W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Where are your ideas?

Objection!!! Asked and answered!

I'll just throw this in here because I'm new and don't care.

I've read the thread. Digested it. There is one thing I am not seeing in anyone's argument.

This is the way the game is played now. Not many see it changing or reverting back to anything. Why are we not recruiting more people that would be attracted to the game as it is played now? Or for those of you that prefer the major war game, why aren't you messaging players in game and working with them to reach fighting shape and level? If you did this, the population of warring players would increase.

Seems like all the answers for me anyway go back to the that people are more inclined to have a game cater to and form around their playing styles...when in reality it should be the players operating within the game catering their gameplay to the game rules. The rules as of now still allow wars etc.

Don't let the game master you. Master the

Heisenberg.....if you had been around a few years ago, you would have seen the full chatroooms and the popping forum.

The changes didn't work

The game is half of what it used to be

The community has dwindled

Nobody can deny it that played back then

I get that. But the past has passed, it's really up to us to decide if there is a future.

I haven't included it in my answer because it isn't the argument I am trying to make. I am not going to defend failure. It's irresponsible, like making excuses.

I think if you want to pose a more applicable subject then here's one.

For everyone who thinks the game is okay... assuming "they" are doing everything Heisenberg assumes is every players responsibility to do...

Why isn't it working? For those who message and work with players and mold them into the non existent fighting base absent today, how is that working out for you? If it isn't working out, then why? Why were these tasks so easy and productive then, compared to now?

Very important side note, most of the great econ players are gone too, this isn't jjust a war thing. But an outcome of too many added protections. It has destroyed both active player bases. New and old alike. I want that improved. Most of the past greats are h

I think some changes should certainly to improve the war game or perhaps we just need a completely new and reworked war game. Regardless I believe there are 2 major problems currently that make the war game not practical and extremely difficult and time consuming and should be addressed soon at some point. Additionally there is another problem which could be addressed sometime in the far future.

1. To Much Clicking!

This is one of my greatest problems with the war game. The clicking is literally insane. Improvements could be added such as possibly making it easy to simply search for forts and then select them all and then you would be able to select which units to attack with. To make this balanced the attacks would not be instant but would use realistic times which could be calculated by the distance from the attacking unit to the target.

For example if a air force bombing and attack wing is 1,000miles from a target and if it di

I'm not here for the war game. So I plainly could not care less about this entire subject. The way I figure it is if the GM is running this game the way they want to, that is all that matters. As far as I know, and have experienced in other games, ideas from players are taken, and sometimes implemented at the GM's discretion. If people did not enjoy the changes, they quit. In the overall scheme of things, money talks...and obviously the money isn't telling the owners of this game to change back. Maybe if the benjamins slow down coming in, then the GM will do something.

Withhold your cash if it is that much of an issue.

I may not renew my premium membership in the next 2 months if the war game is not fixed in some way or if the game masters don't announce a upcoming fix.

There probably won't be a future for this game if changes aren't done in the next few months.

The game is in a gradual decline and to fix it the GM's need to advertise it along with lots of fixes and major radical changes to the game.

(It's only a matter of time before their money tap dries up and stops coming in)

Well, that's blatantly false, I was brought here by an ad. So the Gm's are actively advertising this game.

I've noticed a lot of newer players enjoy the game, as it makes them think. Two of the players I've brought in have already stated they don't have any interest in conversing with people, and one of them said a read through these forums disgusted them and they'd never participate. But I have one friend who thinks he's unlocked the secret to the war game and he plans on going that way.

To each their own. And this game has something for everyone in my estimation.

Well they certainly aren't working hard enough as there are numerous complaints and issues involving the war game. It's pretty obvious there's been a major decrease in the number of players playing the game.

Look at the participation in voting polls on game suggestions.

If you scroll down to see the results of multiple polls you can see almost 5 to 20 times the players voted on polls 4 years and more ago opposed to the more recent ones when only a few player voted.

(You may say players just don't like to participate in votes anymore but any reasonable person could tell it's a result of inactivity and game decline.)

I didn't say votes. I said participate. Period. And going through the votes, your argument is invalid. Even when this game was more populated, averaged 20 to 40 votes. The player base was hundreds back then I am told. So it doesn't seem like they were all that active voting back then too. I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's in a direction that you're trying to use a straw man to make your point.

I have seen so far 6 different players complain about this. That is not numerous. That's like saying that since 100,000 people in the US are in favor of allowing people to drink and drive we should just let it happen, because yknow, it's what they want. It doesn't work that way because the GM's have a job to do, and that is to balance their game as they see fit.

Fact is, all you have been talking about since you started was taking out empires. If you'd just be honest and say you don'

The GM's are supposed to listen to the people who play the game, well they will if they want to continue to rake in money. You yourself have admitted it there used to be hundreds of players back then actively participating in the game and now there is 6 wanting to remove war levels opposed to 1 (Heisenberg) defending war levels, that seems like a huge decrease in players, even when you count all the players that didn't participate in this thread your still looking somewhere between 10-50 active players opposed to hundreds.

[It's pretty clear to everyone except Heisenberg there's been a decrease in active players.]

This should be addressed right now by removing and replacing war levels along with a numerous list of other desperately needed changes followed by a enormous advertising campaign.

I said I was TOLD there were hundreds.

I'm also not defending anything. The GM is not obliged to institute ANY change it doesn't want to. You're just another player who thinks just because you play a game it entitles you to some kind of partial ownership. It does not.

Once again, we all know why you want war levels gone.

Of course there not obligated to change anything, there is no law requiring games to do what players won't. However I'm sure the GM's want to hear these suggestions and it's likely they will want to remove war levels if they want money as otherwise there will be a huge decrease in revenue in the next year.

Also most games that are successful usually suit there games to the players wants otherwise they simply can't sell there game.

If you ever wondered why the GM's have a topic (suggestions) it's so people can post there suggestions and there has been numerous complaints on these issue already.

Alright, was out for Mother's Day stuff and couldn't type much then. As far as your critique of my ideas. War levels and game levels are not the same thing. Reading comprehension can help with that. So with War College, it was obvious you didn't understand it.

I am not convinced you followed the link and even read Battlegrounds. As far as your reply that it would replace "real wars", the idea is that it would instead replace endless raiding for those who miss it. In that respect, it is much more "real" and could create a spat to lead to larger conflict.

The idea with Natural Resources is to create an incentive to have actual empires with actual econ protected with force of arms and federations rather than artificial war protection. This would replace your notion of any econ savvy player should simply throw up magic war protection. This leads to actual feds with actual purpose and actual diplomacy. Thought we w

I can see there are many different opinions on this issue and it's probably best if there could be a compromise on this issue that we all could agree upon instead of simply arguing about this issue. I do apologize to Heisenberg for not considering any of his ideas however I do still believe that at some point in the future or sometime soon changes should be implemented into the game.

I can see Aries seems to support wars against other active players, although I'm not sure if it's possible to be fully implemented as it would lead to conflict against new players who simply cannot win against a player like Aries. However Aries did have other good ideas such as providing reasons for players to choose a war path which could improve the game, unfortunately removing war levels completely is probably too extreme.

Therefore I have proposed a plan below which I hope everyone will at least read.



War Plan for Re

Trust me new people.

It is a lot more interesting politically, militarily, and towards your sleep patterns to be at risk.

No risk, no reward.

what is a sleep pattern? that must be something people without kids have?

Why would a any player, let alone a new one, want war with me? I am just a disabled cancer cripple. Why not seek to join my fed and be my friend instead?

Johanas. Your side is only advocating three types of players I described earlier. Those protected by GC war protection (which Wendy wants to keep cheap), those who build nothing worthwhile and look for inactives/prey, and the inactives/prey, who let their protection lapse. There is no role for federations, friends, and diplomacy in that. Nothing of value out there that remains "at risk".

Guys, why don't we just start a revolution and overthrow the evil GM's we can rebuild the glorious system, for to long the capitalists have ruled over us. Now we will reorganize our glorious system into a modern architectural community of communism and I'll lead us into the future. And naturally comrades anyone who disagrees will be sent to a fun camp especially those GM's.

The future of this community must be built by the people and not the corrupt capitalists. Forward to Victory comrades.