Better gameplay mechanics/gameplay overhaul, increase fun/less time

The game is built on the concept of a lot of micromanagement. The game should instead be built entirely on strategy, not having humans click things and drag repeatedly, wearing down on 99% of newcomers pain tolerance for playing a game.
Cities should automatically fortify each turn they are held and not attacked.
Cities which are taken by a new player from a neutral or other player should not fortify for 1 turn afterwards.
Walls should be completely removed. Instead, the wall graphic and the walling mechanism will still be visible for troops outside of cities, except it won't function as a "wall", but rather a defense bonus for those troops. Enemy troops should be able to pass over them, but wherever the enemy troop lands once past over them, those units engage the enemy troops at the point of crossing, along with any chained/linked units defending, and then if the attacker wins the engagement, moves with the surviving units to the final destination/city. This way, you still can wall in areas with troops, except it's more like a fortification, with a defense bonus, that crossing units have to engage, but if they win the engagement, they move through and keep going to where they wanted. This prevents using walls as stupid "turn wasters" and instead makes them more like a real strategic defense move (because of the defense bonus, you can defend from example 3 cities with a long wall, rather than putting all those units in each 3 cities, if you can be bothered). Chains should have a maximum length to prevent worldwide or continent wide fortifications. In reality, battles happen locally at crossing points. I propose 5 unit-links as the maximum.

In normal battles, turn times should be adaptable based on the current number of possible units to be managed by the player (including ones not built yet but possible to build) and number of cities. It should not be a fixed turn time at the start of the game. If a user has a lot of reinforcements, his turn time should be increased. If a user uses all his reinforcements, or 50% of them, his turn time next time should be reduced by an algorithmic amount, reflecting how much less micro he needs to do that turn. This will speed up the battles in an effective way.

If one user is taking much more time than everyone else (45 seconds longer for example), yet does not have significantly more units/cities to manage, he should receive warnings, and eventually a penalty in time per turn.

The "start turn" button should be removed. The battle results on the "start turn" screen should be displayed with an X window and the turn automatically started. Idle users should be detected by no movement of units, and no alteration to cities, for a period of turns. This prevents the users having to say "whoops, I should've looked at the results better" or "whoops, I looked at the turn results for too long" or "hey, do I really have to click this stupid green button every turn? how boring."

Finally, the game currently allows custom maps and players to choose which areas of the world to battle on, or entire world battles. While that's neat, it's detrimental to the fun factor of the game. Majority of players often don't know what's in their best interest, like doing a world map battle and taking half of your free time of your day for one lousy game that you get allianced against by someone with their secret buddies (not real alliance). While you can't remove douchebags from the game, you can make games faster so the time invested is much less. This actually does reduce douchebaggery, because instead of being douchebags, the culprits might actually have fun playing the game honestly from now on. Only when X number of players join a room, should the map size be allowed to be increased. No one wants 15 players on a europe map, typically, as it results in lots of people dying because people picked countries all around them after their initial pick. Make map size dependent on number of players in the room, and make maps more standardized. Allow custom maps but in a different area, to help newbies understand they are probably playing someones idea of a shitty map with not much strategy except the experienced people that play the shitty map know what nations to pick and where to go, and only after they own you 50 times (by which time you're a month or so older) will you also get the hang of it.

In my opinion, this game is dead in the water unless you make these radical changes, and perhaps more I haven't thought of. Your loyal playerbase will of course stay, but in terms of being a hit and thriving/surviving the long haul, you can't stick with what I consider a very early beta gameplay, with all of the focus on getting it "finished" and not much focus on "time packed fun" which all other major games have.

Also, this shitty forum lets you write a long post, then when you try to post, says you must be at least rank 1. What a shitty forum system.

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:21

The game is built on the concept of a lot of micromanagement. The game should instead be built entirely on strategy, not having humans drag things around repeatedly, wearing down on 99% of newcomers pain tolerance for playing a game.
Cities should automatically fortify each turn they are held and not attacked.
Cities which are taken by a new player from a neutral or other player should not fortify for 1 turn afterwards.

This game is risk-like not risk itself.

Quote:

Walls should be completely removed.

NO

Quote:

Instead, the wall graphic and the walling mechanism will still be visible for troops outside of cities, except it won't function as a "wall", but rather a defense bonus for those troops. Enemy troops should be able to pass over them, but wherever the enemy troop lands once past over them, those units engage the enemy troops at the point of crossing, along with any chained/linked units defending, and then if the attacker wins the engagement, moves with the surviving units to the final destination/city. This way, you still can wall in areas with troops, except it's more like a fortification, with a defense bonus, that crossing units have to engage, but if they win the engagement, they move through and keep going to where they wanted. This prevents using walls as stupid "turn wasters" and instead makes them more like a real strategic defense move (because of the defense bonus, you can defend from example 3 cities with a long wall, rather than putting all those units in each 3 cities, if you can be bothered). Chains should have a maximum length to prevent worldwide or continent wide fortifications. In reality, battles happen locally at crossing points. I propose 5 unit-links as the maximum.

THIS!

Quote:

In normal battles, turn times should be adaptable based on the current number of possible units to be managed by the player (including ones not built yet but possible to build) and number of cities. It should not be a fixed turn time at the start of the game. If a user has a lot of reinforcements, his turn time should be increased. If a user uses all his reinforcements, or 50% of them, his turn time next time should be reduced by an algorithmic amount, reflecting how much less micro he needs to do that turn. This will speed up the battles in an effective way.

NO

Quote:

If one user is taking much more time than everyone else (45 seconds longer for example), yet does not have significantly more units/cities to manage, he should receive warnings, and eventually a penalty in time per turn.

Low ranks are naturally slow. Some even high ranks have bad Internet connections. Penalizing them (especially the noobs) will put them off the game.

Quote:

The "start turn" button should be removed. The battle results on the "start turn" screen should be displayed with an X window and the turn automatically started.

I'm assuming you're one of those who doesn't actually view how your battles progressed.

Quote:

Idle users should be detected by no movement of units, and no alteration to cities, for a period of turns.

They already are. No move for 10 minutes >> 3-4 turns = disconnection by timeout.

Quote:

This prevents the users having to say "whoops, I should've looked at the results better" or "whoops, I looked at the turn results for too long" or "hey, do I really have to click this stupid green button every turn? how boring."

We shouldn't have to change the entire gaming system that's worked for half a decade to cater to lazy idiots.

Quote:

Finally, the game currently allows custom maps and players to choose which areas of the world to battle on, or entire world battles. While that's neat, it's detrimental to the fun factor of the game. Majority of players often don't know what's in their best interest, like doing a world map battle and taking half of your free time of your day for one lousy game that you get allianced against by someone with their secret buddies (not real alliance). While you can't remove douchebags from the game, you can make games faster so the time invested is much less. This actually does reduce douchebaggery, because instead of being douchebags, the culprits might actually have fun playing the game honestly from now on. Only when X number of players join a room, should the map size be allowed to be increased. No one wants 15 players on a europe map, typically, as it results in lots of people dying because people picked countries all around them after their initial pick. Make map size dependent on number of players in the room, and make maps more standardized. Allow custom maps but in a different area, to help newbies understand they are probably playing someones idea of a shitty map with not much strategy except the experienced people that play the shitty map know what nations to pick and where to go, and only after they own you 50 times (by which time you're a month or so older) will you also get the hang of it.

Make your own scenarios like that. Maybe people like the slaughter that happens on European maps with 15 people. I don't but eh. Each to his own. But removing presets? Seriously? You'll kill off the tournament system. And some people don't have time for world maps no matter how many are online. I don't have time for Europe maps!

Quote:

In my opinion, this game is dead in the water

Don't play then.

Quote:

unless you make these radical changes, and perhaps more I haven't thought of. Your loyal playerbase will of course stay, but in terms of being a hit and thriving/surviving the long haul, you can't stick with what I consider a very early beta gameplay, with all of the focus on getting it "finished" and not much focus on "time packed fun" which all other major games have.

You've thought of everything.......to make atWar into not-actually-freaking-atWar-just-a-big-shitty-parody-of-an-awesome-game.

Quote:

Also, this shitty forum lets you write a long post, then when you try to post, says you must be at least rank 1. What a shitty forum system.

Don't use it. Spare us from this agony. It couldn't be to lessen trolls and alt spams. Definitely not. Who'd think of something so logical besides you...? Oh wait! You didn't.

I don't play the game lol, that's why I wrote the post. I used to play the game, was actually the first person to hack it (because honestly it wasn't fun at all except for the hacking challenge), and even then the game was plagued by trolls and asshats ally-fagging or whatnot. The only games worthwhile were 1v1, or tournaments, which either took forever to set up, took forever to find, or were unbalanced in case of 3v3 (strong unite with strong, no desire for a truly balanced fight, which can only be had in a 1v1).

I've been playing games where I can get 1000 battles, with actual strategy and fun involved, in the time it takes most people here to play 15 games.

The only people that can stomach to play this game for long periods and not burn out from sheer boredom of having to wall this, wall that, rinse & repeat are the mob idiots like you, or people from India with a shitty internet connection and no money or bandwidth to play a more interesting game, sorry.

Also, I've never played risk, or any game like atwar, ever. my ideas are based on logical simulation of what would make the game fun, not whatever-the-fuck you thought it was, fuck you.

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:21

Also, this shitty forum lets you write a long post, then when you try to post, says you must be at least rank 1. What a shitty forum system.

This prevent troll from flooding the forum, because it happen before, rank 1 was implemented for this change. maybe your first try was a guest account because scared to reveal your main account.

I didn't remember my main account's password, stupid asshat didn't think of that? I made a new account, a guest first, then a random actual account, to post. Eventually I had to recover password for this one.
If you want to prevent bots/trolls from spamming the forum, and also prevent a shitty forum system, how about disable the "post button" and textbox area to allow people to write a post, until they are rank 1, hey genius? You people don't have two brain cells to rub together.

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:47

was actually the first person to hack it (because honestly it wasn't fun at all except for the hacking challenge),

Truth

On another topic, looks like hdrakon kicked you from Mystic....

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:52

how about disable the "post button" and textbox area to allow people to write a post, until they are rank 1

Support.

@Wall &Fortify system: a bit hard to implement but suport.

@Map Resize: perhaps a suggestion to pick zones based on the number of players would work better. If I want to spend 2 hours in a 1v1 Eu v Asia then let me be.

@Dynamic time: has been suggested before, also support.

@Radical changes: support

Written by clovis1122, 31.03.2016 at 16:17

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:52

how about disable the "post button" and textbox area to allow people to write a post, until they are rank 1

Support.

@Wall &Fortify system: a bit hard to implement but suport.

@Map Resize: perhaps a suggestion to pick zones based on the number of players would work better. If I want to spend 2 hours in a 1v1 Eu v Asia then let me be.

@Dynamic time: has been suggested before, also support.

@Radical changes: support

Seriously?? I like atWar as it is!

Written by Darth., 31.03.2016 at 16:19

Seriously?? I like atWar as it is!

Do you like the current walling system as it is?

I think is more realistic if it works as logic suggested. It would also allow the status of over watch and some interception mechanics i.e if you try to cross from France to UK in ww2 your troops get rext. You could even guard your ATS with bombers...

Written by clovis1122, 31.03.2016 at 16:22

Written by Darth., 31.03.2016 at 16:19

Seriously?? I like atWar as it is!

Do you like the current walling system as it is?

I think is more realistic if it works as logic suggested. It would also allow the status of over watch and some interception mechanics i.e if you try to cross from France to UK in ww2 your troops get rext. You could even guard your ATS with bombers...

Wouldn't it complicate it further?? He wants to simplify stuff. That's primarily why I rejected it.

Written by clovis1122, 31.03.2016 at 16:22

Written by Darth., 31.03.2016 at 16:19

Seriously?? I like atWar as it is!

Do you like the current walling system as it is?

I think is more realistic if it works as logic suggested. It would also allow the status of over watch and some interception mechanics i.e if you try to cross from France to UK in ww2 your troops get rext. You could even guard your ATS with bombers...

LOL NO

Written by Darth., 31.03.2016 at 16:23

Written by clovis1122, 31.03.2016 at 16:22

Written by Darth., 31.03.2016 at 16:19

Seriously?? I like atWar as it is!

Do you like the current walling system as it is?

I think is more realistic if it works as logic suggested. It would also allow the status of over watch and some interception mechanics i.e if you try to cross from France to UK in ww2 your troops get rext. You could even guard your ATS with bombers...

Wouldn't it complicate it further?? He wants to simplify stuff. That's primarily why I rejected it.

https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17714

Unmm... no....

IMO would make it much easier.

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 15:52

I didn't remember my main account's password, stupid asshat didn't think of that? I made a new account, a guest first, then a random actual account, to post. Eventually I had to recover password for this one.
If you want to prevent bots/trolls from spamming the forum, and also prevent a shitty forum system, how about disable the "post button" and textbox area to allow people to write a post, until they are rank 1, hey genius? You people don't have two brain cells to rub together.

that was to troll, troll asshat
P.S.
I don't like to be rude, but u say asshat first so I respond it too because it's your internet language, I hope it helps you understand it better

The point of these changes is to get the game users thinking along the lines of "What should I attack, what should I reinforce with units" instead of "Ok let's make this triangle wall, this triangle wall, check if any cities dont have triangle walls, then do a huge amount of micro to make little triangles, got spare time in my turn left over? make extravagant walls, because I'm not lazy, I'm like a factory worker putting toys on a conveyor belt day after day, and I'm playing an intelligent person's game. This game has reduced me to... chess master! lets make triangles." Hopefully you get the sarcasm and point.. And then also the point is to reduce time waste, as everyones time is precious, fun is directly correlated to how little boredom is inbetween fun moments.

Honestly, if they just removed the stupid triangles around cities (made it an automatic city with a thicker border to represent a wall if it's not attacked that turn), then it levels the playing field, without requiring an ABSOLUTELY menial and tedious task repetitively by the user. Even veteran players would have more time to strategize and plan rather than stare at their triangles being formed. Past day one, making triangles around cities is trivial, the only "skill" there is in it, besides if you can do it a little bit faster than someone else, is how STUPID you are for playing a game that makes you do something so boring most people would demand to get paid for it, representing no new challenge or "fun" task.

Obviously if an enemy wants to prevent your fortification, all he would have to do is attack the city that turn.
There could be all kinds of nuance rules to this for example:
If the city is empty, no fortification should be built (no soldiers to build the wall, 3 units required in city to build wall, and must stay to maintain it, so the same units to wall a city currently are required to fortify it, just without the stupid micro. bombers, air trans, etc would not count toward the 3 units required to make the fortification.)
If an enemy is very near to the city, no fortification should be built for that city that turn (fortification block, because the workers cant be building a wall with anti aircraft turrets outside the city if there's an enemy army nearby)

I haven't thought about it too much, but I'm sure veterans like clovis could come up with working theory, especially if Amok make a test server, like most games.. for this sort of thing..

Written by RealDealMcNeal, 31.03.2016 at 17:54

Walls are like walls, fortifications, bunkers, anti-aircraft system and similar stuff in real life. They are a frontline barrier to defend the city.

Written by Goblin, 01.04.2016 at 05:29

What if i dont want a city walled

Damn wall-e's

You will get capped T2.