Suggestions for the GM

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It was far too strong in the past and feds could not be attacked.
now, it is an air force unit supporting you.<!-/Quote-!>

Federation defense always was air units only (interceptors and helicopters).

I never knew a time where a fed could not be attacked. In fact I liked attacking feds and listening to them scream as I stripped their air defense from the entire federation.

However are you telling me now only ONE air unit is going to support an attack on a federation no matter how many countries are in the fed?

And I wasn't talking about attacking defenseless players, I was talking about being able to join in with fed mates. If you decide to attack a fed member then you examine the other members and be prepared to war the whole fed. Isn't that half of what feds are all about?

And I was talking about WL3 and over, so no noob bashing as this was about already WL3 players. SSRCP was right in as much as suggesting that WL differences above WL3 shouldnt matter in a federation, a WL3 could fight a WL11 if the same fed as the original declaree, who must have been WL9 at least to start the war in the first place.

So dont be so hasty next time Andy, read more carefully what was said.

the war level argument is like bashing your head against a well, i've tried it

fighting any one with a standard defense, will result in owning a bombed out country, worthless than the weapons and ammo used to take it over.

"So dont be so hasty next time Andy, read more carefully what was said."

I dout ill get an apology but huh lol.

Thats one i did state Andy.

If i war level 11 and i sign the war dec to defend my allies if my ally is war level 3 and decced by 2 war level 5... WHY? should i not be allowed to defend him? I think when it comes to defs defensiving fighting another enemy it shouldnt matter the only time a higher war level should fight another player of a lower level is when a fed mate is attacked.

You might as well remove war levels because there is no reason to attack newer players, because they have nothing. Even if they have 60 million population you can't do anything with it like transfering to countries within your empire because it affects the whole empire by losing pop in that one country and you cant sell below 60 mil pop, unless that was increased.
The only reason to attack a newer player and "wipe him out" would be if he were an asshat in the forums or chat, in which he would deserve it.
On the same note, don't you think wiping out an experienced player, who spent real years building his empire, only to have it "wiped out", will continue to play by starting over?
Also, the war levels don't really mean anything. A player at war level 11 is not necessarily better than the player at war level 3. How you utilize each weapon and the number of weapons/ammo a player has determines his ability to fight wars.
I understand war levels are here to stay, so loosen the restrictions and have war level 3 can attack or be attacked by any level above war level 3 on all worlds.

Agree but keto you forget in GM theroy more wings means more skill lol

This is the problem. Once you have learnt how to beat one C3 the rest are easy, just maybe a few more shots to fire. No skill whatsoever required.

Of course, PvP is a totally different game. skill, knowledge, whatever you want to call it, is required. So WLs are no measure of war prowess at all. Keto's right about newb protection anyway IMO but I think WLs are here to stay to achieve that end anyway. There can still be room for some adjustment of the rules though.

well, great discussion by the vets.

i consider myself a new player in this game, just about 90 earth days into this game. i have gone to war to learn the warring aspects of the game.

it seems to me that the war aspects of the game isn't much about skills, it's more like how much money do you have to buy weapons and ammos. when you run out of money, then you cannot buy more ammos and weapons to fight your war. my hyphothesis would be that if your country/empire is economically stable (doing well), that means either have lots of money or can manufacutre your own ammo and weapons, then the advantage could be on your side.

i have posted on this forum before that this war level concept does NOT support earth's reality (our human reality). there are 5 worlds, why doesn't w3c make each of the world specialized as i have also posted before. say players who want the war game, go to fb; players who want economic only, go to kb; players who want education only, go to gr; and so on with the worlds. then in a way tie the skills learn from each of the worlds into a central focus.

this concept of having war levels to protect the new players, just back firing in my view. this logic of protecting new players with war levels, seem backward thinking. i'm sure most players play a game because they have friends that play the game; and that the game is fun as well as challenging; with the gm/owner of the game understanding what drives the players to be in the game; and so on with other marketing concepts

besides, i thought Jo posted that if i don't want any of my valuable assets in any of my countries, i could storage them in my account so no one can touch them? there is also the secure mode for players, the war protection booster, and so many other ways to get around wars.

there are feds for players to join as well. i haven't had fed wars, but i do wonder why the countries within a whole fed cannot go to war if any of its member is defending his country/empire? i have said that supporting the defender is the right thing to do if you're a fed member, but supporting an aggressor should be optional. i was also wondering how are the spoils being distributed if the fed members go to war?

there are just too many unclear rules in this game. the game has been out for many earth years, and there are much less than 20,000 presidents in all the 5 worlds, and earth probably has 5 billion humans who could be presidents in this game? compare to the other multiplayers online games out there, sc doesn't seem to be on the radar?

maybe just me, but i am seeing that the gm/owner of this game do act GODdly. i have always said this is a great game with great potentials, so let every player have fun. say if a player wants to buy 5000 c3, why not him/her? what's the harm in that, just means the player is really dedicated to play the game and willing to put his USD where his mouth is.

also there are too many posts that disappear, or too many players disappear from this forum. so long as players are respectful to each other, there is no reason to kick them out, just because their opinions/sayings are not jiving with other players. all the players of this game have this game in common, so let's get everyone to grow this game....

this logic of gm selling c3 for 300 gc just bugs me.

why would players get a country at 300 gc, develop that country up, then sell for less than 300 gc? i've seen a lot of very well developed countries selling for 200 gc.

any person/human with common sense in business operation would not buy a $30 product, then add value to it, then sell it for $20....it' is only in sc, that is the case?

perhaps why doesn't the gm investigate, what are the obstacles to selling countries at higher than the base of 300 gc?

in other online games, i.e. secondlife, don't players make moneys selling their creations?

why isn't sc looking at something like that, instead of having its heads bury into cubicles trying to get the war engine fine tuned, etc?

this post might get deleted too, i suppose it's not in line with their ideology

No reason to delete the text.

The account is disabled.
You cannot have multiple accounts.

WOW new player here, incredible convo, good action. And grrreat comback from the game guru Andy, right? he proved everyone was right just then, account disabled. HA.

Woah. A lot of thread here.

Putter,

one account only!

We disabled one account of the two he had.
the rule is, once you show to be a multi, all accounts are disabled.
so yes, we just disabled one of the two and he can continue playing with a single account.

Grrr...all this help I have been offering xiong (along with keto and others too) just to find he's a multi. I'm a bit pissed off.

Dont expect any more advice from me buddy. Just think yourself lucky the GM didn't disable both your accounts.

Ditto I've given him quite a bit of info to myself Crafty, I hope he dont expect more.

Andy

You know what would be a welcome update.
A monthly mult check.
Every month the GM should conduct such searches and remove mult players on a game wide scale. They get 1 warning after which they are blocked from playing. A big issue people have is with the massive amount of mult/player abuse. How do i know im making a new ally or being swindled? A way to gain player respect and even much needed corporation from the player base could start with this action.

We get daily reports of multiplyers from the system.
this one escaped detection, despite the badly disguised second account.

the error in our procedure will be fixed.
we discovered this one by a coincidence.

a mail and a forum message, from two different players, containing a very strange suggestion we have never seen before in all these years.

andy you said earlier that people who do not want to participate in pvp wars just need to stay under war level 3


couldn't they just stay in secured mode

and if the answer is yes


then what is the real reason for war levels

to level the playing field?


couldn't their be better ways to level the playing field such as basing war levels on actual strength and not ammount of c3s conquered which does not accurately represent army strength or really anything


sorry if I missed anything I didn't read all the posts above

In my opinion taking several C3 shows interest in the war game. If they "suddenly" stop @ level 2 it shows they are exploiting the war levels.

or they could take c3s and stay in secured mode

wrong thread

Boo... "All hell breaks loose"

Want to know how the GM can help war maybe by making it less expensive.

Tanks/Artillery use 35shells per attack. Which is massive because in a single attack you use 70,000 to destroy a target(sometimes it takes 2attacks if its a city/capital in which you use 100,000 shells).

Base Price 226,200 SC$ per shell
Market Price without Quality Effects 134,555 SC$ per shell

70,000shells * 134,555(lowest)= 9.4B (18.8B @ 200Q)
70,000shells * 226,200(base)= 15.8B (31.6B @ 200Q)
70,000shells * 330,000(max)= 23.1B (46.2B @ 200Q)
Thats all at 100Q ammo.(which is bad becuase to destory anything in 1or 2 attacks you (NEED) 200 Q ammo.)
In a C3 you have to destroy 20forts, 10cities, 10factories, 1 capital(Please note people destroy more then this i'm using these numbers as references).
41 targets * 9.4B= 385B

385B is the bare cost(least amount of targets, lowest Q ammo, cheapest prices). In the lowest war level half your income goes to just ammo in tanks/art you still need many more batteries/other ammo types. In the upper war levels you can spend 1T if not more in ammo for them, You still need air to air missiles or anti air missiles but those still cost large amounts. I think the GM needs to relook at the reductions they have made.


You have chosen to build a corporation that will produce Heavy Tank Ammunition.
The maximum production of such a corporation is 51,000 grenades per year.
This corp has 270K people in staffing yet it only makes 51,000 grenades a year.

Your telling me it takes 5people 1 FULL year to make 1 tiny shell?
I thought this was supposed to be a real life simulation game. The numbers and productions prove it isnt. If anything can we atleast get reduced ammo use on weapons(increased accuracy/damage) and more "ammo" production increases?

Very good point super i would also like to see something done with the cost of ammo.

bump

bump in the name of cheaper ammo