W3C - The Simcountry War Game (White Giant)

I don't think the problem is with FB, i think there is a lot of talk about FB because if there are changes to the war game the players want to see FB the least restricted of all the worlds in terms of war. i could be wrong though.

One or two new players stumbled into FB and got wiped out. Yah well live and learn.

Most of the trouble stems from people finding they have spend hundreds of dollars and lost everything.

Most times this would have been prevented had they simply not signed the war treaty.

For what ever reason people gamble and lose then start demanding compensation. It's the same in every multiplayer game where you paid to play that I've ever seen.

Sim Country is not cheap to play and with boosters, cash market etc. it's no different than putting an ATM machine inside a casino.

Someone is always going to bet more and lose more than they can afford. IMHO they simply should roll back to an earlier time, charge 36 bucks to play for one year and forget the rest of this crap.

Ha ok now I understand it. Some fools spend a ton of money then get wiped out. Now the even bigger fools in charge want to fix it so the other fools who pay that ton of money can keep doing so and be happy.

That is pretty much the long and short of it.

At one time you didn't need to sell GC's to get money, or population you could gain it by raiding.

For many years the game was free in all but GR where you paid 36 bucks and played for a year. Then they cut the raiding for population, cut the money and came up with the convoluted GC system.

The problem was nobody wanted to pay money to play this game, I'm sorry but you always pay for your entertainment. As long as the cost is reasonable people continue to do it.

SC is now so expensive to get started I wouldn't waste my time. But what we have are people that hit the door, spend money like they never had to pay the bill (some probably don't), then when they get the statement, or mom and dad say's WTF!!! or they get wiped out and realize what it's costing them they get nasty.

Which is why I say roll back and simply charge, let players

I would state my true feeling and opinions of things, but I would probably get banned again. However I think you can tell by my last message how I feel about the people who run the game and see that we pretty well agree on things. Veterans like me and you will be a thing of the past in the next year or so if they keep doing things like this that cater who the dumb noobs who pour in cash.

Well once the people that knew what the game was, and could have been are gone, alot of discussions become a moot point.

I've given away countries, empires and almost made it out the door when I gave away my entire account. I made the mistake of stopping in FB or I'd be gone already.

Just a suggestion. Instead of having the worlds be war or econ...make the players...a player choosing econ..can not attack another player..or be attacked by another player. If you choose the war option...you war against others who wish to play that way...To me that makes more sense than dividing the worlds up.

Yankee you are right! Keep up expressing (y)our opinion, since most of "us" oldtime players are numb of left...

I have known the old "free playing", and all phases that let to what we now have. I think we only need a few minor changes, and let things as the are now.

What do we have now?
1) You don't need to spend more then $ 4,-/month.
2) You can play/build "save" (secured main) and have no risk of losing your "precious" country (what is wrong with losing, anyway? It used to be the best way to learn...)
3) If you want to "buy" a powerhouse, mighty army et cetera, realise that it might look impressive, but you might become a pitty loser when you face some-one who build his empire/army the hard way (by investing time instead of gold coins..)

Minor points, that need to be improved, imo:
4)we have a credit-card competion. Those

daconia has a point.

well i got to say im one of the guys that came 4 months ago and spent like 100$ so far. i set myself up pretty good and could walk away knowing i enjoyed myself. if i wake up tommorow and its gone i wont play agian cause i see whats coming and its not what is here now. the game , with the exceptions of the times u cant build units is fun , risky, and getting better. if u told me i had no possibility of loseing then id save some money and find a free chess site.

Daconia's point use to be called "peaceful mode".

Problem with that is you couldn't switch out of it and many people found it too boring after awhile.

SC isn't going to let anyone build a 10+ country empire that nobody can attack, it's simply too costly for them.

When we had peaceful mode it was easy enough to buy a peaceful country so your empire was part peaceful and part not, or start in peaceful and buy a war country. I had that at one point. Of course peaceful came with raised govt. costs so it was bit different than secured mode.

Just to clarify several points:

1. We have not decided on any changes at all.

2. We have no plans to change anything on FB.
The only things we might improve are the messages players get when they want to start on FB, warning them of the possibility that they will be wiped out for no reason.

We can advise them more clearly to stay out of FB is they do not want to play this kind of game.

3. The idea of 3 countries in secured mode, shifting the choice of three to the weakest ones is not entirely clear.

Most players now have their main country in secured mode. We assume that they want to keep it in secured mode.

Adding the two weakest countries to a secured group, with secured mode shifting automatically depending on their rank will reduce transparency and people might be surprised to discover changes they don't want.

They will have to watch out what they do to prevent shifts they do not w

Thank you for the clarification Tom. I like knowing what is going on.

/me applauds Yankee

Spot on Yankee. I hope the GMs listen.

Hugs and respect

Jo

They do listen Jo, it's a matter of whether or not I can convince them.

However, like a politician they try to keep everyone happy and many times make so many "deals" what is done most times many times is no longer effective.

Even I'm not sure what they really want, I know they want to make money (who doesn't). Thing is do they want it all at once, and risk the game, or do they want it long term at the cost of rapid (realitively) development.

This was not constructive. Even worse, it did not help anyone.

We had a discussion about possible changes in the war game.

It does not need to be. there are many ideas by now and there is enough time before it is implemented.

Sure it was Tom, Jo statement indicated the GM's do not listen.

I simply told her you DO listen. Alot of people actually believe you do not care.

I know different, what I do also realize is you listen to everyone at once and many times attempt to compromise between suggestions.

Most times those compromises end up being nothing like what what originally intended in the first place.

Even this last post of your's indicates W3C has already decided what it intends to do. The rest of us will as usual simply wait to see what they are.

And if you are referring to my post prior to Jo's, it definetly needed saying as the problems are all interconnected.

There is no decision on what to do.
some of the people here are on vacation and we will wait for them anyway to participate in this discussion.

I hoped to get something out of a discussion here.
I am not sure it will happen.

LMAO and so you delete the post which actually gets to the heart of the enitre situation.

Way to go Tom, I can see just how "intereted" W3C really is in what we as players deem as problems

Anyway I tried, do what you will

I'm sorry for any confusion, but I wasn't suggesting that the GMs don't listen. That's not what I said.

I have emailed the GMs in the past about problems and they have always listened and put in the work to fix them. If anything, I have found them to be far more reasonable and supportive than some others on this forum suggest.

I merely stated that I hope they listen this time, as I have never tried to alert them to anything by posting on this forum, and I therefore have no idea whether it is the best medium in which to get the GM's ear ...

My support was for Yankee's suggestions to bring back C3 raiding ... the best incentive to learn the war engine, the best way to build up your country's defences and the best diversion for those who enjoy warring - far better than picking on noobs or raiding inactives. And also for getting rid of the cashout feature / GC market. However, that post seems to have be

Hello there, I will try to take an impartial look at the proposed changes, their implications, and if anything can be done to achieve similar results, but in a less intrusive/drastic way.

"Three countries in Secured Mode."

Implications:

* It will be possible for more players to become involved in the war game, as large warslaves do not have to be supported with billions of population or propped up by the cash market. +

* Big federations will play a much larger and more effective role in the game - military power is no longer reliant on the individual's ability to pay (GC) for upkeep costs - you will have 100 secured economic slaves powering a virtually untouchable strike force. This will be taken to the extreme with the planned implementation of federation contolled armies. + / -

* You nullify the point of honest war in SC - to punish or remove undesira

Well said Dub. Making war protection cheaper solves alot of trouble easily.

Lots of great posts. My two cents:

War booster: nay, lousy idea in so many ways.

Yankee's "weakest 3 countries secured": sounds like the most well-thought out game change proposal I've seen in my two years here. Could benefit players on the full range of levels of play.

Making war protection cheaper: I hate seeing huge militaristic empires on the "war" world constantly in WP for months on end. Basic principle of the war game seems to me that the stuff you use to wage or potentially wage war should be accessible for others to attack. Big countries in wp supporting little c3s in action violates that. Big empires in wp that come out only at opportune times, to take other countries then go back into wp, also violates that. Cheaper wp by itself will just encourage more of this.

More WP credit for noobs: sure

Limit number of countries that can be attacked simultaneously: Dub said it well