Do you like the new turn-blocking system?

These arguments are terrible. Some realistic features are bad, therefore this realistic feature is bad? (false) My game history doesn't show any recent games, therefore I haven't played in months (false) and my opinion is irrelevant? (also false) I can't even begin to respond to the lack of logic in that post.

Exaggerate much Yoba? Did I say that it is impossible for a smaller sized force to stop a larger one? Of course not. But if you ask me if we should have a system where that is the norm, rather than the exception, the answer is still no.

I think we still need some modifications to the actual update, mainly the fact that units inside transports are counting while you try to attack them, but this is a problem that the devs are already aware of, and something will be done to fix it as soon as possible.

On a side note: I'm still looking for a match where I'm going to lose because my enemy is only stacking. In my opinion, some negative opinions are only based on not even confirmed theories.

It's way easier to make defensive stacks than offensive ones, since your enemy is coming from a further location with less reinforcements positions. Going straight to your enemies capital with a huge stack doesn't seem like a smart tactic and I've never seen it work in any game, unless the defensive side did someting wrong (no reinforcements on his capital is the most common example).

Want to prove me wrong? Come and play against me by only stacking and I will play just like usual, let's see if the game is just about that

Also, come on! I've seen a few players asking for negative votes on this thread and I find it ok, since it's their interest, but voting with multiple secondary accounts is a cheap and kind of innocent attempt to try to prove yourself right. You're just weakening your own opinion by doing that.

Just as an example, very successful games have embraced exploits into actual game dynamics. Take Quake for example, Rocket Jumping, strafe-jumping etc, at one time were not intended, but became a part of the game that added an element of strategy and overall fun. When you first start playing Quake Live, they give you a tutorial on everything you need to know, and even if you don't get it at first, they pair you with similar players. Afterwind's problem is that it lacked an extensive tutorial in-game that explained everything in an interesting manner (Always thought live action dialogue would be cool, like in Command & Conquer). I've tried reading the tutorial for kicks before, and in 3 minutes I already left from boredom. I'm not picking on the admins, only saying that a better tutorial with more a more eye-catching interface would benefit more than this update. I bet if the forum community came together, they could write the entire tutorial, so the admins wouldn't have to waste time on it. Anyways, I still stand by my opinion, where this update does not benefit me, but I see how it benefits other players, but I would much rather see a more extensive and "fun" tutorial, so they can learn the different aspects of the game without (as some mods and high-ranks have told new players to do), join games and test everything (get their asses kicked and be instantly turned off by the atmosphere of the game). Nobody likes playing a game for the first time and losing easily. Bots would be a nice tutorial feature, but a better idea would be to train them in every school in the game (School referring to strategical option (Turnblocking, Rushing, Stacking etc)), by making them start as a country, and facing a pre-programmed bot (Can varied so it's different every time), whom the player must take out. They would be graded, and if they get a B or higher they can continue on in the tutorial (or after a certain amount of schools have been past, join a game). Sorry for the long sort-of-off-topic-post, but I just had a few more things to share.

Written by Guest14502, 14.05.2012 at 13:39

These arguments are terrible. Some realistic features are bad, therefore this realistic feature is bad? (false)

Written by nonames, 14.05.2012 at 12:27

What the players are saying is yes we should take realism into account, but this update has completely unbalanced the gameplay, removed large amounts of strategy from the game, and has made it a less fun experience. sometimes you just have to weigh the pros against the cons.

Written by Guest14502, 14.05.2012 at 13:39

My game history doesn't show any recent games, therefore I haven't played in months (false)

Maybe you have played, but most players would think you have not.

Written by Guest14502, 14.05.2012 at 13:39

and my opinion is irrelevant? (also false)

yes, they are irrelevant if you haven't played enough to understand the mechanics.
As far as i can see, and every player can see, you haven't played much at all since around the time the beta ended. I played then, 4troops walls were the norm, and turnblocking was unheard of, i left for around 6months because it was boring, it was the same as the game is now, it was about being quick, and stacking and facerollng.

The fact of the matter is that as far as i know, and every one else knows. you don't even know the system, and you are disscussing how it should be changed, this is pure arrogance.

and for once i support Gardevoir, whether or not turnblocking was intended in the first place, taking it out now would remove a feature that has added a large tactical feature into the game.

I voted no because I don't like it. I'm still very used to the old system and I don't know if I will ever like this one as much.

In any case, the drama surrounding this update is laughable. The update didn't ruin the game and I personally think that it made the game a bit more friendly for new players. (I do like Gard's idea about educating new players about things like turn blocking in an entertaining way though.)

@the realism argument. Realism is totally irrelevant. If this game were totally realistic USA: Northeast would have more income than all of Africa combined. Realism is not the question here, gameplay is. And gameplay is something I am willing to discuss.

Written by Desu, 14.05.2012 at 01:28

Written by Strategos, 14.05.2012 at 01:00

I can see how many players, used to doing things the same way, every time, when facing certain circumstances may have found their lives flipped asunder -- because their deterministic universe has folded, because things that always went one way are now subject to a higher order of chaos (or lower order of order), but, if anything, again, realism is enhanced.

Those of us that were stuck on one strategy found it unpleasant. The smart people that used more than one or two strategies found out how to maximize the use of the "update." I literally became unstoppable and realized the game was only about spamming. If your expansion was better you can spam more because you had more spawn points, thus you win. I could just join a world game and roll right over everyone because I could just spam bombers or infantry. And in EU/EU+ all it became was spamming infantry.

I voted no for what should be very obvious reasons.

Spamming, whilst often considered inelegant, encompasses many of the tactical military virtues (specifically mobility, mass, inertia, audacity), and involves intensive time and resource management (for games timed in minutes). Spamming is neither a tactic nor a strategy (I'd characterize it as an approach) but it has several historical precedents. the Nazi Blitzkreig would be a classic RTS Steamrollering, which defeated the French turtle (Maginot line). The Allies countered with better diplomacy, and spamming Nazi Germany with bombers, armor and infantry, from three fronts.

It is usually a true statement that one who expands better generally wins, in any case. And in all fairness to Desu, it really is difficult to counter the spam, once it has inertia -- one has to either contain the enemy early, or to steamroller and decap first.

I'm not going to make a big long post filled with logic, like I usually do. But I will say that I fucking hate this game ever since the update. I wish so much that it would go back to the way it was. Voted no, hard.

Written by Strategos, 14.05.2012 at 14:58

Written by Desu, 14.05.2012 at 01:28

Written by Strategos, 14.05.2012 at 01:00

I can see how many players, used to doing things the same way, every time, when facing certain circumstances may have found their lives flipped asunder -- because their deterministic universe has folded, because things that always went one way are now subject to a higher order of chaos (or lower order of order), but, if anything, again, realism is enhanced.

Those of us that were stuck on one strategy found it unpleasant. The smart people that used more than one or two strategies found out how to maximize the use of the "update." I literally became unstoppable and realized the game was only about spamming. If your expansion was better you can spam more because you had more spawn points, thus you win. I could just join a world game and roll right over everyone because I could just spam bombers or infantry. And in EU/EU+ all it became was spamming infantry.

I voted no for what should be very obvious reasons.

Spamming, whilst often considered inelegant, encompasses many of the tactical military virtues (specifically mobility, mass, inertia, audacity), and involves intensive time and resource management (for games timed in minutes). Spamming is neither a tactic nor a strategy (I'd characterize it as an approach) but it has several historical precedents. the Nazi Blitzkreig would be a classic RTS Steamrollering, which defeated the French turtle (Maginot line). The Allies countered with better diplomacy, and spamming Nazi Germany with bombers, armor and infantry, from three fronts.

It is usually a true statement that one who expands better generally wins, in any case. And in all fairness to Desu, it really is difficult to counter the spam, once it has inertia -- one has to either contain the enemy early, or to steamroller and decap first.

Massing, spamming, recruiting in general, was the way to go for the Great Wars of the early twentieth century. However you'll notice that farther on, long range weapons began to emerge, and now we don't even need to sent one solder to watch and spy, or select and kill. Realism isn't something that's greatly put into Afterwind for the reason that this game seems to WANT to extend the centuries of human history. Nice post by the way.


Onto the topic at hand: I would like to comment that you may have noticed a reverse spike in activity in the 1 vs. 1 tournament. Before the nerf; many people got there matches done fast, and after the nerf people nearly stopped. Remember that it was mostly the skilled people who joined the tournament in the first place. And with the number of people quitting, the tournament slowly becomes near meaningless as a measure of skill.

Also with this number of votes I would like to suggest that, if the devs are actually going to do something based on this poll, you revert the TB nerf completely. Just half-assing it with a change to the percentages isn't going to change much.



edit:

Written by Houdini, 14.05.2012 at 16:10

I'm not going to make a big long post filled with logic, like I usually do. But I will say that I fucking hate this game ever since the update. I wish so much that it would go back to the way it was. Voted no, hard.

I concur. A very blunt way to put it, but it's clear.

Written by Covid19, 14.05.2012 at 13:30

IT HAVE NO SENSE THAT 1 ARMIES BLOCK 9376R937637236473582376752386R752386 ARMIES

what numerical no. of UNIT of Army of Soldiers is THAT OF!!! OFF!!

Realism is not needed in a game like this. Realistic games are never fun (Except Red River, my god that game was awesome). If realism is the goal of the admins- please do not go after it. Realism makes the game very bland, not very creative, and above all, overly-hard or under-strategical. Realism can work in some aspects, such as real populations (Whatever happened to pop. casualties???), damage of certain weapon systems, etc etc, but when you mic gameplay with these elements it dulls the fun-factor and the replayability. The majority of people play games that are more arcade-inclined, simply because they take them away from this world and into a very alien one. The experience gives you abilities you could not achieve in this life, and grants you the power and hunger you crave. Realism takes that fantasy factor away, and mirrors your own world, something you definitely don't want if you're choosing to play games.

Now, if the goal was to create a more fair&balanced™ game, the audience in split in two. The Greenhorns' love it, while the Veterans do not. Like I have stated, EVERY DAY. EVERY. DAY., a tick-box option would HELP THIS SITUATION. Has anyone cared to comment on it? Nope. I leave this argument to you.

I see so much of this is not balanced... The "No" answer is murking the rest. Only thing I really like about the update is the fact when I play MoS vs a SM player and we both have empires its faster to do the "recapturing cities tactic" against a SM player. AKA I mean I just send 11 marines to attack 40 bombers and 1 infantry knowing those units will move so I can retake the city on the same turn they leave.

I like it.

This update has added more depth to gameplay. The game now requires micro-management skills and tactical thinking rather than the "stall and expand" effect which most players did. Players now must match up to their enemies' expansion and try to break it rather than maintaining it. Defending, walling, reinforcing and unit management are now more essential than the prioritization. A few have been stating that prioritization is useless now. It isn't. You can still turnblock small stacks and kill off naval transports as your first movements. Also, splitting your troops contribute to this as well players must split them accordingly and wisely to avoid a turnblock on your second or third split for example. Overall I like the new update, it's not too realistic like players had mentioned the cons of realism but it is still more technical than the old system which i like.

Some players have been saying this "making one huge stack and cutting a huge swathe to the enemy capital, without even having to worry about whether you'll reach it (you will if your stack is large enough). (sorry ironail it's not only you)

Are you kidding me? Really? How does this make any sense? First off, you can defend the upcoming attack from a long distance away, pick it off bit by bit if the situation accommodates it. You can also counter it with a stack of your own or pressure him to use it as defence by forging attacks of your own. But seriously, what kind of player goes, "ok ill expand, make one huge stack and get his capital."
All the opponent has to do here is anticipate, put pressure and defend easy as that. Sure huge stacks are important and dangerous, but it's not that simple to accomplish what you've mentioned. Afterwind is much more complex than that.

btw there are a lot of alt accounts who voted "no".

I have stayed quiet on the subject in the forums besides my initial shock and rage - mostly because I feel mixed emotions. Honestly, I prefer the old system that was in place for the entirety of my aw career. That being said, I feel that my opinion is extremely bias. This was the only Afterwind I had ever known and it feels odd leaving it behind, but it would be a mistake to return to it. I have seen this game develop for the better part of a year, and a moving to the old system feels like a step backwards to me. The game has changed, and for many of us this means our old strategies are no longer valid. I feel that I am personally worse following the update, and I think many of you do too. This cannot blind us though... Turnblocking does not make sense to what this game is supposed to be. I agree that it adds an extra level of strategy, but removing it does not decrease the skill level of the game - skill is always relative. Those threatening to quit afterwind are acting childish (Yes, the thought crossed my mind as well, so I am not judging). The game is still great regardless. Although I would have preferred the update never to have happened, going back now would be the wrong decision. This is my opinion, which I feel is still evolving, so take from it what you will.

Let me explain why I was so upset immediately following the update. It seemed appallingly apparent that the community was largely shut out of the decision. No one can deny that the game was drastically altered by this change, I fail to see the benefit of springing it on the long time members that make up the forum. However, this thread/poll was a good step in including the community, but I feel the results did not turn out as planned. (Even with the skewed voting). It is my belief that those in charge thought the opinion of the dissenters would have changed in these two weeks. There is a flaw in that logic though, as players will always prefer the system they are most accustomed to. When given a choice, the older community will always choose their Afterwind... Even if this afterwind is not the best path for the future of the game.

I have also seen another, and more serious, issue arise from this update. There is a growing animosity between those in favor of the update, mainly mods and new players, and those opposed to it, the competitive veterans. While I feel it necessary to avoid mob rule, as it is subjugated to peer influence, the opinions of these long time players should not be ignored as commonplace bitching. Many posted hastily after the update, but this is most likely due to the suddenness of the update which seemingly came out of the blue. Just because a concern is not articulately voiced, does not debase its merit.

The last thing I wish to write is a plea to those who still view the update in a negative light. I understand why you are upset, and it makes all the sense of in the world. The afterwind you came to love has been derailed without your consent. We will always prefer the old system and that is understandable. What we cannot do is allow the game to dissolve into what it is now... a constant bickering match which causes more harm then good. Afterwind cannot return to the old system. It wasn't accessible to a wide audience, as skill came from the exploitation of glitches. In order for the game we love to grow it must move forward, not backwards. You must understand that even if it not the best for you personally, it is best for the game as a whole.

I will not cast a vote showing that I like the update, however I honestly feel that removing it would be a mistake. This was the right step for the developers to take, even if I am personally in disagreement with it.

Written by NateBaller, 15.05.2012 at 21:50

I have stayed quiet on the subject in the forums besides my initial shock and rage - mostly because I feel mixed emotions. Honestly, I prefer the old system that was in place for the entirety of my aw career. That being said, I feel that my opinion is extremely bias. This was the only Afterwind I had ever known and it feels odd leaving it behind, but it would be a mistake to return to it. I have seen this game develop for the better part of a year, and a moving to the old system feels like a step backwards to me. The game has changed, and for many of us this means our old strategies are no longer valid. I feel that I am personally worse following the update, and I think many of you do too. This cannot blind us though... Turnblocking does not make sense to what this game is supposed to be. I agree that it adds an extra level of strategy, but removing it does not decrease the skill level of the game - skill is always relative. Those threatening to quit afterwind are acting childish (Yes, the thought crossed my mind as well, so I am not judging). The game is still great regardless. Although I would have preferred the update never to have happened, going back now would be the wrong decision. This is my opinion, which I feel is still evolving, so take from it what you will.

Let me explain why I was so upset immediately following the update. It seemed appallingly apparent that the community was largely shut out of the decision. No one can deny that the game was drastically altered by this change, I fail to see the benefit of springing it on the long time members that make up the forum. However, this thread/poll was a good step in including the community, but I feel the results did not turn out as planned. (Even with the skewed voting). It is my belief that those in charge thought the opinion of the dissenters would have changed in these two weeks. There is a flaw in that logic though, as players will always prefer the system they are most accustomed to. When given a choice, the older community will always choose their Afterwind... Even if this afterwind is not the best path for the future of the game.

I have also seen another, and more serious, issue arise from this update. There is a growing animosity between those in favor of the update, mainly mods and new players, and those opposed to it, the competitive veterans. While I feel it necessary to avoid mob rule, as it is subjugated to peer influence, the opinions of these long time players should not be ignored as commonplace bitching. Many posted hastily after the update, but this is most likely due to the suddenness of the update which seemingly came out of the blue. Just because a concern is not articulately voiced, does not debase its merit.

The last thing I wish to write is a plea to those who still view the update in a negative light. I understand why you are upset, and it makes all the sense of in the world. The afterwind you came to love has been derailed without your consent. We will always prefer the old system and that is understandable. What we cannot do is allow the game to dissolve into what it is now... a constant bickering match which causes more harm then good. Afterwind cannot return to the old system. It wasn't accessible to a wide audience, as skill came from the exploitation of glitches. In order for the game we love to grow it must move forward, not backwards. You must understand that even if it not the best for you personally, it is best for the game as a whole.

I will not cast a vote showing that I like the update, however I honestly feel that removing it would be a mistake. This was the right step for the developers to take, even if I am personally in disagreement with it.

There is no other way to say it. Brilliantly said, Nate.

Written by NateBaller, 15.05.2012 at 21:50

-Snip-

I understand and agree with you for the most part (Tick. Option. Make this shit happen), but my personal problem with all of this isn't the update itself, it's the lack of consent as you said. The admins seem to care more for the Mods and New players, while me and a huge batch of people have stayed loyal and played/helped as much as we could going on 2 years (maybe 1 and a half? who cares). If this update would have been announced before being released, and various testing and opinions had been collected, I can say that I would still be playing and supporting. Everyone would probably do the same. As I've probably said, I will continue to stay on this website for as long as I can, but if something like this (drastic change with no notice, and total bias to mine and many other's opinions) ever happens again, I will happily leave along with the many who already have, have threatened to, or would be willing. The update makes my eyes bleed, but I can't argue when majority likes it (New players & Mods). I will always disagree with this, as I can't even play anymore (not because it's bad, but because it's too boring and time consuming now). Just remember, a tick box will always solve this dilemma as well

I dislike new turn blocking system and like removal of flowers.

Written by Garde, 15.05.2012 at 22:10

Written by NateBaller, 15.05.2012 at 21:50

-Snip-

I understand and agree with you for the most part (Tick. Option. Make this shit happen), but my personal problem with all of this isn't the update itself, it's the lack of consent as you said. The admins seem to care more for the Mods and New players, while me and a huge batch of people have stayed loyal and played/helped as much as we could going on 2 years (maybe 1 and a half? who cares). If this update would have been announced before being released, and various testing and opinions had been collected, I can say that I would still be playing and supporting. Everyone would probably do the same. As I've probably said, I will continue to stay on this website for as long as I can, but if something like this (drastic change with no notice, and total bias to mine and many other's opinions) ever happens again, I will happily leave along with the many who already have, have threatened to, or would be willing. The update makes my eyes bleed, but I can't argue when majority likes it (New players & Mods). I will always disagree with this, as I can't even play anymore (not because it's bad, but because it's too boring and time consuming now). Just remember, a tick box will always solve this dilemma as well

I agree here a bit, the admins were quite hasty on this update without giving news of it or consent. But this is not a valid argument to reimplement the old system.

My main concern is that it requires 50%, and that is not even a 100% chance to block.

i have always said it should be reduced to 10% or 15% max with a 100% chance if priority is higher and a 50% chance increasing based on the percentage upto 100%.

think out dem spartans.

If the priority is higher, the old system should apply, i.e: 100% no matter the unit ratio

If priority is the same (both make it their first moves), then apply the current system.



This is what I would like to see implemented. Oh and TopHats, the huge single stack won't ever get blocked, because it can always move. So destroying it little by little isn't really an option.

I don't liked, I had 25 bombers blocked by 5 units
(I moved in first priority )

I managed to adapt new turnblock (even not liking), but I still think walk through enemy units a bad idea

I Reckon most people reaction in one word.

I vote Nope

Remove turnblocking

Written by hormigaatomica, 11.03.2015 at 08:46

Remove turnblocking

Turnbblocking coulld be a life safer.

Written by Legendary Hero, 13.03.2015 at 00:03

Written by hormigaatomica, 11.03.2015 at 08:46

Remove turnblocking

Turnbblocking coulld be a life safer.

Remove it.

Seems like a clear no to me

I kinda like the system, plus most of these posts are really really old...

I quite like the new system. I'm actually winning now