WHAT GAMERS WANT IN THIS GAME

Appreciate ToeCutter & Orbiters understanding how "mental" one must be to do any of that esp these days.

The game is stuck in 2005? it has not kept pace or made any attempt to stand out, and because of this Simcountry lost time and destroyed their dreamof building a loyal interested playerbase. We're all that's left... a war between any of us would collapse the game for good.

I feel sorry for the team, but... it is what it is.

Orbiter:
Your idea for limiting the number of attacks is great. Stretching out a war would help players with time constraints and add sanity.

I also agree that military logistics need automation. As you said: "the same set of fighters would not be dismantled, recreated, launched, dismantled, recreated, launched... "

To increase automation, I've suggested a reactivation of the old feature of shooting from bases. That feature mostly automated military logistics, and it would give players an alternative to using the fly-by-night units.

i like most the ideas up lintel you said war well i'm okay with it if i knew my opponent was but i don't want t lose my country if i lose an war they need to change that

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In my experience, back and forth wars are very rare. I have not been involved in one and I cannot recall one that I have watched. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

what do you think would happen, if their was more active and aggressive war players, just like you?

when i was wanting to get into the war game, originally, i did a little fighting in grand battle, but i joined late, and it was over before i really did anything. at the time, being ready to actually pop my war cherry, i set up on an unsuspecting player. i declared war, and ended up with "every one" on LU declaring war on me. (This is one of the things that in the past destroyed the war game.) That player, i found out later, handed over their account info to one of the best war players at the time, and what i thought was going to be a low level learning experience, nearly became a huge embarrassment.

initially, i began my assault, then noticed, that the other guy wasn't shooting back at me the same way. but instead shooting at my offensive air. nearly wiped my offensive capacity. but i caught on fast enough, and adjusted, the other player asked for period of "non-agression" while they couldn't be at the computer. i agreed, but felt that it was just a ruse to re-arm, and broke the treaty.

that was the event that caused black outs to be added to the game.

Aries, the war game, that you are trying to resurrect, is nothing like the experience you've described.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

and as your pointing out, a #1 war ranked country falling in 3 hours... think about what a newb has to look forward to.

spending months, and years, working on something, just to fall in a matter of hours... if you step back and think about it, just how appealing is that? for you, yes, but you can take the evidence that they are very, very, very, few players like you, that it really isn't that appealing.

the other options, is days of endless clicking. creating "practice," scenarios, might be nice, the war game itself, needs to be more appealing to more players, rather than a handful of very intense players.

another way to put it, and i can say it, because it did apply to me, you need to the war game to appeal to more than those that are "mentally ill,"

madoff, myself, not playing the war game, i'd offer, that i would rather not see the war game less sophisticated. and attacking from bases, seems a simplified version of what we have now

my thought of removing the attack button, and automating attacks, would allow some "maneuverability," i'd add that their should be stacking limits, and facing concerns. with that, it create the need to create strong battle lines, and tactics of overwhelming the other guy in one location, while taking the risk of losing ground some where else. make it more like a automated, time based, chess game. you create general orders of targeting preferences, and give moving directions, and the individual unit commanders follow out their orders as best they can.

this, i think would play well with the "country resources," and "partial victories," features that have been on the GM wish list for a long time. The defense would of course make their stand around the richest resources, and the offense would of course concentrate on assaulting and flanking those resources.

set up right, and average war might take 2-5 sim years, 4-10 rl days, while allowing both sides the chance to do "something," but still giving the larger, or more experienced player an appropriate advantage. giving the winner something valuable, with out completely destroying the looser

Number one ranked war country just means something to players who don't know better. It is no indication of the true reserves of the player or their skill, as you know. What does it say? Is says a player that has the support of zero allies will lose to a skilled player in a reasonable time, not this "mentally ill" period of time you describe. I see nothing wrong with this.

I do see something odd about talking about how only a few could stand 8-9 hours to resolve a war and then suggesting a system that would take 4-10 rl days. Would such a system exist for taking c3s as well? Such a system seems out of place in a game where your opponent can maneuver and take a country in 15 minutes and arm it to the teeth in a few hours. It would, also, be, woefully, inappropriate in an environment where an enemy could potentially own dozens of countries. Without the possibility of a swift offense, large numbers of countries would have an unfair, inherent defense that few players of sufficient "mental illness" would be around to reign in.

I know of no player with more recent war experience than myself. Your war examples are dated. Ones before substantial updates, such as war levels and blackout periods, as you stated. It seems to be that I am in the best position to describe the current state of the war game. My experience is the war game as it currently works. Yours is not.

the point your missing, that you made yourself, is that the war game isn't played at the level it once was. few players want to spend 8+ hours afraid to take a 5 minute break, in fear that they'd loose 2 years of work. playing a game to that intensity, is "mentally ill," and this is the goal that you are working for.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do see something odd about talking about how only a few could stand 8-9 hours to resolve a war and then suggesting a system that would take 4-10 rl days.-Aries<!-/Quote-!>

the 4-10 days, would require maybe, a couple hours of attention a day, as opposed to an 8 hour marathon clicking session.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Without the possibility of a swift offense, large numbers of countries would have an unfair, inherent defense that few players of sufficient "mental illness" would be around to reign in. -aries<!-/Quote-!>

thats the point, their are already few of those types of players

yes, war rank can be faked, 80K MIB can jump your rank, while remaining ineffective. skill, attention, allies, weapons composition, ammo levels, upgrades, the list of reason why rank may not be best indicator of strength, goes on and on. yet, the level of effort, to be destroyed so easily, is discouraging.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

not this "mentally ill" period of time you describe. I see nothing wrong with this. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

yet its so discouraging, that the GM have gone to great lengths to prevent it. to kick a dead horse, WLs where created for this very reason. to prevent players of your excellent caliber, from fighting players of my low motivation. how ever, if i could log on every 12ish hours, make a few adjustments, i might be willing to test my abilities against yours.

in destroying a heavily armed country in 3 hours, keep in mind, my first break, is 3 hours into my 12 hour factory shift. absorb that. i have no way of defending myself against you. most players, have no way of stopping your assault.

do not take that as an veiled challenge, but an example. above when i mentioned black outs, the player i attacked, was a surgeon, who blamed me for putting his patient at risk. i still feel no guilt, on that front, but it is a consideration. how many people can really afford 8 hours on the computer, when ever you decide to declare war on them? if you raise the basic level of commitment to that degree, while requiring years of learning and build up, you'll realize, only a handful of people will be willing to do that.

did that once, i'm both proud, and ashamed. and i wont do it again. few people will. ringing your hands that the war game is dead...

well, that level of commitment, is unrealistic, to the point it is "mentally ill,"

I think the point you are missing is that, often, once the bullets are flying, it is too late. What is really missing is diplomacy among players, which is now replaced entirely by game protection. It is telling in another thread where you said you would run a single country (in secured mode) in an environment without war levels. You didn't muse whether you would form defense agreements or build a great federation. You immediately fled to game-granted protection. Very, very, telling.

Your idea still needs to answer how it would handle c3 wars and whether the intention of your idea is to offer an incredible boon to players who simply run a bunch of throw-away war countries. It still seems, very, out of place in those environments.

As far is when the bullets fly, skill should still be an advantage in this/any game. Plenty of players would have bashed their keyboard to bits before defeating a well-defended country. Few, perhaps none, could have done so with the speed I did.

On the defensive end, you talk of a 5 minute break being a mistake that could cost a war. This, again, does not seem to match war reality. I have slept soundly knowing my defense was fine for hours. I would feel comfortable giving any attacker a few hour head start on a country I choose to defend. They will lose..

first, yes, i have no interest in being committed to war, at some one else's convenience, that has, and always should be the advantage of the attacker. the defense gets to dig in, the attacker gets to choose the time and location, this seems fair to me.

further, i have no interest in fighting any wars, like i said, i work 12 hour shifts in factory, i pour metal, lift heavy, red hot molds, on a 4 foot fork, i grind and weld parts, i'm covered in sweat when i get home, some times i'm not not safe to drive home, and spend most my off time just recovering enough to do it again, add to that, my wife is disabled, and my kids are disabled, i don't have the time, or will to fight, at some one else's convenience, i was making an example, as i said.

diplomacy, of course, plays a role, its a no brainer, my idea does not specifically include that, but it kinda goes with out saying, dotcha think? silly hobbit

as far as C3s, why not make those work the same, you learn the basics of how things work against C3s, why not have battles work the same. in the concept of the idea, you could balance them out to be equal to what they are now, slower? ok, but your own argument that basic country econ, should be the building block of military might, rather than C3 raiding, falls in line. once a a war against a C3 has started, no out side interference in possible. so the attacker still gets to set up, but why should they be able to take over 5 C5s in minutes, when the new concept is to give the defender a day to react? i'm not sure why this is even an argument, other than you are playing the devils advocate to something you see as good.

skill would still be an advantage. especially if you add stacking limits, and facing. also, unmentioned until now, an auto-retreat, if a unit is loosing, why not disengage? before its totally destroyed? i think these feature could add a large amount of tactics, provided some strength re-adjustments. perhaps even merging offensive and defensive weapons in single type? so the same defensive LRD could defend attack against it, or move forward aggressively destroying targets?

3 hours to destroy punisher, isn't a very sound sleep. steve ryan has been around for a long time, had garrisons, stealth units, air defense.

i do not mean this to disparage steve ryan, but clearly, you out classed him. he could easily outclass most sim-players. you can not hold yourself as an average example.

Aries, with out reserve, or sarcasm, you are excellent, you are among the best. any given era of sim-country, as you are now, you'd would have been among the best.

using yourself as an basic measurement of what others can accomplish, is not fair. they certainly can, but how many do? if they did, you would not be the current 800 pound sim-gorilla

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

When did I enter the gates to Bizarro World? If I am in Bizarro World, will someone please point me back to the gate.. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I think your one of the reason why this game isnt as popular as it should be. -GMM54<!-/Quote-!>

you should lower the bar of your expectations, of others, and enjoy your excellence, with dignity, and compassion.

I still think your war engine change is a solution looking for a problem. I can no longer follow what it is supposed to solve. Are wars back and forth affairs that take 8-9 hours without breaks? Are countries too easily taken in just a few hours? Which is it?

The change itself, again, would empower dozens of throwaway war countries in which the owner would have little attachment and threaten countries of other players who have real attachment to them. The throwaway countries would seem to be able to count on several days of a free hand in attacking without any concern to setting up defenses. This strategy would be repeatable to the defenders frustration.

As far is diplomacy, it is currently a "no-brainer" if you mean that in the sense that no one gives it a thought. That is true. Diplomacy is currently mostly dictated by unlimited free game-given protection. Even on the war world.


I gave my experience not as what is the norm but what is possible and to show that there is room for skill. Honestly, most wars are won before any shooting. I really see the execution of the war as a formality. As far as my expectations, I will call out an idea, such as lowering weapon/ammo prices as the war game savior, as being ridiculous as it calls for. I remember when new players tried to learn the game before assuming the reason they could not afford stuff was a game bug.

*face palm*

your the one making the example that a strong country can be taken effectively in a matter of hours, but can be defended to afford sound sleep. making the statement that if people played like you, then they would either be marathons, or boat races. the suggestion is a middle ground. making wars last long enough to react, with out requiring long sit down sessions. but it would obviously give an advantage to assets, skill, tactics.

"throw away countries," is that really a change? something new? common on

further, the attention needed to take out an poorly defended country, would be simplistic.

for developing diplomacy, creating a player base that is competing. is the best method to increase diplomacy, and politics. i think that this, will players a better risk to reward factor.

My point is that I think you are paying too much focus on the period of time after the war goes active. Who is in position to win and how long the keyboard sessions are going to be is largely decided before then.

I have said before, and it is true, that wars have three parts. Planning, preparation, and execution. I have given some advice to my war theory to those that still bother to come to chat. Those first two parts are as important as the third. I can both quickly and efficiently take a country of my choosing and defend a country of my choice, affording me a sound sleep. It is a matter of skill.

You appeared to be offering up a war engine change because one must rush to their keyboard and be prepared for an 8-hour shift of button-mashing to defend their country. What I am saying is that, if you must do this, you have done something wrong and the game does not need to change to correct your error.

and i'll pass, at this moment, about calling people out, when they call difficulties, bugs

catching up to your last post,

i disagree Aries, and in fact, you disagree

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The right strategy can bring down a country with very formidable defenses. At least three times, against three different players, I have defeated an opponent who was online and had substantial reserves, the most recent being Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

so your saying Punisher's "very formidable defenses" that you are using as an example that any country can be taken down easily, still doesn't match your concept of a defense that would allow you to sleep?

slow the whole thing down. why do you expect a player to click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click to select a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, dismantle partial units, recreate units, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack, click on a target, click to select a unit, click to attack,

and so on...

as Madoff pointed out, endless clicking, theirs got to be a better way. As BlackEyes pointed out, one must be mentally ill to enjoy that at length.

creating a system that requires less attention, and slow things down enough to allow causal players the chance to react, could very well attract more competition, meaning more diplomacy

i'm not sure why this is a problem, other than you are more comfortable with your level of success, from your hyper-activity, to support an environment that levels that out.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Without the possibility of a swift offense, large numbers of countries would have an unfair, inherent defense that few players of sufficient "mental illness" would be around to reign in. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

now i get it, you're not comfortable with an enviroment that doesn't favor your hyper-active playing style. Amoung other things, it was the hyper-active players, such as myself, that chased off the casual players, and the game has yet to recover.

slowling the prosess down, so that an average war might take a week, compared to a couple of hours, seem to fall more inline with game that players can invest years into their countries.

I don't think you answered my last post at all. Your focus is still on after the war goes active. Though the active war lasted 3 hours with Punisher, that was simply the last phase of a war in which it failed the first two (phases). The first two phases are where you will find strategy and preparation important (and a lot less clicking). They included not only the 48 hour PVP war delay but a considerable time before that. No PVP war is decided in 3 hours. That is just dishonest. 3 hours was to address where you said wars consist of 8-9 hours of considerable clicking. That just does not have to be the case.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

No PVP war is decided in 3 hours. That is just dishonest. 3 hours was to address where you said wars consist of 8-9 hours of considerable clicking.-Aries<!-/Quote-!>

yet,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The right strategy can bring down a country with very formidable defenses...I have defeated an opponent... Punisher on LU, a recognizable country to any LU vet. I defeated that country in about 3 hours. -Aries<!-/Quote-!>

my suggestion is not meant to directly address planning, and diplomacy, but to make the actual fighting more causal and easier, inviting more of a need for diplomacy, and planning do to increased popularity.

it does soften the blow of lower experience, less preparation, less planning, true enough. but it does not dismiss those things either. it does not dismiss experience, and invites new tactics.

planning, preparation, diplomacy, and experience, will of course be factors, its silly to think they wont, it kinda goes with out saying.

you keep making up problems out of nothing

Yes. Yet, the right strategy. You know, all the stuff that happens before the shooty/clicky stuff. Punisher was not a victim of the war engine. Stop being silly.

You are the one making up problems, you silly. You admit wars are more than the simple execution of the last few hours of clicking but think a war engine change is warranted to stretch it out. That is silly. The war process already involves days, if not weeks or longer. It is found in a culmination of the world diplomatic situation, sizing up potential threats, and the preparation of meeting threats long before any shooting/clicking happens.

The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly. Don't be silly you silly billy.

well, the reality is its not gonna happen, this is true.

how ever to address your comments,

the intensity of sim-war, has always been a deterrent. entire feds amassed assets, and stayed safe, largely do to the immense effort to defeat them, than their own fighting skill. that is, they were great at planning, politics and building, but poor in execution, those feds eventually fell, and most those players quit, because it took hyper-active players, hours and hours of clicking to destroy years, and years of work. leaving many so dishearted, they did not see the point of continuing to play.

creating a shooting environment, that increases time to react, will not distract from pre-war maneuvering. if anything, it will improve it, if the shooting environment appeals to more players, it will create the need for greater pre-war maneuvering.

the current war engine might work well, but the war-game its self is a failure, something that you've offered a list of suggestions to fix.

my suggestion, says the pro-hyper-active enviroment we have now, is an obvious failure. and a less aggressive version of war, would gain popularity.

i can support that educating, and offering advice, has not increased popularity. i once thought that the only problem was that players didn't understand how to fight, and if we could make that info easy to obtain, more players would play.

i created a poll, and campaigned on the forums, for a war tutorial, to walk new players, step by step, through their first war. that was my idea, and the GM saw the value of it, and implemented it. how ever, creating easy access to that info, has done nothing to increase the popularity of war.

the problem is not a lack of skill, but a lack of motivation, why wouldn't a person be motivated to play the war game? their are of course players that don't want to, such as myself now, and those of us who just don't want to, shouldn't be forced to

yet, their are many that tinker with the idea, all the info is out their, it all gets circulated through the forums annually, their are people such as yourself in chat, the info is available. but the effort is rare.

why continue to expect a level of effort, that is uncommon, as a standard? if you do, you will be continually disappointed.

I'm not persuaded that a 3-hour war is representative of typical PvP against a well-defended country. That story just doesn't add up.

Aries claims:

"The war engine is one of the best functioning elements of the entire game. To send the developers back to the drawing board with it in the face of multiple, more needy, areas of the game that could be enhanced would be silly."

First of all, you're trying to send them back to the drawing board to create your "battlegrounds" and "total war." Those would require major coding, not minor tweaks. Secondly, if the war engine is so wonderful, why do 99% of players avoid PvP?

By comparison, Jonni said in March:

"As of now the only thing we've decided on is that the war game would benefit if we simplified the logistics. Easier unit management/creation, and if feasible, a decrease in volume of units, weapons and targets."

This means they're looking to tweak the war engine, change some numbers. New features usually take 1-3 years to develop. Their agenda already includes finishing the phone app, improving the game interface, then maybe introducing missions, space mining, and localized natural resources. That's enough to keep them busy well into the next decade.

Unfortunately, any of our suggestions only have a slim chance.

Aries, I don't think they're going to stop that work to spend years creating your complicated "battlegrounds" or a "total war" extravaganza. That might even require spending their beer money on a new server.

Suggestions that only require tweaking the war engine have a better chance. Orbiter's idea of limiting attacks is a good example. It would help players who don't have a lot of consecutive hours for clicking during the combat phase.

I agree with the lack of motivation but believe game rewards are a significant part of it. There are significant rewards to be found many different facets of the game but not in PVP wars, which are a zero sum game. You can only take something from another player or lose something to another player.

It is this significant risk that should lend itself to the possibility of earning something extra, similar to the rewards of my Total War or Battlegrounds suggestions. Wars over resources, as others have suggested, would be interesting too. Perhaps unique benefits should be imparted on countries on each world that are not able to be shielded by any type of game protection.

If there is something to be gained, it will encourage more participation in this part of the game. Currently, many see more benefit to unlimited free protection and they are right. Costs of maintaining adequate defense and the effort to maintain an advantageous diplomatic situation currently outweigh any benefits.

Madoff, I am not sure what you don't believe. Punisher was not just a typically defended country, as Orbiter mentioned it was the #1 war country. I gathered a lot of data for the attack, part of my superior preparation, and still have it. My attacking country was AA8 which declared on Punisher and Botulism. The troop numbers when the declaration went active were:

AA8 3.7 million

Punisher 6.5 million
Botulism 2.7 million

I posted an after-action report here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/4969/24866.html?1433621286

Oh, pre-war operations btw. It is a tactic that I sometimes set a dec to start in my blackout period. Shooting couldn't happen until it did.

I defeated Punisher in 21 days of game time with Botulism falling 12 days later. I defeated an army of 9.2 million and shot through additional fed air defense in about 4 hours (again, Punisher was down in about 3). Again, I am pretty good and can tell you that my planning and preparation were better and both countries were doomed before the decs went active. On the flip side, I could have went to sleep and my defenses were in no danger of being bested.

Oh just shut up and get it on.

100GC to the winner (if there were a way to trade them :/ )

Just make the check out to A-R-I-E-S. thanks

Hmm, it appears as if ARIES thinks he's invincible

Nobody is untouchable...

P.S. Except for Andy