W3C - War Levels

Yankee is right when he says that it's easy to design a country in such a way that it is simply not worth the effort of taking, he is right that when you have 4 countries on 4 worlds you can do a lot of weapon transfering and build up decent reserves. Here is my 1 question though...

How long does it take for somebody who is not a hard core player to learn all those things?

For anyone that might actually consider it ... not very long.

War levels match players based on experience fighting C3s. That match isn't useful. Levels measure player versus C3 skill, not player versus player skill. Levels don't measure the tactics or strategies of player versus player wars. Therefore, levels shouldn't matter for declaring war against players.

For example, the difference between level 1 and level 6 is mostly extra clicking. Levels are merely a good introduction to units and weapons quality. This is why war levels should remain as a tutorial only.

But learning the auto-response of C3s is not warcraft. It requires player versus player wars to gain experience with different tactics and situations, not this or that level. Removing levels as preconditions to player versus player wars would provide needed war experience.

Otherwise, war levels will keep most players in the C3 ghetto.

I'll n00k all of u.

Beware.

here's an idea, when a war is won or lost, how about no ownership transfer, instead a score transfer, a % of the countries original score.

this way, a player wont loose years of work, and might be more willing to take the risk, and winning a war would improve ones chance of a monthly award.

That is what a secured country is for ... eliminating risk.

I agree with Yankee. Seems enough things are out there to mitigate risk. What is needed is more reward to encourage the needed effort and associated risk. If similar rewards are available for less/no risk and similar/less effort, there is a problem that we have now. I carrot needs to be dangled outside the confines of unnatural game protections.

I agree that incentives for PvP wars is a big issue.
Currently, there is probably too little there to take the risk.

Increasing war levels after PvP war is won, is open for fraud. How can we prevent it?
I would directly go for war level increase after winning a PvP war if we could know that it was a real war.

For a certain war level we could require certain size of the army, with levels of ammo, at some quality level.
also a distribution of forces that will guarantee a real war.

There must be multiple attacks from both sides, not a war while one is asleep.

For such a system, we could think of major incentives.

This discussion is about the war game.

Once it is done, I will gladly engage in a discussion about another "burning" issue.

I think linking war levels to the ability to fight other players must be re-examined altogether. Flaws have come to light over time with a system where players experiment with or simply follow guides in combating a listless computer opponent and associating that with a restriction on the ability to war other actual players. Some examples are:

-War levels vary between worlds. There is a thread on the forums, and I can find it if I must, where it was simply overlooked that the same player can be war level 4 on one world and war level 12 on another. This player is no less skilled on the first world.

-Computer opponents do not actually prepare one for combating players. Some experimentation with basics can be handy but fighting a computer opponent does not prepare anyone for a skilled player who has experience in actual PvP,

-The gold coin incentives for raising war level are not sufficient to encourage a player with the ability to ra

I would also compare whatever we are suggesting to what we currently accept now. I believe many players believe the existing fraud occurs on Fearless Blue. A read in the game documentation describes a no-holds barred scary place, where a player's desire for a real challenge can be fulfilled.

The reality is that Fearless Blue is just as peaceful as anywhere else. Most players there never reach the war level requirements for PvP participation. Fearless Blue offers enhanced rankings awards, based on the assumption that only the strong survive. No other world offers rankings awards like Fearless Blue does:

1 391 Gold Coins
7 151 Gold Coins
17 38 Gold Coins

Ten countries currently grace that world's hall of fame. Each was declared that world's "best president" and was showered with gold coins. How many of these ten can actually be threatened with a player war? One can.

You ask me? T

The war game was pretty much dead before war levels, and nothing since has helped.

maybe all these ideas are just going in the wrong direction.

Correct!!! war game was dead before war levels

And they dont do a fuckin thing about multis; im saying the ones who dont cover there tracks and declare war on there main country. Note: Anyone who thinks that someone who makes a new account, to take there other countrys, and for the sake of war, if you cannot see that is a problem in the war game, then what the fuck is wrong with the brain your eyes or the matter of existence that surrounds you?

War game -> cheaters -> not shit being done(ABOUT BLATANT CHEATING)

Like seriously, im thinking about quitting this game since its obvious they are choosing a cheater over me, really? and andy is to busy being concerned with what doesent matter. Fuckin bullshit man, fuckin bullshit.

Only people who play war game are those multis taking there own countrys, that they used war levels to build up! lol gross cant fix that this game just going to keep going in the wron

Not saying multi hasent been a problem but really, this game is dead if they cant step up and stop a fuckin mulit. Okay maybe im the only one that thinks this mutli should be banned and not taking action is offensive. But overally this whole thread is really disrespectful the there remaining player base. Players are here giving ideas on a thread you made, and yet believe this is a monotone argument, the dictator sets the topic and we all propagate! Reality is find out or atleast pay someone to read these posts and get a concept from it, instead of playing little games by continually pointing "off-topic" flaws and mispelling names. Really though, just to ignore all this stuff andy you got more hope of fixing the war games with a stick up your ass blindfolded. Its really a sad thing but i cant help but to type it. Little personal, yeah ofcourse im mad at the war game for letting a multi build up, and now they need to "fix" things they "fix

Regarding incentives for PvP, digging deeper into the hole of war levels is not the solution. PvP needs organic incentives.

Andy, W3C has promised for at least 10 years to introduce regional natural resources. That would provide organic incentives for PvP. This has been promised over and over. This feature is best described in item #8 of your work list of January 29, 2009.

On July 10, 2012 you posted some more details.

On February 21, 2017, in a thread about incentives for war, you posted "We also decided to push f

These are my thoughts on natural resources:


-Allow players to choose a bonus for an existing country they own. They must pay for it in gold coins. The bonus only applies if the player has removed all war protections. The bonus for that country, once paid for, applies permanently for that country for any owner as long as the current owner is war level 4+ and has removed all war protections.

Agreed minimal war level should be included and no protections should be on, though i would say natural resources should be something as to say more natural occurrence, such as a randomized country no president country the world. Have defenses waves and anyone who declares war on it is in war with each other for the country, and there own included declared on the resource country.

Permeters should be that the resource cannot be taken if there is more then 1 president active on the resource IE; lose country or surrender/peace and withdrawl occupation from the resource. Then the resource must be subdued like any other C3.

Resource after takeover should have a set period of time that the has protection and modifed resource gains provided for a period of time, after period has expired, a new resource spawns shortly after, and your left with a c3.

Note that the resource should be a limited number of supplies, mainly to stop large p

The reason for my suggestion of the introduction of natural resources is to integrate that system with existing ones. For example, there is purposeful malice to owning large numbers of countries. Particularly, more than 10. It is important not to essentially exclude this feature from existing players in a given world who have already settled on an empire size, unless these other systems are like-wise relaxed. Make sense?

Madoff, You are right. The resources game was promised long time ago and was not added.
We have very specific plans on this, and part of it is already done. It could be part of the incentive for war.
we are stretched on resources and must make money to keep the game (and ourselves) running.

Aries, I don't understand the Bonus part. Please explain.

What about war protection for the main country?
What about those who do not want the war game (get war protection, never attack anybody and if they do, war protection is gone?).

What about the idea to make war levels depend on:

1. Winning war against countries with a certain war level. (PvP)
2. Must have weapons and ammo at a certain level for each war level. All weapons, including sufficient numbers of ammo.
In this way, PvP war will mean that the attacked country WILL fight back forcefully. It should include automatic a

"Aries, I don't understand the Bonus part. Please explain."

-No confirmation that the GM was behind the other structure ideas was available. The "bonus" part would be the easiest part to discuss, and the community can add ideas. If the other structure ideas I listed are accepted, I will join the discussion on it.

"What about war protection for the main country?"

-As far as natural resources? I would say that secured mode disables the "bonus" offered by natural resources. Again, the player can purchase it, with gold coins, but it doesn't work unless the country has no kind of artificial protections. The game does not need more econ game incentives (that is all that happens now). Natural resources should be a war inducement.

"What about those who do not want the war game (get war protection, never attack anybody and if they do, war protection is gone?). "

Many want the war protection.
You may say they are hiding behind it. May be but they want to keep their assets and their will not just drop it. You may but you want a huge number of gold coins to do so.

I want to increase the risk but dropping it? who will do that and will they fight each other? I doubt it.

Natural resources can add an incentive for war.
We need more incentives.

If losing a war costs money (10T?) fake wars may not be a problem. The warring parties are full members, don't want to lose their money. we can try to enforce some war experience before they get involved in PvP wars.

We must do it in small steps.
We should tune some of the parameters to make it easier to fight PvP and harder to hide.
We can add auto response units that really fight back hard and give players more confidence in their ability to defend.
I mentioned nuclear auto defense if attacked by nukes.

I see the same post of yours in two places I will re-post my answer to the other one below. In the context of this thread, I will also attempt to answer sopmething I didn't address already.


"You may say they are hiding behind it. May be but they want to keep their assets and their will not just drop it. You may but you want a huge number of gold coins to do so."

-If you are talking about me, I have already raised my war level to very high levels on most worlds, raising it the normal way. If you are implying I am making any suggestions for my benefit, look over my account for the truth. I have no shortage of coins, which I use for nothing more than extending entities recently. If you were to check my countries, you would see them in a state of disrepair because I have barely played for about 4+ months now.

I have all the stuff I need and no material incentive from coins to countries to game cash or anything el

if the underlying question is saving the (war)game, then do this.

1. go back to the short term free accounts.
2. drop war levels, but keep secured mode,
3. open all and only new registrations on LO. make LO a non-space travel/trade world.

take the game back to a time it worked, but keep the updated and improved war engine.

as the old worlds empty, you can bring them into this new galaxy, and eventually re-add space

you can even (eventually,) re-add WG to this new galaxy, with modern war levels, as a higher level of protection, new players can choose. While removing secured mode from FB, as higher level of risk.

I understood #2, it is the same suggestion Yankee has.

#1. I am not sure what we are "going back" to. How did these work? It is difficult to for others to discuss something that isn't made clear here. Also, what does this fix in regards to the war game.

#3. I suggested this at one time, at a different time in the game. The worlds are just too sparse now to consider another world with another rule-set. In addition, I am concerned about the mindset that leads to this idea.

Is this to attempt some type of balance between players? I believe this thinking is wrong in what Simcountry should be good at. It should be a community of players who don't have to be balanced 1v1 but seek safety in diplomacy, in federations. Also, if you believe I am being self-serving, check the "Fix the War Game/Take my Account" thread I started. If players or the GM believe my motivations are my own, I will end my account.

aries, i was not addressing you, nor do i have to qualify my ideas to you.

Chances are, the GM will dismiss my idea off hand.

We've been having this exact same discussion, for years. nothing has changed. Maybe we should go back to a configuration that competition thrived in. It wouldn't be right just delete hard won assets.

But what we got, is dead. Allowing old timers to masturbate over their Q of game cash, and piles of gold coins, while the only thing we have to talk about is these useless rants on how to save the game.

Close these five worlds. Open Little Omicron to new accounts. With Secured mode, and no war levels. Let the current game we have, dwindle to nothing. And convert dead worlds to this new galaxy, as they finally die. Then bring back the space trade/travel game.

Doing it this way, your not forcing any one to delete assets. But just excepting that what we have now is hopeless,

How are we supposed to weigh the merit of your ideas if we won't know the reasons for them? If you consider your ideas over our heads, then shoot the gamemaster an email and keep it private.