What Simcountry Needs.

What does Simcountry Need?

(Note: Whenever you see a word with these “ � around it. You are actually seeing quotation marks, for some reason they still show up as these weird icons. Just subtract the a on each side to make sense of the word)

I have played this game far too much over the years. Although I have officially quit twice, I always end up coming back for one reason or another. This time, I had been keeping up on the changes being made to the game and decided that they were progressive enough (in the sense that they helped remedy frustrations I previously had held towards the games mechanics) to give Simcountry another try. Specifically, the change that restricts each country to only being able to fight one C3 war at a time. Before such a change a player could declare an infinite amount of WL1 wars at a single time and expand their empire as far as they wished while still being guaranteed Wa

Porter9634,

Aren't new players already protected from veterans by the war level system? You have to be a similar war level to attack a player, so veterans can't just simply hit a new empire, as soon as it reaches war level three.

Wouldn't creating a new world just further decentralise the player base? Spreading us across six worlds instead of five? I agree that we are too thinly spread, and that it would be better if we could all interact on the same world. Unfortunately though, we don't have any way to merge worlds (yet?), so we're stuck with having to be spread across all five.

Signed President of DanNation on LU

Hi Dan,
1)
/Aren't new players already protected from veterans by the war level system?/
-The answer is no, take Natural Adder as an example. it is quite arguable that he has been the most proactive war fighter recently. Winning 9 pvp wars on WG this season. He is still at WL3 on that planet. I know for sure that back when I had my old empire it was a strategy to keep lower war levels specifically to snipe inactive accounts that are less risky to take. He also has 3 wars won on LU (WL5, still within range of 3), and 5 on FB (WL5 again). It would also be very easy for someone with an empire on FB to colonize a country on LU (on LU their war level will be reset to 0,which can easily be brought to 3) and they can freely send weapons from their massive empires over to assist in pvp wars against other lower war levels.So no, new players are not necessarily protected from veterans by the war level system.
2)

Porter9634,

1). True, those are valid points. Although I don't know if there is really much we can do to fix that? Short of removing PvP entirely. Richer/larger/older empires are always going to have an advantage.

2). If all the new players are funnelled to a new world. Then there will be no one new coming to the existing worlds. Existing players aren't just going to abandon years of work to move to the new world. Ultimately, given time, the new world would reach a similar position to the current ones. However, then there would be 6 worlds instead of 5, and even fewer players per world. Whats more, the existing worlds would suffer greatly by being deprived of new players. Ultimately, if the current worlds were starved of new players long enough, we could then see long term players quit, because all their years of work was left stuck on a dead world.

The intention is good, but implemented like that, it would be a d

I think the point being made by Porter is that conditions on older worlds stunt growth for new players looking to take chances. They would need a leveled playing field. If not, only the risk averse, new players survive instead of being devoured by predator countries looking for low hanging fruit.
Piranhas don't eat each other, they wait for something that can't swim.

Porter, am I close

-Yes Khome that sounds about right in essence.

-Dan
1)
/Although I don't know if there is really much we can do to fix that?/
-Well my proposal does just that. You are correct in asserting that Richer/larger/older empires are always going to have an advantage. That is one of the major points I attempted to argue in the original post.Perhaps I did not make it clear but I am struggling to comprehend why you believe that a New World would not be a solution to negating all of the /richer,larger, older empires from the equation on that world?For at least a few years things would be relatively parallel. Of course I understand that empires will also grow on this world as well given time, but it will be years before any of them reach the same status of power that many in the 5 worlds have today. If, lets say, 5 years from now players from the New World wish to join the other 5 planets in the Solar System. Then we should probably let the

Great post. Well thought out. I will have to read it again (or two) as there is a lot there -lol.
But I think that is a great idea a new world for new players. Instead of a war world have a new player world. Speaking first hand as I have three older (tho small) empires on three of the worlds, I would not be inclined to go to this new world as I am happy and slowly expanding my empires on the other worlds.
To go a bit further to (listening to what others have posted over the years) -do away with war levels and also war protection. That will get players talking and communicating again and will make federations that much more relevant.

@Dan - I am not too sure I would want all the players to interact on one world. I like the current game of five (possibly and hopefully six) worlds. I have seen some pretty nasty and mean players over the years and was always thankful that they were on another world then the one I was playing on. There's an old saying -best not to have all your eggs in one basket (or in this case world).

@Dan -the point basically is simcountry needs new players period. And also player interaction and communication. Just within the past couple months I have finally seen the player base grow. (from 5800 to over 7200). Still needs to grow more but its on the right track and I think Porter's idea will help the base grow even more as it will spread by word of mouth. One player tells his friends of this exciting new game he just joined. Then they join and so on and so forth. Also once a new player establishes themselves on the new world there should be nothing from preventing them from establishing a country or empire on the other older (5) worlds.

It would be nice if all the worlds could just be merged into one world. Im not sure if that is even a possibility server side, but it would make things more populated.

@John
Honestly, I would not be opposed to such a thing. You are right when saying it would make things appear to be more alive. Whether or not it is possible, idk. I believe that the New World idea would be the most viable solution for creating at least one centralized world when things appear to be more active.

I would love to see an active world!! With war included ofcourse!!

I heard something about crimson one I believe name was. Which was a war world that many didnt sign up for? I am newly back to the game and missed that

But I love the idea of a world opening and lasting say 100 years and see who wins it. Then repeat with a brand new world

Brilliant idea. I for one would enjoy burning the heretics and cleansing the unclean in a single world. Maybe bring back a use for Federations.

I will do some reading here later this week and respond.

I would prefer the current format of five (or possibly six) worlds, as I have countries and enterprises on all five worlds. If the decision however is made to move to one (or two) worlds solely then I would expect (as would other players in my situation with multiple countries and enterprises on the other worlds) to be fully compensated.
I feel moving from the current format of five worlds to just one world would be a mess. Which world would become the one world? Who would decide this? This would also entail a lot of work on the part of the GM's as it would involve massive programming. For the five worlds!

@Johans Bilderberg - It is your country(s) that is filled with heretics and unbelievers and should be fully purged and cleansed. Perhaps a lesson needs to be taught. And federations are already in use (if you know how to manage them).

Michael,
I believe he was referring to combining the worlds making a super planet. Technically no one would need to be compensated for anything. Although I am not fully opposed to this I believe that the concept of the New World, as presented in my original post, is far simpler and more effective route to take to ensure the stability of the game in the future.

Fellow players and to the GM,

I would like to weigh in as a long time player. This is long winded, but I ask that you read this with an open mind. This account has been here since Aug-09(I did have an account before this one) so I speak as a player with 10+ years of experience.

The issue players have had with the war levels had ---NOTHING--- to do with the war levels themselves, but with the side effects they caused. Andy will tell you in the past I was probably one of the most VOCAL advocates against the war levels which lead to me and the GM getting into heated arguments(which lead to me being forum banned a few times).

I fully understand and respect that "Vets" shouldnt be able to attack noobs, HOWEVER, the war levels solved a small problem and created a much bigger issue.

You see when I was a new player(pre-war levels) I did what most new players do. They come in run their mouths,

I disagree about war levels 1 and 2. Free members are too restricted in their population and empire size to be able to afford enough corps to build a military that can compete with premium members who can have populations over 60 million per country. You would discourage many players to quit rather than always trying to fight wars they can't afford to support. There are worlds where wars can be fought if the costs of building a military was cheaper and the war system was simpler. LU should remain the way it is. Premium members could move those other worlds if they wished to engage in wars. Personally I don't care for the current war system, but I do enjoy the economic side of the game.

I agree so much super soldier. I feel like we actually get a lot of new players here in Simcountry, but they all end up leaving fairly soon because there is no one to talk to. interaction starts when people attack eachother. the threat of attack also makes you log on more often to check on your assets. I think its fairly obvious that this is the reason the game is failing. im so surprised the GM ignores the main reason for all the problems.

I also agree in principle. That is one reason I praise the idea that only a few C3 wars will now lead to players participating in the wargame in the original post.The problem is that many have asked for similiar in the past and extreme changes are rarely implemented by the GM. I assume this is because they do not wish to alienate players who are already reliant on these mechanics to avoid the war game. That being said, I once again beleive that the concept of the NewWorld is the perfect inbetween. Implementing policy similiar to that proposed by SuperSoldier would be much more fluid if done so in a fresh start world, disconnected from the others. That way those who object are content and those who wish to participate can.