Worldgames ruined.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas Lemonade, 01.03.2014 at 07:37

Reduce the worldmap to all non premiums -> problem solved

Kirjutas learster, 01.03.2014 at 09:36

I really don't know where this comes from, when you are one of the biggest complainants about the current world game situation?
Does it become any less of a good game only because you can't win it anymore? Yesterday we had an incredibly high-ranked stacked FFA world game, where for the first 27 rounds I fought it out with Desu alone in East-Asia, while Pakistan was slowly creeping up on us. We both knew that we would be eaten up by Pakistan eventually, yet we kept on fighting each other and it was probably the best world game I had in years.
I also find it highly disrespectful towards the other players to just abondon a game so early in. What if we both had left at that point, leaving East-Asia for Pakistan to grab? The game would have been ruined for the 5-6 or so players still left. I really question your motifs there, son. A "good old world game" is not only defined by your chances of winning it. It's first and foremost only about playing it.

Atleast have the decency to play on. You never know what might happen in such a game, which is the biggest single factor that makes world games so incredibly good.

Kirjutas notserral, 27.02.2014 at 09:08

Games like Warcraft 3 had a feature: when you join a FFA you're automatically renamed to Player X, so no one can contact you. Perhaps it could be an option bought with protocoins? Whenever someone joins a game created this way, they're automatically incognitoed and chat is disabled.

Kirjutas notserral, 27.02.2014 at 09:08

Games like Warcraft 3 had a feature: when you join a FFA you're automatically renamed to Player X, so no one can contact you. Perhaps it could be an option bought with protocoins? Whenever someone joins a game created this way, they're automatically incognitoed and chat is disabled.

Kirjutas Htin, 14.07.2014 at 19:52

RP, best income,lots of reinforcment, But I hate Diplomacy games, " i declare war on...". ruins surprises attack

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

Kirjutas learster, 26.02.2014 at 04:47

Kirjutas Cthulhu, 26.02.2014 at 01:47

I admit, the large map scene has not been doing to well, partly because people don't have the patience like they used to. New players, more choices. Why play a game if you believe you stand a better chance in a new one is the mentality people have.

However, I want to point out, that there are many times I came close to losing, but manage to turn the tide and crush my opponents. I suggest all players to stay to the end, because that was the mentality of the old players of lore. We are the players that stick to the end, and this is one of the reason how we became good.

I wish more players would do that, as this is what makes a truly great player. Yet I got news for you: start a world game with many high ranked player and you will still end up with an empty game by turn 10. They are just the same little shitheads.

Personally I don't really see the issue with losing a game, as being defeated in a heated battle is almost always more fun than instantly joining the next best game. It should be about actually playing the game and not chasing down the SPs. Maybe it would be beneficial to the quality of the game if we got rid of SP altogether, or if the SP penalty on losing a game was lifted.
Another idea would be a "last stand bonus", that is some sort of bonus for fighting until the end and holding out until the enemy captured and held your capital for 2 rounds. Little kids today are like dogs, they need to be rewarded for everything they do, even if that is losing.

Tsiteeri:

Kirjutas Fockmeeard, 15.07.2014 at 00:20

Eh, my biggest issue is what happens 10-15 turns into a world game. If I fought and killed 3 people in asia, I'm left with minimal units that can't face the incoming waves of 50-200 unit stacks from those who have expanded those 10-15 units instead of fighting. This can't be directly blamed on allyfagging. Sometimes there really is nobody to fight. Sometimes people in the same continent as you quit before you have the chance to fight. Sometimes people had noobs that were easily run over instead of having to face stronger players. The only viable solution I can think of is expanding the maximum amount of players to 30 or even 40, but keep this option for only world map. More players=more fighting=balanced unit count.

no. Just no. If we accept 30 or 40 people. It will take twice the time of UN to even get started. Then 2 hours later we finally get started. Then the game is getting MORE AND MORE allyfaggs/peacefaggs (because ofc peace isnt worse than ally? -.- stupid people) and its just a shitload. 20/20 worldgames ARE really well balanced. 5/20 worldgames arent. 10/20 worldgames arent. The 18/20 worldgames ARE. Mostly atleast 2 or more people in atleast every continent (besides africa/australia most of the times) .

And clovis.

I wish more players would do that, as this is what makes a truly great player. Yet I got news for you: start a world game with many high ranked player and you will still end up with an empty game by turn 10. They are just the same little shitheads.

Personally I don't really see the issue with losing a game, as being defeated in a heated battle is almost always more fun than instantly joining the next best game. It should be about actually playing the game and not chasing down the SPs. Maybe it would be beneficial to the quality of the game if we got rid of SP altogether, or if the SP penalty on losing a game was lifted.
Another idea would be a "last stand bonus", that is some sort of bonus for fighting until the end and holding out until the enemy captured and held your capital for 2 rounds. Little kids today are like dogs, they need to be rewarded for everything they do, even if that is losing.

Kirjutas Unleashed, 27.02.2014 at 04:04

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

I can see a bright future for AW

Kirjutas Waffel, 20.01.2015 at 08:21

Kirjutas Unleashed, 27.02.2014 at 04:04

Kirjutas Brandyjack, 26.02.2014 at 19:42

Worldgames suck. Scenarios are the only place to get SP. Playing UN with RA as a strat, and you're basically unstoppable.

I can see a bright future for AW

I miss unbanned unleashed :<