Remove worldgame from none premiums

All this guys overrun aw with their shitty worldgames. someone starts a worldgame with 50k, non extra cities and max 5 people every 5min. On top of that, the most players ally each other and the typical worldgame ends befor week 10. i miss and prefer the old worldgame, which stands for a special event, where over 15 people was fighting over the whole world.

Yeah I only join a ww when I make one and wait till it's 15-20 people but I'm not sure if making even more things premium is the way to solve it

Hmmmmm

Napísal Dbacks, 09.06.2013 at 15:10

Yeah I only join a ww when I make one and wait till it's 15-20 people but I'm not sure if making even more things premium is the way to solve it

someone doesnt have the time to wait 2hours.

I wish generals were common to everyone.

Yeah old world games was good

Than remove this noob 50k (25K) from none premiums. this people wont be better if they play only this nonetactical unitspamgames

I dont know, why nobody else registrate that. this games breed a bunch of noobs!!
nobody can tell me, that new players will lern the game mechanics, if they have 50k income

I too believe the games these days lack in quality because of this. Take away world games for non premium members and maybe give back generals as compensation.

Napísal learster, 15.06.2013 at 07:20

I too believe the games these days lack in quality because of this. Take away world games for non premium members and maybe give back generals as compensation.

I like this idea i support it

What to do?
How to conciliate the (relative) massification of AW, the introduction of the map and scenario making environment, and the quality of game (and, thus, players)?
WGs are no longer the "ultimate games" like they used to be when the maps/scenarios were limited to the ones developed by the game provider. There are many more sxcenarios/maps around and WGs lost a relative sex-appeal in the AW community.

Limiting WG hosting to premium players is not the solution; there are enough premium players around that host [50k]-[5pl]-[non100+]-WG... resulting in ally-fugg by turn 11,9!

Repositioning 3v3 games and WG games; tournaments, hosting more games by "old-school" players; etc.

I prefer the idea of making competitive 3v3 the default game option. And I figure it solves the same problem.

Napísal Columna Durruti, 15.06.2013 at 09:00

Limiting WG hosting to premium players is not the solution; there are enough premium players around that host [50k]-[5pl]-[non100+]-WG... resulting in ally-fugg by turn 11,9!

i hope you dont verify all your statements like this!
i checked a lot of 50k worldgames this days and i can say, that over 90% of this games was created by lvl 1-4 and nobody had premium. every now and then i saw a teamgameworldgame with 50k starting funds, but this games are a minority.


for example:

this guys created in the last 20min a worldgame 50k without extra cities and arent premium

swagger
YusufSubasi
mcollier
ParadoxH
army-force

in the same time, nobody with premium created a worldgame with any starting funds...

I remember the old world games, one time 20 players 2 teams 50k and players allowed to join up to turn 99 and u just keep killing players after 1 dies another joins and makes a huge army. what happened to the old days they had more skill and fun

Napísal Guest, 15.06.2013 at 10:10

Guys why can't we all make the games we want to play and let others make the types of games they want to play? No reason to force each others preferences onto others

I support this to

This guys have never played a worldgame..

Napísal Lemonade, 15.06.2013 at 09:55

Napísal Columna Durruti, 15.06.2013 at 09:00

Limiting WG hosting to premium players is not the solution; there are enough premium players around that host [50k]-[5pl]-[non100+]-WG... resulting in ally-fugg by turn 11,9!

i hope you dont verify all your statements like this!
i checked a lot of 50k worldgames this days and i can say, that over 90% of this games was created by lvl 1-4 and nobody had premium. every now and then i saw a teamgameworldgame with 50k starting funds, but this games are a minority.

for example:

this guys created in the last 20min a worldgame 50k without extra cities and arent premium

swagger
YusufSubasi
mcollier
ParadoxH
army-force

in the same time, nobody with premium created a worldgame with any starting funds...

Didn't argue against your innitial statement, just said that there are enough premium-players that are willing to host this type of games. I think that this argument does not need scientific foundations (although it would be nice to have your data, that could be important for a possible/probable falsification à la Popper) just a departing-point that premium players are not necessarily "more sophisticated" than non-premium players. [Footnote: I'm not talking about skills or right to choose; in both groups we can find a huge variety.]
Furthermore, lets assume that part of the current rank 1-4 players - you are reffering to - become premium players. Will they change their playing preferences? I suppose they will continue to host WGs (and other games) the way they have been hosting.
Finally, I agree to the argument that players choose what they want to play, which leads to a crowding-out of games like WG (3-15k, 15-20 players, team-games, 100+, etc.) and more competitive games like 3v3 (EU++, 5-10k, 2-3min, etc.), since they are competing for audience.
Finally, there are players that miss the "good old times" of AfterWind with a specific type of community, or lets say, with a community with less options to choose from, specially regarding scenarios/maps. Then there are players that don't know this "old" AW environment and cannot imagine playing atWar without the variety and customized games (maps and scenarios). And, finally, there is a third group, that just knows AfterWind for a couple of months and then became witness to the transformation to atWar...
... in the end its a matter of opportunities and choices, which we personally like or dislike.

Napísal Columna Durruti, 15.06.2013 at 13:24

Finally, I agree to the argument that players choose what they want to play, which leads to a crowding-out of games like WG (3-15k, 15-20 players, team-games, 100+, etc.) and more competitive games like 3v3 (EU++, 5-10k, 2-3min, etc.), since they are competing for audience.

An illusion exists over the freedom in choosing which games people play.
Let's follow the life of a new AW player:
Free 3 day game options pack=>
Creates scenarios/team games/extra cities maps in beginner section=>
The beginner sector isn't large enough to sustain a 15+ player game regularly=>
So they turn to unrestricted Main room to unlikely host or join a game=>
Premium runs out.

The so called Choices becomes:
1) Wait for permanent premiums to host scenario games
2) Host the next optimal map themselves (World, 50k, No Extra)

Choice 1 is entirely passive, and knowing premium members hosting scenarios, a rank restriction is frequent in place. When at peak times, the low rank would be sacrificed and kicked in country selection due to public demand.

I personally don't mind if there are only 5 players for Choice 2 because I know some high rank will steamroll it. As for audience, what I don't understand is the cute naivety that the host think people will want to join their World 50k No Extra Rank4 Host game. In regards to CD, 3v3 has no battle for audience. Its host should know well who will join. (People who practice their Europe expansions to perfection, aka someone not very low rank) It's also quite amusing knowing the irony of the snobbishness of HighRanks with their "competitive" 3v3 being identical to the snobbishness MidRanks over these "crowding out" games.

I personally find my attitude towards the 2 types being the same, both loses engagement after turn 8 with the result very much set.

Napísal Columna Durruti, 15.06.2013 at 13:24

... in the end its a matter of opportunities and choices, which we personally like or dislike.

It isn't. It is about management of a micro-society and adaptation to policy changes, being responsible in notifying and predict possible outcomes that may invoke anger. Anyone with half an hour of thinking and analysis can come to my aforementioned conclusion without breaking a sweat. This is a moan post. Its aim is to complain about accused non-cohesive behaviours by certain members of the micro-society or mechanics of the platform. It seems ridiculous to have this discussion 6 months in to the new system. Admins must have conceived of this case beforehand, in which they should have communicated (offered possibilities) and asked for opinion beforehand, instead of remaining silent or playing the "Just realised;will fix depending on priority" game. If the case that Admins didn't notice arises , I would be very disappointed and turn inclined to believe the Sun rises from the West and the Moon is made of Cheese.

NB: It is lame to mention the style of Afterwind for comparison. All things progress over time, most for better, some for worse. How much better or how much worse?

Napísal Unleashed, 15.06.2013 at 12:57

You support everything

I agree with this and support it

And who is part of old af6erwind am i??

I will always remember Grape Soda...

@ezza
Thnx for comments. I really appreciate them.
You have some good points in most of the things you stated and I support taking the position of non-premium players (which partially coincide with being low-rank players).
Just some issues that I would like to sort-out / develop:

• For some players there is a "need" for comparison between "AfterWind" and "atWar" cause they co-constructed the community that used to be AfterWind and NOT atWar. It was just a different setting, where WGs where the "wow" events. I personally do not belong to this group; that's why I don't want to diminish their "feelings" towards the changes and that some of them prefer the "old times". It is not up to me to say "it is wrong or right" or to say "get over it, things progress over time".
  
• Personally I like diversity, the map-making environment, the different (good and bad) maps/scenarios, etc. So I do feel more "homy" in the current environment.
  
• Regarding the issue that non-premium players have to beg premium-players to create (host) specific games/scenarios: I think there is still some solidarity from a group of premium-players that are very much willing to host games and scenarios, even if they leave after turn 1. Personally, I am one of these players, that have hosted games that I'm not really willing to play but people keep on asking for them. (Option 1)
  
• Yes, I agree that there is a bias against low rank players; most of the current high-rank players remeber (or should remember!) these experiences.
  
• It is not mere "snobbism" if some high rank players (and also some middle rank players) want a competitive environment. There is more behind this competitiveness of certain players. I think it is not completely fair to dismiss it as simple "snobbism"; not saying that there isn't "snobbism"!
  
• Finally. Yes, it is very much about opportunities and choices within the atWar environment; some players have more opportunities, others have less. It is not an Utopia, it is an online-game environment with its own business model and its own micro-society.

@Cpt.Mod
You are a hybrid: AfterWar...

Napísal Guest, 15.06.2013 at 17:51

Napísal Columna Durruti, 15.06.2013 at 17:47

@Cpt.Mod
You are a hybrid: AfterWar...

no...

AtWind

Or AfterWind (also known as farty)?

We both game around at the sametime xaxa i liked afterwind when i was a rank 5 use to beg people to make world games

Napísal Cpt.Magic, 16.06.2013 at 02:09

We both game around at the sametime xaxa i liked afterwind when i was a rank 5 use to beg people to make world games

You where rank 2 .... No point in making a statement.

What if there's only one world game at a time, hosted by the server that has ~10k income and 20 slots. Then there are no other world games allowed apart from private 5 slot games?

Napísal Guest, 16.06.2013 at 18:32

Napísal Cpt.Magic, 16.06.2013 at 02:09

We both game around at the sametime xaxa i liked afterwind when i was a rank 5 use to beg people to make world games

You where rank 2 .... No point in making a statement.

rank 5!

Up

Napísal SmileyFaucet, 16.06.2013 at 20:21

What if there's only one world game at a time, hosted by the server that has ~10k income and 20 slots.

Interesting solution.