Постови у којима сам цитиран

Написао Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 13:38

I don't want to sound insensitive to details and stuff. But even if Finland had events unit only it would still be finnish troops wouldn't it?

And what would happen if finnish event troops would capture Leningrad. They'll still be able to recruit troops there? Or Leningrad runs on event too?

Besides why is it so funny that Finland would be able to recruit Russian troops if it conquers it? Or soviet nation produced finnish troops? It happens in every war. If you want 100% accuracey in details then you should not use the map at all and just the scenario events. And it does not sound so crucial or relevant to the game. Sorry if I sound insensitive.

Production in Soviet lands does not really represent production in those lands per se but rather using the resources there to arm and recruit troops from your mainland, in a WW2 map anyway. That's how it was irl too, Hiwis were a non-factor. And yes if Finns took Leningrad they'd be able to recruit Romanians there but Finns taking Leningrad is rather rare regardless of whether Finland is independent or not, wacky stuff can always happen and the point is to limit the possibility of them happening.

Or you could give Finland to Germany instead of Axis minors, and then it'd be normal for Germans to be there since they fought on the Finnish front anyway.

Написао Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 13:19

I thought you didn't want troops moving from southern to northern axis.

If you just want to seperate production why can't you create hungro-romanian state in the south and finnish state with finnish troops in the north and put it under the same faction in the scenario?

I would have to make units depend on province rather than faction that way, and if I do that they'll be able to produce Soviet units in the lands they capture, which is memeworthy.

Написао Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 12:37

It's alright mate. I just tried to argue that narrowing and restricting fronts is not the way to balance maps in my opinion.

How did I argue for narrowing or restricting fronts, all I said was that I wanted the Axis Minor troops produced in Finland to be Finnish

Написао Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 12:20

Romania could transfer troops north even if these were seperated nations. Besides letting your troops just march and do nothing for 5 turns is probably a very bad idea.

More than that, if Axis are concentrating forces in the north then it's on any sensible Russia to punish them for that and attack the balkans and center Europe. I can go even further and say that you couls just give Russia better transfort.

In the old WWII some italies thought it'll be funny to go sky menace and attack Britian. In these cases any sensible British Africa has easily captures Rome.

You can never assure fair 1vs1 to all players even if you balance a scenario for ten years. The key is giving the players tools to make balance by themselves as TEAMS.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say, maybe you wrote what I said wrong.

Написао Mobster, 24.12.2021 at 09:58

It's really not cool to derail a topic like this. Heinz should write a summary of what has been discussed to focus back on to what's important, then we can continue from there.

tl;dr Heinz wants to ban people from hosting whatever maps they want on the weekends and force them to only ever play whatever "popular" map has been assigned to that particular weekend, and people are calling him out on how that's a stupid idea.

Написао Witch-Doctor, 23.12.2021 at 22:20

I'm against the removal of the limit. Maybe a small increase like to 750 or something is fine but not removal.

To be honest as well, if you can't make do with 500 event units for neutrals, then you need to rethink just how many units you're spamming or how to implement your map. Here's a start, make a strong neutral units so you don't have to spam 20-30 units as events.

Experienced mapmakers' input is irrelevant, apparently.

Here is how events are actually used. Suppose you are making a WW2 map and want to merge Finland with Hungary and Romania into one faction because you don't want pointless minor picks making the map harder to fill. But you don't want a bunch of Romanians and Hungarians running around in Lappland and besieging Murmansk, so instead you make Finland low or even zero-reinf land and substitute its reinf with unproducable Finnish event units. Since these would have to spawn every reinf turn, the total amount of event units the "Axis Minors" spot would need exceeds 500 or even 750 event units. The argument of "make a strong event unit instead of many weak ones" holds no basis because one strong unit and many weak ones are not the same, one strong unit would die to stack bonus, you wouldn't be able to wall with it, and anyway there's no reason for super saiyan Finns to be running around. But this is not even the only way events can be implemented, just look at Aetius and Pyrrhus' Second Punic War, that's another map hampered by event limit (for the Barcid faction).

As for neutral event units, it's a technique used in relatively recent mapmakiing. You give a neutral province events that spawn every reinf turn until the end of the game, so if a player captures the neutrals, they get the event units for themselves. Since the point of the event units is for the player to use them, same problems as above apply.

To begin with the argument that the event limit is to "limit SP farming" is stupid in and of itself, people can just as easily SP farm with 500 units as with 5000, it is idiotic for paranoid fears over SP farming to be limiting mapmakers this way. Anyway Aetius, Pyrrhus, Dire and many respected mapmakers have been complaining about this for years and in comes the creator of Chinese Ostfront saying they should "implement their maps better", this is why staff and mapmakers have never gotten along.

Написао Rock Lee, 23.12.2021 at 11:55

At some point, when there are too many event units in relations to city recruitment abilities and too many trenches the map itself stops to matter.

There is a reason some WWI players hate any other map or scenario AtWar has to offer, now Ain't there?

Point isn't player events, it's neutral events

Holy fucking shit this trash "feature" has ruined so many maps, Pyrrhus hates it, Dire hates it, and now that I decided to finally make a map, I hate it too, what kind of terrible person came up with the idea of limiting the maximum number of event units a faction can have

Написао Heinz_GuderianIQ, 18.12.2021 at 14:20

Zeph, I have to point out that you are one of the most active players on here, who is also a major contributor to the community. The fact is your avarage is less than 3 games a week (Long term).

Why don't you think you still wont be able to play the 2-3 games a week that you play now? You mean that none of the most popular maps in the most popular catagories in this game are good enough for you to play them? If they aren't good enough, well you still would have 4 additional days (on the non Marathon-Map-Days, which would only be 3 days a week) to play your other preffered "non-popular" maps. So I wouldn't be worried at all if I were you.

I want variety in my life, there's no one map that I'd ever wanted to be hosted over and over on weekends, and no I wouldn't have 4 additional days because fuck if anyone's ever online on weekdays, in any case there's no reason I should be virtually banned from playing the game for half the week

Написао Heinz_GuderianIQ, 17.12.2021 at 11:52

Not necessarily because there will be a rotation of category…. Not sure if you even read the post? :-)

As suggested, we will be rotating categories, and scenario maps to give an even chance for all the different maps. We can implement a poll, one week in advance, to choose the "Map of the day".

BTW I have to point out; you are a perfect example of one those most active high scenario players (you're here 7 days a week) who is only averaging 3-4 games a week -at best! (Long term average)

Yeah, most active high scenario players average 3-4 games a week, and as soon as your suggestion is implemented, they will average 0 games a week, because they don't actually want to play the same maps over and over.

Написао Marcos_VzR, 14.12.2021 at 11:40

More like a rankism and non sense HP unit spam, to be honest.

Guy who only plays FFAs and Nifty GGGs talks shit on Dire's maps lmao

Написао Ben Pimpin, 14.12.2021 at 16:21

https://atwar-game.com/map/?id=30776 done pay me
also can i have some more protos? i spent the ones u gave me

This is not even a scenario, nevermind an Aetius-style one

The maximum rank answer is outdated

Mapmaking contests are a fun idea but there's usually too little participation, mapmaking takes time, effort, skill and experience, and the people who are willing and capable to commit as much are few and far between.

You're basically trying to make it so that it's literally impossible to play any map that's not one of the "popular maps"

This is literally what already happens.

Написао Sid, 05.12.2021 at 16:20

Ads are only shown to non-prem users, new users shouldn't see them for a few days.

A nonprem should still be able to access the tutorial, it may not be a major problem but it is still a problem

Sounds like a troll.

If it isn't, still can't play with AI considering I've no idea how to add an AI player.

Написао Chess, 22.11.2021 at 16:56

https://www.kongregate.com/games/IvanStorm/afterwind/comments?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sort=rating
Plenty of feedback on kongregate. It's usually something along the line of atWar is "pay to win". I think it makes sense to make the general unit free to play again and maybe some of the popular maps free to create a game with as well.

Those reviews are nearly 10 years old. The mentality towards games was different back then.

Staff has talked about low player retention among new players before. Why not ask new players to write their thoughts on the game after their third game? It would help better understand what turns people off atWar so much.

Both have much higher replayability than Shogun 2 due to the many different factions.

(In truth you should just get Medieval 2 TW and enjoy the countless epic mods it offers)

Objectively speaking, North Korea. Afghanistan unfortunately doesn't have the air or naval power to project themselves overseas, while North Korea's been involved in numerous foreign wars in the latter half of the 20th century.

Написао Tribune Aquila, 13.11.2021 at 14:45

I agree with Dave. This is a business entity and, as a player, I would expect nothing less than for the owner of this game to maintain one of the most popular maps, even if the creator of the map wants to delete it—the only reason why the creator of a popular map would want deletion would be to seek vengeance, anyway. There is no downside to creating a map that then becomes popular.

This is exactly how other businesses operate, too. All clients of TD Ameritrade, Schwab, and other brokerages consent to their accounts being terminated for any reason or for no reason at all. If there's a remote possibility you might harm their business... you're out. The countervailing impact of not allowing Aetius to ruin his own map for what some might consider a "legitimate" reason (it is not) is that more people might leave. The added impact on anyone's propensity to leave is likely not enough to get them to leave if they have not left already, so that risk is negligible.

There is MORE upside to MORE people by keeping WW1 intact. If you really think that Aetius should be able to take down WW1, then you're advocating for something that MOST players would not agree with because it is a business interest, and business interests are based on majority rule. This takes me to my next and somewhat related point...

With respect to the falling out, do I think that should have happened? Respectfully, no. I don't think so. I never thought this community was toxic, I honestly thought it was all good humor and most of the conflict was kept in private and stuff. Barely anyone watches the forum except the OG players. Adding more good people was the solution, not removing more bad people, and I don't think the bad people were the factor preventing the good ones from retaining interest. I could be wrong. Supposedly, this was a business decision and hence would benefit more people over the long-run. I guess we will see about that.

In conclusion, I still think that we should get into a Skype or Discord call as a community and talk to each other. Dave can explain the reasons he did everything. His reasons are undoubtedly legitimate, but subject to debate. And I still think that a community-wide agreement can be made to limit our own toxicity and be nicer people, not for the sake of Dave but for the sake of why Dave did all of this in the first place—for atwar. It should not be difficult to schedule some kind of real meeting.

WW1 was not taken down permanently, it was taken down in protest to recent pointless bans, and would've been restored when said bans were revoked. If a content creator taking down his own content in protest is not a valid form of protest, I don't know what is.

In addition most scenario players have been on board with the protests and thus supported both Dire's and Aetius' map takedowns, the people complaining about WW1 being down are a minority of people like Toku (a known troll and leaver) who care nothing about either Aetius or the game beyond consuming the product they're given.

Написао Dave, 13.11.2021 at 13:55

He made the map unplayable and wrote "Dave stop banning people" over it. That's just childish.

It's basically vandalism of a popular map, with the intent of ruining the game for others. When he's ready to act like an adult again we won't interfere, but until then I will simply restore any defaced maps from our backups.

Hilarious how you think mods are justified in banning "assholes" because you have every right to deny your services to people, but then backtrack when Aetius decides to deny his services to you.

I wonder when you'll start acting like an adult.

Написао Dave, 13.11.2021 at 13:57

Also see our terms of service. It has had the following paragraph since even Ivan & Amok's time:

---

4. Custom Maps ownership
Custom Maps and Scenarios and all associated media are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of atWar. Without limiting the foregoing, you hereby assign to atWar all of your rights, title and interest in and to all Custom Maps, and agree that should atWar decide that it is necessary, you agree to execute future assignments promptly upon receiving such a request from atWar. Additionally, atWar shall have the right to keep the Custom Maps online even if their creator requests removal. In case of blocking users from playing your map, you agree to provide solid reasons for the block upon request.

These terms of service are edited terms of service that were made so after WW1 was made. There were protests and map strikes back then too. I explicitly asked you about this in atWar discord shortly after you became admin and you said mapmakers are free to take down their own maps, but I guess things are different when you realise you won't get to profit off their hard work anymore.

Aaaaaaand mods unfucked it. Mapmakers don't even own their own maps anymore :^)

The absolute state of this game.

Who would've thought that my lifelong ambition would've come around in such a manner.

It's okay Alex, I'll always be here for you

You make it sound like world peace is the problem

Написао Sid, 03.11.2021 at 03:48

You pretty much have to play duels and cws to become the best in the game. And the best in the game can pretty much hop in most maps or scenarios and be dominate still after a few games because they have mastered the core mechanics already. I limited the scope because the scope defines the objective. Dueling and CWing is a somewhat objective measure, everything else is hard to measure imo. You are free to create a list of Scenario Grand Masters

Should've seen the incident where Witch-Doctor accused me of having picked an overpowered faction, I switched over to its enemy faction, he joined as the "overpowered" faction and got fucked.