This needs to stop

You don't get it it's a big advantage, two players, one rank 7 noob farmer with upgrades will beat a good rank 3 who learns fast, and to add to that they usually ally fag against lower ranks.

Written by Xenosapien, 04.09.2013 at 06:05

You don't get it it's a big advantage, two players, one rank 7 noob farmer with upgrades will beat a good rank 3 who learns fast, and to add to that they usually ally fag against lower ranks.

this

When I play games against lower ranks, I feel my upgrades clearly gave me a significant advantage (an advantage I don't need I might add). Also, in some games against high ranks I felt that they had the upper hand only due to superior upgrades - not talent.

Written by Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 19:43

Written by Xenosapien, 04.09.2013 at 06:05

You don't get it it's a big advantage, two players, one rank 7 noob farmer with upgrades will beat a good rank 3 who learns fast, and to add to that they usually ally fag against lower ranks.

this

When I play games against lower ranks, I feel my upgrades clearly gave me a significant advantage (an advantage I don't need I might add). Also, in some games against high ranks I felt that they had the upper hand only due to superior upgrades - not talent.

Oddly enough there are solutions to your preferences. you can a) reset your upgrades for 490 protocoins if you're willing to spend it just to tune your account to what you consider to be the right number of upgrades, and b) just forget this account (ask admin to delete if if u really want), start over, and that way you don't have to worry about upgrades at all.

In any case, each person should resolve their own issues that way on a personal level. If you don't like it, then get the upgrades to play with everyone on an even level.

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 22:45

Written by Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 19:43

Written by Xenosapien, 04.09.2013 at 06:05

You don't get it it's a big advantage, two players, one rank 7 noob farmer with upgrades will beat a good rank 3 who learns fast, and to add to that they usually ally fag against lower ranks.

this

When I play games against lower ranks, I feel my upgrades clearly gave me a significant advantage (an advantage I don't need I might add). Also, in some games against high ranks I felt that they had the upper hand only due to superior upgrades - not talent.

Oddly enough there are solutions to your preferences. you can a) reset your upgrades for 490 protocoins if you're willing to spend it just to tune your account to what you consider to be the right number of upgrades, and b) just forget this account (ask admin to delete if if u really want), start over, and that way you don't have to worry about upgrades at all.

In any case, each person should resolve their own issues that way on a personal level. If you don't like it, then get the upgrades to play with everyone on an even level.

The problem is not the upgrades. It is the difference in the amount of upgrades between players of different rank.
Resetting my upgrades or restarting with a new account would do nothing to solve this. One solution you did not mention is playing with no strats/no upgrades. That works. But it gets old fast.

Written by Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 22:48

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 22:45

Written by Grimm, 10.09.2013 at 19:43

Written by Xenosapien, 04.09.2013 at 06:05

You don't get it it's a big advantage, two players, one rank 7 noob farmer with upgrades will beat a good rank 3 who learns fast, and to add to that they usually ally fag against lower ranks.

this

When I play games against lower ranks, I feel my upgrades clearly gave me a significant advantage (an advantage I don't need I might add). Also, in some games against high ranks I felt that they had the upper hand only due to superior upgrades - not talent.

Oddly enough there are solutions to your preferences. you can a) reset your upgrades for 490 protocoins if you're willing to spend it just to tune your account to what you consider to be the right number of upgrades, and b) just forget this account (ask admin to delete if if u really want), start over, and that way you don't have to worry about upgrades at all.

In any case, each person should resolve their own issues that way on a personal level. If you don't like it, then get the upgrades to play with everyone on an even level.

The problem is not the upgrades. It is the difference in the amount of upgrades between players of different rank.
Resetting my upgrades or restarting with a new account would do nothing to solve this. One solution you did not mention is playing with no strats/no upgrades. That works. But it gets old fast.

there's a reason why i didn't mention it, it's because it already exists. as you mentioned it's called extra game options: disable upgrades and strats. and no, it doesn't get old, depending on the scenario.
and obviously players who play longer, with a higher level, will have stronger units/options. it's harder to find a game that doesn't do that, and it's also essential in any game to avoid stagnant gameplay. if you master a strategy with no upgrades, then you're forced to think how incorporating an upgrade will change the strategy. without that there'd be no point to playing this game beyond just a few days. what keeps people binded to this game is the evolution in strategy that each person can discover for him/herself.

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 23:13

there's a reason why i didn't mention it, it's because it already exists. as you mentioned it's called extra game options: disable upgrades and strats. and no, it doesn't get old, depending on the scenario.
and obviously players who play longer, with a higher level, will have stronger units/options. it's harder to find a game that doesn't do that, and it's also essential in any game to avoid stagnant gameplay. if you master a strategy with no upgrades, then you're forced to think how incorporating an upgrade will change the strategy. without that there'd be no point to playing this game beyond just a few days. what keeps people binded to this game is the evolution in strategy that each person can discover for him/herself.

Well you mentioned other options that already exist... Anyways, what I meant by "it gets old" is that I like to play with upgrades most of the time (stealth units for example) and I think most other players do too. After all, you don't see that many "no upgrades" games.
You're still not understanding my point though. The problem is the difference in upgrades between low and high ranks which creates uneven games. I was responding to a previous post that said that upgrades made no real difference. I was agreeing with Stickhammer saying that they do make a good difference.

Written by Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:30

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 23:13

there's a reason why i didn't mention it, it's because it already exists. as you mentioned it's called extra game options: disable upgrades and strats. and no, it doesn't get old, depending on the scenario.
and obviously players who play longer, with a higher level, will have stronger units/options. it's harder to find a game that doesn't do that, and it's also essential in any game to avoid stagnant gameplay. if you master a strategy with no upgrades, then you're forced to think how incorporating an upgrade will change the strategy. without that there'd be no point to playing this game beyond just a few days. what keeps people binded to this game is the evolution in strategy that each person can discover for him/herself.

Well you mentioned other options that already exist... Anyways, what I meant by "it gets old" is that I like to play with upgrades most of the time (stealth units for example) and I think most other players do too. After all, you don't see that many "no upgrades" games.
You're still not understanding my point though. The problem is the difference in upgrades between low and high ranks which creates uneven games. I was responding to a previous post that said that upgrades made no real difference. I was agreeing with Stickhammer saying that they do make a good difference.

lols and i i was just saying that it is a necessary difference
and lol, there's plenty of scenarios that disable upgrades and strats automatically, or those that just use a bunch of "other" units so that it doesn't make sense to be concerned about strat (aside from imp, maybe)

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 01:40

Written by Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:30

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 23:13

there's a reason why i didn't mention it, it's because it already exists. as you mentioned it's called extra game options: disable upgrades and strats. and no, it doesn't get old, depending on the scenario.
and obviously players who play longer, with a higher level, will have stronger units/options. it's harder to find a game that doesn't do that, and it's also essential in any game to avoid stagnant gameplay. if you master a strategy with no upgrades, then you're forced to think how incorporating an upgrade will change the strategy. without that there'd be no point to playing this game beyond just a few days. what keeps people binded to this game is the evolution in strategy that each person can discover for him/herself.

Well you mentioned other options that already exist... Anyways, what I meant by "it gets old" is that I like to play with upgrades most of the time (stealth units for example) and I think most other players do too. After all, you don't see that many "no upgrades" games.
You're still not understanding my point though. The problem is the difference in upgrades between low and high ranks which creates uneven games. I was responding to a previous post that said that upgrades made no real difference. I was agreeing with Stickhammer saying that they do make a good difference.

lols and i i was just saying that it is a necessary difference
and lol, there's plenty of scenarios that disable upgrades and strats automatically, or those that just use a bunch of "other" units so that it doesn't make sense to be concerned about strat (aside from imp, maybe)

Upgrades are a necessity, yes, but the advantage gap of them is too big.

Written by Xenosapien, 11.09.2013 at 07:44

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 01:40

Written by Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 00:30

Written by hayaterocks, 10.09.2013 at 23:13

there's a reason why i didn't mention it, it's because it already exists. as you mentioned it's called extra game options: disable upgrades and strats. and no, it doesn't get old, depending on the scenario.
and obviously players who play longer, with a higher level, will have stronger units/options. it's harder to find a game that doesn't do that, and it's also essential in any game to avoid stagnant gameplay. if you master a strategy with no upgrades, then you're forced to think how incorporating an upgrade will change the strategy. without that there'd be no point to playing this game beyond just a few days. what keeps people binded to this game is the evolution in strategy that each person can discover for him/herself.

Well you mentioned other options that already exist... Anyways, what I meant by "it gets old" is that I like to play with upgrades most of the time (stealth units for example) and I think most other players do too. After all, you don't see that many "no upgrades" games.
You're still not understanding my point though. The problem is the difference in upgrades between low and high ranks which creates uneven games. I was responding to a previous post that said that upgrades made no real difference. I was agreeing with Stickhammer saying that they do make a good difference.

lols and i i was just saying that it is a necessary difference
and lol, there's plenty of scenarios that disable upgrades and strats automatically, or those that just use a bunch of "other" units so that it doesn't make sense to be concerned about strat (aside from imp, maybe)

Upgrades are a necessity, yes, but the advantage gap of them is too big.

that gap is what determines the diversity of strategy in this game. You could say the same about premium general stuff too. and that's what makes this game appealing.

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 08:45

Written by Xenosapien, 11.09.2013 at 07:44

Upgrades are a necessity, yes, but the advantage gap of them is too big.

that gap is what determines the diversity of strategy in this game. You could say the same about premium general stuff too. and that's what makes this game appealing.

Appealing to whom? Many high ranks admit that they can't play a fair match against a low rank with upgrades enabled (explains the difficulty for them of finding players for 3v3 matches). Why would it be desirable to play a against someone with an unfair advantage? What strategic diversity does this provide? Sounds like nonsense to me...
Many other games "adjust" stats to even PvP out when a high lvl fights a low lvl. And almost all PvE do this (the enemy is tougher as you increase in level). It would make sense to have such a feature in AW. It would be much more appealing then playing with no upgrades, nerfing upgrades or not buying them altogether.

BTW I'm not talking about strats, just upgrades. Strats are fine.

Written by Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 10:59

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 08:45

Written by Xenosapien, 11.09.2013 at 07:44

Upgrades are a necessity, yes, but the advantage gap of them is too big.

that gap is what determines the diversity of strategy in this game. You could say the same about premium general stuff too. and that's what makes this game appealing.

Appealing to whom? Many high ranks admit that they can't play a fair match against a low rank with upgrades enabled (explains the difficulty for them of finding players for 3v3 matches). Why would it be desirable to play a against someone with an unfair advantage? What strategic diversity does this provide? Sounds like nonsense to me...
Many other games "adjust" stats to even PvP out when a high lvl fights a low lvl. And almost all PvE do this (the enemy is tougher as you increase in level). It would make sense to have such a feature in AW. It would be much more appealing then playing with no upgrades, nerfing upgrades or not buying them altogether.

BTW I'm not talking about strats, just upgrades. Strats are fine.

Appealing to everyone that plays this game. High ranks carry both experience and the upgrades they gained from SP, how do you expect them to get low levels to join? To expect games of such diverse levels to be fair in any way is nonsense, if anything, and people with game options have the choice of limiting levels if they want, which should be level enough. Even the strats are rigged so that those with better expansion can only be afforded by the higher levels, combined with the right upgrades. As far as strategic diversity is concerned, applying an upgrade to your expansion can determine the various additional targets you can attack/defend with wider range, capacity, lower cost etc. And this isn't an RPG, there's no AI enemy, there's no way to "adjust" high level to low level fights (which the MMOs I've seen elsewhere don't adjust either). Likewise, this isn't chess either, where the board is fair on both sides. If you want fair sides, then go play chess. And even then you can still complain that white has the advantage in moving first (which is true). In the end, there's no such thing as fair conditions in this game. To overcome that and use your strengths on the field against your opponent is what motivates the players, no?

Imagine, for example, if the game were made so that more limitations instead of advancements were placed on you as you leveled up. Eventually everyone would just play on guest accounts to have access to the strongest possible set of units. What keeps players binded is partly the upgrades, by having an edge over your opponent to ensure your victory.

"So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other." - Samuel Johnson

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 12:24

Appealing to everyone that plays this game. High ranks carry both experience and the upgrades they gained from SP, how do you expect them to get low levels to join? To expect games of such diverse levels to be fair in any way is nonsense, if anything, and people with game options have the choice of limiting levels if they want, which should be level enough. Even the strats are rigged so that those with better expansion can only be afforded by the higher levels, combined with the right upgrades. As far as strategic diversity is concerned, applying an upgrade to your expansion can determine the various additional targets you can attack/defend with wider range, capacity, lower cost etc. And this isn't an RPG, there's no AI enemy, there's no way to "adjust" high level to low level fights (which the MMOs I've seen elsewhere don't adjust either). Likewise, this isn't chess either, where the board is fair on both sides. If you want fair sides, then go play chess. And even then you can still complain that white has the advantage in moving first (which is true). In the end, there's no such thing as fair conditions in this game. To overcome that and use your strengths on the field against your opponent is what motivates the players, no?

Imagine, for example, if the game were made so that more limitations instead of advancements were placed on you as you leveled up. Eventually everyone would just play on guest accounts to have access to the strongest possible set of units. What keeps players binded is partly the upgrades, by having an edge over your opponent to ensure your victory.

"So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other." - Samuel Johnson

Yet high ranks are often the very ones complaining that no low ranks want to join 3v3s. It's possible to fix this. No upgrades mode is one way. Another would be a rank-adjusted penalty of some sort (you wouldn't have to give new accounts free upgrades).

Many MMOs have missions that you can only do if you are of a certain level or that at least have a level indicator. The AI enemies are rank adjusted. Some MMOs also have rank-adjusted penalties.

The way AW is currently set up, it discourages games with high rank differences. It is no fun for both sides unless you like easy or impossible odds.

I like your Samuel Johnson quote. I think that it should apply to talent only. There is enough inequality in talent alone to not have to introduce any more of it.

It does

Written by Grimm, 11.09.2013 at 13:42

Written by hayaterocks, 11.09.2013 at 12:24

Appealing to everyone that plays this game. High ranks carry both experience and the upgrades they gained from SP, how do you expect them to get low levels to join? To expect games of such diverse levels to be fair in any way is nonsense, if anything, and people with game options have the choice of limiting levels if they want, which should be level enough. Even the strats are rigged so that those with better expansion can only be afforded by the higher levels, combined with the right upgrades. As far as strategic diversity is concerned, applying an upgrade to your expansion can determine the various additional targets you can attack/defend with wider range, capacity, lower cost etc. And this isn't an RPG, there's no AI enemy, there's no way to "adjust" high level to low level fights (which the MMOs I've seen elsewhere don't adjust either). Likewise, this isn't chess either, where the board is fair on both sides. If you want fair sides, then go play chess. And even then you can still complain that white has the advantage in moving first (which is true). In the end, there's no such thing as fair conditions in this game. To overcome that and use your strengths on the field against your opponent is what motivates the players, no?

Imagine, for example, if the game were made so that more limitations instead of advancements were placed on you as you leveled up. Eventually everyone would just play on guest accounts to have access to the strongest possible set of units. What keeps players binded is partly the upgrades, by having an edge over your opponent to ensure your victory.

"So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other." - Samuel Johnson

Yet high ranks are often the very ones complaining that no low ranks want to join 3v3s. It's possible to fix this. No upgrades mode is one way. Another would be a rank-adjusted penalty of some sort (you wouldn't have to give new accounts free upgrades).

Many MMOs have missions that you can only do if you are of a certain level or that at least have a level indicator. The AI enemies are rank adjusted. Some MMOs also have rank-adjusted penalties.

The way AW is currently set up, it discourages games with high rank differences. It is no fun for both sides unless you like easy or impossible odds.

I like your Samuel Johnson quote. I think that it should apply to talent only. There is enough inequality in talent alone to not have to introduce any more of it.

Then let us ask first, is a high rank trying to play a low rank fair in any way? The one way that this game actually evens this out is by adjusting SP gains based on ranks, on top of disable strategies/upgrades. That way, high levels won't be as tempted to farm off the low levels, though it seems that some still are.

Yup. Never saw any of that in Runescape lol (how old is that thing anyways?) I get what you're saying... just... this isn't an RPG. "There's no AI enemy." Would be interesting tho if there was an open ended project to create an admin approved bot based on all the expansion strategies that have been devised by the many players playing this game.

Thanks. It's hard to find quotes that suggest that human nature tends to prefer superiority over equality, despite the evident nature of it. Even those that preach equality in the end try to gain superiority over those that claim otherwise... such is the nature of debate, as well as humanity in my perspective. Don't we all love contradictions?