|
On a serious note, I do think a limitation on max players per clan would serve this game well. It would spread out that talent and result in more clans. And it's hard to be tribal in groups of 10.
----
The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
On a serious note, I do think a limitation on max players per clan would serve this game well. It would spread out that talent and result in more clans. And it's hard to be tribal in groups of 10.
Eh, currently there are really few clans that can get 3 people online for a cw at a time. If you spread the players out more, this gets worse.
----
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Eh, currently there are really few clans that can get 3 people online for a cw at a time. If you spread the players out more, this gets worse.
This is a good point but I think it will be mitigated by their just being more clans to CW in total. Also 2v2 CWs!
----
The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
This is a good point but I think it will be mitigated by their just being more clans to CW in total. Also 2v2 CWs!
3v3's>2v2's but thats just a personal opinion. Imagine the extremes though, to get a clearer grip on the muddy middle. Imagine there only being 2 clans with all competitive players. Then every evening, there probably would be enough people online in both clans to have a couple clan wars, maybe even 2 or 3 at a time. I mean, imagine all competitive players you know, there probably are more than 6 on at any given time, right?
On the other hand, imagine there being 20 clans with 5 members each. How many times would these clans have enough people online to cw? sure, you get more clans, but the chance for one having enough people online is just much lower, even if, in total there would be enough competitive players online to potentially have a cw.
----
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
3v3's>2v2's but thats just a personal opinion. Imagine the extremes though, to get a clearer grip on the muddy middle. Imagine there only being 2 clans with all competitive players. Then every evening, there probably would be enough people online in both clans to have a couple clan wars, maybe even 2 or 3 at a time. I mean, imagine all competitive players you know, there probably are more than 6 on at any given time, right?
On the other hand, imagine there being 20 clans with 5 members each. How many times would these clans have enough people online to cw? sure, you get more clans, but the chance for one having enough people online is just much lower, even if, in total there would be enough competitive players online to potentially have a cw.
Hmm, yeah that's a pretty solid argument. I suppose I was imagining this happening in a context where the game is experiencing more growth/retention. The ideal is more clans than we currently have while still maintaining at least the CW activity we enjoy now.
----
The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
>>The toxicity of our community does not stem from individuals, but from the petty and, by and large, meaningless disputes among the coalitions of AtWar.
Are you sure about that?
Here's a few messages I got from you in the last casual game the both of us were in. I'd never had any previous contact with you before, and then, out of the blue, I get a series of messages saying
https://gyazo.com/646960c338bc7fbeefdb15b52e4a2926
You went out of your way to inform me that I suck and spew curses, instead of giving me advice and just telling me what you'd want me to do. Then, you left the game on turn 4, taking all 3 of your alt accounts with you, despite me doing exactly what you asked when I could.
If you want to start a conversation about toxicity, please take your own advice.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
I appreciate the input, but I'm not disbanding coalitions. That would be such a drastic change, it's just not something I'm inclined to do.
I think there are other ways we can reduce the toxicity without taking such a huge step.
----
| All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer,
but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.
--Sun Tzu
|
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Rather than considering coalitions as a source of "toxicity and trouble", I would see them as an opportunity to bridge individual rants.
Just give them "real meaning" - beyond the classical competitive rivalry (that I used to follow from distance and secretly cheer) - through a set of incentives, restraints and, thus, responsibilities.
----
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
Skrivet av Dave, 08.12.2018 at 00:33
I appreciate the input, but I'm not disbanding coalitions. That would be such a drastic change, it's just not something I'm inclined to do.
I think there are other ways we can reduce the toxicity without taking such a huge step.
A much more appropriate step is to limit Coalition numbers, a similar tactic used in most mobile games eg: clash of clans.
Also can fcd3 vouch support for scenario CW as would make more interesting dynamics for scenario players/teammates instead of only for competitive based gameplay.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|
|
On a serious note, I do think a limitation on max players per clan would serve this game well. It would spread out that talent and result in more clans. And it's hard to be tribal in groups of 10.
Games like Clash of Clans do this. That game has a cap on the amount of players per clan, meaning that you can't simply have a huge clan with everyone in it. However, this would decrease the accessibility of new/bad players to good clans, which may seem like a problem for some. I wouldn't see this as a problem though. This idea could promote the game's competitiveness.
Laddar...
Laddar...
|