Someone point out what I'm Missing

There seem to be more, seemingly weird limits on fun here these days that don't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I guess no one asked.

This is a "returning to the game again and here's my experience post." I return over and over to this game. I think I've started from scratch 6 times now, and have played in an ongoing state for probably close to a decade. This game has so many good elements others don't and has always had massive potential. I will have my fun, I will try to generate interaction with others, and I will make friends and foes. But there are problems here and significant areas that could and probably should be improved.

The intention of this post is to point at what I believe are regular pain points for players (both new and old) and ask if someone can explain why those pain points exist, are created, and are seemingly increased every time I return.

I was interested in expanding to

It is hard to disagree with what you say.

I think honestly the focus is changing away from a multiplayer game in which you involve yourself with other players versus a Single-player game with multiplayer social elements. I think the current game discourages long term players by giving them far less incentive to continuously play.

I also do not believe that it is putting Andy on blast at all. We all love this game and try to make it better. I’ve voiced my opinions before on how war can help keep interest alive.

When it all gets boiled down, I think that when you see long term players making the same complaints it’s worth visiting. The war engine and lack of war is a consistent complaint that has never been fully addressed.

Eeeee OOOooo,

I've read your post, it's not exactly clear what you are asking.

To touch on some of the points raised.

1). Empire sizes. Managing multiple countries requires significant micromanagement. As such players requested that they be able to grow their populations larger inside their countries, rather than having to take more countries. Players tend to have fewer countries, but each country is larger, this makes them easier to manage, without reducing the total populations under a players control.

2). Tiny Atlas. Most people seem to be using this as a late game challenge, a way to test their skills in a much harder environment, with the role playing bonus of carrying out a true space colonization program, building the planet from the ground up. I doubt many people are genuinely there just to harvest Targon.

3). The reduction in total country profits. Simcountry was suffering from a glu

Thanks for your response, Daniel.

The intention of my post was to start a discussion. I've played off and on since 2008 and upon each return, there are fewer players playing, less interaction between players, and less to do for each player. This is my opinion (except for the less players part - that's almost certainly fact).

Here are some questions for you:

- It sounds like you play with one country and make 50b-70b profit and have played that way for years? You play entirely single player, yes? If not, which players impact your country? How do they do that?

- Do you think that's an appealing way to play that many other players enjoy? If so, why are there so few players who play like that?

- How long does it take to get a big country and at what cost? Do new players see this as a reasonable reason to keep playing or a target to aim for? If that's the main way to play, are new players goin

Eeeee OOOooo

- It sounds like you play with one country and make 50b-70b profit and have played that way for years?

Yes, I've played for years, with only one country.

- Do you think that's an appealing way to play that many other players enjoy? If so, why are there so few players who play like that?

Looking at the Presidents list on LU, there are roughly 315 countries with player presidents, 220 of them are the only country, or primary country in the empire. Of the 95 countries that are secondary nations, most belong to only a handful of players. So objectively speaking, the vast majority of simcountry players only have one country.

- How long does it take to get a big country and at what cost? Do new players see this as a reasonable reason to keep playing or a target to aim for?

I've never used real money to buy gold coins, beyond the basic membership fee, the cost is $0. As for how long, t

Thanks for engaging Daniel, this is the type of discussion I'd hoped for.

"Looking at the Presidents list on LU, there are roughly 315 countries with player presidents, 220 of them are the only country, or primary country in the empire. Of the 95 countries that are secondary nations, most belong to only a handful of players. So objectively speaking, the vast majority of simcountry players only have one country."

When I joined in 2008, there were ~2500+ countries with a president on Little Upsilon. As you say, there are now 315. The planet is dead, relatively speaking. This is my point.

The reason so few players have expanded beyond one country is likely they don't know how or don't stay around long enough to try. On the entire planet, only 9 players have won a war against war level 1, which is exceedingly simple to do. Every player starts with enough weaponry to do it. Andy even made a guide that pops up fo

Eeeee OOOooo,

"When I joined in 2008, there were ~2500+ countries with a president on Little Upsilon. As you say, there are now 315. The planet is dead, relatively speaking."

I remember the planet used to have a player with over 100 countries, and others with 50+. Number of countries isn't the same as number of players. While there are likely fewer players than in 2008, it's normal that a game has fewer core players as it gets older. Even massively successful Online Multiplayer Games like World of Warcraft have fewer players than they used to.

"On the entire planet, only 9 players have won a war against war level 1, which is exceedingly simple to do. Every player starts with enough weaponry to do it."

It's no secret that the vast majority of players don't engage with the war engine and consider themselves to be peaceful players. Even though, as you said, they start the game with al

Thanks again Daniel. Thanks for the discussion. My point is to try to discuss state of the game and ask about certain changes that could be made to retain more players and keep more new ones.

"I remember the planet used to have a player with over 100 countries, and others with 50+. Number of countries isn't the same as number of players. While there are likely fewer players than in 2008, it's normal that a game has fewer core players as it gets older. Even massively successful Online Multiplayer Games like World of Warcraft have fewer players than they used to."

Sure. There are massive penalties for playing like that and those empires almost instantly go bankrupt. Did these players negatively impact your gameplay at all while you play with your country in secured mode? My point stands though in that there used to be many times more players. Additionally, many many more players had more than one country, and generally, t

Thanks, guys, for all of your perspectives on this subject. I'll say my two cents. I love the game; that's obvious since I'm still here. I've had great times and met great people and some interesting characters, the game has many great features, as everyone has mentioned. I have a couple of concerns and dislikes, etc.


1. In the past, there were calls for the game masters to add features allowing people to spend excess cash reserves. Andy attempted to address this by creating Tiny Atlas. However, that's not necessarily what people had in mind. The Game masters also increased the price of weapons and added Windfarms. Fine, that's great. The Problem is the Game masters thought we meant to make things more expensive, which was not the case. While on TA, I'm strictly there for Targon and wonder if I may or may not use it. I'll have to test their effectiveness.

2. Security Council. Over the years, I saw many

I think the root cause for a lot of these issues is that this gaming format's hayday was almost 20 years ago, and the current players are stubborn dinosaurs.

@ Banedon. Out of curiosity, in my last post, I listed 6 suggestions in bold. Would implementing any of those negatively impact your experience in simcountry? Do you think the additions of any of those might make for a more positive experience for other players?

@Joel, I like all of your suggestions. They'd all be improvements in my book. Many of your suggestions are based around expanding features and concepts already built into the game (security council, for example).

Part of what I've seen is the squeaky NEW wheel gets the grease, some new players failed miserably quickly and cried, instead of looking at those that succeeded Andy decided to add guard rails and bumpers to reduce the failures. The problem is those guard rails and bumpers reduce the ability to play as you desire and has made it a "safer" but less fun game.

Not everyone is meant to play a large, complex, slow game like this. Adapting the game for those that its really not for and will leave either way in time just drives away those that like this type of game.

Another issue I must agree with Joel, there are too many worlds for today's player base, the game needs to be concentrated, this would be easier on the server stress as Daniel pointed out as well as increase player interactions.

- It to be easier for smaller players to get cash so they can play more.

As a new player, if you log in everyday the bonuses give you something like +5M population and +2-3T cash. That's a fair amount of help right at the start.

- More guides in the game. Perhaps some veteran players could assist with creating and reviewing these.

There are good economic and decent military guides already, they are just buried in the forums.
If these guides got actively linked in game, or the default AI behavior was set to use those settings, users might feel more supported.

- There to be more incentive for multiplayer activity. Not requirements, but more incentive and bonus for team activity, as this is a multiplayer game.

While this would be nice, it's hard to setup multiplayer without giving opportunities to trolls. It's also hard to setup tools to deal with trolls that can't be abused.

Thanks Banedon. I appreciate the feedback and questions helping push the conversation along.

New play bonuses of 5M pop and 2-3T cash is great.

That's not enough cash to win against war level 2 c3s. One spending space at 330q is more than 3T cash. We're saying to new players "you can buy a bunch of nice stuff once after a month of onboard?" That's not enough pop to have a country generating tons of wealth. It's a *great* thing that those are included, but I'd argue it's not enough, and it doesn't help with planning. I've seen players tend to look more at their monthly balance sheet when planning. Some players don't need assistance, but compared to veteran players who have stacks and stacks of cash, giving new players an extra 5-10T here and there *doesn't matter* in the grand scheme of things, and doesn't really hurt anyone. It does, however *let them play.*

I'm not sure how you play, but I didn't need more than about 1T to take down a C3 on WL1 or 2.
The hard part was learning how to spend that 1T to get to proper tools, enough ammunition, and have some left over to clean up the mess.

My government costs for my main is about 13 B/mth.
Reducing or removing it would be nice sure, but 13 B/mth isn't going to make, or break, a country.
I think a better idea would be to take the advice mentioned here: https://www.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/27969/27978.html&lm=1582721519
and make those settings (all but point 2) the default country economic settings.
It would put every nation, C3 or newbie alike, on a much stronger economic footing.

The main issue with Multiplayer content is that there's no longer enough players, or put it another way, there's to much empty space.
Kebir Blue: 340/3061 ~ 11.1%
Little Upsilon: 367/34

Thanks again Banedon. Loving the interaction here, and love your ideas!

WL1 was basically free for me. WL2 cost me 2200 bombers, which is the part that was expensive. I posted my record of it in the 'this guide doesn't work' thread. 2200 bombers at 330q is fairly expensive for new countries. When did you last do the war levels? Have you done them since the update this year?

Hear you on the government costs not making huge impact - my point is mostly just that new players are the ones who need spending money, not me, not you, not veterans. Some way to funnel them consistent cash as opposed to periodic rewards that aren't so easy to put in a planner. I see questions on the forum like "when can I afford to build an army," and having consistent financial reports showing profits seems like a good way to decide that.

I'm all for better guide integration. Some of the guide you linked may be little outdated - a

The last time I was fighting at WL1/2 was about 2-2.5 years ago.
The last C3 I took over was over a year ago, before the latest changes.

As I recall my losses to take the last C3, @ WL3, equalled a bomber wing and 2-3 divisions.
From my starting forces, that worked out to about 1/2 the airforce and 1/3 of my ground troops.

WL14 cost quite a bit. I don't remember the exact cost but I think it was somewhere around 50K OAAMB/MRMB + cruise batteries instead of bombers for the forts.

I agree with Eeeee Oooooo there should be a more reasons for player to interact each other, war can be a good reasons for it. We need more players to play and devt team should find a way for it

Playing solo for long time was boring