UPDATE NEWS 170615: UNIT BALANCING, FIXED VICTORY POINTS AND SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY

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

  • We actually set team games to 3000 and 4500 VP per map. Please check and report - if they are using the individual player VP that's wrong.

    @Cyclone: so you are basically telling us that you conquer 1250VP within 6-8weeks? Cause that's what you are claiming...
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
  • Germanico wrote:

    We actually set team games to 3000 and 4500 VP per map. Please check and report - if they are using the individual player VP that's wrong.

    @Cyclone: so you are basically telling us that you conquer 1250VP within 6-8weeks? Cause that's what you are claiming...
    It would not surprise me. Team games are very very quick-paced. Even with games between teams of a similar level, there is a "no return point" where suddenly the fall is absolute.

    On supremacy, we usually say that you know the winner of a team game before day 8, and competition rounds usually last for 20 days (while being ULTRA violent).

    I advise more statistical feedback from alliance players to explain how they feel it on this game.

    For example, i would appreciate to know how the VP evolution was from day to day, on one typical match
    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.
  • i completely hate this update and for a matter of fact have hated everyone u have put out since i started playing this game... this game was awesome a month ago now it just sucks.....look back u will see someone quitting today..wonder why...the stupid updates is why. Quit worrying how u can make your wallet fatter and make a game that we actually would pay to play. Agian as always a junk update that i really doubt anyone likes at all. With that bieng said as soon as the map i'm on is over i am not starting a new one. i am also done playing this game. Way to go GERMANICO.....u are making players quit now because of your arrogance and stupid updates. Just stop already and go take a walk or something...find something else to do except contrant updates. YOU RUINED THIS GAME ALREADY....STOP UPDATING FOR YOUR WALLET TO GROW....DONT EVEN KNOW U BUT I CAN SAY I HATE U ALREADY...go ahead and ban me i dont give a shyt, my game is almost over now due to new stupid update so why dont u just end all games then. really at this point i doubt anyone would care
  • Germanico wrote:

    @Eternus: that was me actually. Maybe someone will be using them for a change... And also we can see many people building tanks - if you don't, then don't, simple as that.
    Germanico, are you serious people does not build mech. inf.? God damn, if so then they are more stupid then I thought so :( If you want ppl to build more of mech.inf. then make it a little faster and reduce it cost, add HP. Making it soft class unit is taking away the best element this unit has - ability to fight hard class units as more or less equal + better chances against other softs.
  • Germanico wrote:

    We actually set team games to 3000 and 4500 VP per map. Please check and report - if they are using the individual player VP that's wrong.

    @Cyclone: so you are basically telling us that you conquer 1250VP within 6-8weeks? Cause that's what you are claiming...
    Sometime I'd love to have my feedback heard involving the game in general. But my interest is with Team games.
    And I am not sure that you are understanding the problem this patch created.
    Right now the team games are set at 1250 VP. Whether it be 20 players or 4. I'm sure this was not your intent. But it is the reality.

    Now... if the average starting VP is somewhere in the 90's... let's pick 92 just to have a good number to work with in the analysis.
    20 players x 92 = 1840.
    Each team is currently starting out with far more VP than it takes to win. Therefore, at the end of day 1... the game is over.

    This had another effect too. For example, I am the XO of The Last Legion. We were 4-1 and #1 before the patch. We are still #1, but after the patch our score is 8-2.
    The patch literally closed out 5 of our running games.

    In the future, this VP requirement needs to be scaling.
    The same VP required of a 20 man team should not be applied to a 4 man team.
    These games are always over within 3 or 4 days of war starting. (Usually we have a peace period before anyone has war in our Challenge matches) If the losing team does not log in anymore and the game is over, we should not have to conquer AI for weeks in order to get the win. But lets not focus on this side of it just yet. Right now the game is unplayable. Let's get that fixed first.

    Germanico, I can help you guys with many things involving team games. And I'd like to. I do not expect you to agree with me on every issue. But I'd be willing to donate a lot of my time explaining some things if I thought you wanted to read it. I have a very long list of qualifications and have been a hardcore team gamer since the internet first started. I created the first team ladder that Blizzard players ever saw, called Clan Battles.

    For now, let me just say that for a 12 vs 12 to 15 vs 15 team game, the previously existing VP of 3000 to 3100 was near perfect. It would take us about 2 weeks to get the VP needed for the win. And the game would always be very clearly over at this time.
    If you create a curve from there, using these numbers and the individual number that you prefer, you can come up with a scaling system.
  • Also at this time the 46 player map VP for an alliance challenge game is still coming in at 1250. I have 2 games lined up that has been agreed with the other alliances to start tomorrow. At this time we cant start them even 1 of them being a 7 v 7 would only leave one of the teams just over 400VP to get. This could be done in 2 days maybe 3 at a push.
    Come on guys some of us live to play the challenge games. Cyclone is doing my head in with no games available for us to get into.
  • In our games, we normally have a 7 day peace period with the other team, war starting on day 8. By day 9 there will be at least 3 players out of the game. We don't start off going for the VP, we start off trying to kill some of the other team, take out their units and roll over their city's so they have ne resources to rebuild units. After that its a case of moving onto the next target. By day 11/12 you have inactive players because they have no units left and some of the team just stop playing as they can see they are not going to win. Then its just a case of going round picking up the VP needed to win. It would be nice if there was just a surrender option for the other team so we didn't have to spend a couple of weeks fighting the AI to collect the VP needed to win the game
  • Germanico wrote:

    Team games of course have FAR higher VP - at least they should...
    I have the bad feeling something got shot there...

    TEAM VP
    26er map = 3000 VP
    45er map = 4500 VP

    that's how it SHOULD be...

    //G
    Germanico,

    A couple of things:

    1) There is no 26 player map. You guys removed it as an Option for Challenges. I am assuming that you have removed the 26 player map from all team games. It has been removed for several weeks now.

    2) 4500 is a tad too high even for a 20 vs 20. For a 20 vs 20, I recommend a number between 3600 and 4000.
    4500 would be devastating to the smaller team games. No one is going to farm VP in a dead game for that long just to record a victory. So there would be no point in playing the game.
    In one instance you have 20 players all working to farm the AI and complete the victory. And in another you have 4 players having to do the same work.
    We play these Alliance matches because we are veteran players and want to play other veteran players. Not the computer.

    VP requirement must be scaled along side the size of the team.

    3) Currently the Requirement is 1250 for all Challenge Matches and Team Games of any size.
    This actually works pretty good for the 4v4 5v5 level. But as the games get larger, it become unplayable because you literally start off with more VP then you need to win.

    We need an emergency patch so that we can play Alliance Matches.
    Ge the scaling and fine tuning fixed later please. Just allow us to play.

    From the perspective of your top gamers, this game has been down for days now.
    You had World Championship matches scheduled for tomorrow. The #1 was going to play the #3 and possibly the #2 as well. These matches would have potential rank changes take place.
    It is not good for your community to cancel such matches and give us very little feedback about when it will be restored. These things have to be scheduled.
  • Guys stop flaming: so it seems we have a bug in the team games. Okay. Will fix it.

    @rarh1 we did not nerf money income in any way - in the contrary we actually reduced the money upkeep of units, resulting in more not less income. So I have completely no idea what you are referring too or talking about. Please explain since when and why you are seeing a decreased money income...

    //G
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
  • I have an income of 8 thousand a day .. 300 with change in hour
    This is not enough even for the construction of two aircraft ..
    But I still need to build a building, explore technology ..
    The only way out is to sell raw materials on the market,
    But the market is not rubber, raw materials quickly depreciate
    And the extra raw materials are usually useless, and the options for buying it look like how to buy 13, 17, 27 units ..
    You can not sell much

    In such circumstances, even the very thought of hiring a spy is already a luxury,

    The post was edited 2 times, last by rarh1 ().

  • Hi rarh,

    thanks again for the details above. I looked at your game and you decided to build up your economy / bases to maximum possible in the short time since game start.
    So effectively you deprived yourself of the resources and money to build a larger army. This being said you already have nearly 30 units - although you haven't even started conquering anything.

    To summarize: You are asking us to increase the resource/money output to the level that you can both maximize your economy as well as your army without the need to move into enemy territory.
    From a game design and balancing perspective I must unfortunately decline your request. It would make early game war goals obsolete and allow turtle-play, something we don't want to encourage.

    I hope you understand my reasoning behind the decision,

    //G
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
  • Germanico wrote:

    Hi rarh,

    thanks again for the details above. I looked at your game and you decided to build up your economy / bases to maximum possible in the short time since game start.
    So effectively you deprived yourself of the resources and money to build a larger army. This being said you already have nearly 30 units - although you haven't even started conquering anything.

    To summarize: You are asking us to increase the resource/money output to the level that you can both maximize your economy as well as your army without the need to move into enemy territory.
    From a game design and balancing perspective I must unfortunately decline your request. It would make early game war goals obsolete and allow turtle-play, something we don't want to encourage.

    I hope you understand my reasoning behind the decision,

    //G
    These bases on the first levels are worth a penny .. my army is the necessary minimum to protect against an unexpected attack ..
    To build it all I had to sell half the resources ..

    No, I do not understand you, besides, I am convinced that I am not alone,
    I think you do not understand 90% of those who try to play this game

    Okay let's finish on this,

    You still have time to understand me, if you want your game to really become interesting, you will have to rethink a lot
  • well rarh1 have a point - we are in deep economic crisis, even big empires. I had to scrap many buildings to have a little better income balance. Money issue is especially harsh on maps where trade is minimized. Some time ago you nerfed money production or rised upkeep costs, can't remember exactly but that does not matter. Later after many disapproving voices on forum you raised money profit a little - but that is still not enough. Game pace is crumbling from money point of view. Can't imagine how are people doing on new maps where they have to build buildings and muster armies to conquer. Intelligence? Forget about that. Effect? A very much slover pace of games (lack money to do things). So sorry but I thought it was a strategic game, not tactical one where you have very limited number of units at your disposal.
  • rarh1 wrote:

    Germanico wrote:

    Hi rarh,

    thanks again for the details above. I looked at your game and you decided to build up your economy / bases to maximum possible in the short time since game start.
    So effectively you deprived yourself of the resources and money to build a larger army. This being said you already have nearly 30 units - although you haven't even started conquering anything.

    To summarize: You are asking us to increase the resource/money output to the level that you can both maximize your economy as well as your army without the need to move into enemy territory.
    From a game design and balancing perspective I must unfortunately decline your request. It would make early game war goals obsolete and allow turtle-play, something we don't want to encourage.

    I hope you understand my reasoning behind the decision,

    //G
    These bases on the first levels are worth a penny .. my army is the necessary minimum to protect against an unexpected attack ..To build it all I had to sell half the resources ..

    No, I do not understand you, besides, I am convinced that I am not alone,
    I think you do not understand 90% of those who try to play this game

    Okay let's finish on this,

    You still have time to understand me, if you want your game to really become interesting, you will have to rethink a lot
    I totally disagree here. 30 units to protect against an unexpected attack??? From what? Every single player at once? Think about it, everyone has the same limitations, if you have 30 or so units, your opponents will have more or less the same. So if they attack with 10 units, you don't need 30 to defend with. You increase money by increasing provinces and cities you control. Attack someone. Once you have some more cities and provinces, you will find you have the income. Can you give us an example of what buildings and their levels you have built? You can't have lvl 2 airfields, lvl 2 bases, lvl 2 factories, lvl 2 recruiting stations, and lvl 2 docks in every city and expect to field an army in the early game. Some games go on for 90 or so days. If they did what you wanted then by day 30 everyone would have millions to spend.

    The game is interesting, but it isn't command and conquer. You don't play a whole game in one sitting. And based on my limited experience on the forums, your views are not those of 90% of the players. Especially not of the players with more than the rank of private.
    ----------------------

    Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

    Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.