Atwar punishes you for playing

Ok guys, this might sound silly at first - but think about it. If you ever stay until turn 50 or turn 75 or turn 100 - the winner takes all of the SP. This is inherently flawed.

By having a winner-take-all system by default, it makes players greedy and it makes it so people push the turn limit up to higher turn counts. If instead we had a "everyone wins" approach, you will start seeing the turn limit be pushed down to turn 25 maybe turn 50. This means that games end faster, less bitterly, and with less grinding since no one is going to push the duration of the game for an extra few SP.

For reference, most turns in scenarios are 5 minutes, so a 25 turn game would be about 2 Hours long. while a 50 turn game would be 4 hours. If an "everyone wins" approach was taken, a lot of games would end up faster, in a positive note, and a remake would be likely to be hosted right away prompting more activity. With a "winner-take-all" approach, games are long - bitter, and people burn out and take a break.

I agree that the host should be able to select manually what turn he wants the game to finish, not just select from a predetermined number list. Currently we only have the option to finish at turn 10 or 50. That's 5 times the amount of turns. It's not too practical.

However, as a competitive player myself, I think that taking half the sp you've made for losing is not entirely frustating.

Általa írva RaulPB, 21.06.2020 at 14:24

I agree that the host should be able to select manually what turn he wants the game to finish, not just select from a predetermined number list. Currently we only have the option to finish at turn 10 or 50. That's 5 times the amount of turns. It's not too practical.

However, as a competitive player myself, I think that taking half the sp you've made for losing is not entirely frustating.

You are right - custom turn limits would be great and half of the SP for losing is fair enough. What I kinda wanted to suggest was for all players to win if they stayed until the turn limit through, think more about it as a forced ally-end.

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 14:06

Ok guys, this might sound silly at first - but think about it. If you ever stay until turn 50 or turn 75 or turn 100 - the winner takes all of the SP. This is inherently flawed.

By having a winner-take-all system by default, it makes players greedy and it makes it so people push the turn limit up to higher turn counts. If instead we had a "everyone wins" approach, you will start seeing the turn limit be pushed down to turn 25 maybe turn 50. This means that games end faster, less bitterly, and with less grinding since no one is going to push the duration of the game for an extra few SP.

For reference, most turns in scenarios are 5 minutes, so a 25 turn game would be about 2 Hours long. while a 50 turn game would be 4 hours. If an "everyone wins" approach was taken, a lot of games would end up faster, in a positive note, and a remake would be likely to be hosted right away prompting more activity. With a "winner-take-all" approach, games are long - bitter, and people burn out and take a break.

An "everyone wins" that Tunder proposes, as he explained to me in DMs is actually functionally an everybody wins with their SP (like an ally end)

I completely agree with Tunder. I think it's an excellent suggestion.

It punishes you for losing, not playing. You can always ally if you don't like your odds.

This seems to come from the same mentality as those people who think there are no losers in sports and everyone should get a participation trophy. Not many people would try if they could win by being 3rd.

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 14:31

You are right - custom turn limits would be great and half of the SP for losing is fair enough. What I kinda wanted to suggest was for all players to win if they stayed until the turn limit through, think more about it as a forced ally-end.

I'm not sure the forced allyend is funny for the guy who's losing to some gangbang but still has the hope of winning by sp. At least it wouldn't be funny to me.

Also, in this case, winning would entirely lose its point since you'd be getting just the same price as the losing guy. Where's the fun in that?

Games would simply become large allyfagging gangbangs with no significant sp gain. It would reward only those who don't fight or that simply survive, even by doing nothing at all.

Its fine as it is jesus

It would be terrible if it was win by sp because in some scens its capture all cities and they have cities in antartica or something and if one guy just camps in them after he loses most of his land he will still win he 100 - 200 sp he got

Általa írva Sid, 21.06.2020 at 15:29

It punishes you for losing, not playing. You can always ally if you don't like your odds.

This seems to come from the same mentality as those people who think there are no losers in sports and everyone should get a participation trophy. Not many people would try if they could win by being 3rd.

But sid, scenarios are not about competition. Scenarios are not competitive. Try playing any FFA scenario with your competitive mindset and you are going to get gang-banged. The only way for a competitive,aggressive, pro-active player to survive in a FFA scenario is if the game ends early.

Általa írva s_1292c316c9, 21.06.2020 at 18:48

It would be terrible if it was win by sp because in some scens its capture all cities and they have cities in antartica or something and if one guy just camps in them after he loses most of his land he will still win he 100 - 200 sp he got

This is already the case

Általa írva RaulPB, 21.06.2020 at 15:42

I'm not sure the forced allyend is funny for the guy who's losing to some gangbang but still has the hope of winning by sp. At least it wouldn't be funny to me.

gangbangs are never funny no matter how we put it, no matter what system we have in place. But a system that allows for everyone to win when the turn limit is reached, allows for a game that has less commitment. Games with less commitment save you the effort of staying an extra two hours to grind all the way to a high turn limit.

Általa írva RaulPB, 21.06.2020 at 15:42

Also, in this case, winning would entirely lose its point since you'd be getting just the same price as the losing guy. Where's the fun in that?

Define "Winning" , why does winning have to be dictated by SP? In some scenarios, like game of thrones - reuniting the north as the starks and defeating the boltons is considered a win by some players, why would anyone want that player to then commit to another 2-3 hours of gameplay because another player in essos decided to invade westeros and not ally-end?

Általa írva RaulPB, 21.06.2020 at 15:42

Games would simply become large allyfagging gangbangs with no significant sp gain. It would reward only those who don't fight or that simply survive, even by doing nothing at all.

but this is already the case. aggressive players get gangbanged. Try playing any +16 FFA scenario to confirm this.

Unlike the odds, when game is ending on SP,the total SP should be divided in the top 3 players rather than 1, this will solve most of the problem.

Általa írva s_1292c316c9, 21.06.2020 at 18:48

It would be terrible if it was win by sp because in some scens its capture all cities and they have cities in antartica or something and if one guy just camps in them after he loses most of his land he will still win he 100 - 200 sp he got

ofc he should, is he not playing his turn ?, even if he is AFK or you might should not play FFA.

Általa írva Sid, 21.06.2020 at 15:29

It punishes you for losing, not playing. You can always ally if you don't like your odds.

This seems to come from the same mentality as those people who think there are no losers in sports and everyone should get a participation trophy. Not many people would try if they could win by being 3rd.

ofc not many for current situation yet still there will be and maybe it will encourage the low ranks and some high ranks to play despite abandoning game or leaving game.

All I got to say is that this is up to the scenario maker. I have played a ffa scen recently where it was capture all cities but there was no way to go to new world from Europe if you aren't France UK or Spain...it's plain stupid. As for maps it's up to the host if you can't commit the 50 turns just abandon and accept your lose.

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 21:18

gangbangs are never funny no matter how we put it, no matter what system we have in place. But a system that allows for everyone to win when the turn limit is reached, allows for a game that has less commitment. Games with less commitment save you the effort of staying an extra two hours to grind all the way to a high turn limit.


Define "Winning" , why does winning have to be dictated by SP? In some scenarios, like game of thrones - reuniting the north as the starks and defeating the boltons is considered a win by some players, why would anyone want that player to then commit to another 2-3 hours of gameplay because another player in essos decided to invade westeros and not ally-end?


but this is already the case. aggressive players get gangbanged. Try playing any +16 FFA scenario to confirm this.

Less commitment won't save the game from becoming a gangbang with no action. If you don't take those "extra two hours" then no one really gets any sp since they won't have fought enough to actually amass a significant amount of sp.

Win, in an inherently war game, can be translated into a military win. So why would you even try to compete militarily speaking if you can simply relax and do nothing at all to earn a price?
In your case, if someone doesn't want to ally end, just do the normal: wait until he wants or gangbang him. Even if a player meets certain scenario local objectives, that doesnt mean he automatically wins the game since he can still get defeated in the overall map situation.

I know we get gangbanged, but I'm afraid that your suggestion simply makes it all more viable.

The solution ain't giving away prices to those who lose but to end the game faster, meaning to be able to choose lower turn limits.

Current system is fine. Nobody would play seriously if you would win regardless of performance. Agree with Sid here.

Általa írva RaulPB, 22.06.2020 at 06:21

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 21:18

gangbangs are never funny no matter how we put it, no matter what system we have in place. But a system that allows for everyone to win when the turn limit is reached, allows for a game that has less commitment. Games with less commitment save you the effort of staying an extra two hours to grind all the way to a high turn limit.


Define "Winning" , why does winning have to be dictated by SP? In some scenarios, like game of thrones - reuniting the north as the starks and defeating the boltons is considered a win by some players, why would anyone want that player to then commit to another 2-3 hours of gameplay because another player in essos decided to invade westeros and not ally-end?


but this is already the case. aggressive players get gangbanged. Try playing any +16 FFA scenario to confirm this.

Less commitment won't save the game from becoming a gangbang with no action. If you don't take those "extra two hours" then no one really gets any sp since they won't have fought enough to actually amass a significant amount of sp.

Win, in an inherently war game, can be translated into a military win. So why would you even try to compete militarily speaking if you can simply relax and do nothing at all to earn a price?
In your case, if someone doesn't want to ally end, just do the normal: wait until he wants or gangbang him. Even if a player meets certain scenario local objectives, that doesnt mean he automatically wins the game since he can still get defeated in the overall map situation.

I know we get gangbanged, but I'm afraid that your suggestion simply makes it all more viable.

The solution ain't giving away prices to those who lose but to end the game faster, meaning to be able to choose lower turn limits.

you are making too much of a big deal out of something so trivial as SP, games are played to have fun, not to collect magic points. Dave himself is already giving us 300 SP a day for just logging in, that is like about as much SP as the average player makes playing a full 3 hours game.

the staff of this game never had any issue with RP and UN, games in which people just camped all game. I don't see why people are still so puritan about the ways others gain their SP.

Általa írva The_Empirezz, 24.06.2020 at 16:57

Current system is fine. Nobody would play seriously if you would win regardless of performance. Agree with Sid here.

If you want to play "seriously" then just play competitive or duels or make the turn limit something like 999. Why does everybody else have to be forced to play a 4-5 hour game in a scenario/map that was meant to be played for 1-2 hours.

Általa írva Tundy, 24.06.2020 at 20:49

If you want to play "seriously" then just play competitive or duels or make the turn limit something like 999. Why does everybody else have to be forced to play a 4-5 hour game in a scenario/map that was meant to be played for 1-2 hours.

Because most scenarios are rather balanced, so if the teams are aswell, with no decisive wins or blunders from either side, then the outcome of the game is uncertain until the lategame. Simple as that, really.

Általa írva The_Empirezz, 25.06.2020 at 08:39

Általa írva Tundy, 24.06.2020 at 20:49

If you want to play "seriously" then just play competitive or duels or make the turn limit something like 999. Why does everybody else have to be forced to play a 4-5 hour game in a scenario/map that was meant to be played for 1-2 hours.

Because most scenarios are rather balanced, so if the teams are aswell, with no decisive wins or blunders from either side, then the outcome of the game is uncertain until the lategame. Simple as that, really.

But most scenarios out there are FFA, team games are a different kind of beast. Forced ally-end matters more to FFA scenarios that have up to 20 players. Team games have clear outcomes, while FFA games always end up mostly ambiguously. The concept that I introduced in the original post, does neither affect or hinder Team games or competitive play, but improves greatly the performance of FFA games. Is ridiculous that the original idea presented in this topic is opposed as it provides no net-negative for you or anyone else.

Általa írva Tundy, 26.06.2020 at 00:31

Általa írva The_Empirezz, 25.06.2020 at 08:39

Általa írva Tundy, 24.06.2020 at 20:49

If you want to play "seriously" then just play competitive or duels or make the turn limit something like 999. Why does everybody else have to be forced to play a 4-5 hour game in a scenario/map that was meant to be played for 1-2 hours.

Because most scenarios are rather balanced, so if the teams are aswell, with no decisive wins or blunders from either side, then the outcome of the game is uncertain until the lategame. Simple as that, really.

But most scenarios out there are FFA, team games are a different kind of beast. Forced ally-end matters more to FFA scenarios that have up to 20 players. Team games have clear outcomes, while FFA games always end up mostly ambiguously. The concept that I introduced in the original post, does neither affect or hinder Team games or competitive play, but improves greatly the performance of FFA games. Is ridiculous that the original idea presented in this topic is opposed as it provides no net-negative for you or anyone else.

Agree with Tunder. there are games outside of trenchstacking WW1 you know... empirezz >.>

Általa írva Tundy, 26.06.2020 at 00:31

But most scenarios out there are FFA, team games are a different kind of beast. Forced ally-end matters more to FFA scenarios that have up to 20 players. Team games have clear outcomes, while FFA games always end up mostly ambiguously. The concept that I introduced in the original post, does neither affect or hinder Team games or competitive play, but improves greatly the performance of FFA games. Is ridiculous that the original idea presented in this topic is opposed as it provides no net-negative for you or anyone else.

I can only see your idea work if this in a form of an option for the host during game creation, in which the host can choose to have the game automatically end at say, turn 50, with all who are still alive being the ''winners''. But I only see this prolongueing the game as people will try to stay alive until turn 50 to make it. Nor would this encourage people to show assertive gameplay, as people can just camp to win, rather than fight others to gain the sp lead to win.

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 14:06

Ok guys, this might sound silly at first - but think about it. If you ever stay until turn 50 or turn 75 or turn 100 - the winner takes all of the SP. This is inherently flawed.

By having a winner-take-all system by default, it makes players greedy and it makes it so people push the turn limit up to higher turn counts. If instead we had a "everyone wins" approach, you will start seeing the turn limit be pushed down to turn 25 maybe turn 50. This means that games end faster, less bitterly, and with less grinding since no one is going to push the duration of the game for an extra few SP.

For reference, most turns in scenarios are 5 minutes, so a 25 turn game would be about 2 Hours long. while a 50 turn game would be 4 hours. If an "everyone wins" approach was taken, a lot of games would end up faster, in a positive note, and a remake would be likely to be hosted right away prompting more activity. With a "winner-take-all" approach, games are long - bitter, and people burn out and take a break.

I like that suggestion, and they should also allow to take all sp that youve earned

Általa írva Tundy, 24.06.2020 at 20:48

Általa írva RaulPB, 22.06.2020 at 06:21

Általa írva Tundy, 21.06.2020 at 21:18

gangbangs are never funny no matter how we put it, no matter what system we have in place. But a system that allows for everyone to win when the turn limit is reached, allows for a game that has less commitment. Games with less commitment save you the effort of staying an extra two hours to grind all the way to a high turn limit.


Define "Winning" , why does winning have to be dictated by SP? In some scenarios, like game of thrones - reuniting the north as the starks and defeating the boltons is considered a win by some players, why would anyone want that player to then commit to another 2-3 hours of gameplay because another player in essos decided to invade westeros and not ally-end?


but this is already the case. aggressive players get gangbanged. Try playing any +16 FFA scenario to confirm this.

Less commitment won't save the game from becoming a gangbang with no action. If you don't take those "extra two hours" then no one really gets any sp since they won't have fought enough to actually amass a significant amount of sp.

Win, in an inherently war game, can be translated into a military win. So why would you even try to compete militarily speaking if you can simply relax and do nothing at all to earn a price?
In your case, if someone doesn't want to ally end, just do the normal: wait until he wants or gangbang him. Even if a player meets certain scenario local objectives, that doesnt mean he automatically wins the game since he can still get defeated in the overall map situation.

I know we get gangbanged, but I'm afraid that your suggestion simply makes it all more viable.

The solution ain't giving away prices to those who lose but to end the game faster, meaning to be able to choose lower turn limits.

you are making too much of a big deal out of something so trivial as SP, games are played to have fun, not to collect magic points. Dave himself is already giving us 300 SP a day for just logging in, that is like about as much SP as the average player makes playing a full 3 hours game.

the staff of this game never had any issue with RP and UN, games in which people just camped all game. I don't see why people are still so puritan about the ways others gain their SP.

It seems to me that SP has become exactly what you described, a "magic number". Although I'd assume that at the game's creation it was intended to be a (possibly) useful determinant of a player's experience. You mentioned RP and U.N. games here - where the goal isn't to collect SP by eliminating other players, but to be a member of a role playing game. Instead of making SP the end-all-be-all of player progress/a determinant of a player's time, why not create a new metric? Something along the lines of SP (strategy points) and CP (cooperative score). I think anyone with experience hosting can attest to the difficulty of ensuring a player's time in competitive games or scenarios (short of just being familiar with the player) and this division of metrics could lead to fewer failed games, as well as less host-burnout. I also believe it would address the root of this thread in that a player who loses a game would still receive little or no SP, but could still be rewarded with CP based on their performance.