W3C - Game News Feb. 6

Dear Crafty,

I have a couple of real life friends who play this game and one work colleague...people that I brought to the game and some I brought back from the past. We will all be pulling our game accounts and leaving Simcountry. Two of my friends have already left.

You state here whatever you must to make yourself feel better for being a bonafide ass and less of a decent man. You KNOW you nitpicked me in chat with that "racist" crap, because your panties were in a wad. You know there was nothing stated that was offensive. You were being a "prick", pardon my language. Well yes, I was angry, because I am not racist, I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds.

Thank you, but I don't choose to ever come back to contribute to this gaming community, after this rapport between you and I. So pat yourself on the back, Martin, for running someone off from the game. You will make a great moderator one day. NOT!

I have talked and played with many of you for years and years and years. You do form ties with people. The thing you didn't get, Crafty, is I actually thought the world of you, held you above all others in the greatest respect, but as so often, what I thought of people and who they are as individuals have ended up being great disappointments here.

Perhaps EO is right. This is a game that you don't make friends and you shouldn't care about anyone here. He even told me.....stop arguing with Wendy, she doesn't "care." Well I don't fit into that genre of people, and if that makes me "depressed" or "mental" or whatever you people wanna call it, well so be it. Then I choose to be that way, because I uphold my principles even in an online game situation.

Sorry I went against the so call forces of your all-powerful game clique here. But I have no qualms for standing up on issues, even if it doesn't make me popular.

So save it, Crafty. Your pathetic attempts to even try to say you care about me, for me to rest, to go get help.......blah blah, I don't buy it.

And to Wendy and those of you, questioning why I haven't already left. I have taken these last two days to obtain contact information of people that I wish to resume contact or a relationship with, thus WHY I have not already left. But after today, my account will be gone, and I will not look back to this game.

Thank you to all of those who sent me ingame messages. You will be greatly missed. I hope you have fun with Simcountry, will continue to play Simcountry. My advice is play the game, and don't get too involved with certain players in this game. Hopefully I will be remembered in a good way. Hopefully this community will learn the lesson of how to play well together for the betterment of the game. As it stands now with "some" players, the game is fighting a losing battle.

Farewell, fellow simmers!

*waves

Lorelei/KissOfDeath/WickedLady/Jan

ok, so, the dude with nukes and stealth, buys and sets up the wings....

the dude with gars. has to buy NDB, NDM, at least 8, preferably 20+, with 50+ missiles, preferably over 80. They need MIB to reduce the stealth effect. They need other batts in the garrison, to abosrb damage, per target. and they need a strong Air defense, to destroy the SB asap, and they need federated air defense, to further reduce the stealth damage.

its lot more work, to defend against nukes, than to use them. thats probably best. but the point is, that the all nuke, or the nuke/stealth combo, when used in "expendable," countries, is much cheaper, than a proper defense. and considerably easier.

then you add to it that the defender, has no option to end the conflict. as they are unable to do enough damage in return, to stop the waves of C3s

Wow. This thread got off topic. Thanks so much guys.

Yeah, bye Lorelei.

Last word here, Old Man. Change your avatar, you are not worthy of the shoe.

I tried to keep it way on topic EO.

Since we are on the topic of war changes.

Lets stop the transferring of hundreds of trillions of dollars in war assets in minutes once a player knows they are going to lose.

Like I want to waste 100T dollars in weapons and ammo to get a country I can't even sell pop in, and the player shifted the assets outs with shuttles as I am destroying forts. There is your real problem to my approach on war. I detest wastefulness. Going after a country is a great big exercise in wastefulness. So yes I agree add the restrictions for countries, and at the same time, lets make the transfer of assets into a country for war one way once declared.

And CC, there is no constant harassment. There is war, and there is war. It takes on many forms. I have not constantly harassed anyone. Especially after many changes. I have not fought with anyone but Steve Ryan, and Jackseptic. 2 players in about the last what? Real Year? Not to mention I actually took one of Jacks real countries.

The point I am about to make has been proven time and time again.

I will adapt to whatever changes are made, they will continue to cry when they cannot deter me from attacking. THAT is the issue. There has been change after change and this war never stops. If they didn't come on here and insult/antagonize,(Super and Josias gave great prime examples) conversations wouldn't devolve into fighting talk, and the whiners wouldn't have to whine when they get what they so clearly ask for.

I would also like to see the stoppage of the falling of armies from the skies. Mobile units are one thing. They are formed with personnel. But as it stands you can just drop units from the sky, and as long as they are destroyed or stored back in the space center, you get a pass on not having the manpower available, something Josias, and Super, and so on are very aware of. No complaints there though. Because it supports their tactics. What a surprise.

Also, lets stop the abuse of blackout periods.

~Make the blackout period across accounts and set from the user profile, not by country.
~Stop the toggling of blackout periods like the toggling of war protection was stopped.
~Make the blackout period times available to the attacker. When implemented, they were never intended to disrupt or prevent wars, but rather to prevent players from being unable to login due to work or sleep from being conquered.


Another very cruel but rarely discussed aspect of the dark side of the war game is gang-style tactics. This behavior has had a very real negative effect on many players past and present. Maybe fights between Presidents need to be one versus one. Maybe federations should be allowed to contributed a very limited federation air response in order to even the odds between players that continuously align themselves and eliminate the possibility of a balanced war between players. Declarations against a counterparty would not be allowed. This in turn would go a long way to curb the behaviors many of those same players are complaining about.

actually, i really don't have much in my Space centers. i might keep ammo, to segregate different quality levels, or if i've decided i want to move something out, and i'm not really sure where to put it yet, i'll leave it in the SC, but not to avoid using manpower, or monthly cost.

that is a feature/bug that i have used in the past, but it kinda defeats much of the purpose of the game, to just stack a ton of stuff in your SC, and avoid the normal upkeep. i don't do that any more. at least not at a scale intended to bypass game restrictions.

so yea, those 2 huge countries on LU, are legit, income, war rank, and everything

Seems like you guys are determined to kill the war game altogether one way or another. Stll, never mind. Its just a shadow of the game I originally learned anyway. Looking forward to a new chat and forum system is the most exciting thing to me. Yay, come on Andy, let us have it.

Well aside from the posts about blackouts, I am just playing along with their newest campaign to throw everything into an advantage for them. I thought it would be necessary to address more than just a single concern.

If we want to start pointing out flaws, there are more serious flaws than c3 warfare, although c3 warfare has been addressed several times in many different ways. It also displays a bit of fear on their part to take a conversation of blackouts and try to drown it out with an old has been had conversation or argument over the ethics of c3 warfare. Really it is not the game that is flawed. It is their knack for turning conversation into fighting words and their inability to use common sense when discussing things. If you insult someone in the game, it is very likely that you may come under attack.

You CC have been a very fine example of how players and myself can totally disagree over any number of issues and never come to weapons being used. This is not the same on their part.

It is even more ironic when Josias or Super have not come under any c3 warfare, one makes the rudest comments that invite war, and the other is trying to bait me to sidestep the barrier that war levels have granted him in order to make a new case for any tactics I use against him.

I have resisted the urge to use these methods against any and everybody. I chose to defend the NLUO and King Hez II but no player is being harassed. The war with Steve ended. I could have super leveled Jack's empire but chose to let up. his countries are intact and in rebuild-able condition. It is really funny because the alternative they argue for is for me to come and completely wipe them out. Which is not only very possible but very likely given my ability and resources. Would they be any happier if that were to happen? No, they would still act the way they do now, except they would not have empires. I'm not sure how that solves the issue other than they are aware of how much it costs and hope that I'll waste a considerable amount of resources with very little upside or incentive for me to risk wasting those resources. Countries are worth nothing when the assets are moved out in a jiffy and you can't sell the population. When am I supposed to fall for that?

Wendy, its like you told me,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

its all a game in your head<!-/Quote-!>

the game that the rest of us are playing, is sim country

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

A player who has more than one country in a single world (called an empire in the game) can have secured mode for one country. The other countries in the empire do not have secured mode and in general, can participate in wars. These countries must make sure they are defended and may be attacked by others.

It is possible to set "Temporary war protection" for each country and prevent war. There are some conditions attached to this function. It is intended for periods when the user is on vacation or not available. Temporary war protection can be extended indefinately by use of boosters.

- From "What is Simcountry?" on the sign up page<!-/Quote-!>

Just the name itself, SimCountry, would lead one to think, "like sim city?" at least thats reaction i get when ever i tell any one about the game. That is, a building game.

Ofcourse every aspect of a country is included in the game. Politics, war, trade, internal development, even space exploration.

how ever, like you said, its all a game in your head. you've bypassed the building part, finding a way to operate with in the game rules, to have the same power base at a fraction of the effort, while taking advantage of players who would play the game, with the assumed theme.

your statement,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

If the feature is intended to avoid war when a president cannot log in, allowing the person to setup the blackout period on and off and off and on, defeats the purpose and the feature is being exploited. -wendy, in this thread<!-/Quote-!>

well, the very theme of that use of black outs, falls more in line of your MO. How ever, it still allows players trying to play according to the actual game, a method to frustrate you.

Where as what you are saying, about black outs, is true. It is very "do as i say, not as i do," of you. and i felt i needed to say something.

"Another very cruel but rarely discussed aspect of the dark side of the war game is gang-style tactics. This behavior has had a very real negative effect on many players past and present. Maybe fights between Presidents need to be one versus one. Maybe federations should be allowed to contributed a very limited federation air response in order to even the odds between players that continuously align themselves and eliminate the possibility of a balanced war between players. Declarations against a counterparty would not be allowed. This in turn would go a long way to curb the behaviors many of those same players are complaining about."
~Wendy

That is one of your most dangerous comments ever.

Implimenting what you advocate would simply allow your C3 tactics to become an unchallenged raid machine. It would allow you to flatten entire federations by picking off unsecured empires, one president at a time, leaving Fedmates completely unable to respond. That, my friend, is a dangerous concept, and one which everyone who has any respect for preserving this game should prevent from happening.

By the way, there is rarely any "ganging up" of one federation versus a single player, unless that person is stupid enough to piss off an entire group of people. If someone wants to cause trouble or declare on a person within a Federation, he or she should be prepared for a retaliation, and that means a full counter-attack by the federation. And if you don't want to be raided by a bad federation, for god's sake, join another Federation to defend yourself. Safety in numbers.

That would be a great idea, Tom, and totally part of the ethos of the game I started playing 7 years ago, if federations actually still worked.

Unfortunately, the implementation of war levels has stymied that for good. Plus, there is no longer a reason for new players to join a federation. They can stay below WL3 and not need any protection, and go into chat or on the forum for advice, and then disappear without having to really engage long-term with other players.

Wendy is right. Those players who wish to predate can stay at WL5 and gang-up on anyone gaining WL3. The vulnerable players (some of whom didn't understand the complexities of the rules and got moved up to WL3 without realising) then have to get to WL8 or 9 before they are safe. The best way for them to be protected, under the current WL system ... and, remember, I know full-well what it's like to be ganged-up on ... is to prevent attacks by more than one player.

How many times have you seen players on this forum say "Meet me one-on-one and we'll have a fight", only for the 'offer' to be turned-down by a gang member? Why would they give up their advantage?

The problem is that the attacker (even on their own, and more-so if it's a gang) still has the advantage. If two-or-more players decide to gang-up against one, they can decide when the declarations take place (meaning any fedmates not in the same branch are behind in counter-declaring by however long it takes for them to realise they need to ... and always providing they are within WL reach), plus the game is weighted in favour of the attacker.

Don't get me wrong. In the old days, if a player behaved unreasonably, the player-base would punish them and that was good. I was part of that myself a long time ago. Unfortunately it got used the wrong way, by bullies and thugs, and the GMs stopped it happening. But it has gone too far the other way.

I'd like to see a return to no secured-mode and no WLs. But it ain't going to happen. So the next logical step is to stop the ganging-up. I can no longer effectively protect my fedmates, so I would far rather they face Wendy on her own, than a group of bullies en masse.

Hugs and respect

Jo

Josias, the game is simcountry, not whiners-r-us, which you do way too much of.

The point I was getting at, is that blackout periods are being abused. I don't have the time to debate your view of an opponents methods. Of course, they are all wrong and you are of course so right. Next...

I'd like to stay on focus: These are practical and reasonable solutions to a problem that attack no player or style of play. Why they would provoke a useless discussion of c3 warfare, leads me to believe it is these same players that are threatened by closing the loopholes in blackouts and they obviously planned to exploit them even further.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

~Make the blackout period across accounts and set from the user profile, not by country.
~Stop the toggling of blackout periods like the toggling of war protection was stopped.
~Make the blackout period times available to the attacker. When implemented, they were never intended to disrupt or prevent wars, but rather to prevent players from being unable to login due to work or sleep from being conquered.<!-/Quote-!>

Tom, you need some time in before I validate you with a response.

The most dangerous statement you've made is by far no comparison.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Blah blah simcountry, blah blah GM. Oh well... come November 1st there will be an alternative.<!-/Quote-!>

Remember that? I do, how did that end up working out for you? Tell dubletar I said hello when you get the chance. As a matter of fact, don't. Other than that, we have nothing to talk about. I'm glad to see you returned to reclaim your newbie status and put it on display for us all.

Nice one Wendy. Your ulterior motive has been exposed and you can't respond or rebutt my point. So what do you do? Say useless stuff. You excel at weak responses.
Furthermore, I wasn't attacking you - I was simply pointing out the obvious motive behind your idea. You read my comment, panicked, and fired back the one thing you thought could offend me, and subsequently brought the integrity of any future debate down with you. Quality stuff. I had hoped for a constructive response, but I guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up. Jo's response is an example of a good response, but you Wendy clearly can't put together a reasoned argument.

Check what I quoted you as saying in my first comment. Its pretty clear why you want those changes to the war game purely out of self-interest, but obviously the truth wouldn't stick with the majority of the population. So... you lied. You cloaked your idea behind the idea of "fairness", and didn't in any way, shape or form, acknowledge the possibility that your idea might be abused. Which it can be. And will be.

I do, however, agree that blackout periods should be done account-wide, rather than by individual countries.

Jo, great response. I understand why such rules could benefit the player base. But I also fear that, as I have said multiple times, it would be abused. Whatever system the GM decides to do - go with Wendy's idea or keep the current system - will be abused. I think the current set-up is the lesser of two evils.

This is why, in my opinion, the GMs need to fix Federations fast. Make them the centre of the game again. The War Level system is here to stay, but Federations haven't been integrated at all. This needs to change. I don't know how exactly, but then again I don't have an influence on the development of this game. W3C does, and in my opinion they need to pay attention to the federation part of the game.

Been saying it for years now, WL's dont work, but I have a suggestion. 2 servers types, just like in some of the most successful games on the net. PVP and PVE. (Player vs Player and Player vs Enviroment). 2 totaly differnt servers based on this game but differnt rules. Eco's rules and the war monger rules. One always in safe mode the other never in safe mode. Problem solved and we actualy see whos the best, in either case. Every one happy and no one saying... well... and if.... play to fight or play to make coin. Or both, if you are able to.

I can only gusse where the biggest feds would reside...

There are two main points stick out to me in this thread. Both put most clearly by Jo.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Unfortunately, the implementation of war levels has stymied that for good. Plus, there is no longer a reason for new players to join a federation. They can stay below WL3 and not need any protection, and go into chat or on the forum for advice, and then disappear without having to really engage long-term with other players. <!-/Quote-!>

and

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In the old days, if a player behaved unreasonably, the player-base would punish them and that was good.<!-/Quote-!>

So yeah, the erosion of federation function is a downer. The ability of feds to be able to defend their members regardless of WL should be looked at again. I have yet to hear an arguement highlighting any possible abuse of this. If a fed member gets decced on, then the entire fed should be able to respond fully. The potential attacker should think about what fed his target is in. This is how it always was, and there was more community. Now, its too solo.

My opinion for what it's worth.

The abuse with war levels and feds goes both ways. If the argument is that higher levels should separate from lower levels, then no you shouldn't have higher levels being able to declare on lower levels. Also, I have always seen a huge problem with free accounts and players under war levels participating in fed air defense. In the case of say Madoff, who has accumulated 130Trillion in cash, if a player like himself decided to contribute that sum to fed air defense, that in no way benefits the war game. Federation or not. You have no direct way to confront those wings, just his/her ability to continue to replenish them repeatedly.

Tom you are yesterday +1 day. Give me 6 months of continuous dedicated play and I'll acknowledge you and not a moment sooner. Just because I won't give you a rebuttal doesn't mean I cannot. You know why and only time will deal with that. In your case that will be 178 more days

There is a great point for 1 versus 1 scenario as well as a case to reference.

~First of all, the idea eliminates gang-style federation play altogether.

~Feds should still be able to supply an ally with a limited air defense, say 50 wings worth of air defense per allies player. All would agree, that is a healthy sum. If a player has 5 allies, then he would get up to 250 wings of free air defense in the case of war provided these players setup near each other. 250 wings are more than enough. Which would preserve some meaning and purpose for feds.

_________________

With these things in mind. Case in point. Super makes a very bold statement that I only declare on noobs. I setup near him, and then he moves into war protection.

Jackseptic also begins making weird science statements about me on the forum. I beckon to his call, and he moves up 2 war levels as well.

There is an unprecedented era of peace that follows. Super even goes so far to drop his war protection given the security that moving to higher war levels has provided him.

Discussion on blackouts takes place, again Super and his comments get him back in a situation where he has to put on war protection.

The point here is that there is the idea being floated that there is some harassment of some kind going on for my part. There is little truth to this false information as demonstrated above. All instances of potential conflict are clearly a result of cause and effect. When you use fighting words, you may end up in a fight. This is the game.

You see Josias baiting several posts above in response to my bringing the blackout issue to the floor. If I were to move up the war levels and begin fighting him, would this be harassment? Gaz has vowed to fight me indefinitely, and has found it as a reason to "not quit the game". If I were to begin flattening his empire as I could, would this too be considered a case of harassment? No. All is a result of cause and effect. the notion that all actions on my part are for no rhyme or reason is absurd.

________________________________

In the case of SkyWalker. I declared on Jack due to his positioning his c3 empire on the doorstep of my country along with Gaz, Josias, Scarlet and others. The NLUO situation hit a head for me and it was time for action. I declare on Jack, Skywalker returns declarations. I have to take that player seriously as a threat to what I am going to accomplish and I had to conquer him. If there was a bit of one versus one, this would not have been necessary.

The one versus one scenario makes sense because given how long some players have been in the game, a canyon will always exist between newbie player and veteran. Each player would still have the assistance of their federations but not the ability of stronger players to pave the way of conquering an enemy for weaker members of their federations.

The whole idea of higher levels attacking lower levels has been floated before and the motive of that suggestion is as clear as day. Super is happy gang banging newbs all day but won't fight qualified opponents even with the help of his fedmates, as noted in the case of me setting up a single main country on his border.

In my idea, the only way to keep those who wish to play in the NLUO from coming under attack from Hydra members en mass where possible is to force them all up the war levels to a place where they cannot attack NLUO members who come from under war level 2 to 3.

So if you see me pressuring these players at level 4 or 5 you should already know why. All of them are super capable too. So it is a fight, not a harassment. This is proven time and time again. The assertion of such an idea is absurd altogether and those making it know this 100%.

But you just acknowledged me? LOL.

That's about it really. See you in 6.

Don't mention that(simnations) here anymore. Unless you intend to tell us the mistake you made assuming the grass would be greener on the other side.

And don't edit the part about simnations out so quickly :S

Hahaha I decided that part was too harsh. We're supposed to be civil, after all. I'm surprised you saw that... I edited it so quick.

I'll admit, I'm a sucker for anything too good to be true. I'm like the fat kid in Willy Wonka.