The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

I could see how a GC cost could limit the problem and if added in with a few free decs per month for free it shouldn't be too costly for most players, perhaps even a sliding scale? 1-10 dec=free, 11-20 is 5 GC each and 21+ is 10 GC with 5 GC going directly to the defender and the other 5 to W3C? I would still think that the 1/2 nominal value should be implemented along with it as a further deterrent, I know as that there are ways to work around it as there are with any rules that can be put in place, but the idea is to make the workarounds as difficult and costly as possible...actually I just thought of this: for the 1/2 perhaps only nominal value above the standard $10 value counts. So if you have $100 main it is technically $90, you must have another $90 in value outside of that out of war protection/secured? That would actually solve the problem completely...we could even go to 75% in wp/secured then.

As I said Windy...shut up, you

Wendy is indeed trying to hijack the thread, because these 3 + proposed rule changes (1/2 Empire in WP, Limited forts in C3s, increased value in warring C3s) are all realistic, reasonable requests, getting endorsement by the SC community, some are quick fixes, and would curb the C3 aggressor while giving incentive to the defender to put up with the BS.
----------------------------------------------------

So four people make up the entirety of the SC community? LOL!

And MEEEEE!

Keep up the distractions Windy...4 people...not at all:

Me
Beast
Jojo
Abe
Orbiter
Serpent
Keto
EC
SuperSoldier
Daelin
Diz
BrokenAmbitions
Whitedarkness
CrazyEye

All those for a fact and the following although they haven't commented I'm fairly certain support a change.

Steven
Rob
Homer
Budman
Slade
Kaymen
Lolosaurus
Who knows how many others from GREF
Who knows how many others from WGC

So far Windy the ONLY people I know who don't think there should be a change are:

You (although you swear you don't care but you keep trying to distract and disrupt)
Biggie (because he is fine staying in constant WP)
Nix (who knows why)

I'd venture to say that a whole lot of other people would be lobbying just as strongly as the rest of us if they had the pleasure of dealing with it...you

Me too

Well then, on with the changes. I guess you better hope it gets put in faster than space trading, and with a new world coming along, I guess I'll need to maximize my time frame, Like two years left LOL.

This may have been mentioned already, but maybe a c3 needs to have a minimum population(like 30 or more mil), or the c3(s) need to be an active country for at least 2 real months or more before they can dec another country?

I just hope at the end of the day, all these discussion(s) on WP that the GM leaves WP intact for econ only players like myself.

You know what would be real phunny, is if the incorporated all your eyedeers into this new world.

Maestro - That is a big part of this, war protection for econ players is not something that any of us want to end...at least not anyone that I'm aware of.

:o

This is intense!

WB - Thanks

I hope they leave WP intact on the 4 "peaceful" worlds, for econ players. But on FB, the one war planet in this econ/war game, I think there should be no WP (except vacation and noob WP) and econ players should have to defend their countries, as the game was intended.

And don't forget, no multis.

No watching accounts, one account per IP etc.

Until I see stuff like that happening, I'll make whatever change work for me.

JoJo - Even for my one token country on FB?

Just a thought. Why not instead limit war protection to only 2/3 of countries in empires with over 5 countries. Also, if they Dec with any country over their 5 country limit, they lose wp on one of the other countries. I'm particularly interested with Dubltar's opinion on this idea.

I think Jojo's point is that FB is the WAR world...constant war protection kind of goes against that theme. I'm not 100% on board with that, I'd say at least a main in WP should be permitted but I'm open to that debate. The idea would be that war should be encouraged on FB, it should be somewhat of a free for all, which would be fun although I know how we all have attachment to our countries and their assets so that can be a little scary as well...

I don't think mains should be given a pass, on FB.

q: Why does an econ player build a country on the war world, anyway?

a: Easy WP has wussificized the world so much that FB is just seen as just another econ world, not as a war world.

wussificized...LOL Jojo!

wussificized, Took a second to decipher. Had to take it one syllable at a time. Is FB really just full with them? Them the wussie things.

My take on War Protection In Simcountry

I see everyone's points above, so here is my argument for the use and regulation of War Protection.

1. War Protection a Good Idea
War protection was created to allow players to protect their countries from war, for economy players and war lords alike (and everyone in between). It was in fact necessary, from what I have experienced first hand, that without it, players could dictate who can and cannot join their world.

For example, after some of my wars, my attempts to start empires in other worlds were blocked by players declaring war on me upon my arrival. Newbs were also decced these ways also. Or if a group of players did not like a player, they were able to keep that player out of their world...and this was solved by War Protection.

2. War Protection Usage Should Stay, Even in Fearless Blue
War protection does its job...allow

Some valid points Dublestar, as far as FB: I see Jojo's point and I see yours. As far as new players joining the world and being kept out, not allowed to build, etc., that simply would not be the case, the waiting period of 21 days would remain just as it does now so I don't really find that to be a good argument. I do see how it could make it very difficult for newer players, however at the same time, I'd say that new players shouldn't *start* on FB, so many find the game and see 'war world' and think that is what they want but really don't understand what they are up against until they have learned a bit. Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced that there should be no war protection on FB, but if I had a choice between war protection the way it is now and no war protection (except for earned) on FB, I'd choose the latter.

As far as why we are making new WP rule ideas so complicated: If yo

Why not then take away war protection for the secured mains then if they war another player? Im for that, only included it to be diplomatic. Both scenarios above could still be abused.

or how about this, removeing wp from a ramdom country every time a player declares war...

How about a player waging war on another player having to put up a wager equal to at least 30-50 percent of the value of the country he is declaring on. From the time of declaration no assets could be removed from both countries.

Naw! That would not work, once a war is declared then player a or b would bring in more countries and the wager is all out of wack.

Here is another idea. If you are big, wealthy and powerful be nice, polite, courteous and generous and your poor, undernourished, uneducated neighbors might not be influenced to gain recognition in the world by becoming terrorists or suicide bombers. And for goodness sake don't slaughter the little guys, they will come back and bite you in the butt. Right EO!