Jump to content
World Warfare
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Assessment of new Update


SnakeEater
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, I want to say that over all this game still rocks. Now to get to my assessment of the new changes. Hopefully I can give you feedback that will help in the further improvement of this game. 

    I am currently a medical provider in the US Army. As a medical provider I have to diagnose different ailments based on what should be right and how a patient is presenting. In a way it is sort of like what programmers have to do when approaching changes to a game. 

    1) what are the chief complaints, 2) what are the probable causes for the complaints and 3) what are the possible solutions. The first step to a solution is to gather data, there are two types of data, subjective and objective. Subjective data is things that is opinion or how one perceives something i.e. On a scale of 1 - 10 how much pain are you in. Or like in this game it would be; "This rating system sucks. So as for the one who has to figure out the problem they would then have to find the perspective of the person with the complaint. So instead of saying "On a scale of 1 - 10 how much pain are you in,"you would say "How much pain are you in right now zero being no pain at all and ten being the worst pain you have ever felt in your life." Let's say the person says his pain level is an 8. The next question you need to ask is, "What is the worst pain you have ever felt?" This person's answer will then put the problem into a perspective for the person trying to find a solution. If the person complaining said his worst pain was when he sprained his ankle in high school vs someone saying he was blown up by an IED and lost both his legs in Afghanistan, the one solving the problem would then have a very good idea of the urgency of the pain. The problem is, the guy who sprained his ankle is the one making the most noise.

Next is Objective data, now this is the best kind of data. It is data that can be seen. Let's keep the same two people as an examples to explain objective data. You approach the one who sprained his ankle and he says, "This is the worst pain I have felt in my life." For the problem solver to diagnose the injury he must rely on the word of the person complaining because the outward signs of a twisted ankle sometimes are very minimal. But now he approaches the person blown up by an IED does he really need to ask where he is hurting. No of course not because his leg is halfway down the street. This is Objective data. Please do not think I am being disrespectful by using these analogies because I am not. My best friend lost his leg in Afghanistan and he would agree with everything I am saying right now.

So how do we separate the true problems from the whiners?
What is our objective data. Well I will tell you what I use. You have all these guys talking trash on main chat about how great they are because they are in first. They have all their medals showing in all their glory. These medals are as follows; the "I named myself" medal (in my opinion, some people shouldn't get because their name sucks). Next they sport the "I spent diamonds" medal because it has the pretty blue in it and people will notice. Then comes the "I formed a league medal", and lastly the "I sent a friend invite to everyone in battle chat in the cadet game" medal. So I look next at the commander profile and he is sporting a wapping 2.2 kill ratio and a average score screaming in at about 35,000 from around 4-6 games with 1 victories and 0 championships. Then after you go over and crush his Capitol after he said there was nothing I could do about all his trash talking because he was to far away from me; (so I flew 40 strategic bombers 1 hour and 45 min on a one way trip to level his Capitol because I didn't care if I lost them I had the production capacity to replace them), he whines and cries about how lame I am because I only use League City armaments. Now with the new personal ranking system, this is the guy who is getting the 1200 gems, 5000 gold and 500 XP a day reward for being in first place. The objective guy is the one you only see on battle chat answering legitimate questions from players who are actively trying to learn the game, sport no medals because he hasn't earned any worth showing yet, has a record of 6 battles, 4 victories, 3 championships, 15.9 kill ratio (kinda low been doing a lot of PVP lately) and an average score of 177347.5. Now this guy probably knows a little about strategy. Sun Tzu said "Strategy without tactics is the slowest path to victory, and tactics without strategy is the noise you hear before defeat." He is probably also not someone who is taking a break from "FarmVille" trying to get his yearly dose of testosterone so he can get it up before his anniversary and hopefully put a smile on mamma's face before he loses her indefinitely to the pool guy. And all the players who agree with me say A Man.

So why did I go into all this to tell you my analysis of the new update. In medicine it is called over medicating. This is very dangerous and could lead to more problems then not medicating at all. You made too many changes to try and get the same result. If more PvP was one of the perspective goals then all you needed to do was the default diplomatic change. It would have accomplished more than all of them combined. It solved the dropping from a league and switching to neutral crap the aforementioned FarmVillians would do to stop an attack on them. The four hour wait time is just stupid. And created more problems than it solved. Plus what's the point of waiting 4 hours when you are not in a battlefield? It benefits no one and is a huge pain in the you know what. The rating change to cities, Who was asking for that....FarmVillians? It's stupid, at the very least it's stupid for personal ranking. Was it a fix to have more PvP? Again default diplomatic status was enough of a fix. Over medicating, treatment at a time is the best plan of action to solving problems. If not you now don't know what the true cure was. In this case there was no cure just more complications. Since the update our league hasn't built one single Monument, why bother with such a crucial element of winning a long term strategy game when lame brain FarmVillians can win by capturing cities with their 35,000 average score, and get all the rewards. If you want true competition, match up battlefields by Average score i.e.90,000 or higher, not hours played. Keep the children in the playground while the real men go off to War. Last bad change, the time voting system really, really bad. Go back to declaring victory, please.

Sorry I was so long winded, but I will end on a good note. The changes I love are "Command Center" and the ability to purchase flags. Level 10 cities giving bonus troops, and of course default diplomatic status of hostile. 

Hopefully you see this as a way of separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to future changes to game play. Also please only look at one major rule change at a time as a way of problem solving. Get with your big time players or use data mining techniques to find players with the right statistics to take surveys from.

Thanks for your time. This game is great. It is one of a kind when it comes to getting true war gamers looking for strategic competition, but if you keep tinkering with it you will lose the good ones and have just another boom beach.

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest pinned this topic
  • Peter featured this topic

Great post. I avoid replying to many posts as I am one of just getting to gameplay. I agree, the game rocks! Thanks for your insight and tell your friend thanks! I was there and was "lucky" the RPG hit my 50 and not me! LOL All is great and as in the military, roll with the punches!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shortfuse said:

Great post. I avoid replying to many posts as I am one of just getting to gameplay. I agree, the game rocks! Thanks for your insight and tell your friend thanks! I was there and was "lucky" the RPG hit my 50 and not me! LOL All is great and as in the military, roll with the punches!

Thank you also, and if you need any help in game look me up. And if you see me on the battlefield good luck...lol. And yes RPGs suck A--. It's like they have a free giveaway on the things. Glad you were ok. We have spilt to much blood of way to many outstanding boys for those countries, and they don't even care about the sacrifices we have made for their people.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only gripe I have is the ranking system.  The old way where we could see league bonus and ranking was based off of personal score was way better.  With this new update I feel like it is teaching new players bad habits.  None of the young players in the game want to have resource zones or villages, it is just a city grab, because you can have 20 cities and a personal score of 25,000 and still be ranked #1.  Rankings based on cities captured is a less accurate system of finding the most powerful player than battle score+personal score+league bonus.  And seeing the league bonus gives you a reference point of how far along other leagues are at that point in the match.  Just my opinion, btw this was typed on a iPhone, sorry about the grammar if there's any errors.

Snake eaters reply hit the nail on the head.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game is awesome...but somehow the ranking needs to be changed. Before the update people farmed the Waffen SS ( this happened to me when I had 10 cities and the guy in first had 4 ), and now you have to take all the cities you can, which leaves the inexperienced players stuck. I don't know how this can be fixed really.... 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was fine as it was.   Cities gave points based on how height they were so more cities meant more points.  Now it doesn't matter if I have 19 level 20 cities maxed and kill every tiger ever in the map and have 10m points.  If some shmo comes in and caps 20 level 1 cities and has crap cities then he will rank higher 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noodles said:

It was fine as it was.   Cities gave points based on how height they were so more cities meant more points.  Now it doesn't matter if I have 19 level 20 cities maxed and kill every tiger ever in the map and have 10m points.  If some shmo comes in and caps 20 level 1 cities and has crap cities then he will rank higher 

Rather true; some kind of point boost for higher level cities in the old ranking system might help.  That actually might work.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most everything that was said above.  

My only suggestion would be to remove the league points from the individual scores.  That way the individual scores actually reflect performance in the game and not give a boost to a poor player in a good league.  Then include points for league cities and monument in the league scores for victory.  This keeps them relevant and important to win a battle.

Secondly, I would really like to go back to the old end of battle.  I like that the battle could continue if it was close but end if there was an obvious winner.  Sometimes it took a while but usually you could hunt down the no votes.  With my current battle I was so happy it was almost over and then the extension passed.  If nothing else, how do you go from requiring 80% to 50%.

Anyway, just my two cents worth.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Peter unpinned and unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...