 |
|
|
|
Monday, November 21, 2011 - 01:07 am  Country levels can decay based on criteria. Why don't war levels over time? If its been tons of RL time between wars why do I have to hover at 2 instead of going down to 1 or 0?
| |
| Monday, November 21, 2011 - 02:14 am Because Elavia doesn't play anymore :'(
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 09:28 am Simcountry Introduction Introduction There are 5 worlds and using space ships, you can travel between them, move products and trade them, store weapon and ammunition on space stations and use them later if needed. Taking care of your empire requires a good strategy and sometimes decisive action. Fearless Blue is a War world where peaceful presidents are not welcome. There is less protection for your assets.
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 04:34 pm Thank you for your insightful cut and paste. Not a bit of it explains why one level type can decay and not another but thanks anyways for the tremendous thought and effort you put into that.
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 06:14 pm War level are a result of war experience and knowledge of the war game. the knowledge does not decay. game levels show your current status in the game and having a high game level will result in a high ranking in the game and may earn you gold coin awards. this should not be based on what you did some time ago but must depend on your current position in the game.
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 09:20 pm War levels increase from War level 0 meaning if you start brand new on a world since the war levels were introuduced you would be a level 0 on all worlds. if you have not had a war since the changes, and show up back at an old country you were on, you can simply ask the GM's to reset it, but even if you declare a c3 before requesting this, it will be denied. for example: I used to war Alot on LU and GR, but when war levels were introudced they allowed me to reset both of them.  Though I still think they're should not even be war levels on FB. It's Fearless Blue - The World War. Not the "Fearless Blue My name is Maestro and I'm war level 0 and own all of your economy" FB has never been about economy. the economy was, well.. War. it seems, the ideals of FB got lost with the war level concept, though the any war level about 3 is an improvement, but I'd like to help 0 levels like Wendy actually did on LU with jackseptic on LU and just setup a basic war slave that fights back, unlike the C3's which I could take blindfolded while not even facing the computer., it gives them what real war is, its not a punching bag that way and also induces constructive learning. and cognitive thought not just a standard I need this to take this..click click click got it. Originality, now that's a concept. Wendy, whom we just have an agreement, and a respect for each other as much as I hate her war style, its part of it, she can use c3's to make your life hell. She perhaps could be the best teacher for new players and strategies, to working with what you have to always come out on top.
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 10:08 pm i gotta agreed FB needs no war levels If they going to stay it should be. 1-7 PvP warring, once you it level 1 you have 30days to prep for war and apown becoming war level one you FB nation should be gifted with 15T cash to promote you to buy weapons. All nations should be 20M in size, and your main starting nation should begin with 100forts. ----------Past memories----------- I first joined FB back before the war levels. I remember meeting smokes and him pointing me to some feds. I remember asking serpent, keto, budman for help asking to be in feds hoping to learn. After my protection i was attacked i built a 30M pop nation and it was taken. I was kicked off FB. Did i give up no. 2years have passed and im a very successful player on SC. My account is several Q in size and im by far no "Vet" but i know im close or on my way. I think the GM forgets that being able to be decced as a new has a massive effect on the game. Being decced half the time doesnt mean you have to war. JeffCD, Serpent, Blueserpent. I have been decced by these players but never fired a shot. Why? Because i talked to them and cleared the air before the war even started. Half the wars in SC where talked out before they fought. Players would dec and then realized the defender had a lot more players backing him then they originally thought calling off the attack. Being able to PvP was a new ment alot to. As a new i was told. It only takes once for you watch a nation(s) you worked so hard to build be taken from you in war. Ive been decced, i've decced, and ive taken/lost nations. Makes you stronger as a player. Ive had nations taken from me but i was given GC n cash back even though i lost. Some players would even get there nations back. This built bonds between players and created freinds/allys. That's how the old SC was. Sure you had some people beat off news but again did they last long? The biggest way to make friends/enemies was though war. Plus when news(myself included) ran are mouths being asshats what happened. We where decced even though we never had to fought we learned. To Put up or Shut up. I beg the GM take the memories of old and let us relieve them. Even if its on one world. I beat money that in a small time FB will become massively populated Heres some "Honest" suggestions -1-7 PvP on FB -All nations start with 20M pop(bought as a C3 or taken in war) -All Mains(leaders) starting nations begin with 100forts -After you become war level 1 you are gifted 15T cash(so people can buy weapons) -War Protection become all nation or no nation basis -I would like to even throw in a new rule. To dec or be decced a nation must have 30M population in it. That's another new player bonus. Meaning that if the nation has under 30M pop it cant be attacked/attack. This again only give the person more time to make a nation and to build a military.(this alone should allow the lowering of the levels). This means a player reguardless of war levels would have time to build a nation with a good econ and have time to buy weapons to go from 20M pop to 30M @ 15K growth per month = 3 REAL months(55 game years) to build up. Anyways I hope the GM reads this and takes it to heart and since im in a relaxed and honest mood. I wanna thank some people. Smokes, Blue, Serpent, Scarlet, Wild, Keto, Budman, Wendy. To the vets who taught me so much and listen to my crazy babble the last 2 years. cheers to you my freinds... Thanks for all your help and making this noob a devoted player of SC.
| |
| Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 10:58 pm Didn't I call it from the rooftops. Nothing will ever satisfy you asset raiders. You wanted war levels, you got it. You wanted War level changes, you got it. And now you want more? What after they give that? And after that? How about after than. And even then, after that; then what? For the record, I don't want to make anyone's life 'hell' with any style of game play. It could be argued that having to play in fear of being asset raided from an experienced vet, and/or group of players looking to have a lul could be characterized in the same way. What I did was to be left alone, and make a point, I won't be trampled, silenced on a forum or bullied in the game simply based on your number of players allied with you and/or how many assets you have. Why take the balance of the game away? You all group up, and put up tons of air defense that it would be plain wasteful to try and take down, and smaller players have an effective deterrence against hyper active groups of players. Now without naming names. It is increasingly evident that the push here and previously elsewhere is just a means to get back to the days where you could just pillage an asset rich player like alarich based on pitiful excuses or justification. Give it a rest already. War levels have done two things here that will inevitably lead to the enjoyment of players on both sides of this field. War levels protect players who don't want to play your game from yous and the groups of yous. They also protect yous and the groups of yous who don't wish to play my game from me. A unexpected fair and balanced system it seems has emerged. Nothing needs be changed here. And if we could quit crying until everything about the game is like 'have it your way'; people would enjoy more of the game and play and plan as if we know what will be happening tomorrow and all the incessant whining could stop. SC player0base is becoming worse than adolescent children, not knowing what you want from one moment to the next. I don't know what you all hope to achieve but it is clear you need to add another game to one(s) you play to get all your satisfaction.
| |
Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 04:05 am
Agreed, they do. That's a good thing, in my opinion, on the non-war worlds, and a bad thing on the war world. There are better ways to protect new players on FB, and in my opinion people who have no intention of playing the war game, at least by defending against it, shouldn't set up on FB, and the rules should disincentivize doing so. Maybe from you, specifically, but not from others who wish to play the c3 harrassment style of play, which other players adopted in the past and easily could again. A player of any war level can pay for war protection for their well-stocked main, then take c3s and declare war ad nauseum on other players with their cheap c3s, essentially risking little, annoying anyone they wish, and occasionally picking up goodies when a player gets tired of defending his stuff around the clock. I have no interest in playing the war game until this issue is addressed. And if anyone decs on me, I will pursue this strategy against them. I don't think the GMs understand how important this issue is, not does anyone who hasn't had someone employing it against them.
| |
| Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 07:48 am Well stated Jojo.
| |
Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 04:28 pm
To sum this answer all up in a word: Impossible. This is why we have war levels...
Why thank You Wildeyes
| |
| Thursday, November 24, 2011 - 04:51 pm And Jojo, you stating you do not wish to play the war game until this is addressed solves half the problem already. This issue was addressed and I'm pretty sure you were in on the conversation that led to the current system of war levels, which did in fact, address the situation. You are threatening to take your ball and go in the house instead of letting everyone else play because you cannot get your way? How surprisingly juvenile from a player of your stature. Unbelievable. I remember many a brilliant economic player being banned for stomping their feet a little too loud, or leaving the game of their own accord for presenting a sentiment similar to yours, 'my way or the highway'. If the same professional stance were taken when you all whined your way into war levels, we wouldn't have war levels, nor this resounding chorus of dissatisfied players. You all made choices on that thread and threatened to leave if not addressed then. W3c did address the issue, and they let you 'have it your way'. The shockingly abusive attitude of change this or that, Or, I'm leaving/won't play/blah blah should serve as a wake-up to w3. You can give every change these players want and they would never be satisfied. Laguna once told me in IRC when I 'suggested' something that would be so great, that it simply won't happen. On the surface, the suggestion was practically a win. But he explained to me it isn't about what can be calculated, it is what will happen as a result of the proposed change that couldn't be calculated that was the problem. Therefore the best course of action was to avoid the change altogether. If w3c could have calculated the response here in regards to war levels we wouldn't have them. But they implemented them anyway, with the regard to the 'feelings' of most of the players involved, and they did so with their best foot forward. If this isn't a reason to shut you all out and ignore this rhetorical vomit, I'm afraid we'll improve the game towards an even more disastrous track than some players have helped us to move toward. Do you guys come here, play here, and continue to play this game because it caters to your every need, or because you liked the game you started playing? This isn't your game. We will find that less and less players want to play a game heavy on 'player-suggestions' and instead more will wish to play the game based on what was here when we joined. It is time we leave the game planning to those with a proven track record of planning successful games. If we follow this model, the game will become more enjoyable for everyone. The reality is with every change there will be an added cost, and benefit. If more players were all warm inside and practiced the golden rule, we wouldn't need war protection, war levels, or secured mode, nor federations. But these protections are in place now because of the increasing number of yous, and groups of yous(no one in particular but these people know who they are.)
| |
| Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 08:22 am No, it's not impossible. It's possible, as I described above.
That doesn't even make sense.
Here are some interesting threads from summer 2010: The problem and solution to C3 Warriors War Protection Topic Change: New Idea for C3 Warfare Here's where War Levels are announced. The stated purpose was to eliminate bullying of weaker players by stronger players. I believe that has been a success. But it was not intended to do anything about c3-based harassment. War Missions and war levels
Huh? Not my ball. And it's not a threat...I haven't been playing the war game for over two years. Not interested. May be if it's fixed. Everyone else is free to play, though once in a while I glance out the window, and I don't see much of a ballgame going on. I guess I see what you're saying...you think it would be un ethical for me to play the way you used to play. Maybe you think I should tie myself in knots over that dilemma. What's your beef with war levels anyway? They prevent big players from ganging up and stomping on smaller ones, so that should be a blessing to you, the everpresent victim. Now you can hang out in war level 1 or whatever, and have some peace. Oh, wait, I see...they prevent YOU from raiding noobs! That's why it's "impossible" to play your old game. You can't raid the low level players on shabby pretexts any more! When you say "these people know who they are", you're not kidding! Laguna's point about unintended consequences is worth keeping in mind, but it doesn't follow that there should be no change ever. Anyway, change is going to happen in this game, like it or not. That's part of the game, the perpetual changes (cf Heraclitus). Woof woof.
| |
| Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 08:26 am I forgot about this! https://www.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/discus/board-auth.cgi?file=/1/15424.html&lm=1282092958
| |
Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 10:13 am
Jojo, are you implying that I am jumping up and down and whining for war levels to go away If you read more than the threads you litter you would know the opposite to be true. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. There was nothing in my post up there that wasn't clear. I was against war levels from the start, still am. What I am growing tired of is players making suggestions and then pout like children when it doesn't get implemented. The poor threat you typed, and many statements like it, were what got w3c to put war levels in the game. I have no problem raiding inactive players at my war level, so I don't really get where you were trying to go with that. Maybe you were a little flustered. I'll give you a chance to prove it if you'd like later in this post. The fact remains that despite your delusional conclusions about how much I don't like them, I have not cared for them to be changed, especially not more than I would like to see the game remain steady. To clear up your confusion
If you choose not to play the war game then no change is needed. I would like to, could you give me an example of when I raided a n00b. Show us how full of it you really are. I'll go first. I remember 3m raided some kid named Whiteboy. As his countries were being taken, I remember him stating something about something being "Immoral". Okay now you try.
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 05:04 am Are you the Witchypoo from HRPuffnstuff? That was one strange show.
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 05:45 am I don't think so. One can never be %100 sure about anything though....
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 07:26 am Well I hope not. BTW, I like that phrase "delusional conclusions". Why is it so important to see the game remain steady?
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 10:43 am i like jozi's old answer... "[16:47] [@Jozi] we can take some time and discuss on the forum but everyone should realize that too much war protection is diminishing the war game." War levels are what exactly?
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 11:04 am @Jojo Stability is what retains players. No doubt w3c may have scored a bunch of new players but have gained that in exchange for a loss of likely %80 of the knowledgeable player-base. I don't see how substituting long-term players with free accounts and a few new members that quit, ever becomes a working business model.
| |
| Monday, November 28, 2011 - 12:33 pm I have been playing for 3 years now, and I really don't want any more changes. I prefer to dance with the gal I started with.
|
