CoN Alliance Summer tournament - 2017

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

  • Looking at your game @Endymion3 , I am not going to tolerate griefing on this thread and am going to give you a warning inline with our forum rules.

    We are going to be moving on from Alliance tournaments, I have exhaustively stated numerous times the reasoning behind gold allowance and am not going to comment on it further at this point. No-gold alliance tournaments will be organised by the mods and community, you don't need to worry.
    Dorado Games
    Conflict Of Nations

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

  • Cyclone46 wrote:

    The reason Endymion3 is shouting me out is because he has a grudge.
    The reason he has a grudge is because his Alliance is one who likes to ask for No Gold and Cease Fire, only to break both as part of their strategy to cheat.
    They expected us to roll over while they attacked with gold, almost 3 days early.
    And I took them to the woodshed for it.
    1º I do not keep any grudge against you Cyclone. Fortunately I have many things in my life to waste time in that way.

    2º The version you are giving of this game is the opposite of what happened. But in that we will never agree.

    Putting a gold meter is not a bad idea,
    But I would add to being able to create pátidas and to play without possibility of gold to those who are in the council of security.

    On the one hand they earn money and on the other the players have the possibility to play games without gold.
  • I agree with cyclone here, utilizing a gold meter, or even having the option to put a cap on gold use isn't a bad Idea at all. I sincerely hope the developers consider this as an option setting for configuring alliance matches.

    I know the developers rely on gold use to make money for the game development. and I whole heartily feel the developer should make money off the game. Like cyclone, I feel that gold use is also unfortunately what is hurting the game. I have been in many games where a player decides to blow 100k+ in gold and turn the tables of a match very quickly or come out of nowhere late in a game and wipe out a leading player, thus "buying" a win. I kinda understand that that's partly the point, but it can be disenchanting to a lot of players.

    I know I've complained about gold in the past, but I am not now. I have spent a bit of it in the match myself.

    My only beef really with this Tournament? The last minute map change, I think that really threw off a few players. It really would have been nice to have had the regional setup on the big map and see the teams co-ordinate together to go at each other. Instead we ended up with a close quarters "luck of the draw" of a team that got a fortunate placement grouping vs teams that were so spread apart and unable to help each other much game.
    ultimately it was advertised as one thing and quickly without warning switched into another thing. Make no mistake, playing strategy on the 2 maps are very different. the 1990 map is a slugfest.

    I just want to give feedback to the developers on how they can improve the game. Its disappointing to hear that the moderator community will not be sponsoring a future alliance match like this in the future.
    Hopefully they can find a formula that can be a win-win for the players (paid and free) and the developer.
  • <p>I also want to apologize to the mods, I've tried to keep this tournament the last few days to run smooth, but almost every player in the tournament (what's left that is) is really making Cyclone and his team scapegoats. I'm starting to fear that taking down the Last Legion will be the only solution to fix the game, and ease everyone's tensions. </p><p><br></p><p>I've stated this before, I don'y mind if someone uses gold to speed up a research because they won't be back for a few hours, or quickly make a building. But the Last Legion is really taking advantage of the oppurtunity (tier 4 air bases, level 4 army bases, SAM, destroyers, frigates, missiles, chems, etc) <br></p><p><br></p><p>I also only gave my team mate Sweden permission to use more gold than I would have liked because of this</p>
  • @OneCheesyNacho

    So who decides what is the proper amount?
    It does not take but a small amount of gold to guarantee a victor among two equal opponents.
    All it really takes is JUST the "golden vision".
    A couple of taps on the global vision between equally skilled players... the game is done.

    When the genie is out of the bottle, who decides how much is enough?
    Personally, i disagree with you. I think a player should either use no gold or use a comfortable amount.
    If i must use gold, I do not want to feel restricted or have feelings of guilt because maybe I used too much.
    I don't want to stress on if I used enough. So I just use what makes me happy at the time.

    In this game, I intended to keep it to only 100k. Which is really not even a drop in the bucket for a Golden Tournament.
    But I saw that Sweden was around this number so I put a little more in it.
    As far as gold games go, we have very little invested.
    We made the assumption that a golden tournament would be more gold, not less.

    I've had games where I materialized 30 ship armadas. Lost them, and materialized another.
    This is the sort of thing we'd expect to face in a game labelled a "gold tournament".

    All of this being said though, I do have regrets. But as many have said... there are lots of people using gold. And there is no guidance as to what is too much or too little.
    Obviously to use none would be too little.
    And if you had said, "Ok we must limit gold use to 100k" How do we trust each other? There are plenty I would trust. And I always trust a stranger. But there are some in the game I know for certain can not be trusted with such a pledge.

    The problem is not in "whos is bigger" The problem is in the fact that gold is even a thing in an official tournament.
  • Zolutar wrote:

    My only beef really with this Tournament? The last minute map change, I think that really threw off a few players.
    Trust me when I tell you, no one is more disappointed about the map change than me. Unfortunately one of the teams dropped out due to lack of players and we needed to resort to the 20 player map. I wouldn't have told our art guy to draw me up the infographic for the placements on the 25 player map, and I wouldn't have wasted time planning out the placements.

    But worry not, I still have the map for the player placements which can be used officially or not, so it is not lost.
    Dorado Games
    Conflict Of Nations

  • Generallhicks wrote:

    i appeal to u yak do not give up the idea of alliance based tournament's and i think you might find a lot of interest for a pvsp tournament as well there were at least 4 of my alliance who had a expressed a interest besides those who were on the team so please ensure that this type of event will continue
    @Yak I second with this, If we had a way to cap gold use,
    I'd be all in. Then again, even if there wasn't, heck I'd be game to try the big map in a tourney form. I feel in the bigger map, free/low gold use players might have a better chance on it than the small one.
  • Zolutar wrote:

    Generallhicks wrote:

    i appeal to u yak do not give up the idea of alliance based tournament's and i think you might find a lot of interest for a pvsp tournament as well there were at least 4 of my alliance who had a expressed a interest besides those who were on the team so please ensure that this type of event will continue
    @Yak I second with this, If we had a way to cap gold use,I'd be all in. Then again, even if there wasn't, heck I'd be game to try the big map in a tourney form. I feel in the bigger map, free/low gold use players might have a better chance on it than the small one.
    @Yak
    I agree with General and Zolutar.
    Here is what I want, and what I suspect almost everyone wants:

    - Either use an enforceable gold cap, or make it No Gold.
    - Use Big map only.
    - Fix random nation generator so that it works and doesn't just move to the next highest VP.
    - Announce what the prize is in advance. Make it no less than 100k Gold per player.

    These things, I bet no one disagrees with.

    The next idea will have more of a mixed response but likely will still be favorable:

    Instead of doing one giant bash which is really not a "tournament", do a real "tournament".
    Set up brackets like the Super Bowl. In the event of an odd number, the last tourney's previous winners get a bye round. Or the highest ranking Alliance if no winner is available.
    Use Super Bowl standards in that the best team plays the worst in the first round. Second best vs second worst. And etc.

    So that this does not drag out for 3 or 4 months... Set a 14 day time limit. If it is not over or there is no surrender in 14 days, the highest VP is declared the winner and we move on to the next round.
    This way there is a new round every 14 days. (Or longer if people want it.)

    This would work with 4 Alliances. And it would work with 20 or most any number.
    -----------------------------

    I'd prefer this was done as a way to promote Alliances and Challenge Matches. Promote a higher level of play and teamwork.
    I feel that the combination of the grand prize and recognition would help lure in a lot more Alliance members and boost the entire community.

    But as I said in my original proposal... This is only possible with no gold. And the Prize needs to be used as a carrot.
    Once a few like this are done over the next 4 to 6 months, this community should be alive and it will have momentum.

    It sounds like you are moving in the wrong direction with the view on Alliances. It is just the opposite. You need to use this to promote Alliances. But it has to be done the right way. Coalitions were not good for the soul of this community. They directly compete against Alliances for participation rate. Solid friendships, teams, and Communitys are born from Alliances. Nothing at all is born from a coalition but momentary entertainment. Coalitions do not support player retention. Alliances do.

    We need your support in helping us to shine a light on the positive reasons to be in an Alliance.
    Cramming us into the small map and adding gold is not the best way for this.

    Also... We simply must be given some way to have a legitimate competition. If none of our ideas are good enough... Then it is you guys job to give us something else.
    But we must have a way to compete evenly.
  • Btw, this was never an "Alliance Tournament".
    When you have everyone in the same match all vs one another... this is called a "FFA Tournament".

    FFA Tournaments are a lot of fun too. And I suppose gold is OK in these type things too, because they are not serious.
    Winning a FFA tournament with No Gold would only mean you were not the team everyone attacked. But it does not make you a champion.

    A championship Tourney is done without gold and with brackets.
  • A suggestion for tournaments - how about a no gold match, but with a gold buy in. The developers make it impossible to use gold during the match, but there is a 10,000 gold buy in. Make it so another player can sponsor (pay for) other player's buy in. Free players still have a way in either by playing/completing matches and collecting 10k gold or having someone sponsor them.

    Or instead of 10,000 gold whatever number would make it still profitable for the house (CON) without spending gold during the game.
  • Futureman99 wrote:

    A suggestion for tournaments - how about a no gold match, but with a gold buy in. The developers make it impossible to use gold during the match, but there is a 10,000 gold buy in. Make it so another player can sponsor (pay for) other player's buy in. Free players still have a way in either by playing/completing matches and collecting 10k gold or having someone sponsor them.

    Or instead of 10,000 gold whatever number would make it still profitable for the house (CON) without spending gold during the game.
    This is a good idea. But it would work better once the community has a start already.
    We can hardly get people to play challenge matches as it is. I am not sure if making them pay per match is the way to go. Of course the sponsorship idea is a good work around for that though.

    I think that either using the existing Security Council or making a Premium Security Council is the way to go. Members can create and join matches with preset gold caps. (But ONLY Alliance Challenge Matches and Tournaments.) Pubs should not have gold caps.
    I wrote a paper on this to the Devs awhile back. I am planning to write a much more detailed one soon and seek public support. There is a way for them to increase profit, make profit more stable and reliable, while allowing for legitimacy... all at the same time.

    The only thing stopping this game from going big is legitimacy. And without it, there will be a revolving door of different voices, as we all slope off, 1 by 1.
  • Cyclone46 wrote:

    Futureman99 wrote:

    A suggestion for tournaments - how about a no gold match, but with a gold buy in. The developers make it impossible to use gold during the match, but there is a 10,000 gold buy in. Make it so another player can sponsor (pay for) other player's buy in. Free players still have a way in either by playing/completing matches and collecting 10k gold or having someone sponsor them.

    Or instead of 10,000 gold whatever number would make it still profitable for the house (CON) without spending gold during the game.
    This is a good idea. But it would work better once the community has a start already.We can hardly get people to play challenge matches as it is. I am not sure if making them pay per match is the way to go. Of course the sponsorship idea is a good work around for that though.

    I think that either using the existing Security Council or making a Premium Security Council is the way to go. Members can create and join matches with preset gold caps. (But ONLY Alliance Challenge Matches and Tournaments.) Pubs should not have gold caps.
    I wrote a paper on this to the Devs awhile back. I am planning to write a much more detailed one soon and seek public support. There is a way for them to increase profit, make profit more stable and reliable, while allowing for legitimacy... all at the same time.

    The only thing stopping this game from going big is legitimacy. And without it, there will be a revolving door of different voices, as we all slope off, 1 by 1.
    i am definitely not in favor of a 10k buy in at all and i am fairly sure most of my newbie alliance won't be either as cyclone46 has stated there is a way to do it and it should appeal to about 50% of our active players currently playing