W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Both the history and the current state of the game highlighted issues with those systems.

1. Purchased war protection is too inexpensive and too timely.

-Too inexpensive. Players would pay for year-round war protection. It was, and is, simply cheaper than paying for defense. In an environment where leaving it up is almost a "no-brainer", the price simply has to be on a level where it makes more sense to participate and count on a federation and your own force of arms rather than simply logging in here and there and purchasing a few more months of guaranteed protection.

-Too timely. Aggressive nations are given the luxury of walling off their assets with this system on the eve of a war they would start. In my opinion, this is what led to adding restrictions to strategic weapons use, where, at least, some manner of assets were in play with the offensive use of strategic weapons. There must be some system that does not allow

Players recklessly throwing around nukes was, frankly, too simple. That was possible because they had nothing to loose, either because they had nothing, because raiding helpless computer countries was king, or their important assets were protection by another game restriction you guys seem to leave untouched, despite the argument against restrictions, in temporary war protection. Why are game restrictions okay for the victim but not the bomb throwers?

See, Aries, not to be rude or provocative, I would indulge you, but then I would nerf my own points earlier. We'd be going back and forth over the same no "right or wrong" answer arguments that should take a back seat to the facts that are staring everyone in the face.

Everyone who wanted protections and less powerful weapons got everything they wanted and everything they didn't as a result. Now the game is tilted to favor the garden variety type play, and strikingly, this was done to preserve and in the best case grow the community, yet the exact opposite has occurred.

There is no need to argue the merits of any previous configurations of this game except based on participation. Presently it is at an all time low, following what I can recount as an all time high.


Also, assuming you are correct, and nukes are so overpowered. Who cares? Do players casually land nukes on you? Haven't seen any in the news

Almost every paragraph you just wrote talks about player participation again and very little addresses the points I made. You then threw in some talk about overpowered vs. under-powered weapons which makes no sense since at all weapons are just as powerful as they ever were.

Your argument isn't good enough to say there happened to be more players before so its time to roll all game rules back. There are many more possible reasons for decline in active players. Maybe we are not just getting the younger folks, who are looking for more mindless entertainment with superior graphics, or many similar reasons. You will have to do better than say everything you suggest makes sense on that point alone.

That's the point Aries, I'm not addressing any points you made. I only address the relevant one. There is NO argument, ONLY facts.

There was a game, and there is less of it now. This is a brain, making simple observations. You need to face reality. Carrying on like this with you in circles is like one's brain on drugs.... Any questions?

Even More Astounding....

we have a browser game, that is also being ported as an app... and your target audience is primarily the 55 and up community not looking for any instant gratification and somewhat better graphics???

Nah bruh.... You'll have to do better. You nearly disqualified yourself from making any legitimate comment on the topic... like ever..........

Just stop please...........

I can understand why you would want to quiet me. You simply have no relevant answer to my valid points. Though what changes you think are actually warranted remain mostly unclear, other than some going back to the past, and the reason you state for them is empty other than it is assumed it will bring back some panacea for player participation, now the best you have is some worn out old commercial quotes and some competition who can type the most dots. Classy

............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
By gawd I won that one.

A long time ago, before many improvements, you could choose to either play a peaceful game or war game and there was no secured mode. There was either peaceful countries that couldn't war, meaning empires had to be bought, or you could play non peaceful countries and there was war protection but you only earned something like 1 month of wp every 8 game months or something like that. The war game wasn't nearly as refined but there was a lot of participation and communication. As years have passed there has been more and more forced separation of players due to secured countries, paid war protection and war levels. The level of participation and communication has dropped as there has been more and more improvements in the name of safety. This is a war game though and even though I've never been great at war it has been one of the biggest attractions of it for me. That and communication with other players, the problem is there isn't much of ei

stay classy my friends!

What's your beef with dots... Aries...?

Not beef. Definitely more of a poultry. Possibly chicken.

chicken is practically a vegetable. Have a beef for Gods sake, gods of war aren't supposed to do poultry

I know right? Dots=poultry. Stick with beef. Aaron said it best.

3. Raiding as the undisputed way to raise cash didn't make sense for several reasons.

Not everyone has the time or desire to micromanage an economic empire.

Raiding should be returned.

Raiding exists, and offers plenty of rewards, as my "Path of a Warrior" guide shows.

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/16295/25064.html?1440190635

Fighting just 36 computer wars on just 2 worlds, many of those newbie-level, yields some $78 Trillion and 640 gold coins (worth another $128 Trillion at current market price). A return of nearly $6 trillion per C3 war. Not too shabby and in not too much time. If you don't desire to build an empire and don't put in the time that others have decided to, than others might receive a different set of rewards that you do not. Is this not fair?

I would agree I've even made around 400Billion per C3 country fighting at war level 3 (Fighting to Expand Empire. You can make quite a bit of cash quickly but unfortunately your war level increases which can cause players to not want to fight wars against a C3 when it could increase there war level.

Nobody is interested in your version of "Path To a Warrior"

C3 raiding as form of entertainment is like asking boxing prospect if he is interested in a title fight versus the heavy bag.... For the boxer, a real opponent versus hitting something that will never hit back kind of seems boooooring, useful albeit but boring.

Where is the support for these coding tasks for battlegrounds from actual genuine players 6 months or a year into the game. I don't mean the flock of try-hards who swear by the gospel of Aries, I mean actual players.

It also puzzles me how you need to drown out everyone who brings up the topic of improving the game by rolling back these obvious conceptual failures that have been implemented. It's almost as if the whole idea of the current configuration was your idea and you are butthurt that anyone would challenge your proven wisdom. If your ego is bruised becuase you got it wrong its ok I mean it

Who is attempting to drown anyone out? You were the one asking me to "stop" and said I am somehow "disqualified" from comment. I have made no such demands nor statements. I am the one willing to debate changes based on their individual merits while you appear to be absolutely disturbed at the thought of needing to justify your game demands. I trust our intelligent players to read this discourse and determine whose ego is on full display.

If I recall, Battlegrounds and War College passed a player vote by a tally of 11-1. After months of being available on the Suggestions Forum, an actual player who actually plays the game suggested I put it up for a vote. So I did. Can you find 11 players to support whatever they can figure out you are suggesting? My guess the only ones who sign on are the ones you can get to buy that bunk that a binary choice exists between what exists now and some fantasy cloud cuckoo land.

As for "Pat

Lets put egos aside for a minute.

I prefer the term aggressive recycling.

And it is not just C3's. I captured many hundreds of millions of population, rebuilt countries for later sale, and built huge stock pile of weapons/ammo. Not even mentioning the dozens of rebuilt countries I sold or gave away over the years.

So yes I did better. But that was then, this is now.

I can do better, actually I don't have to do better, the game actually did better on substantive factual figures not simply opinions. Exaggerated opinions about this or that, ethical, tactical or otherwise led us here. A stagnant Republic of Aries. Where 11 people voted yes to anything but "this" but that doesn't disqualify the obvious reality the game was better then, not now. And when I say better, I don't mean I liked it better, I mean better from every conceivable category you can measure it against today. Better as in every aspect we can point out that is missing today, was very evident in the previous configurations for good reasons or "bad" (according to a very tiny presently extinct minority). I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you.

It is a binary choice, a player micro managing or approving every other players' choices according to their own whims gets us to this version wh

Concerning the real issue here.

-Problem. Too many protections were implemented and now clearly have proven damaging to the game overall.

-Solution. Roll back to a clearly proven previous configuration of the game.

-Outcomes.
* Those who enjoy raiding, can enjoy raiding, rewards for that raiding can be easily tweaked.
* Those who enjoy PVP war, can enjoy warring and all the fixins that go hand in hand with this added possibility.
* Those who wish to play an economic game, can use easily accessed war protections via gold coins or secured mode as it was in the previous configurations. Thereby avoiding warmongers, lil kim jong uns armed with over powered nuclear weapons, wars, federation wars, becoming inadvertent casualties to wars they don't wish to participate in due to complex politics/, or war altogether.


**Players can go back to playing the game having options to suit thei