War Level Suggestion

Ummm Sweetpea,
"Drew, (in a fed with Keto, JackSeptic and Serpent I believe on GR) wanted to nuke some guy over a share transaction. boasting about it all night in chat, getting all the pointers from his allies. It was great."
I was not in chat that night so I would appreciate you didn't use my name.

Ok, it isn't feedback, it's a suggestion. Sorry about the poor choice of word. But picking that minor point up does not alter the observation in my comment. It should not be used as a way to divert from the topic, that is very poor debate. And how come you didnt dec Drew when he attempted something similar with you, but waited until a situation that has nothing to do with you? But that's not my business, it just seems odd to me.

People should propose changes, good things have come of it as have bad. I know, I have proposed positive things that have been implemented to the games benefit, a couple that were in fact appreciated by the GM where they hadnt thought of it.

But yes, I agree with Hez that this really should have been put in suggestions Drew, how can anyone critisise his posts as spam when everyone else does it. I may sound like I have my finger up my arse, but there's good reason why there are different forums for different topics.

IMO, Drew barely suggested anything. The difference between "this sucks, it needs to change" and "this sucks, this is my proposed change" is relevant here. Bitching about the existing system and things unrelated to the game is what the general forum is for.

Drew:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

This is not the ideal solution, but really WL's do little to defend players.<!-/Quote-!>

Surely this means something has been suggested as a solution, albeit not ideal says the OP.

Something being suggested would belong in the suggestion forum would it not?

Well, that was my opinion and why I didn't tell him to move it to suggestions. I would have if I took this as him actually suggesting something instead of just complaining about the current system.

Well I think it can easily go in the suggestion forum, but it isn't a concrete suggestion either. So before I more informed suggestion can be given some dialogue is probably needed. I think that can somewhat justify the location of the thread.

So I guess because of that, someone can follow respond, and once they see a solution post a real suggestion in the suggestion forum or Polling after they have looked at it from all sides and have a proposed idea instead of just a shell of an idea which is here.

I think there are so many different calls for different aspects of the WL system to be revised that it is highly unlikely any change will be made in them. The only scenario I can see is if they were being seriously abused somehow to the detriment of the game in general.

Therefore, unless someone can show and prove very clearly such an abuse it would be pointless in trying to have them altered. Whatever is suggested is not going to sit well with everyone.

Keto, I will use your name if it is appropriate.


HE IS IN KETO'S FED.

There, I did it again. Do you really have a problem with that Keto?

Just dont assume because I am fedded with them that I was a part of any of their plans.....similiar to members of NLUO I guess. Not all parties of a fed are privy to all things going on within that fed.

Keto, we were on the up and up. Clarification was needed I agree. I didn't name you to make it appear as if you had a part in Drew's actions. I merely wanted to point out who he is federated with, and document his backing for the purposes of this thread.

I doubt you did have anything to do with it. You haven't been very active and those who actually pay attention and care about this thread are well aware of that.

Fair enough.

Hugz all round !?!

For years, Simcountry did not have war levels and everybody was always a potential target.

there was no way to prevent war. There were no black out hours and no temporary war protection.

It seems that now, when someone gets to a war level that allows president to president war, it is considered a problem.

Should we get back to the previous situation?
remove all barriers and allow war by anyone against anyone?

remove safe mode?

War level are intended to:

1. Protect the inexperienced.
2. Prevent wars of the very experienced against ones who are only a little experienced.

we can extend the margins and allow war level 3 players fight anyone up to war level 8 or higher.
(closer to the situation on FB).

do we want more protection or less protection?

we also have temporary war protection that allows you to protect yourself while building your army.

war levels ended the habit of attacking and destroying beginners.

In the current situation, you have all the time you want to build a large army before you move up to war level 3.
You can do this with several countries, and you can do this with several friends. (also using war treaties).
It is now easier to create a situation where a very strong attacker might think twice because the price is too high.

We will add more units that attack automatically when you are attacked and cause real damage. We will also allow the defense of a target, to make use of all the military units that are close to it while it is attacked.

A very strong country will be able to win of course but winning a war against a well defended country should not be easy and the price should be much higher than the price of the defense (it is, but could be improved).

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Should we get back to the previous situation?<!-/Quote-!>

Yes?

I'm down for extending the margins as well. Secured mode and more expensive war protection is enough for differentiating FB and other worlds, IMO.

EDIT: In either case, this is beside Drew's point which was that a player was still War Level 3 who is very experienced when he was War Level 3 and inexperienced, which would indicate the potential problem of players remaining in low war levels specifically so they can prey on weaker players.

War level are intended to:

1. Protect the inexperienced.
2. Prevent wars of the very experienced against ones who are only a little experienced.
*****
I think the WL's can't be so voluntary. If you fight enough wars, then you should be forced away from those who haven't -Drew
*****
andy, at this time, its safer for many novice players to go up in levels. Rather than stay at a low PvP level.

in fact, here's an odd idea!

what if, after WL11, the only way to go up is to take a WL9 or better player country!

i'm sure some wouldn't like that idea. just throwing it out there.

Methinks forcing players up the war levels as they win more C3 wars would help people like Drew (war inexperienced). What Mizore says about that has a lot of validity. Any player can get stronger and stronger at WL3 completely overwhelming another of the same WL.

So the real question is: Do we want war levels to function toward the end that they were originally implemented for?

New players should obviously have war protection, I am all for new players having the opportunity to learn the game. But how long is a player considered new?

I think that after a sufficient amount of time ALL players should not have any war protection at all, unless they decide to purchase it with gold coins as it used to be. Im ok with the secured main idea, but other than that there should be no extended free war protection. Although the slow build up of war protection as happens now is a good idea.

I believe this would encourage more cooperation and participation in and between federations. It would also encourage new players to join feds where they will not only get helpful advice but they would become part of the SC community. The latter is a HUGE reason. Being part of the SC community is a fun and rewarding 'by-product' of SC. I think it contributes to the 'staying power' of the game.... makes players want to stay.

Well, if any new changes are made I am requesting to have my war level set to 0 on all worlds and I'll withdraw from the war game entirely. This crying is getting old. I don't see any reason I cannot move back down everywhere. If rules changes are introduced I am asking for a reset and be done with it.

nobody is talking about a retreat.
The last thing we want is an experienced player in a very low war level.

what I hear is that experienced players are staying in war level 3 by fighting C3s at that level.

What could be done is to have a player who wins several C3 wars at level 3, move to level 4, as we do with WL2.

That's the gist of my arguement for a slight change to the war level system Andy. Including above WL4, all the way to the top in fact.

Yes +1.

Andy I disagree with moving from lvl 3 to lvl4 after fighting a certain amount of wars.

After watching players move away from war at any level by going up levels I am at an end with war. There were many players at my experience level that didn't want to fight war. The prospect of fighting c3s at difficult levels after what I have heard is not desirable.

Either way I am going to figure a way to start over very soon, and there won't be any problems at all. The entire discussion about every problem with war on some level or another is centered on wars I have declared on players or groups and the incessant whining is at a level that is intolerable honestly. Constantly changing and altering the game is only encouraging the environment where players scream on the forum for change after change instead of just fighting a war. Big whoop.

I still want to go down to level 0 if any more changes are introduced. I'll just start over very soon afterward if it happens and you guys don't place me at 0 or quit altogether because I don't think the prospect of losing all I have managed to acquire is worth a restart. If these players want to mold the game to fit them at every turn then they should be the one forced to play it, not I. Just being honest.

In fact I think it is only reasonable to request a total game reset accompany any change at all.

i never petitioned anything wendy ..get your facts straight.