The Aries Simcountry Priority Wishlist - 3/1/2016

No the changes, on many levels are good. The lower active number of players cloud that. Many unhappy older players, who drove a large portion of the action have stepped back. There have been few able 'and' willing to fill the gap. This doesn't mean the changes are all good or bad, but ultimately for the better. A balance of indefinite war level protection vs progression to pvp levels has surprisingly been achieved in my absence. And perhaps that absence was necessary to see it through.

My comments were geared toward an observation I made within the initial wave of Aries' problem/reaction/solution series. The sentiment being thoroughly seconded by other players throughout the thread. As in ~The changes you(Aries) suggests strikingly have a clearly placed self benefit neatly tucked into them behind a veil of improvement or protectionism or advancement of x,y, z.

There were some great points and counter-points made.

What possible self-benefit for me exists in these changes? Honestly, I already have all the stuff I need. The suggestions were all geared towards new players having an easier progression to gaining the knowledge, motivation, and resources to participate in PvP, fixing a few game issues that are obvious to everyone, and fixing a problem with managing units in high-level PvP wars.

For my part, I have done about all I could for some time towards reviving the war game portion of the game. I was a consistent presence in chat, offering advise to all players with no bias and I published a number of guides on the forum. Many of the suggestions I made was based on feedback from the players I would talk to. I also tried to glorify how fun PvP can be by posting a number of stats and stories from actual PvP wars, see "The Battle of Camp Foxtrot" or "First Day Stats: Lucky vs. Aries" on the FB forum or "Operation Complete" on the LU fo

Aries, first of all, I wish you health above and beyond all other things.

Somewhere in the first few posts, the original player countering your ideas explained much better than I will, point by point what changes would benefit the class of players to which you belong. I couldn't have done a better job of making the case, and short of making references and quoting snippets of previous posts, my effort to rehash it plainly ends there.

I have been on a number of your previous posts throughout the years and mentioned the same thing nearly every time. The changes benefit you. More generally your class of player, a class that I used to belong to. In some important instances, the changes suggested that were eventually implemented in the name of

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

geared towards new players having an easier progression to gaining the knowledge, motivation, <--read *White-Knighting*<!-/Quote-!>

Well said Wendy.

As a returning player I haven't found any new possibilities with the new changes Aries pushed for. In fact in the six years since I left the game has stagnated.

Raiding C3's and inactive's for population and money was the only free way to grow an empire. Now that path is gone.

Sad that the days of great world wars are gone, the fact that federations are basically useless, and player interaction is so low.

I assume that we can either change with the times or become extinct.

Sam.

I don't Always agree with aries or the changes he proposes but you've got to give him some credit. He's helped more new players (including me) then a LOT of other people over the years.

Did he do it to benefit himself? I doubt it but even if he did he still deserves respect for all his hard work.

I didn't change how c3 raiding worked, the GM did. I did message and post about how easy and unbalanced it was to gain game cash compared to actual country/empire building. The effort to actually build a worthwhile empire was not rewarded on the same level as following a simple guide. Some changes were made but there are still substantial rewards to be gained by completing trivial wars with the computer. See "The Path of a Warrior-Aries" post I made on the Beginner's forum where I document how some $78 Trillion in cash and 640 coins can be gained post-changes.

I don't recall a post about changing the exchange rate for coins with the GM for game cash. I can say that I had worked to make it easier for players to get more game cash for the coins through player trades in electric power. See my post "Get $180 Billion per Coin" on the general forum. I do believe that it should be up to players to offer a better deal on exchan

LetSie what is in question is the track record and consequences of changes that have been proposed by Aries. Not him helping or not helping. Honestly, his sainthood and everyone else' lack of ethical actions are not on the table at all. There are more than enough players falling to their knees to praise Aries and his benevolent guide-making. They are very useful to new players. Many of them should also have a publishing trademark - "Brought to you by Aries, who suggested the changes that made the need for this guide." I also lost whatever point you were trying to make in relation to my post. Not purposely, it might have been due to how far off-topic your comment was, I can't be certain either way.

No I didn't try your guide and I am already profitable ,but that is neither here nor there.

I miss crushing my sim enemies, driving them before me, and hearing the lametation of their women.

Also I dispute anyone ever got the better of Wendy. We fought wars on multiple worlds for real months. I would never claim to have gotten the best of her.

Aries...

I know you didn't change anything. You fear mongered the entire newbie population into war level conversation threads, which you either started or hijacked.

The GM wanted changes because threads like those, which in many cases completely skewed my activities were a primary driver. With new and semi new players dying in fear thinking if they didn't have war levels Wendy would come along and soak up whatever they had so painstakingly clicked into existence. With multiple threads and posts like this which skew reality of course, no you didn't change anything.

Its a FACT, my riches in this game were acquired economically. Like nearly 90% of them or more. I know that is hard to understand, because you make guides and give advice, not listen much. Yes I raided inactives. Yes I even warred with many people, even newer ones. What was the result? Stuart, Homer, more and more I cannot name went on to become active me

I lost where we are going on war levels. I thought the original discussion was on gaining wealth through endless low-level c3 raiding, which was changed and I advocated. The existence of war levels came about at a time I wasn't playing Simcountry, before I started this account. The ability to take countries for war positioning in the new system was preserved by the ability to take countries at war level 3, regardless of whether you are at a higher war level. That change was my suggestion and preserved your preferred way to war. I am not sure what points or counter-points you are saying I made, "fear-mongering" and such. When I first made this account you had me confused with someone else. Perhaps this is still the case?

On quality, I am a bit confused where you are going here too. I played long ago, when the game was new, starting up a bit before White Giant came out and moved there to start over fresh when it was released. I then took

That isn't how the WB's last fight thread ends. Why not just link or quote the latest messages. You do that well.

I wouldn't have anything to prove either if I were aware of a different outcome other than winning. Just sayin.

I'm down to help the game with you as well. Regardless of a future conflict. But I will be clear, you have no interest in a level conflict because we are both aware of your ability to do math and you know why you got the best of me lol. As for any demonstration of skills other than spending gc on pro soldiers for thousands of mobile units, it remains to be seen. I would like to see it, if its skill indeed, or just a bunch of mobile units. I already know the answer to that, as you do. But the public needs to know. Is the hype about either of us really real?

The other points about war levels and stuff go back to yo

I said that the last battle with Whiteboy is forgettable. Why would I post about it? I can only think about posting about wars if I need to engage in politics or am trying to make wars interesting, by providing stats and things. That war didn't apply.

The math I remember is that my account was about 5 months old when I started defeating you despite your mega-stocks. Fighting from c3/useless countries is just about your trademark around here but I managed to take some important countries when you neglected WP. Fort TNA was the biggest battle but the country that I kept as Camp Victory was the most valuable.

Another correction. The last few wars I was vastly outnumbered in professional soldiers and mobile units. Whiteboy had over 10 times the mobile units and pros that I did. I have had to have a strategy for this type of conflict for some time. If I simply tried to compete mobile unit for mobile unit, the last two players I fought woul

Utter blasphemy. You are running circles around yourself. You declared on WB again after the stalemate. Did you follow through or not? I read the thread that is what is there to read.

Who cares, my case is already plain.

I could dig up the threads on you and your suggestion, but I find watching water come to boil a far greater use of my time. I'll save my eyes for old age.

I don't have to clarify something that is already transparent from the top of the topic to the bottom. You continually suggest and champion changes that solidify your class.

By this point we are so far off topic, no surprise. We get away from what is plain and begin rewriting history, contradicting ourselves and each other. I know you need some time but you have very little to lose from a fair battle on a level playing field other than your title of "God of War" to the Queen of c3 Battle. I understand how that may seem important but i

To return to the original discussion, or some facsimile of it.

Why not split the war levels completely? Have one for sims only for the econ minded player, and one for only pvp for those who enjoy the full game?

You'd have to fight 4 wars against a player of the appropriate level in order to advance your war level for the full game.

And no matter how many wars against a sim led country you fought, you would never be forced up in war level beyond 1 for pvp, even on Fearless Blue. There are other mechanics at work there.

(I'm not a fan of the endless C3 raiding at lower levels. That has a finite threshold. Once the game gets more popular, it will start spiraling down. Just due to the mechanics to return the conquered to the game as a target)

That should satisfy both sides, no? Someone mentioned world of warcraft in one of these threads. As a long time player of that game, let me say something

I am not a fan of boosting the weaker player. Why would I spend money buying high quality weapons and spend time and resources upgrading units if my opponent is going to be rewarded with a force nearly identical to mine? That would seem to encourage new weak players to attack seasoned players. What would they have to lose except the forces given to them freely by the game?
If something like this were done, it would have to consider who attacked whom. If a strong player attacks a weak player, than maybe I could see an argument for that. But if some weak player with 50T in military assets attacks me, I would not be happy if the game just gave him several 100Ts of weapons to make it "fair."

Wendy's post is just not comprehensible at this point.

Marshal: None of my suggestions push any peaceful player into PvP. The econ-only option already exists in the game and is well protected by numerous game systems that my suggestions do not change. The suggestions I offered simply are options a player can choose to deliberately enter the war game. From your post, I cannot understand your objection to a particular suggestion.

As far as leveling the playing field, my suggestions address that as well, by offering a tutorial of PvP, of sorts, before facing an actual player. They also offer resources for such a player to get started. Beyond that, players should interact and engage in politics to seek a level playing field with any potential opponent. Not rely on some game system to make a fair 1 on 1 battle. The game is not and should not solely be based on balancing a 1 on 1 battle. It is supposed to be a "massively multiplayer"

They should just. Remove the country cap for free players. No more no less.

There are tons of rewards for paying members. And paying members will still have a huge advantage. But as long as I can conquer 100 countries without ever having to go to war against a player because there is simply enough space there will never be real tension.

In all other online war games, space, not resources is the limiting factor. Everybody can, with some time and effort, get enough resources. And yes even YOU can get those 10.000 mobile units if you really want to. It's the amount of provinces somebody can or can't control that makes all the difference. If free players can control more countries you'll get a natural tension and wars will be fought.

The empire building mechanics in this game are enough of a barrier to prevent everybody from running 30 countries. It's the most simple and effective way to make people more active. It

You comprehend just fine.

For the record, a large class of previously actively game-engaged players were not pleased with war levels. I was among them. However the way they are now, is just fine, and I am totally satisfied with their evolution. Protection is offered, with a clear path up the ranks. Forcing a player to face tougher c3s and ultimately a pvp war. This is ideal.

However to test Marshal's theory, I think he is onto something. Fearless Blue should be as-is yet all out war. There should be no protections there at all. It is after all, "The" war world. On the opposite end of that, perhaps a single world can be set apart for ONLY peaceful play. Kebir Blue maybe. Nothing war like ever happens there and that is historically valid for about a real-time decade. Wouldn't you agree. W3 can and should track the participation rates of these worlds and get a true sense of what their players want. The default when you start s

On unlimited countries for free members: I think you have a misunderstanding on how assets are obtained. Several players do have dozens of countries out there but they do no better than players who run a few very good countries. In fact, the top players run no more than 2-10 very good econ countries.

Several other issues are that the war game does not handle well wars encompassing many countries. It takes time to take each country, which is why fighting from just several trash countries can be effective, let alone an empire of some dozens. Lastly, this change makes it more difficult to monitor multi-play and other cheating activity. Limiting certain paid features, such as the country limit, to paid members helps the GM in that it limits the damage that one, or a number, of new free accounts can do if the GM does not act quickly to enforce game rules.


On no war levels on FB: I have repeatedly suggested that FB have no war levels. The

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

On limiting space transfers to within one world: This defies the promise of space. This is a non-starter for most players and the GM. Nice try though.<!-/Quote-!>

Well thank you for the view of someone who would entirely benefit from being able to swing assets from planet to planet. Again, a major benefit of players with huge accounts not afforded to those without. One should not be able to swing assets so easily to a world where they have not put the time or work in. This benefits players like us Aries, who regardless of our start, will endeavor to become ever larger. Not every player has the time or the ambition to compete on 4 or 5 worlds. Some only have the time to maintain a single empire on a single world.

It wasn't a nice try, it's common sense. Again, your objection to this is that it limits your ability to project yourself asymmetrically to whatever wo

Yes, nice try. It wont happen.

Space is available to everyone and is not expensive. Over 1500 shuttles are on direct trade, starting at .16 gold coins each. Having a powerful interstellar empire is a game motivation. Something that many players work towards and is readily achievable, as my "Path of a Warrior" guide outlines. The game needs more motivation and stuff to achieve, not less. Further, weakening the inter-connectivity between worlds would further damage the already lacking social and political game.

Lastly, it is counter-intuitive. Imagine new player after new player starting in a Sim-galaxy that offers space and runs into these limitations. Docs would need to be updated and take great pains to explain such a limitation. Even then, it would make no sense, generating much confusion among players. Such a change would create many problems and attempt to solve an issue that doesn't need solving. Yes, some players achie

Aww, you mad bro? I keep making all this sense lol. Tough pill I know.

Wow. How can I argue with that? You win. gosh gee.

Like war levels, the initial implementation needed some tweaking and a refined product has emerged. Same thing with space. I know you can't agree, you need to protect your position. No worries though. I am certain you'll feel the same sooner or later. The shoe goes on the other foot from time to time.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Imagine how someone can be so against raiding because of Helicopter Money in C3's yet be such a strong advocate of throwing real life months of military production into a war zone on an entirely different planet. One example actually happens in the real world, meaning money is printed out of thin air. The lightest of items aren't even transported to the moon regularly. Your line of reasoning escapes anyone with a brain. Nice try though?<!-/Quote-!>

It has nothing to do with protecting "my position". Removing the ability to create an interstellar empire removes a primary motivation in Simcountry. A motivation to be premium is to setup on multiple worlds and achieve this. The GM will not make a change to curtail a primary motivation to be premium and players with not put up with such a low ceiling on advancement just so some type of "balance" can be reached in your eyes. Never going to happen.