W3C - Game News March 30, 2017

heisenberg, why you so mean bro...

1. The GM doesn't care what Yankee wants.
2. The GM doesn't care what Wendy wants.
3. The GM doesn't care what Aries wants.

Somehow, someway this game must be making them money so what it boils down to is:

THE GM IS GONNA DO WHATEVER THE GM WANTS.

Over the years I have found the GM is not shy about implementing change asked for, unless it goes against a perception of how this game attracts people.

I have begged, I have pleaded, I've even pulled my financial support for years.

My ideas do not fit in with their perceptions, and quite frankly I see NOBODY coming forth with anything new other than Aries (don't necessarily agree, but his ideas are different).

It seems the GM doesn't like his ideas either.

It's really come down to a simple choice. Play the game provided ....... (gotta get my dots in for the competition) or don't.

Yes I do agree certainly that we need changes Psycho, it also seems unclear to some extent what opinions Aries has, as some of us support removing war levels altogether or simply making changes such as my 4 point plan which I've discussed in suggestions how it defers from removing war levels.

The rollback/changes I agree upon are not quite as extreme as a complete war level removal but similar.

I also agree Psycho with you that what Aries proposed simply providing benefits for war players is not enough although I don't know if he still believes in it or if he even had from the start.

Finally Yankee please take a look at my 4 point plan if you haven't already it is far different from any of the plans proposed by Aries and takes into account all the suggestions I've seen players propose.

THE 4 POINT PLAN:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/26279.html?1494897401

Reasonable plan Inventor.

Heisenberg would have fainted when CEO corporations could be targeted directly in a war. No better way to punish your sim enemies than targeting C3's with their companies and destroying them.

Now that was lulzy.

As I said Theinventor .. nothing new .. well I guess techincally the increase in WL for inactive players is "new".

Most people simply ask for removal of secured mode for inactive players and complete abolishment of the WL system.

Different words asking for the same thing. I have what I consider a much better plan.

1. You get one secured country.

Who needs anything else??? I played for YEARS with everything up for grabs.

Yankee I'm not saying that removing war levels is bad it's just more extreme than my plan, I wouldn't have any problem with removing war levels, but other players who focus on their economy and don't play the war game wouldn't like a full removal of war levels as they would have to pay gold coins for protection and it's unlikely the GM's would support removing war levels although it's possible I suppose.

Also removing secured mode from inactive players should certainly be included in addition to increasing the war level of inactive players.

It is possible.....it's the way it used to be

It worked

Under who's definition would someone grabbing territory be a purely economic player?

No ones, I don't believe I ever said anything to support a definition of such.

Actually, quite a number of my ideas were implemented and are actually in the game, along with numerous bug fixes. For those unclear on what Psycho wants, it makes since. Psycho hasn't explained what she wants out of the rollback. Inventor, for me, don't lump me into the same changes category as the Psycho.

"but other players who focus on their economy and don't play the war game wouldn't like a full removal of war levels as they would have to pay gold coins for protection"

And why would you need to pay GC's for war protection unless you are stepping outside of your one secured country?

I get it "Lebensraum"

Aries I know you have different suggestions than him although I still have no idea what they are. I am assuming you support some changes but different ones than Psycho, I would also recommend you read my 4 point plan if you haven't already Aries. Finally Lebensraum is the reason why players buy premium and go to wars. All wars are a result of the need for some Lebensraum.


THE 4 POINT PLAN:

https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/8/26279.html?1494897401

My original opinion categories: Aries is a 1 not a 2, not the same category. However I should update it as some other players apparently support Psycho's ideas now. But this is the original version.

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]

Him is a her lol. I get you're new so I won't hold it against you.

I have pointed out exactly what I want out of rollback a million posts ago that nobody will probably see thanks to your essays directing people off the thread Aries. I'll quote it again in case you can't read, or others can't find it now.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

-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 their desired style of play. Increasing satisfaction of premium members and offering a more robust game with more robust options for new free members considering premium membership. Expecting an ultimate outcome of expanding the community back to previous levels or exceeding them altogether.<!-/Quote-!>

Yankee, I do understand the difficulty in being discouraged with how hard it is to get through to the GMs. That doesn't mean I shouldn't or won't try. I'm hoping the numbers do more of the talking than my feelings on the topic.

I can't read.

Theinventor1012, whats interesting, is that with your assement, the 2 ideas are not mutually exclusive. You could do both.

But hey, even with the forums so dead, at least we can still bitch about the rules and how dead the game is.

Its like nothing has ever changed!

So under your "plan" all you really have here is 100% bonuses for warring players while economic players would have to pay extra just to play. Undoubtedly, you would have to purchase gold packs just to keep up with the amount of WP you would need. Whereas warring players could then become astronomically rich by raiding c3's.

These ideas are bad. If this is the way the game operated before, I am not surprised it changed.

The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive but unfortunately not all players agree with both as there is disagreement on the topic whether or not unlimited C3 raiding is ok or even if making it easier is ok.


Most players probably at least agree it should be easier to raid inactive players, possibly implemented by increasing a inactive player's war level to 3 and removing secured mode. Along with adding an additional change that would allow players war level 3 and up to fight any other player above war level 3. Finally players who get to war level 3 would receive doubled military spending space, increased welfare, and 75 gold coins.

Heisenberg, if your econ only, then what do you have to spend game cash on? you used to be able to convert game cash into gold coins, and keep up wp. but that has been done away with.

the argument at the time, a guy was paying thousands of dollars to do what i could do by C3 raiding, and converting GC, he complained, and the GM agreed. they said that if you wanted to play on multipul worlds, you'd have to pay for each. rather than C3 raid/econ for game cash, and convert that into GC.

Econ empires don't happen overnight and look like they need a lot more investment than war. Sure eventually if you are successful, you may be able to pay for it. You can't really compare the profit you can make economically to that income you can make raiding. I don't think the two would ever be equal...maybe equalizing when you have an account the size of Aries. (Just an example, it's the biggest I've seen so far.) I'm sure a player like Aries could afford endless WP. I'm not even sure how long he's been playing, but that is years of investment into his economies. Seems to me all you'd need is a good two hours of raiding to equal his daily profit.

Strikes me as an end-around to actually putting work and investment into an empire and playing the way you choose to.

Raiding ain't easy just like pimpin.

Ahhhh, pimpin. Such an elegant profession. xD

Raiding currently is easy, you can easily get large amounts of cash from attacking C3's if you use high quality units of 750 aa batteries and 100 mid range batteries, I've tested this recently and took substantially less losses than using a air attack. The fact that you can easily gain trillions is my exact point that raiding is indeed easy if done right.

Never a dull moment in SC
*eats popcorn*