WebGL Update now Live!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Diabolical wrote:

      I'm not a fan of the new aircraft "hopping" arrows, though they seem OK enough, otherwise. Back to colorization, though, I think the problem with the new color sets, aside from not being used to them, is that they blur together too much. There's no contrast except for those non-core province colorization bars.

      I guess, the look reminds me a little too much of Conflict of Nations, which I never did care for nearly as much as Call of War. And, might I add, I haven't played CoN in over a year. That should say it all.

      Oh, one more thing. The unit scaling seemed to work well with the old graphics zoom stepping. But the sliding-scale zoom makes the units scale too small when you aren't zoomed too far out....contributing to that difficulty with blurring everything together. I'm already using readers. I don't want to have to get a stronger zoom on my glasses, or it'll screw up my vision.

      (EDIT 1)

      OK, one more thing annoys me. The sliding-to-a-stop feature is kinda cool and all, but it's extremely annoying when I'm trying to quickly move back and forth to click on units to drag to other areas of the map. When I move, I then try to grab a unit, but the map keeps sliding on ice and I grab open air...or the wrong thing. I SINCERELY hope this will be a feature that can be turned off or at least has to be forcibly made to happen by deliberately "throwing" the map to one side (i.e., trying to lob it by quickly releasing a rabidly-moving mouse in an almost-tapping motion to the side).

      (EDIT 2)

      I just noticed....you no longer can see the potential range-ring of artillery and aircraft which was represented as a dashed circle as you were dragging a unit around. That's REALLY needed!

      (EDIT 3)

      None of the national colors are vibrant enough. The path indicator no longer highlights differences in Forced March. These are really needed. It seems the PC version has lost it's charm. It's more like the Mobile version which is a pain in the butt to play.

      (EDIT 4)

      OK, yet another annoyance....perhaps just another thing forgotten in the roll out (fingers crossed that that is the reason)... In the province details box (desktop version), when you click on the owner's icon, you no longer go to their line in the diplomatic menu, but instead go to your own. That's normal behavior ONLY when you are open to one or more of your own provinces. But foreign ones....you expect to open to foreign entries in the diplomatic menu, right?

      (EDIT 5)

      Now, this is getting quite old, but here's yet another thing missing. The timing of embarkation/disembarkation is not shown, and seems to be quite screwed up, in terms of actual times.

      In addition, I had several stacks of units depart from one destination to arrive at several others, and the approximate arrival times were highly discongruous. I'm not sure if those arrival times were skewed by distances so much as they were being slowed down by foreign port limitations. But it was an attack on another player's totally unguarded coastline (and no forces inland), where slightly-faster units made huge ground coverages while the slightly-slower units were still disembarking.

      There was no justification for the extremely disparate arrival times as the various paths were nearly the same distance and had similar terrains, etc. The only two things I can think of to cause this issue would be either that the embark/disembark times were skewed based on the speed of units (rather than the default) or else the convoys' speed were affected by land speeds of the various units. Either way, this would be a huge bug.

      (EDIT 6)

      I've noticed yet another issue. It seems that, when doing a click-and-drag on a unit, to tell it to attack or move to another target beyond the edge of the screen, the map doesn't automatically scroll to the side, anymore. Please fix this, too! Oh, and mountain terrain seems to be missing.

      (EDIT 7 ——— Final Entry ——— 9/28/18)

      OK, this will be my last edit. Any future annoyances and bugs will likely be reported in the suggestions or errors sections, respectively. However, I've just noticed that the new matching path colors are very bad in owned lands when you need to try to move other units and have them stop at certain places along those colored paths.

      Let's say I have a unit set to go along a circuitous route to a distant target. Along his way, his path has been colored similarly to my national colors and they are both lighter shades. Then, I have another unit that I want to move to a specific spot along that other unit's path where that path is still inside my borders. But, I can't make out the exact point where the first unit's path takes a corner because of the lack of contrast. I try to guess at where this is, but since corners aren't automatically treated as waypoint notches, there's no snap-to effect which would be kinda handy to have right now. So, I keep trying to drop the path to the spot I want and I can't get it to line up. I can't see exactly where to go unless I cancel the first unit's target, thus cleaning off the path. However, the first unit's path was meticulously-planned out and not a simple route (perhaps I'm trying to avoid obstacles).

      So, if there were more and stronger contrast between one's national colors and their path indicator, that would help. But then this might cause problems when your path is in an ally's land, which might line up with your otherwise-contrasted color. I know we don't want animated paths for non-selected units, but maybe a non-moving dashed line would be easier to see? Or —— and this might be a little harder to code —— by using gradient-thinking, perhaps the path lines could fade to lighter national colors in the straights while darkening towards the corners and waypoints. Thus, the gradient coding, but maybe this would be far easier to see. And the contrast between corners and waypoints vs. the straight lines might make the whole game much easier to see without having to tweak the national colors again and again. This might even help a little with the hard-to-see units which scale down so far as to disappear into the surroundings when zoomed out more and more.


      OK, to make sure that every edit of this message has been viewed (and hopefully read and understood) by most of the relevant people on staff, I'm naming them here: @freezy, @Dr. Leipreachán, @Sasri, @Stormbringer50, @Aeblemost, and @VorlonFCW. Thanks for reading!

      OK, I have one more complaint...and it has to do with something other than the look of the game...and it's the look of the player list.

      The following image is a copy of a sorted list of players in a new World Map match that I joined, just this morning. Note the uniformity of the so-called "random" names. How can one expect to memorize their opponent's and allies, for a quick assessment when reading stories in the World Herald or viewing a list of of empire activity in the same? How can you easily distinguish between players in the diplomacy setting? Having to rely exclusively on nation names will get highly annoying, fast. Besides, long-term players like me, who have whitelists and blacklists of players to ally with and/or to avoid will get a lot more difficult to rely upon.

      Suppose a new player, named user9573920, proves to be a great ally. I'd be interested in asking them to join me in another match, but in the other match, that user never joins, but instead, another user, with a similar name, i.e., user9537290, joins and I let them be an ally, but, to my chagrin, later discover that they are not the player I thought they were when they backstab me by sending their scouts running through my unprotected cores which are adjacent to theirs....under the guise that he's headed to aid me on my front.

      Because of that possibility, I'll never be able to put any trust into any user with that random "user#####" convention. So, since only new users have that type of name, they will be receiving a great amount of distrust from myself and other long-term players like me, who also wish to avoid getting betrayed.

      Therefore, the player experience of users with this random naming convention is going to be a lot worse in the long run. And, though some may change their names to something unique to them, most won't...either because of not knowing they can, or because they are only a casual gamer, not really focusing on too many of the nuances. Either way, those of us who have been around and are experienced are far less likely to allow those newcomers to catch a break.

      Were I on staff, I'd push for an immediate rescinding of the randomized names and return the ability to create a unique name upon signup.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • I don't know new players have this, so I assumed those were bots. However, adding on to Diabolical, I believe there should be a choice of randomized names or unique names. Unique names are hard since you can't have a repeat, but why not let them have a choice? The name can mean something, like my username Little Racoon. It was meant to describe my height and my favorite/mascot animal, the racoon. Some people may not bother to do it, so they should have the user#whatever. Just let the players have a choice!
      "As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable." Albert Einstein

      "Giving up is not an option in war, for it proves one's incapability and incompetence as a leader." - Me (Little Racoon)