 |
|
|
|
Friday, January 30, 2009 - 04:11 am  Since christmas my empires income has crashed. My mains income has havled whilst costs have stayed the same. I was making 1.5 T a year, I am now just over 2T short each year. Even without an army my finances would still be negative. One of my smaller countries barely makes a profit without having any army to speak of a mere 180B a year goes on the army. It make 200B profit a year at the monent. Game changes seem to have killed my economy. Any advice on fixing my ecomnomy in the new game environment would be great.
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 04:56 am Q and Treasurer have already documented what those stealth changes were...you might want to check out other threads on the general forum. You are not alone 
| |
| Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 08:42 am No. The war game will not be unplayable. On the contrary if maintaining an army becomes more difficult and expensive then war gamers will find more countries with inadequate defense.
| |
| Monday, February 2, 2009 - 09:20 pm oh what fun that will be..attacking poor undefended countries woo hoo! You might aswell just save your money and buy a PC game that is much more enjoyable. If these coutries cant afford a military they are not going to be worth attacking anyway. I expect costs will stay high to drain the resources of the vets. Once the playing field has been leveled and only the credit card playing players are left things wont need to change. Sim will have there cash cow. Those of us who prefer to build a country that supports itself rather than one that is supported by the credit card will be long gone.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 12:08 am not unplayable but unpayable
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 12:39 am Im maintaining my army at the moment using my econ slaves to subsidise them. I will re-evaluate my position when its all settled down a bit.....
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 12:39 am Got to agree with Vali for sure my countries were making good money before xmas i had 3 days away and came back after xmas to see all my countries well in debt. Im sick of throwing money at this game just to see it disappear. You do everything right organize all your finances just to have it taken away again. Well all your going to do is put of experience players and discourage new ones sounds like sim will loose out in the long run...
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 02:38 am When W3C sais they are going to reduce the amount of weapons needed to win wars and such does that mean they are going to upgrade the weapons strength as well to make it more proportionate?
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 04:32 am Means it will be pricer to have and maintain weapons relative to everything else. So you will need less since everyone will have less.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 12:39 am its just another way to hurt successful players because they make to much money. The gamemaster won't be satisifed until it grains more cash out of your pockets....very evil they are!!
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 12:48 am Sweet and simple,,, Im out
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:27 am This is total bull shat i spent $72.00 of my hard earned dollar's on this game 2 1/2 day's ago totaly ready to go kick some major ass. And the asshat's in charge of this game make it impossible to use your fleets. Was John Riley so afraid to lose his main that in his arragance he changed the rules to safe guard himself. I Wonder realy Wonder. Eb
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:38 am Perhaps between your breaks of delusional, you did not hear that the only change made from my end were the filters on in-game messages. Also, 8000 NFPs aren't and weren't enough to kill 100 000 ints. Go back to school and learn some basic math.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:40 am I'll tell you what I attack a target with 400 nfp's 400 AA 400 MIB 400 DMB and take out around 75 each batt, with a loss of 300+ NFP's that IS rediculous. Comon SC help the war engine out please.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:46 am Bring back the old engine when all 100K Ints responded to a single attack. I can only imagine the tears..
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:54 am 300 NFP worth about 210 B 75 of each bat worth about 9B NFP missile are 2-3 times more expensive than defensive ammo used. So its just a little unbalanced.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:05 am terrible thing is its about the same for a lightly defended target with almost NO defenses. Since I was losing so much pr attack, I decided to test out a well defended target. This is MADNESS
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:13 am There are perhaps only a dozen of players, or even less now, who knew how precisely the old war engine worked. While stripping someone's air defence before, all of your 6000 NFPs died in the attack.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:24 am I thought the WE engine was new as of last year about a month into my gameplay now. I have been present in ALOT of JoziChats and don't recall this kind of change being spoken of much. Why it comes at such a time as active wars are being waged and the vet badarses seem to be "on the run" is beyond plausible. Not even an announcement. /me smells CONSPIRACY No no really I think there is alot of stinky complaining and trashing of the game going on im PMs, emails to GM's and, on the forums. ALOT of crybaby vet's AND not new to the game NEWBS are crying about change this and change that. I am really beginning to think this is ULTIMATE REVENGE for crying WAAAY too much about little crap and trashing the GM's. I am proly wrong but its just the way I feel. And I call it how I see it. I am just trying to point out that asking for changes may not always have the desired result. IN SIMPLE WORDS. . . . BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR it works both ways.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:26 am PS to all the guys im fighting. . . I WILL STILL BREAK YOU!! 
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:40 am Try taking heavy tanks up against a full garrison especially a garrison full of loaded armored vehicles. The offensive to defensive balance is actually worse for many units. The problem is the sudden change without warning. Attack boats could be made into the most cost effective naval unit. That would not make the war engine design flawed. If Attack Boats suddenly become lethal without any advanced notice then the game is flawed. Simcountry is a slow long term strategy game. The idea is to plan ahead and start the war with the right ammunition. It is absurd to build up an empire build a huge army and navy only to see a new player annihilate it with supper attack boats that were useless last week. Both Will and John are avoiding the core issue. Why couldn't we have had a weeks notice? Why the urgency now? How many other huge changes to the war engine should we expect in February? How do I defend my empire from the space monkeys?
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:44 am I don't know. You will have to ask Willard.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 12:54 pm The only thing it seems to me is that it's about the money, show me the money!!! seems to be the cry of the management here. You want to talk about newbees, ok I've been here since this past September. When I first started my corps,they were making a good profit, but since the changes I'm barely making anything. My corps have to be right on target to make anything at all. Secondly, I have never agreed with taking 30 GC every month for "maintenence" of my empire and enterprise, now what exactly does those 30 GC pay for? I see it's nothing more than to get more RL money out of us if we don't have the GC to pay for it. Now with the new rule in place about limiting the amount of offensive forces you can use in an attack, but of course no limit in deffensive forces defending said target, seems a little coincendental that this new rule comes down shortly after certain vets are taking a heavy pounding by other vets in this game. Usually I've noticed that there was some kind of notice when something was about change, but not this time, why was that? and then on top of all that we have plausible denial from those who are in charge or avoiding the questions all together. Finally, those in charge need to be careful howw they run their "business" you have certain players who have been on here for RL years and now are contemplating leaving, I don't know about you, but; I certainly would not want those who have been paying in steadily leaving and being stuck with just the ones who come in on a trial basis then leave. I myself have seen plenty of those. You call conveinently fearless blue the "war planet" that would say to me that it's survival of the fittest, if you get conquered then try again, unless of course you are someone who is in charge then you just change the game to your liking, no rules needed. If you want to keep customers I would suggest that you "do not bite the hand that feeds you."
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:21 pm Agustus is right on target here. I still have one little project in this game then i'm done. Mr. Riley seams to be extreamly perseptive or perhaps has a crystal ball. This gentalman all ways knows how much stuff you have. Hmm
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 03:57 pm The game changes are not rapid. They evolve over a period of time to create changes to fit the overall scheme of the game. When the current WE was introduced the change was intended to stop long range wars. It was mentioned in several updates. The naval portion of the game escaped the first series of updates. It was the last remaining "old style" portion of the new engine, meaning unlimited numbers of weapons could be deployed on a single "base" (carrier, helicopter carrier, fleet command). The changes were long overdue. I would not be surprised to see more changes installed to limit long range warfare as it is the stated goal of W3C.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:04 pm and that news was posted what on feb ???? Ok then . . . your point was Sammy?
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 08:36 pm I'm with Augustus here and cannot argue with Sam on his point, but the crux of the whole matter rests with the owners not approaching their customer base in a business like manner. When you have a captive audience, (and I have taken money from a few !)you must give them adequate notice of proposed changes. That's my only gripe, and to be honest I couldn't care less what the changes are, as long as the owners excercise a bit of customer care for mutual benefit. With this game, one real time month's notice at least should be given of any changes that may incur further real cost for the customer. It's basic business acumen. Wanna sell it????
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 09:57 pm Just to add to my previous entry: There is 2111 players according to the player by country and non-specified count. If you figure that it cost $4 a month times 12 months=$48 a year per player. My math brings that to $101328.00 dollars a year, of course this is US currency. That's not bad for the equivalent to a part time job. Now with that in mind, I would like to suggest that maybe you would revert some things back to the way they were. And lastley I would like to recommend that you would drop the GC monthly charge from 30 to 10 a month, I think that's fair. See I'm not against you making money, I'm just against the game players here helping you buy your second home. Thank you in advance.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 10:07 pm Augustus, you realize they have multiple paid staff which they have salaries for? Its not just ONE person running this game. Not to mention, the enormous costs of running the game itself.
| |
Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 12:06 am
Adapt or leave.
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 01:33 am that's the point Q
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 02:54 am Well my point was, his argument about lowering the coins we pay and such, or W3C making enough for a second home, is far off the mark with his math. The game isn't cheap to run, that's for sure. However, there are better ways of making money off of it than crippling gameplay.
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 07:40 am Find the next loop hole. Im sure one exists. Thats the fun of this game. Geting cozy next to a player whom you dont particularly like, then showing him or her your new found tricks. They are there, they always are. Evolution of bug exploitation.... 1. crafty players find the bug. 2. crafty players use the bug, hopefuly with some degree of responsibilty.(in most cases I like to think I did, perhaps not) 3. other players finaly catch on and the use of certain "leveraged tactics" becomes common place. 4. people take note, complain or what not, and the bug/tactic is closed. This has gone on for years and will continue too. the navy thing is the latest. heavy localized defense....gone. preinvasion...gone. Nuke bug...gone. heavy navy...gone.
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 08:02 am preinvasion...gone. Nuke bug...gone. 2 of my personal favorites! And lets not soon forget the infamous fort bug. hehe This navy thing is no big deal folks. Instead of each country having a 'super fleet', we shall all have 30 smallish fleets with hellish D. Bombing all of them out every month will prove to be a major bitch. This style of navy fighting will be just as fast as a high paced ground war. imo Yes we will lose more nfp. Big deal, buy more! Dirt
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 02:54 pm All my point is that to leave things with the military alone. When the US walked into Iraq they didn't just send 400 tanks and 400 jeeps and 10000 men because "that's all they were allowed to send" that's stupid. Yet that's exactly what the "powers to be" have done here. Just leave it alone, your only hurting yourselves in the end. About the GC issue, I think 10 GC for each is more than fair. If it was up to me, I wouldn't charge any GC at all. In the end, you label Fearless Blue as the "war planet" then let it be such, if you haven't noticed your driving people away, but then again; maybe you don't need our money anyway.
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 03:23 pm I too disagree on empire fees Maybe pay the same 30 for 3 or six months on any given world. That would be sure to drive up permanent members quickly. War wouldn't be to expensive either(as a result of NOT killing GC on maintenance fees). More players = more money for w3c More (less costly)war = more fun More fun = more members and revenue for w3c I thought this wasn't a beta test version of this game??
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 08:28 pm I'm with Wendy and Augustus on this, just now you pay your annual sub and get 360 coins and they want it back to let you have your empire and enterprises continue within the sub period. I think they should really look at this curious membership system. I get fed up trying to keep up with when things are due to be paid for with GCs and I only have 4 elements to look after !! hell knows what it's like for you guys with a dozen countries etc. and playing on other worlds LOL.
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 09:04 pm What some of you suggest was proposed many times before. Simple concept: - flat monthly fee - no option to buy in-game assets with real cash - ability to gain population through raiding of either c3s or other players Except the monthly fee thats how the game used to be long time before. Time and effort devoted to the game was rewarded, and so was what is sometimes called skill, and even if they are still rewarded today, ability to what W3C probably like to call .. invest .. real cash is far more important. So what that only this fact severely limits the number of potential players, who either do not have the cash or simply do not want to .. invest .. but play a game and have fun? Is it "better" to have 10000 subscribers or 100 investors? For reasons which are in my opinion pointless to discuss at the moment W3C decided they didn't like such concept and opted for what there is now. For the same reasons it pointless to propose and debate such changes. edit: the game always had "beta" feel to it. ever changing environment requiring players to adapt, come up with new strategies, with new ways how to beat the system and other players.
| |
| Sunday, February 8, 2009 - 04:22 pm To answer your question, when you have "investors" they expect a certain return on their "investment" So what exactly are we getting for our "investment?" "investors" are not as quick to "invest" when there are fees and penalties involved that add up to more than their original "investments" at least I wouldn't anyway. Again I ask the question, what exactly are we paying for with our monthly "investment" of GC? If this could explained logically, I would quit asking. I too as cool wind has, just "reinvested" for another 6 months just last month and already having to possibly spend more RL cash if I want to keep playing because I do not have the GC to keep my empire and enterprise going. The only thing I see GC is for is to keep your countries and enterprises available. You put your "investment" (RL cash) in but if you don't have the GC every month, you can't play! So I go back to my original question, what are we getting for our "investment"?
| |
| Monday, February 9, 2009 - 03:56 am A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, often without any product or service being delivered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme
| |
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 07:13 pm Tanks
| |
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 11:27 pm Is there any sign this is improving? I was -so- close to level 6 and those coin rewards, but my financial index has collapsed, and I have no idea how to adjust. I have a CEO heavy economy, still lose pop constantly (100 mill+) even with 220+ health index, I bulldozed a few thousand schools because the latest news update sounded like they my pop was too educated. No such luck. All I do now is convert population in a futile effort to catch up, and no matter how close I get to 100%, more MLW and HLW suddenly go missing. I feel like nothing I do gameplay wise is relevant to these issues, so inevitably - why bother. Are the level goals going to be changed to reflect this new reality with finances?
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 01:59 am I was able to partially recover by phasing in public corps (which let a country keep 24% or so of the profits in addition to country resources used). Neglect your workforce for a short while to weed out the crappy-salary-paying CEOs. Replace their corps with state corps, with an eye towards IPOing them. Notice I said neglect for a SHORT while--you don't want your workforce so messed up that you can't recover to replace their corps after they've taken their slave wages elsewhere. When they max out their upgrades, stuff them with all the supplies and cash you can, and then IPO them. You want your CEO to have 24.99%, your country to have a fraction of a percentage point less than that, and the rest can either be sold to your second CEO (if you have one) or to investment funds in your own countries. You want them to be enterprise controlled public corporations...they still make countries good money. Weeding out the corps that only pay 100 salaries is a bonus.
| |
| Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 04:37 am What really gets me, is I had a public focused corp strategy, but couldn't make enough money, was constantly just below the 120 FI for level 6. I spent an insane amount of time with my CEO slowly purchasing all those public corps. Now this... At least it's something, thanks for the suggestion.
|
