| Wednesday, June 24, 2009 - 03:42 am |
attention simcountry people. i have been treatened by some guy that he will destroy every country in my possesion can you deal with him i am reporting abuse against irishtiger
| Saturday, June 27, 2009 - 01:09 pm |
Your main country cannot be destroyed as it has war-protection on the world you play on. If you do have other countries you can go through certain measures to protect those too.. But if you choose not to protect one of your country's. War is part of the game.
| Saturday, June 27, 2009 - 02:44 pm |
It is, but maybe it shouldn't.
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 08:31 pm |
Problem: "i have been treatened by some guy that he will destroy every country in my possesion"
Response: "But if you choose not to protect one of your country's. War is part of the game. "
May I quote you on that, Jonni?
| Wednesday, July 8, 2009 - 09:15 pm |
not to beat a dead horse but Irish was responding to being dec'e on by a fed and threatened with nuke's. just saying don't dec on someone then whine when you get threats back. my $0.02 and i'm out! 78^)*
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 02:11 pm |
We are looking to implement measures to keep war part of the game, but prevent total destruction of empires and removal of new players.
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 02:20 pm |
New players come along and start to bid on players corps. Established players msg new player pointing out they didnt want those bids and that they want no more bids placed.
new player decides to return msg full of profanity and continues bidding.
End result is new player finds himself in war.
Why not remove the ability for new players to bid on other players corps for x amount of mths.
There are plenty of c3's and gm corps available, thus avoiding conflict with established players.
Might also make for better forum chat, instead of the abuse that fires back and forth.
Just an idea
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 09:13 pm |
"We are looking to implement measures to keep war part of the game, but prevent total destruction of empires and removal of new players."
Unfortunetly Jonni, most of your changes over the last 8 years are what contributes to the loss of new players.
This use to be a simple game where you could build an empire in a month and expericence the game in all it's "glory" and so what if you lost it.
The learning curve is simply to steep and the cost is astronomical.
I doubt it is really much more than that, people are finding they spend much more money and time, than the game is worth for it's entertainment value.
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 09:45 pm |
What I find ironic in the situation is of course I've been here and participated in many of the arguments against changes many players found detrimental to game enjoyment.
W3C for the most part ignored those arguments and in many cases took the recommendations made by players that had alread quit at the time they where made and never came back.
Most of those that were here, have also quit.
Now we've had a threat about this "end war booster" which seems everyone posting, except the person recommending it, is against.
I have to wonder what W3c's "final solution" will be.
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 09:56 pm |
New players should be prohibited from bidding on "PAYING PLAYERS" assets period. 90% of the problems that new players have are their attitudes when they screw up. You try to advise and give advice as we have all been new players and as posted before you get messages back full of profanity and threats and then a series of hostile bids from someone who will be gone in two weeks.
Why do the game mods continue to make changes that protect these asshats from themselves?? Every single change made seems to be from the new player prospective and they still don't stay. Not only do they not stay the changes aversely affect the game for those who have been here for YEARS and they leave. I run a business and if I ran my business like this I would be broke.
What are you going to do keep the game enjoyable for the people who have been here for YEARS??
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 10:23 pm |
This was my suggestion to W3C on the subject of protecting assets. If you think it over and still believe it sucks, I'm open to hearing it.
If you are really looking for ways to "protect" someone's assets and let war continue to be a part of the game consider this:
Automatically place the three lowest rank countries in a persons empire in secured mode. Three was not chosen as an arbritary number, just like most countries do not "take off" until 30 million in pop, most empires do not have the "moxy" to develop or even fight until they have at least 3 countries available to do so.
Personally I consider 5 countries able to fight as a minimum, but that is personal opinion.
And why pick the lowest ranked countries?
Because, if someone wishes to build an empire those are the countries least likely to be able to defend themselves. If someone doesn't want his top ranked country available to declare on they can either drop down to 3 or pay for war protection.
Additionally by working it like this, you make people choose when a country is at risk. If they don't wish to risk any then fine, stay with 3 countries. If they want to develop economic powerhouses they can either stay at 3 countries or spend money for WP.
One of the biggest problems with this game right now are the people who fight risking only junk countries they slammed together in 5 days to take on a giant. THIS is the most objectionable part of simcountry today, players using countries little better than a C3 to take down a 60 million plus country.
This would give a player 3 countries a player could develop without "fear" (since people obviously fear this) someone is going to come along and take them away. You cannot wipe out a player with 3 countries nobody can touch.
If I have to say it, these three countries should only be able to declare on computer controlled countries and participate in war against a player in fed defense mode only.
| Thursday, July 9, 2009 - 11:51 pm |
Yankee it def makes more sense than the end war booster.
| Friday, July 10, 2009 - 12:41 am |
Very nice idea Yankee, way better than the booster idea.
| Friday, July 10, 2009 - 04:44 am |
Unfortunetly, it's too simple and doesn't involve the exchange of GC's.
Additionally it would force players to build countries that were economically stable with some form of a military.
If people weren't smart enough to develop thier first three countries before raiding that fourth one, well IMHO they'd learn an important lesson.
In thier view of course someone was raping them and stealing money. War is the violent application of force to achieve national goals.
What people in this game fail to realize, robbing the rich (or stupid) and giving to ... ME happens to, in most cases be the National goal.
It wouldn't be acceptable. What we will end up is some convoluted mess that pisses off anyone that's played this game more than 90 days.
| Friday, July 10, 2009 - 05:29 pm |
Well here is a not very well thought out idea 78^)*
Revamp the levels requirments and only let countries who are close in level fight. multiplayer halo style. i don't particularly like it but i would like it better than the war stop booster. this would also stop the newest of players from hostile bidding trouble
| Friday, July 10, 2009 - 05:52 pm |
It would however (off the top of my head) remove any reason for newer players to leave someone larger than them alone.
You will always have a "class" of players that enjoy conflict, it doesn't even matter if they are stomped into the ground all they want is the attention.
| Friday, July 10, 2009 - 06:02 pm |
that is true. to use halo as an example there is always one guy who sucks so he just goes around occasionally killing his team mates. jumping off cliffs..... damn i just described myself