| Tom Willard (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 02:50 pm 
War Missions will become the way for a war player to move to a higher war level. War levels are a measure of the player's capability to fight wars and can be obtained by showing the capability to fight and win wars against a sequence of enemies with increasing capabilities.
The war level does not depend on the size of the army, military units or the availability of nuclear weapons. Game levels will depend on the war level instead of depending on the defense and defensive indexes. The dependency on the defense and defensive indexes will be phased out.
Starting at level 0, a war player can attack a neighboring C3 country and try to conquer it. Ending the war with victory, the player will win war level 1.
More wars against C3 countries will follow, and each of them will become more complex and require better strategy and military power to win. The reason for the increasing complexity is that the C3 countries will have an increasing level of defense. They might be located further away from the country border and in higher levels, they will fight back.
As a war player, you can always fight a war against a C3 country of your capabilities. However, to move up the levels, you have to fight a war and win against a C3 country that has a war level which is higher than yours.
All wars against C3 countries will start immediately after declaration and can be fought rather quickly if you have the necessary military force.
When declaring war, the war player will be presented with several options including the choice to fight a C3 war and the required level of the C3 country. When choosing to fight a higher level C3 country, the choice will be made by the game, upgrading a suitable country to the correct level and starting the war. The country may be close by or further away, or in some cases very far away.
If the war declaration is against a country with a president, the game procedure will just make sure that a very high war level player will not declare war against a country that belongs to a much lower war level player.
This will guarantee that high level players will not bulldoze over small players at much lower levels. High level players will have to find real wars to fight against matching players.
Reaching high war levels will be rewarded with extra gold coins. |
| whiteboy | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 05:04 pm
Seems very cool, pretty much exactly what my idea was. 2 questions:
1. When does this go into effect?
2. Will there also be limits when attacking a real player who is higher levels? Such as, if Joe is level 0 can he still declare war against Bob who is level 10? I hope not, otherwise players will intentionally keep their level low to avoid being declared on then be able to pop high war level players at their own will.
This is a much better change than what was announced yesterday and certainly will lead to more interest in war. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 05:18 pm
i like the theory, but wb pointed out one problem
and what happens when some one low enough in level to you starts buying and hosing your corps? you just get to watch?
and those people that will keep their levels low, and pick on the weakest member of a fed? the higher level players can't help?
and how about inactives? with out removing the level limits in regards to inactives, you are effectively stopping your self raiding inactives by leveling up.
but back to economic warfare. it would be unrealistic to put limitations on econ war, based on the nature of it. but the war player that levels to the point that he can't retaliate... might as will quit and start a new account... |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 05:36 pm
... |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 06:08 pm
whiteboy:
yes, we have made a 180 and adopted the idea of different levels C3 countries. It is much simpler than we have anticipated when confronted with the idea.
1. It is quite simple to implement. we are busy with the work plan and will know in more details in a week or two.
This is not going to take months. it does not require changes in the war engine itself but just the conditions around starting wars and some admin work.
There are no major user interface additions or changes.
and it is urgent. We do want to launch a new world before we do this so details will follow.
2. First, we expect people to be interested in high war levels because of advantages linked to these higher levels and awards you can win.
Second, we will allow wars between presidents when levels are equal or similar. exact definitions of similar will follow and we hope to tune them, based on players response and how they experience level differences.
Orbiter:
good issues and we will solve them.
I am not sure corporations becoming private is a reason for war. It is more a reason for celebration because private corporations are, and will become even more profitable. They pay a fortune to your country. (but this is a different issue).
Fed wars and fed support will remain in place of course but we will have to tune the rules and keep them very simple.
Economic war is indeed what we need, without firing a shot. I hope to complete the economic missions text in the coming week and publish it here.
This is incomplete on the details and you are welcome to comment.
What we hope is that this will be the base for a full restoration of a very active war game that will be non trivial (unlike keeping attacks on simple C3s) and will also leave the peaceful players out if they do not go up the war levels they are quite safe.
There might be some cases when they might invoke WP but even if it remains necessary in extreme cases, it will be a fraction of the current practice.
we should not let level 0 or 1 or even 2? war players attack countries with presidents. |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 06:38 pm
Another question... or set of questions please! Sorry, but just want to make sure I understand.
Will the levels that are attained by completing war missions be on a per country basis, or per president basis. For ie... if I attain level 5 with one country in my empire, will all countries, including c3's that I later acquire be at level 5?
I all for fighting wars against higher level players, but at the same time does this confront the use of worthless c3 decs? Could I attain a high level like 10 and take c3's and use them to dec level 10 players?
I also like Orbiters question about a fed that has high and low level members. If a low level member is attacked, can the higher level ones respond offensively?
Thanks
Jason |
| Border C | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 06:39 pm
federation competitions with rewards would be nice. |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 07:23 pm
The level will be for the entire empire.
If you have war level 10, and you want to take a C3 country, this will be a level 10 C3 (or level 11 to move to a next level), and the war will be fierce.
I don't think you will do this to then declare on a war level 10 player, or you might, but that too will be a challenge and a real war.
Fed wars is indeed an issue and we will return to this later.
In the mean time, if you fully get it so far, make some suggestions on the fed wars. |
| Crafty | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 07:43 pm
My mind boggles at who is going to do the fighting for a war level 10 C3...
Are we to believe that code can be written to match human skill and tactics. The best I can see is that all C3s of a certain level will fight more or less identically and so will become easy to master fairly quickly.
I hope you prove me wrong Tom, if so, your company has a very promising future in many fields of prediction and response, and the military will surely knocking on your door.  |
| Tom Willard | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 08:01 pm
Crafty,
Our wars are not as complex as real ones.
we think that we can bring a lot of variations in the war response and military power of C3s.
It is in fact easily possible to make them invincible.
The real challenge will be to make them increasingly powerful, not to overdo it and make sure there is so much variation that no two wars will be the same. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:09 pm
can we choose to fight a c3 of unusual level? for instance, if i'm level 8 and want to fight a level 5 c3, can i have the option?
additionally, if we are taking on heavier losses, shouldn't their be higher rewards? i mean, for example with that... the remaining units in a c3... will they disappear?
i think it would be a good idea to allot you to choose any level of c3, that you have already defeated, and have stuff left over to loot. the reason for it, is at level ten, (for instance,) a warlord can get beat down to nothing, and would be forced to pick on lower level warlords for recovery. if higher level c3s, (with out the gold coin reward,) provide better loot, it could help take pressure off younger warlords with less knowledge and resources.
and as far as economic war, i'm all for it. but as it stands now, you have people that just sit in wp, and harass other players endlessly. once you give them some sort of level protection, they will use that, and fight economically.
and yes, normally a corp going public from private would be a celebration, unless they ruin the corp, and instead of making your 3.3B monthly profit of it, you now make 0.3B... with the proposed changes, you know that their will be players that take every advantage of warlords that have leveled up. and if the answer to that is, "deal with it," then in the current environment, their are allot of "warlords," that would do better to not level up, past the minimum they need to dec a player.
again, i'm for economic war, but i'm against being restricted in how i retaliate... |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:40 pm
a further thought on feds
of course fedmates should be able to assist each other, and counter dec
but... what about if player A decs on player B, THEN player C joins player B's fed... are we going to allow for fed adjustment after the fact... just curious.
and in the case that C counters A for his dec on B, can D counter B and/or C if he is feded with A?
these are just questions, don't really care on the first one, just want to know. second one, counter decs should be allowed both ways |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:42 pm
The idea is to give you GCs awards if you go up the levels.
C3 wars will be at the same level you have or up.
instead of looting them, gold coins will help with the cost but your economy has to work too.
Once you win the war, there will be some stuff you can take out but this will hardly be the reason for the war.
I think that we need to solve the problem of badly performing private corporations.
punish the president if there are no workers because of bad education system and allow the president to retake the corporation if the owner reduces production or does not purchase raw materials.
but this is a separate issue and a diversion from the war issue. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:46 pm
"punish the president if there are no workers because of bad education system" -Tom
lol, i'm going to laugh at that one for a long time....
i love it!! "punish the president" thats going into my favorite quotes, thanks Tom!!! |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:47 pm
Additional war idea to solve the man power problem:
Professional soldiers and officers.
we think of the idea to allow players to purchase boosters that will deliver 10.000 soldiers or 2000 officers.
these soldiers and officers will remain in the army, will not be part of the regular population but they will reduce the need for workers and managers to be recruited into the army and they will reduce the risk of automatic deactivation which was one of the problems discussed on the war subject and we have promised to try to resolve. |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 09:51 pm
The president has the responsibility to make sure all corporations can hire to capacity. Education is essential to achieve this.
The owner of the private corporation, has the responsibility to keep the corporation supplied and at full production.
you can repurchase the corporation at a low price if the private owner does not do his part.
What if the president is not doing his part? stop paying him... no taxes, and not other contributions to the country?
I am happy it is funny ha ha. |
| Laguna | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:19 pm
Just remove the "takeover" button. Complicating things when there is a simple solution annoys me. Besides, you will have to do something like that sooner or later, so how about you spare everyone some time and resources and give it a go? It is beyond sensible, it is wise. |
| whiteboy | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 10:23 pm
There are some good points in here from Serpent and Orbiter, we should definitely make sure that fed members can still counter declare to protect their new fedmates, if not then that will be a big blow to the federation system. I would suggest to keep it simple, if someone declares war on a member of a federation, then anyone in the federation at that time can counter regardless of level. *However*, they can only counter against the specific country(ies) that declared war, this will ensure players don't use this rule to turn around and wipe out weaker players.
Just to clarify something, if I reach level 10, can I then *only* declare war on Level 10 or 11 c3's and not Level 1-9? I'm sure that would bother some people but I actually really like that idea, c3's will no longer be worthless and that new $12 nominal value for them could become fairly realistic (depending on your level and just how strong the c3's are). It will diminish the problem of c3 warfare because if Player A is level 10 and Player B wants to attack player A via c3 warfare, they have to spend a bunch of time, weapons and ammo taking the level 10 c3's and if they were to instead just say, well then I'll stay at Level 1 and have cheap c3's, then they couldn't attack Player A because he or she is Level 10.
That is a great way to address two big problems, the fact that c3's have *very* little value (current stated value is $12, but in reality it's $-.50 probably, assuming you know how to take it efficiently and strip it out), PLUS strongly diminish the issue of constant c3 warfare. The only problem is that the worker problems will have to be addressed, if you make it cost a bunch of money/time to take a c3 while the issues we continue to have with workers (HLW is the biggest) then there will be a lot of unhappy people.
Overall though Tom, this is a great idea. Like all ideas there are always a few issues here and there, but this is something that WILL seriously create a robust war game while at the same time allowing those who choose not to fight to be left alone.
Great job.
EDIT: Also, as far as the soldier/officer booster, I like the concept but I think it's going to have to be ALOT more than that for 1 GC. We're talking about military's that are at least 1 million (if even slightly decent) and 10 million for the biggest, 2k/10k is not enough of an effect on those kind of numbers. That is only enough to run 10 NDB's or 1k MIB's, it's not that those are bad numbers, it's just they aren't worth a full GC. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:01 pm
as far as the booster, i agree with wb, really, that is a pretty small number for the cost
plus, could you make it more of a market? i'd like to be able to sell just mlm, i can generate allot of them, and sell them to players that need them. so a market for selling specific worker types, not just mlm, or llw, but also hlw, and hlm, and what not?
but back to using boosters for extra officers and soldiers, how long would they last? would they age like normal pop, and retire? do they enlist or are commissioned for 5 game years? (about 3 rl weeks on wg) still you consider 50 gc for 100k mlm? you'd be better off buying 10m pop that way you could at least sell some back, if you win. so as a booster, to make it worth the value, you really need to increase it to 5 times the suggested value, at least. so minimum of 10k mlm for one gc? still pretty short, but better, 5 gc (equal to 1m pop,) would give you 50k mlm, still doesn't really sound equal, but maybe thats the point? not a cheap solution to poor war prep, but a rather expensive one? |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:36 pm
I also think that this system will solve the main problems we have with the war game.
some remain and will have t be solved before we call it a good solution.
the feds must remain in function and they must be able to participate. This however will be part of presidents wars that will be enhanced to allow for everyone to start at the same time.
If you are at war level 10, you can attack C3s of level 10 or 11.
if you want to go up a level, it will be a c3 of level 11. The game will choose one for you because it might be further away from your country.
if you are attacking a C3 country at your level, it will be 10 in this case and it might be your own choice of a country but it will be instantly upgraded to become a level 10 C3.
I hope I am clear enough.
I do not see the connection to the HLW problem but part of what we are changing in the growing corporations is the relation between the workers groups to solve it. I expect to see improvements starting to kick in within several weeks.
We did not decide on any price for soldiers and officers boosters.
It is not meant to have the whole army built in this way. Having a 100.000 such soldiers will already reduce the deactivation problem. we do not want to entirely eliminate the influence of war on the economy. |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:41 pm
we happened to discuss such a market today.
direct trading is being expanded and we will start by adding cargo shuttles to direct trading with more products to follow. (mainly ones that are not traded on space stations).
having a market seems a good idea and in that case, we do not need to decide on the price.
The problem is that we do not think countries should sell their population unless the population is at very high level.
already now, selling your population has adverse effects on the country.
more to come on this one. |
| Crafty (Little Upsilon) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:49 pm
I suggest we get happy with this plan people of SC.
It seems to me a really good development and like others say, confusing the issue with lots of little possible problems we might forsee can only stall the process and mess it up. It will settle out. As any player of experience will verify, this is a long term game, not one of instant gratification.
Here's to seeing what war level the game will decide I am, 2? maybe 3? anyone know a bookmaker? |
| Jo Salkilld (White Giant) | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:50 pm
Tom, if your intention is to have fewer private CEO corporations, are you going to drop the CEO corp numbers required for indexes?
If not, it will make higher levels even more difficult to reach.
Hugs and respect
Jo |
| Serpent | Friday, September 10, 2010 - 11:59 pm
So for a level 10 president to take a level 10 c3 obviously they will have to use alot more assets to do so. If a level 2 president takes a level 2 c3 they would use less assets. Will those c3's that each player took have roughly the same amount of assets and population? Even tho the level 10 president spent more time and assets?
Thanks
Jason |
| Blueserpent (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 12:02 am
im thinking the higher the lvl, the more your tactics and weaponry will come into play.
A lvl 2 will take only a small amount of knowhow and weapons, whereas a lvl 10 will take much more
Its been stated c3 wont be about assets in them although there will be some to remove |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 12:26 am
Tom - Thank you for the response and yes that is clear and was the answer I was looking for.
As far as the HLW (or more general worker) issues, the reason more time/assets taking c3's will matter is that currently the only real fix to those kind of problems is taking c3's and stripping them of the workers you need in exchange for the workers you do not, generally LLW for HLW or HTE, etc. If it takes more time/assets to get that done because of the strength of c3's, what is already an annoyance (taking and stripping c3's) will become a problem. I'm sure that it will be looked at and managed, I'm just noting the potential issue so that hopefully it can be planned for/looked at.
As far as a market for workers, I understand the resistance to selling population, but sometimes it is necessary and I think a market as Orbiter suggested would be the best solution rather than boosters. As GM's you'd obviously have the ability to participate/intervene into that market just as you do in the current market for population sales so any negative issues arising from the buying and selling of workers this way could be managed.
Great point Crafty, every idea comes with an upside and a downside, I love the upside to this idea and believe the downside can be managed if not when implemented then over time. If we continue to get this level/amount of communication from W3C then I don't think people will freak out about changes as much because any issues resulting from them can be corrected/adjusted quickly. I know I've railed on Tom a bit in the other thread and I continue to stand by my thoughts there, but I have said and will continue to say that whether it's communication I like or hate, I appreciate the level of communication right now. |
| Tom Willard (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 12:58 am
Thanks so far.
I will be back tomorrow with more answers. |
| Serpent | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 04:09 am
Can you guys feel the love? |
| Poisonous Friend (Kebir Blue) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 04:56 am
My concern would be, what if I want a c3 (Y) in a specific location, not some country of war level X in a location that I consider useless because I have my own layout goals/plans. Would the war level be randomly distributed or be something that auto-adjusts to the declaring party? |
| Neidy (Fearless Blue) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 05:50 am
If I understand this correctly, War levels are seperate from game levels. If so, do we all start at at war level 0 or are current players assigned different war levels based on our past war experience under the old war game rules? I guess I am confused, I am trying to catch up on the prior posts concerning the game changes. |
| Joe Green (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 07:45 am
Whiteboys post 5 up is spot on about raiding C3's to trade out workers. If you have a large empire with lots of corps in it trying to keep max upgrading you have to deal with personnel problems now and then by raiding C3s. Its not fun and would be a lot less fun if you had to face tougher C3's when all you want is to trade workers. I think what some of the warrior types are saying above is that they still want the option to raid low level C3s even if they are at high war levels, they don't want awards or points for the raid, just the ability to trade out workers. I agree with this, it's necessary. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 11:37 am
Quote:My concern would be, what if I want a c3 (Y) in a specific location, not some country of war level X in a location that I consider useless because I have my own layout goals/plans. Would the war level be randomly distributed or be something that auto-adjusts to the declaring party?
Seconded. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 11, 2010 - 06:16 pm
Scarlet and Poisonous - The system will only select the location of a c3 *for* you if you are wanting a 'leveling up' c3 war. If you are just choosing a c3 at your level because you want it in a specific location, then the system will just let you pick the c3 and it would be at your current war level.
Neidy - It appears based on what has been said so far, that everyone will start at 0.
Joe Green - That is exactly the issue I was talking about, however, rather than solve it by allowing players to fight against low level c3's, I'm hoping they set it up so that players only fight c3's at their current level and then they fix the worker issue so that we aren't required to be constantly raiding c3's any longer. I like the idea of c3's having some value, which they will for players who have attained higher fighting levels and raiding c3's for workers is tiresome, so that would be a great change. |
| Scarlet (Golden Rainbow) | Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 02:57 am
If there is no threat to my ability to take C3s based on location, I'm good with that. I suppose much more limited C3 warfare maneuvers will become much more strategic, I kind of like that idea.
Hypothetically (under the system described), if I'm a clever mofo and maintain a low war level, I could still pull off C3 warfare AND raid against weak, independent players without worrying about stronger players intervening.
My two cents:
A low leveled player should be able to initiate attacks against players of any level equal or greater [Say I'm level 2: I can attack ALL players level 2 or more.]... and above a certain level [Say I reach a level X. Upon reaching this level, I can attack all players level X or greater, even if I become higher than level X myself].
Perhaps a final addition would be that players below level X would be unable to attack players above level X.
Once I start a war against a player, I should be able to be declared on by any and all players for the duration of the war, ignoring levels. In effect, there should be an exposure effect might deter people from attacking and guarantee that someone's friends, federated or not, would be able to help out.
Finally:
Please don't follow through with that evil 2nd Fed Air Wing thing if you do this. |
| Tom Willard (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 12, 2010 - 11:57 pm
Assigning war levels to current players
We tend to assign low levels to everyone. Probably 1, 2 and 3 depending on the number of wars won.
However, this will not influence the game level right away. The game level will continue to depend initially, on the current defense index and defensive index. We will then start to lean over to the war level. It can be achieved by gradually increasing the required defense and defensive indexes so that game levels will start to decline unless you achieve higher war levels. This will be slow and allow enough time for everybody to achieve higher war levels.
CEO corporations
This is a misunderstanding. We want many more CEO corporations but this is beside the point of the discussion.
C3 assets and workers exchange
C3s will have increasing population and assets depending on their levels but assets will not be the reason to fight them. War levels will. Removing assets will be a minor argument.
Taking out workers by exchange will hopefully not be needed. This is a time consuming side effect that was not intended. We will solve the HLW problem. We expect it to start improving this week and continue for several weeks. We will then also look at the other groups but these are easier as you can influence them directly, setting education priorities. Workers seem to be more difficult.
Once this is done, I will hear your comments on the shortages.
Workers is a problem but the solution is not to create a workaround of attacking C3s of a lower level but rather to solve the worker shortages problem.
C3 locations
We would like you to make the choice of a country to attack. We will then instantly upgrade the country to the required level. There is however a BUT.
It is much harder to attack a country far away and at higher levels this should become part of the setup. So we probably choose for you when you want to go a level up, but then, once you have the level (example 10), you can attack another c3 of level 10 and in that case, you will choose the location and depending on that, we will choose how to upgrade that country to level 10. If you will have a common border with that country, we will make it stronger. If it is at 5000 miles away, it will be less powerful.
Keeping your country at a low War Level
Yes this is of course possible but winning war levels will result in GC awards and permanent advantages in defense quality boosts that will depend on your level.
You game level will also remain low.
One of the advantages of higher game levels for both war players and non fighting players will be the max level of corporate upgrades. Once you move to higher levels, you will be able to upgrade beyond the 200 quality.
We really want you to go up the levels and we intend to introduce more challenges.
Attacking players of higher levels
I wonder what others think. In any case, we will leave the players with lower levels in peace. Attacking higher war level players does not seem to be a problem. ? |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 12:10 am
"Keeping your country at a low War Level
Yes this is of course possible but winning war levels will result in GC awards and permanent advantages in defense quality boosts that will depend on your level.
You game level will also remain low.
One of the advantages of higher game levels for both war players and non fighting players will be the max level of corporate upgrades. Once you move to higher levels, you will be able to upgrade beyond the 200 quality. " -Tom
ok, that statement as is, is something i can get behind. i'm sure their is more detail to it, but yes, those do seem to be some realistic advantages to leveling up,
a nice trade off, to having permanently harder c3s, in exchange for stronger defense upgrades, and higher corp upgrades!!!
i have to say, i was rather discouraged with the thought of leveling up, for a one time award, and a permanent disadvantage. but this seems pretty fair, making it worth leveling up!
wow, thats pretty cool |
| Crafty (Fearless Blue) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 12:28 am
I cant see any problem with a player attacking another of higher war level. They know what they are getting into and more power to the arm of someone brave enough to try. It would also remove a lot of complacency that could set in with the highest level players who would think there is no one around who can challenge them.
Yes, definitely Tom, allow a lower war player the ability to attack a higher one. |
| Poisonous Friend (Golden Rainbow) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 02:59 am
As long as my ability to pick and choose is retained, I'm content. |
| Serpent (Little Upsilon) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 03:27 am
Im ok with lower level players fighting higher level players, so long as they dont dec with worthless countries. IE... a 10-12M pop c3 with less than 10T mili assets decing a 40M or so pop country with 100T mili assets. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 10:29 am
Nope, no low level players fighting high level if the reverse is not possible, it creates a completely imbalanced system and will allow players the choice of remaining low war level so that they can basically have free war protection while deciding when to declare on higher level players. In particular, it continues to allow c3 warfare AND it allows people with high skill to join new worlds to build up right next to high war level players and then dec on them without the high level players having any repercussion until they're all the sudden stuck with war decs.
The only exception should be that federation members can counter declare on any level, other than that you are 100% correct in the system Tom and I love it, it's perfect. It will separate those who want to fight from those who do not while at the same time giving players an incentive to learn the war game AND eliminate c3 warfare. Perfect.
Now, if you add in the part about federation members being able to counter declare any decs, all of the above plus that will create a VERY strong incentive for new players to join federations for protection which will ultimately help them learn the game and thus make them far more likely to stay. It's so great, it recreates the greatness of feds while at the same time allowing those who do not want to play the war game to be peaceful on their own without war protection and only very low level war players to worry about. |
| Tang Washington (Little Upsilon) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 05:49 pm
This whole level thing sounds like bull. Too complicated and caters to a very small group of players getting what they want with it. It doesn't make sense to limit the game in this way. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 08:29 pm
i agree with you actually, tang, how ever, we don't really have a choice, W3C is going to do something to encourage warlords to war each other, and leave the doves alone. so considering that, it looks pretty good... |
| Crafty | Monday, September 13, 2010 - 10:26 pm
I think you miss a couple of points WB, war levels are going to apply to presidents game wide arent they, not country/world specific and its sounds like eventually different worlds might have different war rules anyway. Secondly I vote for presidents going up levels with the more wars they fight, not just missions, so you wouldnt get away with C3 warfare many times before you are high level yourself. Choose your wars carefully. The only reasons to take many C3s is to fight C3 warfare or for worker adjustments. Tom has said he is fixing the worker system. Both problems eliminated.
Of course you could always multi-account or terminate an account and start again but you'll never make it 100% perfect. |
| Keto | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 03:11 am
The way SC is now, everyone in WP, there will be no chance for levelling up from warring. Everyone will still be too scared to risk anything, and end up staying in WP. By the sounds of it, it sounds like SC is not eliminating the fighting from c3 issue. I stand corrected in my assumption that SC stated lower level players can attack higher level players if they feel confident to do so? sounds like c3 fighting to me.
If thats the case I have no problem attacking anyone on SC, on any world, and using c3's only. I can dereg all my countries and fight that way. Will that change any of the crying in the forums about certain players being attacked by bullies? No it won't and we'll be back to square one. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 05:01 am
If they do apply game wide then even better and I do agree with you Crafty, player v player wins should count for something as well.
Keto - All statements from the GM's (at least by my reading) read that there will be a limit in both attacking higher level players and lower level players, this should do pretty well to fix the c3 war issue. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 05:04 pm
Well, yeah. Because if you are going to take C3s to fight C3 style, then the C3s you need to take to do that are going to be at your war level, hard to take, so it must make C3 warfare much more costly, time consuming and generally difficult. Hopefully to a point where it makes it virtually pointless. I expect there will always be room for it though (watch out the bingo klub!). |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 05:56 pm
except of course, if the player fighting from c3s has the liberty to fight from a low level against high levels
in theory, if a person chooses to fight some one stronger, it would seem that they are courageous. but by allowing low level war players to attack up at any range, you WILL have at least one player that will stay at level 3 or what ever minimum level for fighting players, and constantly attack level 10s, just to harass them. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 06:21 pm
Would it be possible for players to use basic nuclear weapons? Me for example have build MASSIVE stockpiles but i have yet to test or learn to operate firing one possibly could you make it so that we could use only level 1 fallout weapons(Chemical and Tactical nukes) that why at least i can learn so when war i know not only how to work the system but i learn i must do A-B-C then my nuke gets though defenses. Also reasons on level 1 is that the fallout is only the C3 regional or surrounding countries wouldn't receive any fallout. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 06:30 pm
Orbiter - Directly from Tom: "Second, we will allow wars between presidents when levels are equal or similar. exact definitions of similar will follow and we hope to tune them, based on players response and how they experience level differences."
The intent is to allow war between players of similar levels, so it would not be possible for a player to maintain low levels to be able to acquire cheap c3's and then attack high level players. Again, this is a great way to deal with the issue of c3 warfare with more of a market solution than a direct solution. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 06:41 pm
i realize that wb, how ever their is also conversation in this thread about allowing lower level players to attack
"Attacking players of higher levels
I wonder what others think. In any case, we will leave the players with lower levels in peace. Attacking higher war level players does not seem to be a problem. ?" -Tom
so yes, their should be a "window," say up and down 3 or 5 levels, depending on how they choose to set up the difficulty scale of C3s. and how popular war is... also, with the up/down thing, it'd make sense to me that it should be the same, both up and down. so that a player fighting up, can't dec, and then the defender can't counter dec |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 06:55 pm
i find it rather manipulative to let a level 0 attack a level 10 or the other way around. i say a 2 level cap should be set. Make it interesting to for Example...
Level 5 vs Level 5= Immediate war no stand off
Level 5 vs Level 6= 12hour stand off
Level 5 vs Level 4= 12hour stand off
Level 5 vs Level 7= 24hour stand off
Level 5 vs Level 3= 24hour stand off
Maybe a maxim of only a 2 level difference that why the skill are somewhat similar. If your both level 5 your skills should be equal and you should war immediately. If your jumping either higher or lower you skills arent equal. Giving you a chance to boost defenses or boost offense. I believe there should be a cap like 2 to prevent misuse as well as once you obtain that level you are permanently that level. Maybe make a level you have to be in order to war a president. Level 3 that why you have had enough battles under your belt to understand the concept.
(all my levels where based on a 0-10 level scale) |
| Crafty (Fearless Blue) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 08:10 pm
If you are a newb, war level 1 or 2, no way are you going to be able to engage in C3 warfare, you wont have the knowledge or assets to do so, so that arguement is moot. (excepting of course resetting your account or multying - cheating).
I still reckon the best thing to do would be make all wars you engage in count toward your war rank, so there is an increased difficulty in C3 warring the more you do it. After a couple of C3 campaigns, you will have to start taking high level C3s to fight C3 wars, making in not viable.
Meanwhile you are encouraging the genuine new players to learn and use the war engine.
Guys, lets not make the mistake of letting one persons actions sway the overall long range goals of our our game.
Crafty 'I'll shut up now' Cockney. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 10:32 pm
I concur Crafty, however when one person absorbs an exorbitant amount of many other people's game (fun) time with BS it becomes something that should be addressed. In addition, this really isn't about just one player but more the general trend towards c3 warfare that has occurred over the past year, it is definitely not only one player doing it, in fact, there just was a 4 player c3 only war on WG which has been widely talked about and it was done by a group of players with plenty of talent and assets. This will become the norm instead of the exception unless limits are put into place, no one wants to risk their own assets when others are not willing to do the same *but* many players love to fight and take countries from other players, c3 warfare is the logical conclusion to that conundrum.
The system has to be corrected and this is a perfect opportunity to do so, it is completely reasonable that if high level players can not attack players much lower than them, low level players should not be able to attack players much higher than them. |
| Jojo T. Hun (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 03:10 am
Can a player's war level rise and fall, as their game level currently can, or is this a one way affair? |
| whiteboy | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 04:07 am
I believe it's a one way deal but that's a good question Jojo, I didn't even think to ask about that. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 02:47 pm
How scripted was this bs... "in fact, there just was a 4 player c3 only war on WG which has been widely talked about and it was done by a group of players with plenty of talent and assets."
LMAO translation: After pretending they(the mob) disbanded, The MOB scheduled a scripted c3 war with Chrysostom(super butt kisser) that was intended to look real in order to highlight how c3 wars , or lack of, is not in the interest of the mob, with the sole intention of, again try to manipulate the gamemasters into changing the game to suit their liking and more favorable to them so they can further consolidate the powerbase they have established.
So transparent its offensive.
"widely talked about? lmao, same four or five players posting everywhere else, lmao I guess you can say that was widely talked about.
What needs to be talked about is you logging into EO's account to fight, which is a real deterrence to the war game because people have always known it was happening, but you (WB) saved everyone the trouble of the accusation/proof cycle by admitting to it yourself.
Tom, can we stop this already. EO was involved in this nonsense before that triggered you to announce it being forbidden in the first place. Seems to be far more of a problem than c3s. I know personally Jack Jones has since left the game since they were both logged into EO's account during that war. It has to stop. I'm not even asking for a harsh reaction just another warning, that EO needs to fight from his own account, and WB needs to fight from his account. Thanks. |
| Keto | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 11:13 pm
Even if that was the case, which it is not windbag, you still couldn't take his country even if he isn't log in. Pathetic really how you confess to be able to take anyone of us, or I'll deal with you later" replies, and yet you've hid in wp since you started playing this game 2 years ago. Come out of wp already. You can talk the talk but you can't walk the walk.
You should re-ead your posts before you post them and you'll see how pathetic you really are. Everyone else already sees it. |
| HORDO (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 11:19 pm
Keto you are wrong. Whiteboy said in the White Giant thread that his brother was logging in from his computer. You are out of line on this one. I recognize a friend sticks up for friends but if Whiteboy admits to it like he did and the Gamemasters say to stop then something should be done about it. He even once accused DTA of multi play. I think that is very bad of someone to accuse another player of multiplaying but he is logging into Eo's account, that is against the rules and you cannot deny that much. She even posted the same thread Tom spoke on. I know you don't like Wendy but that should not excuse what Whiteboy did. |
| HORDO (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 11:21 pm
Also in the future please do not generalize Wendy with anyone in DTA. DTA is in no way allied with Wendy although she isn't as bad as you all make it seem. No offense Wendy. |
| HORDO (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 11:27 pm
I also was around when Wendy nuked you keto 50 times all your countries were ruined for a real month of time, you were about to cry and then she stopped because she had compassion for you, but you call her the worse names no wonder she is going to nuke you again, I don't blame you for having War Protection. But you have to admit she has more ground to stand on because you have only one enemy and she has many. You are spamming the same old line it is getting boring watch you call her nasty names while you and your fed talk like that to her. I think you really don't want to fight her unless all of your friends will be able to help and sneak attack.. DTA is tired of building over and over. But she did kick your but, and Serpent she nuked so many times and EO also. WB was the only one not to take more than one nuke. |
| Psycho_Honey | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:00 am
lol hordo lol
What needs to be talked about is you logging into EO's account to fight, which is a real deterrence to the war game because people have always known it was happening, but you (WB) saved everyone the trouble of the accusation/proof cycle by admitting to it yourself.
Tom, can we stop this already. EO was involved in this nonsense before that triggered you to announce it being forbidden in the first place. Seems to be far more of a problem than c3s. I know personally Jack Jones has since left the game since they were both logged into EO's account during that war. It has to stop. I'm not even asking for a harsh reaction just another warning, that EO needs to fight from his own account, and WB needs to fight from his account. Thanks. |
| Keto (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:54 am
Hordo, no wonder you people dont know how to fight. She did not nuke me 50 times and she did very little damage to my countries, and I was never about to cry, because windbag never had a chance to take anything from me then or now. I got tired of chasing and taking worthlessc3s.I am not scared to fight her alone as I am not afraid to fight anyone else in this game.
Wendy gets what she deserves for making stuff up and stretching the truth to make herself look better. Which by the way isn't working.
Message me in game, I'll teach yo how to play econ and the war game and maybe you'll see things alot differetly. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 04:16 am
Ok, you're right, it was 56 times really. Don't lie Keto you were crying. |
| HORDO | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 04:24 am
I'll pass Keto. Nothing personal but beyond not liking you very much in general I wouldn't ally myself with someone who talks to certain people like you talk to some people. Plus you lie so much I wouldn't listen a word that comes out of your mouths. You guys story changes like I change my underwear - everyday. Stop assuming that 5 people greater than yourself have not messaged me with how to play, I don't need you to teach me anything. Maybe you think your story is the history, but I watched she nuked you at least 50 times no exaggeration you may not want to look bad but be honest that is why I cannot ever be your friend you have a hard time facing reality how can you teach someone how to play both sides of the game when you got nuked that many times. Don't put words in my mouth I say it how it went down no reason for me to stretch the truth here. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 04:41 am
Hordo, you really should do some research. No one was nuked 50 times, fallout posts monthly, it isn't new nukes. Also, you don't understand the system or why that can occur nor do you understand that nukes are a pretty minor part of war. This is somewhat shocking to me as you've seen me take 25 or 30 of your countries while barely firing one and I've watched you guys repeatedly try to nuke unsuccessfully and you guys are yet to do any meaningful damage to any country. I get that you don't like us, that's fine, but the bottom line is that no one has more experience under the current war engine than we do and we know what we're doing. You choose to ignore that because of your dislike and listen to Windy who is completely clueless at war. Stating that 5 people greater than Keto have msgd you about about how to play is pretty ridiculous and whoever it was that messaged you either doesn't know how to play the war game or you don't know how to listen because 10 decs on a country from decent sized countries didn't land you one real shot, war index never moved below 80 and it started at 87.
W - I never stated that I am logging into EO's account. I clearly stated that my brother (who I trained in 15 minutes about how to destroy you because you suck so bad) has been given EO's account while EO is away from the game dealing with school. My brother lives with me and I can document that information in any way the GM's find necessary. Bank statements, mail, licenses, whatever they want, we'll provide if asked by the GM's. There is no rule that two people living in the same house can not play Simcountry. Many people do it and I thought this would be a great time to bring my brother into the game, he has some free time and as are most people, is much smarter than you so it doesn't take him much time to learn how to kick your ass like everyone else has.
Anyway, now that you idiots have hijacked a thread that was a great conversation about a rule change, why don't you go back to doing what you were doing before, wasting your time thinking about how you can beat people who you dislike because they are better than you without ever doing any work to get any better yourselves.
Good day |
| HORDO | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:30 am
WhiteBoy I don't need to do any research I saw the whole war I know you like to tell people what they can or cannot think but I have two eyes to see and I report what I saw. You are selfish andself centered enough to think what you have to say is the only thing that matters but Keto was nuked more than 50 times, it is funny how you and your crew have selective memory, nukes are pretty useless if you nuke c3s but I counted as all ketos countries that were unprotected shed more than 10 million population each I would not call that a a useless part of the game. I know what I saw I don't need some big mouth telling me different mind your business I was not talking to you. I didnt really trust the advice given me but I should have wendy was telling me the whole time to take down the air defense first I thought it was impossible waste of time but she did it all by herslef more than 140K interceptors. so it was my fault for not listening. The only tperson that is ridiculous is you I hope the gms do something about you loggin in to fight from two accounts from 1 ip address. It doesn't matter if you have a brother or not who is to say it is not you? I can provide info for up to 10 people does that mean I should be logging on to someone elses account to fight? No Tom says it has to stop I wouldn't be so proud and loud mouth you may just have a surprise coming yet. Making someones identity does not prove anything except that 1 IP is using the accounts. Clearly against the rules. I don't think the whole game should be held accountable to a set of rules while you get away with breaking them. Your IP should be banned from EO's account that is bad for the game to continue letting you do that. I can make 10 more accounts and say my cousins want to play but will it not be obvious that I only want to multi?
You call people multi player yet break the rules and that is bad for the game becuase no one can know if it is you or not. Even if you have a brother it proves nothing the obvious is that your ip is governing two accounts and tom clearly expresses that it has to stop. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 06:04 am
Hordo - Get a clue, there is nothing wrong with two people playing from the same household.
Make 10 multi accounts...what difference would it make? You guys could all be one person from what I know, I don't care. I'm sorry that you believe that the right course of action is to just let a friends country get shot at for 3 weeks...I happen to think it'd be better if my brother took care of it while staying within the rules. It doesn't take much. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 06:19 am
We don't need to multi account in any instance. You are the only one who takes the game that seriously.
There is nothing wrong with two people playing from the same household. But that isn't the case here.
One household is playing two accounts. But one is established and your 'brother' doesn't own his own account. So you mean to say EO will not be returning and your 'brother' is keeping that account indefinitely?
Your brother cannot take care of it without breaking the rules, becuase he isn't even a player in simcountry. Saying you were taking care of it would even sound better, even though we know it is you, but even still, 2 players may not wage war from a single account. And that is exactly what you are doing.
So Tom, can I wage war from managed accounts? If so I'll drop it right now and find some accounts to manage. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 08:46 am
Owned as usual idiot.
Keep crying, what difference will it make?
You have been crying about getting me out of WP, according to you I'm controlling EO's old account, so you've got a country out of WP...what can you do about it? Nothing...we all know that...no surprise there.
My brother has been kicking your ass...deal with it...stop crying like the incapable idiot you are.
You want me out of WP, I want you out of the game. Make me an offer backed up by an independent source, whoever is left gets to stay, whoever gets wiped out is gone. Simple enough...I'm willing...we all know you're not...but throw me your latest excuse. I'm sure it will be ultra exciting. |
| LisaJean (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 09:53 am
I think Wendy has brought up a valid issue that should be investigated by the gamemasters. The Post that she pasted from Tom is pretty clear that what Whiteboy is doing has already been forbidden. Maybe they haven't checked things out, but it would seem logical that this has been going on for some time already but the Gms may not have had the time to check.
Surprisingly Wendy has not asked for a ban or other form of punishment. She has only requested that W3c prohibit the abuse of the account. That sounds very reasonable and given the fact that it is already prohibited , it should warrant more than a warning. Good for you Wendy.
I do have one bone to pick however. In hindsight it looks like WB and The Mob actually planned to do this as a strategy from the start of the time they put on WP. Place all their countries in WP and take turns fighting fight from a single account and replenishing Air defense repeatedly in neighboring countries. What coincidence that all mob members are in WP, a single country remains out of WP with out even a blackout period. But EO had to know he was going away. All his other countries have WP, I don't think that was a mistake. This looks very planned and/or deliberate. If this is allowed to continue it will be abused too much. Now everyone will have a 'friend' play the game and "taking care" of each others accounts. It is unfair and should be stopped.
I've said my peace, I'm going on my way out of the game so feel free to ignore my opinions. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 01:22 am
bump |
| Tom Willard | Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 05:54 pm
This is to clarify:
Attacking a country with a president:
Attacking a country with a president will be possible if both are at the same level.
No attacks on countries in lower levels.
Attacking countries which have a higher war levels:
The jury is out on this one. We cannot just allow this as you will have silly wars with beginners but I don't see why we should not allow a level 10 war player from attacking someone at level 12. Both are very experienced and probably the attacker knows something others don't and decides to go to war.
Empire wide:
War levels will apply to entire empires, not to single countries and they will not be inherited on other worlds, with different war rules, players and possibly increasing differences.
Can war levels decline?
We don't think so. If you know how to fight, you generally don't forget. You can decide not to fight but when you do, do it against players at you knowledge level.
Playing other people accounts
We can make the effort and start monitoring IP addresses and logins. We can forbid logging into accounts that are usually being used by players with a different IP address.
I am not sure the problem is wide spread and we would like to spend our time doing other things. If needed, we will implement it. |
| whiteboy (Little Upsilon) | Saturday, September 18, 2010 - 06:18 pm
Thanks for the clarification Tom. As far as attacking players with higher war levels, I don't disagree with your example as both players are experienced and I don't think that is what many players are concerned about. What we are concerned about is other players keeping their war levels intentionally low so that they can acquire c3's cheaper and with little effort and avoid being attacked by higher level players, then using those c3's to dec higher level players, i.e. level 1 attacking level 10.
I guess the question would be, how high are war levels going to go? The game news states you'll implement up to level three and c3's up to level 5. Will it eventually go up to level 10? or 20? or 30? The top level that can be achieved would largely play into how much higher level a player could attack. If it is only going to go up to level 5, then I'd say 1 war level (level 4 can attack level 5), if up to level 20 then it should probably be 3 or 4 war levels up.
Hope that makes sense.
As far as the ip addresses, just to clarify, if two players live together (which I'm guessing is fairly common, roommates, husbands/wives, family members, etc.) are they not allowed to both play the game? I can't imagine that would be the case and what it looks like you are saying is that if accounts are being regularly logged into from multiple ip addresses then that is an issue, but if the account log in is consistent then that is not a problem. |
| Maestro2000 (Fearless Blue) | Sunday, September 19, 2010 - 06:03 am
New War Upgrades:
1) Will there be any army size limitations based on country population size and size of economy?
2) Line of Supply - This game warps reality when it comes to logistics and line of supply for the troops. Some type of logistic formula needs to be added. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Sunday, September 19, 2010 - 09:20 am
well, as far as the level 10 versus 12 thing, i think that any one that can be attacked by a player, should be able to attack that player. what i mean, is that with your example, both a 10 and 12 are experienced, so why couldn't the 12 dec on the 10? of course you wouldn't want the 12 to attack a 6, so the thought here is that their should be an up and down window... not being able to look at it from W3Cs perspective, i couldn't tell you what a "fair," up/down window would be...
and a second question, in the event, that a level 10 declares on a level 12... would the level 12 be able to use another country to counter dec? it would make sense that once the level 10 starts the war, the level 12 should be able to counter with more than just the one country. otherwise, in many cases the higher level player will be a sitting duck. |
| Tom Willard | Sunday, September 19, 2010 - 10:48 am
Whiteboy
War levels will go very high with gradual complication of the war and increased difficulty.
we will start with the lower levels because for higher levels, we have more things to do to make it possible.
staying in a lower war level should be prevented and it will.
if you win against a C3 country of level 0, you will move to level 1 and from now on, will fight C3s at level 1 or up.
this will remain easy but a little less so than level 0.
we could make it a little different for low war levels and move players to level 2 if they win several wars against a level 1 c3 country.
following wars will be against C3 countries of level 2 or 3.
This will probably solve the problem or you could go even one level further in this way and in fact force them up from the lowest levels.
staying at level 3 or 4 does not matter any more.
C3 wars will not be the same at that level and attacking beginners will not be possible.
so they will stay at the same level or try to go up and win awards.
The IP address problem is known to us but these people play from the same IP number from the start.
I am sure there will be ways to cheat us but not at a large scale and when a cheat becomes tricky, people lose the appetite for it.
Maestro
We have no army size limitations and I do not see a reason for that.
You need to explain what you think should be added to the logistics. as we see it, this part is OK.
Orbiter
I think that the solution I proposed in the previous message could work but indeed, there are additional issues as you raised:
A lower war level player should be protected against higher level players attacking her/him.
but once the lower level player attacks a higher level player, than the gloves are off.
From now on, he can be attacked by higher level players (within a range).
We are not done with this one.
also, multiple country wars and fed wars should continue and remain part of SC |
| Maestro2000 (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, September 19, 2010 - 04:22 pm
Think of the British Empire at it's height.
Huge and all over the world.
But there were limits to it's military size due to economics and logistics.
Take Malta for example (the fall of 1941). How many troops can this small island hold? Answer...not much
Now compare that to simcountry where a small player controlled C3 (A "Malta") can wage a full scale war against any country of any size. Not possible in the real world.
Even when war levels are introduced, will players be allowed to wage war using "Malta" countries vs target countries vastly larger? |
| Blueserpent | Monday, September 20, 2010 - 05:05 pm
Tom,
Game docs state interceptor range is 4k, its actually more like 1k. Can we have some clarification on what it should be please. |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Monday, September 20, 2010 - 06:49 pm
Maestro = Malta Goya |
| BrokenAmbitions (White Giant) | Monday, September 20, 2010 - 09:32 pm
Rob, in a recent mail to jozi, I asked him about extending Int range to 1500, he said possibly, after the 3 wing response kicks in, so I assume, it is 1000
|
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 04:10 am
has anyone tried attacking a c3. when i did it said attack was aborted. are we in some kind of transition period where we can't attack? |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 04:15 am
Something funny with c3s I tell you. |
| Tom Willard (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 06:48 am
Nothing changed so please let us know if there is any problem. |
| Psycho_Honey | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 07:41 am
I cannot attack any c3s I will try again.
I also keep getting a message that
"your country is already involved in more than 1 country without a president."
If the new limit is 3, the game is not recognizing it. It won't even recognize it when the war is ended. On the war page it shows that x country war has ended, but the game still counts it as an active war. |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 07:53 am
Still says "attack aborted" I have tried with 2 countries. |
| Orbiter (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 08:02 am
the new limit is 2 wendy, hence "more than 1," is 2, and its been that way for a while now,
|
| Psycho_Honey (Golden Rainbow) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 08:13 am
It was always 4 for me, not sure when it changed to 2. Maybe I don't read the news enough.
However, it is not 2
I can initially declare on 3 even 4 c3s. But if I conquer one I cannot make another dec on a 3rd c3 again.
Furthermore, this happens when I declare on 2 c3s only. I conquer one, but cannot declare on a second c3.
Finally, even if I conquer both of said c3s, the game still counts them as open declarations as long as they show up as, Won or Ended in my war screen.
Clearly, something has gone sideways here. |
| Slade (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 12:23 pm
I got the same message "Attack Aborted" and I only have 1 attack c3 at the moment. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 02:54 pm
i'm only attacking one country and it reads "attack aborted". i waited until this morning to try again and it allowed two sorties and showed my losses even though i didn't actually get off the attack. it then went back to saying "attack aborted" the attacking country is "the grand state of keposso" on KB |
| Psycho_Honey (White Giant) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 05:37 pm
Still not fixed, It let me attack twice, then 'attack aborted' |
| Tom Willard (Kebir Blue) | Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 05:55 pm
I am very sorry for this.
It happened when we added the extra air defense wing, supporting the defense.
It was improved this morning but it seems that this was not good enough.
I already contacted the engineer who did this to look into it again. He just left the office before I saw these messages and will look into it ASAP today.
unfortunately, no one mailed us and I just bumped into it now.
Quick changes and fast reactions are nice at times but there are some risks. we will fix it ASAP. |
| Parsifal (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 12:13 am
thanks for your attention. |
| Psycho_Honey | Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 12:29 am
Yup, thx Tom |
