Alright, so there have been many, many, many complaints about UN games, and SP farming in general lately. The argument is that UN games are rotting the community into SP-farming ninnies and COD-esque kiddies. I can vouch for this, though I don't believe it to be the actual UN games, but moreso the mentality of players. Greed != Fun. But, as humans go, we tend to be greedy fucks who like to ruin other people's times. With that being said, I propose this to remedy any sort of rifts felt within the community, between Casual and Competitive players alike:
Ranked (¶): "Competitive" matches. There would be a tick-box option for Ranked when creating a game. Once in a Ranked match, you may not Abandon the game, only surrender. Sp is gained in these matches (Also, to possibly make up for less Ranked matches being played by the community, SP is multiplied by 1.5 from what it is now, to balance out the lack of SP gain in introducing games without SP).
Unranked (§): "Fun" matches. When creating a game, they are Unranked by default. Abandoning the game is an option. No SP is gained.
--
The lobbies would be split into two halves: One half as ranked, and colour-coded Red, the other half unranked, colour-coded blue.
This still carries the same problem. You're giving them the option to still play UN.
See the problem isn't the setting, position, etc. It's the UN game itself that presents the problem. This would be a much better solution if there were a rank limit for "Ranked". Then, that means someone would have to actually earn SP in a more legitimate way in order to even be able to play UN.
Otherwise, all you're doing is offering people 2 choices:
Earn SP from noob UN farms.
or
Don't earn SP from noob UN farms.
People will always* pick the former.
----
"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
This still carries the same problem. You're giving them the option to still play UN.
See the problem isn't the setting, position, etc. It's the UN game itself that presents the problem. This would be a much better solution if there were a rank limit for "Ranked". Then, that means someone would have to actually earn SP in a more legitimate way in order to even be able to play UN.
Otherwise, all you're doing is offering people 2 choices:
Earn SP from noob UN farms.
or
Don't earn SP from noob UN farms.
People will always* pick the former.
Most people that play atwar play senarios if u stop people from playing what they want guess what they QUIT
This still carries the same problem. You're giving them the option to still play UN.
See the problem isn't the setting, position, etc. It's the UN game itself that presents the problem. This would be a much better solution if there were a rank limit for "Ranked". Then, that means someone would have to actually earn SP in a more legitimate way in order to even be able to play UN.
Otherwise, all you're doing is offering people 2 choices:
Earn SP from noob UN farms.
or
Don't earn SP from noob UN farms.
People will always* pick the former.
I know many, many people who would no longer play UN if they did not make any SP in doing so. Hypothetically, that takes away 25% of UN's audience. You cannot just go Grand Inquisition on UN/RP games, simply because people enjoy them. I still do not understand why the "strategical" side of them is deemed unsatisfying and retarded by you and others alike, as Competitive strategy is just as relentlessly bothersome and unthoughtful. It takes maybe, 5-10 minutes to learn how to wall your cities, Turnblock, Wallfuck, etc. It takes maybe an hour to learn the basics of a strategy. Maybe you should stop complaining, and start teaching new players how to be a better player. UN games could also start employing these tactics as well, to ensure your precious community doesn't enjoy what it wishes to.
This still carries the same problem. You're giving them the option to still play UN.
See the problem isn't the setting, position, etc. It's the UN game itself that presents the problem. This would be a much better solution if there were a rank limit for "Ranked". Then, that means someone would have to actually earn SP in a more legitimate way in order to even be able to play UN.
Otherwise, all you're doing is offering people 2 choices:
Earn SP from noob UN farms.
or
Don't earn SP from noob UN farms.
People will always* pick the former.
I know many, many people who would no longer play UN if they did not make any SP in doing so. Hypothetically, that takes away 25% of UN's audience. You cannot just go Grand Inquisition on UN/RP games, simply because people enjoy them. I still do not understand why the "strategical" side of them is deemed unsatisfying and retarded by you and others alike, as Competitive strategy is just as relentlessly bothersome and unthoughtful. It takes maybe, 5-10 minutes to learn how to wall your cities, Turnblock, Wallfuck, etc. It takes maybe an hour to learn the basics of a strategy. Maybe you should stop complaining, and start teaching new players how to be a better player. UN games could also start employing these tactics as well, to ensure your precious community doesn't enjoy what it wishes to.
UNs promote people sitting on their ass waiting for other people to LITERALLY THROW OVER POWERED AMOUNTS OF UNITS THAT THEY DID NOTHING TO EARN AT A RANDOM, SMALL, SINGLE ENEMY, and then they jump in and GANG BANG the ONE enemy.
THAT is OPPOSITE the spirit of STRATEGY.
UNs don't need an audience. They need to be cut down to size. The rest of the community has other much more valuable games to be playing.
This isn't solving anything at all. The very reason UNs need a solution is because of it's extreme popularity with low ranks causing them not to even bother playing ANYTHING else.
UNs need to be cut down to size. End of story.
----
"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one"
UNs promote people sitting on their ass waiting for other people to LITERALLY THROW OVER POWERED AMOUNTS OF UNITS THAT THEY DID NOTHING TO EARN AT A RANDOM, SMALL, SINGLE ENEMY, and then they jump in and GANG BANG the ONE enemy.
THAT is OPPOSITE the spirit of STRATEGY.
UNs don't need an audience. They need to be cut down to size. The rest of the community has other much more valuable games to be playing.
This isn't solving anything at all. The very reason UNs need a solution is because of it's extreme popularity with low ranks causing them not to even bother playing ANYTHING else.
UNs need to be cut down to size. End of story.
But I'm pretty sure even the most decorated conquerors in history used the gangbang tactic!
On a serious note, you can't devalue something by an opinion. Instead, you should be persuading low-ranks to play other matches, or teaching them yourself.
Oh god. You guys really want a vacation from the forums, don't you?
wait, so now we can't even suggets solutions?!
You guys can discuss solutions and questions all you want, I just don't wanna see anyone calling someone else a faggot over it. V wanted me to tell you guys that he went for a little trip and will be away from the forums for a while.
Alright, so there have been many, many, many complaints about UN games, and SP farming in general lately. The argument is that UN games are rotting the community into SP-farming ninnies and COD-esque kiddies. I can vouch for this, though I don't believe it to be the actual UN games, but moreso the mentality of players. Greed != Fun. But, as humans go, we tend to be greedy fucks who like to ruin other people's times. With that being said, I propose this to remedy any sort of rifts felt within the community, between Casual and Competitive players alike:
Ranked (¶): "Competitive" matches. There would be a tick-box option for Ranked when creating a game. Once in a Ranked match, you may not Abandon the game, only surrender. Sp is gained in these matches (Also, to possibly make up for less Ranked matches being played by the community, SP is multiplied by 1.5 from what it is now, to balance out the lack of SP gain in introducing games without SP).
Unranked (§): "Fun" matches. When creating a game, they are Unranked by default. Abandoning the game is an option. No SP is gained.
--
The lobbies would be split into two halves: One half as ranked, and colour-coded Red, the other half unranked, colour-coded blue.
Then wouldn't they just tick the UN games as "competitive"? They would just end up playing UN games as "competitive" and make even more SP.
Alright, so there have been many, many, many complaints about UN games, and SP farming in general lately. The argument is that UN games are rotting the community into SP-farming ninnies and COD-esque kiddies. I can vouch for this, though I don't believe it to be the actual UN games, but moreso the mentality of players. Greed != Fun. But, as humans go, we tend to be greedy fucks who like to ruin other people's times. With that being said, I propose this to remedy any sort of rifts felt within the community, between Casual and Competitive players alike:
Ranked (¶): "Competitive" matches. There would be a tick-box option for Ranked when creating a game. Once in a Ranked match, you may not Abandon the game, only surrender. Sp is gained in these matches (Also, to possibly make up for less Ranked matches being played by the community, SP is multiplied by 1.5 from what it is now, to balance out the lack of SP gain in introducing games without SP).
Unranked (§): "Fun" matches. When creating a game, they are Unranked by default. Abandoning the game is an option. No SP is gained.
--
The lobbies would be split into two halves: One half as ranked, and colour-coded Red, the other half unranked, colour-coded blue.
Then wouldn't they just tick the UN games as "competitive"? They would just end up playing UN games as "competitive" and make even more SP.
Guess I should've mentioned that games would be monitored, and if any scenario is found to be non-competitive, moderators could disallow them being ranked.
