W3C - War Game First Draft of Proposed Changes FB

1. Winning PvP wars will be recorded each month. The winners will win cash. Example 3 winners: $ 50, $ 25 and $ 10.
2. Winners of wars will receive winner points and the players with most points will win the prizes.
3. The number of points depends on the level and difference between the parties. It can be negative if a large army attacks a noob.
4. To be able to win such points, both warring parties must have a minimum war level/ability to prevent fake wars.
5. Max one country in your empire on FB can be war protected. We will start with ten and reduce gradually to allow everyone to adapt.
6. If you are part of a federation winning the war, you get the associated winners points.
7. If two large federations fight, that is OK.
8. If a small federation attacks a large one, their problem. Fine with us.
9. If a fed with 10 countries starts a war against a fed with 3 countries, only three of the ten will declare. Instead,

LOL! reads like never gonna happen
--------------------------------------
The rest was unconstructive crap.
I don't like your language.
We love criticism, we want to explain and we are willing to change the plan.

The gamemaster

Andy,

Thank you for all the work you and the GM are doing.

I personally love these updates and you guys have my full support! If theres anything I can do to help the GM in the future please let me know!

Super

Andy, thank you for your hard work and efforts. You are the best game master and son! *Muah!

I'm so proud of what you do. :-D

@ Barry - Be kind to my son! :-) He works very, very hard. Also, MY son does not partake of illegal substances!!! SCOWL!!!!

WARNING: If you offendeth my child, you offendeth the Wicked Lady!!!

Thank you guys.

Supersoldier,
I assume you have your likes and dislikes.
this is a draft.

Maybe we will ask for some testing when features get implemented.

We will keep working on this and read all comments.

Many of the features are easy to implement.
some will require more work.

The advantage is that we are not changing the war engine but rather the conditions for war and the processing of the results. It is simpler.

Some of the features are within the parameters scope and capabilities of the game and require little work.

Some will require a lot of code.

I expect to start late August.

Andy,

You more anyone knows that I can be very spoken and critical of changes.
I'm not opposed to any of them. I think all of those ideas will be amazing additions to the game. Granted they are just ideas and I'm sure when they gradually get added we might want to voice suggestions or alterations.

But as it stands, the basic ideas of what you want to do sound great!!! I look forward to hearing more.

Super

dayum! wiped clean by the bois.

Welp. I guess im gonna slowly dislike this game again;atleast some of these things go through. I mean i dident say andy but i said if you think which obviously not just his ideas but he may be contact high!!! Sorry lady i know hes your son, but you gotta understand how i am!! i dont litterally mean they are smoking chemicals all in all, just some things dont make sense to the reality of the state of the game.


I mean if it(my post) was that unproductive why did they not just leave it with the rest? took effort to remove it, that says something. Obviously there was some happy go luckys there hehe, but i apologize for some of that goodie. I disagree with what some

Thanks Supersoldier.
It will take time of course but we will start quickly and add features when they are ready.

Sheepman,
We want to make it easier and more attractive to wage war. If you read the discussion of the last three days, there are many details why we want these changes, and why we think they might encourage more players to play PvP wars.

The war against C3s and war level/qualifications are needed to make sure wars are not fake.
we used to have situations where one side had only weapons and no ammo and allowed a country to be taken easily.
If you are to win points when winning a war, we must be sure you fought for it and that both sides are capable.
This is the most complex and uneasy thing about this whole issue.
War levels as they are now, are a bad measure for capabilities.
We want to upgrade weapons in bases, small issue, but needed if we want to allow more fighting using weapons stationed in mi

Well. Be altering alot of comments with alot of criticism.

And i have read all the ideas. I dont think they are going to make an immediate difference as those two things. You can believe it all day but im a player, so are you going to just drop my opinion because of my opinion??? Thats my suggestion, everyone else can keep suggestion things that will never happen or you/bois will just down play like ammo in the bases are useful to upgrade and fixing the weapons launched from a base needs to be, why would i use a fucking broken feature??? That wastes excess weapons i dont have money to waste. Like you can update the game all you want but really make shit useless updates you can get a pat on the bottom all you want but truth is its no real help to the game

Like to call my post unproductive crap, thats unproductive crap lol! I know thats from the bois to not just juan of dem


Sheepman,
We want to make it easier and more attractive to wage war. If you read the discussion of the last three days, there are many details why we want these changes, and why we think they might encourage more players to play PvP wars.

Yeah making things like launching weapons from bases using more missiles is a feature i would rather never fight a war again. Or i am just discounted as a player? Litterally what new war enslavement systems? jokes? i mean literally, its just a sad time. Ranting about ideas that arent going to save shit. Say start small yet here we are massive checklist of shit thats not even been checked off the last one.

Get real men. You took my opinion away from me.

Really. Im saying this novelty is what is is; a novelty. Honestly think andy/bois of andy:

Why would i want to waste more then double the missiles, when i could just set up a unit from the same base i would launch my attacks from to save ammo?????????????????????

*pats andy bottom*

sorry. Im just a piece of shit.

Launching weapons from bases and upgrading ammo in bases are small features that will not be used by many, cost little to implement and you can just ignore them.

It helps if you also tell us what you think will work, and why it will work.

Ok. I think that time taken for any worthless implemented idea made simply to fail/be novelty is deceiving, manipulative and wasteful; ontop of it all being stressful. Why take any amount of time and function/manpower to make something thats just going to be a burden to the game??

Theres the next bear trap for a new player!!!!!!!!!!!!!! waste all the ammo they got to not take something

ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
there gone.

I guess something else I am going to throw out there. Players can use this system to take power if they wish, as they have done within their power before. There may be resentment, in the way points are allocated. In an attempt to allow smaller countries and less powerful players, access to cash rewards, the more powerful players may decide to target these recipients who receive cash above them.

In short, what are you going to do about it if I become the bad guy? Say, I make a fed on FB, and I declare only my fed shall get cash rewards. We scour the FB war page, and annihilate other players who attempt to lay claim to awards. If you leave the powerful unhappy, this is not a remote possibility. Players can find ways within any system to make their own fairness.

In my opinion putting weapons transferred from your enterprises into reserve is still only going to hurt the defensive player (which I had assumed is the exact opposite of one of our main goals here). Is there some form of logic I am missing when I say that someone planning to attack another will always have the advantage simply because they had the foresight to activate their weps in a timely fashion while the now defensive player must now scramble to bring his weapons into his country and reactivate them?

You are exactly right Porter.

Aries, wow, now it sounds like you think the war world and PvP war will create havoc.
So are you now against it all?
Or are you saying that what we do does not matter.
If you like it, it will work, if you don't you will destroy countries.

I am now more convinced than before, that even small players should be able to build up and attack one of your largest countries and destroy all your corps or 100 military units. why not?

It will not be that the large players will do what they want with beginners and not pay a very very high price for it.

As I said before. we will create notifications that will inform an interested player about weapons coming in and activated.
also, there will be enough time to reactivate and of course, much more will remain activated to be ready for anything that can happen.

If you worry about the attacked country we can do this:

we can slow down the activation of weapons o

Andy: I am not providing a personal strategy, or taking a personal stance in each writing. I am saying that the best intentions when they are so complex, can have unintended consequences.

Again, your intention with War Levels were that that most skilled war players would climb those levels. They then would be out of reach of declaring war on new war players. This didn't work. You do see this, right? The aggressive players were not wowed by the GC rewards and kept their war level low, and preyed on new war players reaching the lowest of PvP war levels.

Andy, be careful with such complex intentions. Players don't like being dictated to through complex rules, and this risks being War Levels 2.0. My argument remains to keep things simple, or you risk players reacting in a way you did not expect.

This discussion in the past days is probably the best we ever had about the war game and it resulted now in a good draft for a plan.
It will have to be completed with many details but we have everything we need.

The most important point we have learned is the following:

In the past, large players killed small ones and it resulted in changes that tried to prevent such wars.
It ended up with many limitation and very little PvP wars.

This was the wrong solution.

The problem is in fact, that there is a huge difference in power between the large players and the new ones.

what we need to do, is make wars more balanced.

In terms of warring power, the difference must be much smaller and the small player must be able to deter and destroy so much, that even a large player will think twice.
The field must be leveled a bit. We know what needs to be done.
I hope that this will bring challenges to eve

Here is another good example of what you think will happen, and what will happen:

"I am now more convinced than before, that even small players should be able to build up and attack one of your largest countries and destroy all your corps or 100 military units. why not"


Yeah, that will stick it to those big guys. right? Um, no. It won't at all. Why? Because the big guys have their stuff. You make it harder for economies to work and for people to build anything and the players who already have the stuff, still, rule the Sim-world.

Andy, keep it simple. I don't no how else to say it.

In my opinion, it has always been easier to destroy and take, then it has to build. I would not reward based on battles but would reward players who build and maintain assets outside of game protections. Those players would seek protection for themselves and join federations. Real diplomacy would occur, rather than forced battles for the sake of rewards.

This is what you said above here:
-----------------------------------
In short, what are you going to do about it if I become the bad guy? Say, I make a fed on FB, and I declare only my fed shall get cash rewards. We scour the FB war page, and annihilate other players who attempt to lay claim to awards. If you leave the powerful unhappy, this is not a remote possibility.
-----------------------------------
This is not about building but about annihilation.

So let's leave it at this.
I heard you loud and clear and if we want a war world, maybe 5 worlds, where peace is a great option but war too, then there is a lot to do.

Andy, most of your proposals are in the right direction. Thanks. It's worth noting that expanded sneak attacks and rewards to war players has been on your work list since 2010.

I believe you should reconsider the awards and point system you're proposing. As you describe it, only a few players will get cash awards. It's better not to give cash awards and, instead, to give something to everyone who wins a war. Possible awards: extra population, game cash, war protection boosters, shares of Gamemaster Corporations (yay!).

Points seem gimmicky.

My biggest concern is that negative points will not discourage the predators. They can break even by combining some negative points with some positive points. And why would they care if they have negative points? Credit card warlords aren't interested in earning dollars by playing.
<

i just dont get were making this game suck more is going to help it.

Like literally. I tried to let my opinion be know as ususal, im shut down. i going to be honest here. Read this please if you have eyes and a brain with working sense cognitive:

What... in good gods fucking fuck are you talking about? Andy your telling me; that discussing federations to things that have already been proposed is whats going to save this game? i dont know what the scheme is here why you people did what you did but let me type you something else now.

Scared of typed words?people act like it. Because i shared my opinion and its been destroyed neglected and looked over just as the first day i joined this game. Lol you think making everything harder is the fucking answer, and then build noveltys that act as ploy traps for whoever falls for it. I dont know this is making my stomach turn, I mean in the midst of all this vomit i can say theres nothing c

Andy,

Nice set of changes, however, it STILL does not address the fundamental issue.

How will it deter someone vastly superior attacking a feeble player? By a few points? They could destroy the whole country, and be happy to lose out of the pvp win as it'd mean the country they attacked is in ruin.

Weeks / months / years worth of work could be ruined, with no consequence.

Some good changes, but the main issue as to why people don't pvp against larger players has NOT be addressed. If i was to have 5000T of military assets (overall on the world), and attacked someone with 20T, i'd expect a HEAVY penalty of 1000T (a fifth? a quarter would be better? of cash to be wiped off or, assets deleted).

Imagine that, you'd automatically have cost the attacking player more damage, than they've done to you / possible could do to you. Fair? Yes. Pick on someone your own size. It'd keep