played, players start with X and end up with X + Y.

Now, in a game where virtual assets remain virtual, where there is no way to exchange them for assets real, the added value Y is of no concern for the GM. It remains a meaningless number, usually used to compare performance of players playing the game. However, in a game where the added value Y can be actually cashed out, when it becomes a number of meaningful ~ real value, its of great concern of the GM.

Why? Simply because of the begging question: Who will pay for the added value Y? Who will exchange it for .. cash?

This is the biggest illusion of this game. The illusion that everyone - players and the GM - can win = everyone can make money.

If that was so, if it was possible for everyone to win, the politicians and economists in Davos wouldn't have to babble about packages, plans and measures they gonna come up with to help shrinking economies around the world with intention of battling the biggest nightmare of every economy = unemployment, as they simply could send everyone to play ... Simcountry.

Recession? Depression? Worry not, play Simcountry!


Who cares if "quality" has any meaning or use? Who cares if the economic model is just an illusion? Of course it is since its .. virtual. It works on basic economic principles and if people like playing the game theres no problem. The problem is that not everyone can win and someone has to lose.

Now rise your hand who wanna lose... real cash?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

...doesn't mean you have a right to discourage others to play the game.<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

[I]m entitled to voice my opinion here as much as anyone else.<!-/Quote-!>

Could you please reconcile these two quotes, Wendy? You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 04:04 am Click here to edit this post Boo!! is that better, quit yer bitchin and play the friggin game.

"ADAPT OR MOVE ON." SC SLOGAN 2009

I hope that helps with your constipation T

LoL

I'll do as I please TYVM. This isn't YOUR thread or YOUR forum. To think you own a thread is very naive of you. Speaking of being all that is left, I thought you were leaving the game? Guess not, it figures. . . I called you on that too. You won't leave but your objective is too happily discourage as many others as possible from playing. Right.

"Its like you all are trying to get some revenge on w3c because of your inability to make enourmous amounts of gc and get rich off a game."

Thats how I feel about your anti game-growth ramblings, and I am right. Its tiresome and boring already.

So T you will cry and cry, but crying wolf too many times means no one will listen.

"ADAPT OR MOVE ON."~SC SLOGAN 2009 (Quoted by two very good vets and possibly THE best and then there is me of course)

T I hear X - Lax helps constipation if the first solution didn't. Proly wouldn't be such a bad idea to go easy on those bananas.

Do you have nothing better to do than troll these boards Wendy? Everything up to and including the first adapt and move on comment was (relatively) useful and contributory. You made your point. Why do you continue to post?

Why shouldn't we, as players, have input into this game? Yes, adapt to changes, but are we not the people whom the game makers should be tapping to get feedback and ideas? If something is wrong, should we not be letting them know?

Hell, you are so annoying I can't even really fault Treasurer for calling you a bitch. Not sure exactly how the rules work, but accurately describing someone like he has should not be considered any violation at all.

I agree with Wendy. We shouldn't discourage others from playing the game. Let them make up their minds about it themselves. There is an introductory period that allows them to do that for free. We are still here, so it must be worth the $4 a month to us. Furthermore, what troubles vets about the game isn't necessarily going to have the same affect on new players.

That said, it isn't wrong to give new players a realistic preview of the game if they want it. It should be done with a degree of discernment.

Also, a bitch is a female dog. Wendy is not a female dog, so that is not an accurate description, Archangel. It's a pejorative, plain and simple. We should continue calling her a bitch knowing the full implications and risk involved.

And FarmerBob is one hip old geezer. I wish all old people were more like him.

And Wendy, you are overly concerned about Treasurer's regularity. Mind your own BMs.

BC

LMAO BC

If Wendy has the right to troll as she sees fit, then the other game users have the same right in relation to what they say to possible new players.

Frankly, given W3's attitude towards the established playerbase, I'm surprised the veterans aren't trying to organise a boycott.

I will continue to dissuade others from playing this game for as long as W3 continue to ignore good advice and suggestions.

Boycott .. last time I remember someone called for .. boycott I and few others ended up quitting the game, while those "simcity" kind of players, those who hold they "investments" dear, and those who live in denial, or in other words majority stayed, bent over, adjusted and life went on.

All been done and failed. There was also SC terrorist, else mentioned player called Silver, who tried to fight W3C over some game related issues. And what happens to terrorists? They get banned.

So ...

"If Wendy has the right to troll as she sees fit, then the other game users have the same right in relation to what they say to possible new players."

Katt, Rights are given and taken away by the GMs. Seems to me that you were the one leading the charge when Treasurer lost his right to the forums. So we have little stand to use "rights" to justify our arguements.

Besides, this isn't about rights. This is about how we SHOULD behave. What we OUGHT to do. It's all a matter of opinion, but I think we are all pretty reasonable here. Is discouraging people to play how we ought to behave?

And by the way, don't take this as a defense of Wendy. We just agree on this issue, which has become comepltely off the original topic. Sorry T.

BC

Bids up T, 50 gc each, what do you say?

Yay !!

You know T we couldbe much better friends if you tried to play a bit nicer

Well, I'm sorry to see you go Treasurer. It is unfair that you, and others, have been affected this way. You guys can't be replaced.

Good luck. I hope to see you around.

BC

The word bitch has many definitions, only one of which is female dog. It can, is, and should be used in the pejorative sense to describe Wendy there BC. You should know better than to only take one line out of the dictionary and not expect to get called on it.

I do not see any problems whatsoever as to someone telling new players problems with the game. Think of it as a consumer advocacy service.

Archangel you could apply it to yourself as well. No one is going out of their way to label you as such though.

If you have a problem you know what to do.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Katt, Rights are given and taken away by the GMs. Seems to me that you were the one leading the charge when Treasurer lost his right to the forums. So we have little stand to use "rights" to justify our arguements.

Besides, this isn't about rights. This is about how we SHOULD behave. What we OUGHT to do. It's all a matter of opinion, but I think we are all pretty reasonable here. Is discouraging people to play how we ought to behave?

And by the way, don't take this as a defense of Wendy. We just agree on this issue, which has become comepltely off the original topic. Sorry T.

BC<!-/Quote-!>

No, the ability is given and taken at the GM's whim. But my right - my inalienable right to express myself - is not given or taken by any man, woman or entity beyond my own mind.

As for how we SHOULD behave, well, that is - as you say - a matter of opinion. Personally, if I knew a car was faulty I would dissuade others from using it. The same is true of this game.

If a new player asks for my help, advice or opinion, I will be honest. I will tell them exactly what my experience has taught me of this game. If you see that as a dissuasion... Well, that is more a reflection upon the state of the game than of my rendition of events.

I remember when players like Treasurer were new. I remember the enthusiasm, the eager thrill to play the game, to enjoy it, to become great at it. To be able to build up something of value, monetary or sentimental, over the course of real years and enjoy doing so.

That was the beauty of SC. It was open-ended. It had practically no limits.

Now, I see the vice-like grip of the game gods willingly and deliberately strangling what little life remains from this game. I see players desperately trying to hold on to what is not so much an investment in money as an investment in time and heart. And I reguarly watch in unbridled horror as the GMs trample over that with not even a backwards glance.

Yes, we piss, we whinge and we moan. But that is because this game has, does or did mean a lot to us. And every day the GMs seem to relish the very act of depriving us the fruits of our labour.

The bottom line is that we want this game to be fun and successful as much as, if not more than the GMs, simply because we are the consumers purchasing the service. What the GMs reguarly fail to notice is that we know this game as more than just code. We play it. And if they were to truly do the same, they would maybe understand. And then, just maybe, they would listen.

But you and I both know this will not happen. Somewhere along the line W3's attitude has changed. And the result is to drive those who know best how to help them away.

"Personally, if I knew a car was faulty I would dissuade others from using it. The same is true of this game." ?????

You wouldn't look very intelligent or sincere while driving the same car yourself.

Theres always the hope that it's just a fuel blockage that will clear it's self if you keep the rev's up

But if it's still stuttering when you give it to someone else, why would'nt you warn them about the problem?

The problem here is the age old love of money, that of the Gamemaster. The GM seems to have believed that waving profit in people's faces would bring in more players which in turn feeds their profit and their own love for money. To secure their own beloved profits they must make sure that nobody's tapping the pool to any significant amount which means your empire must not prosper too much.

This was an error. It's a game, not a job or a casino.

Instead of punishing the GM how about politely addressing the root of the problem which is appealing to greed to get new players involved.

in many states in the US there are lemon laws to protect buyers from purchasing cars that are well lemons
there is no buy at your own risk
everything should have a disclaimer somewhere
and when buying a house the seller MUST state EVERYTHING that is wrong with the house or they are responsible for repairing even after sale.
(yes i know you can sell a house "as is") but there are still ways around that if you know certain laws.
but that is in the US and this is not a US game so the GM's can do whatever they want.
No matter how right you might be, if you quit you lose and they win. If everyone would concentrate on economics and not war simplayers wouldnt be giving all those GC back to the game for cash to spend on weapons when they should be giving the GC back just to keep their empires active.. no need for the VISA swipe!
Take away the Games visa warriors and you take the power back into the hands of the Players.
help bring back the power T, we need all the help we can get.

If the GM wants to make more money from the game, why not just raise the membership fees instead of destroying the game from within?

I'd much rather pay a somewhat higher monthly fee to play Simcountry with a stable economic engine, than pay the current rate to have ingame profits nerfed by unannounced stealth caps on trade strategies.

If the GM keeps going the way he does now, my membership expires 19 October, should he REALLY expect me to renew? I have NEVER cashed out, but eight months is a loooooong time for me to start accumulating GC to do just that.

Especially given that my empire is already pre-extended through 13 October and my CEOs through May. I've already spent a lot of those GC in advance. More than enough time to make them back.

If the GM does away with GC for cash then every reason to limit your prosperity is removed.

Think of any Electronic Arts online game, do they give kick backs to entice new players? How many people do you know who cash out in World of Warcraft? People who do, do it on Ebay. There is no reason for the World of Warcraft to limit your levels because you never reduce their bottom line by doing well in the game.

It is insane to have the people doing well in the game reducing the profitability of the game. It leads to exactly what you see, efforts to restrict profitability. It looks childish, ridiculous and the whole concept was a bad idea.

Gamemaster sir, not everyone is on their knees worshiping the almighty Euro/Dollar how about running this game the same way the successful online games are run? We will play with out your carrot being hung in our faces. (the carrot is always designed not to be eaten of course) We see you dangling a carrot and we find the means to keep us from it, well, rude.

The irony is that the players and the GM have common interest.

Players want to have fun, and are willing to pay a reasonable price for it, and the GM wants to get paid for the service provided. If both sides get what they want, they are happy, and business grows. More players, more revenues for the GM, more the GM can offer back to the players in form of features and improvements. In such situation everyone can win as all have a common goal or interest.

If other games can manage this, why cannot Simcountry? The recipe is not that complicated.

Indeed, if it was possible to cash out a virtual character in the World of Warcraft from the GM, Blizzard or whoever runs the business for them, would have to worry a lot about players gaining levels, virtual gear, currency, mounts and whatnot, coz they be in constant danger of going bust.

Lets find common interest, not conflicting interest.