| SuperSoldierRCP | Sunday, February 7, 2016 - 11:48 pm 
In a effort to make people more engaged in the game I thought of some suggestions. I would like to hear player suggestion and maybe a suggestion from Jonni if possible.
I have 3 suggestions i believe might help the war game without compromising the integrity of the war levels.
---------------------------------------------------
#1- No one by default starts on FB. This means you have to pay the 30GC per month which means that a person has some knowledge of the games mechanics.
#2- Any nation should be able to be attacked starting War level 1 on FB. If your on FB you have some knowledge of the game and should know how to war.
#3- People should be allowed to remove there war level protection regardless of the world. If a war level 1 player wants to attack someone in war level 2 there should be a way to remove there protection just like a player can remove secure mode. |
| Aries | Monday, February 8, 2016 - 12:14 am
1. Players might actually be okay with a side of risk to play the war game. This should be an option and the current game documentation does a fair job of setting up "Fearless Blue" to be the place to expect to war. 21 days war protection is offered to all players. War levels simply should not offer war protection there. The world isn't called "Hide in War Level Protection Yellow".
2. Make that War Level 0. 21 days is long enough. You start a country on the "war world", 3 weeks is plenty long enough to shed game-provided protection. Lets have one world owned by the players where we, and not the game, make the rules on who is fair game and who is not. Lets have diplomacy and a purpose for federations, other than just collecting players who are protected from combat anyway.
3. This is in the game. I suggested it and the GM implemented it. You must be at least War Level 3 though, which is what it should be. Players War Level 1 and 2 need to get to 3 to play. There should be a more obvious way to see which players have dropped their war level protection though. Currently, there is little way to tell. |
| Bryan prynce | Monday, February 8, 2016 - 01:17 am
They make it sound like this place where war reigns supreme.Alas!It's the complete opposite.Maybe they meant war of words because that's the only war going on in FB.This allows players to talk all shit knowing they're protected.Should the Security Council start a proposal and should it pass the GM should take action and implement the will of the players |
| SirSmokesAlot | Monday, February 8, 2016 - 05:29 am
I agree with everything above. If you are on fb you should know about the war engine if not stay off fb. |
