@Dead Piggy

Why the fuck can they not get appreciated? This isn't from the perspective of the Map-Maker it's in the perspective of the game appreciating the map-maker.. Why should I care.. I amn't a mapmaker or fizzer.. Fucking hell -.-

Nice to see GUI.


On the other hand, i couldn't laugh at this list or agree to much of it.

1) Why not. I won't play this kind of games. But if some players are more comfortable to play like that... why not. If it's open game or a tourney, just don't join if you don't like.

2) I agree. The app is weak. it's even maybe why WL has less and less players. If you only play the app, WL is a lot less interesting. As in the game, it's less easy to play with "app-players": they can't read links, big maps are an issue... Though it will lead to more and more categories of WL players (RT, MD, App, Computer, Multi-attack, diplo, role playing... it tends to divide the community. So idk. But Qi is clearly pointing something out.

3) Don't care.

4) Finally somebody who agree with me! Not simply because people are talkative (lol), but because it adds something to the game. IMHO this is the ultimate way to rate a player. You have to master 1vs1 and team games strategy. +1000

ps: another anti-alt possible measure

5) hehehe. Gui. While I'm glad to see you coming back with an interesting thread. I just remember why you make people cringe. Just be humble, even if you're maybe right :)

(Could you show us your favorite Europe 3vs3 template? Actually I'm curious to see if it's 3 picks/player or 4? After playing 4 picks for a while it appears to me it's boring. I prefer to come back to 3 but don't know why. The fans of "game theory" and the "calculators" seem to prefer 4 picks when the "intuition" players (you would say "art of war" players I guess) seem to prefer 3 picks.)

6) Why not. Don't really care. I'm not sure of the benefit. But as for everything, you first have to try it before you come to an opinion.

7) Don't care and too late for me. everybody knows I'm french! Even if I'm usually sensitive about privacy.

8) Why not. A Fizzer's topic. not mine.

9) Same answer than for 1): Join or decline if you don't like. But +1 because that would give some more incentive to join tourneys.

10) Silence is golden. at least should be for Gnuff

Disagree with Piggy's sentiment. Great things are definitely made for monetary gain.

If I make a quality product it will sell better (typically) than an inferior product. While I might strive to make a superior product for reasons other than money, by no means does that mean that if my goal is to make money that my goal can't also to be to do so via making a superior product.

Not to mention that money can be an enabler. ie. I may want to make something, but be unable to dedicate the time required to do so unless being paid for the time and effort put into its creation.

Yeah but the amount of money we'd likely be talking about here is not remotely enough to make it worthwhile to make maps for the purpose of making money considering the amount of time it takes to make a really good map. So it's not likely to encourage anyone to make a great map who wouldn't already want to do so.

6-7-8
+1

been waiting for anonymous games for a few years now...
feel that it is essential to true skill.

Who has bigger ego: Gnuff or Qi?

Yes, money is almost always a part of the creative process, as an 'enabler' aka capital. Giving people who want to create and innovate the capital to do it will certainly result in better quality products, no question, but that is not an incentive. I think the kind of capital that map makers need is not cash, its better tools and larger file sizes.

If you want to make money there will always be a shedload of better ways than creating something great from scratch. The people I know who want to get cash all go to work for big corporations, they dont sit at home or in a lab tinkering with stuff that they think is cool. You cannot bribe someone who has little interest in making something awesome into making something awesome. How much cash would someone have to give you for you to create the next google, or the next wright flyer or the next warlight?

I think the kind of capital that map makers need is not cash, its better tools and larger file sizes.

+1, though I'll always accept coin donations :)

On egos and Warlight:

If ego is the mediary between one's id and superego, and if all Warlight accounts are by definition an alter ego or, in my case, predominantly an alter id, it would be rather difficult to answer the question "Whose ego is bigger?" without real world observational data.

Does the question assume the context that all Warlight accounts are alter egos, as if all logical discourse on Warlight operates at the level of otherness? Or, does the questioner ignore this and assume the real world of egos and the Warlight world of alter egos are one and the same?

Or, is the question a mere pop-culture deconstruction of Freudian theory, happily applied to Warlight's world of alter egos and so-called trolls?

The way I interpret the question, based on what I know about myself and Gnuffone (whom I knew before any of you did), makes me believe the question would be better stated as "Is Qi's alter id bigger than Gnuffone's alter ego?" My response: maybe.

About coins for mapmakers:

Warlight could easily reduce what it gives to the gamblers each month and instead use trickle-down economics to give to others (or simply work on its balance sheet). Coins are already being given to people. How they are given and to whom could and has been adjusted.

Good ideas. I don't expect them to happen though.

Piggy's right btw.

Nah, Qi, you don't need to consider all that, you just need a ruler to measure who's further up their own arse.

And +1 piggy

Fizzer/Mercer what are your thoughts?

1. Multiday real-time ladder

probably a lot of work for a few users

2. App-only tournaments/ladder(s)

players choosing to play from the app know their disadvantage going into it, and it's on them. i'm assuming this one is here because you mostly use the app?

3. Rate forum posts anonymously

relevance is relevant. see the forum for the past year to see my point.

4. Single-player 3v3 Europe ladder

again, tiny user demo

5. Qi creates all ladder templates and two new ladders

yeah this one is okay.

6. Anonymous game mode

also like this one. it would say [Hidden]

7. Anonymous profile option for members

eh, sure

8. Reward mapmakers with coins

oh god so much drivel would come from this.

9. Universal ELO game mode

this could be good

10. Ban Gnuffone

hater

btw to the coins for maps argument:

the way to pull this off would be to let the map-makers take a % of fizzer's rake for any coin game that uses their map. essentially a royalty. that would at least keep the "art" as pure as it can be for money.

9 is by far the best idea on this thread.