Rather 2x SP week, there should be a 0% SP week for RP.

Reducing the sp generated by RPs to 0 for a week will improve the plays more than giving everybody 200%

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 11:55

Reducing the sp generated by RPs to 0 for a week will improve the plays more than giving everybody 200%

Can you provide justification for such a biased measure?

נכתב על ידי International, 03.02.2015 at 22:21

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 11:55

Reducing the sp generated by RPs to 0 for a week will improve the plays more than giving everybody 200%

Can you provide justification for such a biased measure?

RP is cancer, you can ask any decent player

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:31

RP is cancer, you can ask any decent player

So are you of the opinion that the purpose of playing online games is to become a decent player?

I beg to disagree. The purpose of playing online games is to spend time in an enjoyable way, and RP works perfectly fine to that end for many players.

נכתב על ידי International, 03.02.2015 at 22:34

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:31

RP is cancer, you can ask any decent player

So are you of the opinion that the purpose of playing online games is to become a decent player?

I beg to disagree. The purpose of playing online games is to spend time in an enjoyable way, and RP works perfectly fine to that end for many players.

If you play RP for fun, then why do you care so much about it having 0 SP?

Decent plays like me would love for RP to have 0 sp, that way rank becomes more reliable and less games are ruined

SP = Strategy Points. RP is unbalanced and involves no strategy

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

If you play RP for fun, then why do you care so much about it having 0 SP?

Why just RP? Don't you play your games for fun? So why only RP?

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

Decent plays like me would love for RP to have 0 sp, that way rank becomes more reliable and less games are ruined

SP represents, for me, the amount of experience a player has in this game. As roleplaying games are, after all, AtWar games, it should provide SP proportional to the amount of effort spent at the game. As of last October, something close to this has been achieved. If the player-base is of the opinion that role-playing maps still provides too much SP, it can be cut again to fit. Total elimination of SP gain is ridiculous.

SP is not elo. It is not intended to show how much skill a player has.

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

SP = Strategy Points. RP is unbalanced and involves no strategy

Strategy: the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle. Since wars do happen in RP games, it is very natural that those players that are more skilled at conducting it will gain an advantage. Thus, RP games can be said to involve strategy.
Whether roleplaying games are balanced or not depends on which map you play on. Some of the scenario games I see are as unbalanced as Tempted's remastered has ever been. Nobody proposes zero SP gain for those maps, do they?

Agree

נכתב על ידי International, 03.02.2015 at 23:01

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

If you play RP for fun, then why do you care so much about it having 0 SP?

Why just RP? Don't you play your games for fun? So why only RP?

SP was and should be a reliable estimate of a player's experience.
a person that become rank 10 by playing Clan wars and 3v3s will perform better in most maps compared to a person that become rank 10 by only playing RP.

נכתב על ידי International, 03.02.2015 at 23:01

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

Decent plays like me would love for RP to have 0 sp, that way rank becomes more reliable and less games are ruined

SP represents, for me, the amount of experience a player has in this game. As roleplaying games are, after all, AtWar games, it should provide SP proportional to the amount of effort spent at the game. As of last October, something close to this has been achieved. If the player-base is of the opinion that role-playing maps still provides too much SP, it can be cut again to fit. Total elimination of SP gain is ridiculous.

SP is not elo. It is not intended to show how much skill a player has.

the rank of a person that only plays RP doesn't represent his experience at all, rank 10 roleplayers have the experience of a rank 5. While a rank 10 that plays 3v3 will perform good in ANY map.

Ranks are meant to be a reliable source of information to predict how well a player is expected to perform.

נכתב על ידי International, 03.02.2015 at 23:01

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

SP = Strategy Points. RP is unbalanced and involves no strategy

Strategy: the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle. Since wars do happen in RP games, it is very natural that those players that are more skilled at conducting it will gain an advantage. Thus, RP games can be said to involve strategy.
Whether roleplaying games are balanced or not depends on which map you play on. Some of the scenario games I see are as unbalanced as Tempted's remastered has ever been. Nobody proposes zero SP gain for those maps, do they?

Ally-fagging is not strategy.
15 different types of tanks are no strategy
Marines with 4 attack and 1 defense are no strategy
All strategies disabled is no strategy.

Sorry, but moving tank stacks from point A to point B for no other reason than to take the city is no strategy.

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 23:22

SP was and should be a reliable estimate of a player's experience.
the rank of a person that only plays RP doesn't represent his experience at all, rank 10 roleplayers have the experience of a rank 5. While a rank 10 that plays 3v3 will perform good in ANY map.

Experience =/= Skill. Rank 10 role-players have the skill, as defined by the ability to compete in default world/Europe free-for-all games, of Rank 5 competitive players, but that does not mean they lack the experience. Since the October update, SP gain is pretty proportional to how much fighting you actually do, not to how rich and concentrated the map you play in is.

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 23:22

a person that become rank 10 by playing Clan wars and 3v3s will perform better in most maps compared to a person that become rank 10 by only playing RP.
Ranks are meant to be a reliable source of information to predict how well a player is expected to perform.

Ranks are, in my opinion, meant to be a reliable source of information to predict how much experience a player has. Since the October update, that has been working fairly well.

Until you can get the developers to voice what they actually intended, my opinion is as valid as yours.

נכתב על ידי Tundy, 03.02.2015 at 22:49

Sorry, but moving tank stacks from point A to point B for no other reason than to take the city is no strategy.

Strategy: the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.
By that definition, pulled off the New Oxford American Dictionary, moving tank stacks from point A to point B does indeed constitute strategy.

After all, every AtWar game revolves around moving your units to take opponent cities or to destroy/distract enemy units. If moving stacks of units from point A to point B to take cities does not constitute strategy, then no AtWar game can be considered strategic.

Quality thread