|Previous Thread:||I am Buying Ultra High Quality Consumer Goods on LU|
|Next Thread:||4 MILLION WORKERS|
| Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 03:49 am |
I like the system. After playing a number of games with multi player federations I am glad to not be subject to the vagaries of some hair brained scheme cooked up by a bunch of idiots. I can play the game and just grow my country. If I want to fight some C3's I can do that. I f I want to get all tough and narley and fight somebody, I can do that. And the fights are among somewhat equal folks which places emphasis on skill, tactics and strategy. They are not bozo knocking off the kindergarten kids. And, there is a war world.
Perhaps adjustments need to be made to rewards, I don't know since I am pretty low down. But I like the system.
| Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 03:55 am |
I have played games with out strong restrictions on who can attack who. All that happens is a few gang up and beat down anyone that looks like they might in the future become a rival. It is petty and boring for either side. Usually dominated by 12 year olds who will not start dating until craig's list stops rejecting their solicitations.
I have not played long enough to comment on the rewards of high war levels but if what is said here is true than there is no point ... what seems to be the optimum profit war level?
If i could not have at least one safe nation where i can mind my own business allowing me to only risk what i was willing to loose in a second or fourth nation etc.. i would not have even started playing this game.
| Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 04:19 am |
doolavay i didnt say secured mode i said war levels....Mute you have fun "warring" c3s and "growing" your country (you realize it takes about 2 weeks to grow a decent country..... mute i doubt you fight anyone because 1 there is no reason to fight and 2 there are few reasons to fight anyone and lots of reasons not to.... war levels do not create an environment in which people with equal skill and size fight... that is a myth.... Erin thank you for your contribution i have found that to be strongly the case in other games... not so much here because of the maturity of vets or rather their apathy perhaps
| Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 04:31 am |
ive always heard from the vets that it was a better game without war levels and i believe them. i would think the communication levels would be much higher and people would be much more inclined to find a good fed.
| Tuesday, November 5, 2013 - 04:43 am |
DOWN WITH WAR LEVELS GIVE ME NO WAR LEVELS OR GIVE ME ANDYS HEAD ON A STICK!!!
| Wednesday, November 6, 2013 - 12:25 am |
war levels aren't really the problem. the problem is the attitude of some vets, that they have a right to win, rather than actually put out effort. so we end up with war levels, protecting players that shouldn't need any protection. and originally, the reason for war levels being introduced, was to protect a group of large players from actually having to do anything to claim their in-game power.
the purpose of a newish players being protected long enough to actually do something, is a good goal of war levels. how ever, they have a wider reaching effect.
war levels would work best if their where fewer. one level for non-combatants, one level for new or less enthusiastic war players. you know the ones that don't have the experience, assets, and/or time and a third or forth level for the more aggressive, active players. but having as many war levels as we do, offers the opportunity for way to many "miss-matches"
| Friday, November 8, 2013 - 12:52 am |
i think there should be two war levels... secured and unsecured... people dont understand war levels including myself... as it is now i just sit at wl3..... i always hear people at higher war levels complaining about how they make no profit in war but this completely perplexes me... what reason is there to go higher other then make more money?.... i guess it would be just to advance game levels which basically means your playing a game by yourself how many game levels you can get
| Friday, November 8, 2013 - 03:31 am |
I think after war level 3 your war level should be determined by the size of your army and its strength not weather or not you choose to level up. And fighting a player with in 3 war levels when there are only 9 pvp war levels is way to open ended. If there were 25 pvp lvls that would make more sense.
With this system you would go up and down in war levels and would be a lot easier to match up for pvp as even a 7 year vet could not attack a wl4 player unless he shrunk his army down.
Only problem is assistance from allies would have to be limited along with reinforcements from space etc.
As it is now your war level is pointless other than moving from 2-3 ...and the vets all seem to regret ever moving up.
| Friday, November 8, 2013 - 04:57 am |
How about letting us raid at 3 levels down like we can versus players.