We need reasons to declare war on other players

Secured mode is embedded into the game and removing it would disrupt what is seen by many as a game promise. It would also threaten the players more interested in the econ aspect of the game. I feel it is important to keep a balance where a player can choose their style of play and find a home in Simcountry.

@Aries -read your third post and I agree with it. If a player wants a natural resource they can pay for it in gold coins.
There would only be temporary protection for new players.

Further to my thread above -having no secured mode would increase player interaction as players would have to join federations and form alliances (example in real like NATO).

The econ players can band together in a federation. Or perhaps buy an aggressor off.
I do agree on keeping balance. But the balance has (in recent years) shifted too much one way.

Michael being able to secure one country I don't think you'll find anyone playing this game awhile against.

You've not seen entire worlds at war in PVP situations.

You have to sit at your computer 24 hours a day to beat off attacks. Some people have to go to work and have outside interests.

If you were a large empire you had to take down your opponent quickly and completely. While in every case I remember it was their own fault by declaring war or joining the wrong federation, there were many that lost years of work.

With one secured country nobody can be completely knocked out of the game. They can build an economic power base, a military power base or both if they build across multiple worlds.

I do however believe that any war protection past this one secured country per world is detrimental to the war game.

If you wish to sit in your secured country and play the economic side more power to you. If you want to expand your control as in the real world, do so at your own risk. Eventually you'll find someone that wants something you have and will attempt to take it.

This game is slanted toward the premium player sitting on multiple worlds. Able to build and move massive armies from one world to another. If you want to invest the time and in some cases the money anyone can eventually become a force to be considered. If you think about it, why shouldn't it be? This game costs money to run and develop it has to come from somewhere. If the 4 dollars a month is too expensive, either it's not entertaining enough or you may need to rethink your expenditures in general.

Taking the ability to attack another player due to additional war restrictions has for all practical purposes killed the war game for all but a very few. And most of those players either have no inclination to fight each anyway.

An armed society for the most part is a polite society. You can for the most part talk trash or aggravate any player you want these days, what recourse do they have?

As far as "reasons" for one player to go after another? They will eventually provide their own. Breathing my oxygen is as good as any other.

That is my humble opinion on the subject.

Maybe they need to make an evil C3 country with ability to attack player countries and be super armed (call it the CSIS of simcountry). Would make the game interesting.

Unless you happen to be on the receiving end of that form of aggravation for little or no gain. Doesn't sound any different than in times past when a swarm of players would grab a country close to their target and launch sneak attacks and declare. Generally disrupting plans and frustrating a player more than anything. Usually there was very little gain involved.

The simple fact is eventually they will be forced to do something. It's the premium members along with free members buying GC's keeping the game open and I think most of them play simply out of habit rather than any real entertainment factor.

But, I've been saying that for years now.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

As far as "reasons" for one player to go after another? They will eventually provide their own. Breathing my oxygen is as good as any other.

That is my humble opinion on the subject.<!-/Quote-!>

Agreed, there should be no reason at all. War is a part of this game.

I do suggest this Andy, perhaps 2 secured mains can be replaced by the current single main. Currently, with new restrictions, a player can technically play in secured mode with any number of countries(I.E. Xon who has some 20 countries under war level on FB of all places). This adds some reasonable base of protection. This also drives players to "play nice" with others if they plan on expanding beyond those 2 entities. It restores the fundamental reason for player interaction and federation building. This is all missing due to half a game that has reduced beyond expectation.

As a note on chat being slow. It is a really important aspect of player retention. Its' priority is seriously overlooked. I know for certain, I needed only declare war on someone and that room would fill instantly. People need something to talk about.

No risk = no federations and no diplomacy. When I began almost a decade ago 2 things enticed me into and kept me in this game. The idea of turning some 1's and 0's into cash into real cash(did that) and the thriving community driven by risk/reward, raiding, federations, and war. It all had a great backstory, players loved and hated each other and it was like another world. Today, there are many people from the past, many great veterans and name-worthy players who have come forward and for reasons I understand, who continue to play(if only quietly) because they hold on to the previous state of the game.

I'm not saying adding some protections to the old way was a bad idea at all. I also in the past suggested that every player should be afforded 3 main secured countries. The problem was exaggerated which in turn led to the current solution.

In conclusion I will give some bullet point solutions and end it so as not to drown myself out with so many words.


Problems 1
Suggestions 2
Expected Outcome 3

* 1- Lack of war game
2- Relax the War Rules To a 2 main max, no war levels. War Protections cost GC(TEST on
FB) Roll out on all worlds potentially
3- People might actually fight there one day.

* 1- There will be risk involved
2- Explain this better! At every opportunity. Explain how poor interactions in the game and forums can cause players to be attacked. Explain that expansion can lead to being attacked for no reason at all. The need to interact and associate with other players and federations to make expanding a safer proposition.
3- Players will understand the risk and even if they are wiped back out to 2 mains, they can never be knocked out of the game by anyone whatsoever, never ever. Win/Win

* 1- Players who lose wars will cry.
2- Let the chips land where they may. Let the community deal with 'bad guys'. Try a 'less is more approach' and intervene in extreme situations or when cheating of some sort is involved.
3- Players will begin to evaluate what they can do differently to get a different outcome and stop thinking there is something they can get you guys to react to at every turn. Potentially, players will outgrow being 'just' econ players and become complete and capable participants in the Total Game. There is no division, Econ and War go hand in hand. The best war players are typically the best econ players.

As the game is today, you have all the economic players interested in playing an economic game here already. There is another potential player who may enter the game and become disappointed if they are actually looking to play the war side or a combination of both. This has to be addressed.

I hope this helps.

We need some time to get back on this.
We agree that there should be more war motivation and are looking at what should be done, functions needed etc.
(without a major rewrite...)

Andy a good step in the right direction would IMHO be:

Remove secured mode for players with countries that haven't signed in for 4-6 months. I thought the reason behind the free play was your account was secure as long as you were active.

This step alone would give everyone something to do for a while. There are a lot of little inactive empires that would be worth a lot more than a C3 if we could get to them. And since you can't attack a player country from your secured main, that would mean THEY would have to have something hanging out there to snap those countries up.

Remove all level requirements and give everyone ONE secured country on all worlds (FB included). That way you can't be knocked off any world and expansion of an empire has always carried risks.

Yes there are massive players that it would take years to challenge but you know it took them years and a lot of work to get that way.

It's possible to build a empire spanning all worlds and eventually grow to a size were you can actually defend anything you wish to grab outside your one secured country.

Outside of "you're breathing my oxygen" capturing the assets of another player has always been motivation for war in this game. If you don't want to risk anything don't expand outside your secured country. If you want your free country to be secured login and play the game (seems simple to me)

We will relax limitations and controls. we have already started doing so. Check the war game and the ability to use medium range missiles from bases.

We also decided to push forward the resources game.
we will publish some of the main features on the forum in the coming days.

Thanks Andy, this will ease things a bit. Well I'm pleased you've read my thread as this means a lot. I'm surprised there's been a lot of feedback on this page alone, I want to thank everyone for all their comments so far.

we are not done.
We want to proceed with more small steps without rocking the boat.

Alright, fair enough. As doing too many changes at once could ruin the game play for a lot people, including myself.

So Andy, what do you think of my suggestions at the top this page? Please tell me which ones you like or do not like, and explain why. Thanks.

Next update will relax the rules on the trading of nuclear weapons on FB.
Currently, some products cannot be traded.

With the introduction of a maintenance product for these weapons, we think that it is another reason for making the trading on the market of these products easier.

For every new regulation we should remove two. right?
all these regulations, SAD!

Its true that there too many regulations in general and I know that introducing a maintenance product on weapons makes sense. As it costs the countries for keeping them which is fair enough.

What isn't fair though is that the enterprises do not have to pay a single penny for the upkeep for all those weapons they have stored in those enterprises. Why?

If theres a way of making those making enterprises pay for the maintenance of those weapons like how the way countries do. It would spell an end for players who have a huge amount of military weapons in them, which would force them to sell a lot of them, if not most of them. Which would balance the war game much more. As they store them there to avoid paying for any maintenance in their own countries.

If you view the value the amount of the military assets some enterprises have in the game, you will see what I mean. Knowing the maintenance of all that is for free.

Why would we want to "spell an end" for any player? Would it not be better to improve the war game and create incentive to participate in the war game? In this way, players would have reason to use these weapons. The real problem is there has been no active war game causing players to put their toys away. Adding maintenance to enterprise weapons will not create reason to war nor would it "balance the war game".

But aries, why would any reasonable player without any CEOs ever declare war against a bigger target who does have CEOs?

This game should be about striking a balance between economic and warring.

As a simple player, there is NO incentive for me to attack you, even with a large army of my own that costs a 100 billion a month.

Why? Because even with a large army that I have spent trillions on, upgrading and maintaining, I know that Titans like you, SuperSoldier, Khome, and etc. have been hoarding weapons and ammunition for years.

I dare not attack any countries of yours, even if they have no defenses because you would shuttle in so many mobile units, transfer military products from CEO to country and have a military that's 50x bigger than mine.

Let's be truly honest, getting rid of the war levels just makes it so that Titans don't have to face each other, but can level lower players with impunity with weapons they have hoarded for nearly 10 years. The only incentive for war here would be for the bigger and older players.

Adding maintenance to enterprise would force them to use those weapons instead of hoarding them.

With that being said, I cannot ever see myself ever catching up with you, simply because you hoard more weapons and ammunition than Hoarders who hoard cats.

Realistically, James is also correct. In the real world, if you put some fighter planes, ships, and tanks away, don't expect it to still be able to compete with weapons 40-50 years later.

We can't put 1,000 F-22s or M1 Abrams in a garage, not have any upgrades or successors and then still consider it top of the line in 40-50 years.

They should undergo degradation.

Now, we've had MULTIPLE players ask about this, and there are some pushbacks, namely from players who have abused this feature and don't want to see their 1,000 trillion in army assets waste away in quality.

As a simple player, or any player, there is little incentive to risk attacking any player at any time. Rewards are mostly found in the econ game or with raising game level or war level. Attacking any player, let alone an experienced war player, is a risky proposition. Most aggressive war players eventually met their match and lost big.

It is true, and rightly so, that you are not able to limit a defending player to the defenses in a single country. As an attacker, you also have no such limitation. You can attack the same country with numerous countries, marshaling forces for such an assault as you please. Why would it be so that the defender has any less choice to respond to a war that you declared at a time and location of your own choosing? Limiting the defender to the resources in the single country that you choose would be ludicrous.

I never said anything about removing war levels, except for making it so on the "war world" (which is currently a joke). Even so, your impression of war levels is off base. High war levels are not reserved for players of much resources or exceptional skill. A computer country that does not shoot back is easy prey for any player with the skill to read a simple guide. Traditionally, players who wish to engage in PvP remained at the low war levels. War level limitations mostly just prevented your federation allies, who play more conventionally and raised their war level, from being able to fully assist you against an aggressor at a lower war level. Also, war levels are world-based (this was discussed before and the decision was to leave it this way).

As much as at may seem daunting to collect resources and challenge the most powerful players, you may be surprised that empires have risen and fell throughout the history of Simcountry. With skill and effort, it is possible to "catch" anyone. The key is to stay motivated by your own goals, as the game set goals are modest. Adding maintenance to weapons in enterprises would complicate the operation of enterprises
who manufacture weapons and do nothing to "balance" warfare.

If we are going with realism, we would have to address the reason so many weapons are not used in the first place. That is that game protections offered with secured mode, temporary war protection, and war levels replacing the function of defense, leaving no role for weapons, attack or defense. Players storing weapons for an occasion where game protections actually let them be used is no more an abuse than players who never leave magical game protections. Are you prepared to say every player who is under war level 3 or that has secured mode active is committing some type of game abuse?

I am willing to say both categories of players are playing the game the way it currently exists. Rather than chasing realism, my solution is to make the game a fun experience for both war players and econ players. In that context, secured mode and war levels (except for on the "war world") make as much sense as storing weapons in an enterprise. In the current game experience, the econ game is well rewarded with little risk but the game has lost most of its warriors due to a lack of incentive and the overwhelming risk of the PvP game experience. I have offered a number of solutions to this, including Battlegrounds and the War College (search the suggestions forum for these). Lets make the game fun for both econ players and war players without accusing folks of game abuse. fair?

You know people this is a game and is suppose to have some entertainment value.

What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.

We all come into this game with nothing. Those who are successful, adapt and grow. Many times that involves YEARS of effort.

Then along comes a new group of players expecting everyone to give up years of effort in order to level the playing field for them.

That's bullshit people. If you want the same advantages afforded to anyone else you can own a CEO and a country on any or all worlds.

CEO's are clearing houses for product they cannot use them. They can of course direct their resources to back countries that player owns or really any country in the game.

The advantages CEO's provide a country they build in already outweigh any disadvantage you may "think" they have in storage capability.

CEO's have ALWAYS been used in conjunction with countries, if you want that power or as you claim advantage, get with the program and build your own.

But Yankee, there's going to be no entertainment value left when it's all one sided and heavily favours those who have enterprises which allows those players who have countries, to store their weapons in there for free. I could do that myself since I have an enterprise as well. I see it as loophole and as an extremely effective way of saving maintenance costs. To be right, I should be storing all my weapons inside my enterprise and not my countries, in order to save on all those maintenance costs. But I choose not to. Besides, I want to have an active an active military on standby at all times when or even if, I go up to war level 3. But knowing that theres players at those war levels who also keep huge amounts of weapons in their enterpises for free, I can't see it ever happening, which is why I am still stuck at war level 2. If I went up to that level, I could well lose everything I have built in this game to these maintenance free weapon hoarders.

Aries, I understand that you want to create incentives and rewards to participate in the war game. I do as well, and i'm always trying to find ways of improving and balancing the war game as well. But knowing that theres a few players who can store weapons in enterprises maintenance free, while the vast majority of the players in the game cannot. It is not going to encourage or improve the war game at all since they know they will be finished if one of those players who have an unlimited amount of weapons maintenance free declares war on them.

Seizeforce, i'm glad theres someone who understands me where i'm coming from here. I think degradation for weapons is a good idea up to a point, especially if they've been stored there for a long time. Which could also mean that if they all downgrade from quality 600, then all the way down to 100 for all the time they've been stored there. Some players may choose to sell them all, especially for countries who currently pay for those maintenance costs for their weapons that are in storage as it wouldn't be worth it for them to keep them.

Overall, I think removing or at least relaxing the war levels can eventually be done, probably in the very distant future if a lot of other changes to the game were made that influences the war game directly or indirectly.

Did I miss something? Why can't any player do the same thing? Also, you have not explained how this "improves" or "balances" the war game?

Something that amazes me too is the constant thinking that it must be you versus the world if, oh my gosh, you leave magical game protection. Why don't you try to make friends? There are these things called federations that noone really uses because magical game protections have replaced them. The community is fully capable of policing themselves if you let them.

Look around. Who is left playing this game? Honestly, all the aggressive players have left. All that are left are econ players. You have a choice. You can join the community, make friends, join a fed, and play the game like a multi-player game, or you can continue to stay in war level 2. Why should the game bend over backwards for you so before you dip your toe into, gasp, war level 3 so some phantom "balance" can be achieved?

Balance exists in the community. Wars between players should not be considered to be a continuation of the single-player experience you currently enjoy. Join a fed, make a fed, make some friends, and seek protection in the community of nations that actually exists in this game and could be enhanced if this single-player mindset would just go away.

What I can't understand is the mindset for some type of entitlement to a level playing field against people who have invested YEARS into this game.

Everyone, has every tool available. You can't even claim lack of misunderstanding of the game documents (if you bothered to read them) every large player here will explain how to do it. Thing is you obviously know about it and simply choose not to do it.

You have access to a CEO, You have access to a secured country which nobody can take away from you unless you do something insane to drag it out of protection.

If you want to play the economy game, nobody can touch you.

(Unless of course you like giving up all your shares in state owned corps then try to rape other players by attracting them with zero tax then jacking them to the limit making money on both ends. That tends to hurt doesn't it James?)

I'm just as vulnerable as anyone and yet I'd like to see all war levels disappear.

I've seen this game when it was worth playing now, it's simply a habit.

Are you playing to create an empire or win a participation award?

James and SeizeForce: It's your choice whether to grab the tools available to you or to forgo their use. It sounds like you're choosing to not use and to instead complain. I suppose that's your right.

It is malicious to want to "spell the end" for players who don't play like you. Changing the rules to hurt players who have been playing by the rules for months or years, while presenting contrived (and overly simplistic) justifications? That's not balance or realism, that's called spite.

The balance already exists. You've already revealed your selfish motives - why should you receive a handout?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

What I find totally unfair and will eventually cause me to throw my hands up and disappear forever is the constantly changing rules.<!-/Quote-!>

This has been the most overlooked issue of all. Even subtle changes that cannot be anticipated, or expected, has too great an impact. On Everything.

One Word: ROLLBACK! Then leave it alone.

We need a paradigm shift and change our algorithm to a similar one weighted 80 -improving to 20 -changing

80 -the framework that existed(Graphics/Servers/Functionality/p2p interactions)

20 -any changes deemed absolutely necessary to facilitate a successful rollback.

As far as avoiding a major coding burden. I suggest a rollback on a single world. Just make the changes prove themselves before implementing it on a larger scale. This way it is not wasted effort and gives you a good timeframe of 6mo - 1yr to prepare a larger implementation if you find the results desirable.

Don't you miss when threads this long were just full of smack talk about wars and rumors of wars? I do. Anything less than a restore back to a previous restore point isn't going to move the war game back into the black. Rollback, and fine-tune the most extreme examples of deficiency in the previous successful version. This will avoid any major new coding burden.


One alternative I imagined while I typed. I think you'll like it. It addresses both sides of the argument unfolding here.

Start a new World/Server in a pre war level state.
Fresh Start for everyone.

No War Levels.
No Shuttling of anything. Or extremely limited quantities like 1T of any kind of asset per real day.

This will eliminate much of the concern of newer players not being able to compete with players who have been here for a while.

It gives everyone of this era, old or new, the ability to play on as level a playing field as it can get. Should be as simple as Copy and pasting Code of one world, Removing all the countries and letting everyone start fresh.

Seems easier than unwinding all the work that was done to create the new SC on all the worlds and more importantly it doesn't affect ANYONE adversely. No empires need to be migrated, nobody has to be shorted because of any changed or surprised by any snap implementations.

They can either participate or not. And depending on their gripe, you will know where to advise them to play to their satisfaction. I like this idea more than everything I wrote before it now that I have typed it.

I hope this helps. Sorry for the long message.