A word about war levels

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

@TheWhy

Aren't leader countries the only ones secured?

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.

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.

moral of the story don't reset ur account lol

@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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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!