Recent Activity

• 

  Game Ending Round Limits

  Another good idea Nick.  It gets annoying having to wait out stalemate lines sometimes where u know u can win and it's just a matter of time before u build up the army strength and gather the right positioning.  Furthermore, it emphasizes the value of networth in an army, a facet many new players fail to grasp and could easily be learned more quickly with the implementation of timed games.

  I'd also like to suggest adjusting the minimum amount of rounds required for a boot as well as an option where getting booted (up to a certain time cap) doesn't count as a loss.  This sounds like a redundancy of the current way timers are set up, but the goal is to reinforce the point that player's shouldn't be playing games so they can win by booting a player just because they go 5-10 seconds over the clock.  It would also let players consider whether or not they're playing for rank or playing for fun before they decide to boot a player.  Some players would still boot opponents since they just wanna play.  Other players would decide not to boot since they know they wouldn't be getting any points anyway from getting rid of the opponent.

  The following caps are what I feel are decent estimates for "boot buffers" for their associated times:

  5mins - 1/2 hr, 10 mins - 2 hrs, 1 hr - 6 hrs,
  12 hrs - 2 days, 1 day - 3days, 3 days - 1 week

  Caps IMO would NOT be reset.  If they were, then players could continuously delay a game and waste another player's time.

  Caps would also be another tool for teaching new players good manners.  A lot of rookies boot players ASAP not realizing that by boosting their rank via cheap wins, they're only setting themselves up for more losses down the road since higher ranked (and better) players will be willing to play them.  By setting a cap, noobs won't be able to impulsively eject opponents the instant a clock is up.  Likewise, noobs won't be exposed to losing because they went over the clock for a moment or 2 themselves meaning they'll get a little extra bit of flexibility towards playing (and learning the dynamics of) the game.
  
  

  Posted 27 Feb 08 in Weewar

• 

  Bases as individual entities

  I really like Nick's idea (in part because I've suffered many a handful times from exactly what he's talking about).  It isn't realistic at all to say a base could be up and running at standard operating speed the instant its captured especially when that base's capacity is being compared to bases that have been historically secured.  I'd offer an alternative ramp-up cost, but Weewar is strong and popular from its simplicity, not its sophistication.

  Credit risk is a little more indirect than how Nick is describing it.  When going after a base, players judge how valuable it is and how much they're willing to invest (as well as how quickly their funds can be invested) in the siege effort.  Currently, this results in credit risk being directly related to the cost-benefit of taking a base (rather than the cost-benefit of the funds a base generates as Nick is describing).

  In Nick's proposal though, it would shift credit risk to actually losing part of your reserves since every base would be required to utilize its own money, not the money that the player as a whole controls.  In other words, bases would become individual assets and losing one of them would result in a loss of reserves (for anyone with simpleton bookkeeping knowledge, this is comparable to treating bases as different account receivable accounts).  In addition to this, losing a base would reduce unit deployment rates (as it has already been complained about with regards to slowing down the pace of the game).

  IMHO though, fund distribution wouldn't really be the cause of the slow pace.  To me, Weewar feels overwhelmed by fine control over weak unit and terrain tactics (in particular, the use of infantry and heavy artillery).  By AVOIDING this suggestion, it seems that players don't want to accept this which is a horrible marketing strategy for any product.  Weewar can become something incredible, but only if it's developed with the integration and application of new abilities and options, not the reinforcement of the lack thereof.

  In order to stay balanced though, many of these options should be restricted (i.e. "pro" only options).  They can also be advertised in order to show players everything possible in the game.  If the developers see fit, they could also diversify pro accounts into bronze, silver, gold, and platinum levels.  Bronze would allow u to play pro maps and create tournaments, silver would let do bronze and set SOME bonus options in games, gold would let u do silver and give access to the map editor, and platinum would let you do gold, set all bonus options, and provide prioritized chat settings (i.e., timestamps, colors, separate notices, etc.).

  Sorry to go off on the tangent, but this thread seems like a perfect example of what I'm talking about as far as players' settling for what's simple.  Simplicity doesn't have to be synonymous with complacency though, and it seems Weewar's going to take advantage of that characteristic of the player body.
  
  
  

  Posted 26 Feb 08 in Weewar

• 

  FR: Assault and Dig in

  Yea, fog would definitely clean things up although it would have to be implemented as a game setup "yes/no" option similar to the decision to either play with all units or selected ones only.

  Posted 22 Feb 08 in Weewar

• 

  Code Crack

  Sry that it can't be seen now, but I figured the coders would have access to past games, so they might be able to look into it on their own.

  Posted 22 Feb 08 in Weewar

• 

  Weewar Wiki Gone?

  Me neither.  Guess they're either making a big update or that the page just went poof.

  Posted 20 Feb 08 in Weewar