W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

Long live people's republic of Simcountria!

My god it is such a sight to read Aries turning conversations about something into something that has a bunch to do with nothing.


But ok....

Assuming he is right and one thing that'll come about from a rollback is raiding of inactive "prey".

Um so what? If you're inactive you haven't logged into the game for more than 30 days. If you aren't really playing, why not donate to someone who is? If raiding an inactive was a crime, it is a victimless one. I mean if you aren't logging in regularly, you aren't really that "deep" in the game anyway so... nvm. Assuming war protection is achievable, one could theoretically secure their nations for good by simply logging in once a week. Like Romeo Vicardi, who's empire on FB has been in war protection since I returned to the game nearly 6 months ago. Is anyone killing his assets? No. Is anyone abusing him? No. Is he on the forum crying to Gods

Some of the best times I had in Simcountry was with my Fedmates experimenting with the war engine Aries.

Now there is no point for a Federation. No need to learn the finer points of air defense, range, and how to defeat it. How to set up a forward base for ground invasion, how to use a navy.

All these were necessary skills for aggressive recycling. Now pretty much useless.

Psycho indeed. Whose ego is on full display? You missed the point. My point is nothing you suggest encourages actual player PvP or participation in federations or diplomacy. As far as my position, I am sure whatever happens I will be fine. Nothing that has been suggested by anyone will change that.

Johanas: What about a rollback encourages federation participation or putting any assets outside of game protections?

Allowing players to choose if they want to be a war or econ player would help this to some extent. I have proposed this yesterday if you read my plan. There would be large economic benefits to be a war player. Also there would be no war levels but econ players would remain protected.

This is proboly the only solution that would somewhat increase player involvement in feds and wars. The only other solution is to simply remove war protection altogether requiring participation for everyone, however many players including I oppose removing all forms of war protection.

I could agree with Aries conflicts between active players are rare. I wonder if anyone would want to fight Aries,I must say a declaration of war against Aries is a death sentence for whoever declares it.

Perhaps... Aries has trouble with Forum searches. Asking what brings about this or that, when again people, it is all here for everyone to see. This would be more evident the further back you go if we could access the part of the forum that was archived. "What a pittance" (in my Laguna voice)

There have been many wars, federation type wars.

Wars fought over disagreements or asshatery on this forum. Not possible today with an avg new post of -2.7 posts per week. Going backward? Ugh...

There have been wars fought over the very issue of inactive prey. Unspoken rules of raiding inactive "prey". Voilators of such rules would quickly find themselves warring with some of the most powerful federations. This too, gave a minor reason to join federation, in order to earn access to such inactive countries. An inactive country is a nice addition to any new player's empire.

There were two "great wars&#

I would agree on some points as it's obvious there's been a decrease in players however we need ways to fix this. We need solutions to bring back players certainly but the other reason is certainly war levels as it eliminates the need to join a federation possibly causing the game to seem less interesting to New players who would not socialize in a federation unless they needed to.

The decrease in activity is obvious and could be a result of adding war levels, other factors or possibly both. It's pretty clear something needs to be done and I hope the GM's are considering these suggestions.

Both Aries and Pyscho Honey have good ideas but we must work together if anything is to be accomplished, as it's unlikely any changes will occur if there is fierce disagreement.

Hopefully the GM's and active players can find some way to fix the obvious decrease in activity and overall bring the game back to life.

If he doesn't agree that is fine. There are more players in this thread that agree with my point of view and more important raw data favors my conclusions. Aries has a small flock of try-hards who inevitably will echo his sentiments.

I on the other hand have past bitter rivals even who not only agree with me in principle but also long for a better game representative of a clearly successful past. Some of them which I have been a complete nuisance to and I bet some of their old allies cringe at the similar sentiments being expressed here alongside my own.

One position is based on facts. The other is only based on assumptions and feelings, none of which have a place in a conversation about business decisions. Also any conversations like this he injects himself into always seem to loop back to his fanciful ideas on other threads with an ungodly number posts to read and tons of his text filled with deflection, inevitably boring any reader

You have a facile argument and a false binary choice.

No... there's a choice based on common sense, or reading Aries month long essays filled with emotional suppositions........ (using big words now and $#!7)

Quoted from Wendy....
"I on the other hand have past bitter rivals even who not only agree with me in principle but also long for a better game representative of a clearly successful past. Some of them which I have been a complete nuisance to and I bet some of their old allies cringe at the similar sentiments being expressed here alongside my own."

Very well put Wendy. The past wasn't perfect, but it was significantly better than what is currently offered. It's actually sad to see the current state of activity.

I think even Aries believes and should admit there are fewer active players than there used to be, it's pretty obvious. What we need are ways to fix it not arguing.

More players do not agree with the Pyscho. I would wager she would decisively loose a vote and more importantly it has been quite clear that removing war levels is a non-starter with the GM.

On the other hand, I have successfully suggested one idea to loosen war levels a bit and my War College Idea would incentivize war players to elevate their war level, similar to the choice Inventor is talking about. I think a model of giving players an incentivized choice to leave war protection and other protections is superior to one of removing choice, which is what removing war levels does despite Pyscho claiming to be a choice advocate.

Inventor: Noone is saying there is not an issue with active player participation. I simply reject the facile argument that it is simply matter of rolling back the game's rule-set to that time to bring players back.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

More players do not agree with the Pyscho.<!-/Quote-!>

Where they at tho?!?

Even Heisenberg, isn't adverse to what I am saying other than pointing out how I or players with my common sense should be doing more. That comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of business/customer relationship, but I'll listen to what point he made.

If players don't agree with me stand up, speak up, and try adding why, rather than simple statements of support. Give some reasons behind your conclusions based on something we can check or prove. Just try at least if you really can't. I'll wait....

Theinventor1012.....this arguing....is the most action this forum has seen since I've been back in the game

ANYTHING to get some activity rolling is a good thing at this point

The old forum posts are proof enough of how active the game was....when it was a complete game....not the shell of a game that we have now.

If you never played in that era, you wouldn't understand I suppose. But those of us who did....WE REMEMBER!

We remember how awesome it was

I can see there are some major disagreements but hopefully everyone can at least consider my (4 change Plan). The changes I propose below are simple and should not be extremely difficult to implement and are also reasonable and moderate.


[4 Point Plan]
1. All countries above war level 3 can fight any country above world level 3.

2. Remove the feature that allows players to fight C3's to expand their empire without increasing war level.

3. Add incentives such as having a higher welfare index and military spending space being doubled upon reaching world level 3 along with receiving 75 gold coins.

4. Players inactive for more then 4 weeks get their war level increased to level 3


[Reasoning]

1. If all countries above WL 3 can fight each other it would increase active player combat as there are already few current active players.

2. remov

Or, players can use war protection...or not....that's the point...the player gets to decide

NO MORE REGULATION/RESTRICTION

It wasn't broken back then...it is now

Put it back the way it worked

I forgot who was arguing for what and since I have a headache, no desire to read everything again.

There are 4 categories of opinions, 1 and 2 is what most people are arguing about.

1. Remove war levels and or incentivize players to increase active player involvement in wars:
[EC, Aries (proboly), Johanas Bilderberg, and other players]

2. Allow wars against inactive players and make C3 raiding easier:
[Psycho Honey, and other players]

In between 1 and 2:
[Theinventor10, maybe other players]

3. Overthrow simcountry and the GM's:
[just silentiger073]

4. Want no changes at all and doesn't care about the war game:
[Heisenberg]

See, exactly Yankee, prime exmaple of what happens when you inject Aries into a conversation. It reminds me of a quote from another thread. I think it was (In)Famous Quotes or Forum Gold.

"This thread was perfectly fine until *Aries* came and bitched all over it!"

I'm pretty sure we're going to be over 100 messages soon, I guess this must be a extremely controversial issue.

If everyone listed their suggestions for the war game we might find we could be arguing for similar things such as fixing the dead war game, improving raiding against inactive players and C3's while allowing econ players to opt out of war altogether.

These are the major points i've heard so far from a wide range of players.

Listen, don't lump me into anything. The only thing I've really commented on is your blatant reasoning for wanting a rule change that effects all players. It's facetious. As are your comments about me. I said I didn't care about the war game, not that I disliked it. You're like a dictionary of passive aggressive ad hom crap.

Inventor, again you are making things broader than they actually are. You are slightly right in some things tho. In a rollback, there are obvious things that will happen. Like c3 raiding, inactive raiding and so on. But this isn't the category I am presenting.

There is rollback for me. Or Implement whatever it is Aries is talking about or basically leaving things as they are.

Those for moving back are likely, everyone that has commented in the thread except Aries and Heisenberg, Heisienberg also by his own admission "doesn't really care", so can you even count that? Oh well, we'll call it 2 for the dunces


On the other hand Sam, EC, myself, Aaron, and even you.

thats 5 for common sense.

What's more if were looking at about 12 or so active players it's not looking so good for the dunce crew. Also, most of the players who wanted these new changes like war levels are absent. They too

Sorry if I've offended you Heisenberg, however most players do support a rule change and I myself want the result to not affect economy players like you.