To clear up player opinions on the new battle system

The poll in the Feedback Polls forum had some confusing options (imo). This is just to see a straight up or down vote on which of the battle systems you preferred. It would be helpful if you explained your choice as well

I just like to quote what I've written about this issue one week ago, you might also read all the other comments in the old thread:
http://afterwind.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=463&topicsearch=&page=1

Kirjoittanut HeyI, 17.03.2011 at 22:33

I'm sincerely worried about the progress of Afterwind, let me explain my objections.

With implementation of the new battle mechanics, Afterwind has turned into a click-and-play game, pure arcade as mentioned before - the player owning more land wins...he always does! There is no more space for different unit types and strategies, they're all similar to each other. Whether you're using bombers or infantries, marines or militias, the stylistic characteristics have been strikingly reduced. Beside other problems that lead to the impossibility of all focused playing styles, especially a defence-based strategy seems to be tremendously weak now - always compared to the old battle mechanics - what intensifies the problem that there is no way to fight a decent player who owns more land than you do, what privileges the more aggressive, expansive players and therefore also puts inexperienced players at a major disadvantage.
The only remaining type of luck is the worst because most arbitrary one, namely country selection and movement order. Everything else is calculable in detail, you can just ignore the luck factor at all when planning your moves, relevant randomness and therefore associated suspense just doesn't exist anymore, nobody will ever have to adjust his strategy because a fight of him or his opponent ended with a different result than expected - either it works or it doesn't, there is no more space to react by using varying tactics and giving proof of your flexibility.
What was the problem with the old concept? What are the advantages compared to the old battle mechanics? Why did we change it? I agree to the problem that it was too likely that a few units killed superior forces, but does that really justify all those disadvantages? I'm sure we would find other solutions for that issue...
I've already discussed with many people ingame and it seems like I'm not the only one having those concerns, a few friends of mine even abandoned Afterwind because of that. I also think that the player amount didn't grow as fast as before or even decreased after implementing the new battle mechanics, is that possible? Especially the amount of low-ranked players seems to be lower than before, correct me if I'm wrong...

Oh, and i strongly support the proposal to base the stack bonus on the overall attack- respectively defence-values instead of the pure unit amount if it's really based on them - how does the stack bonus work in detail?

Definitely liked the old one, pretty much everything HeyI has stated before me, is what I agree with. In my honest oppionion like ive said many times before, if it's possible, why not a tick box that switches it between "Rolls" (old) attack system, and "Hp" (new) system.

The new one is much better because it removes the luck factor (and annoys HeyI)

Kirjoittanut multicultiSTRONG, 27.03.2011 at 16:39

The new one is much better because it removes the luck factor (and annoys HeyI)

"(and annoys HeyI)" lol got to love him.. but ya your right

Why is the end of lucky factor a bad thing? I trully hate any game based on luck, so I don't see any reason to go back to the old system. It's no true, also, that a player with most territories will win in most cases. This may happen because people get used to a playstyle and stick with it to the rest of their lifes, they are too obvious. I've already seen many impossible comebacks when you least expect it.

I also disagree with the decreasing number of players, as I'm noticing a good number of newbies playing everyday.

Im not familier with the old system but am enjoying the game.

ALTHOUGH, You need to look at your history books a little bit more in order to get a better idea as to why defence is lacking.

Here are a few examples
War on brit's VS Germany
Germany had brits out numbered in air but sufferd much biger looses becasue defending plains are closer to there base and can launch more sorties(Bombers need better defence) they also had radar but the Proximity was what alowed there smaller force to kill far more germin plains almost a 2-1 loose consistantly. some times even greater.
Irac VS USA: Coalition forces distroyed the air and defensive units in no time BUT the groundforces Still had to be overwelming to get the irac army to surender
(You cant win with just air supiriority this can be reflected by alternating looses between air and ground units when someone sends 200 bombers+1 infentry to att a guy with 10infintry)they win the battle but dont gain the country.
there are other things too that make it better to be the defender in alot of situations please look into this and im shure with a few tweeks to the battle mecanics,way troops fight each other, move,and scores you will find your almost there.

This said i am verry pleased with the development of the game and also feel its game ballance that needs work but not on the unit side but on how they interact.

Well, I prefer the new system. I had an rank 5 account before, which I deleted out of rage when the new battle system was introduced. (Because the game became very unbalanced at that time). But after the Unit stat tweaking and the new Updates I see no reason why we should go back to the old system. Because people used to the old system can't get used to the new one? Or is it like a nostalgia thing? Back in those days everything was better?

You say that the player wins who has more land now. Yeah, well, that was the same on the old systemm wasn't it? At least that was my expierence. More reinforcements and more money. Thats something that didn't change.
Also it's only partially true. As (mostly) MoS player I defeated many people which had an advantage by land, but lost because I took some unexpected route with the subs/marines, or just because they didn't really have a concept on how to defend, or didn't expect me. Also I lost games while having more land because I was unable to find a way to stop the enemy. Especially Sky Menace turned out to be a pain in the ass for me. (Also playing against learster results in a instant loss for me )

I don't really play defensive, but why would play defensive in this game? How are you going to win? Once you are in a defensive position and the attacker launches wave after wave, you can't do much anymore. It's very hard to be in a defensive position and start a succesfull counterattack.

And please explain how does luck make this game any better? If I attack an enemy I want the chances to win the battle to be fair and not to be based on luck.

Whoever says there is a decreasing number of players seems to play at the wrong time of the day or is just blind. I see a lot of low ranked players and at the right time there are a lot of games up.
When I had my old account (January/February) there has been about 7000 registered players. Now it's 8500. How is it possible when the game became so bad and unfriendly for starters? Also after I deleted my other accound I also had to start from 0. I didn't think it was that hard. Of course you lose a few games as starter, but it's a multiplayer game. You play against more expierenced players as starter and lose, you can't expect anything else. Are you going to rock every Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Starcraft or <Insert Game here> server as a starter? Yeah, right, sure you do.

Kirjoittanut Clovek30, 28.03.2011 at 12:57

Well, I prefer the new system. I had an rank 5 account before, which I deleted out of rage when the new battle system was introduced. (Because the game became very unbalanced at that time). But after the Unit stat tweaking and the new Updates I see no reason why we should go back to the old system. Because people used to the old system can't get used to the new one? Or is it like a nostalgia thing? Back in those days everything was better?

You say that the player wins who has more land now. Yeah, well, that was the same on the old systemm wasn't it? At least that was my expierence. More reinforcements and more money. Thats something that didn't change.
Also it's only partially true. As (mostly) MoS player I defeated many people which had an advantage by land, but lost because I took some unexpected route with the subs/marines, or just because they didn't really have a concept on how to defend, or didn't expect me. Also I lost games while having more land because I was unable to find a way to stop the enemy. Especially Sky Menace turned out to be a pain in the ass for me. (Also playing against learster results in a instant loss for me )

I don't really play defensive, but why would play defensive in this game? How are you going to win? Once you are in a defensive position and the attacker launches wave after wave, you can't do much anymore. It's very hard to be in a defensive position and start a succesfull counterattack.

And please explain how does luck make this game any better? If I attack an enemy I want the chances to win the battle to be fair and not to be based on luck.

Whoever says there is a decreasing number of players seems to play at the wrong time of the day or is just blind. I see a lot of low ranked players and at the right time there are a lot of games up.
When I had my old account (January/February) there has been about 7000 registered players. Now it's 8500. How is it possible when the game became so bad and unfriendly for starters? Also after I deleted my other accound I also had to start from 0. I didn't think it was that hard. Of course you lose a few games as starter, but it's a multiplayer game. You play against more expierenced players as starter and lose, you can't expect anything else. Are you going to rock every Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Starcraft or <Insert Game here> server as a starter? Yeah, right, sure you do.

You have to admit two things: Learster is one of the professional players and maybe you don't handle with your guerrilla. I wonder why players like Lioda, MarcJr, Sificvoid, Gigglin, Learster they don't complain because the new battle system. So i think the new battle system is fine.

Kirjoittanut Clovek30, 28.03.2011 at 12:57

Well, I prefer the new system. I had an rank 5 account before, which I deleted out of rage when the new battle system was introduced. (Because the game became very unbalanced at that time). But after the Unit stat tweaking and the new Updates I see no reason why we should go back to the old system. Because people used to the old system can't get used to the new one? Or is it like a nostalgia thing? Back in those days everything was better?

You say that the player wins who has more land now. Yeah, well, that was the same on the old systemm wasn't it? At least that was my expierence. More reinforcements and more money. Thats something that didn't change.
Also it's only partially true. As (mostly) MoS player I defeated many people which had an advantage by land, but lost because I took some unexpected route with the subs/marines, or just because they didn't really have a concept on how to defend, or didn't expect me. Also I lost games while having more land because I was unable to find a way to stop the enemy. Especially Sky Menace turned out to be a pain in the ass for me. (Also playing against learster results in a instant loss for me )

I don't really play defensive, but why would play defensive in this game? How are you going to win? Once you are in a defensive position and the attacker launches wave after wave, you can't do much anymore. It's very hard to be in a defensive position and start a succesfull counterattack.

And please explain how does luck make this game any better? If I attack an enemy I want the chances to win the battle to be fair and not to be based on luck.

Whoever says there is a decreasing number of players seems to play at the wrong time of the day or is just blind. I see a lot of low ranked players and at the right time there are a lot of games up.
When I had my old account (January/February) there has been about 7000 registered players. Now it's 8500. How is it possible when the game became so bad and unfriendly for starters? Also after I deleted my other accound I also had to start from 0. I didn't think it was that hard. Of course you lose a few games as starter, but it's a multiplayer game. You play against more expierenced players as starter and lose, you can't expect anything else. Are you going to rock every Counter Strike, Call of Duty, Starcraft or <Insert Game here> server as a starter? Yeah, right, sure you do.

I tried to put this into words, but Stuka, you did a better job. I agree 100% with this.*stamp of approval*

Thanks guys for speaking out in defence of the new system. It might have it's flaws, but the old one wasn't perfect either - far from it. I said several times before that I don't see the more predictable results of battles as a bad thing. Less random = more strategy. Would the chess be the timeless game it is if the result of an attack was completely random? Would it even be more fun? I don't think so.

The new system is here to stay. If any tweaks are needed, we're prepared to consider them, but we're not going back to the old system, sorry.

YAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! GOD HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!


-Please do not spam up a nice thread

KC

That's nice.