Update - Patch Notes 2206.13

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

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      I'm of the same opinion as you. They told us the "collecting data" excuse just to calm the waters, but if they really were eager to actually collect helpful data, why to stop so long at the very first step, why wont they add more cities to every country, (at least one or two more to the original count). That will certanly help to collect data too, and to compare how people likes to play better, and which city count-set people abandone more often their games

      But I bet they would never do that, coz I'm almost certain that their real purpose was to "collect" gold due the low city count (that translate to less resources)
      I need to address the elephant in the room; as a company we need to make sure that targets are reached otherwise there will be no CoN, or new players to bring in to it (bear in mind it costs revenue to market and attract players to the game). We don't have control over such situations, and so it's a tug of war to make sure that the game remains profitable and reaches targets, whilst also ensuring players are having a good time. We need to make sure the future is covered from a development perspective, and team has sustainable growth to cater to it.

      This is not to say CoN is not doing well. Quite on the contrary, we're seeing a very healthy flow of players come to the game and stats on the whole have been consistent (to say the least). When I mention targets, specifically, we have excelled in meeting investor expectations. Growth is a factor that is always looming which also needs to be considered. The upside of this, for players, is that with growth, we can provide more content and setup the foundations for a healthy future. Right now much of the work is under the hood, so there is less of what player-facing changes than what we usually offer. (Nonetheless we have some interesting changes coming relatively soon from gameplay perspective). This is because we want to make sure that ongoing development is balanced between the future, and the live operations.

      About the cities, Alliance maps are largely untouched, and in the Elite variants even give more than the standard maps, so there are options out there. With this being said I understand your points so I won't mince words there.

      As it stands, two weeks ago we welcomed a new employee - a Data Analyst who is going to have the very important responsibility to keep a pulse where these changes are involved, for better fine tuning and flexibility in how we balance company goals and player options.

      All this is to say, I know it isn't ideal, we have a better framework for such changes for the future.
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

    • Yak wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      I'm of the same opinion as you. They told us the "collecting data" excuse just to calm the waters, but if they really were eager to actually collect helpful data, why to stop so long at the very first step, why wont they add more cities to every country, (at least one or two more to the original count). That will certanly help to collect data too, and to compare how people likes to play better, and which city count-set people abandone more often their games

      But I bet they would never do that, coz I'm almost certain that their real purpose was to "collect" gold due the low city count (that translate to less resources)
      I need to address the elephant in the room; as a company we need to make sure that targets are reached otherwise there will be no CoN, or new players to bring in to it (bear in mind it costs revenue to market and attract players to the game). We don't have control over such situations, and so it's a tug of war to make sure that the game remains profitable and reaches targets, whilst also ensuring players are having a good time. We need to make sure the future is covered from a development perspective, and team has sustainable growth to cater to it.
      This is not to say CoN is not doing well. Quite on the contrary, we're seeing a very healthy flow of players come to the game and stats on the whole have been consistent (to say the least). When I mention targets, specifically, we have excelled in meeting investor expectations. Growth is a factor that is always looming which also needs to be considered. The upside of this, for players, is that with growth, we can provide more content and setup the foundations for a healthy future. Right now much of the work is under the hood, so there is less of what player-facing changes than what we usually offer. (Nonetheless we have some interesting changes coming relatively soon from gameplay perspective). This is because we want to make sure that ongoing development is balanced between the future, and the live operations.

      About the cities, Alliance maps are largely untouched, and in the Elite variants even give more than the standard maps, so there are options out there. With this being said I understand your points so I won't mince words there.

      As it stands, two weeks ago we welcomed a new employee - a Data Analyst who is going to have the very important responsibility to keep a pulse where these changes are involved, for better fine tuning and flexibility in how we balance company goals and player options.

      All this is to say, I know it isn't ideal, we have a better framework for such changes for the future.
      Well, first of all, I am grateful that you have taken the time to read my comment regarding the subject in question. And I understand what you're saying, I know how companies work, especially the ones whose main source of income is software development of some kind. How could I not know if I'm a developer myself. Working for a company, not exactly in the game industry, but when targets are not reached, they surely enjoy to make games out of people, so I really get why you mean.

      And for the game sake, it has always had flaws, like everything else that is in the world, but it was still enjoyable nontheless. However, the city reduction thing that was implemented a few months ago felt, at least for me, like a really bad precedent. The game was already slow, before the update, and now it is even more. And if you add that to the fact that x4 games have even less resource production than x1. Well, you could easly get a lot of ideas (right and wrong) of what's all this about.

      But putting aside speculation, the city reduction thing is, as far I can tell, more problematic than what you see at first glance. I will not argue the fact that there is a healty flow of players comming to the game, coz first of all I dont have the data to doing it so, and secondly, yes I have seen how, in example, fifteen WW3 games are put in the "new games" section, and all of them get full in five or ten minutes. But what happens when you look at those same games at the day 30/40? You find them almost empty, a problem that has increased after the reduction of cities months ago, at least in the games that I have been playing. And I think thats the main issue of CoN: the desertion of players. And whats the reason behind it? Maybe the games are too slow, maybe there are not enough good countries, maybe people just get bored because you cant do much with the resources given at the start, and by the time you can afford a big army to have fun, there is no one else to put it to a test. And dont get me wrong, I'm not saying that having limited resources is a bad thing, is actually part of the fun, of making an strategy to beat players with stronger countries than yours, but there is a limit to everything. And if you make the resurces count too low, well you may get a lot of empty games coz players couldnt make those WW3 scenarios that they were dreaming about when they joined said game.

      Anyway, if experience has taught me something, its better to have a lot of players having fun, even thouhg they pay just a little. (But that translate in a lots of promotion from said players. Just look what that has done for Clash Royale, that is a pay-to-win game also) Than having just a few players paying a lot, and most of them just complaining online later coz not even that could they beat that other player that payed even more to get the win. And if it's worth it, I would recommend that you base your strategy not so much on getting profit from the resources in the game, but on offering something premium to the player, somethin they can keep after the game ends, something that feels worth spending money on, like elite units. I in particular would spend money without any problem to buy any of them. Actually, some time ago I even posted here an idea of what a new addition of an elite naval unit could be.
      You may take it a look if you want: New Idea for an Elite Naval Unit

      Another suggestion would be a map, a map with countries that have a lot of cities each, at least eight minimun. You could make a mix between the overkill and the red vs blue maps, just don split countries like USA and Rusia, let them keep all those cities. And add a few more to the rest of the countries. Doesnt need to be balanced, in the real world it isnt, countries like USA, Rusia, Germany and so on, are clearly overpowered. It might be fun to play, high city count for everyone. You could at least try it, and maybe find out if that way people desert games less. And with a high city count for everyone, with said map that will of course feel bigger for that same reason, competitiveness will certanly increase, so everyone would may be eager to spend some more money on gold just to not fall behind the rest of the players.
    • Ok. But seriously now... i'm in a Red vs Blue. These maps have always been cursed by inactivity.

      But at least, before all of those 50+ inactive countries would make a contribution: airports. Now even those have been taken away?

      Here's my current story:
      - the "new games" window is flooded with Red vs Blue. I counted 30 open games, most of which with over 50 empty spots - yes, that's 1500 players 'expected' to join a rvb;
      - in my game, I'm on day 2 with 52 empty slots which will never fill up;
      - out of the 18 players, i can count 3/side that are 'doing something' (active is a strong word...)
      - the map has become a 3v3, with about 30 countries on each side that are totally pointless, and don't even have an airport to facilitate movement

      i was hoping something would have been done about Red vs Blue. And yes, something has: airports gone, and starting units are now NGs.

      Such a shame. the idea was good - the implementation... not.
    • Red vs blue was bound to be a flop the moment they stopped the ability to join the same team as a few of your alliance members. The team “balancing” totally ruins this game mode. I don’t like it back in circulation and overkill taken away. This was not the way.
      CDR Crimson
      Founder of The Militia Collective

      Training and Screening Hub, New Players or Existing: Come Find your perfect Alliance here!

      Join Our Discord !
    • CDRCrimson42 wrote:

      Red vs blue was bound to be a flop the moment they stopped the ability to join the same team as a few of your alliance members. The team “balancing” totally ruins this game mode. I don’t like it back in circulation and overkill taken away. This was not the way.
      It flopped the moment it was released to the public.
      The gamemmode really isn’t optimized to compensate for inactivity. It’s a pretty big gameplay issue because an inactive player is not just one that does not play for your team, but actively hinders you since you cant build airfields or anything in their provinces/cities and that in turn makes defending next to impossible.
      The enemy can capture land and build airbases, you can only recap and it goes back to that ally.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Wonder why they removed starting airbases as well...unless it was always like that...
      Makes it seem like they're hindering the RvB players even more...
      "War does not determine who is right; only who is left."

      Always strive to be better
      Don't try and be the best
      A better world is always within out fingertips
      But Utopia just causes more stress.
    • Teburu wrote:

      CDRCrimson42 wrote:

      Red vs blue was bound to be a flop the moment they stopped the ability to join the same team as a few of your alliance members. The team “balancing” totally ruins this game mode. I don’t like it back in circulation and overkill taken away. This was not the way.
      It flopped the moment it was released to the public.The gamemmode really isn’t optimized to compensate for inactivity. It’s a pretty big gameplay issue because an inactive player is not just one that does not play for your team, but actively hinders you since you cant build airfields or anything in their provinces/cities and that in turn makes defending next to impossible.
      The enemy can capture land and build airbases, you can only recap and it goes back to that ally.
      You know what may help, at least with the issue of inactivity. For every player who goes inactive, they should make their country go neutral in the game, kicked out of his current team in the process. Then someone active can conquer that land for himself and make it useful for the later game
    • My experience from the city reduction and overall resource reduction is as follows:

      5 city nations are VERY hard to play. Or rather, very hard to do well with. The bigger nations just produce so many more units so much quicker. The resource disparity is so big that it is hard to overcome the difference even later in the game.

      Rare Supplies are SO rare that what you research is HUGELY restricted. I understand the idea of "prioritizing and only researching EXACTY what you need" and such - it sounds good in theory. But in practice it means that each nation has just a few types of units on the board. And it makes building arms industries go much slower for those that want to go down a build up your economy type of path.

      Frigates rule the seas. Very few people build destroyers or cruisers as they are just too expensive in this environment. Corvettes now have value. I suppose changing a naval strategy around cruisers and destroyers with a few frigates for air support to one revolving around corvettes and frigates is basically changing what people fight with. What I HAVE learned is that a stack of corvettes at a reasonable level can take down 1 or 2 low level destroyers :)

      If I had to change between increasing the production rate, and giving all the 5 city nations 1 more city and equalizing the starting production rates for each nation - then I would choose equalizing the production rates. Each nation could start with 6 cities, and the type of resource that they have two cities would be part of a nations description when starting a game.

      "Spain goes by the European Doctrine, and has a second electronics city."

      The actual production rate is almost irrelevant as long as all nations start more or less the same. If a 6 city nation has 10 resources and a 5 city nation has 6 resources, 1.67 times as much, reducing both by 2 makes it an 8 to 4 advantage, which is 2x as much. This makes it that much harder for 5 city nations to thrive. Ok - gold or high levels of skill still work. But for low gold spenders (not necessarily zero gold spenders) and non-elite players it makes a big difference.
    • I agree 100% that it is a skill issue.

      I, and a whole lot of other people, are a lot more skilled at playing 6+ city nations than 5 city nations. I am a LOT more skilled. I am in 2 games, 1 with a 6 city nation and the other with 5.

      6 city nation: I have the most number of cities, and both my supplies and component productions are over 250 per hour. Not so unskilled.
      5 city nation: I am in top 10 and my skill is so bad that in about the same number of turns, my production of supplies and components is just a bit above 150. Not very skillfully done.

      Also, I have over 2x the number of units, and over 3x the number of annexed cities, in the 6 nation game.

      My skill at playing a 6 city nation isn't just a little better than playing a 5 city nation, but a LOT better. Partially this is because I can recover from mistakes easier - a lot easier - with my 6 city nation.

      From what I've seen, other people also have a LOT more skill at playing 6+ city nations than 5 city nations. The difference is so much that a lot of people playing 5 city nations just quit.
    • I have played mostly 5 city countries in the past and honestly had not much of an issue winning. Really only difference is that you are more forced to make the most out of the starting resources because you have a lower res production.


      IMO there is no „skill playing with 6 cities“ and „skill playing with 5“

      There is one skill called „Resourcemanagement“ that covers both
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • The only difference between 5-city countries and non-5-city countries is if I go for CRV; if 5-city, I don't. If its 6 city, then maybe. If more, then probably since I starting with more resources.
      "War does not determine who is right; only who is left."

      Always strive to be better
      Don't try and be the best
      A better world is always within out fingertips
      But Utopia just causes more stress.
    • I had to think back about previous games that I've played, and some of the current ones.

      When there were more resources in the game, my coalition and I, a bunch of very unskilled players compared to the people here, well we could defeat even heavy golders. So people that spent a lot of gold, they would spend a lot of money, and they would eventually lose the game. Sometimes we would win the game, other games someone else would get the victory while we were duking it out with the golder.

      With fewer resources, we got creamed by one heavy golder in one game, and in another game we are going to have a very tough time going forward. When there were more resources in the game, or if we had started with 6 city nations, we would be in a much stronger position against them.

      Low resources are here to stay. The point of the low resources is to as much as possible guarantee that the heavy spenders get, for them, happy results. That wasn't always happening before. It's takes move to defeat a heavy golder now than it did before. And that directly affects their bottom line, and in a big way.

      I'd still like them to equalize the nations. That is the same thing though. Make 5 city nations weak so that the heavy golders have a lot of very easy targets to take out. 5 city nations are not meant to be played to win, but to lose and lose quickly.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by GraniteDust ().