Suggestions from multiple players of this game - up to date

Since the old thread died by Vafika quitting Afterwind and Amok came back a few days ago, I put the original post into a shorther and up-dated form.
Whoever has an idea and wants it to be added can leave a comment, I will keep this list up to date and add points which are worth it, judged by the players.



These are the actual suggestions:


1) Game-mechanics

first turn attacks
- turn blocking or rushing (attacking the enemies capital with all units) can randomly decide a game in turn one
- bigger countries will beat a smaller one in turn 1 with a 50% chance
-> forbid attacking each others cities in turn one

coalition wars
- the coalition war (cw) mechanics have several problems
- players (enemy Leaders, Officers) can start a game without the host knowing
-> allow start only if all parties agreed
- the cw aspect of Afterwind is almost dead
-> implement a system where coalitions have to fight, combined with losing points over time

strategy balancing
- this strategies are still not balanced
- Tank General needs a boost
- Lucky Bastard (LB) is the worst strategy and inferior in every case

joining a game, entering later
- it is possible to join a game without picking a country, wait a few turns and enter then, even after the maximal joining week
- if the player limit is not reached, it is difficult for a player in the game to see if there is a player who actually joined, but didnt enter yet
->if you join a game you should be forced to pick right in this turn, otherwise you should have to click 'join game' again in the next turn


2) Game-aspects

Elo rating system
- player-rankings based on SP doesn't show a players skill, the following suggestions would also increase the competition in this game and be another step to make Afterwind the leading strategy-browser-game
-> implement a ladder ranking with brackets
-> point-system similar to ELO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system)
-> brackets could be: rated 1vs1, rated team-games: 2vs2, 3vs3
-> players would have to stay in their team, if the leave it to join another they loose their rank

games with equal conditions for every participant
- since the strategies are not balanced
-> add the possibility to create games where every player has the same strategy and without upgrades
-> this option should be the standard in the ranked 1vs1 games, as a result the games will be more skill-based and the ranking more meaningful

personal chat-rooms
- coalition chat is nice but sometimes you want to speak with a group of people
-> add a function where players can create chat rooms, where the host is also the mod and can invite/kick players

profile-comments
- many people have friends in this game and would like to communicate with them in a way similar to social networks
-> add profile comments to the game
-> the profile owner would have to unlock the comments before other players can see them to prevent defamation
-> ignored players would be unable to post

extended duel-list
- nowadays, it's only possible too see the last ten duels a player fought
-> make it possible to see all duels a player ever played while adding a scrollbar to limit the duel-list's space

rep in forums
- it would be useful if you could give a person rep in the forums if he helped you with something, this will increase his reliability for other players
-> add a function to give someone 'forum-rep'

2nd to last idea is my favorite
Player ranking system would be much better that way, but just as a little thought why not make the ranking system more intertwined with strategy's? like a bracket system, except there are special ranks for each strategy, and you have to rank all of your strategy's up for a perfectionist trophy or something, or if you hop strategy to strategy a lot you could stay in the main bracket of ranks (or if you used "none", the main bracket referring to the current ones).
The chat rooms really caught my eye- maybe the function to name the chat room, say who can join/who can't, who has "mod" abilities in the chat room, and all the other useless but fun things like what color and font the text should be etc.
And finally, turn blocking should be an option- it can always be fun to spawn next to your friend and have a good time seeing who rushes first

All in all, the ideas you listed are great and I really hope they get implemented

I liked your idea with the strategy-ranks, but I disagree with your opinion about rushing. I think it should be at least an option to disable first-turn attacks when you create a game.

Scris de Guest, 11.09.2011 at 14:53

I liked your idea with the strategy-ranks, but I disagree with your opinion about rushing. I think it should be at least an option to disable first-turn attacks when you create a game.

Lol, I said it should be an option too
But I know what you mean,k I deal with it and do it a lot, in Europe games it can help you so much that it would be stupid not to sometimes. I also remember a long time ago people used to have "peace" for the first 5 turns or something like that- maybe that should be an option as well?

I don't think so, since if attacking in turn one isn't allowed, you can send your peace-request in exactly this turn. It would be correct all problems if turn-one would be a neutral one and the fights start after this.

I agree with all, just one thing, how would you rank players if not by SP, by 1v1, 2v2, 3v3? What if someone doesn't have enough time to play a lot duels or doesn't find them fun?
Maybe leaving ranks like they are and putting an option that when you move mouse over the player's name it tells you his position in 1v1 ladder (along with coalition, reputation etc.). That way both sides would be happy?

No, since SP just shows how much you play it should still be an option like rep, but a real "ranking" should be based on an ELO-like system with brackets like 1vs1. 2vs2 etc., each ranking for itself.
But I don't get your point in the end. It's just about where the ranks are posted, do you really care if SP-ranking is shown first when you visit the "players"-site? Because if it would be the ranking based on 1vs1, it would be only about what is shown first.

Scris de Guest, 11.09.2011 at 15:39

No, since SP just shows how much you play it should still be an option like rep, but a real "ranking" should be based on an ELO-like system with brackets like 1vs1. 2vs2 etc., each ranking for itself.

I was thinking, how about it calculates your "skill" by W/L/Le and sp earned each match, then you have your "rank" that get's "upgraded" from strategies like I mentioned in an earlier post? I'm not sure if this would work...it just came to mind lol

Hm, that would make it more complicated than it should be.
What I would like, and I heard about this from other players, too is a ranking for each bracket.

So you have your personal 1vs1 ranking, then you have your strategies whose you can "rank up" by playing them in the 1vs1 division.

Furthermore there would be rankings for each division of the ranked team-games, a few people will probably know it from WoW.
You create a team and play with your members to get a higher score, at the end of each "season" you get your reward, like a trophy here in Afterwind.
Then the team-rankings will be on the same level again, while I would prefer a continuous 1vs1 rank based on the ELO-System. So no point-loss over time, like it should be in coalition wars, but a number which you can increase (or it decreases), by fighting other players.

To have this in Afterwind would be so great that it even makes me breathless, lol. Probably I would even start to play seriously again and come back to this almost dead game.

Scris de Guest, 11.09.2011 at 15:53

Hm, that would make it more complicated than it should be.
What I would like, and I heard about this from other players, too is a ranking for each bracket.

So you have your personal 1vs1 ranking, then you have your strategies whose you can "rank up" by playing them in the 1vs1 division.

Furthermore there would be rankings for each division of the ranked team-games, a few people will probably know it from WoW.
You create a team and play with your members to get a higher score, at the end of each "season" you get your reward, like a trophy here in Afterwind.
Then the team-rankings will be on the same level again, while I would prefer a continuous 1vs1 rank based on the ELO-System. So no point-loss over time, like it should be in coalition wars, but a number which you can increase (or it decreases), by fighting other players.

To have this in Afterwind would be so great that it even makes me breathless, lol. Probably I would even start to play seriously again and come back to this almost dead game.

I just don't like the idea of ranking up specific game modes, i'd rather have one universal rank that incorporates many things.

The 1vs1 ranking would assume the function as "universal rank". But if you play in a team, you need to be ranked as team.
E.g. someone is bad at 1vs1, but a good supporter in team-games. Well so maybe he is only 143. in the 1vs1 division then but he and his team would get most points in the 3vs3 division.
If you click on his profile you would see all divisions and the respective points the player got.
I think there is no better way to check a players overall skills than in this system.

Scris de Guest, 11.09.2011 at 16:41

The 1vs1 ranking would assume the function as "universal rank". But if you play in a team, you need to be ranked as team.
E.g. someone is bad at 1vs1, but a good supporter in team-games. Well so maybe he is only 143. in the 1vs1 division then but he and his team would get most points in the 3vs3 division.
If you click on his profile you would see all divisions and the respective points the player got.
I think there is no better way to check a players overall skills than in this system.

I still like the idea of 1 true rank for you, not in numbers either, but symbols. But hey, i'm weird that way lol, you make a good point, it's just I don't like playing alone so the "universal rank" wouldn't be too good for me lol

Really it's so hard to quantify all the different data into a single ranking system. Low level players can have really disproportionate win loss ratios or SP per game played because of medals so discounting pure SP would result in an absolute clusterfuck of a ranking system. Similarly just measuring SP is the system we have now which no one thinks is a true measurement of player ability.

Not only that but people always have a habit of dissagreeing with lists. If a list was compiled today, a totally methodologically flawless list, people would still disagree with it. Ultimately it should go down to ranking within brackets so the information is available to people to make their own decisions. Currently this information is not available because Win Loss and total SP tell us nothing.

I like a lot of these ideas, 5/5 suggestions, Ironail (me).

Although the 1v1 bracket ranking would be cool, I'd still be first anyway, since I'm the best. Just so you know, in case you thought it would change anything.

Scris de Barrymore, 12.09.2011 at 03:48

Really it's so hard to quantify all the different data into a single ranking system. Low level players can have really disproportionate win loss ratios or SP per game played because of medals so discounting pure SP would result in an absolute clusterfuck of a ranking system. Similarly just measuring SP is the system we have now which no one thinks is a true measurement of player ability.

Not only that but people always have a habit of dissagreeing with lists. If a list was compiled today, a totally methodologically flawless list, people would still disagree with it. Ultimately it should go down to ranking within brackets so the information is available to people to make their own decisions. Currently this information is not available because Win Loss and total SP tell us nothing.

That's why we need something similar to ELO, Arist had the idea a while ago and obviously it would be the best way.

I also agree with all points Cow, some very, very good idea's. Most of them are already discussed on the forum, but nothing has been changed. This list is a great job. Except:
- PD is not overpowered. As you know, i played PD a lot but i rarely use it anymore after they nerfed it, because i'm unable to beat any good player with it atm. The nerf that has been introduced has already done enough (maybe too much); i don't see much players use it anymore. If you do another nerf, it will be even more useless then LB on small maps.
- AW is not big enough for a social networks or something, although the profiles can use a upgrade

And i would like to add:
The rankings with players/teams/coalitions is also a good idea and need indeed a big upgrade. Also there should be added a rule that you can't just leave and join one coalition or the other (let's say: Wait 48hours for joining a coalition when you left one). I don't like the coalition hopping.

I don't like name changing every 2 minutes, although Solunae won't agree with me on this one.

I also think PD isn't overpowered, it seems to me just fine as it is.

Good point Caulerpa. I think players should pay a small SP fee to change their names. Despite the names historic we still have a mess with name changing.

I also disagree that PD needs a nerf, since the slight decrease on it's movement range seems to be working well already. As for MoS and LB, they sure need a boost.

Scris de Hugosch, 12.09.2011 at 09:01

Most of them are already discussed on the forum, but nothing has been changed.

That's the reason why I created this list mate. I hope Ivan and Amok will use this thread as reference and we get some progress now that Amok is back.

Scris de Pinheiro, 12.09.2011 at 09:34

Good point Caulerpa. I think players should pay a small SP fee to change their names. Despite the names historic we still have a mess with name changing.

I don't agree with you in this point, I think it's everybodies personal decision if he wants to change his name and doesn't affect others.
However, I think it would be useful if player-names wouldn't change if you add them to your friend or ignore list. This would cause that you can keep track of the people which are important for you. I think this would be a good balance of interests.

Scris de Pinheiro, 12.09.2011 at 09:34

I also disagree that PD needs a nerf, since the slight decrease on it's movement range seems to be working well already. As for MoS and LB, they sure need a boost.

Alright fellows, maybe you can remember that I used PD as main-strategy just the way like Hugo did it for several months. When everybody started crying about PD to be overpowered I started to play other strategies as well and this is my current conclusion:

- GW and IF are way too strong, they need a nerf
- PD, GC, SM Blitz are just the way balanced strategies should be like
- Blitz, Imperialist and NC are useful, depending on the map
- TG and MoS need a boost
- LB is crap

I agree with you that PD is not overpowered anymore, I just left it in the list like it was because i wanted people to discuss it, since we all have the same opinion I will remove it.

Scris de Guest, 12.09.2011 at 10:41

- GW and IF are way too strong, they need a nerf
- PD, GC, SM Blitz are just the way balanced strategies should be like
- Blitz, Imperialist and NC are useful, depending on the map
- TG and MoS need a boost
- LB is crap

Very nice summary. +1 to this.

I also like the idea for SP fees to change names

IF is OP in a few situations. Overall it's a balanced strategy.

GW is OP if you compare it to MoS, that's why I ask for a boost to MoS, not a nerf on GW.

Compared to SM, PD, GC and Imperialist it's really fine in my opinion.

I agree when you mention the need of a boost to TG.

I don't want to focus too much on game balancement on this thread, so I think we shouold focus on the other suggestions, like the ELO, which I find very interesting. Also, talking about more reliable stats about players, I think "leaves" should, at least, be showed in the profile page, in order to make W/L means something.

I have to say GW is pretty strong, the only Nerf it needs though is a slight increase to the cost of militia.

Scris de Guest, 12.09.2011 at 10:41

I don't agree with you in this point, I think it's everybodies personal decision if he wants to change his name and doesn't affect others.
However, I think it would be useful if player-names wouldn't change if you add them to your friend or ignore list. This would cause that you can keep track of the people which are important for you. I think this would be a good balance of interests.

- GW and IF are way too strong, they need a nerf
- PD, GC, SM Blitz are just the way balanced strategies should be like
- Blitz, Imperialist and NC are useful, depending on the map
- TG and MoS need a boost
- LB is crap

I agree with you that PD is not overpowered anymore, I just left it in the list like it was because i wanted people to discuss it, since we all have the same opinion I will remove it.

I think that would be even more confusing, I suggest 10k for changing name for regular user (like now) and 5k for premium, that way people could change name without big penalty but they won't be able to change it every 2 minutes.

+1 to strategy summary, only GW and IF are not "way too strong", i mean it's not like they are unbeatable, but they need a little nerf; maybe higher cost of militia for GW and -1 to HP to IF?

I completely agree with Pinheiro! All points .

Maybe some people think GW is OP because GW works very good on small maps like europe. GW > PD on small maps (also before PD got nerfed). PD > GW on bigger maps. GW can create chaos on small maps, that makes it strong on maps like europe where it can attack on 30places in 1turn. Not unbeatable, but just strong. But i'm pretty sure GW it can be defeated by all strategy's on bigger maps (except LB). Therefor i agree with Pinheiro, MoS needs a boost, not a nerf on GW. GW will be useless on big maps then.
Also LB needs to be removed (or a big change) and TG can get a small boost (-10costs for tanks for example). IF can be nerfed just a little bit as i do not know a strategy that is stronger then IF.

There can be some little changes on strategy, but i think the first turn block should have priority #1. I also fully agree with the stats: The leaving should be shown on the profile.

Also; i like the idea of paying poins for changing name. There is no reason for changing name every day (like a lot players do). 5k and 10k like Caulerpa says, is good.

Read my last post again please. I don't know if you got my point.
When friends and ignored people will keep the same name for the respective player, there is no need for paying SP to change the name. All players which are related to you will keep their normal name in "your" game, so it's not confusing anymore and people can change their name when they feel like, since it's not your business and not yours. It's a nice feature for premium accounts to have free name-changes and the only problem it causes would be solved by my suggestion.

Let me get this straight, you are saying that people that are on my friends/ignore/enemy list would seem to me like they have the same (previous) name, and if they aren't connected with me their name would change?
I don't think i understood this well, but if I did, in that case it would be even more confusing because your name to me would be Cow (because you're on my friends list) and to Hugosch (i am just writing names as example) would be Ironail because he doesn't have you as a friend?!

No the name wouldn't change while you're online.
And yes the name would be different if another player added me when I had another name, but I don't think this would be a problem, since generally known players are known by their specific name, like Vafika. Implying everyone calls him Vafika even despite the fact that he changed his name 24/7. It wouldn't matter in the end.

I just got another idea. Wouldn't you like a function to change player names on your friend list on your own? So it wouldn't matter if someone changes his name, since you could call him a name you want to.
The more I think about it the more I like this last idea.

Sorry, but I think it would still be confusing as it is now, especially to new players. But, let's see what other players think about name changing.

We had a fee for changing names before and I think it worked pretty well. Your suggestion can also work, but as Caulerpa said it's too confusing and too much effort to solve a thing we have an easier and simple solution. I think 5k might be too much, when I said "small fee" I was thinking about something next to 1k SP each time you want to change your name.

That way players would still have the chance to do it, while metamorphosis players would have to limit themselves.

Also, it should stay as a premium feature.

I don't understand Cow. You want the developers spend time on name changing in the friendslist, while there is a lot more work to do? Why just not stick to the name you have? Why change it 10times? Yes, we knew about Vafika; but it was still confusing everytime he was online (also with your nick, i have to watch the rank ingame to see the difference with the real Ironail). I agree with Caulerpa and Pinheiro; changing names should not be a free thing. I will let the developers decide what the amount SP it will cost.