VOTE: Remove/change the War Level System (Kebir Blue)

Hey all,
As exemplified by the massive and heated debate going on in another thread, there is a demand for the removal of war levels from the game. Please make your opinion count. I have created a poll on the voting page- check it out if you wish.
Cheers,
T

if you change it im leaving - i dont see it on any voting page - where is said pole?

You should see a Public Voting option under the Communication menu.

I'm a member, post War levels. It sounds awesome, from what i've read. THE war world sounds like a place I eventually want to take my account. But, ... I never played in that game. I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool to play in. I'm saying I've never played it...
There should be a limit on C3's that you can raid before you become a "TARGET".
Also, Why should there be a "Defense Index" restriction? Seriously! If you don't have the noodle to know you should protect your country, should you be responsible for loosing it (after you were being an idiot on the forums, of course)!
All I'm saying is that, NOT all of the customers in this game want to hear whining...
Me, myself, I want to hear everyone of you argue!!!
I'll probably see some of you on FB soon. I'm ready to use some of my "ECON" playing weapons on you!!!!!nlol

There is a limit on C3s that you can raid. The number is 5. Once you take out 3 C3s, you go to War Level 2. Once you take out 3 more, you go to War Level 3. And once you're there, you're a target.

Is that limit 5 per day per world? I am pretty sure I took more than 5 this past week, for instance. Last weekend, I think I took 5 or 6.

The war levels are here to protect new players and give them time to build up.
once they reach war level 3, especially on the war world, they can be attacked by anyone and can fight any country in war level 3 and up.
It is similar but a little less aggressive on the other worlds.
Tabula Rasa just described how many wars you can fight against C3 countries to get to level 3.

Those who do not want to fight, should not get to war level 3. They can play a peaceful game.

Removing the war levels will allow players who do not dare to fight an experienced player to overrun new comers as happened before we had war levels, and chase these new players away.
These were nonsense wars against hardly defended countries and players who did not have a clue yet about how it worked.
They won great victories and took the assets.

Instead, they should have the guts to fight a higher war level player and take a risk.

so either you just don't have it in you to fight a real war or you don't understand the war levels.

none of these are reasons to drop the war levels.

We intend to add war levels including some where the C3 country will not only defend but will attack. It will include new weapons added for both parties.
There will be very high gold coin awards for reaching such war levels.

Andy, whilst i understand your point - since i left the game 3 years ago, its gone downhill. You no longer have an active community, the war game is dead (which lets face it, is a major part of the game), and you have lost many great players and feds as a result.

Sim country was exemplified by its large and diverse player base and the forums reflected that. People were active and made both friends and enemies on the forums. I tried something, i made a thread in the GR section of the forums claiming GR as my own. 3 years ago, I would have been slated for it. Now, nothing. Players no longer seem to care and are playing the game more as a single player pure econ game than one where the need for diplomacy and networking meant your very survival.

Surely there is a better way?

I was engaging in my first wars for war levels yesterday and I thought they were a good base to learn about war in the game.

The GM is switching the game levels to include WLs more easier than military indexes. This in the medium-term will bring more wars but before people enter a war they will be better prepared than before.

Thus I voted against.

Gday Andy.

It feels like war levels are completely aimed at single countries.

I can't speak from experience so i'm open for clarification, but trying to organise a fed vs fed war with multiple war levels sounds like a huge pain in the bottom!

First fix that comes to mind might be federation set war rules.

Perhaps If you join X federation, complete war protection will be removed? Incentives?

Even a federation wide war level. Fed X warlevel is 5 and fed Y warlevel is 5. Average on all fed members or even a vote to raise? So all members can fight, no problems. Don't like it? Join a peaceful fed. Again needs to be incentives or something.

I'm sure the community + GM's could think of a system that allows for new player protection and simple/active/fun war declaration like it was almost a decade ago.

Oh and its good to see the GM's joining this sort of discussion.

Thumbs up.

Fighting a c3 is nothing compared to pvp.

Ragingpencil, sorry mate - i dont agree with peaceful feds. I play another game where peaceful factions wrecked the war game too now theres a ranking system there much like here. However, it works on the other game.

How about war levels for whole feds instead of empires? There also has to be some giveway where you can attack and be attacked by a war level at least one place above and below you.....

At least that way, feds would come back into the game, teamwork would return and the community would become, well...a community again.

Its not the perfect solution however, it is a solution that would somewhat address the issues in discussion.

One of original suggestions for WLs was over level, say, 3, you could dec on any equal or higher WL country, hey, you know what youre getting into before you dec, so your call, no moaning if you lose. For newb protection you cant dec on levels below. But to make the levels matter (they are meant to reflect experience after all) and to make it harder for people to build large armies while hiding in low levels, make the taking of C3s or any warring, force a player up the levels. You dont get the option to fight and stay at the same level. So econ make good money but have to buy WP if they want many countries (or they can buy countries), whilst players who want the war option have to spend on defense, have allies, etc.

May I remind all that playing in a war mode requires a good econ as well, war costs a bomb (sic), its just spent differently to econ players.

Again war levels are an UNFAIR advantage.
They can hostile bid, boycott, ect.(well hiding war free)
At least relax the rules to be @ level 2 on all worlds expect FB it should be 1-7

that's 4nations plus a main before they get to level 2. That's MORE then fair exp if they have time to build up. 4 nations can do ALOT of damage but allowing them to have 7plus(i mean buying) nations with massive def and such is to much. Its just to much of an unfair advantage.

And in fearless blue

That should be as it was prewar levels. Everyone goes there FOR WAR if they get beat off so be it. I did i become a better player BECAUSE of it. You know what losing a nation does MAKES YOUR STRONGER. I and i know others think it to. To let dozens of players sit with 10plus nations on FB @ lvl 0-2 is ridiculous. They should have to pay for war protection.

Game master you know why so many people don't want it to change the war levels. FREE war protection. Really how hard is your "Econ game" War players buy weapons, buy ammo, buy war protection, buy the populations, we the ones most effected by space. What happens to these econ boys? NOTHING. Every cent they make they turn into coins or loans. As for war players we are stuck spending all are income to buy weapons in space for crazy prices. Its becoming to unfair to war players. For 2years i was econ only now i'm both and i gotta say i wish i joined war sooner because as of now IT SUCKS

As said to me to countless vets
In order to know war you need to have something taken from you just once. I've taken my beatings and i'm starting to dish mine out.

Tommi
Fearless blue shouldn't have these silly restrictions before they go to Fearless blue make it clear that it is the war world. 1-7 is fair game they want to be econ fine so be it but you cant let them take 7nations then buy a ton more then let them say...

O well now i'm econ only never worked like that before shouldn't work like that NOW

If they going to hide under the war levels for free war protection make them pay for it. Start more disasters and they need to help or send X amount of aid which is counted toward there game level. What ever happened to that feature so much promise but it seemed to have just died

You know where my vote went.

I would support the following:

1) War level three or higher in every world should make players fair game for war.
2) Federation membership should only start at war level three.

also on my menu

3) Create a war continent on each world. Here and only here is the place where player vs player war can happen. Players at war level 3 or higher can move to the continent. Players for 1 coin each can move their countries to a randon available slot on the war continent. (5 coins to move to a specific available slot) A country must be at least 30 million in population to move to the war continent.
3a) All C3's on the war continent are sized 30 to 40 million people. (Nice prizes there)
3b) Give some economy boost to countries on the war continent. Perhaps the citizen consumption rate is at 90% the normal rate. Production of weapons is at 110% of the normal rate.
4) Phase out population selling in the game.



Cheers,

Maestro

Maestro, the war continent idea sucks as much as a cheap hooker on crack does. How about a econ continent? No? Didnt think so.....

Feds should have war levels. You should be able to dec on a rank or two higher and lower. If you dont want war...dont join a fed.

Add to that increased bonuses for winning a war (dditional loot perhaps) and you have both econ and war players happy....

I am glad to see this thread has actual discussion instead of just blaming and trash talk. We have obvious division between the econ and the war players. I believe it is beneficial to the GMs and the game as a whole to find a resolution that both sides can live with. I think we may need to try a few things to see what works and what doesn't.

I would be interested in hearing more suggestions from the war players--things don't include ending WK's since the Gm has said they are committed to them. Maestro has offered several decent options. Rather than beat these down, let's offer our own.

The first thing I will offer is C3 fighting doesn't ever get more challenging. Taking a WL1 C3 requires the exact same skill set as taking a WL6 C3, just more clicking of the same things. I suppose WL7 is a little different since it requires distance and a "new" skill to learn there. But once you figure that "challenge" out, it is the same skill set used for all previous levels.I offer this because I do not agree that WL teach a person the war game and do not even indicate how good they are at war. I am WL7 on LU. I am not sure that I would call myself a master of the war game though. Just means I invested the time and money to buy enough weapons to fight that many C3's. I imagine fighting even one player would be much, much harder.

I like the idea of the c3 attacking
of course it will depend on how well they are attacking then our defense weapons can fight too
because PVP usually winds up in a nuke fight which reduces production or a one side fight sends away players

Zentrino, in my experience fighting a player is as easy as you make it. A long used tactic was figuring out when someone was online and hitting them when you knew they would be asleep.

Matt, i believe that nukes are underpriced and under effective if they are the same as they were three years ago. Nukes need to be a lot more effective and a lot more expensive. They should do mega damage and their price should reflect that. There should also be a lot more fallout and detrimental effects to prevent their widespread useage as others would then get involved in your war.

Also, why has no one commented on my fed war level idea? I think that is a pretty decent compromise.....

The fed problem has been pointed out before with no interest from the GM. As the chair of a long standing fed on KB, I find this a major problem. I dont see anything wrong with Stuarts or Maestros ideas...discuss.

To add:

Perhaps joining a federation automatically puts you at war level 3. (The war level on all worlds)

Maestro...more compromise needed from you man.

Im saying keep war levels, but make them for feds, not empires. All levels are warable but only plus or minus one or two places from your fed. If you dont like war, dont join a fed....join a CM instead.

That would keep everyone happy...

@Stuart T

Maybe too difficult to program.

The simple would be to force all federation members to war level 3....and make all players at war level 3 or higher on all worlds fair game.


This still leaves the subject of war peace unresolved. (The war continent idea effectively replaced this)

No, you mean the econ continent. Right?

A war continent takes away a load of tactics.

A econ continent wouldnt bother you nor would you notice any difference in your current gameplay.

so, I think we are agreed - if a continent were created which i hope to god it isnt, the scaredy cat noobs like yourself would be put there.....