W3C - The Simcountry War Game (White Giant)

Dubhthaigh and Jojo too, thanks.
I busy now but I will react within 24 hours.
there is a lot here to try and find a fair solution that will not introduce any more limitations.
we would like to remove limitations.

24 very log hours.
Here is some response and additional suggestions

"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 undesirables from the game. Wars only use will be to gain wealth through raiding unsecured countries. -

Conclusion: I feel this ch

It is terrible that somehow, three secured countries had only one negative point from some players, that it will perpetuate wars,

particularly c3 wars.

How did you come up with the conclusion that it will diminish the war game?

I am not sure. Let us not forget that there is only one secured country atm, yet the root of this pickle being debated was wars, specifically experienced players vs weaker or new players.

I am unsure how this conclusion is logical at all given the players input from onset of the thread. A few disagreed at the end, but lets face reality, agreements/disagreements on this fact diminishing/perpetuating wars, is only a matter of opinion.

Indeed both assumptions are ONLY opinions, facts can be checked or proven. Nothing can be checked or proven concerning either assumption.

If players were to choose what to do with the benefit of an extra secured nation or two, that choice is complet

I know that anything you do will upset some group of customers. But, you said that the worlds will be overcrowded soon. Wouldn't it be a good time to start a new planet and maybe implement some of these features there? That way nobody's current empires (investments) would be affected and everybody would know what they are getting into. There have been several suggestions and maybe that would be a way to experiment without causing more people to leave.

BC

A test planet is a very good ideal. Try out your ideals before they are implemented? That is logical, humm.

I thought one already existed, not sure if it still does

[edited for content-off subject, sorry]

(ok, I'm going to read the whole thread now that I got that out lol)

This wasn't about FB. This thread was supposed to be about everything BUT FB.

The GM has said that FB will not change.

ahh well, I am an unbalanced player, strong economics and weak on the military knowledge and I prosper. Why do we need changes? Simcountry isn't hostile enough to have taught me war skills in 3 years of on and off play! lol

I think there really is no monster under the bed! lol

I really think this is out of control.

Where are all these 'victims'? All these newbies getting terrorized to where we need changes?

Why aren't we hearing testimony to the effect: "when I was new I wish we had more protection because yada yada yada" or "what made the game not fun for me as a new player was yada yada yada"

I don't see any of it, no victims, nobody has voiced concern over negative experiences they don't want to see others experience, I'm really not getting what the GM's issue is.

Did Obama bail out or take over Simcountry when I wasn't looking?


I want to hear from some victims before I see radical changes that make the simulation less realistic.

We need a realistic simulation with controls to stop exploitations,(cheating) isn't that all?

When I was new there was no form of secured mode. You had to play the game, and you felt driven to do so. Survival was difficult, and you had to learn how to play and use the features of the game to your advantage.

The game was engaging, challenging and - most importantly - fun.

Now the game is entirely different.

Tom, you and the rest of W3 are idiots if you think adding further handicap to your skilled playerbase will improve the game. You want to seperate econ players from warlords? Fine. Return us to the time when you had two choices - war mode or peace mode. No more middle ground where I can't attack player X for being rude, obnoxious and insulting simply because W3 thinks being good at the game is a crime.

Why is being a good player a punishable offence anyway? Why do you cater to the ever-fleeting noobs rather than the players who draw pleasure from the game and invest in the long-run?

There are two t

Online games always seem to result in a ton of whiners that the game manufacture has to deal with. I'm convinced you'll never see another Sims Online because of that. It seems the younger the group that you attract the more intense the whining is.

I had this next part typed out last night but it wouldn't let me post again, I guess I posted too many in a certain period of time, maybe it will let me post it now, so here it is:

_____________________

If this were Electronic Arts it would go a little like this:

[EA Boss]:
Tom, you have a minute to step into my office?

We need to discuss the Simcountry project,

There's been a complaint, apparently a moderator or someone posing as one engaged in a war or conflict with paying players and as you know EA forbids employees from establishing relationships with the customer in our online gaming communities. The complaint cites LG and a

I dont think it is an issue either, however, i suggest putting a failsafe to avoid have a noob being wiped out of his country(if he has more than his main).

Obviously the game is complex and takes a while to absorb and demands time. For the usual player, you wont have time to master either sides for a while (country,ceos or war part).

I dont think it is fair however to not allow a noob to try out his war arsenal. If he wants to try it, whatever, he can sure try.

However, for a veteran or for anybody who clearly can destroy him, whatever the reason why you want to do it, i think a failsafe that prevents you from completely taking ownership of his country IF you are stronger than him. It should stop the whining.

By stronger, you can define it by ranks,score, countries owned, military assets, etc, your choice. I suggest score, since it reflects your strength on both econ and war stats.

So if a noob

See? that's already covered in having a secure mode country. The only thing that happens to a rude noob is they get blasted back to their main and sometimes get held there for a while until they stop frothing at the mouth. lol Meanwhile they can play until their hearts content with their one untouchable country (on every planet) with some issue with replacing a few CEO corps that will move out because they chose to mess with the bull and get the horns.

I suggest they do what the average noob does, change your name and become a respectful new player.

Tom, you fix the problem by replying to the new player complaint with some facts on how to avoid the situation in the future. If freedom from the situation they are complaining about isn't good enough for them then they are simply complaining for your attention or game leverage over another player(s).

I'm going to stop posting so much, I'm sorry I'm just blown away by what you want to do Tom.

Haven't you seen the Wendy conflict? Wendy seems to have done well for herself and I have never seen an onslaught like that on a "former noob". (you go girl! lol)

There is no real problem, why are you 'crying wolf'?

Tom what's really going on here? It's almost like you have an entire line of thinking here based on emotion instead of logic.

Darke Katt, I feel the same way you do. That is why I wrote on another post that the GM is trying to create a Socialist Reality in SC. Basically punishing success and promoting and supporting mediocrity. Nothing will so kill the human spirit as forced mediocrity.

One Secured County should be enough. If a noob wants to try out the war engine and be safe, then they should conquer a C3 and practice with the slave.

It seems the GM wants to have a safe, happy economic game. Imho, the economic part of the game is the most boring part, especially when a player leaves and their countries are not allowed to be attacked or bid on until the pop has reduced to 6M.

Making the game too safe only leads to boredom. Real life is inherently unpredictable, which is what makes it so interesting. SC should be even more unpredictable and uncertain.

W3C:

So you've now reduced the max number of weapons in a unit. Are you done now or is this another gradual change where in 6 months we'll be able to use half as many weapons as before??

Also, what happened to your plans to leave FB alone? The same reductions are there as well.

BC

Who was that talking about a test world? That's what we need so the Gamemaster has somewhere to flip out! lol

No, really, how about that test world? (like any responsible game company would have)

We don't mind changes, we understand that our game experience will change as time progresses, however, I doubt even one of us likes the idea of being used as a lab rat.

This brings to mind a question.

Were the units already in existence in the game reduced to the new maximum limit or is it just newly created ones?