Lost and inactive games user statistics / Diplomatic victories stats

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

    • Lost and inactive games user statistics / Diplomatic victories stats

      Hi,

      It is easy to know very good players by victory points/games played, lost units and so. It is also quite easy to know bad players. But for the average ones I am missing stats of lost games or kind of diplomatic victories. You can finish in top 5 or 10 easy in world map, but not be in winning coalition, so even you don’t truly win, but you definitely not lost this.

      I would be open for discussion why there is no lost games statistics, where you actually lost your all lands or home cities or so.

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.

      And I just saw another post with suggestion about statistics of inactive games where you start and leave. Went inactive x games..

      And by the way, who know when we will get back or not active/inactive player status ?
    • Aurimas wrote:

      And by the way, who know when we will get back or not active/inactive player status ?
      i think @Aquela mentioned in another thread that its currently not working cuz they're somewhat reworking it?

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no lost games statistics, where you actually lost your all lands or home cities or so.
      because any game you didnt win is one you lost

      Aurimas wrote:

      ut for the average ones I am missing stats of lost games or kind of diplomatic victories. You can finish in top 5 or 10 easy in world map, but not be in winning coalition, so even you don’t truly win, but you definitely not lost this.

      I would be open for discussion why there is no lost games statistics, where you actually lost your all lands or home cities or so.
      There is such a thing as "too many stats"; really no point in filling the stats page with even more clutter than there already is
      and there are no "diplomatic victories" ... you being alive when someone else won the game is as much of a defeat as if you had lost all your cities and provinces; just because the other side doesn't need to conquer you because the victory requirements simply do not need you to get all the VP does not mean you achieved really anything
      If there's 5 countries in one coalition and they dont need to capture the whole world to win, that makes anyone they simply chose not to attack top 10 by default... simply cuz there is nobody else left

      The condition to win is to aquire X amount of VP to win... you didn't aquire that amount but someone else does? They win, not you
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Aurimas wrote:

      Hi,

      It is easy to know very good players by victory points/games played, lost units and so. It is also quite easy to know bad players. But for the average ones I am missing stats of lost games or kind of diplomatic victories. You can finish in top 5 or 10 easy in world map, but not be in winning coalition, so even you don’t truly win, but you definitely not lost this.

      I would be open for discussion why there is no lost games statistics, where you actually lost your all lands or home cities or so.

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.

      And I just saw another post with suggestion about statistics of inactive games where you start and leave. Went inactive x games..

      And by the way, who know when we will get back or not active/inactive player status ?
      Ummm, it's kinda a binary position. Win OR Lose. If you didn't win, then, ... try to stay with me, ... then, you lost.

      Here's a handy flowchart to help you:

      flow.jpg
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.

      I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.
      I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      Maybe he is thinking of having to conquer a certain amount of victory sites or something in this vein?
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      Maybe he is thinking of having to conquer a certain amount of victory sites or something in this vein?
      Wouldn't that just be Rising Tides?
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      Maybe he is thinking of having to conquer a certain amount of victory sites or something in this vein?
      Wouldn't that just be Rising Tides?
      Isnt every map just rising tides?
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      Maybe he is thinking of having to conquer a certain amount of victory sites or something in this vein?
      Wouldn't that just be Rising Tides?
      Well, in Rising Tides there are also normal VPs, but additionally the Victory Sites. I don't know what he had in mind, I was just guessing.
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Oh, maybe he means something like being the only team left. Which would be quite hard and exhausting to do and also feel useless if you have already conquered most of the world.
      Or, ... maybe he had no useful suggestion at all, and was hoping for some magic new game mode victory conditions.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Teburu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      jemandanderes wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Aurimas wrote:

      I would be open for discussion why there is no diplomatic victories points where you not lost any home city and probably even took some other countries or even helped the winning team to win but there was no place for you in both fighting sides or so.
      I'd be interested in a new game-mode that had different victory conditions from simply conquer X amount of territory.I think it might be quite a difficult thing to get right, but something a bit more reflective of the real world.
      I'm intrigued, ... such as ???
      Maybe he is thinking of having to conquer a certain amount of victory sites or something in this vein?
      Wouldn't that just be Rising Tides?
      Isnt every map just rising tides?
      Well, maybe, just as long as you don't try to shove down my throat that it is Anthropogenic Rising Tides.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Or, ... maybe he had no useful suggestion at all, and was hoping for some magic new game mode victory conditions.
      Pretty much!

      I think it's a difficult one. CoN does a good job of representing modern day weaponry in a way that's fun and competitive for an online strategy game. The way the units work is, on the whole, relatable to the real world. But the scenarios aren't - not even close. There is not a single nation on Earth that has global military conquest even remotely on its agenda, and it's always bugged me a little bit that the game doesn't represent anything close to modern day warfare in terms of a scenario.

      Call of War has it easy in this regard - it can let its players do a total conquest scenario and call it "World War Two", and it pretty much works. But CoN can't do that, because warfare isn't like that any more. Or rather, it can do that but it doesn't feel convincing - it doesn't feel like you are playing as the United States or France or whoever in CoN in the same way that it does in the CoW Historical WW2 scenario. Perhaps that's unavoidable, but I think it's a bit of a shame, perhaps a wasted opportunity.

      This is always going to be a game about war, so you need victory conditions that reward players for success in war. But is there a way of doing that without requiring players to completely suspend any sense of reality and win by conquering the world or killing zombies? I think you'd probably have to introduce a lot of new systems to simulate politics and diplomacy in greater depth. And maybe the devs (and playerbase?) don't really want that sort of game. I don't know.

      The only (half-baked) idea I can think of is something along the lines of
    • ...something along the lines of awarding VPs for winning wars, rather than only for conquering territory. So, you neutralise a country's military, and then demand a surrender (some kind of in-game peace treaty system?), and you get VPs according to the amount of enemy military power you have neutralised in that war. You wouldn't have to wipe them off the map in order to do this - in fact, you could give more prominence to the "Annex" feature as part of this system, so at the end of a war the winner only keeps territory that they have formally annexed while the rest is returned to the other side (you'd probably have to allow annexation of rural provinces for this to work).

      The other aspect that'd have to be considered is motivation for going to war. If conquest isn't the reason, then it has to be something else. Perhaps control of resources? If there were more differentiation across global regions in terms of resource production, maybe you wouldn't be able to maintain your military power and research without obtaining resources from other parts of the world, and that would require trading blocks and perhaps potential conflicts arising out of that?

      The other obvious motivation for going to war in the current real-world geopolitics is Regime Change - getting the person you want into power in another country, or getting rid of someone you don't like who is in power at the moment. This is probably quite a difficult thing to put into a game like this. It's a war game, not a domestic social/economic/political simulator, so it would have to be very simplified. But perhaps you could have a couple of different government types available (eg. Democracy/military dictatorship), and the victory conditions would depend on that - say, democracies would have to defeat all the dictatorships and force them to become democracies, while dictatorships would have to go for a more global domination / protectorate type objective in order to win.

      I don't know. Like I said, these are only half-baked ideas. Basically, I'd be interested in a scenario that feels more true-to-life in terms of representing the actual the world as it is now, rather than a fantasy scenario. I think that'd have a lot of appeal to perhaps a wider player-base as well.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      ...something along the lines of awarding VPs for winning wars, rather than only for conquering territory. So, you neutralise a country's military, and then demand a surrender (some kind of in-game peace treaty system?), and you get VPs according to the amount of enemy military power you have neutralised in that war. You wouldn't have to wipe them off the map in order to do this - in fact, you could give more prominence to the "Annex" feature as part of this system, so at the end of a war the winner only keeps territory that they have formally annexed while the rest is returned to the other side (you'd probably have to allow annexation of rural provinces for this to work).

      The other aspect that'd have to be considered is motivation for going to war. If conquest isn't the reason, then it has to be something else. Perhaps control of resources? If there were more differentiation across global regions in terms of resource production, maybe you wouldn't be able to maintain your military power and research without obtaining resources from other parts of the world, and that would require trading blocks and perhaps potential conflicts arising out of that?

      The other obvious motivation for going to war in the current real-world geopolitics is Regime Change - getting the person you want into power in another country, or getting rid of someone you don't like who is in power at the moment. This is probably quite a difficult thing to put into a game like this. It's a war game, not a domestic social/economic/political simulator, so it would have to be very simplified. But perhaps you could have a couple of different government types available (eg. Democracy/military dictatorship), and the victory conditions would depend on that - say, democracies would have to defeat all the dictatorships and force them to become democracies, while dictatorships would have to go for a more global domination / protectorate type objective in order to win.

      I don't know. Like I said, these are only half-baked ideas. Basically, I'd be interested in a scenario that feels more true-to-life in terms of representing the actual the world as it is now, rather than a fantasy scenario. I think that'd have a lot of appeal to perhaps a wider player-base as well.
      Because lets overcomplicate the game where people can't even be bothered to read the unit description amirite?
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Dealer of Deaths thanks for the chart. I do understand, that there is one real winner and I am ok about good players winning. I am glad this is bringing now normal discussion about how this could be improved not just trying to be bully that only loosers want to change the game. I have pretty good scores on winning points and it is not a problem for me to win, but still I want to be it "representing the actual the world" more as WalterChang said.




      My main concern is we have a lot of inactive players, that makes no fun for all. After players see they will not win main prize - they leave, because getting like 100 some gold for surviving is not the reason to play anymore. Don’t you want more players to be attracted to play till the end by some secondary winning they could get?

      As we talk about the real World War II, even the smallest countries fight and had to choose the side, because they get to keep there country and save the nation and its people, if they control it.. Some stayed in peace out of war and they still are alive. World War 2, there were many countries involved even both sides had 3-4 main countries.

      “The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China.”

      One of my ideas is similar to that – Coalition of 3-5 still wins the real victory as it is and they control what happens next. Winning coalition needs to take like 70 % of the map now. Once that coalition reaches like 30% of the map, they can create like AXIS and ALLIES sides, that even the small countries can join and win together. (if the winning coalition of 3-5 countries looses 30 % of control, they loose the control of the side and it has to be formed again by any other coalition who gets these 30% ). So you have to involve much more diplomacy like in the real war. But these small countries have to get some kind of victory points or diplomatic points as I mentioned it in the start of the topic. (This is probably similar to WalterChang idea of Democracy/military dictatorships fighting but rather by being it set default you choose who you are).

      Teburu - I think this also takes away the part, where you say winning coalition didn't need to conquer your territory to win, so you did nothing good or bad to get points and that is very reasonable point of view. Winning coalition should be able to Control AXIS and ALLIES countries and be able to kick them out if they do nothing good. But yeah, probably peace countries joining no side could be misleading. I didn't thought of that and it needs to be also taken into the account. Thanks.

      That's why I talk about average people victories points in the first, to make it more fun for everybody, not only for two-three coalitions fighting over all map after day 10 that leaves max 15 people of 100 who started the game.

      P.S. I don't even see nothing wrong if everybody joins one side and wins the game, like real world war II ended in peace to all. Still only 3-5 players are real winners if they manage diplomatically to win it. But especially world maps, there will be always other side who will not let to win that easy I guess :)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Aurimas ().

    • Aurimas wrote:

      1.) Dealer of Deaths thanks for the chart. I do understand, that there is one real winner and I am ok about good players winning. I am glad this is bringing now normal discussion about how this could be improved not just trying to be bully that only loosers want to change the game. I have pretty good scores on winning points and it is not a problem for me to win, but still I want to be it "representing the actual the world" more as WalterChang said.




      2.) My main concern is we have a lot of inactive players, that makes no fun for all. After players see they will not win main prize - they leave, because getting like 100 some gold for surviving is not the reason to play anymore. Don’t you want more players to be attracted to play till the end by some secondary winning they could get?

      3.) As we talk about the real World War II, even the smallest countries fight and had to choose the side, because they get to keep there country and save the nation and its people, if they control it.. Some stayed in peace out of war and they still are alive. World War 2, there were many countries involved even both sides had 3-4 main countries.

      “The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China.”

      4.) One of my ideas is similar to that – Coalition of 3-5 still wins the real victory as it is and they control what happens next. Winning coalition needs to take like 70 % of the map now. Once that coalition reaches like 30% of the map, they can create like AXIS and ALLIES sides, that even the small countries can join and win together. (if the winning coalition of 3-5 countries looses 30 % of control, they loose the control of the side and it has to be formed again by any other coalition who gets these 30% ). So you have to involve much more diplomacy like in the real war. But these small countries have to get some kind of victory points or diplomatic points as I mentioned it in the start of the topic. (This is probably similar to WalterChang idea of Democracy/military dictatorships fighting but rather by being it set default you choose who you are).

      ...
      1.) I was just trying to throw some humor in the situation. It was not an attempt to call you a loser, or bully you.

      2.) In my opinion, this is the biggest negative in this game (inactive players). But if you think about it, currently as it stands now, the only thing the winners get that the losers don't get, is a "win" in their stats. In a solo Flashpoint, someone could win with 1500 points and get 1500 gold, while the next best player could lose with 1499 points and get 1499 gold. Does that seem fair? The winner only getting 1 more gold? There IS no real reward for winning except bragging rights. So, the situation is already set up to treat the "losers" actually about as best you can. If you ask me, I think actual winners should get a gold bump above and beyond their VP total, whether its 100 or 500 extra, rather than the participation trophy of Gold of everyone who participates, (participation trophies) but again, that would probably drive even a few more into inactivity during a game when they knew they wouldn't "win"

      3.) Actually no. Some countries did remain neutral.
      Even IN Europe, Andorra, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (with Liechtenstein), and Vatican remained neutral throughout WW2

      4.) I like the idea behind this, (where you are coming from as in a hail mary to entice people not to go inactive) but as you present it, it actually even further cheapens a win by the winners. It's bad enough the winners are rewarded for their win at the same 1 gold for 1 VP rate as the losers who just stayed in the game, but now you want to even devalue their bragging rights of a win???

      SO, ... while I agree with you the problem IS inactivity, I vehemently disagree with you that the solution is more equality of outcomes and reducing the incentive to actually win. I too, would like to see something reduce inactivity, but not along your communism of winning philosophical lines.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD