#FillScenarioGames

Written by Black Vortex, 30.11.2019 at 16:51

Written by Htin, 30.11.2019 at 10:59

Written by Black Vortex, 29.11.2019 at 18:13

No it wouldn't lmao, E mare's wheel of war literally earns 125% SP (meaning it makes more than world map) but people still don't join it when it's hosted

1) not a very interesting map 2) I was talking about map should be 100% not under x<100% 3) sp multipler must be dsiable and decided by community in forum than automatic change by ai. 4) since most map maker are premium they can create map for players and disabling mutiplier give incentive to map maker to play more

1) you can argue that about literally any map that exists
2) 100% is still kinda dumb considering people can just farm that to get to rank 10 easily like I've stated. Why play other games that give 1k sp after 24 turns when you can make one map and give every player 50 cities with 10 reinforcements each and 50k income and turn 1k sp in one turn? You really overshadow maps that deserve it and aren't made solely just to farm SP
3) It's not done by AI to begin with, the mods put SP multipliers on maps and they determine what maps get SP reduced
4) How exactly does that make map maker themselves play the game more because there's no SP reduction? If they enjoy their map and are happy with what they made they'd host it anyways. Just because it makes literally 75% sp isn't gonna discourage you from playing something you like

1) It is better to play map other than world map ( one vs the many) diversity is good. 2) It mean people will play the game and actually fill a game like rp use to do. 3)Mod told me that map is automatically reduce by 25% from 100% to 75% when that non-default map reach more than 150% of the default-world map average cumulative sp. 4)sp multiplier reduce one's map sp and reduces incentives for other player to not want to play your map. This waste mapmaker time because nobody would play his or her map. 5) If people level up faster, players would keep playing the game. I don't really care about protecting the prestige of being a high rank because of the scarcity, but people want to play the game and have the fullest experience with more upgrade..

Written by Htin, 30.11.2019 at 19:32

Written by Black Vortex, 30.11.2019 at 16:51

Written by Htin, 30.11.2019 at 10:59

Written by Black Vortex, 29.11.2019 at 18:13

No it wouldn't lmao, E mare's wheel of war literally earns 125% SP (meaning it makes more than world map) but people still don't join it when it's hosted

1) not a very interesting map 2) I was talking about map should be 100% not under x<100% 3) sp multipler must be dsiable and decided by community in forum than automatic change by ai. 4) since most map maker are premium they can create map for players and disabling mutiplier give incentive to map maker to play more

1) you can argue that about literally any map that exists
2) 100% is still kinda dumb considering people can just farm that to get to rank 10 easily like I've stated. Why play other games that give 1k sp after 24 turns when you can make one map and give every player 50 cities with 10 reinforcements each and 50k income and turn 1k sp in one turn? You really overshadow maps that deserve it and aren't made solely just to farm SP
3) It's not done by AI to begin with, the mods put SP multipliers on maps and they determine what maps get SP reduced
4) How exactly does that make map maker themselves play the game more because there's no SP reduction? If they enjoy their map and are happy with what they made they'd host it anyways. Just because it makes literally 75% sp isn't gonna discourage you from playing something you like

1) It is better to play map other than world map ( one vs the many) diversity is good. 2) It mean people will play the game and actually fill a game like rp use to do. 3)Mod told me that map is automatically reduce by 25% from 100% to 75% when that non-default map reach more than 150% of the default-world map average cumulative sp. 4)sp multiplier reduce one's map sp and reduces incentives for other player to not want to play your map. This waste mapmaker time because nobody would play his or her map. 5) If people level up faster, players would keep playing the game. I don't really care about protecting the prestige of being a high rank because of the scarcity, but people want to play the game and have the fullest experience with more upgrade..

1) Not really the point I was trying to make, you try to make an argument saying world map is not very interesting but players will think that about any map out there, a lot of people lose interest cause it gets stale playing it repetitively
2) Don't think so. People have made ww2 maps that are literally just SP farm maps where russia is unkillable and rehost that all day
4) Not true, if you look at colonial supremacy it gets played all the time and it's at 75%, people will play it if they like it regardless of whether or not it has a modifier
5) You still neglect the fact that that's just gonna get booted from games regardless if they play bad(which most likely will be the case because they'll be getting boosted by high SP), so that's kind of moot. it's better people slowly level and actually gain knowledge then get rank 10 in 10 days and have no actual skill and result in them getting booted form every game they join being called a noob who can't play.
Now I don't disagree that overall people should make more SP but we shouldn't enable these maps where you can get 3k SP in 5 turns (and yes these maps do exist)

Written by Black Vortex, 30.11.2019 at 20:56

Written by Htin, 30.11.2019 at 19:32

Written by Black Vortex, 30.11.2019 at 16:51

Written by Htin, 30.11.2019 at 10:59

Written by Black Vortex, 29.11.2019 at 18:13

No it wouldn't lmao, E mare's wheel of war literally earns 125% SP (meaning it makes more than world map) but people still don't join it when it's hosted

1) not a very interesting map 2) I was talking about map should be 100% not under x<100% 3) sp multipler must be dsiable and decided by community in forum than automatic change by ai. 4) since most map maker are premium they can create map for players and disabling mutiplier give incentive to map maker to play more

1) you can argue that about literally any map that exists
2) 100% is still kinda dumb considering people can just farm that to get to rank 10 easily like I've stated. Why play other games that give 1k sp after 24 turns when you can make one map and give every player 50 cities with 10 reinforcements each and 50k income and turn 1k sp in one turn? You really overshadow maps that deserve it and aren't made solely just to farm SP
3) It's not done by AI to begin with, the mods put SP multipliers on maps and they determine what maps get SP reduced
4) How exactly does that make map maker themselves play the game more because there's no SP reduction? If they enjoy their map and are happy with what they made they'd host it anyways. Just because it makes literally 75% sp isn't gonna discourage you from playing something you like

1) It is better to play map other than world map ( one vs the many) diversity is good. 2) It mean people will play the game and actually fill a game like rp use to do. 3)Mod told me that map is automatically reduce by 25% from 100% to 75% when that non-default map reach more than 150% of the default-world map average cumulative sp. 4)sp multiplier reduce one's map sp and reduces incentives for other player to not want to play your map. This waste mapmaker time because nobody would play his or her map. 5) If people level up faster, players would keep playing the game. I don't really care about protecting the prestige of being a high rank because of the scarcity, but people want to play the game and have the fullest experience with more upgrade..

1) Not really the point I was trying to make, you try to make an argument saying world map is not very interesting but players will think that about any map out there, a lot of people lose interest cause it gets stale playing it repetitively
2) Don't think so. People have made ww2 maps that are literally just SP farm maps where russia is unkillable and rehost that all day
4) Not true, if you look at colonial supremacy it gets played all the time and it's at 75%, people will play it if they like it regardless of whether or not it has a modifier
5) You still neglect the fact that that's just gonna get booted from games regardless if they play bad(which most likely will be the case because they'll be getting boosted by high SP), so that's kind of moot. it's better people slowly level and actually gain knowledge then get rank 10 in 10 days and have no actual skill and result in them getting booted form every game they join being called a noob who can't play.
Now I don't disagree that overall people should make more SP but we shouldn't enable these maps where you can get 3k SP in 5 turns (and yes these maps do exist)

1) sp multiplier would make world map better to play because sp multiplier won't affect it, which creates a less interesting game. creating and moving massive amount of troop is more time consuming for non-default world map. so sp multiplier would push player to play world map, because it's less time consuming.
2) At least it get played (good for retaining players). sp map is good. (refering to your quote)
4) I barely see people play colonial supremacy. so it's rarely played. Not all player like colonial supremacy map. ( opinion base and fact base that it not played that much, because you might be cherry picking an exception).
5) You seem to have an idea that at-war games is design to train players to play competitive game. People want to have fun. Slowing other newcomer from gaining sp and leveling makes this game less fun. To make this game more addictive gaining more sp and leveling up makes it more rewarding and significantly impact one's experience in at-war game.
* You have a belief that sp multiplier is bad because of creating noobs and prefer players to refine their skills as they level up. I acknowleged and understand the reason that sp multiplier would make player play more rp and trolls games by leaving team game; however, I am interested in fixing the game by encouraging newer players into the game. Back in the early days of the implementation of sp multiplier most player who like rp, left the game and complain about punishing rp players.
* You seem to be concern with sp farm map, but i believe winning lots of sp is more fun and rewarding for players, which would entice more player to at-war and spread the word. I prefer if you feel a map is giving out outrageous sp, then players and mapmaker to argue in forum discussion before lowering sp multiplier.
* The implmentation of sp multiplier kill players who like Diplomacy-type game like RP and Mapmaker for Roleplay game (RP).
-> My goals are to see At-war game to thrive again, because the game is lacking players. Also I want the game to stop punishing my map with sp multiplier reduction with AI algorithm, because maybe I will start other player's premium map if requested, since I wiould be more interested in the game. non-premium don't have acess to other map unlike premium players like me. I rather have 2 Roleplay map games fill with 20 player than no players at all.
->Your goals are to retain the elitetism in the game, where high rank should be deserving to only the best, most highly skilled, and competitive players. You have concern about sp farm map. You prefer good competitive player in at-war maybe for your maps. You don't really care about expanding the at-war player base. Your ideas punish diversity in the type of games players want to play; by denying and reducing rp player you killed off a good portion of the player base.
*conclusion; I agree that sp map with big sp reward could be bad but I have a goal about to reeastablish the player base, while you want to retain the competitive players player base. I don't really have a big interest in competitive game, but to play with a thriving player base.

Written by Htin, 02.12.2019 at 11:10

1) sp multiplier would make world map better to play because sp multiplier won't affect it, which creates a less interesting game. creating and moving massive amount of troop is more time consuming for non-default world map. so sp multiplier would push player to play world map, because it's less time consuming.
2) At least it get played (good for retaining players). sp map is good.
4) I barely see people play colonial supremacy. so it's rarely played. Not all player like colonial supremacy map.
5) You seem to have an idea that at-war games is design to train players to play competitive game. People want to have fun. Slowing other newcomer from gaining sp and leveling makes this game less fun. To make this game more addictive gaining more sp and leveling up makes it more rewarding and significantly impact one's experience in at-war game.
* You have a belief that sp multiplier is bad because of creating noobs and prefer players to refine their skills as they level up. I acknowlege and understand the reason that sp multiplier would make player play more rp and trolls games by leaving team game; however, I am interested in fixing the game by encouraging newer players into the game. Back in the early days of the implementation of sp multiplier most player who like rp left the game and complain about punishing rp players.
* You seem to be concern with sp farm map, but i believe winning lots of sp is more fun and rewarding for players, which would entice more player to at-war and spread the word. I prefer if you feel a map is giving out outrageous sp, then players and mapmaker to argue in forum discussion before lowering sp multiplier.
* The implmentation of sp multiplier kill players who like Diplomacy-type game like RP and Mapmaker for Roleplay game (RP).

You're mistaking pretty much everything i'm saying
2) No, I already explained why it's not
4) "Rarely played" That's why colonial supremacy was hosted almost 30 times last week, which is about 4 times a day. Yeah okay


5) No, I've never stated this nor implied this. I said what I said because of the fact that probably 80% of atwar games are TEAM BASED, not necessarily competitive games(I never said competitive). If you look at most played scenarios as well they're mostly TEAM BASED, so no matter what you'll always have people kicking players due to lack of skill because they need to balance games to make for a decent game.

1*SP multiplier is a byproduct of this, to make it so that players who are just gaining ridiculously high amounts of SP aren't being grouped in with regular players because what that does it create issues every time someone tries to host TEAM GAMES because that will ruin game for people cause the player doesn't know what they're doing because they just got boosted

You're basically saying to pander to people who play the less than majority to keep them in the game, well what about the people in the majority? Have you even considered what the influx of high ranks into these games will have on these games success?
Again like I said in my previous post, people will let these players into their games thinking "oh he's high rank so he'll be able to play ok" but when he actually plays that'll say something entirely different and potentially fail the game. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to keep these players in the game but you're NOT considering BOTH SIDES and how this will affect BOTH sides of the spectrum

2* No it doesn't kill players who engage in these types of maps, if people like it they'll still play it. Roleplay SP multiplier was implemented as far back as 2015 and people still played it nonetheless all the way until 2019, sp multiplier won't stop people from playing what they like.

There's ways of making diplomacy-roleplay maps that DON't require you to put 50 cities each with 10 reinforcements and 500 income per city and still retain 100% sp, if they just adhered to better game mechanics instead of high reinforcements, income, and amount of cities, this would not be an issue. (which is why they get the SP multiplier in the first place)

Aetius and Estus have made multiple political maps that are far better of a roleplay than actual roleplay because it utilizes actual roleplaying mechanics and rules and does a better job at while still retaining 100%

Written by Black Vortex, 02.12.2019 at 11:42

Written by Htin, 02.12.2019 at 11:10

1) sp multiplier would make world map better to play because sp multiplier won't affect it, which creates a less interesting game. creating and moving massive amount of troop is more time consuming for non-default world map. so sp multiplier would push player to play world map, because it's less time consuming.
2) At least it get played (good for retaining players). sp map is good.
4) I barely see people play colonial supremacy. so it's rarely played. Not all player like colonial supremacy map.
5) You seem to have an idea that at-war games is design to train players to play competitive game. People want to have fun. Slowing other newcomer from gaining sp and leveling makes this game less fun. To make this game more addictive gaining more sp and leveling up makes it more rewarding and significantly impact one's experience in at-war game.
* You have a belief that sp multiplier is bad because of creating noobs and prefer players to refine their skills as they level up. I acknowlege and understand the reason that sp multiplier would make player play more rp and trolls games by leaving team game; however, I am interested in fixing the game by encouraging newer players into the game. Back in the early days of the implementation of sp multiplier most player who like rp left the game and complain about punishing rp players.
* You seem to be concern with sp farm map, but i believe winning lots of sp is more fun and rewarding for players, which would entice more player to at-war and spread the word. I prefer if you feel a map is giving out outrageous sp, then players and mapmaker to argue in forum discussion before lowering sp multiplier.
* The implmentation of sp multiplier kill players who like Diplomacy-type game like RP and Mapmaker for Roleplay game (RP).

You're mistaking pretty much everything i'm saying
2) No, I already explained why it's not
4) "Rarely played" That's why colonial supremacy was hosted almost 30 times last week, which is about 4 times a day. Yeah okay


5) No, I've never stated this nor implied this. I said what I said because of the fact that probably 80% of atwar games are TEAM BASED, not necessarily competitive games(I never said competitive). If you look at most played scenarios as well they're mostly TEAM BASED, so no matter what you'll always have people kicking players due to lack of skill because they need to balance games to make for a decent game.

1*SP multiplier is a byproduct of this, to make it so that players who are just gaining ridiculously high amounts of SP aren't being grouped in with regular players because what that does it create issues every time someone tries to host TEAM GAMES because that will ruin game for people cause the player doesn't know what they're doing because they just got boosted

You're basically saying to pander to people who play the less than majority to keep them in the game, well what about the people in the majority? Have you even considered what the influx of high ranks into these games will have on these games success?
Again like I said in my previous post, people will let these players into their games thinking "oh he's high rank so he'll be able to play ok" but when he actually plays that'll say something entirely different and potentially fail the game. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to keep these players in the game but you're NOT considering BOTH SIDES and how this will affect BOTH sides of the spectrum

2* No it doesn't kill players who engage in these types of maps, if people like it they'll still play it. Roleplay SP multiplier was implemented as far back as 2015 and people still played it nonetheless all the way until 2019, sp multiplier won't stop people from playing what they like.

There's ways of making diplomacy-roleplay maps that DON't require you to put 50 cities each with 10 reinforcements and 500 income per city and still retain 100% sp, if they just adhered to better game mechanics instead of high reinforcements, income, and amount of cities, this would not be an issue. (which is why they get the SP multiplier in the first place)

Aetius and Estus have made multiple political maps that are far better of a roleplay than actual roleplay because it utilizes actual roleplaying mechanics and rules and does a better job at while still retaining 100%

most colonial supremacy barely start with 20 players

Written by sirivann, 27.11.2019 at 16:34

We latinos too busy protesting in south america :c

i live in a latin country and i'm playing siri omg.

Written by Black Vortex, 18.11.2019 at 18:02

Written by Cpt.Magic, 18.11.2019 at 12:39

The only reason why scenarios are not getting fill because ranks 5 a to 7 can now play in the beginners lobby. When I first started only 1-4 could only play there. Now we dont have enough players to fill games in the main lobby.

This is not a new thing lol I don't see how that can effect current game when it's been a thing for years now. I mean freaking high ranks can still play in beginners now if they wanted to(which i've brought up to Ivan in the past to which he replied saying this:


But that's beside the point this is blatantly not true because scenarios do indeed fill, It's only a select few however, because people have very niche taste in maps, like for example how colonial supremacy fills almost all the time even at NA-friendly times(when the game is dead as fuck) whereas 6 player maps cannot fill at NA-friendly times. It literally has nothing to do with more people being in beginners nor does it have to do with not having enough players like people keep claiming it is..

I'm willing to guarantee that if they changed it back to 0-5 more players would be the main lobby and games would fill up faster. Also high ranks sneaking into the beginners lobby was a glitch that everyone didn't know about at the time

Written by Cpt.Magic, 03.12.2019 at 19:39

I'm willing to guarantee that if they changed it back to 0-5 more players would be the main lobby and games would fill up faster. Also high ranks sneaking into the beginners lobby was a glitch that everyone didn't know about at the time

Hosts always kick low ranks anyway