A potential issue with filling RedBlue games

Sgniappo · May 5th 2022, 8:11pm

if you go and join a game, you probably - like me - check who's in first (unless you managed to find one of the key / best countries free, and you jump in and wish for the best).
When you join red / blue maps, you probably take that to the next level and go check who is in what team before entering the game.

And you realise that the top three profiles in the game - like people with good ranks and good k/d ratio - are in the same team. Whether that's by chance or planned by an existing team in advance, the moment you see the top three profiles all in the same team, and you expect the vast majority of your own team to be inactive... you stay away from that game.

Not clear? An example attached. The top three profiles are all in blue team, and they are all in Europe (italy, poland and sweden if i well remember). Likely preplanned. And, in this game, if i can join blue with them i will, if not i surely won't get anywhere near this game. The moment more people figure this out, the more several games won't fill up, and those who preplan their team will be left cleaning up inactive countries.

Am i off?

p.s. actually, afterthought: i probably won't even join that as blue team, because i'll be in a war without any challenge, and be left cleaning up inactive countries...

Teburu · May 5th 2022, 8:53pm

So lemme get this straight:

Step 1: look at player list and figure out if you have a chance at winning
Step 2: abandon game if you think your teammates will be inactive (spoiler: they will be because you're playing public matches)
Step 3: complain about inactive players
Step 4: complain about not having a challenge

Complaining about pre-planned teams in RvB out of all things is frankly ridiculous, people have created pre-planned teams since eternity and IMO they have far less of an impact in RvB than they do in normal WW3 or other game modes where the coa size is 5 people at maximum. Even more so when you keep in mind that people that joined with pre-planned teammates are significantly less likely to just go inactive after the first 3 days. I also think your approach to "figure out" pre-planned teams is very deeply flawed. I mean c'mon, Rank and K/D? Really? Following that logic you can probably scrap a solid 50% of games, especially Rank tells you zero about the player. With two teams there already is a solid chance that 2 out of the 3 top players are on the same team.
Honestly, this feels more like a "I get trashed by people who play RvB with their friends on the same team because my teammates are inactive"

Trying to sorta vilify pre-planned teams in RvB of all things isn't just missing the point, its missing the entire fucking planet.

Anna Jija · May 6th 2022, 1:24am

#1, 90% of players (includeng me) dont give a shit about who joins what team and what their rank is.
they will just pick their country and play, our go inactive.

#2, most players who join these are lvl 1 noobs who quit/go inactive by day 5. so i think in most cases team with most actives left will usually win

Tifo_14 · May 6th 2022, 3:37am

I think @Teburu and @Anna Jija summed it up pretty well... it's the same sense as 5 experts join a WW3 round and make a coalition together, then proceed to annihilate everyone else. This is something that will always happen in CoN, you can't stop it.

Sgniappo · May 6th 2022, 5:29am

Teburu wrote:

So lemme get this straight:

Step 1: look at player list and figure out if you have a chance at winning
Step 2: abandon game if you think your teammates will be inactive (spoiler: they will be because you're playing public matches)
Step 3: complain about inactive players
Step 4: complain about not having a challenge

[...]

Trying to sorta vilify pre-planned teams in RvB of all things isn't just missing the point, its missing the entire fucking planet.

Good morning to you too, Sir.

I don't think there was any complain in there. RedBlue is a new map, developers were soliciting feedback, i saw something that might (potentially, as my message says) be an issue, and i posted it in search of feedback. But yes, i do understand that everyone has a different style, and that some of the people in the forum write... well, this.

on 'abandoning games' - nope, not here. I just completed (And wrote in another post) a game where there were 2 active players from beginning to end. I was one, Alaska was another one (and he closed the game with 16 cities, if you get what i mean).

And on judging players by rank and K/D, well, before joining a game it's all you have, and you make do with what you have. What i mostly seek though, is how many players will remain active - especially after having had to take 137 cities from AI in game ID 5378605... kinda boring, if you ask me.

The point in all of this is to find a challenge. If your team is fully inactive, and if all the solid profiles are on one side, in a standard game you can work out alliances and mitigate risks, in RB you can't.

It's a new modality, and feedback could be useful. Well, some of it at least.
s

Sgniappo · May 6th 2022, 5:48am

Tifo_14 wrote:

I think @Teburu and @Anna Jija summed it up pretty well... it's the same sense as 5 experts join a WW3 round and make a coalition together, then proceed to annihilate everyone else. This is something that will always happen in CoN, you can't stop it.

of course, Tifo, you can't stop it. But you can fight it. In any map you can seek good players, active players, and / or players you can play well with. Politics are a big part of any game - unless you're in RvB. In honesty, it's one of the things that attracted me to this modality at the start, i thought 'less chatting, more fighting'.

But generally, in any game if you get 5 experts in a team, you can try and gather people up and fight them. Maybe you'll win, maybe you'll lose. But you have a chance.

if you get 5 experts in RvB on the same side, and 90% (or more) of the players are inactive, there's no chance or fun, it's a pre-written game. That's the point (right or wrong) i'm trying to get across.

Share