Announcement NOTICE: On Planes and New Behaviour

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

    • playbabe wrote:

      In beta chat with Neo (server dev) here what i got.
      This is resulting from fixing the carrier stack issue.
      Essentially airplane truck can never exist anymore.
      But it can be developed back but it will take development time, not a simple patch.
      Ok thank you, this explains that. It's not an elegant solution, but i see why it happens from a "dev pipeline" perspective.

      I concur with KFGauss on the conclusion : it's commendable they fixed the issue of heli-carriers not merging, but it's sad that on the other side it creates such a undesired change on a whole branch of the game design.

      I would even prefer that planes on the ground would be "stuck" at their position with a status "needs airbase to take off", in plane HP and mode, instead of rebasing.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    • After playing a bit with this new update I am seriously frustrated that I am not able to destroy the aircraft on an airfield with my MLRS, strike fighters, etc. Now I am even having to build several more airfields than usual out of fear of losing my stacks because of this new behavior.
      "America without her soldiers is like God without his angels."
      "A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
      "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."

    • playbabe wrote:

      In beta chat with Neo (server dev) here what i got.
      This is resulting from fixing the carrier stack issue.
      Essentially airplane truck can never exist anymore.
      But it can be developed back but it will take development time, not a simple patch.
      Why dont they just roll back the entire thing before "that" update? It shouldnt be that hard, if you have a backup that is. And you should have it. Anyway, as I see it, it was a bad call in the first place releasing the "elite frigate" before all its mechanichs were complete and functional 100%.

      I wouldnt have mind it waiting for that new elite unit as long as it would work as it should have once released, but now you got all this airfield-refueling-stacking-disappearing-mess. Its like youre trying to refill the first hole you made with the dirt of a new made hole and so on and on.

      Dont get me wrong, all the hard work of the devs is appreciated, but man, it seems like you guys are really trying to just make things worst with every new update

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Why dont they just roll back the entire thing before "that" update? It shouldnt be that hard, if you have a backup that is. And you should have it. Anyway, as I see it, it was a bad call in the first place releasing the "elite frigate" before all its mechanichs were complete and functional 100%.
      I wouldnt have mind it waiting for that new elite unit as long as it would work as it should have once released, but now you got all this airfield-refueling-stacking-disappearing-mess. Its like youre trying to refill the first hole you made with the dirt of a new made hole and so on and on.

      Dont get me wrong, all the hard work of the devs is appreciated, but man, it seems like you guys are really trying to just make things worst with every new update
      Why ask why?

      If anyone here knew the answer I think that they probably would have already written it here.

      Yak already told us that he would look for more information about the reasons why the change was made (and playbabe already got some good gossip for us).

      For this topic, I think we've reached the stage where it's useful to remember that, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

      That (along with remembering that the game is free) is why I wrote ( here NOTICE: On Planes and New Behaviour ) about what I would prefer happen next rather than writing about what I don't like now.

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      I'm tempted to complain, but that won't fix anything, it'll just make a bad situation worse.
      In the similar spirit, here is my comment to the devs: please do not introduce fixes to the "elite" frigate if it risks breaking some other parts of the game. Those other parts are largely useful, while this season unit seems unfixably pointless.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • KFGauss wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Why dont they just roll back the entire thing before "that" update? It shouldnt be that hard, if you have a backup that is. And you should have it. Anyway, as I see it, it was a bad call in the first place releasing the "elite frigate" before all its mechanichs were complete and functional 100%.
      I wouldnt have mind it waiting for that new elite unit as long as it would work as it should have once released, but now you got all this airfield-refueling-stacking-disappearing-mess. Its like youre trying to refill the first hole you made with the dirt of a new made hole and so on and on.

      Dont get me wrong, all the hard work of the devs is appreciated, but man, it seems like you guys are really trying to just make things worst with every new update
      Why ask why?
      If anyone here knew the answer I think that they probably would have already written it here.

      Yak already told us that he would look for more information about the reasons why the change was made (and playbabe already got some good gossip for us).

      For this topic, I think we've reached the stage where it's useful to remember that, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

      That (along with remembering that the game is free) is why I wrote ( here NOTICE: On Planes and New Behaviour ) about what I would prefer happen next rather than writing about what I don't like now.
      Complaining is feedback from those most likely to buy season passes.

      Shutting them up leads to lack of feedback which leads to said potential buyers of season passes becoming frustrated, leaving, and devoting their attention elsewhere.


      CoN isnt a favor being done to free players; free players are giving their time and attention to it to play for free and in return CoN gets human players that fill their matches for paying customers while also hopefully providing free advertisement by recruiting other people to play and hopefully buy season passes.

    • Hakaishin wrote:

      Complaining is feedback from those most likely to buy season passes. [...]
      There are things I agree about your post, but this particular issue of treating regular subscribers as "season pass" holders may actually be a root cause of the problem of breaking a fundamental part of the game for the sake of promoting a new feature of questionable utility.

      I am a permanent Security Council subscriber, both for principle and pragmatic reason. I agree that Dorado deserves financial compensation for providing us with a wonderful game, and I do not mind paying for the entertainment. I also find SC worth paying for its benefits. Yet, the breathless pushing of Seasons as something meaningful annoys the heck out of me. Most Seasons units are merely meh, some ore outright useless, while EAA is ridiculously overpowered still.
      (And don't get me started on the laughingstock of their points system.)
      Dorado would do better by showcasing tangible benefits of SC, and turning down the hype machine for Seasons.

      Even that aside, making the general mechanics of airfields worse for the apparent sake of making "elite" frigates slightly more palatable feels altogether inexcusable to me.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • Hakaishin wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Why ask why?If anyone here knew the answer I think that they probably would have already written it here.

      Yak already told us that he would look for more information about the reasons why the change was made (and playbabe already got some good gossip for us).

      For this topic, I think we've reached the stage where it's useful to remember that, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

      That (along with remembering that the game is free) is why I wrote ( here NOTICE: On Planes and New Behaviour ) about what I would prefer happen next rather than writing about what I don't like now.
      Complaining is feedback from those most likely to buy season passes.
      Shutting them up leads to lack of feedback which leads to said potential buyers of season passes becoming frustrated, leaving, and devoting their attention elsewhere.


      CoN isnt a favor being done to free players; free players are giving their time and attention to it to play for free and in return CoN gets human players that fill their matches for paying customers while also hopefully providing free advertisement by recruiting other people to play and hopefully buy season passes.
      Hakai - If you're going to try to pick a TD4-style fight with me over this topic you need to use something other than something you imagined was written, combined with specious objections/rebuttals to what actually was written.

      A) You seem to be trying to tell us that you think insulting feedback written in a Ranty McRantFace style is more effective than the sort of feedback Opulon wrote into this thread.

      Otherwise, for the life of me I can't figure out any other reason why me using the "Catch more flies with honey" aphorism would trigger what you wrote.

      B) No one, including me ever suggested that anyone should "shut up", so how about being more careful about what you write?

      C) However, if you think vinegary ranting is the way to go, you're obviously free to do you while I do me.

      D) Can we please return to waiting (with great interest) for Yak's reply?

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

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Hakaishin wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Why ask why?If anyone here knew the answer I think that they probably would have already written it here.

      Yak already told us that he would look for more information about the reasons why the change was made (and playbabe already got some good gossip for us).

      For this topic, I think we've reached the stage where it's useful to remember that, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

      That (along with remembering that the game is free) is why I wrote ( here NOTICE: On Planes and New Behaviour ) about what I would prefer happen next rather than writing about what I don't like now.
      Complaining is feedback from those most likely to buy season passes.Shutting them up leads to lack of feedback which leads to said potential buyers of season passes becoming frustrated, leaving, and devoting their attention elsewhere.


      CoN isnt a favor being done to free players; free players are giving their time and attention to it to play for free and in return CoN gets human players that fill their matches for paying customers while also hopefully providing free advertisement by recruiting other people to play and hopefully buy season passes.
      Hakai - If you're going to try to pick a TD4-style fight with me over this topic you need to use something other than something you imagined was written, combined with specious objections/rebuttals to what actually was written.
      A) You seem to be trying to tell us that you think insulting feedback written in a Ranty McRantFace style is more effective than the sort of feedback Opulon wrote into this thread.

      Otherwise, for the life of me I can't figure out any other reason why me using the "Catch more flies with honey" aphorism would trigger what you wrote.

      B) No one, including me ever suggested that anyone should "shut up", so how about being more careful about what you write?

      C) However, if you think vinegary ranting is the way to go, you're obviously free to do you while I do me.

      D) Can we please return to waiting (with great interest) for Yak's reply?

      For one, I dont care about you either way on a personal level. I'm sorry. For two, I am simply siding with accepting feedback over denying it because it doesnt sound nice. Your attempt to change what I am saying into me favoring being mean over not being mean is silly and transparent.


      Zozo001 wrote:

      Hakaishin wrote:

      Complaining is feedback from those most likely to buy season passes. [...]
      There are things I agree about your post, but this particular issue of treating regular subscribers as "season pass" holders may actually be a root cause of the problem of breaking a fundamental part of the game for the sake of promoting a new feature of questionable utility.
      I am a permanent Security Council subscriber, both for principle and pragmatic reason. I agree that Dorado deserves financial compensation for providing us with a wonderful game, and I do not mind paying for the entertainment. I also find SC worth paying for its benefits. Yet, the breathless pushing of Seasons as something meaningful annoys the heck out of me. Most Seasons units are merely meh, some ore outright useless, while EAA is ridiculously overpowered still.
      (And don't get me started on the laughingstock of their points system.)
      Dorado would do better by showcasing tangible benefits of SC, and turning down the hype machine for Seasons.

      Even that aside, making the general mechanics of airfields worse for the apparent sake of making "elite" frigates slightly more palatable feels altogether inexcusable to me.
      It honestly feels like these changes to the game are being made without any real thought being put behind them which imo is the most annoying part. Like, they added the fuel mechanic for air units, it doesn't really work and is full of bugs, then they overhaul the whole thing again to "fix" the bugs and introduce a whole new set of bugs.

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Official translation for the new mechanics: Hey, you know what, we found a new easy way to make gold so now, by the modest sum of $5000 gold, you can destroy all the airplanes belonging to the poor bastard who didn't have the audacity of building an airfield on every province of his country. And thats not all, that poor bastard who lost all his planes now will have to use gold to get them back, that is if he really wants to catch up to the game. $DOUBLE PROFIT$

      So bear with us for the next update: Introducing... pay 10 grand in gold and you will spawn a magical missil that would destroy any fleet you target on. Or why the trouble? Just pay 100 grand and you will win the game inmediatly!!!! All this, by the new standards of "realism" and client "satisfaction"; we keep the chin chin going and your wallet will be less heavier $WIN WIN$
      I agree, it will increase the GOLD PROBLEM ! CON Might and Magic, 2 different thematics in the same game.

    • Hey everyone,

      So a bit more insight behind the change. As playbabe pointed out, this is a carryover from our carrier stacking issue. Since the release of the seasonal unit we refactored(modernised, improved up to our current standard) parts of code which influenced.

      For a bit more technical detail, the previous code (legacy) was hardcoded causing a server-side issues as well. The new algorithm simplifies how aircrafts are dealt with, and by expected behaviour of the current implementation; transport trucks are no longer an option in this circumstance.

      For absolute transparency, this change is mostly in place for technical reasons, and not motivated by design or live operations. I understand that players have a hard time appreciating the benefits of the refactoring, especially in its current form. The refactor greatly solves some of the backend issues we were seeing, particularly errors and server load.

      Nonetheless, I'm going to be poking and prodding to see how we can improve this further, as in its current form I understand player sentiments of the change being quite jarring. I really can't promise anything right now. As another tidbit of information, the team see's merit in your feedback especially when intel actions are used to destroy airports.

      We need to see how to solve this in a realistic manner. Aircraft turning into trucks does not fit with the vision that design holds.

      I hope this gives some more insight, and begins discussion towards how you would imagine aircraft to react once their airport is destroyed.
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

    • Yak wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      So a bit more insight behind the change. As playbabe pointed out, this is a carryover from our carrier stacking issue. Since the release of the seasonal unit we refactored(modernised, improved up to our current standard) parts of code which influenced.

      For a bit more technical detail, the previous code (legacy) was hardcoded causing a server-side issues as well. The new algorithm simplifies how aircrafts are dealt with, and by expected behaviour of the current implementation; transport trucks are no longer an option in this circumstance.

      For absolute transparency, this change is mostly in place for technical reasons, and not motivated by design or live operations. I understand that players have a hard time appreciating the benefits of the refactoring, especially in its current form. The refactor greatly solves some of the backend issues we were seeing, particularly errors and server load.

      Nonetheless, I'm going to be poking and prodding to see how we can improve this further, as in its current form I understand player sentiments of the change being quite jarring. I really can't promise anything right now. As another tidbit of information, the team see's merit in your feedback especially when intel actions are used to destroy airports.

      We need to see how to solve this in a realistic manner. Aircraft turning into trucks does not fit with the vision that design holds.

      I hope this gives some more insight, and begins discussion towards how you would imagine aircraft to react once their airport is destroyed.

      From my two cents (and thanks for the technical explanation. It makes sense, while this collateral is sad)

      1°) I'm not against the design that aircrafts whose airport get destroyed relocate In their combat (i would suggest ferry range instead). I think air players already have an easy life with their planes, but why not, for the sake of comfort and beginners. I even think that it will lead to new tactics revolving around killing planes as they relocate.
      2°) However, i'm "sad" that the new design completely nullifies the interesting part of "grounding" planes while they are refueling, which is supposed to be a subtle tempo players need to master (use all your planes at once, get rekt).

      So, at the very least, i would greatly appreciate that subsequent improvement to this new and more robust system includes something like "If no airport in ferry range or planes were in refueling when the airport got destroyed" = planes stuck on the ground, in plane form, but stuck.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.