 |
|
|
|
Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 01:54 am  Much i can say, but its been 3 years from the event that inspired war levels, and many other war game changes. 3 years ago, the concept offered from these changes was, "If a person has a better chance to survive a war, they are more likely to start one!" Tom now after a good length of time, has all this extra protection made the war game thrive? i think that the obvious answer is NO, it hasn't. I'd like to encourage W3C to rethink the entire WL approach, now that 3 years of what we've got, has failed. The problem then, is the same problem now. Their just isn't enough skilled players to make a viable war game. We need players trying to learn the game. but the more protection offered, encourages players to kick back and do nothing. making for a pretty quiet game. rather than trying to protect a player from unwanted attention. they should be encouraged to join federations. Ostrich type feds, do nothing but choke the excitement out of the game, and going to this length to protect them, is shooting yourself in the foot.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:03 am I'd rather have a secure game. People can choose what type of game they want to play. Do they wanna play economic or war-filled? Do they wanna fight CPU's or players? If they want a game where they could lose their country at any given moment, let them play Fearless Blue. There's a reason why they have separate worlds for peaceful players and war players. If people actually wanted to play the way you do, then FB would be filled to the brim, and they'd have to make more war worlds.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:04 am I fail to see any reason why War Levels are bad. When you register you select peaceful player, war world, or peaceful-optional wars. Forcing everyone to play the way you want them to would ruin the game! Just because you love the edge of possibly losing your country at any moment, doesn't mean everyone else does.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:06 am Josias, not everyone wants to play fearless blue. It's not a war game, it's a country simulation game.... That's why they have 5 DIFFERENT WORLDS! And that's why they keep the WAR WORLD separate. Let people play the way they wanna play, they don't have to go all Fearless Blue in every world. They let players choose for a reason!
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:20 am ahh, but i wasn't saying making every one play the war game. although i would see how you'd get that, with that line i said. clearly, not every one wants that. how ever, the level of protection, should be reduced. for one, there is not enough players to justify so many war levels. also, players that raid allot of C3s, gaining resources, should move up the WL latter. Looking at my countries, and considering i recently reset my account, with out spending long hours raiding, i wouldn't even be able to afford a basic defense with ndb. it costs allot, unless you raid allot of C3s. C3 raiding should be valuable. their should be a method for those players seeking to rebuilding, or build up, an option that doesn't take years, or hundreds of dollars. but still, those that are building up those assets shouldn't be able to dominate the lower levels. How, ever, that still doesn't encourage feds of mixed WLs, so that the vets can trade their knowledge for enthusiasm. shrug, i mean i don't have the answer, i'm saying it needs to be rethought. i've gone back and forth over the 3 years, with my support for WLs. I like the idea of a WL3 being able to attack other WL3s, and build up to attack maybe even a 5. but that doesn't happen? why? maybe warlevels aren't the problem.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:22 am I am not sure removing war levels are the answer. I would be for further loosening who can fight who but leaving protection for the first few levels. What is needed is more incentive to raise war levels or, at least, rising out of the first few. Game goals in general are getting less clear with heavy penalties now dictating rankings and monthly awards. How about war level 3+ presidents being able to construct arms normally restricted to another world? Maybe limit the number of factories based on war level. 1 for level 3, 2 for 4, and so on. Maybe other ideas can be considered.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:29 am Alright. About C3 raiding. It makes too much money compared to other methods. I have said this. Maybe other methods need boosting or raiding income needs to be brought in line. You are exactly right when you say you would need to raid to be competitive in pvp. The game, unfortunately, has no other method to do so.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:35 am i've heard you say that before aries, and i thought allot about that, i was even on your side, for like a day. i do disagree. but i think that should be restricted to the higher war levels. i don't want to spend a year, just to get basic defenses, to get over run by some guy thats loaded to the gil. so if i want to play a political game, unless i spend hours raiding, i have to keep myself in some sort of war protection. so give the guys that do it a bunch, a bonus in raiding, but keep them from my low level self. the system is suppose to work that way, but it doesn't. in fact, until recently, the higher levels where safer
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:43 am Oh, now I get it. Ugh, my overreaction led others to misinterpret, sorry. How about rewards based on your war level? IE Each war level has its own rewards. For example, you have to maintain all transportation index infrastructure 15% less at war level 3, or you get x amount of gold coins per war level. (IE 3 gold coin per RL month per war level to help pay to maintain your enterprises and nations) It's insanely difficult to rise in war levels dramatically, once you get to level 5, you need to actually DO stuff. War level 3, you gotta get good quality going. I don't even wanna know what lies for me at war level 11. I make an incentive for myself, except I shouldn't have to.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 08:06 am there is no such thing in this game of living on the edge about to lose your country.... ive been out of secured at WL 3 for a year maybe more and noone has attacked me and i have attacked noone.... probably because the only people available for war have 10 countries (vets) and i have 1 there are no "noob" war players theres only a few war kings and everyone else sits around twiddling their thumbs letting the game die with inactivity and apathy
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 08:07 am The only problem i have with the war levels is the restrictive actions it takes on players. If the GM wants to keep it that you can only war from X to X levels fine so be it. BUT!!! If i level 11 and my buddy who's in my fed is level 3 and is attack by 2players i SHOULD be allowed to defend him and help him war. Personally i think the GM should change it so that if a fedmate is attacked you auto dec regardless of there level. As for econ players, I'm one of them. I have advocated both for and against the war levels. I believe the levels should remain at the current PvP standards on the 4 main econ worlds. Fearless Blue shouldn't be affected. It should be 1-11 war level free for all. If you want econ play it on the other worlds. But FB should be allowed to be PvP any level.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 08:08 am there is secured mode for those who want to play economics.... i dont see how people should be allowed to take vast tracts of land and still be secured all in the name of wanting to play economics
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 08:10 am @TheWhy Aren't leader countries the only ones secured?
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:39 pm No Mr. Star Foth they are not the only ones secured. If you are under war level 3 then your whole empire is secured. This is what make sense... This is a 'Simulation', right? Well then, lets simulate! No real life country has 'automatic war protection'. I understand giving new players some time to acclimate to the game but indefinite, unrestricted war protection is extremely unrealistic. Its not that hard to defend yourself. Or at the minimum make it costly and difficult to be defeated. You just need to get involved with a federation that can teach you how and provide some assistance when needed. This would also encourage more 'community' and more participation with other players which strengthens the player base. This idea of choosing to play peaceful or play war makes no sense. If I choose to play war does that mean I do not have to do ANY eco at all? Of course not, not unless Im willing to spend loads of GC's to pay for the weapons and their maintenance! I still have to focus on eco, at least to some extent. Its IMPOSSIBLE to make this a 'war only' game. But with war levels you dont have to focus on or worry, even a little bit, about war. You can make this a truly 'eco only' game. So why not make it so that if you desire to play a eco only game you have to spend cash or GC's to be protected? As far as the C3 raiding cash it should not be lowered. Its already difficult to make profits, at least in comparison to what it used to be. What I think is sad is that there are many players who cry about how 'vets take their countries from them'. I have only saw this happen on a few rare isolated cases. Then the majority of the time is was because that noob talked smack and had to pay for it. Besides what assets will a noob have that a real vet would even want? If a noob wants to build a large country that is worth the effort for a vet to take then they should also build it so that it can be defended, its not that hard to do. This game is becoming like 'Farmville' or some other game where the possibility of failure has been removed completely, at the detriment of the entire game.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:41 pm saw a post not so long ago about attracting new players to game. i kinda laughed about that because i've brought thousands to this game over the years just by word of mouth alone. some serious gamers and some not but point being, there has to be stability. example, nothing like spending gold coins on 2 million population only to find that very next day you lost 4 million to an earthquake. bear with me folks, it's not just war levels alone that need to be changed. and what's up with these free accounts. constant shortages and limits almost any direction you go. seems to me if you want to get new players interested you don't feed them crap. oh, and my favorite. beginner automation. no point playing the game till that runs its course. in short, boreing. war protection itself is needed but after the war level 3 you can throw those other levels and awards straight out the door. not just war players but econ players have become a thing of the past as well. i miss the days i could war 24/7 if i wanted and always find and be able to afford the supplies needed. now it's more like watching grass grow. most of this may not be on the topic but the point is that this game suffers from other problems as well. make the game interesting and fun again or watch it slowly die.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 03:42 pm moral of the story don't reset ur account lol
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 05:20 pm @serpent, I agree!!! I think it's ridiculous that slave countries should be protected as well due to war levels. The war level protection is ridiculous. Leader countries should be the only ones that can be secured. It's exactly like Farmville with complete war protection for your entire empire, war levels are bee ess. It's more like Empires and Allies with only your leader country being secure. Making you doomed to be a single country without any sort of war experience. War level security has turned Fearless Blue into Wimpy Blue. Personally, I like to fight against CPU's. There's just something about computer players that's so much more fun. I like to start off against the best bot and lose time after time until I can finally beat them, so I fight C3's. But as for fighting other players, I want to keep a safe haven! If I wanna fight another player, I can do it with my slave countries, although just to be fair, I will never attack an enemy leader country with or without a slave, because I keep my leader country on secured mode, which would be extremely fair. My leader country is fun to play the economic and raider games while I pawn my slaves against other slaves. But hey, why choose only one game when you can play both. Although "realistic" is a word that doesn't belong in the world of video games. Personally, I think they should make a peaceful world without war for anyone who wants to play farmville. The 4 PW-OW worlds are (supposed to be) for anyone who wants to have a secure leader country and duke it out against others' slaves. And the WW world is (again, supposed to be) a place where you can lose your country at any given moment in a land of chaos and nuclear mass production.
| |
| Sunday, August 4, 2013 - 09:17 pm Well Serpent, tbh why do you care about those at WL2 and below? They dont come in your way to do your war-Thing o why even bother? And btw, I pay Cash/GCs to play the peaceful game, I'm premium. And to reach the same Game Lvl as a war Player costs me even more GCs. Just to Show the biggest difference let's compare Game Lvl 16. No. of countries needed: War Game: 8 Peacefull: 11 You can get only up to 9 countries with peacefull play (not going to WL 3), so the other two you have to buy for GC's, lets make it cheap and buy those 2 from other Players for the lowest possible GCs they could offer, which would be 100 each. So we are at 200 GCs. Average Pop needed: War 120M, Peace 180M. So if a peacefull Player want to get to the same Pop numbers in the same time as a war Player (not considering that war-Players have easier Access to worker-exchanges with slave countries they Abandon afterwards and casualties that come by wars) thats 60M per Country. Usual Price per Million Pop 6GCs (as 99.999% of the time you cant buy them cheaper), so 360GCs per Country = 3960GCs for all 11 Countries. So we are at 4160 GCs. I dont compare the Cash needed as we all know there is some discussion about which style earns Money easier. So, not considering that as an econ Player you have to have to start paying for the Enterprise(s) earlier then as a war-Player, we (econ-players) would Need to pay aprox. 4k more GCs to reach Game-Lvl 16, so wouldn't you say we allready pay for being able to play the peacefull game? And as I said before: Peacefull Players dont get in your way if you want to play the war-game, so why do you even bother?
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 02:38 am i realize this will be a herky-jerky thought what if the difference in war levels between responding interceptors was a positive factor for the defense. meaning, the more mixed up in WLs a fed is, the better their air defense works?!? or make low wl3-5 air defense work stronger as fed support? meaning that its in every ones best interest to get your newbs air defense, and airdropping skills up to par?
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 02:45 am I think bonuses IE lower costs would be best or +10% quality or each school is now +15% capacity and effectivity. Or even +5 years average life.
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 03:40 am Ms Borg Queen... You are right, I dont bother. Its not about somebody 'getting in my way'. I apologize if you misunderstood me. My point is simply that if this game is to be a simulation, then simulate. Make the rules/risks the same for everybody.... as it is in real life and the way any true simulation would be. I think a war player should have to learn eco just like in real life. The same should be for econ players, they should learn the war aspect.... just as in real life. Its really a simple concept! If the game was realistic as it promotes itself then the game would be more enjoyable for everybody. Therefore I have a new 'motto' for all my peeps empire-wide... SIMULATE to STIMULATE!
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 05:34 am Realistic? Did you really just compare a game to real life? This is nothing like real life, you can't just poof GC out of nowhere IRL, there are no premium benefits. No game is realistic, that's why they're games. People don't play games for the realism, they play them for fun. How is the fact that they don't play the war game at all affecting your enjoyment. They wouldn't have any fun whatsoever if they were forced to play the war aspect. I'm having trouble understanding why you even care, why do you care? If you play "realistically" then you can play so. If they want to play with a magical shield barrier around their country, then they can. If people actually found your way more enjoyable, then Fearless Blue would be filled to the brim, and there wouldn't be 4 "unrealistic" worlds as you so describe them.
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 05:51 am Serpent......Realistic? Games are meant to have fun, not for people to experience what would really be that situation. How would people not being able to choose what to play be more enjoyable? They choose to play econ and econ only because not everyone wants to play the war game. Why does it irritate you that people play differently? Why does it piss you off that they don't want an exact simulation? That they get to choose?
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 05:58 am People don't play "realistic"(as so you describe reality) if they don't want to for a reason. Because they don't want to.
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 07:09 am Whats you guys deal? Im not pissed off at all! Why do you assume that because I have a different opinion than you do that Im pissed off or irritated? Im just making a simple point. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of the word thats used to describe this game..... SIMcountry. Sim is short for simulation, therefore its a simulation. You will find that word used many times throughout this game. So it seems reasonable that if this is SIMcountry then it would imitate real life in many ways but as you both have pointed out, it does not. The game has suffered and not had much of a real player base since the time when it was more (although not 100%) of a simulation. Hence my point! The game has taken the position of favoring those who do not want to risk anything. Which is fine by me. I do not own this game and the GM's can take the game in whatever direction they please. Obviously if I dont want to play SIMcountry I'll go play another game. However the game has suffered greatly as evidenced by the lack of participation. Therefore again... I say SIMULATE TO STIMULATE!
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 07:24 am There should be a realistic simulation world, then.
| |
| Monday, August 5, 2013 - 04:44 pm IT NOT A GAME IT'S A SIMULATION AND YES IM ANGRY AND IRRITATED SIMULATE TO STIMULATE!!!!!! IM TIRED OF NANCY PAMBIES TALKING CRAP AND HIDING BEHIND WAR LEVELS IM TIRED OF "PEACEFUL ECON PLAYERS" HIDING BEHIND WAR PROTECTION AND USING THEIR CEOS TO BID ON MY PUBLIC CORPS SO THEY CAN CLOSE THEM AHHHHH CAPS LOCK!!!
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 02:20 am in order for excitement to occure, it requires a Friction, discussions about 0% tax countries, and complaigning about rules only goes so far. people have to be allowed to disagree in-game, with a certain amount of risk. WLs do more to isolate, than create an even playing field i'm of the opinion, that if a person would rather pack up, than set up defenses, then shoot, let them play a peaceful game. but for those that want to compete, they should expect an ever increasing level of danger. and be prepared for such
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 03:28 am perhaps change the level to wage war against each other to 2 instead of three, as it takes too long for some members to reach three.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 05:47 am Why, are you one of them?
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 06:23 am which brings up the other thing i have to say, thanks PR. peoples lives change, some of us have been playing SC a long time. and wont always be able to live up to a high competition level, and their should be a way to go down in levels, do to life changes. i realize this could be abused, i honestly think that it should be tied to the security council. As players, active players, we should have an idea of whats going on, and avoid those who would abuse the system. i think that this can also offer some real politics via the SC. if you went up in war levels for attacking other players, the SC just might not let you off the hook, but for those that have been quiet a while, i guess we could figure it out. just an idea.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:59 am Pale Rider, you can go to WL3 by conquering 3 Countries if you like to, I would say that's fast enough, isnt it? (and if that takes you too Long you really shouldn't go to WL3 or you would be looking at a really bad suprise ;) ) Josias, nice Idea about going down levels but I would say leave the SC out of it cause there are also many peacefull Players in SC and tbh I think the really experienced Players will not be in the SC as you get more GCs per Time if you dont become first placed, which causes many experienced Players to avoid first place. Instead I'd suggest to make it possible for Players to go into 'Peacefull-Mode' if one doesnt start a war for, lets say, 3 RL months and in this peacefull mode one cant attack or be attacked but the one has to remain in that peacefull mode for a Minimum of time, lets say again 3 RL months, before you can swith back so it wont be able to just Switch back and forth as you want to. This may also be a reason for some 'peacefull' Players to try the war-game without need to fear that they can loose their grip of the game if they get bashed around, if they dont like it they just need to Keep their feet still for 3 months and can pull out of it.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 10:08 am I think the system's good now, just remove the war level requirements and you can have secured mode at any war level, and if you fight in PvP, you can go up against anyone not secured.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 03:55 pm nice avatar Arthur. where'd you get it if you don't mind my asking.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 04:20 pm that war mode / peacefull mode was once an option but too many hid behind it or you can say it was abused. bringing that back or changeing war levels below 3 would only create another problem. here's a wierd question. wonder how many would like to see war protection bumped up to say 5 or higher? maybe permanent protection even. problem here is many of those players don't even visit the forum.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 04:50 pm Lmao @BorgQueen
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 05:11 pm i highly respect BorgQueen myself. a vet of many years on the game. always polite and to the point. we could use more with this quality.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:08 pm Some people would rather have the option to advance war levels without having to conquer countries they don't want to fight as they see it as a waste of time which it really is. Say a veteran who left the game for some reason was War level 5 or higher prior to leaving and then when they come back they want to jump right back into the war game.... Do any of you honestly think they would want to do all the things they already did to get to War Level 5 once all over again? I sure as hell wouldn't.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:22 pm But those vets can do exactly that quite easily. I'm playing peacefull and the last 3 C3s (WL2) I took was a matter of about 10 minutes alltogether, not even one game day passed in that time, so I'd say for vets it shouldn't be a Problem to raise their War-Lvls quite fast. And besides that I would say it wouldnt be possible to just jump to WL5 and above because you just Need the time to get the weapons and ammunition you Need to live up to that WL so while you wait for that you can do a Little 'below-WL5 waring' ;) Not to mention that there would also be the Problem that there would be some Newbies that see waring at low lvls is easy and say 'hey, higher WL give more Money, so I go straight there' and be beaten around by those high-lvl C3s
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:32 pm I'm war level 5, headed to war level 6 soon, and it's not even bad and I wouldn't consider myself a vet.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:56 pm Sure it's not bad Nico, but would you like to start at WL5 with no weapons, ammunition and only Standard Quality Units?
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 08:58 pm If your war level 5, you should be smart enough to buy weapon and ammo upgrades...that or buy weapons with high quality.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 09:08 pm I'm war level 7, totally worth it. I just wish spending space would increase so I could actually UTILIZE my money. Instead it takes months of in between time to even get enough precision bombers due to the insane limits! Sure there's spending increase boosters, but they hardly have any effect at all. It costs <1.00T to wage and you only get around 200.00B without buying massive boosters that don't even give you the proper amount of money it clams to give you. it says I have 300.00B left, but only lets me spend 100.00B of it and there's no new orders for weapons and the year to date spending only went up 100.00B, with only a 100.00B increase in military assets. I think that spending space should be bigger with more cash.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 09:08 pm @Nico: sure, but what Pale/Arthur mentioned would mean that you can go straight to WL5 or more, so that means you start your Country and jump to WL5, so that means you dont have the weapons yet and have to start buying and upgrading them while you are allready at WL5
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 09:12 pm That would kill your economy to go to that level. But if you got to WL5, you should have no problem at all getting back up there. I must have misinterpreted, sorry.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 09:13 pm the first two WL's are like War tutorials. A lot of games I used to play you could skip the game for resources you would have earned through the tutorial, and then you were in protection (Secured mode) which you could leave early for a lot of resources. Maybe add a function where you can skip ahead war level and receive the weapons and ammo required for troops and some money to spend for units and more weapons and ammo.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 09:13 pm And I know Star. It's annoying.
| |
| Tuesday, August 6, 2013 - 10:38 pm The more you complain the longer it will be for you to reach WL3. GM isn't going to change anything. We fought it since it started, they won't change it. WL3 isn't even hard. I have deced over 30 C3s on WL3 (after 12/13 it started getting harder). So just go to WL3 and quit crying.
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 12:41 am lol Borg queen and nico are correct..... I think everyone agrees we should give noobs 1 month of secured mode for all their nations and then we should be able to kill them.... if the noobs want to live they must join federations
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 12:56 am pls@the why, be very quiet before aLL THE eyes turn their attention to you, And make your statement a reality!
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:00 am Nonsense, what Federation? A Noob Federation that can be easily destroyed by Experienced Empires? You know that if this changes Experienced Federations like our own will not open its doors to more noob players, because we will be looking for experienced players: wealthy ones and other countries armed to the teeth, to sustain our finances and military in the event of wars. Nico, were you here 3 years ago? No, you recently arrived and caught up with society. The grievance is with the people, once great empires, which were here 5 or more years ago and actually know what it felt to be so restricted with this foolish War Level Scheisse... The people can talk and say whatever they want, so quit telling them to stop crying. In short, noob players will be pushed to weak Federations or to isolation and... Death. Although, going back to the old days would be fine...
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:09 am disinterested
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:22 am Well I was just getting interested lol
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:42 am Remember this - someone may be fooling you that you think they don't know anything about Simcountry and you think they are just a lowly Noob when in fact they are an experienced player that has returned from the wilderness. I played Simcountry for years under a different name, I was a regular PAYING player having an empire of MANY countries. I left giving up all what i had built and paid hard earned real money for. I have seen it all, how the game was before and how it is now, so yes, now I have returned - here I am in 2013, if I were to reveal what my ORIGINAL game name was then players like The Roving EYE would tell you that I am a player that HE knew from his past - one to be VERY WARY of!!
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:47 am it is easy to buy enough air defense to make it very unprofitable to invade you.... combine with 20 other players and with shared air defense you create an umbrella that only the empires can crack.... ive found that most vets are mature and kind willing to help noobs.... so as long as you don't piss off the vets a noob fed can easily survive and learn and become active members of the SC community
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 01:48 am I actually was here 3 years ago thank you very much
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 03:07 am I really wish I could fight at lower war levels. I went up to 7 by mistake and it's too much.
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 03:26 am lol I told you mate
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 03:32 am Stallion, even though you have a point, I really don't think Nico here is a god under human flesh... If you were in fact directed at him...
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 11:19 am @ Philip Bauer no my comment was just my OWN general view and opinion and NOT one that is directed at ANYBODY in the game, my view and opinion may not be always right and i know that, but i am not afraid to voice it, that's what the forum here is for, freedom of speech, so we can also hear, take on board and appreciate the views and opinions of others in the game as well and to learn from them.
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 11:34 am I am also starting to get a bit p'd off if certain players are thinking that I am somebody else already in the game as this is NOT the case and if I have to become a regular PAYING player AGAIN to prove this then i WILL! I am on White Giant, Hercula Major, West Walton just with one country as you will see! So those of you who are thinking i am somebody else, PLEASE STOP now, thanks! Rant over - WS
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 07:24 pm Never said I was god under human flesh...but whatever floats your boat
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 10:59 pm Never thought it Stallion, as for you Nico, we know you are not a God... You are too much of a taint. I actually fought the possibility as in the comments above... lol don't make illusions out of yourself.
| |
| Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 11:28 pm I'm not a taint! Nor am I god. But you are also on the same category I am. And I'm not making illusions of myself. But one question for you, instead of having your friends defending you as you hide under WL3, why don't you get your goddess of noobs a*s above WL3.
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 12:26 am I never suggested myself in any category kid, but seen the aggression above, you well know where I am... And I wont please you with a similar reply that might bring me down to such low levels... I fought the war game in the past and I am not paying for a game that has decayed over 5 years, so I am very comfortable where I am, rather be a wealthy politician, than an average Warlord. My Federation has too a complex system of commerce and defence for you to understand... The Union grows larger everyday, why not create one of your many failed federations again? I expect you soon in White Giant...
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 12:35 am lets go girls!
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 12:37 am Chiwoo's random and absent remarks crack me up... My Foreign self limits my Engish to formality... yes? Lest I be using the American euphemism and sarcastic chit-chat that is so prominent among you.
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 12:51 am Lol
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 12:59 am Just seen the lets go girls remark - i found that quite amusing.
| |
| Friday, August 9, 2013 - 09:43 pm @ Chiwoo Disinterested ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *Muahs
| |
| Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 06:33 am ok, so i should stick to my own thread how about this, what if war protection was all or nothing? and how about per planet?
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 09:34 am the only way to climb war levels is to have wars? so if you don't ever have any war, then you cannot climb to war level 3 if you don't ever start any war with any c3? is this the way to play the game peacefully, or will the gm award you war levels if you very good economically?
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 05:33 pm Xon, the econ game only would not affect your war levels. You will not gain war levels unless you do fight c3s. You can do that, you know, and still play econ primarily. Just don't go above WL3 and you are safe from other players deccing on your unprotected countries. You should try all aspects of the game, you will find it very rewarding.
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 11:13 pm @wicked lady, thanks  i'm trying to play the peaceful version, so i try not to climb the war levels. so am i correct that i could build my empire to many countries without going into wars, or have other presidents declaring wars on me so long as i stay under war level 3?
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 11:29 pm For some reason, I read "A Word About Lady Gaga".
| |
| Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 11:57 pm on this topic, either no war levels so no protection on anything, and not being able to pick and choose that you want your main to be secure while your slaves not. is either all in or all out. there are so many things that can be done to make this game a better "stimulation" of us earth players
|
