Early Steam Reviews

[SkyHunter]

Four thumbs up, five thumbs down.

Here is one comment:

"I played this for about 10 hours, made it to level 27 and got wiped by a guy who harassed me for nearly 2 hours. <snip>
The worst part was that the guy harassing me was a lower level than me, and he positioned his base behind the world border that generates behind you when you level up, so I couldn't even retaliate against him. Really disappointing"

Another guy has been playing for six days, and has been wiped three times. I expect his review will also be negative when he quits.

[ArcticPrism]

Most of the negative reviews I've seen are about the game being pay to win.

[SkyHunter]

Most of the negative reviews I've seen are about the game being pay to win.

That's what is known as a red herring fallacy, a distraction. It has no bearing on the fact that people are leaving negative reviews because of the, how did one reviewer put it; "the toxic community."

One has to expect a sophisticated gaming community like Steam to recognize the pay-to-win hook. My sons knew what it was without ever seeing the game. They also recognize that the game is rigged against them. There is an established community, that not only has far more experience with the game, they also have a legacy advantage.

You guys like to brag about explaining the game to newcomers, as if no one else would if you didn't. It is what you do to convince yourselves your not complete pinheads. You tell them to learn the game mechanics, while simultaneously wiping and jailing them.

Keep it up, the reviews will just get worse.

[ArcticPrism]

How is it a red herring fallacy? Your topic title is Early Steam Reviews and many of said reviews are about the game being pay to win. I think bringing it up is relevant to the topic. In fact, there are more negative reviews that mention pay to win than what other players are doing to them. A game being pay to win is just as big of a problem as how toxic a community is especially in a game like this that is 100% PvP.

https://warofconquest.com/forum/viewtop ... p=782#p782
No one can deny that legacy players have a huge advantage but that's because Mike decided at the start of beta that there would be no more wipes. I don't think it was a good decision for the long term health of the game and now we'll just have to see the result of it. A second server would have been nice to have as an alternative to a wipe but there's not enough players to fill one with how big the map being triple the size of beta. There aren't even enough players for the current map size.


Calling everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you a pinhead is toxic behavior too. I've never wiped or jailed anyone and I don't even know who you are in game and you probably don't know me. I started this game like a month ago. You shouldn't label everyone so hastily.

[SkyHunter]

How is it a red herring fallacy? Your topic title is Early Steam Reviews and many of said reviews are about the game being pay to win. I think bringing it up is relevant to the topic. In fact, there are more negative reviews that mention pay to win than what other players are doing to them. A game being pay to win is just as big of a problem as how toxic a community is especially in a game like this that is 100% PvP.

It is a red herring fallacy because it distracts from, instead of addressing the point. I.E., that 40% of the negative reviews cite the toxic community as their reason for quitting the game and leaving a bad review. You are trying to defend the toxic community with a fallacy of informal logic.

https://warofconquest.com/forum/viewtop ... p=782#p782
No one can deny that legacy players have a huge advantage but that's because Mike decided at the start of beta that there would be no more wipes. I don't think it was a good decision for the long term health of the game and now we'll just have to see the result of it. A second server would have been nice to have as an alternative to a wipe but there's not enough players to fill one with how big the map being triple the size of beta. There aren't even enough players for the current map size.

So why use the legacy advantage to drive off new players?

Reyortsed is a veteran of the Steam community. He has over 10,000 followers. He has spent $10's of thousands of dollars playing games on Steam. In the six days he has been playing, he has been wiped 3 times by WarMachines. He was ready to quit yesterday and post a negative review, which he would share with 10,000 other Steam members. I convinced him to post here first.

Calling everyone who doesn't immediately agree with you a pinhead is toxic behavior too..

That is what is known as a strawman fallacy. I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a pinhead. I use the term exclusively to refer to the Tailors and their team. I don't even use the term outside of WOC.

I've never wiped or jailed anyone and I don't even know who you are in game and you probably don't know me. I started this game like a month ago. You shouldn't label everyone so hastily

I am not in the game, because I had the audacity to retaliate for being wiped while offline. The pinheads won't even let me settle land.

If you are not part of their team, then pinhead does not apply to you.

[Mike]

Thanks for the discussion of what needs to change to address the issues new Steam players are having with the game. I'm looking at starting up a second game world in the next few days, to address these issues. I started a thread to discuss this, here:

https://warofconquest.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=331

Any suggestions you may want to add would be greatly appreciated.

[ArcticPrism]

It is a red herring fallacy because it distracts from, instead of addressing the point. I.E., that 40% of the negative reviews cite the toxic community as their reason for quitting the game and leaving a bad review. You are trying to defend the toxic community with a fallacy of informal logic.

I'm not defending the toxic community nor am I trying to distract from anything with my "fallacy of informal logic". I'm merely stating that pay to win is an issue too.

So why use the legacy advantage to drive off new players?

Reyortsed is a veteran of the Steam community. He has over 10,000 followers. He has spent $10's of thousands of dollars playing games on Steam. In the six days he has been playing, he has been wiped 3 times by WarMachines. He was ready to quit yesterday and post a negative review, which he would share with 10,000 other Steam members. I convinced him to post here first.

Why is he so far from the newbie zone? His nation is basically as far north and east as possible. The whole reason for the zone is exactly so that veteran players cannot attack new players. I'm not going to try to justify anyone's actions, but he willfully left the protected area. He can always move back into the protected area but has chosen not to. Obviously, using a such a large legacy advantage is

That is what is known as a strawman fallacy. I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a pinhead. I use the term exclusively to refer to the Tailors and their team. I don't even use the term outside of WOC.

I've never wiped or jailed anyone and I don't even know who you are in game and you probably don't know me. I started this game like a month ago. You shouldn't label everyone so hastily

I am not in the game, because I had the audacity to retaliate for being wiped while offline. The pinheads won't even let me settle land.

If you are not part of their team, then pinhead does not apply to you.

Okay, but I still merely stated a fact and then you attacked me for it by throwing out fallacy at every opportunity. Why are you throwing out "you pinheads" in a topic where they haven't even posted? It just makes you look like you're trying to provoke a response which like trolling, you know, toxic? It's literally the entire reason you're still using this forum based on your older posts. If being on a forum just to try to annoy specific players isn't toxic I don't know what is.

[SkyHunter]

I'm not defending the toxic community nor am I trying to distract from anything with my "fallacy of informal logic". I'm merely stating that pay to win is an issue too.

It was the way you said it.

Most of the negative reviews I've seen are about the game being pay to win.

Instead of acknowledging my point, I.E., that 40% were about the toxic community, and pointing out that the majority theme of the negative comments was pay to win, it would not have been taken as a distraction, but an elaboration and highlight of my failure to include them in the topic.

Instead, you simply brought up an additional point, as if the original point was moot. That is the definition of a red herring fallacy.

Fallacies of logic are not generally conscious processes. I didn't intend to ignore 60% of the negative comments with my OP, but I did, and I shouldn't have. Maybe you didn't intend to try and defend the toxic community with a fallacy, but you did.

Why is he so far from the newbie zone? His nation is basically as far north and east as possible. The whole reason for the zone is exactly so that veteran players cannot attack new players. I'm not going to try to justify anyone's actions, but he willfully left the protected area. He can always move back into the protected area but has chosen not to. Obviously, using a such a large legacy advantage is

Now you are blaming the victim. You sound like the Republicans in the Senate judiciary. This is also a red herring. How he got there is irrelevant. What the pinheads did to him is the point.

He is the exact profile of the kind of player we want here. He had 2 nations in the midlands in less than 6 days. He plays hard and is happy to pay for games he enjoys. He told me he was forced to keep moving because of how fast he was leveling. Why he went north I don't know. But when he did, pinheads made the game no fun anymore!

Okay, but I still merely stated a fact and then you attacked me for it by throwing out fallacy at every opportunity.

The veracity of your statement has no bearing on whether not it is a logical fallacy. I am not just throwing out the term. I am also explaining WHY it is a fallacy of informal logic. And I didn't attack you. I simply pointed out that your statement is a logical fallacy. Specifically a red herring fallacy. That you perceived it as an attack is a matter of perception, not reality.

Why are you throwing out "you pinheads" in a topic where they haven't even posted?

Because the pinheads are the primary topic I care about. I blame them, (not these one specifically but WOC pinheads in general) for the locking down of the old WOC map by a few veteran teams planting orbs, res, and mains and running 365 days a year, as the primary reason the old game died. They are repeating the same mistake here.

It just makes you look like you're trying to provoke a response which like trolling, you know, toxic? It's literally the entire reason you're still using this forum based on your older posts. If being on a forum just to try to annoy specific players isn't toxic I don't know what is.

Nice way to turn that around. FYI, I don't care about your perception me.

I was run off the server and warned to stay off the forums.

Are you saying I should follow the orders of the pinheads?

I can't play, but I can still help with the community. And I DO want the game to be successful, even though I am not allowed to play.

As to the pinheads, if they want me to stop calling them pinheads, they have to stop acting like pinheads. Last I checked, hell is still blazing hot, so little chance of that happening. In the meantime, I can offer my perspective here, and hope they don't like it.

[ArcticPrism]

Now you are blaming the victim. You sound like the Republicans in the Senate judiciary. This is also a red herring. How he got there is irrelevant. What the pinheads did to him is the point.

He is the exact profile of the kind of player we want here. He had 2 nations in the midlands in less than 6 days. He plays hard and is happy to pay for games he enjoys. He told me he was forced to keep moving because of how fast he was leveling. Why he went north I don't know. But when he did, pinheads made the game no fun anymore!

He's only level 78. He doesn't have to be anywhere near the upper 1/3 of the map or the area past the snow where it is turning tropical. I'm sure wiping him several times for however he slighted Warmachine wasn't necessary but he has made a conscious decision not to retreat to a safer area when he has the option to.

Nice way to turn that around. FYI, I don't care about your perception me.

I was run off the server and warned to stay off the forums.

Are you saying I should follow the orders of the pinheads?

I can't play, but I can still help with the community. And I DO want the game to be successful, even though I am not allowed to play.

As to the pinheads, if they want me to stop calling them pinheads, they have to stop acting like pinheads. Last I checked, hell is still blazing hot, so little chance of that happening. In the meantime, I can offer my perspective here, and hope they don't like it.

I don't understand why this is a thing. You clearly don't care about what they say and they don't care about what you say. Why does every thread have to end up like this? It's counterproductive to be making provocative posts just for the sake of saying you're disobeying them. We're going back and forth for no gain. Like half our posts are talking about fallacies. Can we stop doing this please?

[SkyHunter]

Yes, blame the victim. He told me he tried moving to other parts of the map, but everywhere he went there were pinheads. They drove him from the game, that is the bottom line. Blaming him for being a newby and not knowing how to get away from them is absurd.

I am not doing this for them, or for you. I am doing it for the game.

You cannot have a constructive dialogue without informal logic. "We" don't have to do anything. If you don't want talk about your pinhead friends... you don't have to respond to my comments.