What was the most frustrating part when you started playing atWar?

Napisano od The Taliban, 09.10.2013 at 14:33

Napisano od Guest, 09.10.2013 at 13:32

Napisano od The Taliban, 09.10.2013 at 12:55

Napisano od YOBA, 09.10.2013 at 11:57

Napisano od Guest, 04.09.2013 at 15:17

For me, it was Strategies and Upgrades. High-ranked players have all of them, while we only have some. In the Main lobby, you don't learn anything by playing countless shitfest games like UN, but when you do try and play a fair game, better strategical knowledge and upgrades destroy you. Thankfully, I've learned a few strategies very well, and have a good number of upgrades now (even though I find Upgrades to be P2W).

Exactly this. The power curve in AtWar has increased enormously. I still wouldn't call the game pay-to-win, but the power curve (the formal name of this in game design) is higher now than it has ever stood. It is no longer about skill when a rank 4 faces off against a rank 8 or 9, even if they are the AW equivalent of a grandmaster at chess.

The power differential between longtime players with lots of upgrades and newbies has to be decreased somehow without making the purchase of upgrades and/or the addictive element of the game fade away.

Is call: SM + Air Capacity.

By level 4 you should have all of them and a couple of other upgrades.

No. I believe the best course of action is to follow what some of the most competitive games of the now are doing, specifically MOBA's: Make upgrades in-game purchases. Using credits (Money, resources, whatever (we seriously need an official name)), you could buy specific upgrades at any rank through an in-match store.

If it took too much time to contemplate upgrades, two things could be implemented: 1. A tick-box to include an "Interturn" period with a designated time. You could buy upgrades and watch your battles. 2. An alg/system could be implemented to watch your units and how they're doing in game (How well they perform at certain tasks, what they lack at, what type of units they're weak to, etc), and suggest upgrades for you. (I could go on and on about this).

Now, for Strategies: They need to either be balanced with "None", or be used as temporary boosts (Could use strategy boost for X turns, then a cooldown/recharge period until stat boosts can be used again (Hotbar/keys for multiple strategies?)). I only suggest this because the tide of war can change dramatically. EX: switching to Imperialist when your funds are low is logical, as well as practical in the real world, or switching to NC after reaching coasts. At the moment, there's sort of a power-frenzy between a few strategies, particularly SM (when on high resources) and PD.

With all of this in mind, everything would be in-match, lessening the top 100's dependency on stat boosts and upgrades, and creating a fairer playing field for all ranks in any situation. the No Strats/Upgrades option is very nice, but (not to be rude) most top 100 player's can't play for shit without their upgrades.

Nope.

>Tunder3

Napisano od Guest, 09.10.2013 at 16:10

No. I believe the best course of action is to follow what some of the most competitive games of the now are doing, specifically MOBA's: Make upgrades in-game purchases. Using credits (Money, resources, whatever (we seriously need an official name)), you could buy specific upgrades at any rank through an in-match store.

If it took too much time to contemplate upgrades, two things could be implemented: 1. A tick-box to include an "Interturn" period with a designated time. You could buy upgrades and watch your battles. 2. An alg/system could be implemented to watch your units and how they're doing in game (How well they perform at certain tasks, what they lack at, what type of units they're weak to, etc), and suggest upgrades for you. (I could go on and on about this).

Now, for Strategies: They need to either be balanced with "None", or be used as temporary boosts (Could use strategy boost for X turns, then a cooldown/recharge period until stat boosts can be used again (Hotbar/keys for multiple strategies?)). I only suggest this because the tide of war can change dramatically. EX: switching to Imperialist when your funds are low is logical, as well as practical in the real world, or switching to NC after reaching coasts. At the moment, there's sort of a power-frenzy between a few strategies, particularly SM (when on high resources) and PD.

With all of this in mind, everything would be in-match, lessening the top 100's dependency on stat boosts and upgrades, and creating a fairer playing field for all ranks in any situation. the No Strats/Upgrades option is very nice, but (not to be rude) most top 100 player's can't play for shit without their upgrades.

I support all of this. But maybe make upgrades unlockable by the out of game store, then you also have to unlock it in-game. We can't get rid of the addictive (for most) element of upgrades. Also general needs to be balanced, a lot, it is very OP.

No one told me that bombers couldn't take cities

Napisano od EndsOfInvention, 10.10.2013 at 11:27

No one told me that bombers couldn't take cities

Goddamn, there was no hardest part. All I got is complaints. All players ranks 5 and under should be banned from mainroom. They are all godamn losers and trolls. All of us pro players once had that game(more than once) when we let some fuckin noob play some position, and he left turn 1, or turns goddamn afk! I am fuckin tired of it. If you want to enhance game experience, fuckin ban ranks 1-5 from the main room.

For me, it was the SP farmers.

IT IS BULLSHIT. STAHP IT

One the more frustrating parts of being new is having more advanced players team up on newer players and essentially set them up for point gains for themselves. I realize there isn't really anything to be done regarding integrity of players, it is simply one of the more frustrating parts of learning the new system. After a while, a player becomes more wary and it is harder to trick them. Perhaps, it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a "neutral" button as one of the alliance choices, as it is right now, you can either be allied, or you can say "no." That doesn't leave much room to try and figure out what to do in a game and makes it easier for more experienced players to set up a newer player with alliances that they break later in the game to finish them off. Just a thought.

When I first started as I never really got the tutorial I just got smashed by literally everyone, so frustrating especially when they're really cocky about it. The thing about ally **** has never annoyed me since I am one. Then though to be honest I've only started not getting smashed to pieces every game so it's not really "when you were a beginner" exclusively but eh, you get the point.

Nothing because I'm a pro.

Napisano od ZatarVinir, 09.12.2013 at 14:46

One the more frustrating parts of being new is having more advanced players team up on newer players and essentially set them up for point gains for themselves. I realize there isn't really anything to be done regarding integrity of players, it is simply one of the more frustrating parts of learning the new system. After a while, a player becomes more wary and it is harder to trick them. Perhaps, it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a "neutral" button as one of the alliance choices, as it is right now, you can either be allied, or you can say "no." That doesn't leave much room to try and figure out what to do in a game and makes it easier for more experienced players to set up a newer player with alliances that they break later in the game to finish them off. Just a thought.

For me its when low ranks in a game ally up to fight a semi-high rank because they expect the high rank to handle it. Like im sorry i got this rank because i play a lot not because im the best at handling 3v1

Walls. I was like: how do they cheat like this???
The tutorial badly needs a part on walls, especially the 3 man city lock

I wish there were more hotkeys so everything wasn't done with the mouse.

Napisano od The Taliban, 09.10.2013 at 14:33

Napisano od Guest, 09.10.2013 at 13:32

Napisano od The Taliban, 09.10.2013 at 12:55

Napisano od YOBA, 09.10.2013 at 11:57

Napisano od Guest, 04.09.2013 at 15:17

For me, it was Strategies and Upgrades. High-ranked players have all of them, while we only have some. In the Main lobby, you don't learn anything by playing countless shitfest games like UN, but when you do try and play a fair game, better strategical knowledge and upgrades destroy you. Thankfully, I've learned a few strategies very well, and have a good number of upgrades now (even though I find Upgrades to be P2W).

Exactly this. The power curve in AtWar has increased enormously. I still wouldn't call the game pay-to-win, but the power curve (the formal name of this in game design) is higher now than it has ever stood. It is no longer about skill when a rank 4 faces off against a rank 8 or 9, even if they are the AW equivalent of a grandmaster at chess.

The power differential between longtime players with lots of upgrades and newbies has to be decreased somehow without making the purchase of upgrades and/or the addictive element of the game fade away.

Is call: SM + Air Capacity.

By level 4 you should have all of them and a couple of other upgrades.

No. I believe the best course of action is to follow what some of the most competitive games of the now are doing, specifically MOBA's: Make upgrades in-game purchases. Using credits (Money, resources, whatever (we seriously need an official name)), you could buy specific upgrades at any rank through an in-match store.

If it took too much time to contemplate upgrades, two things could be implemented: 1. A tick-box to include an "Interturn" period with a designated time. You could buy upgrades and watch your battles. 2. An alg/system could be implemented to watch your units and how they're doing in game (How well they perform at certain tasks, what they lack at, what type of units they're weak to, etc), and suggest upgrades for you. (I could go on and on about this).

Now, for Strategies: They need to either be balanced with "None", or be used as temporary boosts (Could use strategy boost for X turns, then a cooldown/recharge period until stat boosts can be used again (Hotbar/keys for multiple strategies?)). I only suggest this because the tide of war can change dramatically. EX: switching to Imperialist when your funds are low is logical, as well as practical in the real world, or switching to NC after reaching coasts. At the moment, there's sort of a power-frenzy between a few strategies, particularly SM (when on high resources) and PD.

With all of this in mind, everything would be in-match, lessening the top 100's dependency on stat boosts and upgrades, and creating a fairer playing field for all ranks in any situation. the No Strats/Upgrades option is very nice, but (not to be rude) most top 100 player's can't play for shit without their upgrades.

Nope.

that a long time ago, i don't remember this anymore but i know how to play as japan. BTW was this before i had premium? Lol RIchthofen.

Having just started the most difficult annoying things are the lack of good and full 'how to guide' covering all the mechanics and some basic strategy tips like walling and what unit is best for what etc. Just to get you started. Furthermore I find some interface elements not quite oke like how to add / find friends and players etc. Selecting chat mode (for example how do I chat with allies only (not using PR). I think a more detailed help / info section on the site would help.

But the most annoying thing is allies for newbies. I have found out more often than not that it is often so that nobody wants to allie with you, resulting in everybody allying together leaving me unallied and ready to be killed off. And that's the moment when the motivation goes out the window.

Game tutorials is probably the one thing that needs attention to help a noob out. The lack of thoroughness and in-depth information in them leave a noob lost and bewildered. The only other thing is the total lack of respect or politeness from high ranked players. They want good players, and not just one, to play against. But their smug, self righteous, holier then thou, you suck attitudes towards noobs is down right rude. I have seen attempts, such as adopt a noob and Atwar academy, to get high rank players to help educate low ranks, but my god, even in this thread you have that attitude showing it's ugly head. Everytime I log in, I see the words "Be polite to other players" and yet 9 times out of 10 it's the high ranks breaking that little rule. Or least I assume it's a rule, if it's a suggestion then consider it ignored. I feel if the higher ranks want better players they should lead by example and they would get want they want. Respectful, competent, non-trolling, non ally abusing, strategic players.