War Level Suggestion

who said you petitioned anything? I haven't mentioned your name other than to point out that you share a federation with Drew, and that was days ago.

You need to take your own advice, get YOUR facts straight. Until you do, know your role and Hush your mouth.

And if you are talking about this

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Your pals JackSeptic and Super actually petitioned Andy to implement a mechanism that would allow players to do exactly that.<!-/Quote-!>

, yes YOU DID...

stick your foot in your mouth and I'll point in the direction of the thread.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

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.<!-/Quote-!>

I'm going to have to agree with Crafty, especially the all the way to the top part.

If you goal with the war levels is this:

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

Then it stands to reason that the system should always be forcing you up the more wars you fight. In my opinion, an additional benefit for the overall wargame is that there is a specific endpoint where everyone can fight everyone and that everyone may eventually get to unless they stop wars altogether. The only reservation is that C3 raiding appears to become more and more unprofitable at higher war levels. If the system is forcing you up, it may be wise to consider balancing the "bounty" for conquering C3s at higher difficulties so that it is possible to earn a similar net amount by conquering a C3 at each war level. Even with this reservation, I think the best way of achieving the aforementioned goals is to push everyone slowly to the top.

I, as i have always said i fully support "IN TERMS" that the war levels provide income to players. Lately thats been going down hill, increased weapons costs and the increasing damage in C3 makes it less profitable in the upper levels.( will explain below )

As i stated before i agree that the war levels should offer protection to players but shouldnt remove them completely from harms way. War levels should offer protection from larger players. The 2levels above or below is to restrictive. It prevents the players in the upper levels from helping the new players if they are attacked. On top of that if players are war level 11 and wish for a player to move up 10 levels the cost alone from from weapons/ammo costs alot, which means they need to build up an econ and a nation which makes them more of a target, and with no allies makes them easier picking which leads to the so called "NOOB BASHING" as stated by Andy.

My point was that the only time anyone of large or lower levels should be able to fight the other levels is if a fed dec is signed. If the Netherlands where attacked by Russia they would expect the US to honor there EU-US alliance, the US wouldnt state sorry my wars in Iraq and afganistan moved me up to war level 11 SORRY cant help you.(Does this to make a point to Andy)

If the war dec is signed war levels shouldnt matter. It should be the PLAYERS CHOICE to either help or to not. The GM shouldnt be allowed to say im sorry your to much of a noob and i forbid you from helping or the other way around.

------------------As for C3 war income-------------
Lately the income has gone down hill. I explained to several players and have seen support. The income in the lower levels isnt enought to accully help with these increased weapons costs. Also in the upper war levels the C3 get dozens of higher Q units then the players can even purchase. Players need to stock and update units for days before hand well a C3 can "POOF" a military in great size and Q in a matter of seconds, not only that but weapons are more powerful, allow not 1 but in upper levels 2 counter attacks = the lost of several extra units

As i posted even if buying tank/artillery at 50% market price costs 1T if you use 300Q(which is used to also strip garrisons). At base you spend 2T to just blow up targets. Keep in mind you only make 11T per C3 @ level 11. This donest include the cost of stripping the air defence or even the loses from the double attack stealth bombers. The income is VERY VERY little in comparison to the time and effort but into the war.

I suggested to someone, maybe the GM can make some use out of it is going back to the 1.5T per war level income rate. That or war level * 1M extra pop added to a nation.

Warring a war level 11 nation and gaining either 17T(1.5T per level)
---OR---
Gaining a nation of 11T with the population of 20M

These small updates would help to increase the incentive to move up the levels(IDK why the GM reduced the income in the first place)

Here we are again where players have all the answers, not surprising to see Scarlet thinks he actually has one of the best. Stating the obvious is obviously easy. With that said, a utopian solution is by no means easy to achieve.

How many times in the last few years have we been at this very point? All the effort, even if the devs mean well has actually pleased the game? Yet we stand on the edge of another unplanned change. The sad thing is that even with the best proposals possible, at best what can be expected is to please a simple few and piss off the rest who are ill-affected by the change. So why not force it down our throats? That is the final solution.

But forget all that, think of just a few days ago. Not a single player was on this forum asking for any change other than removing all war levels entirely. That was the only request made by many players, old, new, big and small. A majority consensus.

But what has lead to this round of crap? DrewCakes. Well, for the purposes of this illustration let us not mention his name, we should just point out the outrageous.

Keep in mind, we are now having this conversation because of a player. A player who has significant backing in his allies(Had a definite advantage in that, oh well). A player that decided he should nuke a player over some share buys.

So let us go through some clear observations and scenarios. If that player had figured out he had bit off more than he can chew, and Plexia had kicked the crap out of him initially; would his allies then not join in to solidify his cause? The answer is a resounding unequivocal YES! But we never got to this point.

What happened was, when another player declared on Drew which actually prevented Plexia from being nuked, even with all that backup this was somehow an unfair bargain.

The players on this thread who are now jumping on the bandwagon for further change are the same ones who repeatedly point out the problems with federations being largely useless. But this was a prime example where the function of federations should have taken hold. Drew, if he ever felt outmatched, has plenty of federation back-up and we are all at war levels we could fight from. At what point were we to assume the conflict would not have widened if Drew would have gotten his ass handed to him?

So here we are again, where a player who missed his chance to bash a player he thought he could overpower with or without help from his fed is the one who starts a thread like this. If he declared war, he should not be the reason a discussion like this is started. In this example he wanted to war, if only things went his way, expect no adversity, and complain if counter-declarations come.

Absolutely stunning.

Again, think about that.

I am seriously requesting an entire game reset of war levels accompany any changes. It is only right in my opinion. The game can remember your highest war level achieved to avoid double payouts on War Level awards.

If a player who declares war can force a reaction like this from w3, I want no part in it, I will accomplish this with or without the implementation of the fairness doctrine for those affected by change. Everyone should be reset with any changes. This way we all know what lies ahead of us, and we aren't thrown into someone's idea of a better game because DrewCakes can't fight wars he intended to start.

Crafty had a good idea so I agreed with him.

What's your problem, seriously?

My guess, irritable bowel syndrome. lol

i'm with the idea 2, but not based on c3 wars, but pvp, the more pvp you do, the more it proves your aggression, and should push you up.

shrug

You know what my problem is. Too many crybabies, and you cradle them.

It is with the idea that players individually or as a group think we can change the game to fit/match/correct/improve any and every situation.

I think everyone should have the right to state an opinion or a suggestion. If people feel like they wanna "cry" so to speak about something they feel passionate about, they have the given right to do so, as a player within this game. Too bad, Wendy, there are OTHER players. Game doesn't revolve around just you.

I do, however, know that the GMs appreciate commentary and suggestions, and I'm sure constant gripes and moans are frustrating because I think they really do try hard to make the game an enjoyable and fair playing environment for everyone.

I did not read all the previous in details.
too busy in these last days of the year and most of us are on some free days.

I agree that there is a problem with war level in different worlds.

If you are a great war player and reached a very high war level in one of the worlds, doesn't it mean you are also a great war player on the other worlds?

maybe we should move the entire account to the max war level that was reached in any of the empires.

That sounds fair.

Personally, I'd still like to see it paired with the system moving up players who win many wars - whether it be done through C3 wars or PvP wars - and hope you take a look at the C3 bounties compared to cost of conquest. But same war level across the account makes good sense nonetheless.

Maybe you should Andy, I'll start Preparing right away. You could remove war levels too and please 95% of the game as well. You could do anything or nothing at all. And please move me to War level 0 when you change anything. It is a humble request.

Just to clarify,
there are never any resets of war levels as there are no resets of players war experiences.

war levels are here to stay as they function.
some tuning might take place, like account wide war levels and possible a little more flexibility in fighting between players with different war levels, especially in the higher levels or increase in the war level after winning a certain number of wars, like with war levels 1 and 2.

Any such possible change will be announce ahead of time on the forum and game news.

There will be some other additions and changes to the war game.

Mobile units are close to be released. two land types will be released first. to be followed by others fairly quickly and later by intelligence units.

A very significant change will involve the support of land units in the fighting for a target, allowing military units that are within range, to support the defense (garrison) at the attacked target.

Currently, such units fight when they are attacked.

If i may Andy

A few updates that would be welcome to the war levels.

-Winning a PvP war should count as moving up the war levels. Taking 5nations from a player shows skill to a degree and a player shouldnt be allow to sit in the lower levels.
-I should be allow to fight anyone "UNDER THE CONDITION" that i signed a war dec. Signing a war dec pledges forces to your allies in times of war(it used to mean and auto dec of the attacking nation). This should still be the case. The only time you should see a war level 11 fighting a 3 or even a 4 (outside of FB) would be if they signed a war dec and are defending there ally. Otherwise the normal 2 above or below the war level should stay in place.


- Also please increase the cash in C3 warring... Bring it back to the old levels, as it stands the income gainned is really pretty sad

i would not like to see us set to our maximum war levels im 11 on FB and 0 on KB i dont want to be bumbed up to 11 on a world i havent fought a war on nor built a military on.besides there is no money to be made warring c3s at war level 11 i have to fight at 3 or 6 just to try and make a dollar, please consider another option.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

at best what can be expected is to please a simple few and piss off the rest who are ill-affected by the change.<!-/Quote-!>

Not true, complete fabrication in fact. Read "expected to please most of the players, who enjoy a good game, and piss off the one or two players who like to take endless C3s to attack people.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

But forget all that, think of just a few days ago. Not a single player was on this forum asking for any change other than removing all war levels entirely. That was the only request made by many players, old, new, big and small. A majority consensus.
<!-/Quote-!>

Not true, complete fabrication in fact. I would point out most every single post has advocated war levels remaining and, as a whole, the player base seems to accept the GMs decision that they are here to stay and they provide a stable place for new players to start. So NO posts for removal of war levels, just a lot pointing out some tuning that could be done now that they are in use and the minor little bugs are beginning to show.

As with any product or idea I can think of, there are always upgrades, improvements, quirks and bugs to be ironed out, be it a new range of cars or a system of waste collection. The GM has acknowledged this by making a concession or two, such as the 2 level decleration range.

This is not about Drew, it's about very strong economies being able to amass arms while staying at a lower war level and taking as many C3 countries (being as war experienced as a WL 12 player would be) as they like and being able to remain capable of attacking players who have taken few if any C3s and do not have the experience, economy or desire to be in the war game.

Re: Expense in taking C3s - no comment, it's a totally different subject.

Yeah Crafty no need for me to care about it anymore. It is just easier that way.

There are two different issues here:

1. Should you move up the war levels if you win several wars against a C3 of the same war level.
currently you can keep doing so and never move up.

2. should the entire account move to the highest war level of any of the empires.

1 We think that raiding C3 countries is fine but as you become more experienced, you should move up the levels.
Then raid higher level C3s.
War is becoming cheaper. The cost of ammunition is declining (following the exchange rate) and the amount of money you receive has remained unchanged for a very long time, meaning that you can purchase many more weapons for this same amount.

2. also looks reasonable. some will not like it but:

- They have secured mode for the main country.
- They can use temporary war protection or just build a strong defense.

With the new feature that will allow mil. units to participate more in the defense, it will become easier to defend.
More auto response units will be added to enhance the defensive features.

Longer term, we think that wars could have a "partial win" option, with some areas remaining occupied while the country can continue.
The occupied areas can give the occupier an economic advantage.
If some strategic areas remain very hard to occupy, wars may become more balanced.

Currenly, a very strong player can quickly destroy the essential mil. assets and take the country with a huge overpowering might and do it very quickly.
Too fast sometimes, if you take into account the effort of building such a country.
This is a major reason for players not to fight.

Well...personally I would not enjoy having my entire account move up to my higheat war level game wide because on GR I play at WL1 and am strictly economy driven. Ha! thank gawd a couple of my countries make money. I wouldn't want to lose them or lose their profitability because of arming them.

But for the best for the game all round, I am going to sit on the fence over the whole account being the same WL, and hope some reasonable unselfish points are made.

Seriously, I cannot wait. Initially I thought it would bother me too Crafty. But hey, it is fair. Cheers to the future.

1. I dont agree with moving up war lvls after winning several wars with c3s. This should always remain an option. I'm all for rules in game but SC shouldn't dictate every little aspect. If so, we will only log in to see how our countries are progressing with very little input from the player.
2. Each world is basically its own game within the big game. Keep it that way. If your entire account moves up to the highest level from one world, you might as well amalgamate all worlds into one big one. Military being cheaper and having more defense to participate is not a strong enough reason to move an entire account up to one level.
Yes a strong player can wipe out a weaker player(but thats how the world works, the strong will survive.)As long as this game is around there will always be an issue with stronger players defeating weaker players. And by stronger doesn't mean who has the most weapons.

I'm pretty much in favor of 1 and 2 for the reason that I see these as turning war levels from a means for experienced players to protect assets to a temporary protection that is slowly phased out the more you play the wargame.

Regarding 1, the current systems voluntary choice in war levels makes it so that players can self-select their competition range and works to keep players separate. By switching to a system that always pushes people it, it is my hope/opinion that more and more players will wind up being in the same competition range reducing the game-enforced partitions created by the existing war level structure.

Regarding 2, the stated purpose is to protect inexperienced players. It is not to allow players a safe econ base on one world that earns money to allow you to purchase weapons and fund campaigns on another world. This is what is being done by experienced players. The whole game has already been unified into a single "game board" with space and the direct account allowing players to transfer cash and weapons across worlds. It is inaccurate to claim that servers are separate given the importance of good, consistent econ in fueling a war machine and the near total lack of barriers in using one world's econ to pay another world's war.

I mean you can make the claim that I'm being self-serving given that I'm not going to be terribly affected by either change since I'm not below War level 3 on any world that I have countries on, do not engage in consistent C3 raiding where the lower war levels yield better profits, and don't engage in C3 warfare where lower levels make it easier to acquire C3s... meaning, I have little to lose in terms of using War Levels to protecting a world's assets and am not worried about having to fight C3s at higher war levels.

That's where I'm coming from. I'm unsure how the change would play out over time, but the reason I support these changes is because I see it as a means of turning War Levels into a more temporary kind of thing.

This needs to go in the suggestion section.

Scarlet has good points. If we were forced up the levels, then the war experienced players would find themselves in much the same position that they were before the war levels that most moaned about.

While at the same time, newer or non aggressive players would remain without the threat from 'bullying' players. Is this not the ideal position that was wanted with the introduction of war levels?

Lol King!

So when can we expect this provision to take hold Andy?