| Superduty (Little Upsilon) | Monday, May 16, 2011 - 01:32 am 
The fact that if you level up to a certain level and being stuck at that level forever is just not realistic. If you can choose to level up why can you not choose to level down. It is unfair to be stuck at a certain level. The perfect solution would be to eliminate the war levels all together, but if you feel the need for this at least make it fair by giving us an option to level down. Perhaps buying our way down. |
| EC (White Giant) | Monday, May 16, 2011 - 05:35 am
Agreed |
| CorporatePartner (Little Upsilon) | Monday, May 16, 2011 - 06:01 am
Well, "Game Level" does go up and down. Indexes go up and down. Military/soldiers can go up and down. And, "War Levels" can be different on different worlds for the same leader or "account". |
| Crafty (Fearless Blue) | Monday, May 16, 2011 - 09:17 pm
War levels are supposed to reflect your experience at the war part of the game.
How could your experience possibly go down? |
| CorporatePartner | Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 04:21 am
Well, then why are "accounts" allowed to be "War Level 7" or even "War Level 3+" on some worlds and "War Level 0" on others? |
| Crafty | Tuesday, May 17, 2011 - 06:36 pm
Personally I dont agree they should be CP. But I can see why the GM thinks they should be. If you start up on another world then it takes a long time to be war ready at higher levels, so to walk in at level 3 or above would be suicidal or way expensive to cover WP with a new country. The other abuse I could see is a war experienced player from one world buying a ready to fight country from someone on another world and diving straight in on others. So yes, under the current system different empires on different worlds do need to be seperate.
Of course, all of this is easily bypassed by the current trend of multi-playing and logging into/using others accounts.
moaning mode off |
| Gothamloki (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 12:30 am
So the War Level should reflect the country or empire's war capability or the war experience of player?
Maybe it should be split. One index to reflect experience and one to reflect the country or empire war capabilities. |
| Crafty (Golden Rainbow) | Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 02:35 pm
Why are you asking us Goth. Don't you have an opinion you are willing to share?
I dont like to play the experience card here, but for my time players have always had to adapt to things not suiting them. Thats the nature of the game, it still is, there are lots of issues along with war levels. Econ players probably see more problems than any war player, how about govt. salaries being set to 0 on FB by the game? contracts not making sense, hundreds of new corps appearing in one month, etc etc.
Try adapting, there's always a work around or a way of turning what appears to be bad into a good thing. |
| Gothamloki (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 06:55 pm
Well, first part was a question concerning your 2 posts to CP just before mine. You said the war index is supposed to reflect a player's experience at war, but then in response to CP's comment about accounts with different war levels, you talk of the war index as a reflection of the individual country's war readiness. (Assuming you meant the country's capacity to engage in war.) Two very different measures, I'm sure you'd agree. I was curious as to which? But thinking about it. It looks like itS a measure of a player's war experience PER world.
The second part was an uninformed suggestion that the war index should be split. One to designate the experience of the player, and the other to show the war capacity of the individual country, empire, or fed. |
| Crafty (Kebir Blue) | Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - 11:22 pm
To clarify: I believe war levels are to reflect a players experience. I gave reasons as to why I believe they can/are different from world to world. In an ideal world (barring removing the levels altogether) the war levels would be assigned to a player regardless of world, IMO, but I cant see a way of implementing that without fixing many ways of multi-playing.
Regarding your suggestion, I cant see how that would help. You can judge (roughly) a country/empires 'war readiness' with a little clicking, radar planes and checking military assets. The level to designate experience is what we have already.
On a side note, most of the people bitching about war levels would literally s*^t themselves if they got in a real PvP war. |
| Gothamloki (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:32 am
Well, it would help with all the "clicking".
But truth be told, few of these indexes tell you anything meaningful. You'd have to do the digging for info either way.
But as a quick general indicator of my neighbors' basic capacity to commit war against me or repel my attacks would be nice. |
| CorporatePartner (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 08:26 am
"Walking into a new world", already includes "War Protection: Secured Mode" which supposedly was added back in 2008 according to Laguna. That gives absolute, and indefinte, protection from any and all wars or realted military actions. One country can take as long as it wants to grow, prepare, profit, etc., up to 100M population (and even growing beyond) before it would ever need to consider adding any additional countries which -may- be able to be attacked (they would also include a limited time War Protections [Temporary], which could be extended directly with Gold Coins). Also, if some leader were already say "War Level capable" of fighting, then they would also have the ability to send unlimited amounts of cargo using space trade from the other world where they have a military Empire of some kind.
As far as 'multis' or 'account sharing', etc., that's really irrelevant, since it's supposedly not allowed, and if it is abused, then the 'Terms and Conditions' already have state pensalities for that. If that's being abused, then that's 'Gamemaster' problem. Every topic could be conditioned with "well then the multis and account shares could do this or that..", so while it may be true or valied, it's just not a critical point, since it's always true.
Nevertheless, the main point is, why should a "War Level 7" mega Empire on one world, then be allowed to have 10, 20, or more countries sitting at "War Level 0" on another? Everyone knows that's a joke, including EC, who somehow 'missed the boat' on the call for his 'free War Protection', ha-ha ;).
On the other hand, accounts that are currently "War Level 0" on all worlds, AND grow the Empires to 40+ countries, including Fearless Blue, with no constraints, or limitations, is preposterous. Serpent said in the other topic, "when has a major Empire in the world not also had a major military to go along with it" (paraphrased), and the exact same point was made here as well in live chat earlier. Maybe, some very small, insignificant or city-state type countries have been only peace...but they are always very small and have limited resources, hence no one really pays much attention to them, like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Monaco, and about 100K tiny islands all over the world. So, if some leader want to be "War Level 0", then there is already "War Protection: Secured Mode" on 4 worlds for 1 country, not Fearless Blue. So, all leaders --already have the option-- to "be just a Switzerland" as Maestro2000 claims to be, but sorry, Switzerland is NOT 40 countries in 5 Empires on every world. That's just an idiotic comparison, and everyone knows it. The whole point revolves around what EC said, "getting free War Protection", however, wherever, and whenever. No, it's not 100% the same, but close enough.
As far as 'cake and eating it too"...how about the split of "War Levels" between different worlds? "War Level 7" or "War Level 3" on one world, then "War Level 0" on others? Yes, at least those leaders were willing or interested to move up somewhere (or not ask to be artificially lowered by 'Gamemaster'), but that still really doesn't make sense. In fact, "War Levels" as a way of 'segregation of leaders' doesn't make sense, and given that according to W3C data, about 90%+ of all registered leaders are from "USA", the concept of 'segregation' really doesn't fit well either, in terms of the cultural or legal precedents within the last 50 [earth] years. It also makes --no sense-- based in history, as Serpent was referring to as well...there has never been some "magical law" that prevented some country from attacking another. Sorry, that's just another childhood fantasy. "Secured Mode" is the same thing. And, supposedly before 2008, Simcountry had neither. And, why would it really matter anyways? Why does everyone need 'guaranteed protection' using the 'magical childhood wand'?
If you worry about losing your country, then there are other ways. Federations have long existed to help train AND protect new leaders. Also, countries with small populations, active leaders, and those who generally don't bother others, are practically never bothered anyways. Seriously, who is going to search around a map of 3K to 5K+ countries all colored with black hatch marks, seeking out to attack some leader with one country and 15M population anyways?? If the new war system that gives higher SC$ cash and population rewards for attacking and conquering a 'Simcountry' (country without a President) country, then it makes it even --more-- implausible. Not to mention there are many other --SOCIAL-- means of controlling really rogue actions like that, including retaliation, threats, and compensation to those who may have been injured or harmed either un-necessarily or indirectly (like fall-out events, disrupted corporations, lost workers, broken contracts, etc.).
So, the bottom line is "Gamemaster get your 'War Levels' and all your other 'restrictions' OFF THE LEADERS' BACKS". Get rid of "War Protection: Secured Mode", and instead provide INCENTIVES for war leaders to benefit from bigger and better spoils, like the good idea to give higher SC$ cash and population from those 'Simcountry' country conquests.
As far as the "free leaders...that's another issue....but, basically, no war for them. You want to 'war' then you register. For ecoonomics, the population is limited, corporation types limited, etc...if some leader wants to hang around as 'free', then they basically have a country equivalent to a 'Simcountry' country. Why should they have anything more? Unless, W3C wants to make everything 'free' for everyone, of course.
So, remove the un-necessary 'restictions' and let those who want 'security' exist as 'free' leaders with a 'Simcountry'-level country. Everyone else, who actually pays, should have the right to do whatever they want, but without 'Gamemaster' magically protecting 'always and forever'. Seriously, get real. "War Protection: [Temporary]" is already a huge concession that allows indefinite protection, at some cost, so what is all this other stuff? Why does any leader need "free War Protection"? If you really want to have it for "free", then you can be "free" and have 1 'Simcountry'-type country. There, enjoy. New leaders can do that to get started, then 'upgrade' later if they want. Simple. But, sorry, running around talking about your "3,000 corporations" and "40 countries" on all 5 worlds all at "War Level 0" is preposterous. If you want "free" then you stay "free"; if you want Empires and to be a CEO, then you pay. End of story. |
| Laguna | Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 02:55 pm
My bad, my bad. Secure Mode was introduced in 2007. I've been around for so long I get all the dates mixed up. |
| Maestro2000 (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 03:13 pm
"Number of countries in each world:
KB: 3,061
FB: 6,159
WG: 6,376
GR: 4,804
LU: 3,467
There is enough gravy in this turkey for everyone.
Want to be a war player? Get to war level 3
Want to be an econ player? Stay under the radar at war level 0,1 or 2.
Perhaps there should be more war levels under level 3. Give new players the time and training to graduate to war level 3.
All worlds should be a war world at level 3 or 4." |
| Maestro2000 (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 03:34 pm
FYI
With a few exceptions,(C3 conquest of 4 countries)I have purchased all my countries.
Why target me? I'm all for every world being a war world for people at war level 3 or 4. Go find other players with your same interest. Go ahead, knock yourselves out.
A while back the gamemaster offered players the option to play war mode or peaceful mode.
My choice is peaceful. The war levels is just an extension of this. |
| Crafty (Kebir Blue) | Friday, May 20, 2011 - 02:25 am
CP, a lot of times I think the GM has to consider possible abuses of new 'rules' they put into effect, which is probably why they dont seem to work out well. Your first paragraph doesnt really make sense to me. Sure, there's secured mode for a new player. Also, as is, you go to a new world, you have to build up war levels before you can fight people, so transferring in military to surprise people is not an option. By that logic, surely you arguing for different levels on different worlds.
And I just about remember the raging discussions after secured mode was introduced. Pretty much the same as the raging discussion now going on about war levels. |
| CorporatePartner (Fearless Blue) | Friday, May 20, 2011 - 02:42 am
What? Not "surely arguing" for anything of the sort.
What is so complicated about "in the current system", you can build a 100M+ population country, with as much military as you like, plus, you can 'ship in' as much military from another world as you like, all while staying BOTH at "War Level 0" and "War Protection: Secured Mode". And, no this has absolutely no restriction or conditionality to only apply to "new leaders". Some of the supposedly biggest "warmongers" have both "War Level 0" and "War Level 7" on different worlds.
The main point was simple. "War Level 0" is not needed, because there already exisits "War Protection: Secured Mode", which 100% no one can do anything militarily against indefinitely...and, yes, it's both "free" and available equally to both "new leaders" and "senior leaders" (and even "crusty old vets" ;)
But, yes, on the last point about the "debates", "War Protection: Secured Mode" makes equally no sense as well. Unless, you want to be a "free leader" with a "free country" and manage the quivalent of a 'Simcountry' country, then go ahead, enjoy. But, if you want "3,000 corporations" and "40 countries" and 2 strategic Space Station docks, then, no, you need to be a paying member and have 'real' countries which carry 'real' risks. If you want all of the benefits of the world, then you also must accept all of the risks. How much simpler could it be? The 'Gamemaster' still would offer "War Protection: [Temporary]", which could be indefinitely extended...ask Psycho-Honey, it works ;). |
