Remove maximum event units for scenarios

500 event units more than enough just balance the map

Written by Zephyrusu, 24.12.2021 at 15:26

Written by Witch-Doctor, 24.12.2021 at 14:42

yea, you're the one discarding my input as irrelevant

Because it is. I can make an SP farm map right now and farm thousands of SP with my buddy in a few minutes (obviously I'd get banned but that's beside the point), more events wouldn't change that. What I can't do is add as many events as I want.

There you go discarding my inputs again. Last time I checked, I made more maps than you Zephy. So don't lecture me on how mapmaking works. I dont see why there is a need to add unlimited events. It might seem obvious to you why unlimited events are needed, but to others like me, we don't see why. I think the cap is reasonable and it can be increased if it really is a problem.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 15:14

There you go discarding my inputs again. Last time I checked, I made more maps than you Zephy. So don't lecture me on how mapmaking works. I dont see why there is a need to add unlimited events. It might seem obvious to you why unlimited events are needed, but to others like me, we don't see why. I think the cap is reasonable and it can be increased if it really is a problem.

I literally made a scenario that hit the event cap on Friday, go see it yourself if you want. I had to give it plastic surgery and make a fake, non-pickable faction to have more neutral events, but even that didn't solve everything because fake factions' events don't spawn past t1, not to mention this only worked because I thought to run tests on it. Beyond that RoR 4 is a famous map that's hit by the event cap, for the Barcid faction.

But this is all beside the point, there is no reason for an event cap to exist, just as there is no reason for there to be a cap on how large an event stack can be (yes, this is legit, event stacks can't be larger than 50 units, maps with larger event stacks get over this by putting them closer together, but for a mechanic like in Pyrrhus' FA Rhovanion or for many neutrals on my map this isn't possible as the units need to spawn inside cities), and just as there is no reason for there to be a limit on the stats of a main attack/main defence unit (this was thankfully changed eventually). Curbing mapmaker creativity with arbitrary limits on what you think is "enough" puts off people from trying out and inventing new mechanics or forming innovative map ideas, all for the sake of paranoid fears over SP farm.

So no, cap shouldn't be increased, it should just not exist at all, because there is no reason I should have to come back to the forum to cry about the 750-unit event cap next time I try something new and run into a pointless event cap.

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 17:18

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

But if you do that your oppenent will get reinf if u lose lands, unless you put all cap in a nogo zone

Written by Froyer, 25.12.2021 at 17:22

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 17:18

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

unless you put all cap in a nogo zone

Mind blown

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 17:18

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

There is strong "if you're homeless buy a house" energy in this one.

You want to make a map about the Second Punic War and simulate Hannibal's arrival in Italy as well as the rebellions and uprisings Rome suffered because of its defeats. How the fuck do you do that with "buying units through their own cities"? Add a hundred reinf in northern Italy?

To put things into perspective 500 or even 750 units isn't even all that much. If we take a random faction from a popular map, France in WW1, it has about 150 reinf in total. The units it'll produce throughout the game would outnumber its event limit in a mere 13 turns, or 17 turns if we follow your suggestion. Considering WW1 games often drag on to t50, the vast majority of troops would've been manually produced anyway by that point. And maybe it's not even France in WW1, maybe it's the orcs in Pyrrhus' Fourth Age, who are a horde of spammy, trash creatures, as they should be? What if I want to make a radical 1v10 map concept, and I want to alleviate the one player's stress by giving his troops via events instead of having to waste time manually producing them? What if I want to make a map where it's hard to expand because all the neutrals have large events in them? Why can't I just do whatever I want?

Written by Zephyrusu, 25.12.2021 at 22:09

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 17:18

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

What if I want to make a map where it's hard to expand because all the neutrals have large events in them?

Have a few very strong units instead of 30-50 in neutrals?

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 22:29

Written by Zephyrusu, 25.12.2021 at 22:09

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 17:18

How about instead of giving a shit ton of units to players via events, you know.

Let them buy those units through their own cities? Seems like a no brainer to me.

What if I want to make a map where it's hard to expand because all the neutrals have large events in them?

Have a few very strong units instead of 30-50 in neutrals?

Let the map makers make the map the way they wants.

Written by Ben Pimpin, 24.12.2021 at 18:25

500 event units more than enough just balance the map

Yes RP maps needs no events you are good to go with even 100

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 22:29

Have a few very strong units instead of 30-50 in neutrals?

They'll die too easily to stack bonus after a player has expanded a bit and can outnumber the defending neutrals by a lot

Written by Zephyrusu, 26.12.2021 at 02:27

Written by Witch-Doctor, 25.12.2021 at 22:29

Have a few very strong units instead of 30-50 in neutrals?

They'll die too easily to stack bonus after a player has expanded a bit and can outnumber the defending neutrals by a lot

I guarantee you a 100 hp 150 def 100 crit unit is not going to "die too easily to stack bonus"

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 02:57

I guarantee you a 100 hp 150 def 100 crit unit is not going to "die too easily to stack bonus"

k let me put it in another way

Whether you can capture the neutral or not will depend, more than it should, on whether you can amass enough stack bonus against it, rather than how much normal attack you can throw at it.

Written by Zephyrusu, 26.12.2021 at 03:11

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 02:57

I guarantee you a 100 hp 150 def 100 crit unit is not going to "die too easily to stack bonus"

k let me put it in another way

Whether you can capture the neutral or not will depend, more than it should, on whether you can amass enough stack bonus against it, rather than how much normal attack you can throw at it.

You just restated the same thing twice. They're both just different ways of saying "amassing enough attack to win." I'm sure you can have people amass "enough" units to defeat a single or a handful of hard hitting units just by balancing the neutral defense units well.
"enough" being how much you decide is reasonable to win that fight.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 03:26

You just restated the same thing twice. They're both just different ways of saying "amassing enough attack to win." I'm sure you can have people amass "enough" units to defeat a single or a handful of hard hitting units just by balancing the neutral defense units well.
"enough" being how much you decide is reasonable to win that fight.

Having few strong units is not the same regardless. The battle depends too much on what the unit will roll, and makes the game too luck-based. With many normal-strength units, there are more rolls in total, leading to a more average result.

Written by Zephyrusu, 26.12.2021 at 04:07

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 03:26

You just restated the same thing twice. They're both just different ways of saying "amassing enough attack to win." I'm sure you can have people amass "enough" units to defeat a single or a handful of hard hitting units just by balancing the neutral defense units well.
"enough" being how much you decide is reasonable to win that fight.

Having few strong units is not the same regardless. The battle depends too much on what the unit will roll, and makes the game too luck-based. With many normal-strength units, there are more rolls in total, leading to a more average result.

There's less rng with 1 or 2 strong units with high defense. Units with high def such as 50-100 almost always roll half of their def with how the roll system works. 50% less RNG than two stacks of large units that can have very variadic rolls because the defender almost always roll the same thing.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 06:02

There's less rng with 1 or 2 strong units with high defense. Units with high def such as 50-100 almost always roll half of their def with how the roll system works. 50% less RNG than two stacks of large units that can have very variadic rolls because the defender almost always roll the same thing.

Units with low stats may have more varied rolls in and of themselves but when you have a large number of them and thus a higher number of rolls in total the end result is closer to average than with a single unit and thus a single roll

Written by Zephyrusu, 26.12.2021 at 06:17

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 06:02

There's less rng with 1 or 2 strong units with high defense. Units with high def such as 50-100 almost always roll half of their def with how the roll system works. 50% less RNG than two stacks of large units that can have very variadic rolls because the defender almost always roll the same thing.

Units with low stats may have more varied rolls in and of themselves but when you have a large number of them and thus a higher number of rolls in total the end result is closer to average than with a single unit and thus a single roll

With one strong units with high def there is no rng. It pretty much always roll half. Idk how you can argue for less rng and discard this fact that the unit will always roll the same.

Written by Witch-Doctor, 26.12.2021 at 06:38

With one strong units with high def there is no rng. It pretty much always roll half. Idk how you can argue for less rng and discard this fact that the unit will always roll the same.

With a unit with 100 defence perhaps, but I don't want necessarily want unkillable neutrals, some would naturally have to be weaker, or around the 50 defence range, and easier to take, you could argue I could lower HP instead but that presents its own issues as people could do the WW1 Gallipoli Dreadnought cheese.

How much is it normally?

Written by Mobster, 26.12.2021 at 08:19

How much is it normally?

500 units total for each faction (neutrals count as a faction)

Written by Zephyrusu, 26.12.2021 at 08:20

Written by Mobster, 26.12.2021 at 08:19

How much is it normally?

500 units total for each faction (neutrals count as a faction)

Wow, I didn't realize this. Is it applied for each turn(500 turn 0, another 500 turn 1 and so on) or all turns?

Written by Mobster, 26.12.2021 at 08:26

Wow, I didn't realize this. Is it applied for each turn(500 turn 0, another 500 turn 1 and so on) or all turns?

No, 500 in total, for all turns. You can have 250 on t1 and 250 t2.

Written by Rock Lee, 24.12.2021 at 18:16

Written by DireWarlord99, 24.12.2021 at 18:02

I do believe there are systems in place where players are able to report if a map is a SP farm map. I understand the fear of sp farming and medal farming, but I think it is very easy to catch someone who is abusing the system and take the proper course of action as a response. For example, if in just 1 day someone is a r7-8 just by playing 1 map over and over again and someone looks into it and sees its an SP farm map, then its easy to undo the unfair gains and remove the map from atwar.

Yes. You are very much right that it can be monitored. But I suspect it'll be hard to regulate such things. Especially the map that seem legit.

Some 'farm maps' were techniquely legit, They were played more than a year and a half and filled 20 players several times a day. Everybody saw that the hosts are being tyrrants and make too much SP. Everyone worried and ranted but no one could explain why they are so abusive.

I know for sure that The Empire map makers. If you could come up with a critera to when and why is it legitimate to cross the limits (for what purposes) then I think it will solve all our problems

I gave this some thought over the past few days and i think a criteria that can be set is based on average SP per turn. I know at least Dave has the power to check the average SP per turn a map has. We can set a standard that any map can only have an X amount of average sp per turn. If a map goes a bit over that average, then an SP % decrease can be applied. If a map still goes over the standard SP per turn average, then the Admins can either take down the map or ask the map maker to change a part of the map to reduce the extreme amount of sp per turn. Since the concept of a greater limit for event units is meant more for artistical flavor, anyone who abuses the higher limit for the sake of creating an SP farm map can be delt with quickly and easily with this plan.

Written by DireWarlord99, 26.12.2021 at 14:21

Great idea

People who made one map that isnt played thinking they are suddenly they should have any say over people who constantly make maps and help mapmakers with input, its sad.

Written by Brsjak, 26.12.2021 at 14:40

People who made one map that isnt played thinking they are suddenly they should have any say over people who constantly make maps and help mapmakers with input, its sad.

So you basically then?

Wd just accept your status as an inferior map maker and move on

I think Zeph and Evic have points. Even if the competeticve scene/state of mind countinues to exist (I believe it will). It will probably no longer motivate players to keep playing the game, At least not upgrades and elo reform to benifit lowranks and nonpremiums.

By that assumption AtWar administration should give mapmakers the tools to make scenarios the best that they can be (even if it seems to some of us stupid to focus on realism). I support Zephyrusu and especially Direwolf suggestion.

WD no one in the scenario comunity ever says "hey lets play a WD map" and i promise you it isnt because its too complex or hard xD.

All you cunts talking about who is better at mapmaking and shit forgot one valuable thing,and thats that us players are the ones who shall judge them maps and not your noob asses!!!!

This game should Invest heavily in unchaining mapmakers and their tools, so they can spend hours and hours creating new and different kinds of scenarios, so we can enjoy their maps, love or hate them, in the end we will bash the mapmaker anyways, even i cant help myself XAXAXAXAXAXA.


Anyways as a lazy cunt who will never make a map, keep up the good work everyone, i promise i will continue to play/test and bully you guys till i get bored .


P.S. Merry christmas