| Monday, July 27, 2015 - 09:19 pm |
I am curious what thoughts are on this. Some questions for discussion.
1. Does your survival depend on the strength of your relationships or federation? On the war world?
2. Do you partner with other players to accomplish game goals?
3. Does your economy see benefits to cooperation? - This one may spark debate on common markets. To date, I have yet to see common markets make winners over smart solo economies. An appropriate common market thread can debate this. However, a separate point can be made that little communication or cooperation occurs after a simple invite.
What do you guys think?
| Monday, July 27, 2015 - 09:28 pm |
if the war game was less restrictive, I would be much more into this game. lately it feels like im the only person playing due to inactive neighbors and the lack of people at war level 3. nothing to do but fiddle by thumbs as a build a state economy by myself.
| Monday, July 27, 2015 - 09:38 pm |
Thanks for your comments Graziani!
| Monday, July 27, 2015 - 10:03 pm |
no problem Aries.
| Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 12:15 am |
Good Topic Aries, from FB to every other world, i am the sole reason for my survival. Being inside a fed can be a plus or a huge minus, it depends on what you're looking for these days.
Having somebody to converse with on bullshit, or game tips and strategy, has become a primary reason for joining a fed in 2015.
As for the CM, not really my thing honestly... prefer to fly solo.
Willing & have formed partnerships with other players, for more long-term goals.
| Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 02:55 am |
I saw countries invaded and taken for being an asshat in chat. We once invaded GR for the lulz. The multiplayer function of this game has gone downhill IMO.
| Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 06:39 am |
Game goals...the game seems to have a small group of players that are active, a lot of people have "played" but only a small few are players, and some don't even communicate with others it seems.
| Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 06:47 am |
Yeah, the game goals question I kept vague to see if I was missing something. I feel a lot of the game set goals, rankings/game levels/war levels, have the single player feel to them but a "goal" is more open to include anything you thought you needed interaction with the effort of another player to accomplish. You know, beyond the "hey, how do you do this?" stuff that could occur just as easily with any single player game.
Keep your comments coming.
| Tuesday, July 28, 2015 - 06:52 am |
I think all the active players should create one federation!
| Wednesday, August 12, 2015 - 01:32 am |
I always loved playing in federations, being part of a team. My best memories are of WGC/FBC -> Nueva Vida days. My two favorite mates of ALL time are Bobo and Nico. Love them both.
By the way.............Bobo just got himself engaged to a stunningly beautiful young lady. I'm so proud of him!!!
| Friday, August 14, 2015 - 01:04 am |
I have built up my country with no interference for about 1-2 years now. Have one neighbor but we haven't communicated every.
| Saturday, August 15, 2015 - 05:02 am |
When i used to play years ago on an account that is lost to the sands of time. I once started trouble in chat. The very next day I recieved a most glorious nuking from just about ever big federation on that world at the time.... I kind of miss those days. If there was an incentive for me to fight I'd gladly go to the war world and fight. It just seems theres no point anymore..
| Saturday, August 15, 2015 - 05:14 am |
You are in luck. Sign up for war games.
| Saturday, August 15, 2015 - 01:36 pm |
Is little upsilon a abandoned world? Or should I try fearless blue ?..
I don't want to become number one on a world that doesn't matter
| Saturday, August 15, 2015 - 03:19 pm |
Because of the space program, if you become powerful anywhere you can be powerful everywhere. LU is a nice world though. It is my base of operations.
| Sunday, August 16, 2015 - 02:28 am |
This is my second time playing this game I played for almost year the first time but now when i have come back it seems like this game is about dead got stuck on KB and have no neighbors just one dude dont know if he is even active
| Sunday, August 16, 2015 - 03:44 am |
It is clear now that the social game is the war game. Learn the mechanics against the computer and then sign up for War Games.
| Monday, August 17, 2015 - 10:01 pm |
Viper, is that you???!!!!!!!!!!! Hugs!!!
Pfft Aries, the social game is in CHAT, which NONE of you go to!!!! How can this game be fun unless you all get to know each other and have discussions in chat??? I do applaud Aries, he does have some presence there as I have seen him. BUT, the rest of you............SCOWL!
In all seriousness, though. I can honestly say that I know quite a many of a player and warlord in this game. Wanna know why? Cuz I was the queen of chat!!! When you talk with each other in this game, you quickly form your definitions of friend or foe based on game ideologies. Some of you might like a quiet econ game, but I always found that having friends in the game, helping each other out, being loyal to each other is what makes for a strong player and federation.
You gotta talk to each other!!! Chat is where it is at. You all need to go there. If no one is there, sit there for a while and someone else may join.
I hope that the next time I pop in for a visit, I see some peeps in chat to talk to!
| Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 09:41 pm |
It's still a multiplayer game, just very much less. Chat is part of that but I believe actual country interactivity is a bigger part. The majority of players have no need for a federation, even most federation members have to need for the fed they're in and as I've looked at feds on wg now most federations have members incapable of aiding eachother. There is no reason to know your neigbor, to interact with other players. They pose no danger and can offer no help. My economy never has depended on others. I have rarely partenered with other players to accomplish anything. Not that I wouldn't but I've never found it necessary.
| Wednesday, August 19, 2015 - 10:33 pm |
It is I Wicked Lady HUGS!! back at you decided to take one more stab at this game for a bit...But i do agree with Aaron though my first time around this game i belonged to a fed but they never talk to each other much so i left and did my own thing
| Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 01:14 am |
I'm so glad to see you back, Viper!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope to see you around more! Go join a war game and beat Aries!!!! ha ha ha ha I'll be your cheerleader! Sorry, Aries, girl power, you understand.... :P
I get what you are saying, Aaron. There really isn't a need for a federation. But, you know me....... Ms. Social. lol I always liked being part of something and the interactions. :P
| Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 05:14 am |
yeah I know jan. Ms. Social-TILL-SHOES-GET-THROWN
| Thursday, August 20, 2015 - 11:13 pm |
outside of war, to encourage economic co-operation, their really isn't much set up for that.
ironically, the main thing that the GM do to encourage interaction, doesn't do that, it used to, but its become more beneficial to do things a different way.
the concept of 6(?) max CEO corps another players country, and 12(?) in your own, is meant to bring large groups of players to together, sharing countries and enterprises, building on and off of each other. 2 notes here, its been a long time since i've tried to max out corps in any country, so i don't know if the numbers have changed, and i did not say Common Markets.
back in the day, you could have a Fed with maybe 2 dozen players, all filling each others countries up with CEO corps. Fed relations would usually include Feds exchanging corps with each other. imagine going to war with a Fed that you've got hundreds of CEO corps located in their country... and they in you...
for many, a CEO corp pays more to a country, but many, such as myself, do much better with out CEO involvement. when you learn how to manage a corp well, you'll make as much or more with state corps, as another persons CEOs. unless you raise taxes, which would discourage CEOs.
when i look at my own CEO in my own country, the "country resources used," is less than the profit of my state corps. Its only when i add in the 75% tax, that the CEO corps become more valuable. But who would want to set up CEOs in my 75% tax country?
further, CEOs often haphazardly build what ever, which may not fit into your own work force, or your own econ plan. and they aren't always able to match your own abilities to make profit, even with out the tax consideration.
this CEO co-operation, becomes further confused, when a player, who knows how, can easily IPO, and control hundreds of his own corps, through his CEO in his own countries, bypassing any game limitations, designed to promote co-operation.
I, of course do all these things, i can run my own econ, with out any direct tie to any other player, and be more successful than if i did. And i'm not the only one that is more successful playing by themselves, than with others.
their are a couple of other thoughts,
as i mention in relation to war, the "country resources," with the monopolies features, on the GM wish list, would introduce some economic co-operation, even with out war and "partial victories,"
and the common market system needs to be completely reworked. a player should be able to set up contracts, of a single product, with in a set quality parameter. for instance, i should be able to auto-except contracts for 140 corps, of just FMUs, of 290-330 Quality. also, being able to set a percent of your countries investment funds to just being spent on public corps in your CM, is inline with real life IF, and would allow some security for payers to IPO, with the majority of their shares being soaked up by friendly CM buddies. (rather than random asshats,)
| Saturday, August 22, 2015 - 05:30 pm |
Its like a single player game where real people occasionally meet to have wars and communicate about the game.
My aim in this game is simple. See how much I can make my country worth without paying for it!