| Monday, September 9, 2013 - 11:58 pm |
These suggestions were made on another thread and I am moving them to a more appropriate forum here. I have had support from a handful of players and would appreciate more feedback here. Be specific. be constructive. thank you
1. Offer addition incentives to raise war level.
This is a huge issue. War levels were introduced to limit newer players from experiencing wars from war veterans. The problem is, there is simply no incentive to raise to the higher war levels for most players.
Ironically, the players that do raise their war level to some of the highest levels, find themselves out of reach of many of the more aggressive war players who tend to keep their war level low.
The ideal place to start incentives is at war level 7, the first level out of reach of declaring on a new war player at war level 3. Some ideas would be one or more of the following.
-Allow war level 7+ player to upgrade units past the normal 450 limit for non-mobile units on an ascending scale. Maybe 455 at 7, 460 at 8, and so on. This would also allow these players to prepare better for higher level raiding.
-A reduction in military costs on an ascending scale. Really looking for benefits for war players here. Again, looking at maybe 5% at 7, 10% at 8, and so on. This could possibly extend to a reduction in the use of training ammo.
More ideas are welcome here. The goal is a continuing benefit that would genuinely be missed by a war player who chooses not to raise war level.
2. Limit war protection so it does not protect aggressive players.
From the war protection page, the idea of war protection is keeping your empire intact while on vacation or other occasions you are unable to play the game. Also, when you don't wish to fight.
A player who declares war on another player does not fall into these scenarios. I propose, for the duration of a declaration (from the moment it is made, not when the war starts) that you initiated on another player, this protection would not function. You would not lose your balance of purchased war protection but your empire, with the exception of a country in secured mode, could now be attacked by the player you declared on or others as a result of your hostile act. This will prevent aggressors from unfairly dictating terms of an engagement using war protection.
3. A new world not connected to the others via shuttle roots and disconnected from direct trade.
Josias has suggested a game reset. Though this would put newer players at much less of an asset advantage with game veterans, this could act to cause those same veterans to leave the game for a few reasons. One, they lose anything they built and any progress towards any game goals they were working towards. Two, they would have to question any additional commitment to the game in time or money.
I think the better option would be a new world that does not benefit from current game assets. I predict this would quickly be an exciting and popular world. I would play there. However, I also predict this could affect activity on current worlds to some extent as new players would gravitate towards the new world. I would be for some type of player merger on existing worlds, especially those of the same rule-set.
| Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 02:16 am |
That sounds like a great deal to me, I would love to get into the war world soon. But I don't like the whole game reset mumbo-jumbo, terrible idea, too many investments made by many people.
| Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 02:39 am |
I think the benefits would be boosts as a simple 5-10 upgrade levels is small per level.
| Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 05:38 am |
i think the game can be three optons as follow:
1. no war protection for anyone,
this is survival of the fittest concept. perhaps there is advantages and disadvantages to form purposeful federations.
2. war requirements as it is now,
at least war level 3 to be attack or declare pvp war. but no limitation on what war levels you can fight against
3. no war levels at all, but only game levels. you cannot engage in pvp wars until you reach say game level 5. make it that by the time you're at game level 5 you could produce any product in the simcountry world. this is putting all players at equal footing.
no war protection = survival of the fittest
| Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 05:42 pm |
Space, do I have you for agreeing to all three ideas?
Star, your comment is on the first idea. They do add to up 25% off military and 475 quality units at war level 11. Any comments on the other ideas?
Xon, You might have some of your own ideas. I believe the removal of war levels is likely a non-starter for the gamemaster. With that said, and feedback on the specific ideas presented here?
| Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - 07:20 pm |
I think Aries has some very good points, and I strongly urge the Gamemaster to consider all of his ideas. There is a BIG problem in the game as it exists, and I hope it doesn't discourage players from playing long term.
A veteran player of ~7 to 10 years, with years of stores of weapons, shouldn't be allowed to dec over and over and over less than skilled players and hide behind war protection. There is no form of recourse other than what the individual is willing to risk, and is usually no greater than a c3. This doesn't give the community as a whole, a fair shake in dealing with game terrorists and game bullies.
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 02:04 am |
1 = yes
2 = aggressor or defender, everyone's got their own point of view so how do you differentiate who is who? to make it simple is to have no war protection when you reach a certain level or more, so anything is possible. though climbing war levels by fighting with C3 is probably about 180 degrees different from fighting PvP wars? thus, i have suggested that just have game levels, such as not PvP until you are capable to produce all the military wares and money you need to this task.
3 = a world not connected the current 5 worlds? what would be the advantages and disadvantages? as i have posted in another post, make in more realistic involving some intelligence such as the planets revolving around a sun. to fight a war on another planet requires good strategy to get one world to supply another world; mistakes of unable to do some math/phyics can cost you dearly. such as should you fight a war when your two planets are closest together, because your space shuttles to deliver military wares from the planets have maximum speed, capacity,distance, etc?
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 02:49 am |
Xon, on item 2. Anyone who declares war on a player country loses war protection for the duration of the declaration. Again, the goal of this change is to remove the ability of one who is declaring war on other players to shield their own empire from the conflict.
For those that like analogies, what currently happens is a large empire, like the old Soviet Union takes over a small country (C3) like Finland. Weapons are moved to Finland and that country is used to declare war on the enemies of the Soviet Union. Because of war protection, other nations may only retaliate on the country of Finland.
This change would allow players in respective worlds to deal with aggressive players themselves since the player that started the war would now often have something at stake since only their secured mode main would be protected from attack.
This can lead to an escalation of conflict based on alliances too. Consider four players in different federations federation (A and D in one and B and C in another):
First, Player A declares Player B.
-Player A does not benefit from war protection while the declaration is active.
Second, Player C declares Player A.
-Player C does not benefit from war protection while the declaration is active.
Third, Player D declares Player C.
-Player D does not benefit from war protection while the declaration is active.
On item 3, the goal is to offer newer players a place to start where there is not already a large imbalance of assets. The existing worlds have existed for years and some players have acquired assets that are difficult to match. Again, you have some other ideas that would better fit on another thread.
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 03:03 am |
na that would change the whole strategy of the game if u go too war level 3 then it a choice that's why there is a war protection option otherwise u need to be in a good fed. Lets be realistic here what country in the world could start from scratch now and compete with America in weapons.
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 03:21 am |
SR, not sure where you fall on the suggestions. #2 lends itself to being in a good fed which is a good thing. Your last point I might take as an endorsement for the reason for suggestion #3.
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 03:31 am |
on item 2, that is one of the flaws of this game due to war protection....it's really a baby sitting concept.
we will continue to have players who will conquer a c3 and use that c3 to messing around with other players, because these got-nothing-to-do players just have too much times.
no war protection means you better be prepared to go PvP if you keep climbing the game levels. but there needs to be very very attractive incentives to climb game levels too. what's the point to earn 10,000 GC or $1000,000T and what can you do with them?
i have always thought that fed is the reason why you want to be in a good one, but not one that has too many trouble makers 'cause you may always have to fix up their troubles being their fedmate.
another way around would be that war are on a president and not on a country. if you as the president have an empire of 20 countries, then all your countries can participate in the war. that's the incentive to build an empire. but it seems to be that there is not much incentive to build an empire due to the magical exponential cost of owning many countries. if the general cost of government is clearly a percentage of it's population, resources, etc... then i'm sure good players can manage many countries properly with proper allocations of their resources.
which i have suggested that in order to make this works for presidents that own many countries and presidents that owns one country, then the game level criteria should be the average of country/countries. now you can have all your countries in many game levels. you are one player, you should only be in one game level. the countries by themselves cannot climb the game levels.
on item 3, without connection to the existing worlds then might as well be a new game?
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 10:59 pm |
"there is not much incentive to build an empire due to the magical exponential cost of owning many countries."
if your talking about what was spoken of before XON i see you still don't understand. I could have an empire on WG and it cost me nothing, but if I expand to LU then that empire will cost me 30GC a month and if I add a enterprise it cost another 30. No matter how many countries I have on WG it wont cost me anything.
| Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 11:31 pm |
that's okay, you're just getting more confusing yourself
| Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 09:39 pm |
Aries' suggestions are on the right direction. Numbers 1 and 2 are no-brainers in my book.
Obviously anyone who declares must be ready to risk more than a silly C3 and the assets (weapons/ammo) they choose to risk.
War lvl incentives are another must. As the game stands, there are "effectively" two war levels: 0-1-2 and the rest. Once you go to war level 3 there is no turning back but also no serious incentive to move up. This doesn't work in the direction of urging veterans to climb the levels. But if you put some serious incentives into place (not GC but militarily based) those vets who stay behind will find themselves seriously overpowered in PvP wars with high level veterans. They will have to move up, leaving innocent noobs like yours trully alone in wl 3 or 4 ;) So, thumbs up again.
As for the new world suggestion: As a (relatively) new player, I realize I will never be able to amass the cash and stockpiles of weapons/ammo that some vets of 6-7 years or more enjoy. I would love the idea of a new world. But, I'm afraid this would ultimately be detrimental to the existing worlds and will take the fun out of LU and FB, while perhaps chasing away some vets who add spice to the game. So, I'd say no to that, exciting as it may seem.
| Friday, September 13, 2013 - 01:41 pm |
Or another idea is to replace the war levels altogether with a UN approval before attacking that player. Is whenever we click 'declare war' on the war page, I think it should be taken to the UN security council for approval first for the next couple of days before getting the green light from them and therefore freely attacking him.
If it's anything like the US had to seek approval from the UN recently in order for them to be given the green light to attack Syria in real life. The only main thing that's stopping them now is Assad's main ally, Russia.
| Friday, September 13, 2013 - 04:35 pm |
War levels are not going away and needing UN approval can earn its own thread if you wish and earns a "no" from me. I think my suggested change to war protection would do more to empower players to weigh in on a conflict.
| Friday, September 20, 2013 - 11:53 am |
dont' like un approval either, that's running to mommy and daddy.
just set the rules for all players, play fairly.
everything in the country/empire at risk, no place to hide or run....that would be interesting....can nuke each other to the stone age too
again, having war levels and game levels just weird to me. this is a game of resources management, whether as a warlord or a ceo?