VOTE: Remove/change the War Level System (Kebir Blue)

Wow....so just stop the discussion on the war levels? Why?? So we can get back to a strictly economic, one sided, shadow of its former self SimCountry?

No thanks

I'd rather argue about war levels than let SC fade away farther into economic oblivion.....Farmville if you will.

And....to top it all off....I will never, ever, ever stop arguing that the war continent is a horrible idea...laughable almost to think about. If you can't see that it wouldn't work, you should have the war declaration button removed from your options list.

War continent is a horrible idea. I remember being promised a Battle Royale World with monthly resets. A buy-in from players of 15GC, a rake for Sim, and a prize pool winner take all for bragging rights and grudge matches. Sounds like an even better idea than it was when I first asked for it.

The war levels are not the problem in any world. Presidents choose not to go up to level 3. They were given a choice, and it would be completely unjustified to betray the idea that they had a choice in the first place.

When will your appetites be satisfied. Until we are back where we started? And c3s are being exploited? I mean, what after this and that and then back to this.

The problem is that aligned groups refuse to divide and entertain one another. The best war players are already aligned. It would be irresponsible to throw the novice bunch at the lot of you.

The problem is, we have a crisis of leadership. Not a crisis in the

If there was just a war on a "war continent" then much of the war planning and strategy players have developed would be lost and restricted.

Players don't need a location to go to war, they can go to war anywhere, and that why I like it.

A player's war ability is tested depending on how they adapt to different scenarios.

I'm sure there'll be wars in the future as the GMs are pushing players down the War Level route. Even so, players can still hold tournaments in peaceful times.

They could be organised now.

For example:

Agreed list of players and countries
Cash handed into a central pot help by an umpire
Agreed time limit
Pot split based on number of countries each remaining player holds

Tournaments in essence could be just as important as war, setting the "real" rankings. It would also be good practice and a real focal point for those bored with the

I like these ideas, Wendy and David. It is fair to all players and gives balance to your risk and reward. Additionally, it would give players real experience in fighting. I know I would love to fight in a set up like that, where I could create a country just for the fight and then win or lose, it is all good to me.

As far as WL showing what a person knows about war: Moving up WL does not prove anything about a player's war ability. Level 1 is no different than Level 6, in so far as what a player has to do to win. Level 6 just takes more of it than Level 1. I suppose level 7 requires a new skill since distance is involved. So once a player learns air transports (and maybe depots), then everything else is the same. In fact, I think level 7 is a little easier than level 6 as far as the fighting goes.

Pah, it's an intrinsic part of the game to learn how to look after yourself. You do it by making allies and not pissing people off. It's always been the MOST IMPORTANT part of the game. You can be quiet and not get bothered, you can stick your neck out and play with the community. After all, it is a GAME. Nowadays we have the likes of Maestro2000 (yep, you're 11 years out of date maestro) yapping and annoying a large proportion of the members yet they can do it with impunity.

Lots of posts ask for reality in the game, well...how is your personal reality? Do you not try to talk right to the right people? Do you not have friends? Do you expect to insult and threaten people and not get a reaction? more importantly, can you handle that reaction?

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the way things were. Yes one or two people used the C3 strategy, but they were mostly dealt with by the community, there's only

Lol cc, I found the analogy interesting.

It's a good analogy Crafty

But the reason the WLs came about was actually because a group of long-standing players, who had worked very hard for four years (in my case) NOT to piss people off, but to make friends and allies, were jumped on by another group of players, not because of a grudge or anything that was said or done, but purely for raiding purposes.

Effectively, that strategy was dealt-with by the wider community, who let those doing the raiding know that their actions were not approved-of. In essence, two wars were fought - the military one and the social one - and each side won one of them. Unfortunately the outcry among the community was so great that the GMs responded with WLs which, IMHO, is exactly as you described it: a sledgehammer to crack a nut that, instead, pulverises it.

But there were two aspects designed

Well level 3 and above IS the way it is on FB. Anyone who wants to war can go there and do so. What is so restrictive about this? Nothing. All the players here on this thread, are on FB. Do you see even 10% of them playing war at all. No? What a coincidence. Raiding and inability to raid is driving this pointless conversation down a road that never ends. Why waste the gas.

So, as it stands, anyone who wants to play war, can do so on FB. In essence the problem is already solved. So what is the gripe? Can't raid. Case closed. Anyone else done now?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

More importantly, it resurrects the need to choose carefully how one interacts with the community.

As you so rightly say, that has always been a crucial aspect of the game, and the player base is suffering from losing it. <!-/Quote-!>

There's your answer Wendy. No way should this warring freedom apply to Fearless Blue only, its a game issue, all over, everyone, everywhere.

And what argument is there against Jo's posted suggestion of the direction to go? The original war level idea suggested by a player was exactly that, just the GM 'tweaked' it a bit.

Why not though? Because you all ran up the war levels without thinking that you might not be able to come down? Did you all want to be known as those in the highest echelon of the war game? Now you are, and you should have to live with it. In the same way those like Zentrino who inched above war level 3, accidentally, not intentionally.


The change you imply should apply to all worlds was applied to FB because it is a war world, and that subtle change would make it so that FB would inch closer to living up to the description.

FB is for the most part dead. No one is fighting. Maybe a select few.

Why should the time be taken to change it everywhere? That is like asking for 2 new worlds while the existing 5 are barely full, no?

CC what is wrong with anything is that you, or whoever desires a change, is that you or whomever isn't respecting the choices people made when they were given choices to make.

If more

I say change FB first

war level 1-7 can PvP war
Level 0 is econ mode.

If FB spurs we know what must be done and go from there

Again, my reckoning is not about wanting to fight.

I would rather not to be honest, a click fest doesnt hold the interest it used to, and by no means do I need extra 'swag'. Its the whole player interaction issue, diplomacy and community. Saving the game.

Supersoldier. you fought how many pvp wars b4 the change? and what, one gang bang since its inception? Yet you are an authority on war and how it should be?

give it a rest.

its already been said....
99% of all war players are in bed together and wont fight each other, they look for easy targets..swag.

They all fed up and shut up shop....these ppl have killed war.....and the many multi accounts that exist

You can all deny the multi accounts till u blue in the face...they are there and not one thing is done about them

Hey Yoda

About time you joined this string.

Cheers,

Maestro

wow, this thread is still going strong. question is, will the GMs listen?

They(GM) read everything, duh winning...

Do you suggest they become record players?

They have said it over and over. War levels are here to stay. MoveOn.org

Does anyone want to try David Walker's suggestion of a "war tournament" on FB? We could decide a date and enter a country, knowing that we would be attacked and we could attack. We can each put up some coins or something as loot for the winner. I would be game and would start building a war slave for that purpose.

Anyone game for it?

It'll be interesting to see how many come forwards to volunteer for war.

If anyone fancies a tournament on LU, I'm in but I'm not FB.

I would do LU too. Might be a little more challenging on LU with it being more crowded. Would add logistics as an element. As it is on FB, we have whole regions that are nearly empty.

On LU, WL's may halt the plan too. On FB, you just have to be WL3 to play though.

Holy crap...

Current Statistics - War Levels of the top 100 players on WG.

In the Top 100 by game rank

War Level 7: 0 players
War Level 6: 0 players
War Level 5: 2 players
War Level 4: 0 players
War Level 3: 13 players
War Level 2: 7 players
War Level 1: 18 players
War Level 0: 60 players

Interesting statistic

15% of players at level 3 or higher
85% of players at level (0,1,2)

Ya, its interesting. But if you countinue to not see the light, then your not as smart as i thought you where. "IF" you "HAD NO WL's" those people that are in the 85 percentile would be very involved in federations and the poltitics of the game making thing a lot more interesting then they are now. Are you even comprehending a single word that Crafty or I have said? Likly you do, but chose not to listen or even comment against it, because its true. I was involved in a very active federation, had meetings sold and bought stuff amongst ourselves.. etc. Most of our fed was not war ready, nor did they need to be. Even without wl's, things for the most part where peacful anyway. And having some of the most powerful war ready members in the fed was enough of a deterent for war. There where maybe 4 war ready members in the fed out of 15, and that was enough to keep things peacful. The point is, even with no wars, the threat of war kept pla

what wendy said; ----- 'The problem is, we have a crisis of leadership. Not a crisis in the war game. The only people who are in crisis about the war game are those who selectively prey on the weak or logistically weak and make an easy score. Test your might against one another all ye warlords. Stop looking for pigs to a slaughter.'

As a newb, I'm getting trashed by a C3, and that's alright, I'm learning the game.

I like the idea that everyone has said so far about federations. Federations should have their own war level, once that war level reaches 2 you can go to war.

(I also agree with someone else's post about how after war level 2 you should be fair game (5 countries is more than enough imo already))

The idea of creating a federation war level, is it would require federations to have A. Some sort of Defense. B. A need a for war-countries. Consider the war countries like brawlers, where they can benefit from low common market supplies, while the econ countries benefit from the protection of the brawler countries.

That's just my two cents so far, if I figure out more sometime I'll let ya know ^^

Emily, dont know how long you played for, but Wendy was the worst one that prayed on the weak when WL's did not exist. No effence wendy.. its water under the bridge now.