| CrazyBastard | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 01:31 am 
Vote yes or no for the following suggestion.
I Crazy would like the GM's to change back the war game to its 2009 rules. I think this would cause alot more interaction within the game community. Plus it would probably bring back alot of the really good vets who loved the war part of the game. As it sits now the war game is greatly reduced. I do still like the econ part of the game and if that is all a person is interested in, they could just click the button to remain only in that part of the game. I have just noticed a general decline in the community after all of the changes to the war game and it makes me sad. |
| Alexander Bella | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 02:38 am
i vote yes..... maybe we can implement reforms to the security council and update the forums to allow for better communication and interaction in order to keep peace and to keep newbs from being killed instead of just cutting everyone off from eachother.... i mean honestly i cant hardly see war as even occuring let alone being a problem with such responsible vets and tight knit community |
| devonshagilbert | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 03:53 am
i vote yes |
| Philipp Bauer | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 05:05 am
I doubt it will be taken into slight consideration... but I vote yes regardless. |
| the who | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 04:50 pm
I also vote yes |
| nix001 | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 04:53 pm
edit  |
| nix001 | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 05:00 pm
The war game is only reduced in two ways.
1) Thieves are limited to robbing those who can fight back.
2) Pests are limited to who they can pest.
There might be another.....can low level fed members join a war with a high level enemy?
Mother Natures Dying |
| J. Marcus | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 05:07 pm
I vote yes |
| Josef D Stalin | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 07:25 pm
I vote yes. |
| Tallisibeth na Colliete | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 07:40 pm
I vote yes........but like Wolfker I think they won't even listen. |
| Ugh | Thursday, June 13, 2013 - 11:01 pm
What were the 2009 rules? |
| Jacktastic | Friday, June 14, 2013 - 02:25 am
I vote yes...or atleast try it out on Fearless Blue. |
| CrazyBastard | Friday, June 14, 2013 - 04:32 am
I agree Jacktastic. That is what FB is for The War World. Could the GM's please look at returning the war game to normal on Fearless Blue. |
| the who | Friday, June 14, 2013 - 02:09 pm
and wg |
| Mike G | Friday, June 14, 2013 - 07:42 pm
I vote yes....... But I highly doubt the GMs will listen. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 07:58 am
I dout the GM will listen either we have tried for to long... The GM really donest seem to care in my honest opinion.
Personal i vote that FB should be 1-11 warring. If you wanna play econ on FB you stay @ war level 0. Otherwise once you take your first nation your fair game. It would force people to communicate and work together. Ive also stated that Fearless Blue should have double weapons/triple ammo production to make them super cheap to allow fast growth military.
Thats my 2cents worth |
| WildStallion | Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 10:50 am
Message to all:- Compare what was good and what was bad about the 2009 rules to what is good and bad with the current rules regarding the benefits of both, would you really be in a better position with the rules being changed back to how they were? |
| the who | Saturday, June 15, 2013 - 11:48 am
well everyone above has voted yes so I suppose you have your answer |
| Roving EYE | Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 01:37 am
Here is a vote, one asked like no other, our vote...........NO.......the game is developing quite nicely why roll back the dice, like life everything has to evolve without it everything stagnates and becomes stale!
OUR ONE GRIPE.....One can agree with one player though, playing on most worlds, fearless blue for instance which should be the WAR WORLD OF SIMCOUNTRY there is/has too many new/existing players setting up shop with a war level lower than 3 and wanting to stay there hiding and not really doing anything, the economic side of the game on fearless should always be secondary on this world, me thinks if players want to set up shop on fearless they should automatically be given a war level of 3 minimum, no level 0, 1 or 2 |
| the who | Sunday, June 16, 2013 - 08:41 pm
but noone is on fb its a dead world so maybe war should be reintroduced to players who actually want to play on an active world aswell..... there is secured mode idk why we need war levels |
| Ugh | Monday, June 17, 2013 - 05:45 am
the who, you should change your name to "the why". |
| the who | Monday, June 17, 2013 - 07:01 am
lol |
| grassisnotgreen | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 05:30 am
i vote yes |
| the who | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 06:39 am
i also vote yes ;) |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 08:32 am
Fearless blue SHOULD be the war world PERIOD. Once you hit war level 1 you fair game, 1-11 no expections. If you wanna play econ on FB you can @ war level 0, but the moment you take your first C3 your fair game |
| Mr Taco | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 01:42 pm
I vote yes |
| The_Wicked_Lady | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 03:22 pm
I think that would give the option to those who are war driven and liven things up a bit. :P
I vote yes. |
| Josef D Stalin | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 03:44 pm
I vote yes |
| Mr Taco | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 09:08 pm
The Who/The Why,
Change your name to The W lol |
| Mr Taco | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 09:48 pm
How come it can't be like this:
War Level 0 can't fight anyone
War Level 1 can only fight countries that are War Level 1
War Level 2 can only fight countries that are War Level 2
War Level 3 can fight countries that are War Level 3 and above.
It would cut down on people getting killed off. |
| Josias | Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 11:19 pm
because we'd have nothing but bottom feeders. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 12:15 am
Personally
Ive always said this war levels should be the same for everyone. You be allowed to attack 2 above or below 1 should be allowed to attack 3 and 3 should be able to attack 1... Also if you sign a war dec you should be allowed to fight requardless the war level. Just cuz im war level 8 and my buddy is war level 5 and gets decced by 2-war level 3 i cant help him? |
| Josias | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 12:37 am
problem with that sup, is the way you suggest, would invite all the multi's (that don't exist by the way,) to create low level accounts, and fed them up with their main accounts, and then pummel all the newbs, and econ only-s, into the ground.
but their is no multi problem in SC, it not a problem, its a game feature. |
| thewhy | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 02:08 am
^LOL |
| viper7j4z | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 06:33 am
dont even remember 2009 rules LOL |
| Serpent | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 08:12 am
No war levels for anybody EVER after a 4-6 week learning period. If you want protection then you must buy it with GC or game cash. |
| Andy | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 07:10 pm
The main reason for the war levels is to protect players who do not want to fight, or want to take their time before getting to it.
We do think and wrote here about it recently, that the restrictions at higher war levels can be relaxed. There is a big difference between FB and the other worlds and that difference can be made smaller.
Most players at war level 1 and 2 are protected anyway because they have a single country. the war level gives them the limited freedom to fight smaller wars, conquer several countries, and keep their protection without going into higher cost of war protection (free members do not have these gold coins).
After some time in the game, they should be exposed to the war game.
if level 2 protection might expire after some time, full members can use the much stronger defense options that we have now (and more were announced), or use war protection.
The improvement of the defense possibilities can have an influence on how we think these players are protected. Economic players remain a problem as we do not want to force them into building a defense. |
| Serpent | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 08:02 pm
I agree with the statement that economic players should not be forced into building a defense, but they should have to pay for protection. The same is true for war players. They should not (and they are not) be able to wage war without a financial cost.
If a war player does not have some sort of economy they must pay for their wars with GC's or they must raid C3's, either way there is a cost. The same should be for economic players. There should be a cost.
Thats my $.02 |
| Josias | Friday, June 28, 2013 - 08:29 pm
with out a GC market, how are econ-only players suppose to buy WP?
if its made to the point that i have to swipe my card to keep more than one country safe, then i'll end up having 1 country. and then whats the point?
econ players have a significant disadvantage with score, and monthly awards. that is not a complaint from me, in fact, it seems fair. less risk, less reward. |
| thewhy | Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 01:22 am
i always though secured mode for the main was a very fair way of administering war protection for people this war level stuff is to complicated and unneeded.... well its not complicated but i know many people who are at war level 1 and 2 and still dont seem to get that they are not part of the war game.... if you want to protect people better and help the war game allow free players to have more then one slave.... as it is now free players have to take their main out of secured to participate in the war game.... if you increased the amount of slaves free players could get you would see an increase in war and then free players could keep their mains in secured |
| Andy | Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 11:13 am
Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
I think that there is an agreement on more war incentive for war players and fewer limitations.
The new defense capabilities make this easier now than before.
We will start to relax the rules, possibly in the coming update or the next one.
We will also complete some additional functions that make it easier for countries to defend themselves against a sudden attack and reduce the chance of destruction while asleep.
as these functions become available, we may relax the war rules even further.
As to war protection for economic players, this remains a problem and war levels 1 and 2 currently offer a solution. |
| Serpent | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 12:38 am
Josias if you read my post a few posts earlier I said
Quote:If you want protection then you must buy it with GC or game cash.
As stated earlier there is a cost for war players in the fact that they have to generate cash somehow to pay for their style of play. The same should be true for the 'econ' players. They should have to pay for their desire to play the econ only side just as the 'war' players must pay to play their style. |
| Josias | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 04:12 am
i missed that, right on serp, although i think my stance stays about the same, unless its a % of profit, IE, a econ based player thats not making money shouldn't be booted out into the scary world of things that go bump in the grass. |
| viper7j4z | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 04:52 am
my $.02 if it matters any I have spent "real money" on this game once because I like the way it setup you can either play war or not. But if this becomes strictly a war game then I will take my money elsewhere which probably wont bother the GM or anyone else for that matter |
| thewhy | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 04:57 am
noone will ever force you into a war viper i think andy has been very careful in implementing features that will keep people and their countries safe i think i like the sound of these new updates he speaks of now |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 06:50 am
viper before the war levels there was secure mode and WP. I played 2years and was never attacked... Why becuase i was social and made freinds and allies. Thats what the game SHOULD be about not limiting warring based on a level.
So if your going to "Whine" (yes i use that term) remember we already had that and the GM put in the levels to help protect the new players. War in my opinion should ALWAYS be around if you want to be econ only stay @ war level one otherwise allow 1-2 to join the PVP game but have restrictions like they can only war 1 above or below.
Also if i sign a fed dec i SHOULD be allowed to auto dec regardless of the others war level. If my buddies attacked and i signed i help him period.
and side note. can we go back to 1.5T per war level? once you pass war level 6 and start fighting steath its VERY hard to make money.
At war level 11 you fighting 500Q wing(100total) and garrisons, you only get 11T which is barely enough to cover costs or make a profit |
| Jacktastic | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 08:35 am
I completely agree super. |
| Space313 | Sunday, June 30, 2013 - 06:37 pm
Although I've never been here that long, I believe that when we had the old war rules that it was a great time, and I do agree with supersoldier as well. I think 1.5T would be a great implementation despite me not even being in WL6+. I have been experimenting with weapons, and end up making hardly any profit. |
| thewhy | Monday, July 1, 2013 - 02:11 am
viper maybe you do need multiple forms of war protection because I don't much like you.... we are all making good points and you continue to babble without making any good points or providing any good reasons for your arguments |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, July 1, 2013 - 07:30 am
i need more forms of WP because people don't like me and wanna attack me because im a noob.
Why not vote away the war game... WHOS WITH ME SC AN ECON ONLY GAME, NO WAR EVER!!!! WOOOT!!!!
We can build corps and count money and when we have disagreements discuss them like normal adults |
| Andy | Monday, July 1, 2013 - 11:37 pm
war rules are already relaxed a bit.
Details will be on the forum and game news tomorrow.
the upgrade was planned for July 2, not July 1. |
| SuperSoldierRCP | Monday, July 1, 2013 - 11:46 pm
Thanks andy cant wait  |
