GM Response requested on Problems forum

It has been a week and there is no response to the "Player vs. Player war on FB.. Country not paintable" thread found here:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/9/24851.html?1430779348

The lack of paintable areas makes the war unwinnable. In my case, several countries of mine were declared on by this country and where it is necessary for me to deploy forces to defend myself the attacker in this case can attack at his leisure since his country simply cannot be taken.

Please respond and resolve this.

thank you

Just let the war run out. Your the 1 keeping it going. It's not necessary for you to defend yourself. I haven't lauched any attacks nor plan to.

You declared war. You launched attacks and after your war index damages exceeded 90 points and every square inch of the country was painted you do not get to keep the country.

You's dec'd me ffs. Just to get me off first spot. Let it go Aries. You's where crazy to even try take the country in the first place. All that effort for zero reward. Even if the GM does give it to you it's worthless. Goodluck.

It is not unreasonable to assume that it is possible to meet the victory conditions to end a war.

We hadn't responded yet because this is complicated and we don't have a fix yet. We've been aware of this problem for a while and have in the past blocked most countries that have this problem from being used. This was not possible for countries that already had a president and we were not previously aware of exactly how many of these countries remained in control of presidents.
It's not a simple task to alter an existing country to the extent required to fix this, without causing other problems.
We're looking into the least invasive way of fixing this.

Apologies for any inconvenience this has caused.

Jonni, where is MY Andrew? He didn't even wish his old mom a happy birthday and it was the big 50! SCOWL. You are working him too hard! To make it up, you may send me some shoes! :P

Thank you for the response Jonni.

Scarlet made this suggestion a few years ago and it sounds like a good idea, though I am not sure how feasible it would be to implement:

(https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/19728.html?)

"I would've figured the easiest solution would be have the system check the total number of areas in the country and make each area worth say 40 / # of areas (like forts and corps) while retaining the current 30 points max and 10 points min for area conquest. That way 75% of the areas would be worth 30 points and 25% of the areas would be worth 10 points... and all countries could be conquered. Not sure that this harms game balance all that much. Larger countries would be more difficult to conquer the areas sure, but as far as painting and counter-painting/paint-blocking it's probably about the same amount o

I appreciate that a long-term answer is being sought to resolve the issue for all countries. Can a short-term remedy be offered here? Victory conditions should have been met several times. I would be happy if the GM simply assumed control of this country for now and my opponent was evicted. He should no longer continue to benefit from having an invulnerable base. This does not contribute to an equal playing field on the war world.

Jonni has said that they need to focus on features that have a high impact on overall gameplay. In contrast, players rarely complain about unconquerable countries, maybe once every few years.

Considering how incredibly few PvP wars there are, this is a very minor issue. It does not warrant diverting the programmers from more important issues just to code a fix for a rare problem.

We benefit more by regarding this as a feature, not as a bug. Unconquerable countries provide an incentive for players with military skill to find them and own them, and to avoid PvP against players who own them.

It's not realistic for war to be predictable and always on an equal playing field. If once in awhile any of the few players owning an unconquerable country uses it for terrorism, then good. We need that variety and simulation anyway.

-1 Madoff

"It's not realistic for war to be predictable and always on an equal playing field. If once in awhile any of the few players owning an unconquerable country uses it for terrorism, then good. We need that variety and simulation anyway. "

...And you have an unsecured country with assets on the line, where?

@Aires. While I agree that these kind of countries should have been dealt with some time ago by the GM. It would be unfair that the GM should take control only of Gaz's country. That would effectively be an intervention in favor of one player over another. Some of these other "unconquerable" countries have been at war in the past with no action against them by the GM. The more equitable solution would be for the GM to completely compensate Gaz for the takeover and compensate those who were at war with Gaz AND, if Gaz has to lose his fairly acquired country, so should every other player who owns this type of country whether it is at war or not. Further, since we are on the subject of unfair playing advantages, the GM should do something about countries that have now acquired thousands of forts. This is a ridiculous situation created by the GM themselves.

Fairly acquired or not, Gaz's forces were wiped out, the capitals, cities, corps, and forts were destroyed and every square inch of the country was painted. Gaz deserves nothing less than to lose control of the country and does not deserve "compensation".

The same was true of those other countries I referred to. They didn't lose control of their countries. The GM can't make exception to one player and ignore the others. I will remind everyone that this issue has been well known by the GM literally for years and their failure to act is an implicit decision to allow this kind of warfare. Everyone who has experience in this game knows these kind of countries have existed and could be used for their advantage and some have used them in the past. Practically no one objected until now. This thread and the one in the"problems" thread are the most attention I have ever seen given to this issue. If Gaz loses his country through GM intervention, then so should everyone else who owns a country like Gaz's ,including Kel,. who stated he has a country like Gaz's. They all have to go. That is the only fair solution.

Your right NERO.
Mother Natures Army would be well vexed if the enemy could not be wiped off the map
GM this seems to be the biggest problem you have right now. This problem is creating a nervous feeling amongst The Forces of Nature. This needs fixing asap please GM

So now war has to be fair? What war is ever fair? Isn't it all about seizing the initiative, and taking the strategical and tactical advantage over your opponent? Gaz did not hack the SC program and create that country. He did what many people have done and found it knowing it would be a tactical advantage. It is no secret these type countries exist on every world. Yes it is a tough break if you are on the other side of the war but that is the nature of war. It is the defender's duty to defend his country using everything at his disposal including countries like this, thousands of forts, and anything else it takes. Would you not fully defend your country? What next, will we have to make sure both armies have to be equal before every war? Gaz just took tactical advantage of an existing situation as any good military commander would do. So you can either keep pounding his little country with ordnance or you can return home and wait for the day he mak

Nero, I am not sure how your argument goes. Is it, "He believed his country was invulnerable to being conquered so when he declared war and launched attacks he was correct in assuming there was no possibility to lose his country". If he was aware of this, he was abusing a game bug was he not? Is the precedent here that players should benefit from exploiting game bugs?

As it is, Gaz has already benefited from having over a week to do as he pleases with a country that should no longer be his. He could have removed at his leisure any assets from that country. He has, ,in fact, benefited and continues to benefit from a game bug dating from the first time his country ownership should have ended with his defeat. I think how this is handled sends a message to all players.

Jack, I am disappointed. You too believe exploiting game bugs is acceptable when trying to gain "advantage" over an opponent? I do not share this view. I hope the GM does not either.

Yes, the precedent is that players can benefit from exploiting game bugs. The gamemasters have said that many times throughout the years. If and when they don't like an exploited loophole, they close it.

The implicit message to players is that finding and benefiting from bugs, loopholes, or workarounds is a worthy skill.

These rare unconquerable countries are not remotely game-breaking. This so-called problem is being blown way out of proportion.

Aries, I don't think there should be countries like that but the fact is they have always been there, we knew it and the GM was well informed they existed and took no action on it. No one hacked into the system and created this situation. It does need to be corrected but Gaz or anyone else should not be punished in any way for taking tactical advantage of this type country. No one broke any rules here. Wars are won by finding advantages over an opponent. Nothing unfair about that. Let the GM decide if he wants to correct it and if he does he can make the appropriate reparations to those affected.

Madoff is mostly making my point. Not sure I should stop him. My only curiosity now is what rises to the level of a game-breaking bug. Unlimited weapons and ammo would be trumped by invulnerable country. Unlimited resources of any kind could not overcome an opponent shielded by this bug. If this is not game-breaking, what is?

Jack, noone "hacks the system" to create bugs. I have experienced them and I report them. Players who exploit bugs should indeed be punished and I know for a fact that this has happened more than once. Gaining an advantage over an opponent by exploiting a bug does indeed break the rules.

Aries, you're getting incoherent. The rare, unconquerable countries have been around for years. Maybe since painting was introduced in 2008.

If you regard that as a game-breaking bug, does that mean you regard the game as being broken all these years?

Again, you're just blowing things way out of proportion. Good luck with that strategy.

Aires, you wrote:
"Nero I am not sure how your argument goes. Is it, "He believed his country was invulnerable to being conquered so when he declared war and launched attacks he was correct in assuming there was no possibility to lose his country". If he was aware of this, he was abusing a game bug was he not? Is the precedent here that players should benefit from exploiting game bugs?"

That is exactly what I am saying. However, you call it a game bug. I don't. A game "bug" is an unintended technical situation needing correction. The GM made a deliberate decision to allow these countries to exist and be used by players and there is no evidence to support the belief by some that the GM has been removing these countries from use by players. Further, you claim Gaz's use of his country sets a precedent and that is not correct. This has happened over and over again in the past and is nothing new.
I read Madoff&#