Axis & Allies Neglected

[isaacs18]

Wow excellent post jkizzle. I second everything stated there. AA could use a little help, especially PBE as this is the money making end of the spectrum.

[ROLLINGTHUNDER]

Wait a minute,,,,you mean that Axis & Allies isn’t a role- playing game? So I don’t really havta sit in front of the computer in full SS uniform, jack booots, eye monocle and a riding crop in hand whilst drinkin schnapps and singing Das Panzerlied?

Seriously, while respecting all who commented on GTOs decision of RPGTO, I think that if GTO believes that it was a good decision and that it will increase revenue then it is there decision to make and I’m sure it was what they thought best for GTO.

I also understand the critics who would like to see more AA games/improvements. I personally would not mind paying a lil more if it would help expedite new AA games or up enhancements. Some may disagree but think about it, it was very inexpensive to join, only about twenty some dollars. Hell, I spend about the same on a twelver and a pack of Camels. I’m sure there are many who feel the same and I really don’t think anyone would stop playing as long as the price was fair.

[kemal81]

Just like rollingthunder I am not disagreeing on the points that are being made that A&A needs improvement. But all that improvements can be done if there is enough money. So we should support GTO on anything they do that can help them to increase their revenue. The more money they have, the more they can improve their games including A&A. Have you guys noticed the change in the forums lately? There are as many as threads about RPGTO if not more as A&A. It used to be 90% of threads were about A&A. That means there is so much intertest to it. There are so many potential customers in that area. There was a market and GTO just expanded into it. Honestly, the only reason I am here at GTO is because of A&A, but I wouldn't mind if GTO puts most of its resources for now into this new project and they need to focus on it since it's new. Even if that means it will be at the cost of A&A. It's like when a couple has a second child they have to give more attention to the baby. There is no reason to be the jealous big brother. The parents still love both kids equally but they also know the baby needs them more. Same thing is true with D&D and A&A.
Once GTO establishes their customer base there, I am pretty sure they will make their improvements with A&A and they will have the money they need to do so. It's not like they will abondon their old loyal customers.

[UtzChips]

I read a newcomer's comment about how he'll never make expert, as he does not have the time to play the number of games to achieve such a ranking. He was also frustrated with how long it would take just to get to advanced.

My answer to this problem is to change to a chess style ranking system for 1v1 play.

Say the top ranked players are considered what is called in the chess world as "Grandmasters" and are given a ranking of 2900.

Now, along comes Mr. Newcomer who has years of experience under his belt. He/she [referred to from this point as she] is given an "average rating" which in the chess world [I believe] is 1450-1500.

For the 1st 10-15 games, Ms. Newcomer's rating will swing up and down [depending on results] much more than a person's with an established rating, just like in the chess world.

So she comes on board and for her 1st 10 games, she seeks out 10 players who are rated 2900.

Ms. Newcomer's results: go win, win, lose, win, lose.

In the 1st game, Ms. Newcomer's rating is increased to 60% of what the grandmaster's was [2900*.6 = 1740]
In the 2nd game the rating is increased 60% of the difference between 1740 & 2900.
Her rating now is {2900-1740]*.6 + 1740 = 2436

The reason is two-fold: 1. Even in the chess world [I do believe] a newcomer doesn't immediately get a 2900 rating just because she beat two of them in a row, or even an 1800 rating if she beats 2 of them in a row. 2. Probability of the wins being due to good dice. A player with a skill level of say 2300, could probably beat two 2900 players in a row with really good dice.

Now when the newcomer loses the 3rd game, you adjust the provisional rating the same way, only substracting the difference:
2436 - [2900-2436]*6 = 2157

Now after achieving a rating of 2157, she plays someone rated say 1600 and loses. Well, that's an extreme difference between her 1st two results [beating 2 grandmasters] and losing to someone rated 100 pts above avg., so the swing down for that loss, will be greater than the swing up for the wins against the grandmasters.

You would use this same formula if the newcomer's 1st game was against a player rated lower than 1500. Say 1300:

1500 - [1500-1300]*6 = 1320

Once the newcomer's rating has becomed "established" by playing the required number of games, her rating no longer fluxuates so violently and is adjusted normally like everyone else.

The rating of the newcomer's opponents are also adjusted down/up much less than when they win/lose against a player with an established rating, as we're not sure what the true rating of the newcomer should be.

When I played competitive chess, the most points you could win [when your opponent was rated much more than you] was 32 points and the least you could win was 2 points. If the rating of the two players were close, the change would be 16 points up/down.

There are a few problems I see using this: 1. Why would an A&A player rated 2900 risk losing 32 points? 2. There is a lot more luck involved in A&A, and those who think that there is no luck involved in chess, you're wrong. All one has to do is study the games of Tal and other aggressive grandmasters, who would take a risk, in order to put his opponent in time trouble with an extremely complicated board layout.

That's a rough sketch of how I see we could remedy the problem with:

1. newcomer's not being able to increase their rating to their true playing ability quickly.
2. sandbagging.
3. players increasing their rating on the shirttails of stronger players as partners, because this system would not apply to multi-way games.

I have won several games playing with experts as partners. In a 2v2 game, we usually get the Axis, I play Japan & tell my partner what I think I should do, then he tells me what to do and why I was wrong. With a 90/5 time limit, it's easy. I get a lesson in a live game AND my rating increases much more than when I beat someone 1v1. THIS IS SO WRONG !!

So, I don't know what you would do about ratings for multi-games, and I don't care. That is, so long as they are not co-mingled with a player's 1v1 rating, because they are completely different games in my book.

However, this is just one man's opinion.

[jkizzle]

There are many rating systems, and there are arguments to be made for each of them, but until we get to the point where GTO is willing to implement a new system it doesn't matter much. But just to respond about the team ratings, it may make sense to average the two players to get a team rating that the rating changes are calculated from, possibly weighting the higher ranked player because he is making more decisions, or possibly not to encourage higher rated players to choose lower rated partners.

And to follow up up on the financial aspects of making these fixes/enhancements, if GTO would need to raise the price slightly for the game itself and for PBE games to make it worthwhile for them I would definitely support this. I understand its all about keeping the ship afloat and heading in the right direction in a business, but I also think the demand for these things is there.

I know Rob has stated that AA gets its fair share of support, but I haven't seen much lately, maybe they have been busy with RPG?

[kbaldy_77]

Personally i have no problem kicking in extra to play a and a, have a fund drive or whatever, but i would like to see the game expand. For instance, a board edit feature would allow a whole new realm of possibilities for scenarios. The game becomes stagnant when you have limited opening strategies. Check out aawc sometime and rules for kremlin, battle of britain, pac wars etc., i think you guys would really like the setup. Would change this game completely. And utz, i have posted several times the ranking system aawc has implemented, i think you would like that also. But it seems everytime i bring up aawc, rating system, board edit, it is a dead issue to gto. You guys dont know what you are missing. I dont play there anymore, i like the complicity of revised/42, but add to that a board edit feature this place would go crazy. As for RPG, dont really understand other than in the bedroom with my girlfriend, .

[bb82]

Yeah, hopefully fixing up features that can be used for all the A&A versions would be the priority over a new version. A new version would have appeal but to actually retain players A&A needs more features for lasting appeal. Then the pool would keep growing when the newness was exhausted. Features are key (i.e. more competitive ranking system, well run leagues, edit feature, view others active games, more advertisement for pbem/leagues, etc.)

[UtzChips]

I am 100% against spectators being able to view a game in progress, unless there is an option to not allow it.

With me & my reputation, I can just see some Expert having a little fun with me & getting online with a gamer with a record of like 50 wins & 80 losses, watching the game with him & coaching him as the game goes on, using Skype.

No dice!

Implement that, without the option of not allowing pre-game & I'm done playing.

[commander_chaos]

I am 100% against spectators being able to view a game in progress, unless there is an option to not allow it.

With me & my reputation, I can just see some Expert having a little fun with me & getting online with a gamer with a record of like 50 wins & 80 losses, watching the game with him & coaching him as the game goes on, using Skype.

No dice!

Implement that, without the option of not allowing pre-game & I'm done playing.

I would love to see the spectators option, but do agree with Utz in that it should only be an option- I think it would be better than handing over your pass to another player to play in your place

As far as the unit edit screen goes and other house and optional rule features, I do agree in principal that it would be good for the A&A community from a purely idealistic point of view, but in the real world its more about licensing, agreements and contracts- less about having the will to see some of these things done- at least thats the sense ive gotten.

[kbaldy_77]

Well, when i came here i heard alot of good things about GTO, and alot of bad things about 3rd edition. I am hooked on axis and allies, and have played since the days of msn zone, including 3 or more years here. I can honestly say GTO has everything 3 edition offes. Here you have dice whiners galore, drama, endless threads with people fighting, more dice whining, more drama, people getting banned, rude behavior in the lobby, chest beating, massive egos, not to mention the ever present cliques. The only thing i see gto doesnt have that 3rd edition does is a decent rating system, squad play, savable (real savable) games, board edit, ability to see who has game up, instant private messaging (so you can talk to someone without lobby seeing and not have to use /tell or whatever it is), and yes utz you can sit in on a game and watch (with permission), plus the game interface is far superior. I do think the board setup here is more complicated and that is why i stick around, for now. But it would be nice to have the best of both worlds, even with all the negativity you inevitably encounter. After all it is just a game isn't it?

[dgss1]

Well, I don't think GTO has neglected a&a. Not sure when A&A started here but it took many years to turn that Hasbro 98 A&A(3rd ed) into what it is now at the war zone.
gto has improved the revised game over the years just as WZ has to 3rd edition.
I consider the 42 version as an upgrade as well.

There are some good points KBaldy about the lobby, being able to pm someone using lobby tools/pm. Being able to see how many games are going & who is in them. And that is not just A&A but rather the place as a whole.
A better rating system....Most of us know there is one available to use at http://axisandalliesworldclub.net . You do have to be a member and the person you are playing as well for it to count. So it is an extra step but not much of one. It is set up for 3rd edition/war zone, but the juno db can be used for what ever rules, and you can even post ftf games.

Where gto offers the game of chess. One would think they would be moving in a direction to have a better rating system. I know gto has looked at aawc's system and had hoped there would of been More cross over to use that system and play here. Some of that blame is only on myself. By that I mean, I too love the game and will continue to play and am thankful for all the various places to play. Gto, aawc/war zone, triple A, aamc. and our local RockyMountain A&A meet up group to play face to face every two weeks. I have helped here and there at different times and places but never have had the time some are able to do for this game/hobby....to have made that cross over happen between aawc and gto for the ratings Many of us think would be a nice feature. I like to play when I have the time instead of fighting with old timers that aawc is a good option. selfish me.......but I have always been a player first helper second, then one to make things happen within A&A.

Sitting in on a game or viewing is a nice Option. It does need to have an allow or not option because of voice chat and people teaming up. At the moment, I would love to view the luka and El Rav game in the 42 playoffs. That would be a game I would like to "watch" not the everyday game though they can be good too.

I said it before someplace, A&A is a game that will be around for a long time. If you look at the other places to play(referring to A&A only) you should realize that gto is kinda the new kid. The difference is gto offers other games where the other A&A places are just that, A&A. I play here because Mostly for the versions of A&A and the interface. I dont think it is Far Superior but I do like it better the others. I especially like the pbem interface(this suits my life best) and do believe that is far Superior than writing everything down and double checking the other player though, that in-itself is a great way to learn the game.

My point of A&A, Gto and the Neglected....Sure, A&A did a lot for gto as the "New Kid" Also, gto did a lot for Us A&A lovers. So that is a two way street. Gto is run different than any other A&A place we have played. Even MSN from back in the day. GTO's numbers (no facts just guess work) are probably close to the 1998 MSN A&A room days. Gto markets, charges and has the Rights via the game owners to do so. Gto has improved the interface, has listened to us Lovers and corrected rule issues to make it better. Now gto has gone after a new market that has numbers that blow our voices away. My belief is gto could draw in more A&A players by bringing the 50th Anniversary and the new Global game to gto but by numbers the Rpg will pay for itself quicker. That said, those games are more "trendy" and constantly changing & probably require more time and effort over the long run where as A&A is a game that will be around "as is" for many years and by gto being here, I'd say, pay for itself in the long run.

So in a couple years......Ask me the question again and if Gto has done nothing to bring forward a newer version I would say sure, they have neglected us. Then as a user, I may play fewer games here and more where I can play Global, 50th either face to face or by old school email or at tripleA and stop spending my $$$$ here to play pbem for a version that is covenant but not the one I really want. That is the reason I moved away from 3rd ed. Though a couple weeks back I saw a ftf game of 3rd played at a MeetUp. the board almost looked like my 1960's risk board.

The point of edits is one that needs to happen. the savable games I think has been overcome by gto's pbem version though its not the same as Owning the 98 program.

dg

[RobEng]

the Rpg will pay for itself quicker. That said, those games are more "trendy" and constantly changing & probably require more time and effort over the long run where as A&A is a game that will be around "as is" for many years and by gto being here, I'd say, pay for itself in the long run.

Your other points are all suggestions that we have on our list of future enhancements/improvements but we do have a different view of how much future RPGTO content will cost in time. The RPGTO system is not really a game but more tool set for playing games. There is no rule enforcement, which is the bulk of work for online games, so we are anticipating less programming, management, and debugging. Instead of needing to code a new game, a new game system really only consists of art elements (backgrounds and tokens) for users to move around, a character sheet to depict their character, and data for monsters/NPCs. We are envisioning a web page where approved artists/publishers can submit their art without our immediate involvement. Arguably, RPGTO is already compatible with any RPG system (granted, you would need to use your imagination). Incorporating future RPG systems is more modification, configuration, and optimization of RPGTO to follow the format of those systems.

[winston76]

GTO needs money so it searches for the rainbow, meanwhile leaving its small, loyal band of AA addicts left floating in the wind.

All because we don't spend enough money..

I would counter (as others before me) that without AA, GTO may not be what it is today. It would be an obscure games site with very little traffic but because it offered a product that is not available in the same format elsewhere (or hasn't been reliably) the 'masses' gathered and created what was a really dynamic community.

Unfortunately constant bugs, glitches, lack of game variety, lack of tournament support and a host of other, well documented issues, the games appear to be languishing. I think ignore your core user group at your own risk.

I sincerely hope that you will see us for the valuable users that we are and continue to strive to improve the gaming experience for all of us.

Thanks,

[UtzChips]

winston76,

If you were to do a poll, I believe that you would find that the vast majority of players would disagree with you.

By the way, I came to forum & saw your post after watchin' you argue with someone in lobby over how the bid works in 42. You were wrong & you did admit that you were just learning 42, but I think your post has a lot more to do than with what you mentioned.

By the way, there are 2 leagues going on & a low luck ladder league & I am having trouble keeping up with all the games I have to play in the revised & 42 league every month.

[TheVenocWarlord]

winston76,

If you were to do a poll, I believe that you would find that the vast majority of players would disagree with you.

By the way, I came to forum & saw your post after watchin' you argue with someone in lobby over how the bid works in 42. You were wrong & you did admit that you were just learning 42, but I think your post has a lot more to do than with what you mentioned.

By the way, there are 2 leagues going on & a low luck ladder league & I am having trouble keeping up with all the games I have to play in the revised & 42 league every month.

:word: