Purchase Upgrades With PC

There should be new upgrades that are only purchasable with PC instead of SP. PC is just as attainable as SP nowadays, and this would also make people more invested in the game since they would have an increased incentive to invest money in the game, which itself makes them more invested.

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

Prispeval Estus, 26.10.2020 at 00:23

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

I think there could be an established balance, because you're right, there are mixed incentives, some that we want and others that we don't. So I think we could either keep the PC low or have the upgrades maintain some kind of vanity element that is less impactful on gameplay, like with colors or something. Or perhaps there could be a ticket we could purchase with PC that lets players have first-picking status on x number of games. That is an entirely different idea that just came to me but yeah that should be on the back burner

Prispeval Estus, 26.10.2020 at 00:23

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

The concept of Generals already makes it one, so I don't see what stopping us

Prispeval Fatcheek, 07.11.2020 at 16:13

Prispeval Estus, 26.10.2020 at 00:23

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

The concept of Generals already makes it one, so I don't see what stopping us

Err, yes and no. Balance wise, I don't think a General is all that powerful. Yes it gives Prems an edge, but IMO over the course of a game a General can't singlehandedly shift the outcome of a game to one player.

Another point is that, since most games have a decent number of players, it's a lot easier to balance things. As seen in Magic: the Gathering's Elder Dragon Highlander(EDH) and competitive Elder Dragon Highlander(cEDH), games and gamemodes that have multiple players in a 'FFA' (except politics are allowed) pitched against each other are much easier to balance. Also, any really powerful mechanic, card, unit, upgrade, etc. is not nearly as powerful due to the fact that many other players can gang up on you. You can't win a 3-front war, and 2-front wars are most definitely bad.

So Generals, while they do help the paying players, can't really be good enough to imbalance the game outside of 1v1 matches. I mean, if they were..... they'd be so obviously broken that either a single general could throw down with another player's entire army, or the general can buff your entire army to the point that your god-stack is not only indestructible but can destroy anything it touches, meaning your weakness is movement.

Protocoin upgrades, on the other hand, could be HUGE. There'd be a very thin line between underwhelming and game-breaking, due to the fact that the upgrades apply to all of one or more unit types. And +1 to any ability would be really darn powerful.

Prispeval TriusMalarky, 07.11.2020 at 17:05

Prispeval Fatcheek, 07.11.2020 at 16:13

Prispeval Estus, 26.10.2020 at 00:23

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

The concept of Generals already makes it one, so I don't see what stopping us

Err, yes and no. Balance wise, I don't think a General is all that powerful. Yes it gives Prems an edge, but IMO over the course of a game a General can't singlehandedly shift the outcome of a game to one player.

Another point is that, since most games have a decent number of players, it's a lot easier to balance things. As seen in Magic: the Gathering's Elder Dragon Highlander(EDH) and competitive Elder Dragon Highlander(cEDH), games and gamemodes that have multiple players in a 'FFA' (except politics are allowed) pitched against each other are much easier to balance. Also, any really powerful mechanic, card, unit, upgrade, etc. is not nearly as powerful due to the fact that many other players can gang up on you. You can't win a 3-front war, and 2-front wars are most definitely bad.

So Generals, while they do help the paying players, can't really be good enough to imbalance the game outside of 1v1 matches. I mean, if they were..... they'd be so obviously broken that either a single general could throw down with another player's entire army, or the general can buff your entire army to the point that your god-stack is not only indestructible but can destroy anything it touches, meaning your weakness is movement.

Protocoin upgrades, on the other hand, could be HUGE. There'd be a very thin line between underwhelming and game-breaking, due to the fact that the upgrades apply to all of one or more unit types. And +1 to any ability would be really darn powerful.

No, Generals are actually very powerful. If you played the game enough, you'd understand that generals have too much influence on the game. It might not seem as bad in non-scenarios, but in scenarios, it has a HUGE effect. In a stack clash, Generals always have the upper hand. It's came to the point where in almost all team scenarios, having a gen is a must to play big countries.

If protocoin upgrades only are bad, then at least buy upgrades with protocoins could work xd.

Prispeval Fatcheek, 07.11.2020 at 17:24

Prispeval TriusMalarky, 07.11.2020 at 17:05

Prispeval Fatcheek, 07.11.2020 at 16:13

Prispeval Estus, 26.10.2020 at 00:23

Sounds good at first, but it can easily enforce the argument of atWar being a pay-to-win game.

The concept of Generals already makes it one, so I don't see what stopping us

Err, yes and no. Balance wise, I don't think a General is all that powerful. Yes it gives Prems an edge, but IMO over the course of a game a General can't singlehandedly shift the outcome of a game to one player.

Another point is that, since most games have a decent number of players, it's a lot easier to balance things. As seen in Magic: the Gathering's Elder Dragon Highlander(EDH) and competitive Elder Dragon Highlander(cEDH), games and gamemodes that have multiple players in a 'FFA' (except politics are allowed) pitched against each other are much easier to balance. Also, any really powerful mechanic, card, unit, upgrade, etc. is not nearly as powerful due to the fact that many other players can gang up on you. You can't win a 3-front war, and 2-front wars are most definitely bad.

So Generals, while they do help the paying players, can't really be good enough to imbalance the game outside of 1v1 matches. I mean, if they were..... they'd be so obviously broken that either a single general could throw down with another player's entire army, or the general can buff your entire army to the point that your god-stack is not only indestructible but can destroy anything it touches, meaning your weakness is movement.

Protocoin upgrades, on the other hand, could be HUGE. There'd be a very thin line between underwhelming and game-breaking, due to the fact that the upgrades apply to all of one or more unit types. And +1 to any ability would be really darn powerful.

No, Generals are actually very powerful. If you played the game enough, you'd understand that generals have too much influence on the game. It might not seem as bad in non-scenarios, but in scenarios, it has a HUGE effect. In a stack clash, Generals always have the upper hand. It's came to the point where in almost all team scenarios, having a gen is a must to play big countries.

If protocoin upgrades only are bad, then at least buy upgrades with protocoins could work xd.

Well, I'll concede a bit of a lack of experience in that regard. And I would support the ability to purchase SP-purchasable upgrades with Proto Coins. It would simply cut out the grind, and due to the way you can segregate ranks, the imbalance that would create is minimal.

I still don't think Generals are super powerful, as they buff one stack and aren't board-wide, but that's my opinion.

Make general purchasable, that's all I'll support