 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:30 am  ok. so judging on my overall conversations with different advanced members and reading on the forum, war lvls need to be eliminated. I'm in total agreement. there's got to be change. On member mentioned.. "perhaps up to lvl 3, then after that.. fair game".. makes total sence. If your able to fight a lvl 3 game, you should be capable and are willing to fight a live person. sure.. keep the levels for c3's.. good insperation and keep it at only c3's. But if what you where trying to do was to promote wars has failed. it is damn near imposible to fight a live president. Many faults, and reasons why some vets are becoming inactive. Look.. in the past few game messages, alot have been done to upgrade the war game.. awsome, but for what.. to fight a c3? wow fun. What about feds that have countries in it that say a person may be quiting.. taking it over could be imposible.. or if a fed member that may not have the knoledge or cababilty to fight someone cause another person has landed on that country.. amassed a pile of weapons and deced them when they seem ready to. Can a fed mate of a higher level dec them back? or there other countries they may have? Revisit this topic GM. No one likes it that I talked to, including me.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:57 am I AGREE the milking of the lvls is stupid. LVL 3 before you can war is stupid. All these freetards on FB that are landlocking. I Vote when ur lvl 1-3 you can only war 1-3 and 4-7 war lvl 4-7. When it comes to feds it shouldnt matter
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:58 am My 2 cents War levels Level 0 = Level joy (No wars for econ only players) Level 1 = War between one human player and one c3. At this level a human player can take up to 4 c3's. (No federations membership allowed) Level 2&3 = War between one human player and one c3. At this level a human player can take another 2 more challeging c3's. (No federation membership allowed) Level 4 = Graduation - Human player can join a federation. Warfare is total except for a secure main on all worlds. Questions: War Peace - Keep it or dump it? Backout period - Expand it? Keep the same?
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 02:58 am I agreed with this...think..if I'm in War level 3 then I was attacked by another war lvl 3 country but all members in my fed is in 4+ war lvl...they still can help me?can they attack?NO!! then the fed will useless.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:02 am i agree with mestro i think thats a good idea
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:07 am though federation memberships shouldnt be restricted
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:29 am Simcountry and its gm's have listened to too many ppl giving input. There used to be a time when war was rife. If you opened your mouth in a way that was wrong,bid where u wasnt invited to, took countries where someone didnt like, there was recompense by way of war. The gamemasters have removed all this with this nonesense with war lvls. There used to be a time if u didnt want war, you either shut up or put up defence, learnt to war or lost your countries...I for one would love to see a return to how it was. I have no objections to c3 war levels being in place, but within reason...if u can war a lvl 3 or above c3...u should not be able to hide behind restictions. If ur purely econ, u wont have fought above this lvl
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:41 am your all right.. feds should not matter.. you need to be a paying member, to take advantage of this, makes sence. In a fed, you should be able to protect them. Also.. in order to do this, we have many branches in my fed.. include the branches some how, Im not the only fed with branches.. so this needs resolve. right now coucil members need to make a "New" fed to incorporate a branch.. how about and add on for branches, so the whole fed is included in this...needs fixed. Air support say from ABC West can help a member from ABC East. Or.. Fed member's country "Noob" from ABC east fed was deced.. your countries Have bla and bla bla west(as long as they agreed to protect that coutry(s) have counter deced (automaticly). Awsome.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:02 am No doubt the GM's implemented these war levels with good intentions, however these changes have created more problems than they have fixed. I like the war level 3 cutoff point. A pres at that level has the 'basic' idea of how to remove air-d, paint, and attack targets. They cant make the excuse they are noobs and do not know anything about war. Remember to, this is a 'SIM', and in real life there are dangers, so should there be in SC. It does not need to be 'dumbed down'. If the issue is that vets have to much power, then sorry, but thats the way it is in 'real life' or any game. So be patient, lay low if you gotta. Cant start at the top, gotta work your way there, then when you do get there, you will have a better sense of accomplishment. Feds should also have an expanded role. Make feds crucial to a new players development. After all, the 'social' aspect of this game is what keeps many players active. The only issue I had with the previous war engine was the worthless C3' decs. If you decide to dec somebody then have something to risk.. it dosent have to be the same value as the country you dec, but its nonsense to dec a 200T mili country with a C3 that has 10T mili! Perhaps if the value was 50%? For ie... you have a country with 100T mili assets, then I would have to have at least one country out of WP with 50T mili to dec it. Then if you have 100T mili then you can dec anybody. I dunno, this may be total nonsense, but its my $.02 anyway. Jason
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:04 am your 2 cents is as valid as anyone else's
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:37 am I have been playing this game for 4 months now, and I have seen several changes by GM. For playing in a short time, I have no idea. However, I do not think that it was a good idea to change war levels like what it is now. The more they fix, the more they mess the game up. Some people in the chatroom said that" NO NEW IDEAS BECAUSE NEW IDEAS ARE ALWAYS BAD". LOL.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:56 am /me vomits
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:59 am awsome response Blue.. and everyone elses to. You need to put up defence.. how long have we said this. It realy is important.. if your in a fed.. ask a vet member what to do, its part of the game! You want to go beyound lvl 3.. fight a real person? while in lvl 3 and below.. ask.. get training.. have fun.. go past lvl 3.. make sure you have a good defence.. have some sence in war play and be prepared. Not many wars happen.. but they piss off your fed mates when they do and your not prepared. It's embarassing when your fed mates loses a country of a fed mate with no fight. But all this need to take place with no war lvls exist beyond lvl 3 accept for c3's, they go to lvl 7. As for real people.. they exist after lvl 3 if you realy want a fight. Econ.. stay below lvl 3 and you'll be safe.. unless there's a lvl 3 or below that want's to dec you. After that lvl don't mater against a live person.. a lvl 7 can dec a lvl 4.. (example). And a federation can protect a member of his/hers no mater the level of either. Paying members only, and I say this cause alot of vets paid alot on this game and you free people should start to contribute, to take avantage of this.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 05:14 am everyone who knows me knows i dont war. Ive been here since before they war/econ lvl where introduced. I never put up a def i made nice i worked with everyone the fact that there shelter people with these 3 war levels is SO STUPID!!! I remember leaving a week can i couldnt check my countries i used what WP i had n hoped Jethr0 could defend me if i was attacked...GM DO US ALL A FAVOR GET RID OF THESE LEVELS...you can only baby someone so long before you have to push them from the nest
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 07:27 am I applaude Homerdome for reopening this discussion in a common sense manner and I 100% agree with BlueSerpent's response. When these war levels were put in place the game community at large dissaproved based on a poll which was conducted and ignored by the GM. Even those who supported game changes now admit that they do not feel the Gm made changes in accordance with their good intentions. The entire system should be scrapped as far as I am concerned an the game returned to it's previous state in September of 2010.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 08:19 am The GM should eliminate war. It's been what 10 yrs? and they haven't gotten it right. This a econ game, no need for war.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 12:59 pm hymy1....you can play econ only...its called an enterprise. Seems a general consensus that the level 3 cutoff as suggested by many is a great way to go. You can't take these C3's, as Serpent said, without the knowledge to break air d, painting, and gaining a basic knowledge of the war engine. Oh by the way....half of the so called "econ" part of this game used to be based on selling weapons and ammo to warring presidents. SC has always favored "econ" players in my opinion. By simply setting up a phony defense with MIB's only, they can acquire all the defensive index points needed to climb the levels to the top. Just as in a real world situation, this does not work. The cost to maintain an adequate, functional defense is much more costly than paying for war protection. A so called "econ" player who can't afford to pay for war protection isn't much of an "econ" player in my book. And while I'm at it...seems that a few "econ" players were the ones who cried the most about the previous state of SimCountry. They wanted changes made to a war engine that they knew nothing of. As stated by many...this is SimCOUNTRY....not SimECONOMY...part of being a president is just as advertised by the SC login page itself...being commander and chief of your countries armed forces. If you don't want to war...pay for war protection or stay below the level 3 war level. Seems pretty simple to me. How much more unbalanced can SC be made for "econ" players? In the meantime....keep watching the forum as the veteran players drop like flies. Respectfully, EC
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 03:18 pm @hymy1: Funny, in the past often enough it's been called a war game.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 04:04 pm I share Hymy's view for the same reason. It's like selling margarine and calling it butter.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 06:56 pm I cant believe its not butter!
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 06:57 pm Level 3+ = Can be attacked and can attack any player Level 3+ Done. My input.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 07:06 pm Agreed Scarlet, the solution could not be any simpler then that.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 07:10 pm I'm an Econ only player and I fully support the level 3 cutoff. Make level 4 the total war level. The major road block is the misuse of WP at level 4 and overstacked C3's. At level 4, WP should be allowed on an all or nothing basis on all worlds.(Except for a secure main) Second there should be a military stacking limitation in small countries.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 07:20 pm Maestro i like your previous idea on the war levels and to end C3 warring how about this War Protection....all countries are in war protection or non of them
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 07:51 pm "Second there should be a military stacking limitation in small countries." Maestro is see that, but i also think that "stacking," military in another country is like deploying troops over seas, which we have no other means of doing so honestly, i'd like to see a total unit limit, as well as a max units created per month. I'm not saying that you can only have 12 total units, no, like you should probably be able to have like 250 defensive units, and 150 offensive units. (and a separate total for supply and air transport,) and can only create like 20% of max in any given month. and give players that are fighting multipul wars create a few extra units. these numbers are just something i'm throwing out, could of course be adjusted,, like larger countries having higher limits !?! (or even higher war levels having higher limits)
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 10:56 pm Is the institution of war levels really what has killed player vs player wars? There weren't many player vs player wars for many months even before war levels were introduced. Personally I pretty much stopped warring because of a)rampant war protection, even on FB, and b) the threat of c3 retaliation. Then also c) loss of ability to sell captured population without draconian penalties. d) Lack of time factors in there, too. Maybe the ressentiment that Scarlet describes elsewhere also contributes to a general lack of interest in player vs player wars. What I'm asking is...are there any players who would be fighting other players, but are not, only because of problems with war levels?
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:23 pm Yes. Reality is that war levels really killed the war game. If you want to go further back than that, you can look at the grouping together of better war players not for mutual defense, but mutual aggression. This has been a real problem behind the death of the war game. The reason being a few 2,3 or more players in a small group knowledgeable enough, that they can declare war on 10, hell even 20 players in a large fed and dominate too few of them have any real war knowledge, or the few who know fail to share the knowledge. The small group of bandits then go on making excuses about being outnumbered in countries and assets which is total BS on their parts. And you know who you are. To answer your question Jojo, yes, many people I would have declared are now at level 0,1, or 2 and I am sure the case remains the same with most people who would actively declare someone. The lack of interest is knowing that 90% of players can declare knowing full well that they would never conquer a nation unless it includes gang style warfare and you can barely trust people in your own feds much less those outside of it. Space stations make this even worse. Too much change has occurred to where it is difficult to pinpoint the biggest problem, and the picture becomes jumbled by a host of minor problems. The sum of which, have altogether destroyed or killed motivation to participate. Now along comes maestro, and/or others with yet even more tweaks or changes when the problem is that the entire idea of war levels is crap and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. The majority of long time players agree. Only crabs want to play under the new system. Honestly, I earn my protection for up to 8 countries on LU. Look at that I don't need to hide behind war levels. If I don't want to fight put up war protection. No one needs war levels. The way it is setup is prone to manipulation and multiplaying. 1 to 3 players actually play active in a war. Then you have 5 or more active or inactive level 2 or under players giving loads of air defense. What part of that works? I can't even kill the source of that added air defense. Just a single example of how that system is up for manipulation and it should have been removed as soon as everyone objected. Mysteriously, the lead players who actively campaigned for these changes mysteriously and suddenly no longer have 'time' for the game. FN Bullshit.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:23 pm now go ahead, keep talking.
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:46 pm Wendy You can thank your buddy WB for War levels. He championed it last summer. My tweak calls for total war for all players at war level 4. (Except for one secure main) There should be no higher war levels. Also, players at War level 0 thru 3 cannot be in a federation. Seems reasonable. Maestro
| |
| Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:53 pm Question: How many c3's can a player take before automatically graduating to war level 4? My answer is 6.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 12:28 am you can take(as now) as many lvl 3 c3's as u like. The old system where by u used war protection or learnt how to war, should be reintroduced. the only change, if u pick peaceful mode ur exempt
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 03:34 am To be honest, if they completely revoked all of the their so called "improvements" to the war engine, it would fix everything. Flat roll it back to the way it was (damnit, does anyone remember what the first sim year was?) in 2000 something. Everybody would be happy. Back then the war game was easy to understand and players could easily understand it. If you wanted to defend yourself: You could. If you wanted to war: you could. Of course the war game is a lot less fun when more people understand it. It get's a little more intense when you have a bunch of actives that know how to fight. Now, it's so complicated that it's easier to just ignore it, and play econ. The econ game is complicated, so if the war side of things is more complicated you can forget it. Thus they had to add protection for the econ players, who couldn't understand how to defend themselves. It's been down hill since day one with this game. They must be doing something right, though. Since we're all still *here*. I don't really fully understand that either to be honest.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 03:51 am War levels was introduced to encourage new players to learn to fight. The idea was that if you were able to take a lvl 6 or 7 C3, then you could fight a lvl 6 or 7 president. It is false to blame WB for this.. notice his quote... "It's time to release the war level restrictions, too many problems were trying to be addressed with a single solution (protecting good/war players from newer/econ players and eliminating the issue of c3 warfare in particular). " There were several issues that the GM's tried to fix with the war levels, and it has not worked, although those other problems still are/were problems. You cant dictate how the GM's fix a issue with the game, only suggest.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 03:59 am No Blame WB, and Zeba, but yeah mostly WB. No other single person was more responsible for influencing war levels regardless if W3c or WB admits this or not. He is your friend so I get the defense but it is his fault. Just because he realizes his error doesn't excuse him from being responsible in the first place. It would be really neat if they repeal it now just because "It's time to release the war level restrictions, too many problems were trying to be addressed with a single solution (protecting good/war players from newer/econ players and eliminating the issue of c3 warfare in particular). " That would be super funny.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 04:01 am Blindness... simple blindness!!! sigh
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 04:18 am lol
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 05:50 am so, what is this i hear....wb proposes all these changes.......... where is wb now? LMAO
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 06:17 am Frankly, the game was at its peak about 4 years ago. There was no nonsense, ppl warred with no whining, there was fun competition between federations, it was a game that was fun and enjoyable to play. GMs need to focus more attention on their rules and regulations versus making changes to a game that played fine before all these nonsense changes. GMs, bravo for creating a great game concept...... Boooooooooo for messing it up. You have lost many long term paying players over the last two years because of constant game changes. I know there have been Jozi chats, but I don't think GMs are really listening to the majority. I've read over and over various complaints, but I'm not seeing anything done to rectify these complaints. I see more and more paying people leaving. I take issue with having paid so much money over the years in building various empires, only to have things ruined due to constant changes, costing me more money. I see more and more of these "free" players playing but I see them being short termed. It's all a mess. Fix It!
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 07:24 am WB was leading the charge for the war levels but he was not alone. A number of veterans joined in the discussion. I to joined late in the discussion last summer. I believe the war levels if setup correctly will be a great plu$ for the game to attract/retaining new players. New blood i$ what this game need$, not a handful of veterans living in the past. A top war level of 4 (See proposal above) along with cheap population sold by the GM will speed up/energize the game.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 07:44 am Wow, quit suckling the W3C ballsack.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 08:00 am Been reading some posts from the summer, where we were complaining about how the war game was dead (before war levels). I see how, amidst the many suggestions, c3 levels were proposed. Somehow that was turned into war levels. If I've got it right, that was to protect newbs and econ players from being preyed upon by warlords. That was successful, right? So what happened to all the fighters? Is it that they went up to high war levels, 4 and higher, and there are too few players at those levels? @ Wendy: agreed about how the concentration of warlords in one fed caused an imbalance of power. Is that still a problem? Aren't the players in levels 0, 1, and 2 the kinds of players who everyone agreed should be protected, and off limits to experienced fighters such as yourself? And aren't the level 2 players in a fed, providing air defense, as untouchable as if they were simply in WP--same problem as has existed for a long time prior to war levels? @ Homerdome: How do you have fedmates who you can't defend? Can't you help them to reach your own war level? If they are inactive, can't you recruit new members to capture their stuff? I do wish they had eliminated wp boosters on FB, as even Laguna had proposed, and which they had agreed to do. I also wish they had adopted the "50% of value out of WP to dec" rule which most were in favor of, and which they also had agreed to do. The problem and solution to C3 Warriors War
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 01:41 pm Quote: I also wish they had adopted the "50% of value out of WP to dec" rule which most were in favor of, and which they also had agreed to do. Still love that idea Jojo. It still allows one to dec with C3's, which by the way, is a great part of war strategy, as long as they have other assets out of WP. Seems simple enough
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 05:18 pm I retract "as even Laguna had proposed" from my previous post.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 05:47 pm There should be a 100% rule for dec. War should be total. All or nothing...but for players at war level 4. On all worlds, not just FB.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 06:06 pm Unless you meant solution number 4, Why work to war?
Then yes, part of the conditions to remove War Protection and Blackouts would be in place. While still doing their part, War Protection, Blackouts and War Levels are mainly adding color to the margarine. And this one looks pink.
| |
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 07:29 pm
This isn't a flaw in the game. As such, it need not be corrected.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 09:22 pm Um duhh Scarlet? Did we need you to point out the obvious? I know it was a people problem, not a game problem. Hence, the changes of Blackouts/War Levels were not needed. Like you, it was just a case of hyper intelligence gone wrong.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 10:35 pm I'll accept some of the blame for the war level issue, when W3C attached conditions to my c3 level proposal in an effort to address several issues with 1 system I didn't think it was ideal but did think that it would be effective. Part of the failing is in the system itself due to excessive restrictions but a larger part of the failing came from the failure to produce the war levels quickly enough and attach significant rewards to them. The death of the war game was inevitable either way, the only wars that were left were completely imbalanced (because few players took the time to learn) or were time wasting c3 wars. Neither of those options is appealing to many. Overall, I actually think the game as a whole has benefited from a lack of war over the past several months. I see more and more forum posts from new players asking for help, looking for feds and showing a general interest. Which means there is a new crop of players coming into the game right now and they aren't being drowned out by those of us who power our way through everyone both in game and in the forums. If a new player comes to the forums for the first time and the first thread was some variant of 'World Wide War' or 'Stop the bitching' (which it generally was) and the entire thread was filled with posts of people berating, insulting and acting like power hungry idiots, it's not likely that the new player would be staying. I have a few suggestions: #1 A newbie forum. This forum would *hopefully* be the first place new players would go to post questions/look for answers and bored veterans will read/post it just like they read/post everything on the forums. BUT, this forum would be moderated strictly for sh*t talking, war pronouncements, etc., the kinds of things that newbies shouldn't have to sift through in order to get information/meet new people. #2 Remove all war level restrictions, even level 3 or below. Leave the c3 levels in place and actually put rewards with them just like the rewards you get from leveling up and get the levels out there up to at least 20. #3 To protect players who are new or who are econ only, just automate them into protection when they sign up. If/when they decide to become full players they have a button to push which makes them full players. To ensure that players don't use this to build up huge weapons stockpiles, they can only purchase defensive weapons up to 25T and offensive weapons up to 10T (enough to start a defense and to take out basic c3's). Once the player pushes the button they have a 21 day waiting period in which they can not be attacked and can start purchasing weapons without limit to be prepared to defend themselves, however in this period no military spending boosters can be purchased. #4 War protection will only be necessary for players who have pushed the button to be full players and need protection while away so limit protection to a max of 1 month which must be earned, no more wp boosters.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 11:18 pm Yes lets implement more of your already proven ideas for improving/protecting the game/players. I'll pass. Put the game the way it was. Play it as it was.
| |
| Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 11:20 pm trying to tweek the war game just creates more unintended consequences than it solves. so, remove all war levels, blackouts, wp, etc. keep secure mode on all worlds except FB which is what it was two years ago. move the war game back to where it was two years ago and let the chips fall where they may.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 12:09 am hymy...theres a name i haven't seen for awhile. i agree with hymy, to me it was much more fun warring when it was much more simple, before units, levels, blackouts, unlimited attacks or any of this stuff we got now.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 12:10 am And while we are at it... I haven't been able to trade my cash for gc in a very, very ,very ,very long time. When I pay everything off in order to do so, I have to wait six hours for it to show up. By the time 6 hours passes, one stupid corp or country goes negative and then, bam I have to wait 6 more hours. This is getting ridiculous. Can you add an option to pay off all outstanding debt 'at once' from the exchange screen and allow me to trade coins please. I wanted to buy 1000 coins the other day and couldn't muster the strength to go and find every country and corp that had just 10B in loans. It is truly a gruesome task. Country maybe, corps no. Some of the stupid corps take the loans even when I top them off with cash.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 12:27 am I have the same loan problem. Sucks
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 01:23 am "before units, levels, blackouts, unlimited attacks" With the units and unlimited attacks thing, I take it you're talking about the "old war engine" here. This was already gone when I started playing. While we're on this subject...would anyone care to explain how it worked? I am curious.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 01:34 am It didn't work.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 01:40 am There is no going back...only forward... War levels are here to stay, just like the space thing.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 02:06 am not the old, old war games. there's nothing wrong with units, painting etc. it's just the insipid micro-managing of the war game which creates more problems than it solves. and Maestro, why are war levels here to stay? and so how is the space thing working?
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 03:46 am I don't do the space thing...Have a pile of shuttles in my closet
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 03:50 am War levels are a plus to the game. 1) Lets econ players do their thing. 2) Gives new players some breathing room to learn econ and war before joining the veteran ranks.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 06:27 am need a change Maestro. They suck. One.. and said this before.. you can't defend a fed mate if attacked if he's in the lower lvls. Two, you can't takeover a fedmates countries either if he wants you to or if he goes inactive. Three, has anyone faught a war with a president since this war lvl thing started? If so.. it would be rare and dificult. And way to many other flaws and so unrealistic. All these cool updates for war, and for what.. to say I got millions of bombs? But I only use them on c3's cause I can't fight anyone cause im at lvl 7. They suck.. perhaps a good idea at the time.. but now that they been field tested. Perhaps rethink it GM. Ask any war vet and they'll say the same thing.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 07:16 am Hommerdome, Make the highest war level = 4 Also, make war level 4 a requirement to be in a fed. So no mismatch in levels. One simple level for war between human players.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 08:26 am I make it a point that you need to be a paying member to be in my fed. As far as what lvl you are, it shouldn't matter. There are alot of good players that are lower and are paying members. Also, that's a bit off topic. All im saying is there need to be change in the war lvls.. if not eliminated all together. There are to many flaws. I like the war lvls for c3's.. makes you want to learn the war game and go for that 15T. But as far as live people.. once you step beyond lvl 3 your risking attack.. from anyone. And it should be. It means you've learned the basics of war and will risk stepping over that line to take on another lvl c3 at a lvl 4+ to get its extra assets and at the same time be subject to attack. Or.. just stay lvl 3 and below and play it safe... take all the lvl 3 c3's you want and play an econ game. This just one idea i had. The real point is there needs to be somthing done.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 08:39 am So.. out of 60+ replies to this topic in a matter of 2 days.. where's the GM's responce?
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 08:40 am what a GM???
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 01:39 pm test ...
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 02:19 pm There it is.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 04:17 pm lmao LG +2 lulz RoboCop
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 04:19 pm Lets not forget I started a vote to eliminate the war levels. It passed.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 04:19 pm I think a lot of people are keeping their powder dry. Why go up to level 4, let alone 7, when you won't be able to dec on your potential opponents, who are keeping their powder dry and staying at 3? And GMs: how about displaying a player's war level on the main page of their country, prominently?
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 04:37 pm My vote passed big time but was not included with the vote results for comment  I checked for it 74 times. I could be blind but I doubt it.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 05:34 pm GM is in P_H, Homerdome. 
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 05:34 pm GM is in P_H, Homerdome.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 05:52 pm War levels display on the new screen layout, not the old layout.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 06:44 pm Ah. Thanks Maestro. Thanks GMs.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 07:18 pm Continuous meddling with automation feature in my ceo. First my countries now my CEO WTFricknFK! Someone at w3 has a lot of time on their hands, or needs to spend some time improving security. If it isn't you guys(And Trust me I want to give you the benefit of the doubt) someone is hacking. I have an idea of who, I'll give you a direction but I want a ban if you can prove it. Like perma ban. not 6 months or a year but like never. It will be easy to spot this person regardless of IP because of their associations. But before I go that far, please say it isn't you. This shite kills me. My CEO hasn't made money in a very very long time. Just like when I noticed on my countries a while back. I'm taking loans at an unusual rate. Paying them off, and taking more. Then I go look at my automation for new corps. Supplies Quality 140? WTF! Sale Strategy 20/-10? WTF! My current salaries for older corps Most 377? WTF! OLDER in my countries Left set very high on purpose (Im sure you know why. This was strange in two ways. It shows intent. Whoever did this knows I log into my main and wouldn't want me immediately noticing production changes which is why this escaped me for a long time. This probable also happened around the same time it happened in my country settings. BS) But 377 salaries, when would I ever do that? There are some issues contributing to 'the most recent' cash losses like me changing some recent settings and a supply issue here or there. But I had this CEO making money for a very long time with almost no maintenance. Which is why I didn't think to notice the problem earlier. I wonder how settings do change without me doing it. Maybe a round number but 377 doesn't even make sense. I'm a X50, XX50, X00, or XX00 kinda gal. This is really ticking me off.
| |
| Thursday, December 30, 2010 - 07:19 pm Oh I posted this here because it appears at least one GM is peeking in.
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:01 am I was wondering.. lets keep this on topic
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:09 am Was wondering that to Maestro, thanks ! To bad they couldn't put it on the old.. i perfer the old better.. perhaps just because im used to it. Now if the GM is seeing this.. it may raise concern that something needs to be done.. What kind of reply is "test.." ?? is that saying it is an overall test of war levels? testing to make sure posting still works? not sure robocop.. please elaborate.
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:15 am lmao. I'm sure just to let you know someone is listening Homer.
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 08:16 am While you wait for a response, I doubt you'll get a sufficient one until after new years. You can check out the 4 links I posted on the New Years thread. Pretty funny stuffs.
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 04:57 pm semi off subject 60,000 Low level managers are now High level workers ! the 100k demotion thing, was a great change!!!
| |
| Friday, December 31, 2010 - 06:47 pm Keep BARKING, guys
| |
| Saturday, January 1, 2011 - 07:52 am Posting from Joe Green.. For the record, I hate the current system too. I read as much of the war levels thread as I could stand to and I just wanted to say some of you seem to want to put out the fire by throwing gasoline on it. When reading most of the "new ideas" I immediately thought "If implemented that will make war even more difficult to wage" or I immediately thought of a way to exploit it. Don't ask me to elaborate because I won't. Best idea ever goes back a couple of months to a different thread, I think it was Wendy's idea but not sure. Roll everything back to where it was at the following the Mob/WGC war. Let EVERYBODY have 2 permanently secured countries, the rest are subject to war (or you can buy WP). Simple yet effective. Fair to all (Why should war level 4 players have to spend to defend an empire when war level 2 empires have to spend nothing?). If "Econ" players can't profit from that setup (2 CEO's and 2 secured countries per planet) then they are not very good at econ. New players: By the time they build up two monster permanently protected countries they should be ready to put the third country on the line (defend it, join a fed, whatever). No war levels period. No "fixes" to the current system. Wendy (or whoever thought of this months ago) was way ahead of the rest of us.
| |
| Saturday, January 1, 2011 - 07:57 am Thanks Joe for your responce.. keep it together in the same thread.. we're all in this together
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 03:07 am I totally agree with Homerdome. It looks like GM won't listen to players who have spoken what they think.It is not worth to state your thoughts, guys.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 03:15 am Starting the gm bashing and that kind of attitude/sentiment isn't going to accomplish anything but random earthquakes. They are listening. That is how war levels were brought about. Don't be fooled into thinking they aren't reading this thread. This is also the reason they won't remove them either. There are players like Maestro who contribute and players like him will be protected while features are removed or modified for players like myself. As long as the objective is sucking in new players, the war levels in all likelihood will remain. Being honest, we've had this conversation before, during, and after implementation. They moved forward anyway. I doubt they will be motivated to move to undo such an update after so many people blindly campaigned for it. I think it would be more rational to aim to remove war levels on FB where they weren't supposed to be added anyway. At least that is what we were told.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:21 am Wah, what is that sucking noise? ...... Oh yeah, everybody is sucking on Jozi's ball sack. If indeed they are listening, they shouldn't because most of you are morons.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:24 am hymy1 what war level are you? And what is your country name. We'll see who is licking balls. Watch your mouth.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:27 am Single country secure mode shit talker you are. We'll take you seriously when you accomplish making an empire. Or at least I won't.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:28 am 0 and hymyland. Good luck?! GM Licker.... Someday they will actually fix the war game, then you better hide, like I am now.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:29 am yeah about that empire thing, been there about 900 years before you.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:33 am Um listen up dud(no typo)... For 3 years I've been playing the game as it was. I don't like war levels. No one needs to hear your immature bullshit. Keep your fixation with balls in your own closet. Let us know when you feel like coming out. You don't need to wait on anything. Your candy ass can work up to level 3 and I will drop down on KB and show you how to be about shit instead of talking it. I don't hide I am the most accessible player in this game. Whenever your coward ass is ready to man up and quit crying like a child let me know. I bet you'll be like 10 others who have quit the game when you realize you wrote a check your soft ass can't cash.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:34 am I'll acknowledge you again when you mean something. To anyone. Meanwhile show us some more.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:42 am When I originally played SC a few years back, I remember that everyone had one secured main and then a bunch of slaves that could be taken by other players unless they secured them with boosters. Now there's all this "War Level" nonsense... It might just be that I don't understand this stuff, but the original system was fine.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 09:59 am I think they should do away with all this secured protection crap. Time was you built an economy and you protected that economy either diplomatically or militarily or both. If you didn't do so, well you didn't play simcountry. There isn't anyway to fairly treat peaceful and war monger countries. They should quit trying to do so. In the real world there isn't a GM, standing there to tell us who we can't attack. This has always been billed as a real world simulation. No secured mode No war levels Simplify the war engine
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 12:46 pm I still believe the best fix is to lift the war level restrictions once war level 3 is attained. Once level three is reached you can declare on anyone who is at war level 3 or above. If you just want to play econ or just playing it safe stay below war level 3. It's as simple as that. That's my 2 cents.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 01:19 pm Oh, and also players should only join a Federation if they intend on reaching war level 3 or above.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 01:32 pm @ silverhill trader...its just hasnt worked. simple solution, keep war c3 war lvls and rewards for simply that, ppl learning war and being rewarded. Let war be as it was, no restrictions, if you want to play econ, pay for war protection or learn to defend yourself
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 01:59 pm I just hope some kind of compromise is reached soon. My membership is going to be over soon and I may not re-up. I may just go back to playing my Civilization V game. lol
| |
Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 05:14 pm
No, the original system wasn't fine, because too many people started using war protection boosters.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 05:51 pm Exactly Jojo and Blueserpent has it right, c3 war levels without restrictions will be a great tool for people to learn war which is completely necessary to remove the information imbalance. Then do something about war protection, it is what actually destroyed the war game before any war level restrictions began.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 06:13 pm Sounds good to me. Same sorta idea i was thinking about. Keep war lvl's for c3's and do somthing about war protection. Right now its a double war protection.. you can still get boosters or hide in the lvls for free. Take your pick. Either way, its killed the war game for real presidents.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 06:26 pm I believe war protection should only be used by presidents who are going on vacation or going to be away from the game for a while and should not be abused.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 07:18 pm I believe that free members shouldn't be allowed to attack full members, and full members can attack free members at any time. This is to prevent someone who register a C3 to attack other full members. I am done with this new war introduction.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 07:23 pm War levels is a great plus for the game and isn't going away. The future of this game is in attracting new players and war levels works great for them. It also works great for econ players. (Old or new) The tweak thats needed is to put a cap on war levels to level 4.
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 10:23 pm I am in war level 3. Is it good idea to dismantle all military units for economic growth? If I dismantle my units, will somebody be able to attack my SC country?
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 11:05 pm @ maestro. Its no good having half the game as war when u cant actually war...new players come and go..they leave cos the games crap these days. Advertised as as military and econ game where you CHOOSE which role u want to play has all but been removed. Like i keep saying...Bring war back,if u want to play econ buy damn war protection Being econ affords you the cash to buy the war protection...if it doesnt...LEARN
| |
| Sunday, January 2, 2011 - 11:23 pm i'm with blue the new players we have are because of free accounts. while they might like the wl feature, the fact that no one is going to attack a 10M slave, just for the hell of it. wl aren't necessary to protect new players war levels only protect seasoned players, and vets. the same players that don't want to spend a dime on defense. the fact is, war protection is cheaper than buying defense, it seems that the econ players want have their cake and eat it to. and it looks like they are getting what they want. i really hope it works out
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 12:04 am There are 3 to 6 thousand countries on each world. There is enough gravy in this turkey for all of us....New players, veteran war players and econ players. A simple human war level of 4 should satisfy the veteran war players or am I missing something? What's really on your mind?
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 03:45 am Are you really this stupid? or do you practice? War has always been a big part of this game, you either hated or liked it. your choice was learn to fight or put up war protection. The return of what we are asking for, wouldnt hurt any econ player, only those those that want to play the war game. backspaces the next sentences b4 i really get pissed with you... just remember econ or not..wp or not...war lvls or not....those big econ ceo's you have, can fall quicker than u may think becareful just how far u antagonize ppl
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 04:58 am Offering players a level 4 for total war is extremely reasonable. Remove any war levels higher than level 4. I believe war players and econ players can agree on this.
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 06:07 am yawns.......blueserpent all talk but no show. prove wut u got...dusnt look like maestro2000 to conerned with ur threat.
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 01:01 pm *sighs Another fool...thats the point isnt it? war cant be initiated.All we are left with is talk and clicks
| |
| Monday, January 3, 2011 - 01:18 pm Thanks for your intelligent response Paul. Who ever you are. I'm sure if Blue could "Prove wut he got" he would, but unfortunately he can't, "cuz" of war levels. Yes maestro2000, another good idea. There are alot of good Ideas so far and they are all far better then the current setup. If the GM could open this up to debate either on this thread or a new one we might be able to come to some sort of agreement that makes us happier then what we are now. Obviously with 100 plus posts on this subject in just a few days it is a major topic of concern.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 02:40 am All bad ideas. All these bright ideas and 'fixes' will do nothing but please some but not everyone. Bright ideas and fixes is how we got here in the first place. I don't recommend w3c take anyone's advice ever again, not even the advice I just gave. They should do what they want with their game and those like it or not should just play or leave. Stay for what you like about sim, leave for what you don't. Push for fb, move to fb afterward. If all goes well on fb then you may have a shot.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 03:02 am @blueserpent he who calls or points to some1 as fool, has 4 fingers pointing back too hisself @homerdome u talk 2 much stfu
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 05:18 am sigh
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 06:37 am i know, serp, jeese
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 07:00 am Bickering isn't going to get anyone anywhere, simple and straight forward solutions will: *c3 war levels stay to teach players how to fight wars/defend themselves...get them up to lvl 20 and attach good rewards...attach no restrictions and allow players to fight any war level they choose *Make war protection all or nothing and when leaving war protection attach a waiting period in which players can not dec on others for 15-30 days but they can be decd upon, this will stop players from building up huge amounts of weapons and then dropping wp to dec on others Simple, straight forward.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 10:30 am Pass again. The game as it was... simple and straight forward. I don't see why we should be entertaining anymore 'ideas' after we ended up here in the first place because of 'ideas'. Nothing is ever that simple. Weren't war levels suppose to solve this? But no it didn't it hardly addressed anything, but created a whole new subset of issues. Kind of like I said before it was introduced. From the feedback this was all just a waste of time and resources, just like the 'ideas' being presented now. The problem is that all the 'ideas' are self serving. The bias takes all the good out of suggestions. Once again we are being tricked into growing a developer's brain. Everyone gets 'ideas' and then GM is supposed to swoops down and make the most of these 'ideas' and then we end up here next month with yet another thread just like this one. But threads like this one is how we got to the second. When does it stop? Never because no matter what is decided, not everyone will agree. The fact that half the people who pushed for war levels are pushing this thread, is a testament to why none of you should ever be taken seriously again. Lets be honest, W3C gave you all a chance and you blew it. Again I think the most reasonable suggestion is(biased becuase it is mine lol) to remove the war levels on FB. Which is "The War Planet" btw and let all who want to go back and fight as it was move to FB. Unless FB fills up in the next month and gets to capacity, you have no valid basis to disturb the whole game yet again, in the name of econ or war. Period.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 06:58 pm Yes Wendy, we know your 'back to the way it was before' has nothing to do with self serving. Of course what would 'back to the way it was before' mean when exactly? When the war game had already been effectively killed by c3 warfare? If you want to go back to when the game was probably at it's peak, then go all the way back. Get rid of all protections and blackouts, etc and create a true 'free market' system in which the players police themselves. I don't know of too many that would favor that but at least it would be honest. Just saying 'go back to when the protections and rules made it most convenient to me' is no less self serving than any other proposals. If you think that any attempt to address problems ultimately leads to other problems, then eliminate all attempts made and let the problems work themselves out. W3C took an idea I proposed which I don't think anyone had any real issues with, c3's of various strengths arranged in levels with increasing awards to encourage players to learn the war game, then they added other features intended to fix other problems (war protection and player informational imbalance in war). It's not the initial idea that was a problem, it was the conditions attached. Stop trying to lump them together.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 09:28 pm "It's not the initial idea that was a problem, it was the conditions attached." -WB Thats absolutely true. A simple fact is that many people have no interest in being apart of a highly competitive environment. Whiles other thrive in such. Creating War levels to protect players that don't want to war... I get it. One of those things i have to grind me teeth, and go "ok" I'll refrain from going into depth on that. As its a spin off the subject. I do think that we'd all be better off, just removing the entire war levels restrictions. And going back to what the war game was before the resent slew of changes. Its been said here and their, WP is cheaper than defense. I'm not sure we need to provide free protection. But if we MUST have war levels. their are 2 problems with war levels as they are. 1. No one knows what war level any one is, until they try to dec on them. war levels and black outs should be published openly 2. The restrictions of war levels are to extreme. Meastro's idea of capping war levels at 4, probably would work. that way, their would be 2 war levels, 3 and 4. And possibly allow the SC to force some one up from 3 to 4. rather than allow some one to "bottom feed." Allowing players of each world set their own criteria, but still allowing "minor league," war level 3. Other wise, with out that. going up with max war levels to 20, and allowing an up/down window. To allow players a bit of variety in war targets. like a 3 down, 4 up window. so at war level 10, you'd be able to dec on any one from 7 to 14... As far as giving up in offering ideas... based on the premise that the last idea didn't work, so we should just give up? Well, i'll just get dirty tomorrow, so maybe i shouldn't take a shower... i mean why should i? if i'm just going to get dirty again. No, this is our game, as much as it is W3C. Games don't exist with out players. And changes that run off players... well, no change is ever going to be 100% good. but that doesn't mean we give up.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 09:43 pm as an aside, a possible solution to C3 warriors... allow the SC to vote to remove WP from specific countries?!? their of course could be abuse to this, so their'd need to be extra precautions attached to it, like maybe requiring a 2/3 vote? and/or a waiting period after the vote succeeds. shrug.
| |
| Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 11:41 pm Viewing War levels: Change your setting to new and you can see other players war level.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 01:24 am Comeon! Cant anyone say hello these days?
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 03:38 am DAmn those "ideas", lol! Josias, good stuff.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 05:21 am No it isn't 'our game' You pay for a service. You provide nothing. WB your a fucking retard moron. You thought you were the resident genius. And then you woke up. I don't care if they stay or go. I could raid a million countries if war levels were peeled back. I can also throw my empires into level 0 like a lot of other players and eat like that too. I don't care if they put it back or keep it as it is. I'll still be me and you'll still be crying. At this point Whiteboy you shouldn't even suggest anything ever again in the game. We know you will, but only you and the little group of people that actually cater to your selfish attitude will care or even take you seriously. W3c has taken the ideas you presented in a thread just like this one and all they have got in return is a bunch of grief. Why should they listen to any more of your 'cure-all' bullshit. You all should just play the game as it is now or find what you don't get here somewhere else. I've said that before war levels, and I have consistently said that again after war levels. No need to argue with children so find another adult to bother WB. I'm getting board with your dense ass.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 07:34 am I'd like to stoop to your level Wendy but it's already been displayed over and over that it isn't worth it. I'm one level of player and you're another, don't want to disrespect myself by getting into a bitching fight with you. You were and have continued to be one of the main opponents of any idea which didn't serve your self interest, pretending differently is just embarrassing for you. If you want the game rolled back, roll it all the way back. No war protection, no blackouts, let the players police the game. It was effective in the past to an extent, it could be effective again...if you aren't willing to go that far then stop pretending that any change to the game means the player suggesting the change should just leave. Also, suggesting this entire thing was my idea is ridiculous and everyone knows it, I had one proposal that got manipulated to be many different. I'll take responsibility for supporting it in the interest of solving many problems at once and I'll admit that was naive, but unless you're willing to say that all rules implemented that change the system from a free market system to a regulated system have been detrimental, there is no reason to stop considering different solutions.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 03:33 pm Calling me a bitch every chance you got is stooping to a level? Oh and the worse I did was call you a 'Uni-Boy' Stoop to my level? What the fuck eva. You are an embarrassment period. How your dense ass doesn't get that your 'cure all' was a disaster, yet you stand here again with yet more solutions is an embarrassment. The truth is I pointed out the obvious before during and after the conversation that you led that ended up with us having war levels. You have a proven track record for stupidity and it has been pointed out to you in every instance. But regardless of that fact you have still convinced yourself that you have 'the answer' again? Denial much. Again... I'll pass and so should everyone else. Your half recognition that you were wrong and to blame for this awful update does not excuse the fact that you were wrong. You will continue to be wrong into the foreseeable future. I like how you say 'I' want the game peeled back to where it benefits 'me' most. 'I' played the game before these changes and and wasn't asking for any. I never have. You pushing for war levels was a clear example of trying to change the game to suit your needs and change it to benefit you most. I assume you aren't a major in psychology because you aren't very good at the reverse side of it. Nice try. News flash it isn't just me who wants your horrible suggestions peeled back there was a vote that passed titled 'repeal Whiteboy's War Engine' and it passed by a whole lot of votes. A whole lot more than me. Included in that list are people that initially agreed with you and thought this was actually a bright idea. That isn't a coincidence. The hard truth is that I actually don't care if they change it back. I can adapt, I have done so since I started playing this game and I will continue to do so as most of the changes to war related issues were aimed at me in my time in simcountry. To address your last paragraph of absolute nothingness, the solution is to play the game you were introduced to, or leave. There is no happy medium in between that. The more changes you introduce that involve the way the game is played now will only add to the level of confusion and the persistent atmosphere of distrust between veteran player and gm. There is a reason that many long time vets have left the game and it is in large part because of ridiculous changes made to an already working system in the face of ignoring already promised improvements made by the gms in hopes of pleasing crybaby ass players like yourself among other who need to change the game to gain an advantage, and threaten to leave if not listened to. Well they listened, many more people will leave. You fade into obscurity while we are left to deal with your nonsense suggestions and now that you returned you bring with you many more ridiculous suggestions. Should we bite this time? No! I didn't last time but at least people know that your aren't as smart as you put on and not to listen. I don't care if we go back or stay as we are. That being said, my position doesn't preclude me from pointing out the stupidity of the idea to start with. Nor which idea is better. I am actually proposing that those who are that serious about peeling back start by requesting it just for FB. Not the entire game. You don't suppose me starting on FB and leaving the rest of the game as it is(how you wanted it) is me jumping up and down to go far back enough to where it benefits me most? Do you? Proves you're really really dense as stated previously. Duh, no surprise there. And Josias... How far you have fallen from grace my friend. Since you joined the ranks of the mob you have changed a lot. Not for the better either. I've always been an asshat so I don't care throw your rocks. I told you a long time ago you scare me more than the bad guys because you put on the sheep's wool and you wear it and play the part well. Too well for me. I don't understand why you again are diverting onto a 'solution' for c3 warriors when first of all, the game doesn't have a threat from c3 warriors. In most cases it is those who designate themselves most willing and able to fight and compete but take competition out of the game by grouping together and jumping anyone who represents a threat. It is these groups of players at any given time who find themselves in that position. Moving on let us not forget that you and your friend who recently left have both participated simultaneously in c3 wars against the very same dipsticks I went against. To date you have been the only person to have help while conducting a c3 war operation. I have always done this myself and with no help whatsoever. Is hypocrisy the understatement of 2011 thus far or what am I missing here. When has anyone ever conducted a c3 war against you? When has c3 wars ever really posed a real danger of asset loss to you or any group of players? I got it, I got it! When the group of bad asses aren't so bad ass after all. Never has c3 war threatened a peaceful coexisting federation or single player apart from mutual conflict leading to combat. Point blank. You seriously disappoint me bringing up that nonsense again. Not that you'd care though, you've changed so much since joining the dark side. How has that been going for you? /me vomits on this entire thread again. Enough already. This isn't even an argument or a debate and this doesn't qualify on your parts as novice propaganda. Please just stop it.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 07:50 pm aww, wendy. in regards to joining the "dark side," infact, i'm glad you brought that up on the "good side," no one wants to war. no one really knows how. i do find the irony interesting. in regards to my conversion from econ to war. light side to dark side, lol. i originally was rather irritated in the way that sam and def behaved. it was well know at the time that the SC chat was a dangerous place for newbs. they would go their, and a vet, would pick on them until they would react poorly, and of course the vet would punish them. at the time i believed that sam and def were the main people doing this. although i must interject here to say, that i can only remember def riding diz or jg. when i sat down and had conversations with def, i found that he was a rather reasonable person, and when he explained to me that he never flamed any one that didn't start it or deserve it, (like JG,) i really couldn't think of a case that i'd witnessed where he just start running down some one for no reason. and looking back, i can't really claim that Sam was in the wrong either. maybe he was, maybe not, but i'm satisfied that Sam is a decent enough guy. that said, when i made my conversion to being a war player, and what eventually led to the dark side, i love that, "Darth Orbiter" haha. anyway... at the time i was good friends with MoP. and he would swear up and down that Def launched into him early on as a newb. When he just entered the chat room. So him and i were both wanting to see def and sam taken down a peg. we both hated the things they did. and wanted to stop them. i decided that i didn't want to just talk about it, i wanted to do something about it. and started preparing myself to. some where along the line, MoP took exception to this. many things can be said, but the fact is if i'd chosen to remain a peaceful player, i'd have remained in WPU, and eventually merged into WGC and have been on the receiving end of the recent war. rather than on the giving end. so it was the fact that i no longer wanted to sit back and watch the behavior that was rather, abusive. i ended up selling most my good stuff in WG, and bought a bunch of good countries from TP, on LU. and ended up join CIS. I was personally oppose to LDI at the time. I didn't think VS would take me, and i wasn't aware of SNA, i mistakenly thought Steward would lead me into combat. but he was just another JG, building a large fed that threw its weight around based on its size. if had ever come to it, CIS would have been crushed in a magor war. so still wasn't getting what i was looking for. CIS eventually did a merge/split, (weird huh?) where most the older, players going to VS, and the younger ones splitting off and joining SNA. Looking back, i would have been better off joining SNA, but i went into VS. VS, was another fed that would bring in large players, a "who's who of SC," and was in a type of cold war with LDI. and again, i still didn't get the war training i was looking for. I had gone around the block on 2 planets, looking for allies that would teach me how to war, and stand next to me for what i thought was right. Do you know where i found those allies? i found them on the dark side. Their are many things i've done in sim country, that i regret, Joining LDI, and allying with the (now former,) mob, are not among them. I'm not alone in this experience. I've encountered many players that for what ever reason, got bored of just econ. and wanting to learn the war game, can't find allies that will actually DO anything, on the light side. I've seen allot of players quite, because they get bored. The thing that would keep them interested... war, is shunned. Any one that wants to war, is AUTOMATICALLY labeled a Warmonger. Many vets have quit because econ, only, does eventually bored most players. It seems that every time a player quits because some one attacked him, their is public outrage. How ever, the given expectation that war, and every one that enjoys war, is evil... has probably chased of as many, or more players. newbs that would have become valuable players, and long term vets that grew bored of just collecting money. As far as C3 warriors... that one must have gotten under your skin. but yes, i have fought c3 only wars. As far as i understand it, a good many people have. The difference is that i don't *only,* fight with C3s. Because your extended use of WP... its like fighting a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back, and your feet tied together, because you oppenent has all their stuff in protection, you can't really hit back to cause enough damage to chase them off, not really. I mean you've been doing it for several years. If EVERY ONE put up war protection, all the time... you'd eventually run out of GC for you wp, and then your empire would start to fall. The fact is, you not only can't stand up against your own tactic, but your to much of a coward to put anything on the line. Really if a was to attack some one, and take a couple of their good countries. and the put the rest of their stuff in protection and then C3 warred me for a little bit. I'd understand, and deal with it. But their is a limit, where the tactic becomes, well, just plain cheap. I don't really have to after X days or weeks is when it gets old, as you've done it for YEARS. Really, wendy, you are a coward.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 09:12 pm lol. I've had my share of losses of good countries. I have had my share of proper wars and c3 wars. It is a tactic that you employed but I am a coward? You just recently started fighting with real countries. Before this era, your last fight was against EO with c3s and a friend who also joined you in this tactic. You also did so presently in the company of the games best and most capable fighters and against an almost defeated enemy. So you are highly misrepresenting the fact that you don't always fight c3 wars. No one is criticizing you for warring. No one is criticizing you for joining LDI. They aren't anywhere close to how they used to be. The dark side being the joining of capable players in a lopsided battle against asset rich countries only. When WGC came under attack by you and the mob, they offered to face you in a challenge in a 5 v 5 even, yet you all declined. That isn't cowardly? You are dipshitting the word. Please don't. A poorly contemplated misuse of propaganda again on your part. You then went on after WGC was largely defeated and did exactly what the mob claimed the war wasn't. Raiding of econ and inactive players. In particular MOP. You don't even get to use the word cowardly again period. War is not bad. It makes the game. But cowardly moves by a group of well versed war players against clearly outclassed opponents is now not cowardly? What is the risk of using good countries in a battle you are sure to win? Is that a challenge? Is that what you call risk. I have seen this history repeat itself throughout simcountry. That is not risk, it is calculated. If you have no real danger of losing, how do you calculate risk? If you had a chance of fighting a losing battle would not many of your mates then declare in your defense? Wouldn't in the end you still conquer more than you could ever lose in a battle or situation that follows that gameplan? Of course you would. That is calculated not risk. Anything you accuse me of you have done the same if not worse. How do you really let the word 'coward' roll off your tongue without really weighing your actions vs my own. Coward? Never. Smarter than you and your masters? Always. After years of being jumped on by numbers of very good players After changes directly aimed at me and my style of fighting After many level 3(or 5) boycotts After fighting many many many costly wars and anything else you can think of, I am still here. Not because I ally myself with tougher players Not because I am part of a badass fed Not because I gang up and jump on my enemies with other players Not because I do the coward shit your clan is well known for It is easy for you to say what you would do now after you have done x2 what you label me a coward for. Even more hypocritical when now the reason you have fought outside of c3s is because you now stand with the very people you used c3s to fight against. You now do the things you fought against them for. Yeah, I am a real Coward. What does that make you?
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 09:17 pm Excuse me. Clearly I overreacted. He didn't really mean to say coward.
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 09:49 pm aww well wendy, i don't really want to keep derailing this thread that is other wise pretty cool. so enjoy having the last word!!!
| |
| Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 09:58 pm That is what they all say.
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 04:52 am Wendy, lose the hate.
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 05:36 am Lose the hate? Lose the douche.... Was that hateful?
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 05:39 am Don't mistake facts for hate Jojo. I know these are your gfs of late but comon, give it a rest. They can manage on their own. Or not.
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 06:08 am I don't think it is hate, Jo Jo. Frustration may be a more apt term for what is being expressed - Frustration over changes that just make the game not worth playing if you like the war game. Honestly, I don't know what was wrong with the way it was and has been played. I don't recall peeps whining about it before. I agree with what someone posted earlier. If you don't want to war or not prepared to defend, buy WP for your countries, or join a federation to support and protect you. It is the way the game has been played for years. I have bought boocoos of WP over the years. Also, I thought there were options in place if someone didn't want to play the war game that would safeguard them against wars. So, why the need for war levels???
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 08:04 am Kiss - The war game wasn't working before, that's the point. It had basically been dead since the 3M v NV war broke into all out c3 warfare and everyone discovered that they didn't have to risk their own assets to take from others. W3C decided in response to the Mob v WGC war (mostly) that there needed to be a separation of players because a few of the most skilled war players were able to fairly quickly/easily dismantle the largest and oldest fed in the game. This was a reasonable thought as it had become clear that war wasn't even close to balanced and strength in numbers mattered little, so they attached a limiting system into my idea of c3 levels which was designed to make war more popular and easier to understand, not to limit war between players. I've already said that I went along with that idea reluctantly because I, unlike some others am willing to admit that the way I played the game/decisions I made had a negative impact on the game overall. I think separating players from fighting against eachother missed the boat because it didn't solve the main issues, information imbalance and rule manipulation. Separating players like me from inexperienced war players doesn't help them, it hurts them. Many of the big war players, especially myself, learned their lessons by getting beat up on by better/more experienced war players. I spent tons of time watching others and studying every piece of information I could in order to avenge my losses and beat those who beat me...that's how people learn. Second, manipulation of WP is the main issue that killed the war game, it became stupid to put any of your assets at risk when people could come along without risking any of their own and take/destroy them while wasting your time. Anyway Kiss, players like you or Maestro or Super (and many others) have a hard time seeing the problems in the system because you do your best to play the game in your own way while being respectful of others. As you mentioned, you don't want to fight anyone, so you spent a bunch of GC's on WP and you avoided the war game...many others who want to play the game as econ players have done exactly that for a long time now. As a player with quite a bit of experience in the war game, I can say 100% that it was broken and unless the main issues are addressed it will continue to be.
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 09:25 am I TRIED TO STAY OUT OF THIS BUT YOU SAY THE WAR GAME WAS ALREADY DEAD BEFORE THE CHANGES.IT WAS A LOT MORE ACTIVE THAN IT IS NOW.AND IF THE WAR GAME IS WHAT YOU REALLY LOVE WHY ARE OTHER PEOPLES ASSETS SO IMPORTANT.JUST PAY TO PLAY AND ENJOY A GOOD C3 FIGHT. BIGG E
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 06:05 pm Thanks, Whiteboy, and good to see you. Hope you are doing well. Despite the fact I didn't war as actively as my other mates, I was kept abreast of the fighting and joined in on several occasions. I just knew that we have always fought with c3s, myself included. While it is frustrating to a certain extent because it was a tit for tat fight and long and drawn out, we did have fun doing it. We did catch countries out of WP. Both sides in the war did, so assets were gained. I am with Bigge, it seems like it is REALLY broken now. :S While I and others can appreciate all attempts to make the game better, I think the concept of war levels are way too restrictive. It pretty much stops any player's ability to fight another because they may not be at the same level. And if I wanna lodge a "shoe" lol at you, Whiteboy, by golly I don't want a war level prohibiting me from doing so! (winks) In my opinion, if certain players are being bullies in war, then other players should band together to take care of the problem - the way 'a--hats' and bullies have always been dealt with in the past. Perhaps the solution is as simple as banning WP on a world all together, except for the choice to have it on 1 country, your main. Then players would have to make their other countries defendable and war ready, and let the chips fall as they may. It would be up to federation members to support and back their own - especially the newer players until they can build up and learn the game. Federations should help their own rebuild if losses are incurred. I think too many players are too self serving and not willing to risk anything. For now, it appears the majority is speaking and the current method of the war game is NOT good, and I think GMs should reevaluate and come up with an alternative method that is more attractive to those who enjoy the war aspect of the game. I hope that it gets resolved soon so I can come back in a few months and start lodging shoes. I gotta list, you know! (winks) ha ha ha ha Hugs to All and Happy New Year! Jan
| |
| Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 11:22 pm A total of 28 players on this thread. Would be nice to hear from Tommi.
| |
| Friday, January 7, 2011 - 01:55 am maybe he's to busy New Security Council Member Tom Willard is a dedicated President of Tommi. The president accepted the membership for a period of 182 months. sounds to me like he's been a bit busy
| |
| Friday, January 7, 2011 - 04:14 am Is the war game 'more dead' now than it was before, sure. Is 'more dead' really saying much? I don't think so. There were maybe 10 active participants in the war game before the changes and 9 out of the 10 were friends with each other. My thought was if we broke the group up it may result in those players dispersing, which kind of happened at first but ultimately...you'll see they're all pretty much still together...because they're the only people that are still willing to fight wars and they're hopeful that it can be revived. Either way, the war game was/is/will be dead until the problems I've pointed out can be dealt with. People (in general, not 10) aren't going to participate in the war game until the informational advantage is minimized and they aren't going to participate when they have to risk their assets while others can torment them without risking any of their own. The peak of the war game under those circumstances will be exactly what it was, everyone in WP waiting for others to let their WP slip. That isn't a war game, it's sniping for buffalo. I'm sure Tom is waiting for a solution before he jumps in, they have a lot of time, effort and money invested in a solution that was supposed benefit many players. The simplest solution is what has already been suggested, leave the c3 war levels without any restrictions so that players can use them to use the war game and have incentive to do so (to solve some of the informational advantage) and then make WP all or nothing, either all countries are in WP or none are. WP was designed to protect your countries when you're away or not able to fight or don't want to, that change wouldn't deny any of those and would stop the manipulation. Oh, as far as assets go, c3 warfare is about 2 things and 2 things only, taking assets from others without risking yours or screwing up others assets without risking any of yours. Either way, C3 warfare is all about assets.
| |
| Friday, January 7, 2011 - 05:31 am The wisdom and Foresight of this kid....amazing. If we used the example of his last tidbits of wisdom in action... surely Nostradamus was more accurate with his vague predictions. What happened to this solution of yours fixing the war game? encouraging federation growth? or restoring simcountry to its' former glory? None of them happened. Was this just a mere coincidence? C3 warfare is all about assets? Lets agree to agree on that. But isn't all war about assets? Surely gang banging of lesser players, and the consolidation of a majority of well versed war players both were about assets too? Tell me child, how was grouping the better versed war players under one banner supposed to encourage competition in the war game? Really? You were part of this grouping. Is fixing the war game what you really wanted? Doubtful. More likely, you wanted to form a coalition to feel important and respected, a silly ambition you admitted to me in chat one day. We have compared gangbang, vs c3 wars and at worst both are about assets. One is about taking and one is about destroying. Be logical and inform us child, when has a c3 war gained a sizable amount of assets from an active player? Be logical and honest and tell us child, when has a group of vets really put something up for risk? Be logical and honest and tell us child, while you claimed you wanted a challenge from WGC, which part of that engagement was challenging? Was it the part where you had to actually deny yourself the challenge that WGC offered you when they offered a 5 vs 5 instead of an all out war? Or was it a challenge to try and lie your way out of looking bad on a pure asset raid? Even still maybe it was challenging to give some members their country back? I don't but know the facts remain months later and looking back everyone would agree that you certainly declined true true challenge you claimed to seek. You had some hollow excuse. But it was never a challenge you wanted. Your actions proved that. Assets you surely did gain despite what was promised or delivered in return to WGC. Your words are nothing. You don't have some hour glass that you and only you can predict to the letter the outcome of your ridiculous claims or the effects that hap hazard proposals will have on any part of the game. Why should W3C give your silly ass the time of the day after all the negative feedback on your 'ideas'. War levels were the simple solution months ago. The rest of the game has suffered the stupidity of it. Now you come back and claim to have another simple solution while everyone has had to endure the fruits of your last bright idea. I still pass. So should everyone else. You don't know shit. You won't ever know shit. You are just some dipshit kid with his head so far up his ass you could never realize for even a second that you are dead wrong. Before and even more so now.
| |
| Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 04:03 am sigh
| |
| Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 05:04 am At least we think alike.
| |
| Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 09:49 am Well as i was saying before.. war levels make it hard.. hard to fight.. and hard to teach. While i was in my fed we learned to fight by fighting our fed mates. Its imposible to do that now, unless the new guy in the fed levels up to you and at the same time makes him/her the same level you are which makes them vulnerable to attack. I was in the last big thread on this and was shot down by the GM saying i was off topic.. in that thread all i was saying was that if it could be posible to be able to auto dec against a fellow fed mates attack instead off sitting there seeing a fed mate get destroyed while defenseless cause you didn't dec in time. I myself thought it was on topic. Sorry GM. A good suggestion is this.. and was thinking this about this for a long time and added my ideas to others on this thread. Make it so lvl 3 and below are "econ" lvls they are also the free levels right now.. no one can be attacked.. c3's only. Make more levels.. say to 10.. and more benifit. currently 7 is what.. 15T.. MAKE IT WORTH IT TO GO TO 10...30T !! But.. go beyond 3.. your risking it. you can be attacked from anyone.. from level 1-10(paying members only).. and for the attacker.. if you are a lower level..if you dec (free players can not do this, cannot dec a paying member) you go to his/her level and are now vulnerable to attack from anyone also, and brings into play your fedmates(paying members only) auto decs (which would be exempt from leveling up as your only defending you're fed) As a fed member.. your do not need to do this.. as with the current setup of defending you empire.. its your choice to defend the fed or not. Being new to SC you would choose not.. but the more advance players could.. Also.. make WP way more expencive(triple?).. im going away for 10 days soon and gladly pay the cost to defend my empire if being above lvl 3( my choice right?)
| |
| Sunday, January 9, 2011 - 10:55 pm Well.. its only a suggestion. Hopefully we can come to some sort of consensus on this to pique the gm's interest and hopefully have the GM respond...
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 04:13 am What is the status on this?
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 06:17 am OK, started "Public Vote" to end "War Level 0". Feel free to check the vote or the other topic under "Suggestions".
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 03:43 pm 2 voted "No"..to start...then 3 more now... If you're voting "No", why don't you come and post something as to why. Current vote: 5 / 5
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 07:34 pm I am one of the five.
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 07:51 pm i made it 6 for
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 09:08 pm i voted for
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 09:41 pm i voted YES. Maestro, it's simple. You don't want war, pay for war protection. Players need to stop being such cry babies and pay their dues like everyone else.
| |
| Monday, May 16, 2011 - 11:48 pm Resolution is too extream and FB bias. There are better solutions.
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 12:03 am Synicus, the game for years has been played the way as discussed above and was JUST FINE.
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 01:40 am I joined this game as its close to real life sim game there is. I think the game should be made and kept to real life as possible, so what about this, Get rid of the war levels, and just have Game game levels, Level 0-1, Build up main country, join a FED & common market. and gain a C3 country. (this gives all new players a chance to learn and hopefully invest in the game) This should make FEDs alot more active. Level 1-2, Build up a second country (secured if a full member) and gain a 3rd C3, in which is open to attacks from day 1. ( at this stage the player should know how defense works (all countries apart from the main should be open for attacks if the Federation as been declared WAR on, which should make the Federations alot more active and responsable for there actions in the game) Yes iam a new player to simcountry, but since ive been playing ive seen new countrys apear but go inactive, so this i think this could bring new players in to the game & become full members etc.. CEO's, benefit from having that main country (always secured# to grow there corps and have a bit of power when it comes to FED's. as they have control on where to build there new corps, so the better the FED (ie: Peacefull etc) the better the growth of the corps I hope this makes a bit of sense & Sorry for any spelling mistakes in this thread. lol
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 02:14 am I have to state that I am really really shocked at how the poll votes are going. I would like to know who is voting NO and why. The game is stagnant, boring. Shakes head. I'm not going to say another word. I'm just really surprised and really disappointed and it really discourages me in wanting to continue to play. This game used to be so much fun. :-(
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 04:12 am Let's face it. People have been saying this exact same thing for years, even before it was started. I know that and I didn't even join until a few months ago. If W3C has been listening to this for years and not done anything, what makes you think they'll change now? There are three options. The first is to talk about this and try to get W3C to change their minds. They've shown they won't do that. The second option is to lie down and let them make us their bitches. We've shown that we won't accept that. Which leaves option three. Rebellion. There are sub-categories to that idea. There's hacking. There's spam. I think that the sub-option most likely to succeed would be a boycott. Just stop paying for memberships until they get rid of war levels. And besides, they're stubborn as a republican. Probably think like them to. They're a corporation. Money money money. THEY WILL NOT GIVE IN BECAUSE OF TALKING! THE WAR LEVELS MUST GO, THE TIME IS NOW, AND WE HAVE THE POWER, IN THAT WE CONTROL THE CASH FLOW! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 08:40 am Like I said extream and FB bias, No's come from other worlds, folks who like it and probably the coder who spent hours on it. New system is likely to stay, your effort would be better spent resolving to improve it, than remove it.
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 11:19 am This is what 'Gamemaster' says on the world description page: "Peaceful playing is not permitted in Fearless Blue but temporary war protection is an option." https://www.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwPortal&SN_METHOD=loadDocument&miDocument=theworlds
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 11:39 am No, it's not "extreme". Giving away free 'War Protection forever' is extreme, and that is basically what "War Level 0" is...regardless of the world, it doesn't matter. As far as "FB bias", that makes no sense...all worlds have "War Level 0" and it's meaningless everywhere. There is no "Game Level 0", or haven't you noticed? As the 'Gamemaster' says themself, "There is no need."
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 12:27 pm Remove all war levels u dont have war levels in real life. Eventually those in war levels 0 to 3 once abandoned get absorbed badk into the gm what a waste.
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 06:57 pm Get rid of them and billy its been a few months if it went years there be a riot
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 08:03 pm To all players enjoying the war level 0 - 2 really add no weight to the argument by doing so. If you disagree, protest by moving above war 3 or higher and remove war protection. Raiding is not an issue either, you should be able to make your own way in the game. I don't like them and never have but there are many more players and empires on the maps.... And what would be the point of removing war level 0 if not levels 1 and 2 as well? A waste of resources. Again you people need to just play the game as is, because not everyone will be happy with the outcome as with war levels to begin with. Let the gms concentrate on fixing and improving the game, not wasting time removing a single war level while having two other levels that mean basically the same thing for a player at 1 or 2. Just play your game already, what will we demand after they remove war levels.... some kind of protection against vets pwning newbs that led to this kind of addition in the first place. In my opinion, what needs fixing with war levels is the benefit of added air defense from a player that will never join in the war game. peaceful level players should not be giving material support to active participants in war. This oversight is impractical and vulnerable to abuse. What is to stop me from going to a friends house, opening an account with their information, then saying I am 'logging in to "watch" or "maintain" their account' and throwing up free air defense to support my empire after they suddenly joined my fed and clustered up with my empire? These two issues are what seriously threatens the war game and both are completely ignored despite the incidents we have had with them recently.
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 08:25 pm The war game is/has been dead for a while. I killed it, I shot it between the eyes in cold blood!
| |
| Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 08:44 pm LOL!
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 02:11 am @ Super: my mistake, I'm new to the game. What is wrong with you people? Everyone says that the war levels suck, and then all we do is sit here and talk about it. The power has always resided with the lower classes because there are more of us than there are of the ruling class. If more people here in the U.S. would realize that, we could take back control of the government. And if more people in this game realized that, then we could FORCE W3C to make the changes. How long do you think that they would be willing to go without getting any money? They'd become desperate! If a majority of the paying members think in the same way, then we, and they, can make it so that they HAVE NO CHOICE.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 02:38 am Still voting? A NO here. I agree with Maestro, upto level 4 then free-for-all.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 03:38 am At the least, FB could be restored to what the game advertises it to be. And all the Maestros and Gothamloki's can locate on OTHER worlds. I really don't think this is alot to ask. I'm giving it 3 more months. If I don't see any improvement, I'm pulling my money. <----Dissatisfied customer.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 03:56 am I notice some advocating scraping war levels talking up purchasing temp protection. Isn't that the same damn thing, except reserved for rich empires? Some of us would like to get our footing, build our own little worlds, before having them terrorized, destroyed, and taken by large empires, or worse! by moderately experienced players looking for an adventure. Give us at least four levels of "free play." Lorelei: I'm all for letting FB be a war free-for-all! (I thought it already was.)
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 04:54 am I'm going to throw in some comments here just for laughs. 1) I could be way off here, but I am guessing if a vote on war/no war were required upon log in (so every paying player had to vote) the vast majority would vote to have all war features be completely removed from the game. 2) The current war level structure allows players who want to avoid war to avoid it completely, so they should all be happy. 3) I agree that FB should be a war free for all, but some protected time period should be in place to allow players who are new there to get established and get into a fed before they are (ultimately) raped and pillaged. 4) If you just want to pillage, look at KB. I took a quick look around that was not at all comprehensive and saw a number of countries @ war level 3 that were very poorly defended. Hint: If you are on KB @ war level 3 and are not bothering to put up defenses this might be a good time to start buying some. 5) Last, but not least. If you (war inclined layers) really want a war, it shouldn't be that difficult to "arrange" one. Personally my take is this. I want to get involved in the war game, but a major obstacle for me is that i have been working 6 days a week for the last 4 months. I can log in from work for a few minutes here and there and dink around with SC but for the most part I have to work when I am working. Very hard to play war under those circumstances. Best SC setup for me is to be able to play econ only on some planets, and maybe play war on FB, knowing that anything I set up there may be taken away from me without me being able to fire a shot while I am at work. In other words, I like the current SC setup, except I do agree that for the most part FB should be a war free for all. Lorelei wanted reasons, there are mine.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 04:56 am damn!!!! that was well said Gothamloki. you left out the gang bang but i agree with everything you said. keep it up dude.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 05:07 am Gothamloki ... well said. Especially since I am a moderately experienced (as far as war goes) player who may be looking for adventure (hint #2: against poorly defended war level 3 countries on KB?).
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 06:03 am LOL Green, you are giving away your best advantage... SURPRISE!
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 01:33 pm I say those who want too keep the war level system raid em with ur ceos
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 01:33 pm Number of countries in each world: KB: 3,061 FB: 6,159 WG: 6,376 GR: 4,804 LU: 3,467 There is enough gravy in this turkey for everyone. Want to be a war player? Get to war level 3 Want to be an econ player? Stay under the radar at war level 0,1 or 2. Perhaps there should be more war levels under level 3. Give new players the time and training to graduate to war level 3. All worlds should be a war world at level 3 or 4.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 06:54 pm scrap war lvls...want to avoid a war and play econ?...go back to paying for WP and use the gc's u make mountains of. Worst idea the gm's have introduced is taking away the ability to war, after all, war was and should be a apart of the game as was advertized.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 08:38 pm There are over 10,000 available c3's on the five worlds. Lock and load cowboys!
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 08:57 pm and where in those c'3 do u find your PvP battles?
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 09:34 pm War levels don't prevent anybody from fighting wars. All you have to do is get to war level 3 and fight against the other players who enjoy wars. If the pro-war players would have just fought each other to begin with, war levels would have never happened. But, pro-war players prefer to fight their wars against the other poor bastards who may or may not be prepared/skilled/interested. Note that I've done this too so I'm not accusing anybody. It's just that wars in SC only appeal to a minority of players. The rest prefer to not be bothered with it. History has shown this to be true. Example: White Giant war last year. I'm against removing war level 0 because I see no point in encouraging parts of the game that are not well-liked.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 09:41 pm thats why we had WP or secured........it was ur war lvl 0
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:23 am You know. It sounds more and more like players with high war indexes are upset because they cant run rampant against less experienced players that aren't interested or prepared for war. What's preventing level 4+ players from going to war with each other again? War protection that can be turned off? So between FB, plenty of high level empires buying temp protection they could turn off, and single country secure mode that could also be turned off; There're STILL not enough presidents to fight with? Maybe the problem isn't the war leveling, but a population of players not interested in having experienced players ruining their gameplay by having to respond to unprovoked attacks.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:18 am Well said Kit, Accounts are now free, so is war protection. True there is no game level 0, but there is a game level. Calling it 0 or 1 makes no differance. WP or secured still works for players at any war level. FB is still unique with it's lower military costs. Stagnence is 100% player, adapt or be bored. War level 0 should only be an issue for an over populated world, wich isn't an issue for SC. Training thru war vs. a friendly Fed is far from realistic. War level 0 does not affect your ability to wage 'fair' war as much as advanced restrictions do.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 02:23 am "War level 0 should only be an issue for an over populated world, wich isn't an issue for SC." Synicus I agree.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 05:10 am Wonders why I, who has never really warred and only played econ, am in favor of removing the ridiculous war levels? Oh oh....here's a thought: I've paid WP for years. GMs.....I DEMAND A REFUND!!!!!!! Why should a player of today get it free, when I paid for YEARS!!! How bout dem apples!!! :-P And,,,,Kitsune.... YOU are????? I don't recall your name as one of the SC great warlords. Where u come from???? lol
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 05:29 am All of this talk, and the answer is really simple. This game has become and economic sim. This game is no longer about war, war really does not have ANYTHING to do with this game. 'Eco' players cried about getting 'beat up' or 'gang-banged' by vets so things were changed in their favor. But, what if I wanted to complain and say it is to difficult to maintain a huge military and make my country profitable? Will things be changed in my favor? My point is this... If this is a empire building sim then it needs to include war. War is a part of any empire. Is there any real empire or world power that was strong economically but that did not also have strong military? I mean if 'Econ' players want protection, then pay for it, shouldn't be able to 'have your cake and eat it to.' Simply put this game is not as advertised, or what it used to be. Thats why many players that enjoy the war aspect have had to go look elsewhere for games that have war. Just as at one time if you did not want ANY war, well, guess what, SC might not be for you. This game has the possibility to be a fun game that has both, war and econ, but it has evolved into a econ only game. Thats my $.02
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:03 am I been playin this game for some ten years and bit by bit this game has declined making war harder and harder and most players have left.When i first started u used too be albe to fire 100k aamb at once now there isnt much left in the tank concerning the war department too be enthusiatic about comptemplating winding up.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:15 am What I find amazing is GMs have not spoken on this issue. I would like to hear their thoughts. I feel like we yap yap yap, but are not being heard. GMs, with all due respect, I would like to hear from you. Are you going to change it back or will it stay as is? Thank you.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:03 am War levels have killed this game. As Serpent said, it is not as advertised anymore. Federations are also dead now. They are now used to discuss economic trading. They USED to be used for that and much more...federational defensive tactics and offensive strategy. A strong federation used to be all the war protection you needed...and GASP...if that wasn't enough for you...buy war protection, which is still cheaper than setting up a proper defense. Now, we have all these new players, who have never experienced what it was like before war levels, hiding behind the war levels, and yet still running their traps about how great the war levels are. The players who aren't eligible for war should not even have the war threads of the forum as an option to comment on. I thought that was what the economic mode of SC was supposed to be for. Where you can choose if you want to have war as part of your gameplay. With that option in place, why are we adding war levels on top of that??? This game has effectively become a one dimensional, boring, unrealistic Sim.....just another sim in a long line of sims. The war game was what set it apart from the others. I guess enough eco geeks crying to the GM's about the unfairness of war was all it took to ruin SC. How is it fair that a properly set up, yet still only medium size defense, costs WAY more than the price of war protection?? What is the point of even keeping military as an option in this once great game?? Why pay for all that military when it basically will never be needed?? Not in this unrealistic version of SC anyway. Also, once upon a time, raiding inactive players before their countries deregistered was a great feature in itself. Now, unless you just happen to be at the same war level as the inactive president, it just deregs. No wonder the cost of Gold Coins keeps plummeting. All those assets just going back to GM land. After a certain point of inactivity, such as past one month inactive, war levels should be taken out of the equation. As far as that goes, now, you can't even raid inactive fedmates when they quit unless they are at the same war level as you. SC has effectively gone the way of the eco geeks.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:10 am Lol, EC, you sound like a republican. The player bids drive down the cost of gold coins, it's called greed.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 04:15 pm when a new player shows up... and wants to war a c3? what happens? they're told to sell their weapons and focus on econ. what happens next? when a new player figures out that they'll have to spend 6 months building up to a decent level, then they'll be labeled as a sim-hitler or sim-stalin, after 6 months of work... what happens next? sim country has many avenues toward success. their are some very influential players, that are terrible at both econ and war, but still rather powerful when it comes to effecting the game. sim country allows for military, econ, and political success. and frankly, the 3 of them need to balance each other. when you have entire federations adding members, based on mutual protection, but utterly fail. we add another level of protection. making the war game unpractical. the problem, is that the player base, as a unit, chases off any one that wants to war. labeling them as a sim-abomination. and eventually, all we are left with is peaceful players, that continue the status quo. and the odd ball war player, that is set loose like a bull in a china shop, because its not fair for politically powerful players to actually defend their powerbase... and we get another level of protection. and yes, the cost to build a war slave is considerably much higher. but simcountry is giving away free protection... why should any one war? with the recent improvements in defence, the over whelming social outrage against war, the stagering cost of upgrades, and nearly zero profit from successful wars... the war game is over. and it will be for probably, i think atleast 1 real life year.
| |
| Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:24 pm 23,867 = Total # of countries in simcountry 13,195 = Total # of countries human controlled 10,672 = Total # of countries simcountry controlled (c3) 55.29% human player 44.71% C3's
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 12:10 am keep war levels, but make them count only for c3 wars. I getting an harder and harder AI to fight would be nice in the future. Maybe some offensive play on the higher levels? 1-5 the AI fights like to day. 5-10 AI react to offensive land divisions within their borders. 10-15 they actively attack you air-force / missile concentrations 16. they use nukes!! PVP should still not be free for all on all worlds FB = free for all other: main = protected + 6 months grace period.
| |
Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:28 am
That's interesting, because I remember ...
and also ...
'Eco-geeks' are not responsible for war levels, and no one involved in the war which brought about these changes asked the GMs for any intervention at all. In fact it was the war players who suggested, and then welcomed them. I remember a time when there was no Secured Mode and unless you invoked war protection, your entire empire was at risk. Tom, if you're reading this, it's time for the GMs to accept that war levels are not working and are certainly not promoting the war game. A far simpler solution would be to create a true 'war mode' or 'peaceful mode'. The level requirements would be different for each, as they are now, but the empires of those in peaceful mode would have every country automatically protected and they would only be allowed to attack C3s. Those of us who prefer the option to war would get slightly easier level requirements (like slightly lower FI and DI averages at the high levels), as an incentive to choose that mode. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 03:24 am Very true Jo. The warmongers brought us war levels. Only later did many econ geeks embraced it.
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 05:18 am Is 'Warmoners' a negative term? If so, then I say we embrace a new term.... 'Ecomonger'!
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 08:07 am With the whole war protection thing, why are people suddenly complaining about it? Look here for instance from the polls: 'Price for Ware protection is too high. Especially for growing nations that need time to develop an army. Would be nice if a country could defend against the giants & would probably keep more new player playing if they could afford WP. If 10 countries are committed to destroy your empire - 5 or 10 GC should buy a full real world month. Owners wont lose because a player will still donate to build army.' 23 gamers voted for the proposal. 8 gamers voted against the proposal. To me, it seems that people are just not interested in wars. That or they're afraid of it. Honestly, unless your slave country is ultra wealthy, or you have people who hate your guts, no one is going to invade a slave country with all sorts of dramas. Trying to get the economy in a conquered C3 back to normal is a hard enough task. I clearly shouldn't have taken 3 within a few days, now my main country score has dropped for it. Lesson learnt.
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 08:23 am Who is crying about war levels? and who is advertising death to the war game to new players? Fanatitics I tell ya, way to shoot your self in the foot. ;)
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 09:28 am Maybe something like this: [for discussion purposes only] War Level 0 : "free" leaders only ('free account'); 'Simcountry' countries ("peace leaders" need to change to "free" account and would be allowed 1 country); indefinite time period; limit of 1 total country ever; no federation alliance allowed; not eligible for Security Council War Level 1: all "full" (or "paid member") countries start here and can war against or be attacked by others at the same level--"War Level 1"--and 'Simcountry' countries when attacked would 'mobilize' to become 'War Level 1' also; limited time of 30 [earth] days; limit three countries total at a time; receive 10 Gold Coins bonus for conquering to War Level 2, -0- award if time limit expires and auto-moved up; may join any federation or start a new one; Security Council eligible War Level 2: same as "War Level 1", just a second level; limited time of 60 additional [earth] days; limit of 7 total countries at a time; receive 20 Gold Coins bonus (extra 10 for preparing for War Level 3), for conquering to War Level 3, -0- award if time limit expires and auto-moved up War Level 3: --enter full war capability-- all countries are 'at risk', but may also form large Empires; no time limits, can stay at War Level indefinitely; no limit of total countries; same benefits a previous levels, plus 10 Gold Coins for advancing War Level at each stage. War Level 4+: gives larger incentives for conquering, either 'Simcountry' countries or other military achievements, bonus, etc.; allows possibility to reach higher Game Levels and receive awards, etc; same benefits as previous levels
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 12:52 pm I hate to bust the plan, but that won't happen. Mainly because of one thing, you are throwing paying customers into the deep end. It is basically saying, don't pay for full membership, wait and wait 6 months to build up a solid country (if you can), then you can declare war. Would the GM actually encourage that? Hell to the No. If you pay at the start, and wait 6 months to build up, you'll already be at WL3, and under siege. I waited a good few months before I declared war, building a strong econ, then buying weapons, then learning the war game. End of the day, either WL needs to be ditched, or there is no longer cheap war protection for a full on war game. Would either happen? Looking at the polls, I doubt it. The polls say that there are more econ players, rather than war players. Look at the amount of people looking for cheap war protection. Look at the current poll on war levels (more no's then yes'). As vocal as those who like war (me included sometimes), there are simply more people who want to play peaceful, rather than aggressive. As much as I might want to reduce some powerful econ players into rubble, it doesn't look like it is going to happen anytime soon. Simple math is, there are more econ PAYING players than war PAYING players, and for a website such as this, it'll have to go where the money goes. I like Maestro's idea, but I'll put forth my one. WL1 - Everyone starts here. No different to what is now. 3 C3 Wars push you to WL2 WL2 - Allows for 1-3 C3 Wars. Allows you to build up a total of 6 countries safely (1 main + 3 WL1 Slaves + 2 WL2 Slaves). 3 C3 Wars push you to WL3. WL3 - Free for all. You can be attacked, attack others, only your main is in SM. You can now join federations. Only half of your slaves can have WP on max, or all for a set holiday period. Win a successful PVP war or 3 C3 wars to enter WL4. WL4 - Last level. Can attack all WL4 players, and inactive PVP countries (haven't logged in 30 days).
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:25 pm Yeah...there are too many random pieces to make everything fit. Looking at the "indefinite War Level 0" makes no sense either, especially if 'Gamemaster' is lax about checking for 'multis'. Why in the world would they simultaneously operate both a 'free' and 'paid' operation--that makes no sense, really. Either it's paid, or it's free, otherwise, duh, obviously the 'free' will be used to exploit every loop-hole imaginable...which is what used to happen, but at least there was some shorter time expiration to the accounts forced upon them. Which is why...putting all of the 'peace' leaders together on one world makes a lot more sense. Plus, if you look at current War Levels of leaders, there are many who have 'peace Empires' on one or more worlds, and 'war Empires' on one or more other worlds. It's not like 'warmongers' can't have some 'piece-of-the-peace', too ;). Then, you could just eliminate 'War Levels' on two worlds at least..."Peace World" and "War World", then someone can come up with what to do everywhere else. Also, it's pretty un-fair to keep changing 'major rules' all of the time...so, whatever happens going forward should make some sense and be reasonable enough to last for a while.
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:27 pm Yeah...there are too many random pieces to make everything fit. Looking at the "indefinite War Level 0" makes no sense either, especially if 'Gamemaster' is lax about checking for 'multis'. Why in the world would they simultaneously operate both a 'free' and 'paid' operation--that makes no sense, really. Either it's paid, or it's free, otherwise, duh, obviously the 'free' will be used to exploit every loop-hole imaginable...which is what used to happen, but at least there was some shorter time expiration to the accounts forced upon them. Which is why...putting all of the 'peace' leaders together on one world makes a lot more sense. Plus, if you look at current War Levels of leaders, there are many who have 'peace Empires' on one or more worlds, and 'war Empires' on one or more other worlds. It's not like 'warmongers' can't have some 'piece-of-the-peace', too ;). (and, no, for the record not referring to here, just talking in general) Then, you could just eliminate 'War Levels' on two worlds at least..."Peace World" and "War World", then someone can come up with what to do everywhere else. Also, it's pretty un-fair to keep changing 'major rules' all of the time...so, whatever happens going forward should make some sense and be reasonable enough to last for a while.
| |
| Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:29 pm @serpent LOL
| |
| Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 04:01 am Not sure why that 'double-posted', apologies for that. Anyhow, here's another idea: "War Level F" = "Free" No war, and need to log in like once every few [earth] days (as in OFTEN) to keep country going otherwise it would auto-cancel. Upgrade to 'full member' to allow longer times for logging in, more features, etc. "War Level P" = "Peace" This could be some kind of 'alternative paid member' status, and would cost roughly equal to buying indefinite "War Protection" without the hassles. then for 'full leaders' (paid memberships), who are 'normal' (war eligible) they have the normal levels. "War Level 0" could be for 'Simcountry' countries only (leaderless).
| |
| Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 11:53 pm How about a war continent(s) on each world? Only countries on a war continent can be in a federation. 30 Players voted to remove war level "0". Why not just give them their own continent on each world?Lock and load. Enjoy your war blitz.
| |
| Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 12:16 am How about go back to the way it was....the way it should be. End of story
| |
| Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 12:27 am Hey EC, Trying to strike a compromise.
| |
| Thursday, May 26, 2011 - 02:44 am Sounds like a coding nightmare, Maestro2000. I think we just need insentive to level from 0 on FB and a war level requirement for federations.
| |
| Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - 02:04 am I dont get whats wrong with just going back to regular war, simple, why make things complicated, everyone Ive met so far hates the levels.
| |
| Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - 03:26 am I just made 15T profit from lvl 7 C3 war, I'm loving it.
| |
| Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - 08:11 pm LMAO! I just made over 150T from a PvP war. You kids really shouldn't post about stuff you know shit about.
| |
| Thursday, June 2, 2011 - 02:39 am Easiest solution. Kill it all. If you want to have some bunting put around you in case you fall. Make war protection all or nothing, with no capability to attack a country of any flavour while it's active. I expect I'd be eliminated very quickly if this happened, but hey. I'll just change my name and join the underground.
|
