| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:51 am 
So for some time now, I was regretting crossing that WL3 status. I mean I did it a week into playing and since I was there I of course had taken advantage of it. However it didn't take long to find this to be a magical leap in which I didn't truly understand until a couple months into the game.
There really should not be a point of no return like this. Finally that issue has come up. I have a War Dec from a player I should have no chance in defending against. Partially because I've never PVP'd but probably more is that the player is Sweetpea/Psycho Honey/Wendy/Victim herself.
This thread isn't supposed to be some plea or anything. I just find it disturbing that the war levels are placed to defend people, but staying a WL3 instead of climbing the ladder will allow you to decimate anyone WL3-WL5, with increased WL's C3 costs going higher and higher there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit from ascending into the higher war levels, so why not stay WL3?
I think the WL's can't be so voluntary. If you fight enough wars, then you should be forced away from those who haven't. So to get to WL1, you need to win a war. To get to WL2 you need to win enough wars. WL3 I think I did voluntary so I don't know, but it should also be fight enough wars, WL4 fight enough wars...
This is not the ideal solution, but really WL's do little to defend players. |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:26 am
Wow... talk about crying wolf. |
| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:30 am
No I saw this kind of thing as a possibility. Your reputation is intimidating so... How should I react? |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:34 am
No it isn't. You are totally overreacting. But I like it. I'll play along. |
| Josias | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 10:04 am
... |
| Stephen Ryan | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 11:49 am
This action isnt authorised by the NLUO regards steve |
| Gaz | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 07:09 pm
Steve I think were gonna see that statement you made alot  |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 07:30 pm
What action, and on what planet? |
| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 07:38 pm
@ Gaz - lol
@ Steve - this situation is on a different world anyways, it shouldn't be regarded as so.
@ Wendy - Don't hijack my thread. The Telos of WL is keep people like you away from people like me, it doesn't do that. WL's piss people off routinely given the forum exchanges, and I think it fails it's purpose. This situation is lame for me, but this thread is for letting Andy know that he should find another way to do things on the war engine. At the very least find some way to exit the War Game with a suitable punishment for doing so that is unexploitable for war players to change their War Level down to take out lesser opponents.
If you want to discuss our direct warring or pre-warring the thread started by Wendy in opposition to Steve in which she charges him with pretty much the exact same thing she's doing here is probably a better place. This is just a suggestion that because of situation figured required a touch more urgency. Because pending the outcome I won't be around very much longer. |
| Josias | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 07:42 pm
its been suggested here and there, that as players fight players, they should go up in levels.
similar to the first few war levels. first c3 puts you at wl1. why can't after take over, say 5 player countries, can't it move you up one level?
ofcourse their should be a limit, but hyper-aggressive players should be forced up to wl6-7 so that the low level war players, are just that, low level, or low agression
but sincerely, drew is right. what the point of WLs when players have to go way up, to be safe? it kinda defeats the purpose. |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:06 pm
@ Wendy - Don't hijack my thread. The Telos of WL is keep people like you away from people like me, it doesn't do that. WL's piss people off routinely given the forum exchanges, and I think it fails it's purpose. This situation is lame for me, but this thread is for letting Andy know that he should find another way to do things on the war engine. At the very least find some way to exit the War Game with a suitable punishment for doing so that is unexploitable for war players to change their War Level down to take out lesser opponents.
__________________________________
Did you really say don't hijack your thread? LMAO wow this guy man. I admire your audacity. |
| King Hezekiah II | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:11 pm
Wow. Now I am going to say that this should have been in the suggestion section of the forum. But I am sure Drew put this in the general forum the same reason why I put my threads in this General section, because everyone will read it.
Funny.... |
| Crafty | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:12 pm
Am I wrong or doesn't your WL automatically increase with the amount of C3s you take. I know you have a choice of going up or not for a few C3s but I thought you went up like it or not after a certain number. From what I see, PvP is always preceded by the taking of C3s.
WLs are meant to be a reflection of your warring ability aren't they? |
| King Hezekiah II | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:14 pm
Secretary Ryan is a tough, stand up person. I admire that. Cheers Mr. Secretary.
P.S. I am sure if you know the guy, it was halfway sarcastic when he said that. I said HALFWAY.. lol... |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:15 pm
Right on Hezekiah.
And Drew, I never exploited my war level to come down. Your pals JackSeptic and Super actually petitioned Andy to implement a mechanism that would allow players to do exactly that. You are in a fed with Jack, I find that contradiction out of this world, from GR to LU and back again. Wowsers. |
| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:18 pm
@crafty - No it doesn't it brings you to WL3, but not any higher |
| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:21 pm
I don't think they should be allowed that ability either, I don't know exactly what they should do about it. But i got to WL3 really quick, and i have no way to return |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:43 pm
Quote:but sincerely, drew is right. what the point of WLs when players have to go way up, to be safe? it kinda defeats the purpose.
You don't have to go up, you chose to. At some point, we as players need to be responsible for our actions and especially the choices we make. I have had to face the consequence of every choice I made and I started this game without war Levels. I came in when n00b bashing was the thing to do, but I never cried to the gm for anything. I just played the game. And never started over once, nor cried for them to change each and every little thing to suit my every whim.
It is amazing to see Orbiter out here again, playing the sweetheart, like he wasn't a part of that super raid on WG that exploited the newly implemented space game to drop armies from the sky with no warning on a fed of unsuspecting n00bs...all while declining a fair 5 vs 5 match to settle the score. no, they preferred raiding the n00bs, now he suddenly has a conscious. R
Remember that poop, and never stinking analogy form our earlier conversation, here it is again front and center.
Now /enter the saint. What other wisdom will you share with us with your tender sincerity in mind. Please, do share, don't be shy now. |
| Drew | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:50 pm
As crafty put it WL's are to protect the noob you could have done this in my first month of playing |
| Mizore | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 08:52 pm
Ignoring the fact that I'd rather there not be war levels. I think war levels should have been, if anything, a dynamic value based on absolute factors such as total population of the empire and total military indexes of the empire that can move up or down based on capability to fight.
Like for example:
E = Empire Population
D = Sum of Defensive Index in all countries
O = Sum of Offensive Index in all countries
War Level = SQRT(((E / 1,000,000) + D + O)/100)
This is just an example. |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:03 pm
should have, could have, would have.
War levels should stay exactly the way they are now.
Changing them has never solved anything.
They always want more, you always want more. It is all stupid and we end up at the same result. |
| Mizore | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:06 pm
Read. |
| Crafty | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:09 pm
All games, all governments, all businesses, everywhere where there is someone in charge, there are people making suggestions on ways they think the 'game' could be run better. Who can honestly say they didn't change the rules or make rules up when playing Monopoly or Scrabble. This is generally encouraged by most bosses, leaders whatever.
This is not the only online game I have played and there has always been player feedback, most of it crap, a little of it good, but it is always encouraged.
Why should Simcountry be any different? |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 20, 2012 - 09:24 pm
This isn't feedback.
Drew, (in a fed with Keto, JackSeptic and Serpent I believe on GR) wanted to nuke some guy over a share transaction. boasting about it all night in chat, getting all the pointers from his allies. It was great.
Drew did something very similar to me a while back and I let it go. I felt like he was about to be an ass because of the backup he has, so I declared war on him. Suddenly he is a victim.
This is all a show, I decd him with a single c3, he has 9 countries. Comon. War levels need to be changed for this?
Tweedle1, Tweedle2, and Tweedle3 all parroting each other like the other unrelated threads. Some coincidence huh? |
| Drew | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 06:24 am
I remain vigilant that this suggestion is not to gather sympathy, but it is a suggestion based on a circumstance that I am currently undergoing. Your ability to war me, your ability to use the space station to pull in your army from other worlds is a situation that I could not overcome if you decided to put the effort in. Because you have the ability to do so if you really wanted to, it completely trumps the validity of War Levels. If this can be prevented in a way that seems like it will actually prevent this from happening to others I'm going to support it. If Andy gets to it submits a valid suggestion to the devs and the change it will be way too late for me anyways. This situation is obviously a real situation. IF you tried in this war, war levels do not matter one bit. |
| Keto | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 01:55 pm
Ummm Sweetpea,
"Drew, (in a fed with Keto, JackSeptic and Serpent I believe on GR) wanted to nuke some guy over a share transaction. boasting about it all night in chat, getting all the pointers from his allies. It was great."
I was not in chat that night so I would appreciate you didn't use my name. |
| Crafty | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 05:43 pm
Ok, it isn't feedback, it's a suggestion. Sorry about the poor choice of word. But picking that minor point up does not alter the observation in my comment. It should not be used as a way to divert from the topic, that is very poor debate. And how come you didnt dec Drew when he attempted something similar with you, but waited until a situation that has nothing to do with you? But that's not my business, it just seems odd to me.
People should propose changes, good things have come of it as have bad. I know, I have proposed positive things that have been implemented to the games benefit, a couple that were in fact appreciated by the GM where they hadnt thought of it.
But yes, I agree with Hez that this really should have been put in suggestions Drew, how can anyone critisise his posts as spam when everyone else does it. I may sound like I have my finger up my arse, but there's good reason why there are different forums for different topics. |
| Mizore | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 05:50 pm
IMO, Drew barely suggested anything. The difference between "this sucks, it needs to change" and "this sucks, this is my proposed change" is relevant here. Bitching about the existing system and things unrelated to the game is what the general forum is for. |
| Crafty | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 05:57 pm
Drew:
Quote:This is not the ideal solution, but really WL's do little to defend players.
Surely this means something has been suggested as a solution, albeit not ideal says the OP.
Something being suggested would belong in the suggestion forum would it not? |
| Mizore | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 06:03 pm
Well, that was my opinion and why I didn't tell him to move it to suggestions. I would have if I took this as him actually suggesting something instead of just complaining about the current system. |
| Drew | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 08:04 pm
Well I think it can easily go in the suggestion forum, but it isn't a concrete suggestion either. So before I more informed suggestion can be given some dialogue is probably needed. I think that can somewhat justify the location of the thread.
So I guess because of that, someone can follow respond, and once they see a solution post a real suggestion in the suggestion forum or Polling after they have looked at it from all sides and have a proposed idea instead of just a shell of an idea which is here. |
| Crafty | Friday, December 21, 2012 - 08:41 pm
I think there are so many different calls for different aspects of the WL system to be revised that it is highly unlikely any change will be made in them. The only scenario I can see is if they were being seriously abused somehow to the detriment of the game in general.
Therefore, unless someone can show and prove very clearly such an abuse it would be pointless in trying to have them altered. Whatever is suggested is not going to sit well with everyone. |
| SweetPea | Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 04:53 pm
Keto, I will use your name if it is appropriate.
HE IS IN KETO'S FED.
There, I did it again. Do you really have a problem with that Keto? |
| Keto | Saturday, December 22, 2012 - 06:31 pm
Just dont assume because I am fedded with them that I was a part of any of their plans.....similiar to members of NLUO I guess. Not all parties of a fed are privy to all things going on within that fed. |
| SweetPea | Sunday, December 23, 2012 - 07:43 am
Keto, we were on the up and up. Clarification was needed I agree. I didn't name you to make it appear as if you had a part in Drew's actions. I merely wanted to point out who he is federated with, and document his backing for the purposes of this thread.
I doubt you did have anything to do with it. You haven't been very active and those who actually pay attention and care about this thread are well aware of that. |
| Keto | Sunday, December 23, 2012 - 03:27 pm
Fair enough. |
| Crafty | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 01:27 pm
Hugz all round !?! |
| Andy | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 05:57 pm
For years, Simcountry did not have war levels and everybody was always a potential target.
there was no way to prevent war. There were no black out hours and no temporary war protection.
It seems that now, when someone gets to a war level that allows president to president war, it is considered a problem.
Should we get back to the previous situation?
remove all barriers and allow war by anyone against anyone?
remove safe mode?
War level are intended to:
1. Protect the inexperienced.
2. Prevent wars of the very experienced against ones who are only a little experienced.
we can extend the margins and allow war level 3 players fight anyone up to war level 8 or higher.
(closer to the situation on FB).
do we want more protection or less protection?
we also have temporary war protection that allows you to protect yourself while building your army.
war levels ended the habit of attacking and destroying beginners.
In the current situation, you have all the time you want to build a large army before you move up to war level 3.
You can do this with several countries, and you can do this with several friends. (also using war treaties).
It is now easier to create a situation where a very strong attacker might think twice because the price is too high.
We will add more units that attack automatically when you are attacked and cause real damage. We will also allow the defense of a target, to make use of all the military units that are close to it while it is attacked.
A very strong country will be able to win of course but winning a war against a well defended country should not be easy and the price should be much higher than the price of the defense (it is, but could be improved). |
| Mizore | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 05:58 pm
Quote:Should we get back to the previous situation?
Yes?
I'm down for extending the margins as well. Secured mode and more expensive war protection is enough for differentiating FB and other worlds, IMO.
EDIT: In either case, this is beside Drew's point which was that a player was still War Level 3 who is very experienced when he was War Level 3 and inexperienced, which would indicate the potential problem of players remaining in low war levels specifically so they can prey on weaker players. |
| Josias | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 07:24 pm
War level are intended to:
1. Protect the inexperienced.
2. Prevent wars of the very experienced against ones who are only a little experienced.
*****
I think the WL's can't be so voluntary. If you fight enough wars, then you should be forced away from those who haven't -Drew
*****
andy, at this time, its safer for many novice players to go up in levels. Rather than stay at a low PvP level. |
| Josias | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 07:38 pm
in fact, here's an odd idea!
what if, after WL11, the only way to go up is to take a WL9 or better player country!
i'm sure some wouldn't like that idea. just throwing it out there. |
| Crafty | Monday, December 24, 2012 - 08:25 pm
Methinks forcing players up the war levels as they win more C3 wars would help people like Drew (war inexperienced). What Mizore says about that has a lot of validity. Any player can get stronger and stronger at WL3 completely overwhelming another of the same WL.
So the real question is: Do we want war levels to function toward the end that they were originally implemented for? |
| Serpent | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 06:10 am
New players should obviously have war protection, I am all for new players having the opportunity to learn the game. But how long is a player considered new?
I think that after a sufficient amount of time ALL players should not have any war protection at all, unless they decide to purchase it with gold coins as it used to be. Im ok with the secured main idea, but other than that there should be no extended free war protection. Although the slow build up of war protection as happens now is a good idea.
I believe this would encourage more cooperation and participation in and between federations. It would also encourage new players to join feds where they will not only get helpful advice but they would become part of the SC community. The latter is a HUGE reason. Being part of the SC community is a fun and rewarding 'by-product' of SC. I think it contributes to the 'staying power' of the game.... makes players want to stay. |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 09:05 am
Well, if any new changes are made I am requesting to have my war level set to 0 on all worlds and I'll withdraw from the war game entirely. This crying is getting old. I don't see any reason I cannot move back down everywhere. If rules changes are introduced I am asking for a reset and be done with it. |
| Andy | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 01:10 pm
nobody is talking about a retreat.
The last thing we want is an experienced player in a very low war level.
what I hear is that experienced players are staying in war level 3 by fighting C3s at that level.
What could be done is to have a player who wins several C3 wars at level 3, move to level 4, as we do with WL2. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 08:56 pm
That's the gist of my arguement for a slight change to the war level system Andy. Including above WL4, all the way to the top in fact.
Yes +1. |
| Keto | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 09:18 pm
Andy I disagree with moving from lvl 3 to lvl4 after fighting a certain amount of wars. |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 09:31 pm
After watching players move away from war at any level by going up levels I am at an end with war. There were many players at my experience level that didn't want to fight war. The prospect of fighting c3s at difficult levels after what I have heard is not desirable.
Either way I am going to figure a way to start over very soon, and there won't be any problems at all. The entire discussion about every problem with war on some level or another is centered on wars I have declared on players or groups and the incessant whining is at a level that is intolerable honestly. Constantly changing and altering the game is only encouraging the environment where players scream on the forum for change after change instead of just fighting a war. Big whoop.
I still want to go down to level 0 if any more changes are introduced. I'll just start over very soon afterward if it happens and you guys don't place me at 0 or quit altogether because I don't think the prospect of losing all I have managed to acquire is worth a restart. If these players want to mold the game to fit them at every turn then they should be the one forced to play it, not I. Just being honest. |
| SweetPea | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 09:35 pm
In fact I think it is only reasonable to request a total game reset accompany any change at all. |
| Jackseptic | Tuesday, December 25, 2012 - 10:01 pm
i never petitioned anything wendy ..get your facts straight. |
| SweetPea | Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 03:15 am
who said you petitioned anything? I haven't mentioned your name other than to point out that you share a federation with Drew, and that was days ago.
You need to take your own advice, get YOUR facts straight. Until you do, know your role and Hush your mouth.
And if you are talking about this
Quote:Your pals JackSeptic and Super actually petitioned Andy to implement a mechanism that would allow players to do exactly that.
, yes YOU DID...
stick your foot in your mouth and I'll point in the direction of the thread. |
| Mizore | Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 04:52 am
Quote:That's the gist of my arguement for a slight change to the war level system Andy. Including above WL4, all the way to the top in fact.
I'm going to have to agree with Crafty, especially the all the way to the top part.
If you goal with the war levels is this:
1. Protect the inexperienced.
2. Prevent wars of the very experienced against ones who are only a little experienced.
Then it stands to reason that the system should always be forcing you up the more wars you fight. In my opinion, an additional benefit for the overall wargame is that there is a specific endpoint where everyone can fight everyone and that everyone may eventually get to unless they stop wars altogether. The only reservation is that C3 raiding appears to become more and more unprofitable at higher war levels. If the system is forcing you up, it may be wise to consider balancing the "bounty" for conquering C3s at higher difficulties so that it is possible to earn a similar net amount by conquering a C3 at each war level. Even with this reservation, I think the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals is to push everyone slowly to the top. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 07:34 am
I, as i have always said i fully support "IN TERMS" that the war levels provide income to players. Lately thats been going down hill, increased weapons costs and the increasing damage in C3 makes it less profitable in the upper levels.( will explain below )
As i stated before i agree that the war levels should offer protection to players but shouldnt remove them completely from harms way. War levels should offer protection from larger players. The 2levels above or below is to restrictive. It prevents the players in the upper levels from helping the new players if they are attacked. On top of that if players are war level 11 and wish for a player to move up 10 levels the cost alone from from weapons/ammo costs alot, which means they need to build up an econ and a nation which makes them more of a target, and with no allies makes them easier picking which leads to the so called "NOOB BASHING" as stated by Andy.
My point was that the only time anyone of large or lower levels should be able to fight the other levels is if a fed dec is signed. If the Netherlands where attacked by Russia they would expect the US to honor there EU-US alliance, the US wouldnt state sorry my wars in Iraq and afganistan moved me up to war level 11 SORRY cant help you.(Does this to make a point to Andy)
If the war dec is signed war levels shouldnt matter. It should be the PLAYERS CHOICE to either help or to not. The GM shouldnt be allowed to say im sorry your to much of a noob and i forbid you from helping or the other way around.
------------------As for C3 war income-------------
Lately the income has gone down hill. I explained to several players and have seen support. The income in the lower levels isnt enought to accully help with these increased weapons costs. Also in the upper war levels the C3 get dozens of higher Q units then the players can even purchase. Players need to stock and update units for days before hand well a C3 can "POOF" a military in great size and Q in a matter of seconds, not only that but weapons are more powerful, allow not 1 but in upper levels 2 counter attacks = the lost of several extra units
As i posted even if buying tank/artillery at 50% market price costs 1T if you use 300Q(which is used to also strip garrisons). At base you spend 2T to just blow up targets. Keep in mind you only make 11T per C3 @ level 11. This donest include the cost of stripping the air defence or even the loses from the double attack stealth bombers. The income is VERY VERY little in comparison to the time and effort but into the war.
I suggested to someone, maybe the GM can make some use out of it is going back to the 1.5T per war level income rate. That or war level * 1M extra pop added to a nation.
Warring a war level 11 nation and gaining either 17T(1.5T per level)
---OR---
Gaining a nation of 11T with the population of 20M
These small updates would help to increase the incentive to move up the levels(IDK why the GM reduced the income in the first place) |
| SweetPea | Wednesday, December 26, 2012 - 03:03 pm
Here we are again where players have all the answers, not surprising to see Scarlet thinks he actually has one of the best. Stating the obvious is obviously easy. With that said, a utopian solution is by no means easy to achieve.
How many times in the last few years have we been at this very point? All the effort, even if the devs mean well has actually pleased the game? Yet we stand on the edge of another unplanned change. The sad thing is that even with the best proposals possible, at best what can be expected is to please a simple few and piss off the rest who are ill-affected by the change. So why not force it down our throats? That is the final solution.
But forget all that, think of just a few days ago. Not a single player was on this forum asking for any change other than removing all war levels entirely. That was the only request made by many players, old, new, big and small. A majority consensus.
But what has lead to this round of crap? DrewCakes. Well, for the purposes of this illustration let us not mention his name, we should just point out the outrageous.
Keep in mind, we are now having this conversation because of a player. A player who has significant backing in his allies(Had a definite advantage in that, oh well). A player that decided he should nuke a player over some share buys.
So let us go through some clear observations and scenarios. If that player had figured out he had bit off more than he can chew, and Plexia had kicked the crap out of him initially; would his allies then not join in to solidify his cause? The answer is a resounding unequivocal YES! But we never got to this point.
What happened was, when another player declared on Drew which actually prevented Plexia from being nuked, even with all that backup this was somehow an unfair bargain.
The players on this thread who are now jumping on the bandwagon for further change are the same ones who repeatedly point out the problems with federations being largely useless. But this was a prime example where the function of federations should have taken hold. Drew, if he ever felt outmatched, has plenty of federation back-up and we are all at war levels we could fight from. At what point were we to assume the conflict would not have widened if Drew would have gotten his ass handed to him?
So here we are again, where a player who missed his chance to bash a player he thought he could overpower with or without help from his fed is the one who starts a thread like this. If he declared war, he should not be the reason a discussion like this is started. In this example he wanted to war, if only things went his way, expect no adversity, and complain if counter-declarations come.
Absolutely stunning.
Again, think about that.
I am seriously requesting an entire game reset of war levels accompany any changes. It is only right in my opinion. The game can remember your highest war level achieved to avoid double payouts on War Level awards.
If a player who declares war can force a reaction like this from w3, I want no part in it, I will accomplish this with or without the implementation of the fairness doctrine for those affected by change. Everyone should be reset with any changes. This way we all know what lies ahead of us, and we aren't thrown into someone's idea of a better game because DrewCakes can't fight wars he intended to start. |
| Mizore | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 12:55 am
Crafty had a good idea so I agreed with him.
What's your problem, seriously? |
| Lorelei | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 01:59 am
My guess, irritable bowel syndrome. lol |
| Josias | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 02:05 am
i'm with the idea 2, but not based on c3 wars, but pvp, the more pvp you do, the more it proves your aggression, and should push you up.
shrug |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 03:13 am
You know what my problem is. Too many crybabies, and you cradle them.
It is with the idea that players individually or as a group think we can change the game to fit/match/correct/improve any and every situation. |
| Lorelei | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 04:35 am
I think everyone should have the right to state an opinion or a suggestion. If people feel like they wanna "cry" so to speak about something they feel passionate about, they have the given right to do so, as a player within this game. Too bad, Wendy, there are OTHER players. Game doesn't revolve around just you.
I do, however, know that the GMs appreciate commentary and suggestions, and I'm sure constant gripes and moans are frustrating because I think they really do try hard to make the game an enjoyable and fair playing environment for everyone. |
| Andy | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 11:34 am
I did not read all the previous in details.
too busy in these last days of the year and most of us are on some free days.
I agree that there is a problem with war level in different worlds.
If you are a great war player and reached a very high war level in one of the worlds, doesn't it mean you are also a great war player on the other worlds?
maybe we should move the entire account to the max war level that was reached in any of the empires. |
| Mizore | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 11:45 am
That sounds fair.
Personally, I'd still like to see it paired with the system moving up players who win many wars - whether it be done through C3 wars or PvP wars - and hope you take a look at the C3 bounties compared to cost of conquest. But same war level across the account makes good sense nonetheless. |
| SweetPea | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 11:47 am
Maybe you should Andy, I'll start Preparing right away. You could remove war levels too and please 95% of the game as well. You could do anything or nothing at all. And please move me to War level 0 when you change anything. It is a humble request.
|
| Andy | Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 11:11 pm
Just to clarify,
there are never any resets of war levels as there are no resets of players war experiences.
war levels are here to stay as they function.
some tuning might take place, like account wide war levels and possible a little more flexibility in fighting between players with different war levels, especially in the higher levels or increase in the war level after winning a certain number of wars, like with war levels 1 and 2.
Any such possible change will be announce ahead of time on the forum and game news.
There will be some other additions and changes to the war game.
Mobile units are close to be released. two land types will be released first. to be followed by others fairly quickly and later by intelligence units.
A very significant change will involve the support of land units in the fighting for a target, allowing military units that are within range, to support the defense (garrison) at the attacked target.
Currently, such units fight when they are attacked. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 10:14 am
If i may Andy
A few updates that would be welcome to the war levels.
-Winning a PvP war should count as moving up the war levels. Taking 5nations from a player shows skill to a degree and a player shouldnt be allow to sit in the lower levels.
-I should be allow to fight anyone "UNDER THE CONDITION" that i signed a war dec. Signing a war dec pledges forces to your allies in times of war(it used to mean and auto dec of the attacking nation). This should still be the case. The only time you should see a war level 11 fighting a 3 or even a 4 (outside of FB) would be if they signed a war dec and are defending there ally. Otherwise the normal 2 above or below the war level should stay in place.
- Also please increase the cash in C3 warring... Bring it back to the old levels, as it stands the income gainned is really pretty sad |
| Jackseptic | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 11:02 am
i would not like to see us set to our maximum war levels im 11 on FB and 0 on KB i dont want to be bumbed up to 11 on a world i havent fought a war on nor built a military on.besides there is no money to be made warring c3s at war level 11 i have to fight at 3 or 6 just to try and make a dollar, please consider another option. |
| Crafty | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 12:28 pm
Quote:at best what can be expected is to please a simple few and piss off the rest who are ill-affected by the change.
Not true, complete fabrication in fact. Read "expected to please most of the players, who enjoy a good game, and piss off the one or two players who like to take endless C3s to attack people.
Quote:But forget all that, think of just a few days ago. Not a single player was on this forum asking for any change other than removing all war levels entirely. That was the only request made by many players, old, new, big and small. A majority consensus.
Not true, complete fabrication in fact. I would point out most every single post has advocated war levels remaining and, as a whole, the player base seems to accept the GMs decision that they are here to stay and they provide a stable place for new players to start. So NO posts for removal of war levels, just a lot pointing out some tuning that could be done now that they are in use and the minor little bugs are beginning to show.
As with any product or idea I can think of, there are always upgrades, improvements, quirks and bugs to be ironed out, be it a new range of cars or a system of waste collection. The GM has acknowledged this by making a concession or two, such as the 2 level decleration range.
This is not about Drew, it's about very strong economies being able to amass arms while staying at a lower war level and taking as many C3 countries (being as war experienced as a WL 12 player would be) as they like and being able to remain capable of attacking players who have taken few if any C3s and do not have the experience, economy or desire to be in the war game.
Re: Expense in taking C3s - no comment, it's a totally different subject. |
| SweetPea | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 02:52 pm
Yeah Crafty no need for me to care about it anymore. It is just easier that way. |
| Andy | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 02:53 pm
There are two different issues here:
1. Should you move up the war levels if you win several wars against a C3 of the same war level.
currently you can keep doing so and never move up.
2. should the entire account move to the highest war level of any of the empires.
1 We think that raiding C3 countries is fine but as you become more experienced, you should move up the levels.
Then raid higher level C3s.
War is becoming cheaper. The cost of ammunition is declining (following the exchange rate) and the amount of money you receive has remained unchanged for a very long time, meaning that you can purchase many more weapons for this same amount.
2. also looks reasonable. some will not like it but:
- They have secured mode for the main country.
- They can use temporary war protection or just build a strong defense.
With the new feature that will allow mil. units to participate more in the defense, it will become easier to defend.
More auto response units will be added to enhance the defensive features.
Longer term, we think that wars could have a "partial win" option, with some areas remaining occupied while the country can continue.
The occupied areas can give the occupier an economic advantage.
If some strategic areas remain very hard to occupy, wars may become more balanced.
Currenly, a very strong player can quickly destroy the essential mil. assets and take the country with a huge overpowering might and do it very quickly.
Too fast sometimes, if you take into account the effort of building such a country.
This is a major reason for players not to fight. |
| Crafty | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 03:22 pm
Well...personally I would not enjoy having my entire account move up to my higheat war level game wide because on GR I play at WL1 and am strictly economy driven. Ha! thank gawd a couple of my countries make money. I wouldn't want to lose them or lose their profitability because of arming them.
But for the best for the game all round, I am going to sit on the fence over the whole account being the same WL, and hope some reasonable unselfish points are made. |
| SweetPea | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 03:34 pm
Seriously, I cannot wait. Initially I thought it would bother me too Crafty. But hey, it is fair. Cheers to the future. |
| Keto | Friday, December 28, 2012 - 03:43 pm
1. I dont agree with moving up war lvls after winning several wars with c3s. This should always remain an option. I'm all for rules in game but SC shouldn't dictate every little aspect. If so, we will only log in to see how our countries are progressing with very little input from the player.
2. Each world is basically its own game within the big game. Keep it that way. If your entire account moves up to the highest level from one world, you might as well amalgamate all worlds into one big one. Military being cheaper and having more defense to participate is not a strong enough reason to move an entire account up to one level.
Yes a strong player can wipe out a weaker player(but thats how the world works, the strong will survive.)As long as this game is around there will always be an issue with stronger players defeating weaker players. And by stronger doesn't mean who has the most weapons. |
| Mizore | Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 03:54 am
I'm pretty much in favor of 1 and 2 for the reason that I see these as turning war levels from a means for experienced players to protect assets to a temporary protection that is slowly phased out the more you play the wargame.
Regarding 1, the current systems voluntary choice in war levels makes it so that players can self-select their competition range and works to keep players separate. By switching to a system that always pushes people it, it is my hope/opinion that more and more players will wind up being in the same competition range reducing the game-enforced partitions created by the existing war level structure.
Regarding 2, the stated purpose is to protect inexperienced players. It is not to allow players a safe econ base on one world that earns money to allow you to purchase weapons and fund campaigns on another world. This is what is being done by experienced players. The whole game has already been unified into a single "game board" with space and the direct account allowing players to transfer cash and weapons across worlds. It is inaccurate to claim that servers are separate given the importance of good, consistent econ in fueling a war machine and the near total lack of barriers in using one world's econ to pay another world's war.
I mean you can make the claim that I'm being self-serving given that I'm not going to be terribly affected by either change since I'm not below War level 3 on any world that I have countries on, do not engage in consistent C3 raiding where the lower war levels yield better profits, and don't engage in C3 warfare where lower levels make it easier to acquire C3s... meaning, I have little to lose in terms of using War Levels to protecting a world's assets and am not worried about having to fight C3s at higher war levels.
That's where I'm coming from. I'm unsure how the change would play out over time, but the reason I support these changes is because I see it as a means of turning War Levels into a more temporary kind of thing. |
| King Hezekiah II | Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 03:15 pm
This needs to go in the suggestion section. |
| Crafty | Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 03:47 pm
Scarlet has good points. If we were forced up the levels, then the war experienced players would find themselves in much the same position that they were before the war levels that most moaned about.
While at the same time, newer or non aggressive players would remain without the threat from 'bullying' players. Is this not the ideal position that was wanted with the introduction of war levels? |
| SweetPea | Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 07:47 am
Lol King!
So when can we expect this provision to take hold Andy? |
| Rick | Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 11:14 am
Lots of good points made by Andy, Keto, Crafty and Mizore.
I would agree that a slow move upward in WLs is reasonable. Don't think warring C3s makes for good econ in the long run anyway.
Craftys concern about running a econ empire at LVL 1 and having his entire account raised to his highest war level on any world; seems that could be really tough on many players.
I'm thinking the same result could be accomplished without ALL COUNTRIES having to move to the highest war level.
Say Crafty is WL6 on LU and WL2 on GR. He can play WL2 on GR as long as he wants. However.....
If he decides to go to WL3 on GR, the PVP arena, he automatically jumps to WL6, which is his true in game WL ability.
He can't war against a WL3 player on GR, they are now protected. This was the main concern.
Meanwhile he is allowed to start a new empire on another world, run it as he sees fit until he decides to move to WL3, then he jumps to WL6, his benchmark in game WL. Again, the lower level war players are protected.
So...a players highest WL on any world, becomes the bench mark WL on all worlds that are WL3 or above. Levels 0 1 and 2 worlds remain the same.
I think it's important to preserve the 1 and 2 WLs to give the player the opportunity expand an empire without the need of military or war protection regardless of war level.
Mizore, everything you say is a true story. We just saw it happen on LU a few days ago. You could walk across space on the back of shuttles.
Vets are taking advantage of the space situation. I can see the pros and cons of it. A lot of time and money was spent in developing that ability though. Just seems way to far along to be able to do anything about it at this point.
I think it's going to continue though, regardless of how the GMs take care of this. |
