پست هایی که من به آنها جواب داده ام

Good Luck

نوشتع شده توسط The Taliban, 12.10.2013 at 09:23

what about you 2 learn how to play?

Sigh..

A piece of this community needs humility.
And admins cant implement this.

Yes.

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 11.10.2013 at 14:50

To all of you saying ...what if my ally this, what if my ally that? That is the point of permanent alliance ...ally people you trust, send peace offers to others.
All of you saying things about the diplomacy lacking options ...well you are probably damn UN players or something, but again THE DAMN PEACE OFFER OPTION.
So peace offer options finaly having some meaning, betraying basicly none existant, so no more frustration about that, and ally faging being worthless ....well i can see why so many would be against this.

Goblin

This.
"Strategic diplomacy"?
Exists the "Peace" way.

I think that having permanent allies makes the choise of an ally more strategical. And forward-looking.

Full support.

I suggest SP % reduction for every ally after the first and a money penalty for every alliance breakup.

Because elo and duels are optionals.
Win/loss ratio no.
And who cares win/lose usually doesn't care elo and duels.

نوشتع شده توسط Ivan, 30.09.2013 at 11:51

[...] it's just one number in the profile [...]

It's a number that is held dear by many (including myself).

As of today, I believe the "Abandon" is being improperly used and the most clear consequence is that the choice of abandoning a match is often made light-heartedly, without any loss, while players who keep playing are the ones who lose.

There have been many suggestions, much more drastic, that I believe might have excessive consequences.
I believe removing the Abandon is an intermediate step that may at least make leavers think twice about joining a match just to abandon it because a UN game starts.

Also win/loss ratio would be truer than they are now - mine certainly would - .


Sorry for my bad english.

نوشتع شده توسط Morbo, 28.09.2013 at 17:03

About leavers.

I'd start signing in "lose" every quit.
I think "Surrending" must be the only quit option.

Cancel "Abandon".

About leavers.

I'd start signing in "lose" every quit.
I think "Surrending" must be the only quit option.

Yes :°)

SM has a more fast expansion thx to his high range.
And if it needs can make big stack of militia using his best transports, to protect his weak places.

DS suffers from bombers that are usable by all strategies.
I think it requires a price nerf and/or a transport capacity boost.

If u need, I can help with Italian (:

نوشتع شده توسط Goblin, 17.05.2013 at 12:24

I don't think alliances should be limited, but because of the way people use them just to betray later on i think alliances should be permanent.

It would make players less eager to ally and peace offers would finaly have some meaning.

Support this.

Hi (:

What's the right way to use gw militia?
I usually produce them only in my capital to defend it, and to take other little cities but I feel like I'm missing something..

نقل قول:

In addition to having a cool signature, you will also get 1 SP for every person who sees it (AW forum won't count).

:°)