הודעות שבהן אני מצוטט

Because 0-4 is considered beginner, 5-8 is considered mid, and 9-13 is considered pro.

Here's something that came to mind. If a player sets up a private game and wants his low rank friend to join, will the low rank be able to play the private game in the main?

If he can't then you should probably adjust the settings to let any rank join a private game regardless of which room it's in.

So since this program has so much support, lets make an official thread.

WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS HOW MUCH I LOVE YOU RIGHT NOW.

Xboxkiller won.

gg bro.

If the match results in a draw, will the players need to rematch or will person with highest SP move on?

LOL. 'Desu You Lose'

Haha, congratz!

YES!

I'm in.

When you guys make the beginner room rank 0-5 can you guys also set a minimum rank limit to say 4 or 5 to play in the main? This will benefit everybody. Nobody will be using alts to make scenarios in the main room. Lower ranks who want to play scenarios in the beginner room will have to buy premium instead of asking for scenarios in the main. And since not that many people will want to buy premium just to play scenarios, it will result in a lot less scenarios being played by ranks 0-5 so they will play more EU+ and world map games so they learn the fundamentals of how to play atwar.

I don't understand why people care about win/lose when we have elo and duels.

The admins are not at fault for the decline of atwar.

We are.

I see so many high ranks shaking their little fists at the admins and complaining about the lack of players of 3v3 and 1v1 games. Well who's fucking fault is that? I see 3-5 people who host public 3v3 daily. These 3v3 are for rank 6+, 7+, and some even 8+. This is ridiculous. You are blocking out the ranks 3-5 who are the future generation of atwar from playing the competitive maps. Do you expect them to be some genius of atwar when they reach rank 6-8? Why hold out the lower ranks from learning how to play the competitive map? Whether they're a rank 4 or rank 8 the player will play just the same if he hasn't been exposed to the competitive map.

Also notice how I said '3-5 people host 3v3 daily.' This is why scenarios get so many more players. They are hosted much more often and have no rank limits. We have so many premium members that have posted here with a concern about the future of atwar. Yet I see none of them host 3v3 for anybody to enjoy. Don't be a baby who gathers his toys and goes home. 'Oh boohoo the community plays UN more than 3v3. Im just gonna sit on my ass and cry about it.' Be a man and do something. Host a 3v3 for all ranks and guide the noobs on how to expand and fight. Invite the low ranks to your clan and train them. You don't have to play the game to train a player. Any high rank can spectate and give advice to players.

Stop with the hate comments such as 'what a noob' 'you suck' 'I can't tell who is worse.' Be encouraging. You don't have to be their friend but at least give them the occasional 'good job! Keep trying!' A comment like that from a rank 9 will mean the world to a rank 4.

Don't just comment 'support' in the comments. If you're reading, go to the lobby and start a 3v3 and start helping low ranks learn the game. If we had every premium member who posted on the forums this week bitching about the lack of competitiveness host 3v3 a day to train lower ranks, a new breed of competitive players will be born. We can do this. We can save atwar! But it requires an effort from us all.

What I find ironic is that everybody here wants lower ranks to play in the more competitive 3v3 EU+ extra cities map, but anytime a 3v3 appears it's always rank 7+ or rank 6+. If you want lower ranks to play the map, don't set a rank limit that high.

I PM'd both admins at the same time about an issue I had once. I got a PM from both of them within 24 hours.

Now I don't know how many people send the admins a PM everybody, but if they had the time to reply to me directly, why don't they reply in a thread that specifically calls them out? I don't understand it.

I agree with everything you said cacao.

Except for the minimum requirement for scenarios. Rank 4 is technically what rank people start playing scenarios at. Both of the pics I posted were within a minute of each other. Ranks 0-3 don't play scenarios much. When they do it's maybe 4 people and they treat the scenario as a different world map and still battle/expand as they would in a default map. Rank 6 at least should be the minimum.

You know what I would like to see?

A single fricken 3v3 that isn't for rank 7+.

That would be nice.

Exactly my point. Scenarios only fill when ranks 2,3,4,5,6 join. Those ranks should be in EU+ or world games or custom maps learning the fundamentals of atwar that will prepare them to be a competitive player.

I played straight EU+ and world games with the exception of a couple GoT up until rank 5. Then I played UN for two weeks and stopped immediately after those two weeks and played EU+ until I reached rank 6. I've only been a competitive player for a month now. But it was easy to become one and adapt to the extra cities after playing so many EU+ games.

evoL CW'd another clan yesterday and I had to sit out so a rank 8 could play because they were suspected of using a rank 8 alt. Spart confirmed this during the CW and the alt admitted to it. This alt of a rank 8 spammed inf in his own country creating a series of noobish walls and his expansion was sending 5 inf to Belgium. I had to sit the CW out because this 'rank 8' was playing. I mean really..

So where's the mod to explain that 'Our admins are working very hard to resolve this issue.' and that 'We're doing our best to make this a great community.'

Honestly, it's like bitching to a big cooperation. But at least the big cooperation gives you free coupons.

Here's the beginner room:



And here is our room:



4 scenarios in the first page alone.

The solution is clear. Put a permanent rank 7 minimum rank on scenarios and make EU+ 10k extra cities as a map anyone can use.

I hate the fact that 3v3 and CWs are full of the same people. It's not like it's the same 6 people every time, but it's a variation of the same 15-20 people. I also hate the fact that there are very few competitive people in my rank these days. I can only name a handful of rank 6s that actually know what they're doing in a 3v3. I have no issue playing with higher ranks, but it would be nice if every once in a while I could play a competitive person in my rank who knows how to play.

The problem with separating ranks for tourneys is that there are noobs and pros hidden away in each rank 8 and under. Wouldn't be a problem if everybody would stop farming in scenarios and if players would actually challenge themselves and fight stronger players.

Tac and wind would dominate in this tourney (rank 4 and 5 players) even though it's for ranks 5 and under because they're always playing 3v3 and 1v1 in EU+ 100 cities with ranks 6+. I'd be down for a tourney to fight ranks 6+. I don't want a handicap for me when I play in a tourney. So lets get the junior tourney going and someone start a tourney for ranks 6+.

Support.

נכתב על ידי Permamuted, 25.09.2013 at 11:23

Personally i think ds requires a price nerf to the helicopters, say -10. while the infantry bonus is great vs normal strats, with pd it really isnt. pd infantry in a city/defense line with a general have 10 defense, 8 vs helis. which equals the helis attack but helis cost over 2.5 times that of infantry.

having used ds in 3v3s vs good pd players, it really is not a great counter vs that strat.

some might say im using it incorrectly etc, but im curious as to what others think about this?

I think the fact that helicopters can act as a transport for marines is why the price is the way it is.

Since we're talking about how things appear in the lobby here, I want to throw in something else in this thread rather than start a new one.

It would be nice if more details about the game would be shown when you hover over the game in the lobby. I hate having to load a bunch of maps that take 1-4 minutes to load just to find out if the game has certain things enabled/disabled.

What about this: Setting a some form of requirement to join a scenario game. Like 'play at least 100 games to join this game' or have a permanent minimum rank to join scenarios that you cannot change.

Well, good luck with that.

Here's the way it was going in my mind.

We attack a country that isn't our opponent. We take that country's money, people, and we kill off that country's army. So if another country bombed all the military inside that country that the person took, why would that country still pledge it's allegiance to the country who ran them over?

When you attack an opponent's country and all your land units are destroyed as well as your opponent's entire stack that was in that country, I don't think the opponent should get to keep that country. Obviously, if the person attacking the country has no land units left, he doesn't deserve it either. But what if the country went neutral when there are 0 units left after a battle in the country/city?

Thoughts?

This happened in a 3v3 with me. To my advantage though

What if they're using lucky bastard?

I love the idea of Trench Warfare. Really adds a whole new dimension to the game and I hope a lot of other maps take after yours. Trenches was a genius idea.

I've had this problem too.