 |
|
|
|
Monday, October 17, 2011 - 02:35 am  Hey all, As exemplified by the massive and heated debate going on in another thread, there is a demand for the removal of war levels from the game. Please make your opinion count. I have created a poll on the voting page- check it out if you wish. Cheers, T
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 03:01 am if you change it im leaving - i dont see it on any voting page - where is said pole?
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 03:34 am You should see a Public Voting option under the Communication menu.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 04:48 am I'm a member, post War levels. It sounds awesome, from what i've read. THE war world sounds like a place I eventually want to take my account. But, ... I never played in that game. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to play in. I'm saying I've never played it... There should be a limit on C3's that you can raid before you become a "TARGET". Also, Why should there be a "Defense Index" restriction? Seriously! If you don't have the noodle to know you should protect your country, should you be responsible for loosing it (after you were being an idiot on the forums, of course)! All I'm saying is that, NOT all of the customers in this game want to hear whining... Me, myself, I want to hear everyone of you argue!!! I'll probably see some of you on FB soon. I'm ready to use some of my "ECON" playing weapons on you!!!!!nlol
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 05:46 am There is a limit on C3s that you can raid. The number is 5. Once you take out 3 C3s, you go to War Level 2. Once you take out 3 more, you go to War Level 3. And once you're there, you're a target.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 07:11 am Is that limit 5 per day per world? I am pretty sure I took more than 5 this past week, for instance. Last weekend, I think I took 5 or 6.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 08:21 am The war levels are here to protect new players and give them time to build up. once they reach war level 3, especially on the war world, they can be attacked by anyone and can fight any country in war level 3 and up. It is similar but a little less aggressive on the other worlds. Tabula Rasa just described how many wars you can fight against C3 countries to get to level 3. Those who do not want to fight, should not get to war level 3. They can play a peaceful game. Removing the war levels will allow players who do not dare to fight an experienced player to overrun new comers as happened before we had war levels, and chase these new players away. These were nonsense wars against hardly defended countries and players who did not have a clue yet about how it worked. They won great victories and took the assets. Instead, they should have the guts to fight a higher war level player and take a risk. so either you just don't have it in you to fight a real war or you don't understand the war levels. none of these are reasons to drop the war levels. We intend to add war levels including some where the C3 country will not only defend but will attack. It will include new weapons added for both parties. There will be very high gold coin awards for reaching such war levels.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:03 am Andy, whilst i understand your point - since i left the game 3 years ago, its gone downhill. You no longer have an active community, the war game is dead (which lets face it, is a major part of the game), and you have lost many great players and feds as a result. Sim country was exemplified by its large and diverse player base and the forums reflected that. People were active and made both friends and enemies on the forums. I tried something, i made a thread in the GR section of the forums claiming GR as my own. 3 years ago, I would have been slated for it. Now, nothing. Players no longer seem to care and are playing the game more as a single player pure econ game than one where the need for diplomacy and networking meant your very survival. Surely there is a better way?
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:11 am I was engaging in my first wars for war levels yesterday and I thought they were a good base to learn about war in the game. The GM is switching the game levels to include WLs more easier than military indexes. This in the medium-term will bring more wars but before people enter a war they will be better prepared than before. Thus I voted against.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:30 am Gday Andy. It feels like war levels are completely aimed at single countries. I can't speak from experience so i'm open for clarification, but trying to organise a fed vs fed war with multiple war levels sounds like a huge pain in the bottom! First fix that comes to mind might be federation set war rules. Perhaps If you join X federation, complete war protection will be removed? Incentives? Even a federation wide war level. Fed X warlevel is 5 and fed Y warlevel is 5. Average on all fed members or even a vote to raise? So all members can fight, no problems. Don't like it? Join a peaceful fed. Again needs to be incentives or something. I'm sure the community + GM's could think of a system that allows for new player protection and simple/active/fun war declaration like it was almost a decade ago.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:37 am Oh and its good to see the GM's joining this sort of discussion. Thumbs up.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:47 am Fighting a c3 is nothing compared to pvp.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 11:14 am Ragingpencil, sorry mate - i dont agree with peaceful feds. I play another game where peaceful factions wrecked the war game too now theres a ranking system there much like here. However, it works on the other game. How about war levels for whole feds instead of empires? There also has to be some giveway where you can attack and be attacked by a war level at least one place above and below you..... At least that way, feds would come back into the game, teamwork would return and the community would become, well...a community again. Its not the perfect solution however, it is a solution that would somewhat address the issues in discussion.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 11:54 am One of original suggestions for WLs was over level, say, 3, you could dec on any equal or higher WL country, hey, you know what youre getting into before you dec, so your call, no moaning if you lose. For newb protection you cant dec on levels below. But to make the levels matter (they are meant to reflect experience after all) and to make it harder for people to build large armies while hiding in low levels, make the taking of C3s or any warring, force a player up the levels. You dont get the option to fight and stay at the same level. So econ make good money but have to buy WP if they want many countries (or they can buy countries), whilst players who want the war option have to spend on defense, have allies, etc. May I remind all that playing in a war mode requires a good econ as well, war costs a bomb (sic), its just spent differently to econ players.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 01:24 pm Again war levels are an UNFAIR advantage. They can hostile bid, boycott, ect.(well hiding war free) At least relax the rules to be @ level 2 on all worlds expect FB it should be 1-7 that's 4nations plus a main before they get to level 2. That's MORE then fair exp if they have time to build up. 4 nations can do ALOT of damage but allowing them to have 7plus(i mean buying) nations with massive def and such is to much. Its just to much of an unfair advantage. And in fearless blue That should be as it was prewar levels. Everyone goes there FOR WAR if they get beat off so be it. I did i become a better player BECAUSE of it. You know what losing a nation does MAKES YOUR STRONGER. I and i know others think it to. To let dozens of players sit with 10plus nations on FB @ lvl 0-2 is ridiculous. They should have to pay for war protection. Game master you know why so many people don't want it to change the war levels. FREE war protection. Really how hard is your "Econ game" War players buy weapons, buy ammo, buy war protection, buy the populations, we the ones most effected by space. What happens to these econ boys? NOTHING. Every cent they make they turn into coins or loans. As for war players we are stuck spending all are income to buy weapons in space for crazy prices. Its becoming to unfair to war players. For 2years i was econ only now i'm both and i gotta say i wish i joined war sooner because as of now IT SUCKS As said to me to countless vets In order to know war you need to have something taken from you just once. I've taken my beatings and i'm starting to dish mine out. Tommi Fearless blue shouldn't have these silly restrictions before they go to Fearless blue make it clear that it is the war world. 1-7 is fair game they want to be econ fine so be it but you cant let them take 7nations then buy a ton more then let them say... O well now i'm econ only  never worked like that before shouldn't work like that NOW If they going to hide under the war levels for free war protection make them pay for it. Start more disasters and they need to help or send X amount of aid which is counted toward there game level. What ever happened to that feature so much promise but it seemed to have just died
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 01:29 pm You know where my vote went. I would support the following: 1) War level three or higher in every world should make players fair game for war. 2) Federation membership should only start at war level three. also on my menu 3) Create a war continent on each world. Here and only here is the place where player vs player war can happen. Players at war level 3 or higher can move to the continent. Players for 1 coin each can move their countries to a randon available slot on the war continent. (5 coins to move to a specific available slot) A country must be at least 30 million in population to move to the war continent. 3a) All C3's on the war continent are sized 30 to 40 million people. (Nice prizes there) 3b) Give some economy boost to countries on the war continent. Perhaps the citizen consumption rate is at 90% the normal rate. Production of weapons is at 110% of the normal rate. 4) Phase out population selling in the game. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 03:29 pm Maestro, the war continent idea sucks as much as a cheap hooker on crack does. How about a econ continent? No? Didnt think so..... Feds should have war levels. You should be able to dec on a rank or two higher and lower. If you dont want war...dont join a fed. Add to that increased bonuses for winning a war (dditional loot perhaps) and you have both econ and war players happy....
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 03:42 pm I am glad to see this thread has actual discussion instead of just blaming and trash talk. We have obvious division between the econ and the war players. I believe it is beneficial to the GMs and the game as a whole to find a resolution that both sides can live with. I think we may need to try a few things to see what works and what doesn't. I would be interested in hearing more suggestions from the war players--things don't include ending WK's since the Gm has said they are committed to them. Maestro has offered several decent options. Rather than beat these down, let's offer our own. The first thing I will offer is C3 fighting doesn't ever get more challenging. Taking a WL1 C3 requires the exact same skill set as taking a WL6 C3, just more clicking of the same things. I suppose WL7 is a little different since it requires distance and a "new" skill to learn there. But once you figure that "challenge" out, it is the same skill set used for all previous levels.I offer this because I do not agree that WL teach a person the war game and do not even indicate how good they are at war. I am WL7 on LU. I am not sure that I would call myself a master of the war game though. Just means I invested the time and money to buy enough weapons to fight that many C3's. I imagine fighting even one player would be much, much harder.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 04:30 pm I like the idea of the c3 attacking of course it will depend on how well they are attacking then our defense weapons can fight too because PVP usually winds up in a nuke fight which reduces production or a one side fight sends away players
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 05:47 pm Zentrino, in my experience fighting a player is as easy as you make it. A long used tactic was figuring out when someone was online and hitting them when you knew they would be asleep. Matt, i believe that nukes are underpriced and under effective if they are the same as they were three years ago. Nukes need to be a lot more effective and a lot more expensive. They should do mega damage and their price should reflect that. There should also be a lot more fallout and detrimental effects to prevent their widespread useage as others would then get involved in your war. Also, why has no one commented on my fed war level idea? I think that is a pretty decent compromise.....
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 07:00 pm The fed problem has been pointed out before with no interest from the GM. As the chair of a long standing fed on KB, I find this a major problem. I dont see anything wrong with Stuarts or Maestros ideas...discuss.
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 07:55 pm To add: Perhaps joining a federation automatically puts you at war level 3. (The war level on all worlds)
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 08:29 pm Maestro...more compromise needed from you man. Im saying keep war levels, but make them for feds, not empires. All levels are warable but only plus or minus one or two places from your fed. If you dont like war, dont join a fed....join a CM instead. That would keep everyone happy...
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:07 pm @Stuart T Maybe too difficult to program. The simple would be to force all federation members to war level 3....and make all players at war level 3 or higher on all worlds fair game. This still leaves the subject of war peace unresolved. (The war continent idea effectively replaced this)
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 10:43 pm No, you mean the econ continent. Right? A war continent takes away a load of tactics. A econ continent wouldnt bother you nor would you notice any difference in your current gameplay. so, I think we are agreed - if a continent were created which i hope to god it isnt, the scaredy cat noobs like yourself would be put there.....
| |
| Monday, October 17, 2011 - 11:13 pm (cracks fingers) I'll clear up the issue with the nukes. Nukes really do no damage to the war index in my last war i was non stopped nuked from 13M to 5M and i never went past 90WI. The GM wants to prevent them from being the only weapon used but they not even an option to use they are really worthless to anyone except news who think there god. ALL nuke deaths should count toward the killed. If 90K people die then those 90K should count toward the civ pop losses. From then on you might see nukes on a capital, if tact's blew up a base and all units attached(like air wings or supply units) a % where destroyed and the rest returned would be nice, they they would be TACTICAL nukes and that would give you a bunch of WI points because military goods would count towards assets damage and then the Sec con would have something to watch over. There's no difference between nukes either. It should be ... Strats- level 3 fallout, Should be able to use airbases for global coverage Nuclear missiles - lvl 3 fallout, do as much as a strat but only be 10KM range(another opition to save those strats) Sub nuke- level 2 fallout leave as is Tacts- level 1 should hit bases n do 100% damage and destroy a % of all units(and there weapons) attached to that based. This would mean if a player had all there fighter wings attached to 1based and it got tacted then there offensive forces are gone. This would mean more bases are needed and this would force players to spread out there army's. Also do some damage to civ targets Chems- lvl 1 fallout. Should be allowed to hit land based(like LRD's)units killing a good number. Since Tacts/chems are level 1 they should be allowed in sneak attacks. Add more sneak attack options and give the Sec con more to do. -------------Nuke Rant over--------------- -------------War suggestion--------------- The issue with the levels is that people can hide for to long under them, giving them a longer time then most to keep building up or reducing the amount of war players. MY SUGGESTION is simple When the new player starts they are to be based on the war game levels(i mean game levels not war levels until level 3. After this they should have tested weapons been in a war and had an econ to back a small military. After that the game should offer a compromise. If a player chooses to be econ they can. It will forever block them so instead of war level 0 it says "Econ only", This protects them from PvP warring but will also block them from warring themselves(C3 or PvP). This should be a permanent choice once picked there's no going back(on that world at least). Right there the econ kids are happy and protected. After that if they dont choose econ only they play the full game and start @ war level 1 from there PvP warring starts 1-3/3-7.(fearless blue 1-7)(also when in a fed you can fight an enemy regardless of there level if you war decs kick in). Something to try to build on
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 12:54 am I agree to a certain extent. I disagree with this point:- If a player chooses to be econ they can. It will forever block them so instead of war level 0 it says "Econ only", This protects them from PvP warring but will also block them from warring themselves(C3 or PvP). This should be a permanent choice once picked there's no going back(on that world at least). I'd like to have the choice every 3 - 6 months to switch between the two. Choosing a side permanently seems a little...... cacophonous.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 01:02 am Manchu Airway has been committed 100% to shuttle industry. It is very expensive and utilizes all resources. Since war protection will be abolished, can we have time to; 1. sell all assets and convert to dollars? (Does game allow this?) 2. Destroy our countries & enterprises (by allowing debt on all companies at once) before this change takes place? This game has been very relaxing & fun. - Manchu Foo
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 01:52 am I like several of the suggestions here. I certainly agree that, at least, WL3 and up should be able to fight each other. Let the lower levels remain war-free for those who do not wish to engage in pvp warfare. Basically, WL0 would be all econ and WL1-2 would be for learning the ropes and preparing for battle. Warnings would need to be given to players though. I know I was leveled up to WL3 without notice and I had no defense prepared at the time. Maybe a pop up when a player first attempts to buy offensive weapons that C3 warfare can and will make your WL's higher. I am not sure a continent is needed for econ or war. I have endorsed the idea because I don't think it is a bad one. It just may not be necessary if 3-7 can all battle each other. If the GM is worried that warlords on level 7 will wait for someone to become a WL3 just to poach them, then maybe additional protections can be added. I like the idea of giving more time to prepare with the greater difference in WL's. What about giving a boost to the defender's defense if a higher level declares on them? It could be based on the difference in WL's also. So a 5 attacks a 4, then the 4 would get a slight boost in effectiveness of weapons let's say. But if a WL7 attacks and WL3, then the 3 would get a significant boost. If you attack anyone who is a higher level than you, then all is fair game and no help is given. So the noobs who get WL3 and then dec on their WL7 neighbor will get taught a quick little lesson. Feds should definitely be able to help fedmates. Feds is a big part of what made this game fun.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 01:55 am Manchu Foo: No one has called for abolishing war protection. War protection is using GC's to extend the amount of time that your country cannot be attacked. Laguna is probably the only player here to remember a time when that was not offered. (I think it was not around when the game started.) Many war players do not like the idea of free war protection via war levels. If you would read through this thread though, you would see many of those war players willing to compromise with WL's if some changes can be made. The only thing that threating to leave the games makes you is a former player.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 02:24 am The focus here is only on war levels but lets not forget war peace. Misuse of war peace was a big problem as well in the past. Some veterans kept their meaty countries in war peace while only risking crappy c3's. And those C's were used for taking juicy targets. When this war level thing gets sorted, this problem will return. The continent idea replaces war peace. WP would be removed from the game. No one on the war continent can hide behide war peace.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 02:40 am If you have a war continent do you think anyone will have high pop countries with lots of assetts? I dont think so. So no one will go there to fight for swag. War levels mean nothing except for protecting lower war level players from being attacked by a higher level. Also being war level 7 doesnt mean you are an experienced fighter, anyone can reach war level 7, it only has a few more defense set up compared to a war level 3. The real problem with war these days is most players are afraid to lose a country(s). There are many players at war level 3 and there still isn't alot of wars happening. If people werent afraid to lose half decent countries dont you think there would be alot of wars on FB? The war world? FB is a ghost town like KB and how the other worlds are turning into. Changing the war game rules again will change nothing.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:08 am @Keto Definitely not the super tanker 100 million plus population countries. These countries are works of art. But if the war continent is full of 30-40 million population C3 countries people will move there and grab some for themselves. The cash market will soon be flooded with new country offers. And players new and old can quickly amass a sizable empire that can afford to wage war. The new speed at creating/replacing an empire will drive more people to the war continent. The fear of losing a country while still there is diminished. (Loss a tit, buy a new one for 50 coin or take a new war continent c3...) Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:16 am Would the "war continent" require the entire empire to move there? Or just the empire slaves since the main would remain secured anyway? Or just the countries of that president's choice?
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:36 am War Continent Once you are at war level 3, you can move any of your countries there with a minimum population of 30 million. There is no secure mode or war peace on the war continent. Only the standard blackout rules apply. In war only countries on the continent can fight each other. You receive no air support from countries off the continent. All your countries not located on the war continent are basically in secure mode regardless of their war level.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:45 am ok just clarifying. The read that post before as stating the whole empire had to move there. Choosing a country (or countries) is fine.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:45 am If such a scheme ever existed, that would render the world 'Fearless Blue' near to extinction.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:48 am @James Every world would have a "Fearless Continent" with teeth.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 03:49 am Have you been on Fearless Blue lately? There are entire regions with almost no one in them. My region is Karina Canji on Paova Major. A total of 7 countries are claimed by 4 presidents. I have 4 of those countries right now and 3 of mine are just countries I am stripping for raids.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 04:43 am Maestro2000 has the best idea! If I knew I had two huge countries in safe mode, I'd be willing to build some military companies and take a 40 Million pop country to war - just for fun. That way I could continue to enjoy climbing the econ ladder and also participate in war games. If I lose 40M population - who cares? People who fight for 'swag' simply want free money, and don't want to work the econ game. Destroying defensless econ players is lame & pathetic. A war continent will prove which players are real warriors & have skills - fighting PREPARED war countries or federations. Come on Tom Morgan - Man up & fight other war countries, instead of pushing to bully defenseless players. Lets see what your made of.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 06:53 am the funny thing is that war levels are not match for all worlds. For example, on FB, an experienced war player at war level 7, and his other empires are at war level 0 on other worlds. that is me. hahhahahhaha.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 07:00 am I stopped buying population & ceased all expansion as soon as I read this post. No point playing seriously as long as there is threat of losing everything to idiot players who have accumulated vast armies & are demanding everyone play their game cause they are bored. I vote for a war continent idea - OR that if war levels are abolished - that all weapons be wiped to zero for everybody - including all war corps - so we all start at zero war potential. Makes it fair.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 08:19 am Now, I don't know about wiping all weapons. Besides, you should still be safe if you stay in secure mode.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 08:35 am I will say this one last freaking time. Maestro, are you listening??? Feck the war continent idea. It would just be LRDs smashing into each other. No tactics.... If anything, set up an econ continent. It makes no difference to many econ players if they are right next door or on the other side of the world to their customers. So...that makes a lot more sense...
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 09:12 am I still not understanding why everyone is worried. Losing the war levels would bring back diplomacy, and make the game more engaging.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 12:13 pm Reason econ players don't want war levels to dissapper they don't wanna pay the 40GC per month(5.5T) a real month for War protection. The the beating around news is pointless propaganda built by the econ morons. Lets let the math points out the facts. To win a war you need to blow up a round 130targets That includes 100forts, 30cities/factories(based on a 15M C3). Takes 2200Heavy artillery 2 attacks to blow it up. 2200artillery * 2(attacks) * 5(shells per attack) * 130targets = 2.96M shells That's about 250B worth of ammo ALONE @ 100Q ammo. Granted you'll need more so you spend about 1T on ammo easy. Plus fighters, bombers, Trucks(they aren't cheap you know 2,000 trucks cost about 2B SC$). If you base a new has the def of a level 7 C3. Your still talking 3-4T BASE COST!!! just to take a shitty 13M pop nation. Why would you bother then you can war a C3 and make 12T profit? Plus even if the war levels where gone news would still get fed support. Doubling there defensive air force costing me 2times as much. Why war a new and spend 6T when i wont get it back? Hell i could spend 6T and make 36T for myself in C3 warring? Whats the point of kicking the new around? The hole war levels new kicking was created by the econ kids. Before anyone says i'm not allowed to say i can speak for the econ kids ive been a bean counter for 2years, so i can sit on both sides of this table. You econ kids have it good so stop whining. The moment the GM makes boycotts stronger, CM have purposeful, and add more direct ways to have economic warfare, make disasters mean something, you'll be singing the tune the war players are now. What you bean counters don't realize is the profit you could be making. If they lowered the war levels to allow more warring you could stay in war level 0 and be fine. Interceptor corp makes 60inters a year. If your like me and run 141% production that's 85 a year. Now if inters sold @ max price due to a lot of warring that's 500M PER INTERCEPTOR 85 * 500M = 42B a year when they get to where 370 is the max your talking a whooping 156.51B a year INCOME!!! Lets say you added 50 over Q as your sales strategy 180B. 75 over Q 191B. You could be making almost 200B a year off 1CORP!!! 30corps time 200B = 6T a year!!! War players should kill to know they got 30corps supplying them with a brand new inter wing per month @ 370Q. Id love it. Econ kids think less of getting free shit now and think of the long term. Is saving some cash now worth losing out on massive income later?
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 12:19 pm Cor, Tallisabeth, I do believe you have finally 'got it'. +1 (at least 1).
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 05:46 pm If the econ players choose to sit on low war levels, then they will have to carry the huge cost of econ game levels. As more people are climbing war levels and learning the war aspect, I think there is likely to be more wars but not vet raiders versus newbies or noobs who can't climb to higher war levels.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 08:06 pm "War levels mean nothing except for protecting lower war level players from being attacked by a higher level. Also being war level 7 doesnt mean you are an experienced fighter, anyone can reach war level 7, it only has a few more defense set up compared to a war level 3." Keto Words of wisdom from an elite war level player.
| |
| Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 08:48 pm I think it's a good start though rather than going straight into war. This way, econ, learning and war players play side by side. I'm going through the war levels now and I'm learning about the way weapons respond and numbers etc. I was going to sit in lower war levels for a while until I realised it cost too much to obtain the higher game levels. Players are being encouraged down the war level route. To get to higher levels you have to maintain a cash balance of a number of quadrillion. Many will realise war is a cost worth facing.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 12:43 pm How soon before we learn results? I've stopped all donations pending outcome. No point spending money on game if there is pending massacure.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 01:18 pm Really doesn't matter about having it as a voting topic. It has already been sated by the GM that it isn't going anywhere and honestly from the numbers on the vote there isn't going to be enough player push to make them reconsider. You're tilting at the wind mill.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 04:18 pm Yes they are. Silly addition, play the game. Stop suggesting radical changes. This is a learning experience for those involved in the conversation leading up to War Levels. Be careful what we push for. Most things in this game are a double edge sword. Cause and effect. A perfect balance of Karma.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 07:41 pm "Maestro2000 has the best idea! If I knew I had two huge countries in safe mode, I'd be willing to build some military companies and take a 40 Million pop country to war - just for fun. That way I could continue to enjoy climbing the econ ladder and also participate in war games. If I lose 40M population - who cares?" Emily Foncque War Continent idea. It works well for econ and war players alike.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 08:20 pm Wow, maybe I'm just an old-fashion gamer. Just to set in my ways to keep up with you young'uns.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 09:25 pm This seems a rather foolish and pointless conversation. Currently any president who wants to war at level 3 or above can go to FB and play. War is possible at any level above 3 pvp. The absence of a large group of players on FB playing war leads me to believe that not enough players want to play war as opposed to Econ. On FB always the same (few)players maybe once every 6 real months going to war with one another. So why change? Just to raid? I'll respect the request if there was a bit more honesty. Are you dying of boredom? Or Raiding Withdrawal?
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 09:36 pm I think the only way is to be able to declare war with another player from war level 1 upwards and have done, no restrictions, as the player should know of the dangers that lurk in this game. Let me tell you, I knew of the risks and so should the others.
| |
| Wednesday, October 19, 2011 - 11:18 pm I dont think its a personal thing Wendy for anyone posting here, about boredom or wanting to raid. Its more about trying to get the game community more interactive, through allies or enemies, either is good. Note how most everyone moans about you all the time, but most all are glad to see you back. Thats all, just trying to get some of the SC spirit going again.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 01:18 am Wendy has good point. Pro War players above are not interested in war. They are too scared to fight on FB. Instead they want to raid the econs with no army - then declare themselves 'war chiefs' with the words 'soldier' in their names. Agree with Emily also - I would cease focus on space game & send a country onto Meistro's war continent from time to time & fight real soldiers. Just dont want to be raped with no army by some loser who thinks he is White Boy but is just too cheap to donate, and wants to steal.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 01:19 am There is a fundamental dichotomy within this game which polarises players over war and it's centred around the fact that the game takes a long time to learn to play well, a long time to build an empire and a long time to reach higher levels. It's therefore natural that, when some players have spent a long time and a lot of effort growing assets, they don't want to lose them. It's also natural for some players to want to raid others and take those assets, rather than building their own slowly. In the 'old days' there was no secured mode and few people could afford permanent war protection. Wars arose because of a genuine grudge and were less cavalier because both sides had something to lose. With the advent of secured mode, and the growing ease with which to gain GCs and stay in WP (fuelled by the changes in the game which saw the uses for GCs grow, and therefore the need for the GMs to supply more) we experienced the rise of C3 warfare, where those players who wished to raid would keep their assets in protection and fight with C3s which they were happy to lose. Other players who did not wish to play a purely econ game lost their motivation for putting-in the time because their empires could, and sometimes were, taken down and the choice became: play econ or play war, because if you don't stay in WP you can (and probably will) be raided. The space game enhances that even further because it allows players to keep a protected empire on one planet, and quickly build up a warring set of C3s on another. War levels are the GMs' attempt to redress the balance, but putting a subroutine in place to counteract the effect of a main routine never works. If the main routine is broken, it needs to be reprogrammed. IMHO, the 'broken' aspect of the war game is that the game needs to be reconfigured so that, if players go to war, they are both risking their assets. Sure, keep two war levels in place to protect the newbs, - one where you can attack or be attacked and one where you can't - but the game needs an element of risk to be re-associated with war. That means removing the ability to build a country quickly to be sufficiently war-capable: if you want to go to war, it needs to be with a country that has taken a long time to build to that point, and which will make you think twice about losing. That will do more to achieve the GMs' goals than their current WL initiative. Defence and offence also need to be balanced better - the game has always favoured the aggressor. And if the GMs really want to make the war game fun to play, they will concentrate on building the tactical element - one which offers a range of attack and defence possibilities and requires both sides to really think on their feet and respond to the other's moves. At the moment, there are two or three ways in which to attack and the only variable is really distance. But that is hugely complicated and would take hellish amounts of work, both to change, and to understand. If the GMs are set on keeping war levels, they would better serve the game, and the players, to judge those war levels on war capability - not purely on the experience a player has, but also on the weapons within their country. And I don't mean a points-based system as we have now, but a system that realistically evaluates their offensive and defensive capacity and the potential effectivity of their weapons-combination. By all means, keep the C3 WLs in place as a teaching aid - I think we can all see the advantage in that - but the PvP war game seriously needs to be re-thought. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 01:29 am Would any veteran player say it's difficult to get to war level 3, or even to war level 7? Short answer.....No. It's simple to get to war level 3 if thats what you wish. "Currently any president who wants to war at level 3 or above can go to FB and play. War is possible at any level above 3 pvp. The absence of a large group of players on FB playing war leads me to believe that not enough players want to play war as opposed to Econ." Wendy I agree with Wendy and thats why I believe the war continent idea is the best option for the game. War and econ players can dabble in player vs player warfare on the continent. Have big wars/small wars while their super tanker 100 million population countries are safely tucked away off the continent. Players can move any amount of countries to the continent. Only those countries moved to the continent are at risk with other players. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:08 am For once, i have to agree with maestro. Fearless Blue lacks econ players because it is simply too risky to build there. Asset security is very important to econ players. IMO there needs to be an incentive for econ players to set up enterprises and empires, whether it be higher profits or no corp relocation penalties... We report- you decide. T
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:45 am So basically Maestro, you will consider "letting" us players who do enjoy war, have a small space on your planet to fight amongst ourselves??? Gee, how thoughtful of you. The war continent idea is not only unrealistic for war strategy, it is unfair. Make that doubly unfair considering the idea is coming from someone WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A WAR IN HIS ENTIRE SIMCOUNTRY CAREER. What makes you think that you....WHO HAS NEVER FOUGHT A WAR IN HIS ENTIRE SIMCOUNTRY CAREER, knows what is best for war? Your enthusiasm in this matter is appreciated, but stick to what you know....economics and war protection. I, as a war player, would not recommend that you, as an econ player, be quarantined to a one continent on a planet...even if that would actually make more sense and have less of an impact on you economic style of play. It simply does not make sense. GM's, seriously, this is the biggest issue to hit your game in a long time. Please respond with something more than the carbon copy response you have been posting. It isn't settling the problem. Something needs to change. You are dropping the ball and leaving your paying players in turmoil. War levels have killed federations, teamwork, interaction and half of the fun in this game. That's how I, EC, feel....not quoting anybody else, or speaking for anyone else. Currently, I am at war level 3 on White Giant. Not because of my skill level, but because I choose to stay there. So, war levels aren't even a realistic representation of how much experience a player has with war. If I were to declare war on another player on White Giant at war level 3...which there are many...does it make it fair? Hardly. The same goes with other MAJOR war players who have sandbagged and are setting at war level 0!! Once again, a farce. So, to this point, the changes haven't worked...an econ only player seems to be carrying the flag for how the "future" of SimCountry warfare needs to be carried out....I imagine he is currently running a campaign through in game messages to his econ friends to vote againt war...did I mention that HE HAS NEVER FOUGHT ONE WAR IN HIS SIMCOUNTRY CAREER?????.....and all we are left with is frustration. Something has to give. Please consider different ideas, excluding the ludicrous "war continent" joke. SimCountry used to be the best online game out there. Now....it is a shell of it's former self. The intent was good with the introduction of the war level system, but the result has swung the pendulum too far the other direction. There has to be a better balance. I hope you, the GM's, help us find that balance. Thanks, EC
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:54 am EC...i totally agree with you. If anything, there should be an econ continent as it doesnt matter to econ players if they are next door or on the other side of the map from their customer. Meanwhile, creating a war continent would take away all strategy and planning and simply become a load of LRDs smacking into each other.....
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 03:19 am I don't agree with any of this silly econ or war continents idea, only a extreme capitalist like Maesto would think of such an ridicoulous idea, probularly thinking they're could be money to be made from this for him, its unrealistic. This game definitely needs to ease its war level restrictions down from war level 3 to at least war level 2 and we'll see what happens from there. Meaning for instance if you're at war level 3 you'll be able to declare war on a war level 2 player.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 03:39 am Quote "For once, i have to agree with maestro. Fearless Blue lacks econ players because it is simply too risky to build there." What are out talking about even on FB you cant war till level 3. You can go there now and never be attacked. Thats what people are saying. Players go to FB to war not to have a million econ players crowding it when there's 4 other worlds. Even with the 30day protection back then i never saw some random new get killed off unless they did something to someone. I personally played econ for 2years i understand where econ players are coming from. I agree they have there own sets of issues. The reason people dont move up in war levels are reason that arent even real there "ASSUMED" fears. News assume -Nuclear weapons will help win a war. You can win without them. In infact they provide NO help. I was non stop nuked from 13M to 5M and i never went below a 90War index. even though i lost 8M people over half my population. My military was still working and me people continued like it never happened -People think a fed will protect you when they cant. War Levels apply to feds. If a war level 3 is attacked by lets say 3 other war levels 3 the level 7 in the fed cannot assist because they are to high up even though there fed mate is facing several players. In order for a fed to be helpful you all have to be the same war levels. -Players assume CM help them when they dont. The only difference between selling to a non-common market player and a common market player is a small score boost. There is no other incentives. Players think they can sell for cheaper prices(ect) but when they cant. -Players think contracting food @ 333Q or high Q helps when in fact it makes no difference until the GM update(god knows how long it will be) 370Q bread and 100Q bread makes no difference other then a bigger check to buy it. -The fear that level 7 will gang up on news is completely untrue. You cant sell or move population unless its 30M or more. A cost of blowing up 140targets(forts, cities, ect)costs 2T. So even attacking a new player without a single weapon would still cost *Trillions*, with even the default defence your still talking 5+ trillion. Why would i attack a new player with less then 10T in cash and under 30M population when i can war a level 7 C3 and make 25T if i strip it for everything? The list goes on and on. The reason nothing changes is because of players like Meastro. Who brings up these things to protect his own greedy ass(why should he pay for WP when he gets it for free now?) In fact why is a Never warred econ bean counter allowed to make comments like he knows shit about war? Most news agree with comments like that or agree to sec con war treatys/nuke bans because they don't know better(they think of it real world. If the GM wants warring to happen and wants everyone to be happy let players war the way it used to but add something for the new players. The hole big players gang on on the little guy is unture. I've been here 2 years and never seen a "big" guy bully a little guy(unless they earned it by making a threat or something). In fact in the old days most players would rally to stop players like that and among the community it remains that way. If a player wants to be econ only then give them an option to where after game level 3. They can choose go econ only(no warring C3/PvP) or war game. That why if a player wants to be econ only they can on that world but each new world is a new choice. 5worlds you could have 4war 1 econ/ 5wars 0 econ/ 5econ no war.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 04:03 am EC, Again select memory on your part. You used to know that I did in fact conquer a few c3 early in my career. Other than the first which I aborted, all were simple boring victories. Used the Tattoo Priest guide and it worked every time. For me war in this game doesn't hold a candle to the warfare I enjoyed in other games. Used to play various Paradox games. (Hearts of Iron, Rome, Victory and even Europa Universalis) Also the Total war series. So I play the Econ game here and enjoy it. Instead of bashing me, try to put a reasonable proposal here. Cheers, Maestro PS: Thanks for the War Level addition to the game.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 05:19 am Number one on my list to destroy should i ever get the chance.....Maestro.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 05:43 am Which is why War Levels will never go away. I do hope the GM reads this posting and considers some of the good options pointed out and also considers the points made about feds and gameplay.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 06:13 am What EC is trying to say is u never fought a player. C3's don't count. It takes no skills to fight a country that doesn't fight back. Maybe if u fought a player vs. player war you would get some sort of respect from these players. Instead u suggest things for war when you admit you will never go above your free war protection (wl 0). You risk nothing yet you wanna have a say in what you will never take part in. To all you econ players put up or shut up. Stick to econ leave the war side and discussions to the players who do the fighting. I'm sick of all your crying about wars. If u don't wanna take part in it stay @ your current wl. Keep your comments to your self and let us enjoy what little fun we have with the war side of the game before u econ players try to take that away from us too.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 10:17 am Calm down EC. I was simply agreeing with Maestro on ASSET security. I find war fun (even though I only raid c3s), and agree with you on most major points in the argument. Bashing me because I decided to post my view isn't going to solve anything- it will ridicule your side of the argument and give Maestro more oil to pour on his *mostly terrible* argument. I agree that WLs need to be relaxed and that Federations should be more connected in the war game. A proposal- For players to reach WL3, they must be part of a Federation. Also, some econ players (I consider myself both econ and war) won't build on FB simply because they associate it with war- they won't create an enterprise and build 300 corps only to wake up and have half of them destroyed in a nuclear blast. Maestro has demonstrated that he isn't confident in a 'war' environment, yet still wants to survive in a world where there will be some PvP action, probably because it would beef up ammo demand. Of course, I could be wrong, but there needs to be an incentive to build in FB. T
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 01:08 pm "Those who do not want to fight, should not get to war level 3. They can play a peaceful game." Andy (Gamemaster) Thats group includes me.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 02:37 pm You should have to pay for WP...
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 06:27 pm Why cant we all just agree to four levels... 0 newbie and econ mode ... you cant be attacked, period (you can attack C3s) 1 to 2 are learning levels (fighting between 1s and 2s and C3s only) 3 war mode ... you're part of the warring class and can attack or be attacked by anyone else in this group so you better be in a fed before graduating from 2. WP should only be required above 0. Econ players are econ players and shouldnt be forced to pay even more than they already do. We buy our countries outright, which costs a hell of a lot more than taking them by force. I'm assuming even an idiot such as myself can take a C3 for 10T in war expenditures. I'll give myself a 100% cushion and say I'd need 20T. That's still 240 GC cheaper than buying it. So I can use all that extra coin to what? Pay for WP for more months than my membership? What's the difference? Except that W3C would make less money from me that way. Econ players already pay more...
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 06:51 pm GMs should also break up the War Level into its component parts: War Experience Index - measures your C3 wars for bonus purposes, and when you graduate to new War Level. War Level - indicates who can attack the country. (See post above.) This would solve most problems while allowing econ players to play and the GMs can continue adding C3 levels.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 07:56 pm Why cant we all just agree to four levels... 0 newbie and econ mode ... you cant be attacked, period (you can attack C3s) 1 to 2 are learning levels (fighting between 1s and 2s and C3s only) 3 war mode ... you're part of the warring class and can attack or be attacked by anyone else in this group so you better be in a fed before graduating from 2. WP should only be required above 0. That's pretty much what we've been asking for Goth, but players like maestro twist the fact and new players think the vets will beat them down or some BS
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 08:16 pm "Removing the war levels will allow players who do not dare to fight an experienced player to overrun new comers as happened before we had war levels, and chase these new players away. These were nonsense wars against hardly defended countries and players who did not have a clue yet about how it worked. They won great victories and took the assets." Andy (Gamemaster) If the gamemaster is saying this, why point the finger at me?
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 08:35 pm If anything players want a fair chance to war. Here's a honest compromise. This would effect Fearless Blue ONLY Fearless Blue What about when a player joins warring starts @ 1-7, but 0 still remains. When a player joins lets say they want to take a C3 to expand but that pushes them into level 1. The GM can re institute the old protection of giving them like 60days of protection. Even a disclaimer before they Join Fearless blue -(WARNING) Fearless blue is a war world. After taking there first(C3)nation, Players will have 60days to prepare after which time they are open to player attacks. WP is still an option after the 60protection but @ the cost of 2GC per 6game months That's not unfair. If you don't want ever war your fine don't war play econ and stay in level 0(that is your right). But i bet you money that if that happen FB population would spur. What about if the GM made it so each nation starts with 10T in cash(and to prevent people from taking a bunch of money raise the limit you can with drawl cash assets out to 10T). What about the starting pop on FB per nation is 20M. Starting on FB you get, 10T cash, 20M pop nation, and you have minimum 2months to build a nation(longer depending on how long you level 0)
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 09:16 pm @SuperSoldierRCP What I like about you super is you are an ideas factory. I don't always agree with you but do respect your effort. There is no need to lower the war level below 3 for any world including FB world. Many veterans have already stated it's simple to get to war level 3. You've read this and so has the gamemaster. So it's kind of pointless to push for a lower war level. It's not going to happen. An area to discuss is federation leveling. Keep the rules simple/stupid.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 09:25 pm Not to beat the point.... but thinking about this more, the more I come to realize the real issue is the double purpose assigned to the War Levels... measuring experience through C3 wars AND controlling who can war with who. These two things should be separated. In this way, you can have PvP wars for all war level 3s and up; and C3 wars are "training" sessions that a president who graduates to war level 3 must/needs to undertake to better his/her skills and gain war bonuses. Warring presidents will then be encouraged to seek higher levels for bonus and to compete with other war presidents.
| |
| Thursday, October 20, 2011 - 10:04 pm If there is one thing I have learned is that the GMS are as stubborn as I am. They want the War Levels. The lesson learned from the Implementation of the war levels is to not place so much emphasis on the chorus of cries for removing them now. Interesting note is that many players who now want war levels gone, were equally as vocal in bringing them about. Maybe one thing we all are not noticing is player retention as a result of the war levels. How many players got owned then quit after having their stuff trashed? How many are now exempt from that fate, and are still playing. My only problem with war levels is the far too easy abuse by multi-players, who would now keep extra accounts in war level -3 to protect said accounts.(Assuming people still multi-play). Maybe I'm getting away from the topic now. But that seems a good a point as any to monitor players playing under war level 0 more closely if not alter the scheme altogether. I still stand by the lack of action on FB shows this conversation is wholly unneeded at the present time. CC, I agree on your part you have passed many a n00b stomping opportunity, but not so much for others. Just saying...
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 01:37 am EC - your reputation as a war player of high standing is well documented. EC said to Maestro - "Your enthusiasm in this matter is appreciated, but stick to what you know....economics and war protection. I, as a war player, would not recommend that you, as an econ player, be quarantined to a one continent on a planet..." However EC - u can still war over the entire world, against players who are over level 3 I would enjoy trying a war against an experienced player - and not mind losing 1 robust country - in a FAIR fight. On a war continent. OR ALTERNATIVELY - allow players to take 1 country over Level 3 at a time It would take at least a year of war prep to survive a confrontation with an 'old' player with massive army like EC. I would learn from such a war. But its not worth losing 6 countries in one war. I'd rather stay level 0 & play the econ game and grow an empire into space for as much enjoyment.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:07 am Manchoo Foo, you can always fight a war against a vet for experience and just end the war when done, instead of taking the country.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:11 am Also don't forget the federations either, they're currently limited to 25 countries per fed, that limit should be repealed from the game too. The more friends you have in a federation, the more safer everyone will be by being in one, which means in return they'll be no need for war levels. One more thing, I think as soon as someone sets up a country on this game, I think messages should first be sent to him telling him the sheer importance by being in a federation.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:17 am The more friends you have in a federation, the more safer (sic) everyone be by being in one, which means in return that no one will dare start a war. Isn't that the problem right now?
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:18 am No James Feds should have limitations. There are already enough abuses of air defense from free accounts. Don't get us started.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:35 am No Wendy or whatever your name is, I don't think feds should have limitations it's so unrealistic, and what abuses of air defence from free accounts, what are you talking about you muppet? it's not like they're going to threaten you now are they? just let them be. and Tabula what do you mean by no one will dare to start a war? of course they'll always will be, especially amonst a big group of people, they'll always be one troublemaker that will start a war with another big fed then he'll drag all of his fed mates into it which in turn will cause war on a huge scale, possibly across the entire planet.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:41 am Game Stats: Number of countries by world: KB 3,061 FB 6,159 WG 6,376 GR 4,804 LU 3,467 ------ Total 23,867 Countries in Use 9,818 (41.14%) This means there are 14,049 C3's currently available. That's 58.86%. There's enough gravy in this turkey for all of us.... Econ and War Players. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:44 am fed limits should be left where they are. T
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:47 am Sorry Maestro but i'm starting to get tired of conquering Robot countries all the time, what we want is more realism to this game.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 02:58 am James the fair, you can declare war on anyone you want providing they are at the same war lvl, not in wp or not in secured mode.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 03:20 am Hey James, Maybe you should challenge Keto. Perhaps the whipping will give you some unmentionable pleasure. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 03:24 am Keto you can't declare war on anyone you like on this game, only those at the same war level just like you said, can't you see theres a lack of targets for us here? But I do acknowedge the fact of war protection on this game though.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 03:26 am I don't think so i've seen his huge empire, besides i'm already at war with 'Jungle Land' Maestro so theres no need.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 03:41 am (gatekeeper) hey i told u nation right (lostprophet) yea but ill have to make a new account for it (lostprophet) plus no offense but i kinda am not good at army tactics and am not good on fb (gatekeeper) will u got me n my parter in fb the united thrown of polar (gatekeeper) so if u start i got ur back on supplies (lostprophet) uggh idk ill have to keep up on 2 seperate accounts thats a bit much with school and all im only 15 (lostprophet) brb i have to go make another gmail account ave like so many of them I wonder how many mults used there accounts to vote no for the war level changes???
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 04:06 am Probularly a lot SuperSoldier it's a hell of a lot of votes against it, let me tell you, I voted for no war levels, people just need advising to be in large, strong federations in order to survive in this game, thats all.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 04:02 pm *Sighs* James refrain from name calling, if you have a point, then make it, if not just legitimize people ignoring you because if you don't know what I mean by free members and feds abusing air defense from free members than you aren't qualified to speak on this or any other number relevant subjects. If there is one thing that is certain, you my friend are the talking head, and nothing more. I know you're probably anxious to get into a war but with me it won't be one. You'll pull your hair and complain of me abusing the game. Accusations like these are how we got war levels, my son. Just stop. Or be a n00b and keep going. /ignore children. You don't have a clue I won't hold it against you for now. If I flattened your whole empire that would not be fun. Therefore my nukes are stored in a place where it would be more annoying for me to get them out to humble you into submission. I know you have some countries I don't think popping forts is in any way fun or worth my time. Like you. Stick to arguments refrain from hollow insults.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 04:41 pm I like the econ side of the game. I dont want to be forced to play the war side, or be punished economically by paying to not play the war side. Leave the level like it is, let the small players attack c3s and get ready, and the higher level players can smash each other. Opening up the hunting to new players will only strengthen the bigger, more aggressive players at the smallers' detriment. I personally dont like it, and vote no.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 04:59 pm "Therefore my nukes are stored in a place where it would be more annoying for me to get them out to humble you into submission. " Wendy: Remarks like this are why we needed you back. Thanks for bringing a chuckle to my morning.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 05:42 pm Half you lot get so disracted with things you know zip about. Small players rarely get bashed by vets, its not worth their while for one (no swag) and its asshat behave for two, which will get you bashed by other vets. Beside, its generally agreed that new players will still be protected unless they decide to go up war levels. So, there's no problem for econ players. There's no problem for newbies, there's not really a problem for ANYONE unless a bigish player decides to run his/her mouth and pisses others off. Hey, thats just like the real world. Go into a bar, sit with your mates minding your own business and its very unlikely you will be troubled... go in and start calling others dickheads and say you can beat them all up one hand tied behind your back...guess whats going to happen to you? All these arguements are moot anyway. SC will continue to die a slow death unless player interaction is raised. Simple as.
| |
| Friday, October 21, 2011 - 05:49 pm Yup, chat is dead. I agree with you CC. But I will say that many players will run off their mouths in chat and never understand the gravity of what they are getting into. I was no exception, I messed with arguably the best ever to play the war game and it was a hard and grueling road to travel, I never experienced a measure of personal success until i refrained from fighting. This is a hard thing to grasp. One positive part of the war levels is that players can take time to get the economic game and store some assets or build a base to undertake a few real wars. Months of ammo purchases and storage are lost in minutes in real wars and thus are not really productive in a any real way, unless we are raiding, period.
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 12:15 am I agree with CC and AC (can I call you that?). There needs to be more social interaction between players. The reason is simple: People like to know that there are other people who are playing who will actually be there to help them. Same as when someone calls an insurance call centre: you don't want to talk to a voice recording, you want to talk to a real person who can symphathise and understand. As soon as W3C understands this, they will see more players sticking around because players feel like they are part of a group or a community of people who share common goals. If you are to get anything out of this thread, get that^. Cheers, T
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 02:11 am Gotta say folks - i was going to pay for the game this week. Would have probably spent a couple of hundred quid to set myself up. However, with the crap thats going on here with econ players appearing to rule the roost, forget it. W3C - may i remind you that back in '08, I was spending that each month as i know others were. Look where your bread is buttered.....
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 05:31 am I agree with Tom. My countries make enough $$ that I can afford to aid new players with a Trillion here & there, but dont see that option. Would be fun to have a mentor program - also love to learn more about the game.
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 05:46 am Agreed! Emily. This would be a great option. Although, now that I think about it... Couldn't we just use Asset Packages to gift game money and gold coins directly to other players without any strings attatched?
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 06:00 am Yes thank you for saving me the post Gothamloki
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 06:53 am I wasn't really saying we need to give them money (although development aid could be a new feature of the game) but rather by Vets giving newbies tips and chatting them through stuff (on chat, for example). Maybe a possible criteria for reaching Game Level 3 would be joining a fed? It would go along way in helping player retention rates.
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 11:06 am when it comes to PVP I say 1 2 3 4 what are we fighting don't no don't give a damn back to Vietnam
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 11:56 am DO NOT TOUCH THE FEDS. That will be WORST then the war levels. How about econ players can send contracts till level 5? Feds are still somewhat beneficial even to the lower levels who are serious and looking to learn. I teach players who are level 1-2 that have REAL intent on becoming 3. The suggestion on making feds a level 3 is BS if anything a level 0-2 Shouldn't be ALLOWED to start there own fed but have the option to join if they are invited. The Fed chairmen should be ATLEAST level 3.(If there is non the fed closes and is disbanded) "Emily Foncque" Go to the chat. For everyone who says we need a mentorship program. You just need to go to the chat to teach news. I help lead a fed that teaches news all aspects of them game. I have personally helped more new players then you have prob talk to in your entire SC career. Every vet can say ive been doing it. A mentor ship would require that the GM pick the most exp people to teach otherwise you have people who don't know crap about war trying to give warring advice. The best way to fix most player via player is to add a new chat. I know people hate it but the chat needs to be open all the time it should be linked to SC(close the game you log off) Something like that.
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 11:57 am One thing the GM might want to look into. Cruise missiles/nukes/space weapons should be a war level 3 or higher (country made item) That might give war players something to do.
| |
| Saturday, October 22, 2011 - 12:47 pm @Supersoldier, Maybe doing a Facebook sort of thing where the chat box is always in the bottom right-hand corner. Cheers, your Innovative pal, T
| |
| Sunday, October 23, 2011 - 03:39 pm Forcing people into chat is not practical. It would give an automatic indicator of when a player is on/offline. Not the greatest idea when it comes to fighting a war! Besides, there are times when I just don't want to be in chat. Remove the war levels, it will force feds to have more interaction with each other and make it more critical for new players to join them. I personally found this quote quite funny and yet particularly insulting: "One thing the GM might want to look into. Cruise missiles/nukes/space weapons should be a war level 3 or higher (country made item) THAT MIGHT GIVE THE WAR PLAYERS SOMETHING TO DO." Yeah....making and selling weapons will completely distract us from the fact that you can't use them anyway....maybe if I just close my eyes and pretend I hear an explosion or smell napalm....uh....sure Over 100 comments in this thread and yet nothing from the GM's??? This issue isn't going away. Might as well deal with it. The war levels either need removed or seriously modified.
| |
| Sunday, October 23, 2011 - 04:40 pm Hey EC, Did you know that "Andy" is the GM? Seven down from the top. Tom is basking in the sun in Barcelona or there abouts. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 01:04 pm I was talking to some players earlier today and we had a GREAT talk about the war engine. One of those talks that everyone was nice and willing to listen, no fighting or debates. You know a moment where everyone came together and had nothing but the interest of the game @ heart. To be honest it was rather touching but to the real matter. During the talk we made ideas and came up with suggestion that might fix war issues or at least get this ball rolling. War levels would remain in place, Expect Fearless blue president warring starts @ war level 1 As stated before once they get to war level 1 the GM gives them 30days of war protection. This would give them enough time to find a fed and start buying weapons. During our talk we also agreed that on Fearless Blue if a nation started with -20M population -10T cash. -100 fortifications instead of the normal 20 -30 interceptors wings and 10 helicopter wings already pre-made( at 200Q ) that might would massively help news with building a def. Warring would still be an option econ players would have no worries as it wouldn't force them to join and they could go about playing econ. They can continue to buy nations and never be involved in the war game so they need not worry. Also before anyone joining Fearless blue there would be rules. -You must be a premium member.(this so they can get weapons is space/trade in space/and so theirs no unfair advantage over free vs paying players) -----and----- -A warning tab stating to all before they join Fearless blue. It would state "Fearless Blue is the war world. Once becoming a war level 1 you will receive 30days of provided War Protection after this 30days you will be able to be attacked by other Presidents. It is HIGHLY suggested that during this 30days you seek membership in a federation as well as work on both economic and military aspects. Before they continue and get there country make them check a box showing they agree.(so there's no complaining and it shows they understand the rules) Our reasoning behind all the added bonuses to the nations are simple. -The 20M population would be huge. That gives players (econ/war) alike a chance to start with somewhat high pop levels allowing many State/CEO corps to be present. If the player was to be lucky enough to have 25CEO corps in their starting nation that would be 50B + profit a month almost guaranteeing a positive income to start. This would also mean a lot of workers all the way around allowing them to start building there military/index's quickly. -10T cash is a very good suggestion. If the GM made it so that very nation on FB had to have minimum 10T in cash in order to receive game cash that would help this more. This would mean econ players would have an instant 10T to loan or invest in there nations index's. As for war players this would allow them to buy large amount of weapons from the get go. Even though its not much at least the 10T, plus 20M pop, and lets say a nation making 50B a month might be enough to get some new players warring over it. -100 Fortification does nothing but saves them cash and might discourage those looking for an easy kill. 100forts, plus lets say 20states, 20cities. Thats around 2T in just ammo to blow them up. You still need to strip there 40free air def wings they get. Those wings could easily kill 3K bombers plus if they have fed air that's almost 6K. Making it a total of around 3T worth of JUST bombers, If they at 250Q you've lost money. A player would spend more then 15T to make 10T or less making it unprofitable again helping to derail easy new kills plus keep in mind they would have a fed making it entirely un-worthwhile. Anyways sorry for the long post everyone but we had such a great chat and such positive discussion that i had to share. Hopefully we can all continue on the amazing brainstorming that we just finished in the chat and bring it here to this forum. To everyone who participated in chat you where wonderful.
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 03:55 pm There is no need to lower the war levels on any world. Every veteran knows it's easy to get to war level 3. (Wendy, Keto, Whiteboy, ...) What's needed is an update to federation rules and use of war peace. Yes war peace. When player wars return to the game, war peace use needs to be addressed. This was a huge part of the war level discussion. Levels 1 and 2 allow new players/econ players to dabble in war a little and take a few countries and still stay under the war radar. Some of these players will graduate and join the war player group while others will choose to stay under the radar at war level 2. Perhaps if all worlds were saturated with players I would bend on this opinion, but this is not the case. There are thousands of available free countries on every world. Again, there's enough gravy in this turkey for all of us. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 08:03 pm Meastro i respect your opinion as it your own. But feds don't needs more rules in fact they need more ways to support each other and less rules. As it is if a level 5 and 7 are in a fed and lets say a level 4or3 attack the level 5, the level 7 cant respond because their "to high". If North Korea attacked Japan the US wouldn't go "Well I'm a level 7 guess i cant help" They already to hard to use. Be nice if they had more ways to support beside fed air they should allow all defensive weapons to be shared. If i'm bordering my allies nation. I should not only provide air support but if i drop 30def missile division in his nation then all should support when they are attacked. War peace fix might be a nice idea. Instead of dropping a peace treaty on 2 nations it should be an empire ban. That might work so i will take that suggestion. -------------------------------------------------- Also i talked with Wendy last night and she also made a suggestion. If those rules where added and (even though no one wants to hear it) but if there was a blanket wipe of all war levels dropping everyone to level 0 as well with a GM message to every empire main on FB that would help the process then everyone who jumps to level 1 right after would show there intent on warring. This might spur some pots and get the balls arolling
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 09:59 pm Simple rule for federations (proposal) Join a federation and you are automatically at the war level on any world. You want to be in a federation, understand that you are part of a team. A team that's committed to protecting each other. Example: If a war level 2 player joins a federation, that players countries auto advance to level 3. You are now a war player. End of story. War level 3 should be the war level on all worlds. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 10:21 pm That's a really stupid idea. I'm sorry but the issue with that is so many NEWS make feds you know how many feds there are that having nothing but 0-2 levels in them? The largest noob fed (no offense to anyone in the fed is the Contunnium on LU) I have friends in that fed but only 2-3 out of the 30people in the fed are actually war level 3. Forcing people to jump up levels just by joinning a fed isn't fair. War levels "reflect" skill if a new wants a fed and jumps in and goes from 1-3 just by signing that's not fair to them in the least. Because the haven't learned anything new. Meastro why do you even bother ruining a nice topic? Can we get off your suggestions that are make the game more complicated and please make REAL suggestions.
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 11:03 pm I was not around before war llevels came in but from what i've read it was fun back then when politics had to be addressed, that said I am also glad that I was protected when I first started! I like the ideas regarding FB startup a couple of posts up, if implemented they may even tempt me to find a country there in the future. By then I would hope that I will have had enough experience and wealth to survive a new player surely has no chance there. I do believe that a higher level president should be able to assist a low level president in times of war (if in the same fed of course) and as I understand it this is not possible in the current system. A couple of suggestions that may work - or not. 1) Countries allowed to LOAN military assets to low level players - a limited number with some sort of method of reparation to whoever loads out the troops. 2) A kind of United Nations "peacekeeping" force for each Fed. All members MUST allocate a set % of their military assets to the force, the higher the level of the president the larger the commitment. Some sort of option to "invite" peacekeepers into attacked county. As i said earlier these ideas may not work, but feel free to comment
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 11:28 pm Complicated? The federation idea is simple. Join a federation and you are a war player.
| |
| Monday, October 24, 2011 - 11:47 pm "The largest noob fed (no offense to anyone in the fed is the Contunnium on LU) I have friends in that fed but only 2-3 out of the 30people in the fed are actually war level 3. Forcing people to jump up levels just by joinning a fed isn't fair."SuperSoldierRCP Let me understand correctly. This federation is 90% econ player? Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 02:21 am The issue is not that everyone joining a federation needs to be prepared for war, as that will kill federations further - no new players will join until they are ready, and how do you get them ready? By mentoring them. And the best way to mentor them? Have them join a federation with a whole bunch of supportive friends ... The issue is that federations can no longer support their fedmates, except through shared air defences. It was difficult enough before war levels for more experienced feds to protect their newer players. But now it's nigh-on impossible! The balance is settling at WL 3 for a reason. That is the WL that most people are signing up to, therefore, that is the level at which most people can / will war. Above level 3 there are few players to war against. Below level 3 you can't war. Easier to reduce your potential opponents? Yes. Promoting the war game? No. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 02:32 am 100% agree with Jo
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 03:11 am I like the idea of FB being all-out war for WL 1 and up. I hope the GM's will consider this as a good option for war players.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 06:29 am Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on FB. In the Top 100 by game rank War Level 7: 9 players War Level 6: 2 players War Level 5: 1 player War Level 4: 4 players War Level 3: 6 players War Level 2: 8 players War Level 1: 19 players War Level 0: 51 players Interesting statistic 22% of players at PVP war level (3,4,5,6,7) 78% of players below PVP war level (0,1,2)
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 06:42 am Perhaps the war continent idea isn't so bad after all.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 11:52 am Helps my point 1-7 PvP warring
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 12:15 pm No war levels on all worlds
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 12:52 pm All players have a secured main too. Not like anyones entire empire is at risk.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 04:48 pm @SuperSoldierRCP Did you read the statistic? It hurts your point. It helps the war continent idea. I say: Give the 22% a place to play war with each other. A war continent. And as some players from the 78% have said maybe they would put a country or two on the war continent and play with you. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 06:50 pm Meastro Your an idiot. War continent will not help. War Level 7: 9 players War Level 6: 2 players War Level 5: 1 player War Level 4: 4 players War Level 3: 6 players War Level 2: 8 players War Level 1: 19 players War Level 0: 51 players Opening 1-7 will give us a 51% of players on FB to teach intro to war. 51 lvl 0 on FB is BS
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 07:06 pm Correct me if I'm wrong but its called the war world right. It's not called the econ world. If u don't like it leave or stay under war Lvl 3. Stop trying to kill the war game.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 07:53 pm You pro don't get this but a continent wouldn't work. To many players in 1space = bad. Nuclear war/fallout means Consent loss of CEO/states Hard to run and econ. Low pop means not much can be done. Eventually the biggest players will rain supreme and again the same issues we have now. Several BIG EMPIRES will scare all the new small guys away. You want people to war give them more of a boost. Give the little guys a few extra T n weapons and that might pop them up to where they come seeking a teacher. Lets put all the War players on a continent. Anyone ever notice that every maestro comment is very Godwin law directed
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 08:00 pm When 78% of the top 100 players on a world are under War level 3, I find it hard to call that world a war world. Yes, FB is called the War World. But it's in name only. The reality is rather different. The numbers don't lie. The majority of FB players don't want to war vs other players. So it appears I am the only one to bring up a reasonable idea to spice things up. More PVP war for war players. Some limited PVP war for econ players. @Super - Leave the name calling for the playground. @SirSmokesAlot - Wouldn't a couple of PVP wars a month get your juices flowing again? Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 08:03 pm Then the GM should kick u off FB.(pay you for your assests then move on). There is no war levels in RL there is no WP in world. If wanna war go to FB if not pick on of the other end of story. You wanna play econ fine. Its called a CEO
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 08:40 pm Kicking 78% of the top 100 players off FB world. I'm on HOF leave so none of the top 100 is me. ...and ...There is no war peace on the War Continent.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 08:56 pm Putting all the warring players on one continent would deny one of the most interesting aspects of the tactical war game: making war on a country that is out of direct weapons range. Effectively it would be dumbing-down the war game, which I don't think anybody wants. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 09:37 pm @Jo Salkilld Thanks for the constructive feedback Not all countries will be in tactical range on the war continent. Perhaps if this is a major concern there should be 2 or 3 war continents.
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 09:42 pm @ that point y not make an econ continet
| |
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 10:03 pm Bottom line is alot of players are afraid to fight because they dont know how or they are afraid of losing assets. War continents will not fix the problem. FB is the war world and I can count on one hand the number of PvP wars there. I think because there are so many aspects of the game that players need to use GCs(space docks,purchasing products only available from space, etc.,buying population,monthly 30GC fee, etc. people are trying to make GCs rather than spend them for weapons to fight with. I believe the war game is dead except for the few who are at the same war lvl if they choose to fight. One suggestion, instead of winning a players country maybe the winner can receive 100GCs or something along those lines.
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 06:12 am After suffering this wholesomely pointless charade of altering yet again how this game works, the only solution is this. Put some effort into playing the game more. Place less effort into what you believe in your tiny hearts to be the ideal outcome for anyone but yourselves. If at the end of that pointless effort you feel as though this game as it is does not merit what your ideals are, quit. If they do, play. We are all here to enjoy and improve this game, but when the idea that is up for debate is another game altering implementation, you have overstepped your bounds. Make suggestions for improving the game. This is a discussion about changing it. It is pointless. You change anything at the risk of offending others and this model has to become completely unacceptable. You guys are wondering why the gm hasn't commented. But he has, several times and in several different places. War levels are here to stay. War level 3 on FB is fine and is yet another pointless change that will betray the building of those under level 3 for the few that have grown past level 3. This is unbalanced and again unnaceptable. Question. What will happen after all those under level 3 down to 1 are eaten? Will you then propose to make level 0's up for war? No, yes? It proves the pointlessness of making even that change. After that, then GR or WG should become like FB? Play the game, suggest improvement, not changes. War levels and c3 levels were added as an intended improvement. They have yet to improve in my opinion, but they have added a level of security that keeps players playing, and for that I thank you. However, many of you that had an all seeing eye and were instrumental in the addition of war levels are now here again. Wasting all our lives and the gms efforts, at the expense of others. It is selfish and rather redundant babbling. Now I demand you stop! Maybe I sound like an idiot, but that is how I feel. All this is hurting the game.
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 06:46 am I'm done with this thread. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 07:02 am Thank You Maestro, who else is done?
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 07:04 am Good now we may proceed with the war levels. Speaking of them does anyone notice how hard it is to move weapons when warring farther. The game has really pushed to land wars but its still hard to get units over longer distances(more resupply, more planning, more depots, ect) any chance the GM might give players who take C3 farther away more cash? Something and any news on these new war levels didn't we have 3 more coming?
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 07:10 am No, this is pointless and retarded, the whole thread should be locked and erased with the presence of game-preservation in mind. The only suggestion that matters is the one where we suggest that those unhappy with the game stop playing. Or keep playing. My suggestion, keep playing. Stop whining. Have fun. Stop crying. Love the game. Stop hating it.
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 07:11 am Oh, now who else is done?
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 07:48 am I have to agree with Appreciated Customer @maestro, glad you're done
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 02:34 pm @Super Then I can't be done until you and your war level group are done. My suggestion is only posted as an alternative to yours. Remove your war level change and I remove my alternative from discussion. And Wendy, thanks for the post. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 02:46 pm Perhaps a short message from the gamemaster on this thread. 1) War Levels are here to stay. 2) We have considered the war continent idea and for now decided to work on other game upgrades. Perhaps at a later time we will revisit it. It's possible in the future we will create a seperate continent for tournament purposes on each world. 3) Federations rules will be reviewed and upgraded as we see fit. 4) Use of War peace will be reviewed and upgraded as we see fit. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Wednesday, October 26, 2011 - 02:46 pm Wow, tons of argue here.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 12:41 am Wow....so just stop the discussion on the war levels? Why?? So we can get back to a strictly economic, one sided, shadow of its former self SimCountry? No thanks I'd rather argue about war levels than let SC fade away farther into economic oblivion.....Farmville if you will. And....to top it all off....I will never, ever, ever stop arguing that the war continent is a horrible idea...laughable almost to think about. If you can't see that it wouldn't work, you should have the war declaration button removed from your options list.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 01:47 am War continent is a horrible idea. I remember being promised a Battle Royale World with monthly resets. A buy-in from players of 15GC, a rake for Sim, and a prize pool winner take all for bragging rights and grudge matches. Sounds like an even better idea than it was when I first asked for it. The war levels are not the problem in any world. Presidents choose not to go up to level 3. They were given a choice, and it would be completely unjustified to betray the idea that they had a choice in the first place. When will your appetites be satisfied. Until we are back where we started? And c3s are being exploited? I mean, what after this and that and then back to this. The problem is that aligned groups refuse to divide and entertain one another. The best war players are already aligned. It would be irresponsible to throw the novice bunch at the lot of you. The problem is, we have a crisis of leadership. Not a crisis in the war game. The only people who are in crisis about the war game are those who selectively prey on the weak or logistically weak and make an easy score. Test your might against one another all ye warlords. Stop looking for pigs to a slaughter. That is the problem. The best in the game are aligned and this is the imbalance that is making the war game less enjoyable for other participators. Once this fact is realized, a sense futility sets in and people would rather not waste time on playing an unobtainable proposition. This isn't a discussion on War levels. To get at the root of your own problems you need to find out why people are making the choice not to move up and participate. If the conclusion is that more people would enjoy the clicks and the eco game, what logical argument could be used to justify removing a somewhat proven working model? As far as enjoyment is concerned for economic players, to the handful of players who want to play war.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 03:31 am If there was just a war on a "war continent" then much of the war planning and strategy players have developed would be lost and restricted. Players don't need a location to go to war, they can go to war anywhere, and that why I like it. A player's war ability is tested depending on how they adapt to different scenarios. I'm sure there'll be wars in the future as the GMs are pushing players down the War Level route. Even so, players can still hold tournaments in peaceful times. They could be organised now. For example: Agreed list of players and countries Cash handed into a central pot help by an umpire Agreed time limit Pot split based on number of countries each remaining player holds Tournaments in essence could be just as important as war, setting the "real" rankings. It would also be good practice and a real focal point for those bored with the concentration of many on the economic side. I'm, personally, not ready for war, but nonetheless, I'd be happy to put up a country anyway. It'd give me a chance to explore the war engine more fully. Of course, I'm only on LU.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 05:33 am I like these ideas, Wendy and David. It is fair to all players and gives balance to your risk and reward. Additionally, it would give players real experience in fighting. I know I would love to fight in a set up like that, where I could create a country just for the fight and then win or lose, it is all good to me. As far as WL showing what a person knows about war: Moving up WL does not prove anything about a player's war ability. Level 1 is no different than Level 6, in so far as what a player has to do to win. Level 6 just takes more of it than Level 1. I suppose level 7 requires a new skill since distance is involved. So once a player learns air transports (and maybe depots), then everything else is the same. In fact, I think level 7 is a little easier than level 6 as far as the fighting goes.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 01:27 pm Pah, it's an intrinsic part of the game to learn how to look after yourself. You do it by making allies and not pissing people off. It's always been the MOST IMPORTANT part of the game. You can be quiet and not get bothered, you can stick your neck out and play with the community. After all, it is a GAME. Nowadays we have the likes of Maestro2000 (yep, you're 11 years out of date maestro) yapping and annoying a large proportion of the members yet they can do it with impunity. Lots of posts ask for reality in the game, well...how is your personal reality? Do you not try to talk right to the right people? Do you not have friends? Do you expect to insult and threaten people and not get a reaction? more importantly, can you handle that reaction? There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way things were. Yes one or two people used the C3 strategy, but they were mostly dealt with by the community, there's only one player I know who had the temerity to carry it on. Honestly, if anything needed messing with that was the issue, the solution that was found (WLs) is cracking a nut with a sledge hammer. The whole nut is being smashed to bits and there's nothing left to eat and enjoy, (sorry about the poor analogy). Crafty
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 04:57 pm Lol cc, I found the analogy interesting.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 06:16 pm It's a good analogy Crafty But the reason the WLs came about was actually because a group of long-standing players, who had worked very hard for four years (in my case) NOT to piss people off, but to make friends and allies, were jumped on by another group of players, not because of a grudge or anything that was said or done, but purely for raiding purposes. Effectively, that strategy was dealt-with by the wider community, who let those doing the raiding know that their actions were not approved-of. In essence, two wars were fought - the military one and the social one - and each side won one of them. Unfortunately the outcry among the community was so great that the GMs responded with WLs which, IMHO, is exactly as you described it: a sledgehammer to crack a nut that, instead, pulverises it. But there were two aspects designed into WLs. The first was to promote the war game by giving players a chance to asset-raid through war and encouraging them to do so. This involves assigning players WLs, which will eventually be a crucial part of the levelling process, and giving them levels of C3s to raid which, as they get harder, yield more assets. I have no problem with that side of WLs and I see it as a positive for the game. But there is also a prevention aspect which is designed to stop players raiding each other - effectively to prevent what happened in the mob / WGC war. That is where the nut gets pulverised, IMHO. So the solution would be to keep WLs, so that the C3 aspect continues, but to remove the PvP restrictions by simplifying. For the sake of argument, WLs 0-2 can't engage in PvP war, and WLs 3 and above can. That protects the new players, re-engages feds in teaching and supporting each other and allows players like Maestro the option to remain secure by not rising above WL2 and selecting the peaceful option for levelling. More importantly, it resurrects the need to choose carefully how one interacts with the community. As you so rightly say, that has always been a crucial aspect of the game, and the player base is suffering from losing it. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 06:38 pm Well level 3 and above IS the way it is on FB. Anyone who wants to war can go there and do so. What is so restrictive about this? Nothing. All the players here on this thread, are on FB. Do you see even 10% of them playing war at all. No? What a coincidence. Raiding and inability to raid is driving this pointless conversation down a road that never ends. Why waste the gas. So, as it stands, anyone who wants to play war, can do so on FB. In essence the problem is already solved. So what is the gripe? Can't raid. Case closed. Anyone else done now?
| |
Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 09:00 pm
There's your answer Wendy. No way should this warring freedom apply to Fearless Blue only, its a game issue, all over, everyone, everywhere. And what argument is there against Jo's posted suggestion of the direction to go? The original war level idea suggested by a player was exactly that, just the GM 'tweaked' it a bit.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 09:29 pm Why not though? Because you all ran up the war levels without thinking that you might not be able to come down? Did you all want to be known as those in the highest echelon of the war game? Now you are, and you should have to live with it. In the same way those like Zentrino who inched above war level 3, accidentally, not intentionally. The change you imply should apply to all worlds was applied to FB because it is a war world, and that subtle change would make it so that FB would inch closer to living up to the description. FB is for the most part dead. No one is fighting. Maybe a select few. Why should the time be taken to change it everywhere? That is like asking for 2 new worlds while the existing 5 are barely full, no? CC what is wrong with anything is that you, or whoever desires a change, is that you or whomever isn't respecting the choices people made when they were given choices to make. If more people wanted to fight, they would move up in order to fight you. Instead you'd rather make them susceptible to poor choices from people when they decide they want others to fight to relieve them of their boredom, and that is assuming boredom is the problem. Which it is not. Any number of you could get together and entertain one another. You CHOOSE not to, the same way people CHOOSE not to move up the levels and fight. Why do you only wish to honor your own choices. This is quickly devolving into a selfish dialogue. Pointless and embarrassing. Not you CC, the conversation in general. It is so self serving in nature. Respect another player's right to choose. You cannot force the war game on people. We all see what happens when that is the option. They create another option, they leave.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 09:34 pm I say change FB first war level 1-7 can PvP war Level 0 is econ mode. If FB spurs we know what must be done and go from there
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 11:31 pm Again, my reckoning is not about wanting to fight. I would rather not to be honest, a click fest doesnt hold the interest it used to, and by no means do I need extra 'swag'. Its the whole player interaction issue, diplomacy and community. Saving the game.
| |
| Thursday, October 27, 2011 - 11:56 pm Supersoldier. you fought how many pvp wars b4 the change? and what, one gang bang since its inception? Yet you are an authority on war and how it should be? give it a rest. its already been said.... 99% of all war players are in bed together and wont fight each other, they look for easy targets..swag. They all fed up and shut up shop....these ppl have killed war.....and the many multi accounts that exist You can all deny the multi accounts till u blue in the face...they are there and not one thing is done about them
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 12:13 am Hey Yoda About time you joined this string. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 02:01 am wow, this thread is still going strong. question is, will the GMs listen?
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 02:48 am They(GM) read everything, duh winning... Do you suggest they become record players? They have said it over and over. War levels are here to stay. MoveOn.org
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 03:32 am Does anyone want to try David Walker's suggestion of a "war tournament" on FB? We could decide a date and enter a country, knowing that we would be attacked and we could attack. We can each put up some coins or something as loot for the winner. I would be game and would start building a war slave for that purpose. Anyone game for it?
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 03:57 am It'll be interesting to see how many come forwards to volunteer for war. If anyone fancies a tournament on LU, I'm in but I'm not FB.
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 04:21 am I would do LU too. Might be a little more challenging on LU with it being more crowded. Would add logistics as an element. As it is on FB, we have whole regions that are nearly empty. On LU, WL's may halt the plan too. On FB, you just have to be WL3 to play though.
| |
| Friday, October 28, 2011 - 05:32 am Holy crap...
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 03:07 am Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on WG. In the Top 100 by game rank War Level 7: 0 players War Level 6: 0 players War Level 5: 2 players War Level 4: 0 players War Level 3: 13 players War Level 2: 7 players War Level 1: 18 players War Level 0: 60 players Interesting statistic 15% of players at level 3 or higher 85% of players at level (0,1,2)
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 04:41 am Ya, its interesting. But if you countinue to not see the light, then your not as smart as i thought you where. "IF" you "HAD NO WL's" those people that are in the 85 percentile would be very involved in federations and the poltitics of the game making thing a lot more interesting then they are now. Are you even comprehending a single word that Crafty or I have said? Likly you do, but chose not to listen or even comment against it, because its true. I was involved in a very active federation, had meetings sold and bought stuff amongst ourselves.. etc. Most of our fed was not war ready, nor did they need to be. Even without wl's, things for the most part where peacful anyway. And having some of the most powerful war ready members in the fed was enough of a deterent for war. There where maybe 4 war ready members in the fed out of 15, and that was enough to keep things peacful. The point is, even with no wars, the threat of war kept players active and involved in there federations. Next time you decide to reply to this type of comment, or bring up that retarded war continent idea.. re read this, or any of crafty's comments, or anyone elses comment that is similar to this. Then continue to read it till you "GET IT".
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:06 am what wendy said; ----- 'The problem is, we have a crisis of leadership. Not a crisis in the war game. The only people who are in crisis about the war game are those who selectively prey on the weak or logistically weak and make an easy score. Test your might against one another all ye warlords. Stop looking for pigs to a slaughter.'
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:29 am As a newb, I'm getting trashed by a C3, and that's alright, I'm learning the game. I like the idea that everyone has said so far about federations. Federations should have their own war level, once that war level reaches 2 you can go to war. (I also agree with someone else's post about how after war level 2 you should be fair game (5 countries is more than enough imo already)) The idea of creating a federation war level, is it would require federations to have A. Some sort of Defense. B. A need a for war-countries. Consider the war countries like brawlers, where they can benefit from low common market supplies, while the econ countries benefit from the protection of the brawler countries. That's just my two cents so far, if I figure out more sometime I'll let ya know ^^
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:49 am Emily, dont know how long you played for, but Wendy was the worst one that prayed on the weak when WL's did not exist. No effence wendy.. its water under the bridge now.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:03 am Again, did you read my post? The simple threat of war held feds together. Now if your at wl0,1 or 2, you can just sit there. For ever if you wish. whats the point of being active in a fed? We had LONG topics on our fed forum about whos doing what, what fed if taking what countries, everyone keeping an eye on everyone. All the noobs where there dicusing stuff.. interested in the movments of other feds.. war players would either park a country near there new players or new players would park close to vets. And while they where partisipating on the forum, they sold or bought or traded, started a new topic, told jokes...ect Its not at all what you think. Wars happened then as offten as they did now. Only a few of the brief players, ones that didnt stick around that were not feded or had a small 2 or three person fed or didnt cared about econ fought each other. They never took on a feded country.. and if they did dec on one, they lost everything from the fed comming to there aide.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:49 am Federations need to be reinstalled as the centre of this game. I know most 'big' players on SC because they are either on chat or posting on the forums, but many new players, who don't understand how to play or are not confident to have a voice on the forums, just sit there struggling. I would say 1 in 50 players who start this game are active for more than 6 months, which is a shocking statistic. The main reason: THERE IS A MASSIVE LEARNING CURVE! Most new players don't survive the basics, let alone getting an 'adequate' grasp of the game. This is where Federations are important. I was lucky enough, when I began playing, to be recruited into an active and long-lasting fed which was willing to help me through my issues. As I became more confident with SC, I began to look around at the many features (like enterprises, chat and forums) this game maintains. I think Feds are the single most important factor in this game. I would say 9 out of 10 new players who are active for more than 3 months were members of federations from early on. In conclusion to my rant, it is quite obvious that Federations are vital for the upbringing of new players into the SimCountry community, and I highly recommend that the Game Masters do something (like incentives) to increase both the number of new feds being created and the membership numbers.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:09 am I see the light. The numbers don't lie. Currently, the majority of players are more interested in the econ side of the game. As a peaceful econ player, I'm looking forward to new upgrades in the game. Econ upgrades. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:24 am YES but no, you dont get it, read again. Then read it over and over. Until you say somting that makes sence, dont post. "Ya, its interesting. But if you countinue to not see the light, then your not as smart as i thought you where. "IF" you "HAD NO WL's" those people that are in the 85 percentile would be very involved in federations and the poltitics of the game making thing a lot more interesting then they are now" Lot more to that post, not sure if you read it, but not likly.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:47 am You can waste your time talking about lower war levels or you can invest your time in educating new players. Some will catch the fastball and others will quit. There are around 20 active players on this board. If each of you talked to 10 new players a week you will see a bunch of new war level three players in a real short time. I'd say you could add 100 a month.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 09:32 am As most of you can recall, without them, new and less experienced econ players were devoured without them. though many of you may have issues with certain aspects of the levels, they are a necessity. It isnt like several of us arent avaliable in chat, or even messaging our Main countries that look experienced, I myself, Supersoldier, CraftyCockney, Blueserpent, are always very helpful in teaching. thats what the chat is for, dont enter and demand answers, then leave and expect to just help yourself with war. I do believe however, war levels, (when the moment arises) will be changed to suit more of what the old war engine/strategy had. which was strong alliances, and Federations. if you're scared, just join a good fighters Fed. or if you're willing to learn, ask. I hated them at first but really, the community is growing alot recently, and if they were removed, alot of newer and non experienced war players and econ players, would be declared and ripped to shreds, forcing them to leave, causing what happened 2 years ago all over again..2 or 3 people in chat maximum at any given time, and little to no community growth. Changes will be made, but your demands and ' protests ' in my opinion, just puts a target on your back. Lol. Leave them as they are for now, their are much larger issues and glitches the developers need to worry with reguarding quality, and several other things. They improve the game to keep it fresh for us, just remember that. sometimes, they make us frustrated, but you either adapt, or leave. Simple as that. -WE
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 09:58 am Good point WildEyes and thankyou for getting involved in a topic which is obviously very important to us. What you said about changing the game to make it fresh- well I want to see W3C change some aspects of the social side of the game. Feds, chat and the forums all need upgrading. It's about time the GMs realised how important social interaction is to retaining and finding new players out there. Cheers, T
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:58 am Dont worry, see, what you don't grasp, is those changes are entirely up to the community. years ago, feds and allies and world wars, were what made legends, and stories, some are even on the simcountry wiki! if you'd like to read about it, but W3C themselves cannot make improvements to that aspect, until we ourselves, go back to that style of play. If that makes any sense..
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:59 am Wildeyes, and others, the War that happened 2 years ago, ONE single war caused all this? Of all the wars in the history of simcountry.. what makes this spectacular and enough to cause an all out change to everything? I was not involved, saw some forum talk about it, didnt realy give a shit, not on my planet, problem nor my busisness. I and others yelled about it from the start that wl's was wrong, everyone that played back then seem to forget what it was like. It was not brutal all out war, everyone was always very helpful, had or where involved in very active .Fed's where alot more active and war happened as much now as they before wls, realy no different then today, other then if you shoot your mouth off as a noob, you take advantage of being in constant WP, nothing can be done. Maestro for instance, he can shoot his mouth off all he wants knowing he is now in permanent WP. But i got to ask.. maestro, you where here before WL's, in all the years you played, did anyone dec on you?. SC chatter in live chat was reduced in those days because feds WHERE more active and talking on there own forums. Maestro, in the days befor WL's.. how many times where you exactly deced? TELL ME... wasnt bad huh? wasnt as brutal as you make it. What exactly is wrong with the system back then? I was very active, then one day see wl's in place.. somehow on a different site WL's was the discussion.. im gussing, cause sure as hell they weren't discussed here on the forum. Only long threads after they where implemented they where disscussed.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 11:08 am In my opinion, there is no larger glitch in the game currently. The quality issues are there, yes, but have 1/1000th the impact that the war levels have had. There needed to be a change to the war structure, but as Crafty stated quite brilliantly, it was like taking a sledgehammer and smashing a nut. Overkill. The pendulum has swung too far. I'm not happy about it, and if that means placing a target on my back, so be it I guess. It doesn't change the fact that the game is 1/2 of what it used to be. War is on life support and federations are useless currently. Simple as that
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 11:29 am Homer, you also if i remember, stuck mostly to GR. as your homeland right? and no, it wasn't one war, it was a series of pirating of new players, econ players, though I feel regret, even I took a few econ federations stripped them and then went back for more. it made for those who play for money and economic side, have to pay for WP which if you do the math out, WP = alot of your income back then, back when GC were 400B per coin. I mean, it got out of hand. War in general. DTA members of LU though awful fighters, would take anything with 25M pop, then debt bomb it by auto orders, then declare EO, myself, serpent, keto, WB, and EC aka "The Mob" just to realize they lost again. and go right back to killing innocent econ players. However, Ive mentioned it before, Maestro, and his yapping of war levels isn't really applicable. as you've yet to fight your way past your visa credit limit to buy what you have empire wise, sure you look "veteran" to new comers, and even "helpful." but why try to be involved in anything pressing the subject of war. Id be okay with an Idea iki-ryo had a few years back I'm sure LG would remember. designated some of the emptier areas of FB to training and teaching (she had her own region she invited new players that wanted to learn war) and war tested with them, hell even paid the war costs. then the rest of FB, no war level restriction at all. including maestro..which would probably just turn into alarich, clearly have all those assets, but would just delete his account before letting someone take it. Another thing, that anyone who is decent at war can tell you, and I quote Barney Rubble "You never become good at war, until some asshat takes everything including your main." WB, EO, myself, all lost our asses for a long time, but when we put it all together, and learned, (given they arent here anymore) but they were amoung the top ranked war players. and well respected, I admitiditly enjoyed destroying people like maestro because I simply hate Visa Card players. and easy targets, then well, I moved on to challenges... but back to the point, hell I think LM on FB has little to no players on it..designate that as a new war player region, have leaders and or war vets that are willing to train build a few good slaves there (these people being from all represented federations on FB which would also build back the federation game) have training wars where they walk through, etc..then gives them their losses. and do it again and again. Iki-ryo was by far one of the best women I'd ever met in this game. she helped all kinds, but also believed in having a war game and an econ game. (as she held war rank 1 2 and 3 and Finance rank 1 and 2 on FB for 5 straight real months on FB) she fedded herself, with helping new players. well, one player cant train everyone, each fed, each war vet has their own styles, for instance, me killing maestro, id just LBCM him so I could say I took them all in less than 2 hours. lol but, thats the point, thats WHY the leaving guide has MULTIPLE strategies, not just set 1 way of doing things. W3C noticed the losses of newly registered players (which homerdome GR by far became abandonded quickly) leaving what we refered to then as ' inactives ' for people to declare on...seriously, its easier than taking a c3, and almost like beating a dead person with a mallet..when if they were to learn it could have been a new fed mate or player to have around.. Yes I went off on several tangents in that, but I mean well. W3C cant fix everything with a few keystrokes, sometimes it takes initiative, I even asked jozi myself to start the beginners forum when it was put out, not even a day later, was full of bickering and drama. GR had GREF, WG had WGC those werent feds in my eyes, they were basically..well..conform or die. true federations had few more than 5 in them. with a few new comers as well to train to be in the fed. So we had Me, Sam Orbiter, LDI Jason, Slock, Barney mostly, Sam Barney and I and jason when he could on LU. 4 people...vs well, pretty much the world there. there isnt strength in numbers, WGC got beat by 4 players just a few months ago, I think 6 or so and a few more jumped in to help, took the largest fed in the history of the game, and lost I believe 1 c3 during, most didnt bother fighting back....so I guess you can call it one war homerdome if you like, but it was a huge series of wars and drama (as still continues with those few players that dont hardly play the game, just stay to cause drama and be disrespectful in chat and the forums.) I quit reading these forums mostly, nothing to read but drama. I have days of our lives and as the world turns on every afternoon for that stuff.. There. Im done ranting now. -Wild
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 02:19 pm Oh my god. Any more? This is entertaining.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 02:31 pm "As most of you can recall, without them, new and less experienced econ players were devoured without them. though many of you may have issues with certain aspects of the levels, they are a necessity." Wildeyes I agree.
| |
Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 02:51 pm
I agree.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:02 pm @ Crafty Lol Good spirit you have this morning.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 05:30 pm Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on GR. In the Top 100 by game rank War Level 7: 2 players War Level 6: 0 players War Level 5: 0 players War Level 4: 1 players War Level 3: 5 players War Level 2: 6 players War Level 1: 13 players War Level 0: 73 players Interesting statistic 8% of players at level 3 or higher 92% of players at level (0,1,2)
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:10 pm Ok, since we have seen it for the other worlds, I was curious about LU. Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on LU In the Top 100 by game rank: War Level 7: 3 players War Level 6: 1 players War Level 5: 1 players War Level 4: 3 players War Level 3: 18 players War Level 2: 11 players War Level 1: 14 players War Level 0: 49 players 26% at WL 3 or higher 74% at WL 2 or lower I should also note that if we looked at the top 75 players, then 32% are WL3 or higher. In the top 50, it climbs to 44% being at WL3 or higher. The players 51-100 had only 6 at WL3 and none higher than that. In contrast, 60% of the top 10 is WL3 or above, with two of the WL 7's in the top 10 and the only WL 6 is in the top 10.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:25 pm These stats are no indication of anything. It just reflects that people are using the war levels to satisfy the game level requirements, rather than the DI.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:42 pm ...and on GR world you CC are at war level 1. ...Keto a war veteran is parked at war level 2 ...and Jo S is parked at war level 2 All vocal players on this thread. The numbers don't lie.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 06:51 pm I think these numbers show that the more active a player, the more likely that player is to be higher ranked on WL. There were only 2 players above WL3 in the bottom 20 (81-100). Maestro has tried to show how few people play the war game. I was trying to show the more active players do play the war game.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:06 pm Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on KB. In the Top 100 by game rank War Level 7: 0 players War Level 6: 1 players War Level 5: 0 players War Level 4: 1 players War Level 3: 3 players War Level 2: 9 players War Level 1: 15 players War Level 0: 71 players Interesting statistic 5% of players at level 3 or higher 95% of players at level (0,1,2)
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:12 pm I retch every time I see this charade put on by the person currently calling him- or her- self "WildEyes". I knew WildEyes, I fought against WildEyes, and you, sir, are most definitely not the same WildEyes of LDI who was squeezed from the game for allegedly stomping on newbs and wrote the Leaving Guide on her way out. The original WildEyes said things like this: not so much like this:
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:18 pm Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on All worlds In the Top 100 by game rank KB: 95% of players at WL (0,1,2) GR: 92% of players ar WL (0,1,2) WG: 85% of players at WL (0,1,2) FB: 78% of players at WL (0,1,2) LU: 74% of players at WL (0,1,2) GR: 73% of players ar WL (0) KB: 71% of players at WL (0) WG: 60% of players at WL (0) FB: 51% of players at WL (0) LU: 49% of players at WL (0)
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:42 pm Maestro, in 3 hours I could have war rank 1, through 5 on GR. Thats why god made shuttles. Rankings matter? wow...I never thought they did. would you like me to shoot for HOF some more? cause it gets rather old. lol Im level 1, but Finance 1..  i suck.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:45 pm In response to keto: there is a HUGE difference between the repetition taking of c3's that dont shoot back, and someone with 3 countries all coming with different methods of fighting...c3s cant teach you that, you hafta train, hence why I still like IKIs idea, for a designated area for training new players.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 07:48 pm and @ Maestro about the continent Refer to my long post. shh. See before you were around we actually had ' un written' boundaries for instance, people knew where they shouldnt go unless they wanted to train or die... i mean usually a new neighbor before war levels ment, Im declaring..it before it builds up more, no worries anymore though. but the point is, players like you could learn warm and actually have fun, instead of constantly IPOing corps. I mean seriously, Ida quit week 1 if thats all I did here.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 08:07 pm Yes Maestro, because I use the DI to satisfy game level requirements. I have 3 countries on GR, plenty enough for me. Dont need to take on more C3s. You also forgot to mention I am war level 3 everywhere else. Half truths are as bad as lies. You become more an object of loath with every post you make.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 08:12 pm True dat Wildeyes, but again. Reality is that people should be able to choose when and where they want to fight. Once they jump above the level 3 threshold, fine. And another alternative to please some folks if w3c is in the business of people pleasing, Give them the change they want. Reset everyone to War Level 0. Change level 1 and above as fair game. Remove the c3s moving you up war levels automatically. Then everyone can stop crying(for a week) about level 3 being too restrictive. No one is abused by being thrown into the war arena. Zen can have his immunity back. And we can all live with the choices we will then make. Case closed. Honestly, war levels have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is that you people cannot live w3ith another persons choice to not want to fight. Remember when I would declare endlessly with c3s, many of you war players didn't think that was fun, because you couldn't turn it off when you were done fighting. I could go as long as I wanted. If that was a problem, I don't see how people declaring on levels 2 and 3 for your own enjoyment isn't a problem as well. But there is a "we all win" solution above. Reset, change the requirements and enjoy.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 08:32 pm You should all re-read my posts. Then read them again.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 08:43 pm @CC 92% of the players in the top ranking on GR are at level 0,1,2 and you are one of them. I fould this ironic. I noticed you were at war level 3 on KB today when I was doing that list. Only 5 players are 3 or higher on KB world in the top 100 list.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 08:54 pm @Wildeyes/CC Agreed the top 100 list isn't the full game picture but it's a good gauge of player interest. Currently player interest is blowing the econ way. I hope the gamemaster will take note of these statistic and put some more engineering hours into econ upgrades. And perhaps a war continent for us Econ players to play in. Cheers from New York City, Maestro
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 09:39 pm On the contrary, Jojo, days of our lives is a prime example of the construction and violation of inter-subjective structures every bit as silly as those that crop up in SC. Given the GM's propensity to change the mechanics of the game as of late, I find myself watching such drivel to maintain SANITY.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:01 pm Doesn't quite make sense.
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:18 pm ...are we comparing this thread to a soap opera?
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:51 pm Jojo, surely you don't really think she watches that crap >_>
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 10:54 pm This thread is a dead end. I started a thread "War on FB", check it out and see if it has any merit
| |
| Saturday, October 29, 2011 - 11:10 pm Sorry, didn't mean to distract. Personally, although I think p vs p and fed vs fed fighting is the best aspect of this game, I think that Maestro and Wendy/AC have some good points that can't be ignored.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 12:20 am Kolenski your thread is a dead end as well. Nice hijack though. Very valiant effort.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 04:59 am Let the thread die! Argue folks, argue. Haveing fun?
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 05:01 am Actually, keep this thread open to break the record.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 05:11 am Actually, I'm going to sincerely apologize to Kolenski. I mistakenly spoke too soon. Sorry Kol. Your ideas on putting this all back on track are right up my alley. What planets do you play on?
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 05:38 am Hey Appreciated Customer, did you get my apology?
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 05:59 am Ja, Kommandant
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 06:13 am Cool, thanks.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 09:09 am Thread dead. Unless Maestro decides to start harping on about 'continents' and 'wind blowing in favour of econ' psychcotic energy-drink-induced, profit-enhancing, econ propaganda. Oh, and this was all AFTER he has stated he will never post on this thread again. Again. Cheers, T
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 12:57 pm The numbers don't lie. If everyone else is done them I'm done as well. Cheers, Maestro
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 01:17 pm Hmmm....lets see...this is what was put up for public vote: It has become apparent that the 'failed experiment' that is the war levels has not only killed the war game but the community of SimCountry. IMO the war levels need to go. Doing so would revive the need for federations, bring in new players and boost the demand for weaponry (thus the world economy) in all of the worlds. Vote yes to revive the greatest game on earth! Vote No to see it slide further into the abyss. Result: 40 for 31 against I guess that means it passed THOSE numbers don't lie, and I'm not even close to being done with it Regards, EC
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 01:50 pm war level 1-7 can PvP war Level 0 is econ mode. Supersoldier's right everyone, but I think it should be applied to all worlds and this is probularly the closest thing we're going to get solving these silly war levels, only if the GM can even be bothered to acknowedge this. I say that once a level 0 (economic) player wins his first war, I think he should automatically be promoted to war level 1, then that way he will be forced to get into the real world and not escape the possibly of being attacked by another player of this game and not hiding behind closed doors for example, Like those large 10 country empires at war level 0 that can never be attacked just like what Maestro's empire is on little upsilon. It sounds like the war levels is a loophole for the rich rather than trying to protect beginners.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 06:41 pm Or we could make economic warfare easier. Like reduce sharply or eliminate the costs of buying/moving corps. Bringing back automatic IPOing of corps, (anyone remember when very sucessful corps IPOed themselves?), and other nefarious schemes that can be cooked up. Poor maestro wouldn't last long as he has made himself such a target. Respect for the community must be enforced now I believe, people are just too selfish nowadays to do it under their own morals.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 07:12 pm Kolenski..from the looks of where your putting your countries..your SC empire looks like a dead end. Just a waste of your time, and money. Why not at least learn how to sneak up on people you'd like to declare..instead of boldly just moving next door. Which I dont mind I've been sick for a while and am setting up finally anyway, but dont expect much from anything on LU, its war level 0 until I decide or see a reason for it not to be. so when you happen to look around and see, there is really nothing you can do but be my Mr rogers and wear sweater vests, your welcome to MSN me or msg me, and see just what is your deal, and what it is your after... and as for Crafty: I fully agree, since we cant really fight on any standpoint people like *cough* Maestro *cough* we should be able to have economic warfare brought back, and boycotts (reworked to be more severe and easier to accomplish) though a limit on debt bombs I still think is fair. I mean, if someone honestly looked at IPOs and how we have to do them, and how to cheat the system.. etc. Why not just make a page for it to be done on. Hell I've been waiting 3 years on a 34/0 vote on being able to transfer ALL products between your empire not just military up to the set limit, seriously, I have to first DT it to the country, then it pays money, then go back and transfer that money back (in theory), and CC I'd love to do the massive buyout thing we tried on wendy which sure gave her cash but wendy didn't we get like 30 corps or something out of your main in one swoop? It looked much better on paper though..I promise. Lol
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 07:13 pm insert random jojo comment here for my rambling and Mr. Rogers comparison. here.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 08:10 pm Hey everyone on this forum, go to the 'Block a User?' page on the 'help' section on this forum, maybe we can argue this war level thing even more and convince the gamemasters to alter this. Just remember we need to keep up the pressure on this debate.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 09:41 pm So much energy wasted on this discussion. Educate new players and you will see lots of war level 3+ players in the game. Then you can have lots of people to play war with. Have many raiding opportunities and go about complaining about the misuse of war peace. Cheers from New York City, Maestro
| |
Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 10:16 pm
Wow..... I've said the same thing of the new Josias, also believed to be played by that character{him or her}. Now we're talking I knew I wasn't the only one lol.
| |
| Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 10:44 pm i rest my case
| |
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 09:45 am ...
| |
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 12:24 pm im confused
| |
| Monday, April 9, 2018 - 12:43 am what a way to end one of the biggest threads I was quick scrolling looking for desireless which has a similar number comments and thought I'd give this a read. I'm sure I ignored this thread when it was posted because I probably thought this idea of stopping C3 warriors like 'The Queen of Battle' AKA 'Wendy' and 'me' who took on the strategy of my Queen, was a bad idea, but I understood why it should be implemented lol. You should have seen what the Queen could do with C3's against any Empire or Federation But I will now, with a cup of tea, read through the thread. Because I have a funny feeling that the reason why the game and forum is dead of hostility is because, give a capitalist a safe haven, they will take it? So in reality there are no players in the war game level other than us who were already warring before the war levels were implemented?
| |
| Monday, April 9, 2018 - 01:01 am I remember when I first joined the game. I was scrolling around the world I was on and I saw..no names mentioned...robbing those who built up their countries economically, but due to the hit on the bottom line due to building a defense, did not invest in defenses. Greed and complacency is what made SimCountry what it was...A simulation of reality....but have these safe zones stopped SimCountry from being a simulation of reality?
| |
| Monday, April 9, 2018 - 01:10 am http://mothernature.cloud/
| |
| Monday, April 9, 2018 - 02:11 am This game was "dead" long before any war level was implemented. more i realized it this game had life as far until the only players who gave it life; took it. Just all in times sake can't make players stay even if they have half a quad-trillion.
| |
| Monday, April 9, 2018 - 02:21 am Hello Sheepman I wouldn't say the game is dead. Only the hostility within the game. Even though someone went to war with my countries on FB in January of last year while I was away...So there is some hostility in the game If anyone knows who they were I'd like to know...maybe a reward would be given for non fake news
|
