Worldgames ruined.

Hello fellow AW-players

I already made another topic about Scenarios VS worldmaps. It is kinda annoying how some people enjoy playing worldmaps but getting ruined by others. People are like crying if they have to wait for a full game. Saying like: If you wait this long the people will leave and it will never get filled. It was ages ago for me playing a worldmap. And today I started one. Took like 5/7 mins to get full game after spamming and advertising. When the game started there was like 1 guy I don't remember his name anymore, but he was saying like make it 6 mins and stuff and everybody was like gtfo and no we dont want this and that. The guy said that everytime he made a game, alot of people changed his settings and turned into a game he disliked.
I agree with him, If I make FFA I almost have to disagree with the proposes everyturn to change the ally maximum. After we filled up the game with trouble we started.
I put the game settings with 1 ally maximum because of the crying people. After 2 turns already 4 guys left. And turn 5 there were just 6 guys left. I am thinking like why do people choose a spot in a game. willing too know they would leave in 5 turns? Its such annoying that in almost every game besides 3v3's, there are ''lowrankers'' getting scared of what they call 'high-rankers'' but still pick a spot? And not only low rankers, there are also rank 7 and 6 being scared for people with a higher rank? Srsly DAFUQ? Since when does a number gives you the skills...? The thing is. Before this upgrade of afterwind(atwar) alot of shit changed. Much people quit and much people came. But the problem with the people who came is. They play 24/7 Scenarios or do play worldgames/europemaps but only ally with EVERY GUY AROUND THEM? After they are done with playing(mostly even after leaving the game)they call it boring and go back to scenarios? Like lolz forreal? This game has to nerf some stuff. Alot of old members which played alot worldgames are getting bored and just stay online for the chats. If you make the maps 8-15 or 6-15 almost nobody will join. So thats also out of option.

I made some screenshots to proof my point.


America and south america had 5 people. But because of the allying everybody left. And because of that the guys who allied eachother also left because it was ''boring''? Logic? Lmao.


This is the turn after that screenshot.. Like 4 or 5 more guys left.


Turn 5 and from 20/20 to 6/20? I hope you guys the my point.

And ofcourse the scenario addicted newplayers will hate on this tho. (Cpt.magic) .

Support

I'm not sure how playing scenarios makes you more likely to do this ^^^. But of course the majority heaps all problems of the game upon scenarios, because they never existed before right

Nice rant, i support your point that people are afraid by rank and they change the game settings etc is just pointless shit

Kirjutas Solair, 25.02.2014 at 10:09

I'm not sure how playing scenarios makes you more likely to do this ^^^. But of course the majority heaps all problems of the game upon scenarios, because they never existed before right

Just to clarify, I understand and to a certain extent support what you're saying, apart from the criticism of scenario players

@jack it is the fault of those scenarios, They learn the people to fullly ally everybody near you. And they also learn the people 2 kick the lowrankers? Is that good? no. Giving better countries to '' better high ranked players'' is such bullshit. But thats what happends in scenarios.

Was there. I don't have a problem with scenarios as they can be fun to do once awhile and can put you in situations you normally wouldn't be in normal World games.

In OP's game, I noticed only three conflicts (there may have been more). To my knowledge I was the only one knocked out from conflict. The others either left because they were going to get ganged up on first turn (which I guess is fair since the game was limited to one ally which would ultimately hurt them) or because they were bored because they stacked their team. I don't want to put down some of the players as the European/ME/Asia stayed in the game for the most part.

I guess what really pissed me off was how anxious people seemed to play, and how spectators wanted players kicked so they could play, only for those same players to leave for no reason not even 3 turns in. I don't know if there is anyway to fix this aside from just keeping a list of players you don't want to play with but it can be aggravating. I think this same problem affects scenarios just as well, people wait to play and people leave once it starts.

But I don't know.

I suppport usul!!!!!!! xD

Oh baby when you talk like that, you make a woman go mad

Omg laochra its not :c

Waffel your sig is creepy and the photo is too large.

The issue you raise can be easily fixed. We just need to make it so you can create games where the settings can't be changed, i.e a lock button

Still. The old players arent playing worldmaps anymore because they know it will failure...

The problem is psychological more than anything else.

High ranks rarely play world games or other presets of the default world map. This means low ranks are somewhat in awe of the ranks unnecessarily, never having experienced that the high ranks are not super-powerful. The few high ranks they do encounter are generally the scenario players, who often ally anyway and are not that much more powerful than most of them. When a high rank like waffel joins and refuses all alliances, in order to retain the challenge coupled with the speed of his expansion and probable flattening of anyone nearby, will cause most other players to run away, because they assume the situation is hopeless.

The only way they will consider overcoming this is changing the turn time, which always discourages high ranks anyway.

It's a self perpetuating problem, a vicious cycle. The more it happens the less high ranks play world games, and therefore the less low ranks can learn about high ranks, and gain skills in the experience which low ranks are at present starved of. This fuels the paranoia and fear, leading even more to abandon (or change turn time) and this further discourages high ranks from playing world games.

AtWar is sick, and dying. There is no hope. Thank you for reading.

You couldn't have say it any better xD

But, alof of highrankers play worldgames. Like mauzer always has. But lately he doesnt make them anymore because they dont fill :/ Thats the whole problem. Mauzer losing hope > No Afterwind worldmaps anymore :c xD

WE WANT MORE AND BETTER WORLDGAMES!!!!!

OMG RIDDER I LOVE YOU SUCH MUCH <3 SUCH MUCH SUPPORT FROM YOU ON ME xaxa hue

Shakira also loves you xoxox

Edit your signature plez And stahp stealing me.
I think this is another complaint about current game options changing system, isn't it?

I agree.

I used to be scared of higher ranks that spawned near me, but recently I realized it's both more fun and SP-profitable to actually fight instead of just hugging them, expanding, and generally doing nothing all game. That playstyle sickens me. Seriously, can't people try and fight someone? It's a bloody war game, not Farmville.

I've had two games now, just today, where I was China and the rest of the world allied to fight me. I won the first one, and abandoned the second. Not particularly because Turkey was pretty good, but because it was boring as fk. Before me and Turkey fought, there had not been a SINGLE PVP war. Not one. How is it right for the very first battle to be 30-something stacks against 40-something stacks? I play strats that prefer early safety, like MoS, but frankly I'm going to start spawning nearer to other people, and fight; regardless of who wins, because this Farmville stuff is terrible.

Support

Support. When I join worldgames, I try not to ally. Sometimes I'll propose a peace treaty if I need to. Or I'll join a game to ally someone that's being ganged up on and that asked for my help.

I think it should be possible to lock game setting changes. Or at least make it much more difficult to change them.

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.

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.

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.

This ''last man standing bonus'' sounds great tho, but I also prefer too delete some scenarios?, idk lately alot of scenarios came up and spams o_o

Kirjutas Chomdax, 25.02.2014 at 14:39

I agree.

I used to be scared of higher ranks that spawned near me, but recently I realized it's both more fun and SP-profitable to actually fight instead of just hugging them, expanding, and generally doing nothing all game. That playstyle sickens me. Seriously, can't people try and fight someone? It's a bloody war game, not Farmville.

I've had two games now, just today, where I was China and the rest of the world allied to fight me. I won the first one, and abandoned the second. Not particularly because Turkey was pretty good, but because it was boring as fk. Before me and Turkey fought, there had not been a SINGLE PVP war. Not one. How is it right for the very first battle to be 30-something stacks against 40-something stacks? I play strats that prefer early safety, like MoS, but frankly I'm going to start spawning nearer to other people, and fight; regardless of who wins, because this Farmville stuff is terrible.

You are one of the few ''low'' rankers who finally understands it Trying something alone or atleast with 1 ally is way more fun.

I support
Sincerely Royal Damage

Just another example of how worldgames have been ruined. I joined a 25k worldgame today.

Here is the game as of turn 5:

By turn five, already a lot of allyfagging. An allied India and China, and pink and red mostly focusing on me, even though they are at war. I have red's cap but cant hold it.
Turn 8:

On turn 8 same alliances as before. I just noticed that there are 70 units stacked in India's cap, 30 in Germany's, 40 in Spain's, and 40 in UK's. Being attacked from both east and west now. Red finally started attacking pink.
Turn 10:

Even more alliances now. I can hold on a little longer but will die soon. Red kill's pink turn 14, I surrender turn 15.
If that game wasn't bad enough, take a look at these.



Look at those walls.
I did not see a single proper wall that whole game. This is getting ridiculous.

Waffel you didn't answer my question Gibe syrup plez.

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.

Support