Remove or configure SP multiplier.

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 18.10.2014 at 23:12

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 18.10.2014 at 23:11

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 18.10.2014 at 23:09

Thats bullshit no such tuings as a 10k rp, they only play 50k rp sp farm end of story, your argument is invalid kill yourself.

You had never played RP so who cares. Just picking Russia: Central cost 20k or somenthing like this. Same with Saint Petesburg.

Guess what: You already have less than 10k and still 2 more countries for pick. Please avoid talking if you had never played the map or else I ignore your posts like I was doing. Thanks

50k - 20k = 30k are you retarded?

He is

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 18.10.2014 at 23:04

And who are those players? probably people that had NEVER played RP on their life. The units are expensives, and the countries are costly. You obvious dont start with more than 10k funds.

I have played RP before, i played RP for 2 days in a row, guess who was in the top SP of the week? Me, i got 15k+ per game. a total of 2 games = 30k+
Could have easily played 10 RPs in 1 week and have a total of 150k. It would take me 2 weeks to go from rank 10 to 11. and 3 weeks to go from rank 11 to 12.

clovis... if they truly love playing rp or any of the other custom maps they wont care about sp and play it anyway. All high city density maps like rp and atlas needed to have their sp cut.

of all the maps on aw, the default map received the most attention and balancing in relation to the strategies. Atwar was built around that map. There is no other map you can name that has received as much attention. If this sp modifier is used to encourage gameplay on it, it will only be a good thing, both for the game and for the quality of the players that will learn atwar on it. It will not be an act of bias or favouritism, simply a promotion of the focal point of atwar.

edit: i should also add, this change will truly highlight what it exactly is that makes rp so popular, is it really a fun and enjoyable map? or was it just a time burner for sp hungry low ranks.

Wr1tt3n by Permamuted, 18.10.2014 at 23:17

edit: i should also add, this change will truly highlight what it exactly is that makes rp so popular, is it really a fun and enjoyable map? or was it just a time burner for sp hungry low ranks.

SP cut sure, but 50%? no.

I dont know what call them to RP, but probably:

•) The HUGE amount of troops.
•) The diplomarcy.
•) The strong and somewhat realist unit + income combination.

The fact that they dont get kicked as much as in 3vs3 can be taken into consideration, but that is not the topic now.

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 19.10.2014 at 00:17

Wr1tt3n by Permamuted, 18.10.2014 at 23:17

edit: i should also add, this change will truly highlight what it exactly is that makes rp so popular, is it really a fun and enjoyable map? or was it just a time burner for sp hungry low ranks.

SP cut sure, but 50%? no.

I dont know what call them to RP, but probably:

•) The HUGE amount of troops.
•) The diplomarcy.
•) The strong and somewhat realist unit + income combination.

The fact that they dont get kicked as much as in 3vs3 can be taken into consideration, but that is not the topic now.

they call it "RP" because you are suppose to Gang-bang people that know how to properly expand . thats the only Roleplay element in RP. lol

>Unbalanced cities
>Faggotry
>Map maker gives irrational amount of income to cities so he had to add super inflated and unbalanced unit costs and stats

Units are so realistic, that a team of Seals has the same defense as child soldiers. so realistic, it deserves a clap

Support : leave the noobs on their own . I just don't see the problem of earning high sp of RP gamers. Most rank 9 plus good 3 v 3 gamers won't even bother about RPs anyway. But this change will cause noobs(especially r5) who like the entertainment of RPs to leave the game altogether.

Just let people play what they want.

All I played was RP's basically, not because I farm them (I am really bad at them ) But because of how much fun they were!

I completely support the idea of changing how the new SP system works. The SP of RP shouldn't be reduced by 50%, but more like 75%.

There should be no need to increase SP for random maps which the mods deem 'worthy'. That is the worst idea, because now won't people flock to Europe 3v3 and maps alike to Farm Sp? 150%????

It should be made, so all maps are equal, not so one is more then the other.

Most people who play RP openly admit that they only play it for the sp it's a well known fact, have you seen the end of a RP? people will often deilliberately suicide thousands of units just for the sp before asking for ally end. true countries in rp cost alot but so what? the sheer income amounts are insane and again if you play or watch a rp you'll see ppl by turn 10-20 with 5k units and over 100k gold still, of course a map like that should be nerfed, and for the small number of rp players who don't play it for the sp as many people have said the map is still there for them to play

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 18.10.2014 at 23:11

Wr1tt3n by Helly, 18.10.2014 at 23:09

Thats bullshit no such tuings as a 10k rp, they only play 50k rp sp farm end of story, your argument is invalid kill yourself.

You had never played RP so who cares. Just picking Russia: Central cost 20k or somenthing like this. Same with Saint Petesburg.

Guess what: You already have less than 10k and still 2 more countries for pick. Please avoid talking if you had never played the map or else I ignore your posts like I was doing. Thanks

Stop your bullshit. Central + a few Siberian provinces = united Russia in 1 turn and still rich. I commonly see stronk Russias who do this.

Full USA: 5-10k a turn.

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 19.10.2014 at 00:17

Wr1tt3n by Permamuted, 18.10.2014 at 23:17

edit: i should also add, this change will truly highlight what it exactly is that makes rp so popular, is it really a fun and enjoyable map? or was it just a time burner for sp hungry low ranks.

SP cut sure, but 50%? no.

I dont know what call them to RP, but probably:

•) The HUGE amount of troops.
•) The diplomarcy.
•) The strong and somewhat realist unit + income combination.

The fact that they dont get kicked as much as in 3vs3 can be taken into consideration, but that is not the topic now.

Huge amount of troops? Works against you man.

The starting money should be a multiplier too. You dont need experience, skill and the right strategy to handle your enemies. nowadays you just need tons of reinforcements...in case of emergency with some "allyfags"

in my opinion:
starting funds -> miltiplier
50k -> 80%
25k -> 90%
15k -> 97%
10k -> 100%
5k -> 105%
3k -> 110%

By the gods, why the fuck does ancient world have Sp Multiplier 75% WHY THE FUCK IS IT DECREASED?! IT'S NOT EVEN ROLEPLAY. DEAR LORD IF YOU HAVE ANY PITY ON ME AND THIS PURE AND HEAVENLY MAP, I Suggest you find and hunt those evil people who set the sp multiplier to 75%.

Wr1tt3n by Killingforfun, 19.10.2014 at 06:43

By the gods, why the fuck does ancient world have Sp Multiplier 75% WHY THE FUCK IS IT DECREASED?! IT'S NOT EVEN ROLEPLAY. DEAR LORD IF YOU HAVE ANY PITY ON ME AND THIS PURE AND HEAVENLY MAP, I Suggest you find and hunt those evil people who set the sp multiplier to 75%.

I don't know who, but it heavily dense map. you can play IF lol, no wondered IF is power in ancient map

If you cant deal with IF Infantry spamming kids, just use archers sheesh. THEN AGAIN! REVERT IT BACK TO 100%

OK, on a serious note!

In order to maintain/regain some meaning to the SP system and the ranks related to it, there had to be some intervention in the form certain maps are delivering SPs to players. It simply can't be that a player ranks from 0-10 in 4-5 months. Players that don't play RP/WG50k/UN need much more time to rank up than RP players. Thus, the SP system has completely lost its meaning.
What could be done about this? There were 3 options: (1) shit on the whole SP system (and the upgrades related to it), (2) delete the SP boosted maps and scenarios or (3) find a way to implement SP justice to the maps. Admins, Mods and active members of the community chose the third way!
The problem is, that in this selfish belly button oriented community RP players forget that they have lived at the expense of other players that rank up the hard way and map-makers that see their maps disappear in the wishlist of the community.

@Epic_win:
We are not doing harm to RP we are removing the harm RP (and UN and WG50k) were doing to the community.
Like I said before, playing RP is like having a cheat for a game: very fast the player will loose interest in the game and will move on. This is bad for the AW community; this will make players leave the game.

Wr1tt3n by Columna Durruti, 19.10.2014 at 07:22

OK, on a serious note!

In order to maintain/regain some meaning to the SP system and the ranks related to it, there had to be some intervention in the form certain maps are delivering SPs to players. It simply can't be that a player ranks from 0-10 in 4-5 months. Players that don't play RP/WG50k/UN need much more time to rank up than RP players. Thus, the SP system has completely lost its meaning.
What could be done about this? There were 3 options: (1) shit on the whole SP system (and the upgrades related to it), (2) delete the SP boosted maps and scenarios or (3) find a way to implement SP justice to the maps. Admins, Mods and active members of the community chose the third way!
The problem is, that in this selfish belly button oriented community RP players forget that they have lived at the expense of other players that rank up the hard way and map-makers that see their maps disappear in the wishlist of the community.

@Epic_win:
We are not doing harm to RP we are removing the harm RP (and UN and WG50k) were doing to the community.
Like I said before, playing RP is like having a cheat for a game: very fast the player will loose interest in the game and will move on. This is bad for the AW community; this will make players leave the game.

where are the disadvantages for WG50k?
or is this update just the first step ?

I am conflicted on this issue, on the one hand I see the frustration players that rank up through traditional means have, on the other hand I see a degree of hypocrisy. Some high rank 'competitive' players have benefited from the double SP that comes with constant Clan Warring and ranked up much quicker than I personally did, so in the same way they are farming no? It is dangerous territory to assume that one way of playing AtWar is more important than another,

Bringing in and retaining players should be the overall objective and anything that stops someone playing is bad in my opinion. Nonetheless the SP modifier IS a great addition, some maps are clearly overpopulated with troops/extra generals etc etc and do need to be nerfed in the SP gains they give, I just think this obsession with RP misses the point considering from what I have seen the RP games are long and turn wise don't give that much over constant cwing and dueling.

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 04:17

The starting money should be a multiplier too. You dont need experience, skill and the right strategy to handle your enemies. nowadays you just need tons of reinforcements...in case of emergency with some "allyfags"

in my opinion:
starting funds -> miltiplier
50k -> 80%
25k -> 90%
15k -> 97%
10k -> 100%
5k -> 105%
3k -> 110%

god no, huge sp from long games has nothing to do with starting funds, its to do with high country/city densities. This should be the criteria judged upon when setting the multiplier.

Nice ancient world 75 % lol ..... how much GGG have ?
thx to trollface for constructive aproach to this matter.

Wr1tt3n by Ferlucci1389, 19.10.2014 at 09:14

Nice ancient world 75 % lol ..... how much GGG have ?
thx to trollface for constructive aproach to this matter.

Lel it's almost certainly stay at 50 percent.

Wr1tt3n by Columna Durruti, 19.10.2014 at 07:22

OK, on a serious note!

In order to maintain/regain some meaning to the SP system and the ranks related to it, there had to be some intervention in the form certain maps are delivering SPs to players. It simply can't be that a player ranks from 0-10 in 4-5 months. Players that don't play RP/WG50k/UN need much more time to rank up than RP players. Thus, the SP system has completely lost its meaning.
What could be done about this? There were 3 options: (1) shit on the whole SP system (and the upgrades related to it), (2) delete the SP boosted maps and scenarios or (3) find a way to implement SP justice to the maps. Admins, Mods and active members of the community chose the third way!
The problem is, that in this selfish belly button oriented community RP players forget that they have lived at the expense of other players that rank up the hard way and map-makers that see their maps disappear in the wishlist of the community.

@Epic_win:
We are not doing harm to RP we are removing the harm RP (and UN and WG50k) were doing to the community.
Like I said before, playing RP is like having a cheat for a game: very fast the player will loose interest in the game and will move on. This is bad for the AW community; this will make players leave the game.

There are more options, Columna.

I pointed out from the start that this SP multiplier can be used for downgrade a map and support other map. Now that desu say the feature wont be used for boost ANY KIND OF GAMEPLAY ON EU+, we still need to deal with the other maps.

SP cut? yes. The map have too much reinf. But 50% ? no. This is damanging the map

I had played less than 5 RP in my lifes, and probably 90% of my games are 3vs3 or Duels. But still, I am against ANY KIND OF ABUSE. You say the RP harm the community because they earn more SP? well but:

•) Play RP mean you wont join a competitive clan. Even evoL that usually accept everybody, have one condition: Dont play RP. While the competitive players say that in RP you dont learn any kind of skills, they also block the way for RP players to join a clan and learn to play.

•) RP players get constantly kicked from 3vs3. The competitive players dont even give them the opportunity to learn.

•) Competitive players usually discriminate the RP community. In this post you can see how they are all calling RP a bad map ( in other flaming words of couse) and discriminating it.

•) Answer the next two question, and you will see how this was made by only one group of players:

1. After the SP multiplier feature, did the Mods warned the creator to reduce the number of troops? Or they just put it 50% without any advise?

2. Was there any agreement between the Mods and the RP players before the Mods put arbitrary the 50%?

And finally, Even though Desu say, and I recall, this feature wont be used for boost one map against others, there is no difference at all if you let 3vs3 in 100% but reduce the other maps to ~70%. Some popular maps like Ancient has been nerfed. Answer the two last question for this map too please.

Wr1tt3n by Forensic_Dragon, 19.10.2014 at 02:51

I completely support the idea of changing how the new SP system works. The SP of RP shouldn't be reduced by 50%, but more like 75%.

Yeah, 75% can be a good way for start. After it we can see how it goes.

I find it kind of hypocrital that now that we have awesome borders and in AtWar we can make cool maps, some players want to reduce this to Afterwind. Nice fall-back.

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 19.10.2014 at 10:09

I find it kind of hypocrital that now that we have awesome borders and in AtWar we can make cool maps, some players want to reduce this to Afterwind. Nice fall-back.

Stop
That statement is so stupid, that you deserve a forum ban.


Facts:
RP has the worst borders in atwar, all map makers agree.
RP steals players from other maps due to the dumb-down mechanics and easy SP
Most RP players play RP for the sp, they could careless about roleplaying.

Statement:
Roleplayers have always said that they don't play RP for the SP, but if that is true then why the fuck are they bitching when the SP got nerfed?

I've played enough RPs to confirm 50% is just fine.

Much agree RP should give 100% sp

RPs did not have a voice any of this only so call Pro players

no SP reduction with out representation!!!!

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 19.10.2014 at 10:09

Wr1tt3n by Columna Durruti, 19.10.2014 at 07:22

OK, on a serious note!

In order to maintain/regain some meaning to the SP system and the ranks related to it, there had to be some intervention in the form certain maps are delivering SPs to players. It simply can't be that a player ranks from 0-10 in 4-5 months. Players that don't play RP/WG50k/UN need much more time to rank up than RP players. Thus, the SP system has completely lost its meaning.
What could be done about this? There were 3 options: (1) shit on the whole SP system (and the upgrades related to it), (2) delete the SP boosted maps and scenarios or (3) find a way to implement SP justice to the maps. Admins, Mods and active members of the community chose the third way!
The problem is, that in this selfish belly button oriented community RP players forget that they have lived at the expense of other players that rank up the hard way and map-makers that see their maps disappear in the wishlist of the community.

@Epic_win:
We are not doing harm to RP we are removing the harm RP (and UN and WG50k) were doing to the community.
Like I said before, playing RP is like having a cheat for a game: very fast the player will loose interest in the game and will move on. This is bad for the AW community; this will make players leave the game.

There are more options, Columna.

I pointed out from the start that this SP multiplier can be used for downgrade a map and support other map. Now that desu say the feature wont be used for boost ANY KIND OF GAMEPLAY ON EU+, we still need to deal with the other maps.

SP cut? yes. The map have too much reinf. But 50% ? no. This is damanging the map

I had played less than 5 RP in my lifes, and probably 90% of my games are 3vs3 or Duels. But still, I am against ANY KIND OF ABUSE. You say the RP harm the community because they earn more SP? well but:

•) Play RP mean you wont join a competitive clan. Even evoL that usually accept everybody, have one condition: Dont play RP. While the competitive players say that in RP you dont learn any kind of skills, they also block the way for RP players to join a clan and learn to play.

•) RP players get constantly kicked from 3vs3. The competitive players dont even give them the opportunity to learn.

•) Competitive players usually discriminate the RP community. In this post you can see how they are all calling RP a bad map ( in other flaming words of couse) and discriminating it.

•) Answer the next two question, and you will see how this was made by only one group of players:

1. After the SP multiplier feature, did the Mods warned the creator to reduce the number of troops? Or they just put it 50% without any advise?

2. Was there any agreement between the Mods and the RP players before the Mods put arbitrary the 50%?

And finally, Even though Desu say, and I recall, this feature wont be used for boost one map against others, there is no difference at all if you let 3vs3 in 100% but reduce the other maps to ~70%. Some popular maps like Ancient has been nerfed. Answer the two last question for this map too please.

Wr1tt3n by Forensic_Dragon, 19.10.2014 at 02:51

I completely support the idea of changing how the new SP system works. The SP of RP shouldn't be reduced by 50%, but more like 75%.

Yeah, 75% can be a good way for start. After it we can see how it goes.

I find it kind of hypocrital that now that we have awesome borders and in AtWar we can make cool maps, some players want to reduce this to Afterwind. Nice fall-back.

whats your problem?

i see currently 3 RP à 20 players in the lobby. i think thats enough for a map

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 13:54

whats your problem?

i see currently 3 RP à 20 players in the lobby. i think thats enough for a map

The problem is that if this heavy 50% keep going, the map will dry. Those players will stop playing eventually.

Update : the fourth has started

i dont think that rp will die because of this update

Wr1tt3n by clovis1122, 19.10.2014 at 13:58

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 13:54

whats your problem?

i see currently 3 RP à 20 players in the lobby. i think thats enough for a map

The problem is that if this heavy 50% keep going, the map will dry. Those players will stop playing eventually.

If they stop playing RP due to 50% sp, then it proves that people only played it to get easy SP.

Wr1tt3n by Permamuted, 19.10.2014 at 08:50

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 04:17

The starting money should be a multiplier too. You dont need experience, skill and the right strategy to handle your enemies. nowadays you just need tons of reinforcements...in case of emergency with some "allyfags"

in my opinion:
starting funds -> miltiplier
50k -> 80%
25k -> 90%
15k -> 97%
10k -> 100%
5k -> 105%
3k -> 110%

god no, huge sp from long games has nothing to do with starting funds, its to do with high country/city densities. This should be the criteria judged upon when setting the multiplier.

i can easy build 1000 units with 50k starting funds. so why should be the high country/city density a criteria but the starting funds not?
There should be a secound multiplier. One for the map and one for the starting funds.

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 14:29

Wr1tt3n by Permamuted, 19.10.2014 at 08:50

Wr1tt3n by Lemonade, 19.10.2014 at 04:17

The starting money should be a multiplier too. You dont need experience, skill and the right strategy to handle your enemies. nowadays you just need tons of reinforcements...in case of emergency with some "allyfags"

in my opinion:
starting funds -> miltiplier
50k -> 80%
25k -> 90%
15k -> 97%
10k -> 100%
5k -> 105%
3k -> 110%

god no, huge sp from long games has nothing to do with starting funds, its to do with high country/city densities. This should be the criteria judged upon when setting the multiplier.

i can easy build 1000 units with 50k starting funds. so why should be the high country/city density a criteria but the starting funds not?
There should be a secound multiplier. One for the map and one for the starting funds.

im not sure on the exact numbers, but the sp gain from burning troops is significantly less than the sp gain for capping enemy countries. It should be all about country and city density when deciding on the sp multipliers, city density links to available reinforcements and potential troop counts.

Anyway starting funds have little to do with troop numbers, you can build several k troops on 3k too, it just takes longer.