Suggestion for change (war)

Hey there everyone. I'm posting this in General as opposed to suggestions because I just wanted to hear what everyone thought.

As you might have noticed, Simcountry isn't exactly bustling with activity on most planets. While the game in general has noticed a downtick of activity, it can be especially noticeable on the most populous planet, White Giant.

I believe what it boils down to is a lack of interaction between players. Simply put, I believe there are too many barriers to get into the war game for most of the player base and the risk simply outpaces the benefit. It's costly, it's very much learn the hard way and there is virtually no incentive to getting to WL3 anyway.

"But your most Imperial Majesty, why don't you just move to a War World?"

Because I enjoy a level of asset security. Call me 'casul', but I like knowing with certainty that my main country will exist when I log in. That the thing I've spent time and money on cannot be wiped out, even if I take an extended leave. I think this is why many people chose to play on the 'optional world' and I do not think I'm alone in thinking this.

To get to the point:

I think that the War Level requirement should be amended/replaced by a game level requirement or abandoned all together for PvP. I think that the existing worlds should be restructured into 'War world' 'optional world' and 'peaceful world' (not change the name, just the nature of the planets war rules).

-The 'War World' would more than probably be as they are now. A Hardcore, play here you might die in a fire, type of thing. War is more common and easily accessible than the other worlds and that's the Primary function.

-The 'Optional World' could be something as simple as a limit to the secured mode. Only your leader Nation can have it, meaning that your 'slave' countries would be vulnerable. The War Level requirement should be scrapped and replaced with either a real-time limit (a few months perhaps) or a game level requirement. Meaning to go to war, you would have to be a few months old and actually have an Empire. (Or have played for a few months and turned secured mode off for all)

-'Peaceful world' would be what it has on the tin.

"But I don't want conflict!"

You don't HAVE to have it! It's optional! You just can't own a massive Empire with zero risk on the Optional World.

You can indeed play 'peacefully', avoiding war all together as long as you didn't have an Empire. Owning slave states has the added cost that you must have a defense and other players can take what you have taken. Players could fight wars without worrying about losing their industrial base and having to build up again. (Which is something players do now except they just pay for another country on another world and funnel the money to the war Empire) This also means that losing a war is something you can learn from. Even if your Empire was lost, you still have a remaining State to work from, even possibly gain back what you lost.

What do you guys think of this?

A change this big obviously doesn't happen without support and at this point I'm just curious to the general stance.

I think it would be reasonable to split the planets into "Optional" "Peaceful" and "War worlds" and amend the War requirement for optional planets.

I agree White Giant offers too much protection in regards to empires. I think you should expand at your own risk and slave states should always be at risk. War levels are outdated.

There is a reason for the war levels. Lets just say a group of people mastered the war game in the galaxy a long long time ago. Before it was kill or be killed. There was only the battle of the fittest. The weak economic players begged the game gods for mercy. The weak economic player asked the game gods to intervene. At the mercy of the Gods they gave the economy player the war levels. The nuclear holocausts of the past. The forgotten ratio active lands that the New empires stand today. Only a few players still in this game know the greatest battles ever fought from forgotten civilians. So be careful what you ask for. There may still be those warlords in the game today. Be very careful what you ask for. Those war levels are in place for a reason. Just a warning from a player who has returned from those times. Don't give anyone the chance. Trust me. You want war levels removed kiss some empire's goodbye. I was a economy player turned into a warlord throughout my time in the game. It's a ruff galaxy with no protection.

@sirsmokes

The proposal wouldn't allow this. Or at least the complete wiping of people. It just allows conflict to actually happen on White Giant.

Economy players can exist, they just cannot have large empires without zero risk and would have to upkeep a defense for slave states. That's all that is at stake here.

Would Empires be at risk? Yes. They should be, In my opinion. The Leader of said Empire would still have secured mode as some level of asset protection should remain. The secured mode would still exist. As it stands war is virtually impossible on WG unless both sides mutually agree. Only a handful of players are even at WL3 and there is little incentive to move to WL3. Not to mention how difficult a task this realistically is for new players.

War Level can stay in some form, but it should be removed as a requirement for PvP. As long as the Empire Leader has the option to stay out of the war, aka secured mode, then you can't really be wiped. To me, it seems like a great mix of war and asset protection. Economy players can still exist, but they just cant own 4 slave states without running the risk of war on the optional war.

And honestly, wouldn't some Economy players benefit from war? Selling weapons, strategic assets, etc. Most of this game is centered around warfare and on the most populated planet it's basically a non-existent function. I'm not under any impression that it would lead to a massive new influx of players, but I think it would make it more forgiving on new players that want to get into the war scene and allow older players to participate more.

I know for a fact some Empires are considering just abandoning WG and using it to pump cash into a War world where there is content. I'm sure this is a common practice. No war means less interaction. Less interaction means you don't need to play the Diplomacy game and the war game. In my opinion that just forces players to move planets, stop playing or just play the Econ game and hope the opportunity for war comes about.

I think E_O counted how many players are eligible for war. Seven was it? On the most populated world? Whenever you create an account on the planet, there is a description that says "Wars optional, easily avoided" not "Wars nonexistent, only seven players to fight".

Unrestricted warfare on fb. Space would allow you to move all the military you want to fb. So your empire on one world could supply your war machine on fb. Thus leaving any other world safe.

SirSmokes, I don't think you see the problem I'm trying to solve. What you describe doing is something that I specifically outline as being bad for the game overall.

I don't want to move to FB or LU. I don't want to have to pay 30GC extra a month, on top of my Enterprise, to experience war content. I know you 'can' and that's what some players are forced to do because the option for war really doesn't exist on the most populated planet. Every other world SHOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY SAFE unless it is a peaceful world. I want an option for war on other worlds that isn't FB or LU. I think this is manageable and allows the war game to happen without the risk of being wiped.

FB and LU shouldn't be the only planets that warfare occurs on and as it stands that's pretty much how it is. Having more nuanced worlds makes far more sense to me than telling players to pay extra so they can fight a war on a different planet.

Why, exactly, do you think that it should be left alone as it is?

Warlords don't exist any longer Smokes. That's a horrible unsubstantiated rumor.