Dalmati and future

This was such a good thread about the future of the game, its so sad that it has been completely ruined with nonsensical discussion.

Yes, so please stay on topic or don't post anything if you can't contribute to the main discussion.

Indeed, Cow.

I'm constantly in touch with members who have long stopped playing and I've heard a few things that would make them come back. It's always like this - we have been involved in a game for so long that we never really stop following it, we always yearn for new content, for interesting changes, things that would make the old game new again. New strategies are a mixed idea - it's good to add diversity, but do we need more than we actually have? I'd much rather have the old strategies become more viable than having totally new ones (LB, GC, Blitz, I'm looking at you).

I had a few ideas thrown that could make things a bit more interesting:

Return of Turnblock and Flower Power. And we should add more information to the new players about these this, to make sure we don't alienate part of the community with it.

Team Swap/Shuffle. Whenever I play a 3v3 with Fruit, I'm always first pick and he's always last. I've spoken to Ivan about it and apparently it's a bug, as team picks should be shuffled as well as world picks, but they are not. The Team Swap idea would be a turn right after picking where players would be able to switch picks (and like a regular turn, we'd only be able to see the changes after it ended, to prevent players from reswitching because someone switched right near them, and to add the predictability factor).

Full upgrades on CW, Rated Team Games and Duels. I know upgrades are very important to the longevity of the game and we'd never look a rank 5 the same way again, but one of the things that greatly halt competition is the fact that a coalition is often forced to play a certain combination of ranks to match other coalition's combination of ranks (the so called FAIR RANKS POLICY). Also ranks don't really matter much, Leaf is rank 8 and much, much better than a lot of rank 10s around.

Tracking of coalition wars. Show on profile how many coalition wars this played participated in. How many did his CLN arise victorious.

Special ranks for coalition wars. I don't know if you guys played Diablo 2, but we had titles for players who beat the game on normal, nightmare and hell difficulties. And when you played HARDCORE MODE (if you died you'd lose your character), you had much cooler titles. We could add the title in a similar way, depending on the amount of coalition wars played (not won, played).

3x SP and improved chance of getting protocoins for CWs, Duels and Rated Team Games.


EDIT: removed tb (:

Everything pulse said needs to be implemented. I'd definitely come back if it did and I'm sure a lot of older players would as well

Geschreven door notserral, 15.05.2013 at 17:12

Indeed, Cow.

I'm constantly in touch with members who have long stopped playing and I've heard a few things that would make them come back. It's always like this - we have been involved in a game for so long that we never really stop following it, we always yearn for new content, for interesting changes, things that would make the old game new again. New strategies are a mixed idea - it's good to add diversity, but do we need more than we actually have? I'd much rather have the old strategies become more viable than having totally new ones (LB, GC, Blitz, I'm looking at you).

I had a few ideas thrown that could make things a bit more interesting:

Return of Turnblock and Flower Power. And we should add more information to the new players about these, to make sure we don't alienate part of the community with it.

Team Swap/Shuffle. Whenever I play a 3v3 with Fruit, I'm always first pick and he's always last. I've spoken to Ivan about it and apparently it's a bug, as team picks should be shuffled as well as world picks, but they are not. The Team Swap idea would be a turn right after picking where players would be able to switch picks (and like a regular turn, we'd only be able to see the changes after it ended, to prevent players from reswitching because someone switched right near them, and to add the predictability factor).

Full upgrades on CW, Rated Team Games and Duels. I know upgrades are very important to the longevity of the game and we'd never look a rank 5 the same way again, but one of the things that greatly halt competition is the fact that a coalition is often forced to play a certain combination of ranks to match other coalition's combination of ranks (the so called FAIR RANKS POLICY). Also ranks don't really matter much, Leaf is rank 8 and much, much better than a lot of rank 10s around.

Tracking of coalition wars. Show on profile how many coalition wars this played participated in. How many did his CLN arise victorious.

Special ranks for coalition wars. I don't know if you guys played Diablo 2, but we had titles for players who beat the game on normal, nightmare and hell difficulties. And when you played HARDCORE MODE (if you died you'd lose your character), you had much cooler titles. We could add the title in a similar way, depending on the amount of coalition wars played (not won, played).

3x SP and improved chance of getting protocoins for CWs, Duels and Rated Team Games.

Agreed on everything except the return of the old TB system. This will not solve this problem in anyway or form. I guarantee to you all that if it were to return, the situation would be worse and there would be a significant loss of strategy and competitiveness. First of all, the very concept of having an immediate 50% chance of turnblocking with one unit is an instant simplification of strategy. The current system offers various alternatives to turnblocking, less probable, however diversely both tactical and technical. Currently, the delaying of transports, coastal cities, secondary sources/cities are viable options that players can attempt to successfully turnblock in accordance to a given situation. Many think it's too arduous to amount 50% of the units of the stack you want to turnblock, and that it encourages the removal of strategy. Their problem is that they're too caught up in the immediate solution to halt an enemy's movement with the initial concept of turnblocking an enemy's first movement and/or most important stack. It's true, nevertheless, that attempting this turnblock is difficult considering you must amount 50% of an enemy's stack in order to have a 50% chance of succeeding. What most don't come to realize, is that there are other ways that one can go about turnblocking an enemy. Like I mentioned earlier, you can turnblock transports, coastal cities; both initial priorities or secondary sources to an attachment stack, you can also turnblock secondary sources, or sources that will have an attachment stack accorded to them, that being if you can predetermine this action by your enemy. Lastly, you turnblock cities or stacks with 1-4 units with 1 unit and have your maximum 50% of success just like the old TB system. There's also a lot of misconceptions that several are flaunting, due to a lack of misunderstanding the system and its varieties and outcomes. The system works in priorities. For instance, there's first movement versus first movement, second versus second, third versus third and so on; equal movement priorities that is. Then, there's all the other combinations. (1v2, 2v1, 1v3, 3v1, 1v4, 4v1) (1v26, 22v5) I'm just naming a bunch of random movement combinations determining various success rates and clauses. The point is that the system we now have is much more complex and strategic in comparison to the older one. Obviously, this has resulted in several bugs, none of which are major, but that have surely troubled several of the experienced players of the game. I suggest a full report and explanation of the TB systems from the admins, and maybe even a bit of the coding, so that we can all evaluate the system in its whole, and determine the flaws, problems and so on.

Back to your post Pulse, I agree with absolutely everything else. It would be beneficial for the game to have all of what you're suggesting. I'm pleased that you mentioned the "flower power". I agree here as well, the whole "walk through units" thing, was a bad implementation. First of all, I fail to discern the logic behind this, and it also removes strategic opportunity to the gameplay from a competitive perspective. The return of the flower power would add a lot of strategy back to the game as well as greatly enhance larger scale wars.

Geschreven door Skanderbeg, 15.05.2013 at 10:53

My 'metaphor' is correct, i also supported it with explanation and semi facts. My post didnt turned into troll one, i just couldnt reply otherwise, you cannot understand that as you stucked to world thing. I cant be wrong as i said realy situation on this game. Stay more inactive bro, you might understand current situation better.

>Semi facts.

Also, people have replied to your post not because of if it was a metaphor or not, but because of its clear irrelevance. I'm quite certain most of us understand what a metaphor is, no need to explain its definition, and give your so-called "semi facts" for enhanced clarification.

Geschreven door tophat, 15.05.2013 at 21:03

Geschreven door notserral, 15.05.2013 at 17:12

Indeed, Cow.

I'm constantly in touch with members who have long stopped playing and I've heard a few things that would make them come back. It's always like this - we have been involved in a game for so long that we never really stop following it, we always yearn for new content, for interesting changes, things that would make the old game new again. New strategies are a mixed idea - it's good to add diversity, but do we need more than we actually have? I'd much rather have the old strategies become more viable than having totally new ones (LB, GC, Blitz, I'm looking at you).

I had a few ideas thrown that could make things a bit more interesting:

Return of Turnblock and Flower Power. And we should add more information to the new players about these, to make sure we don't alienate part of the community with it.

Team Swap/Shuffle. Whenever I play a 3v3 with Fruit, I'm always first pick and he's always last. I've spoken to Ivan about it and apparently it's a bug, as team picks should be shuffled as well as world picks, but they are not. The Team Swap idea would be a turn right after picking where players would be able to switch picks (and like a regular turn, we'd only be able to see the changes after it ended, to prevent players from reswitching because someone switched right near them, and to add the predictability factor).

Full upgrades on CW, Rated Team Games and Duels. I know upgrades are very important to the longevity of the game and we'd never look a rank 5 the same way again, but one of the things that greatly halt competition is the fact that a coalition is often forced to play a certain combination of ranks to match other coalition's combination of ranks (the so called FAIR RANKS POLICY). Also ranks don't really matter much, Leaf is rank 8 and much, much better than a lot of rank 10s around.

Tracking of coalition wars. Show on profile how many coalition wars this played participated in. How many did his CLN arise victorious.

Special ranks for coalition wars. I don't know if you guys played Diablo 2, but we had titles for players who beat the game on normal, nightmare and hell difficulties. And when you played HARDCORE MODE (if you died you'd lose your character), you had much cooler titles. We could add the title in a similar way, depending on the amount of coalition wars played (not won, played).

3x SP and improved chance of getting protocoins for CWs, Duels and Rated Team Games.

Agreed on everything except the return of the old TB system. This will not solve this problem in anyway or form. I guarantee to you all that if it were to return, the situation would be worse and there would be a significant loss of strategy and competitiveness. First of all, the very concept of having an immediate 50% chance of turnblocking with one unit is an instant simplification of strategy. The current system offers various alternatives to turnblocking, less probable, however diversely both tactical and technical. Currently, the delaying of transports, coastal cities, secondary sources/cities are viable options that players can attempt to successfully turnblock in accordance to a given situation. Many think it's too arduous to amount 50% of the units of the stack you want to turnblock, and that it encourages the removal of strategy. Their problem is that they're too caught up in the immediate solution to halt an enemy's movement with the initial concept of turnblocking an enemy's first movement and/or most important stack. It's true, nevertheless, that attempting this turnblock is difficult considering you must amount 50% of an enemy's stack in order to have a 50% chance of succeeding. What most don't come to realize, is that there are other ways that one can go about turnblocking an enemy. Like I mentioned earlier, you can turnblock transports, coastal cities; both initial priorities or secondary sources to an attachment stack, you can also turnblock secondary sources, or sources that will have an attachment stack accorded to them, that being if you can predetermine this action by your enemy. Lastly, you turnblock cities or stacks with 1-4 units with 1 unit and have your maximum 50% of success just like the old TB system. There's also a lot of misconceptions that several are flaunting, due to a lack of misunderstanding the system and its varieties and outcomes. The system works in priorities. For instance, there's first movement versus first movement, second versus second, third versus third and so on; equal movement priorities that is. Then, there's all the other combinations. (1v2, 2v1, 1v3, 3v1, 1v4, 4v1) (1v26, 22v5) I'm just naming a bunch of random movement combinations determining various success rates and clauses. The point is that the system we now have is much more complex and strategic in comparison to the older one. Obviously, this has resulted in several bugs, none of which are major, but that have surely troubled several of the experienced players of the game. I suggest a full report and explanation of the TB systems from the admins, and maybe even a bit of the coding, so that we can all evaluate the system in its whole, and determine the flaws, problems and so on.

Back to your post Pulse, I agree with absolutely everything else. It would be beneficial for the game to have all of what you're suggesting. I'm pleased that you mentioned the "flower power". I agree here as well, the whole "walk through units" thing, was a bad implementation. First of all, I fail to discern the logic behind this, and it also removes strategic opportunity to the gameplay from a competitive perspective. The return of the flower power would add a lot of strategy back to the game as well as greatly enhance larger scale wars.

No, TB's promoted prioritizing moves, which required strategy. People who were able to think out their moves and TB's more quickly were simply betters players. I don't really see the skill in this game anymore, it's just first turn expansion and then a bunch of unit spamming. The fact of the matter is that the game was much better before than it is now, and having TB's was a huge part of that. Trust me, I was against TB's because I thought they were gamebreaking, but I took them for granted. We need them back. Only then will the game actually be fun and competitive as it once was.

I agreed on all Pulse's idea, except the turnblock (i agree with TopHats and Andartes on this part) and i would like to add some small things.

Why not returning TB?
Let me first say that i'm not for or against turnblocking. There are pro's (its more strategic) and con's (you are only busy turnblocking), i'm not going to discuss all this. As you can already see in this discussion: There are players that want TB and players that don't. Its about 50-50% and there is no way we can satisfy both side's. And the question is: Will players come back after TB is implemented? Maybe, but even if some do come back, there are also a lot of players leaving for the same reason. I've seen a lot inactive players come back when the TB was removed too. I think we shouldn't waste time on this discussion. Again, i don't care if it gets implemented back or not, but first we have other priorities (Pulse other suggestions and the 2 points below).

What we do need (with Pulse's suggestions) is:

Bug Fixing!: After the new system was implemented, we got all kind of bugs. Some of them got fixed, but there is a lot still not fixed, and i still notice 1 or 2 bugs EACH GAME!

Competition!: As you can see, everyone here repeats that they miss competition. The forum is full of idea's about the coalition competition and the 1v1 competition. This really needs to be improved to get back the rivalry between the coalitions! Get a new coalition system that encourage playing CW"s!

Geschreven door Hugosch, 16.05.2013 at 06:03

I agreed on all Pulse's idea, except the turnblock (i agree with TopHats and Andartes on this part) and i would like to add some small things.

Why not returning TB?
Let me first say that i'm not for or against turnblocking. There are pro's (its more strategic) and con's (you are only busy turnblocking), i'm not going to discuss all this. As you can already see in this discussion: There are players that want TB and players that don't. Its about 50-50% and there is no way we can satisfy both side's. And the question is: Will players come back after TB is implemented? Maybe, but even if some do come back, there are also a lot of players leaving for the same reason. I've seen a lot inactive players come back when the TB was removed too. I think we shouldn't waste time on this discussion. Again, i don't care if it gets implemented back or not, but first we have other priorities (Pulse other suggestions and the 2 points below).

What we do need (with Pulse's suggestions) is:

Bug Fixing!: After the new system was implemented, we got all kind of bugs. Some of them got fixed, but there is a lot still not fixed, and i still notice 1 or 2 bugs EACH GAME!

Competition!: As you can see, everyone here repeats that they miss competition. The forum is full of idea's about the coalition competition and the 1v1 competition. This really needs to be improved to get back the rivalry between the coalitions! Get a new coalition system that encourage playing CW"s!

I'm curious, which TB-related bugs do you consider to be the most game breaking?

Geschreven door Amok, 16.05.2013 at 06:52

I'm curious, which TB-related bugs do you consider to be the most game breaking?

There are some 'weird' things that happen sometimes (like you attack a city, and the next turn you see your units next to the city, while you can see in the battleview you either won or lost the battle). I cannot find all the post about this, but i still know the most important one's:

The following bugs came after the update with the TB.
In this topic: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5033 there are the 2 major bugs provided with screenshots (posted by me and Aristosseur). Both bugs i still see often. I'm sure this came after the update, because I remember Aristosseur played a tourney match against VRIL, just a few days after the update, and this was one of the bugs that happened to him. Until that moment, i had never seen this before.

And this topic: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6898 has to do with TB, but i think there are more topics like these.
If i can find more (or others can find them) i'm happy to give them to you, or report again when i notice them. I think these are major bugs and indeed: 'gamebreaking' as i see them still happening often and it cost the tourney to Aristosseur.

Geschreven door Hugosch, 16.05.2013 at 07:24

Geschreven door Amok, 16.05.2013 at 06:52

I'm curious, which TB-related bugs do you consider to be the most game breaking?

There are some 'weird' things that happen sometimes (like you attack a city, and the next turn you see your units next to the city, while you can see in the battleview you either won or lost the battle). I cannot find all the post about this, but i still know the most important one's:

The following bugs came after the update with the TB.
In this topic: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=5033 there are the 2 major bugs provided with screenshots (posted by me and Aristosseur). Both bugs i still see often. I'm sure this came after the update, because I remember Aristosseur played a tourney match against VRIL, just a few days after the update, and this was one of the bugs that happened to him. Until that moment, i had never seen this before.

And this topic: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=6898 has to do with TB, but i think there are more topics like these.
If i can find more (or others can find them) i'm happy to give them to you, or report again when i notice them. I think these are major bugs and indeed: 'gamebreaking' as i see them still happening often and it cost the tourney to Aristosseur.

Problem with this type of bugs is that it could take me the whole day just to figure out how to reproduce it, and even then, sometimes it's very intermittent. That's also the reason why I hate fixing them. Now if you or somebody else could list the steps (with screenshots, where needed) to reproduce a particular bug, that would speed up the process immensely. Start with the most game breaking ones and so on. Seriously, I would be happy to fix them if you could gather enough info, unfortunately I don't have enough time to dig up all the details myself.

Geschreven door Amok, 16.05.2013 at 08:11

Problem with this type of bugs is that it could take me the whole day just to figure out how to reproduce it, and even then, sometimes it's very intermittent. That's also the reason why I hate fixing them. Now if you or somebody else could list the steps (with screenshots, where needed) to reproduce a particular bug, that would speed up the process immensely. Start with the most game breaking ones and so on. Seriously, I would be happy to fix them if you could gather enough info, unfortunately I don't have enough time to dig up all the details myself.

Me and Desu worked on it. Basically, in a setup where Player 1 has a stack of units within range of Player 2's walled city:

Player 1	Player 2
1. Attack the wall	1. Move stack inside the city to attack another city (preferably neutral so you can test it)
2. Do something else	2. Move all units part of the wall inside the neutral city

This makes Player 1's stack follow Player 2's wall units inside the third city.

There may be a solution to fix this without the need to reproduce - unique unit IDs:

1. On Turn 0 every stack on every city is assigned a unique ID.
2. Whenever a player separates a stack, each new one is assigned a unique ID, and the previous ID of the full stack is assigned as a parent ID to all the new ones.
3. Whenever a player joins a stack, same thing. A new ID is assigned to the new stack and the two previous IDs are assigned to it.
4. Whenever a player successfully turnblocks a unit, the specific stack that was turnblocked can be traced using the unique ID, and that specific stack could be turnblocked.
5. If a parent stack is turnblocked, all child stacks following the TB in the priority order are turnblocked too. For example: Stack A joins Stack B, turning them into Stack C and attacking a city. The enemy blocks Stack A, therefore Stack C is never created and the attack doesn't go through. Another example: Stack A is separated into Stack B, Stack C and Stack D, and they attack different targets. If the enemy TBs Stack A, then B, C and D will never be created and the attacks won't go through. Yet another one: Stack A is separated into Stack B, C and D, and attack different targets. However, the enemy TBs Stack A right before Stack C is created. Thus, Stack B's movement would go through and C and D would be blocked.
6. With the beginning of the turn, every parent/child assignment is removed.

Step 5 can be more detailed and add some checks - for instance, if a Stack with 1 unit is turnblocked from joining a stack with 300, then the attack still goes through. But I don't think much would change in terms of TB and we'd still play the same way we play today.

Also Hugo forgot to mention this thread too: http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=8020

In my opinion we shouldn't change the TB system to the old one. It may be true that I was only rank 4-5 when the tb system changed and had not much realization of how competent a game could get (not that i know everything about the game now, but as much as I know). I was upset when the TB system had changed, because usually im not so passionate about changes, however I have grown to realize that the old TB system was 'worse' than the current one, again in my opinion. I think that because in the old system, it was TOO easy to tb a stack. For example, if your opponent had inf in his capital or in a city, you could just send 1 unit in the beginning of the turn to TB ALL the moves that your opponent did in that turn because it takes longer to select how many units you want to take and then select where to attack with them. Also I used to send everything i had in a city asap to the stack of my opponent, so sacrafice my units just so I could tb, then I would make more units and send them all to 1 of the stacks of the opponent, so all of my opponents stacks would get tb'd and i would be destroying another stack every turn.
My point is that, it was way too easy to tb and it doesn't work like that in reality as well. What we have now is more realistic, namely; the more units you have, the bigger the chance of winning. Also to be able to out-spam, you need to have more money and more spawn points than your opponent, which is essentially the aim of the game.
One more thing, having more units doesn't directly mean you will win (considering the players are at same level in skill). Then it would mean that everyone would select IMP.
The reason that people select PD and try to spam inf, isn't because of the tb system but about the strategy itself. Inf are cheap and strong. Maybe we should be looking at changing PD.

About cw system, I think everyone agrees that it should be changed, to encourage coalitions to cw more. I don't have any suggestions about that, though I like the idea of leagues. : )

Oh and had an idea too:

Medal for CWs played. Tiers could be: 1, 5, 25, 75

Medal for CWs won. Same tiers.

And how do you think you get the biggest army? By over-expanding your opponent. The rushing part is not the skill, rushing will always be around. Even if you have more units than your opponent and you rush, when attacking with inf you still need at least double the amount in the rushed capital to be sure you will win. So the person that has more units and rushes doesnt always has to win...

I don't believe that the person that has very small army relative to his/her opponent should have a chance of winning with just tb's. Also you can add just about anything else to the game and people will adjust to that and this doesnt particularly mean that the person has more skill if he can split his stack. Also the splited stacks can still get tb'd easily. Prioritizing your ones moves, is just to see who is faster than who. Maybe this does require skill, but I don't think its worth to have the old tb sytem back just to be able to test peoples speed.

If both tb systems can some how be combined, it would be the best solution i think. So maybe like the old system, looking at who moved the units first and if one player was first, look at how with how many units attacked. Now we can maybe increase the chance of tb'ing. So lets say you were able to have the chance of tb'ing because you attacked your opponents stack first, if your opponent had 10 units and you had 5,maybe have the chance of tb'ing more than 50%,since you still need to move your units first and attack his stack before he moves his to be able to have the CHANCE to try to tb. What do you think?

P.S: I do though agree that playing 3v3 or any other competative game has turned into a spam of inf, I just dont believe that the cause of that is the tb system. And that it will change if the old tb system comes back.

I do not believe that the problem is tb , maybe a bit on the cw system , but I believe the problem is that none of the new players have much been in a coalition or know "there was a forum?" what i suggest.........................

TRAIN THEM!
then we will have more interesting matches, maybe even to many to handle, we need to train and get them to form rivalries, want to battle, want to dethrone Tophats. If we do that there may even be to many cw's to handle. That is the only successful future I see for atWar.


I am mnbv12 and I approve this message

Geschreven door Milkyy, 16.05.2013 at 18:03

Also it is not stupid, the old tb system was just seeing who is faster, which is not fair because some moves take longer than others, so it is easier to tb than to escape from a tb.

Bertank, what Iron Sky was trying to say is that how fast you make a move has nothing to do with the priority, but the order in which you do it. So it doesn't matter if I spent half a second or 3 minutes in my first move, it will have the same chance to turnblock.

Oh so it's not about when you do it in the 4 min but after which move you do it. That's what you're saying right? Well I didn't know it was working like that.

I'm not gonna go into details to make sure this doesn't go even more off topic. my main point remains the same, and that's that tb was too easy to perform. In my opinion the game shouldn't depend that much on tb's. Which is why I suggested a consideration of combining both systems. So that there's still the idea of prioritizing your moves but also it won't be so easy to tb. Maybe it can work? :/

I know you like me cow lol

I did like the old TB system and actually move priority wasn't as easy as you think, stopping that first stack yes that was easy but 2/3/4 priority mess up your order and it could easily have gone wrong, tbh I prefer neither the current format or old one for tbs they both have flaws. Blitz imo is simply unusable with stack play and the emphasis has certainly shifted to power strategies because of the change, attrition is now key. 'Flower power' however I didn't like, I do see it's pros, that extra turn or two to give you time to regroup if things were going badly, I just always saw it as a bit of a cheap defence (or attack) tactic so personally would not like to see it back in the game.

With regards to PD being a OP choice for attrition warfare, making its city defence bonus +1 instead of +2 could help, not a strategy breaking nerf and with correct upgrades the Infantry still remain good for cost and stats, however I am unsure if this is being thought of just because it is currently popular. I support Pulse's suggestions for more medals for clans/profiles 100%, no bad can come of new goals and would love to see and expendable tank upgrade or slightly cheaper tanks for RA boost.

Geschreven door notserral, 16.05.2013 at 10:32

Me and Desu worked on it. Basically, in a setup where Player 1 has a stack of units within range of Player 2's walled city:

Player 1	Player 2
1. Attack the wall	1. Move stack inside the city to attack another city (preferably neutral so you can test it)
2. Do something else	2. Move all units part of the wall inside the neutral city

This makes Player 1's stack follow Player 2's wall units inside the third city.

Thanks, Pulse. Isn't that the expected behavior, though? Or would you rather it attacked the city or simply cancelled the attack?

Geschreven door notserral, 15.05.2013 at 17:12

3x SP and improved chance of getting protocoins for CWs, Duels and Rated Team Games.

People aren't playing CW for SP, I couldn't see increasing my interest in CW. It's about the glory and prestige. No need for SP rewards.

Geschreven door notserral, 16.05.2013 at 15:28

Oh and had an idea too:

Medal for CWs played. Tiers could be: 1, 5, 25, 75

Medal for CWs won. Same tiers.

But this is a good idea!

Here is my proposal to remedy about 70% of the discussed lack of interest and competition among higher ranked players.

Throughout the week Winners of a CW score 3 points, losers 1 point. At the end of the week the top 4 clans point wise get to compete in a weekly tournament held at a specific time. (I understand that some people won't be able to play due to their schedule but those are the breaks.) If a clan isn't able to field a 3 person team, registration is open to any clan present. With only 4 teams competing the tournament would go fairly quickly. There would be the semifinals, and then the finals.

Perfect. Not too complicated and gets the job done. Medals awarded for tournaments competed in and tournaments won.

Geschreven door Caulerpa, 13.05.2013 at 13:27

I mean, we first have to find a problem before we can solve it. I don't think the higher SP rewards would help, 2 years ago we had the same SP system and almost the same CW and tournaments system and yet, the competition between players was much higher.

Yes, but the demographics have changed.

Who knows?
Increasing the SP rewards just may be the decisive role of getting the new players playing more competitively.

Geschreven door Amok, 17.05.2013 at 03:32

Thanks, Pulse. Isn't that the expected behavior, though? Or would you rather it attacked the city or simply cancelled the attack?

Please do correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't it be something like this?:

The tb percentage of the wall being tb'd would be calculated first.
If the wall is tb'd, then the wall would not move into the third city and will engage the units that have attacked it.
Otherwise, the tb fails and the wall attacks the third city whilst the tb'ing units don't move (just like when your bomber doesn't move when it fails to tb a stack).

Geschreven door Leaf, 17.05.2013 at 06:42

Please do correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't it be something like this?:

The tb percentage of the wall being tb'd would be calculated first.
If the wall is tb'd, then the wall would not move into the third city and will engage the units that have attacked it.
Otherwise, the tb fails and the wall attacks the third city whilst the tb'ing units don't move (just like when your bomber doesn't move when it fails to tb a stack).

Almost right, except that the TB'ing units will follow the wall units if they're still within reach. The only time they won't follow is if the wall units moved into their own city and it has considerably higher number of units than the TB'ing units. Hope this makes sense.

Geschreven door Amok, 17.05.2013 at 07:53

Geschreven door Leaf, 17.05.2013 at 06:42

Please do correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't it be something like this?:

The tb percentage of the wall being tb'd would be calculated first.
If the wall is tb'd, then the wall would not move into the third city and will engage the units that have attacked it.
Otherwise, the tb fails and the wall attacks the third city whilst the tb'ing units don't move (just like when your bomber doesn't move when it fails to tb a stack).

Almost right, except that the TB'ing units will follow the wall units if they're still within reach. The only time they won't follow is if the wall units moved into their own city and it has considerably higher number of units than the TB'ing units. Hope this makes sense.

Yes, this is correct and has always resulted like this, as Amok explained. It makes perfect sense, and I haven't come across a bug in relation to this type of TB.

However, bugs tend to appear in the naval transport TB. It's an automatic 50% chance when there's 1-4 transports in a stack correct? And it's the percentage of units used to TB when 5+ transports are involved right? Or is it 50% at all times no matter the amount of transports? That being a transport or transports in the sea.

Also, when a transport is in a city, is it still an automatic 50% chance regardless of the other units inside? Or does it function just like every other city despite having a transport(s)?

These are the two questions I've always contemplated about, and was never sure of the actual formula. I've made tests, but still cannot determine which of my conjectures is correct. Amok please clarify, it will answer a lot question that many have. It might even be the answer to the so-called bugs people have been coming across. They might not be bugs at all, it might just be the lack of knowledge of the TB system. Although, I have seen lots of inconsistencies when tbing transports or being tbed with anything that involves transport. The system for the transport TBs might be flawed, so please clarify the dynamics for us.

Geschreven door Amok, 17.05.2013 at 03:32

Geschreven door notserral, 16.05.2013 at 10:32

Me and Desu worked on it. Basically, in a setup where Player 1 has a stack of units within range of Player 2's walled city:

Player 1	Player 2
1. Attack the wall	1. Move stack inside the city to attack another city (preferably neutral so you can test it)
2. Do something else	2. Move all units part of the wall inside the neutral city

This makes Player 1's stack follow Player 2's wall units inside the third city.

Thanks, Pulse. Isn't that the expected behavior, though? Or would you rather it attacked the city or simply cancelled the attack?

Well not really. The ideal behavior would be for the wall units to be turnblocked from entering the city. There's also a matter with transports: for instance, when I want to prevent the transport from landing troops, what usually happens is that the transport is destroyed, but he manages to unload units in land.

Geschreven door tophat, 17.05.2013 at 11:17

Yes, this is correct and has always resulted like this, as Amok explained. It makes perfect sense, and I haven't come across a bug in relation to this type of TB.

However, bugs tend to appear in the naval transport TB. It's an automatic 50% chance when there's 1-4 transports in a stack correct? And it's the percentage of units used to TB when 5+ transports are involved right? Or is it 50% at all times no matter the amount of transports? That being a transport or transports in the sea.

Also, when a transport is in a city, is it still an automatic 50% chance regardless of the other units inside? Or does it function just like every other city despite having a transport(s)?

These are the two questions I've always contemplated about, and was never sure of the actual formula. I've made tests, but still cannot determine which of my conjectures is correct. Amok please clarify, it will answer a lot question that many have. It might even be the answer to the so-called bugs people have been coming across. They might not be bugs at all, it might just be the lack of knowledge of the TB system. Although, I have seen lots of inconsistencies when tbing transports or being tbed with anything that involves transport. The system for the transport TBs might be flawed, so please clarify the dynamics for us.

TB for transports is calculated the same way as for other units, so yeah it should be 50% (+ percentage when 5+ transports). Same thing for transports in the cities. I will double check the code again to see if there's something transport-specific in it, but I can't really recall anything now.

Geschreven door notserral, 17.05.2013 at 12:02

Well not really. The ideal behavior would be for the wall units to be turnblocked from entering the city. There's also a matter with transports: for instance, when I want to prevent the transport from landing troops, what usually happens is that the transport is destroyed, but he manages to unload units in land.

You're forgetting about the initial 50% chance of TB. Wall units will get turnblocked if that initial TB chance is in your favour. The second issue you mentioned (transport destroyed, units still unloaded) is not a bug, but the way TB works. Think of it this way:

Player A moves his transport and unloads the units.
Player B attacks the transport.
Now there could be multiple different ways in which this could be resolved by the end of the turn. So what you described above will be resolved like this:

A moves transport
A unloads & moves away the units
B attacks the originally targeted stack, which is the transport (units escaped the attack, since they're in the different stack)

There are other different options, for example:

A moves transport
B attacks the transport with all the units still inside

Or the shortest of all:

B attacks the transport without it even having a chance to move or unload

Geschreven door Amok, 18.05.2013 at 05:18

Geschreven door tophat, 17.05.2013 at 11:17

Yes, this is correct and has always resulted like this, as Amok explained. It makes perfect sense, and I haven't come across a bug in relation to this type of TB.

However, bugs tend to appear in the naval transport TB. It's an automatic 50% chance when there's 1-4 transports in a stack correct? And it's the percentage of units used to TB when 5+ transports are involved right? Or is it 50% at all times no matter the amount of transports? That being a transport or transports in the sea.

Also, when a transport is in a city, is it still an automatic 50% chance regardless of the other units inside? Or does it function just like every other city despite having a transport(s)?

These are the two questions I've always contemplated about, and was never sure of the actual formula. I've made tests, but still cannot determine which of my conjectures is correct. Amok please clarify, it will answer a lot question that many have. It might even be the answer to the so-called bugs people have been coming across. They might not be bugs at all, it might just be the lack of knowledge of the TB system. Although, I have seen lots of inconsistencies when tbing transports or being tbed with anything that involves transport. The system for the transport TBs might be flawed, so please clarify the dynamics for us.

TB for transports is calculated the same way as for other units, so yeah it should be 50% (+ percentage when 5+ transports). Same thing for transports in the cities. I will double check the code again to see if there's something transport-specific in it, but I can't really recall anything now.

Perfect thanks!

Geschreven door clovis1122, 18.06.2013 at 11:28

* About nerf PD *
99% comment here are premium people. Think in non premium people too! ,_, people talk about infantry spam, but what about non premium? they have to deal winth OP generals and no one even play atenction to this . But Infantry Spam is free, and is the only way most non prem can use to deal against premium. and now you guys want to nerf PD? wtf is this? dont think in yours, really. Not all people can buy premium. This mean thad because they cant monetary support the game you wont think in they? . Is not because PD troops, is not because PD cheap and strong, is because if you dont know how to deal winth Inf spammers, them dont fault the strategy. Go and get more Skill

*About complicate TB system *
increase competence... what ever. but play a game went you stress rathery thad get fun... wtf is this? . Is ridiculous to stress planning moves and TBs. All you will get is arrogant people away aiming for top. I am not refering, to make the game more easy. just dont make it too complicate ( yes mostly refering to not charge the currently TB system for a more complicated one.)

* About the ORIGINAL Topic *
this topic was made for expain the reasons about why dalmati turn inactive. why dont make a new topic about how to make the game bettle and leave this one in peace?

totaly right