VP UPDATE INCOMING - 19/12/17

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

    • VP UPDATE INCOMING - 19/12/17



      UPDATE: Your feedback has been taken into consideration and we have a new proposed system. (see right)
      We would also like to further improve the coalition system/displays by paying more attention to two things:
      1. A notification when leaving a coalition, warning you that you may cause the game to end by reaching the limit for single victory.
      2. A coalition display showing how many Victory points a Coalition has achieved and how much they need for victory, for players to be aware.

      Attention Dear players,

      By popular demand, we are changing the total VP for victory to be more standardised and reliable.
      For the victory clause to be achieved, you will need to earn the total VP which is now constant (respective to the map): 2000 for the 20 player map & 5000 for the 64 player map. These are now the totals, regardless if you are in a coalition or not.
      From a players experience this allows for better strategic depth since you can rely on the VP’s achieved by competing nations when planning your strategy, streamlining your experience on a map. This has been much requested by players, and with reason. In some situations, users who joined coalitions and invested time & resources to achieve victory along with their coalition may find themselves losing to a single person who was on the otherside of the map taking small countries and picking their battles, only needing 1350 as opposed to the 5500 of a coalition. This was especially to his detriment when a player needed to go inactive for some time, further burdening the player.

      From a developers point of view, we are able to better tweak the players overall experience on a map, incentivising all diplomatic and military strategy. Cities have been reduced in the past by about 1 per nation to make tactical placements & resource incentives more thoughtful.

      We appreciate the feedback you have been giving us and we are working around the clock to give you the best Conflict of Nations.

      These changes will be available for all games by the coming Tuesday (Central European Time) 19/12/2017 so please consider finishing up your currently running games, as by Tuesday whoever reaches the VP for the map (2000(20) or 5000(64)) will win.

      Thank you,

      //The Dorado Team
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

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

    • Yak wrote:

      This has been much requested by players, and with reason. In some situations, users who joined coalitions and invested time & resources to achieve victory along with their coalition may find themselves losing to a single person who was on the otherside of the map taking small countries and picking their battles, only needing 1350 as opposed to the 5500 of a coalition.
      Tuff shit. If a coalition is losing to a single player it is their own fault , not the single player. I seriously doubt anyone other than large gaming guilds requested that a single player be burdened with 5000 vp requirement to win.
    • Yak wrote:

      From a players experience this allows for better strategic depth
      No , Wrong , this allows for poor leadership , planning and strategy to pay off simply because you outnumber the single player , it allows for lazy game play.
      You are telling me that a 5 man team cannot watch the score , cross the map and attack a single player who is out performing them on the scoreboard ? If they can't they deserve to be handed a loss.
    • Liqter - please stop spamming, will ya? Cheers!

      Concerning what YAK wrote: we had enough folks accidentally ending games and/or deliberately piggybacking on a coalition just to drop out at the single VP threshold - ending the game right there and then, with all others looking puzzled and usually off for the worse.
      Now imagine all of this, plus you putting some cash into your careful game plan, just to see it fall apart because some yolo decides to go solo.
      On top of this we had - in this forum but also via tickets - loads of players asking us for longer games.
      Hence this plan: why not unify and get the best of both worlds? Why play the world map and win SOLO with slightly more points, than required on the small 20 player map? What's the point?
      When we still had locked coalitions it made sense to a degree, but now? It actually drives players out of cooperating, simply because in most cases even in a 5er coalition only a fraction of the players actually pull the full weight: often meaning many more VP than before joining the coalition.
      This puts them at a massive disadvantage (individually speaking) to a player who stayed "single" with his much lower victory requirements, again in turn leading to them considering ditching the coalition. So in a way our mechanic turned retard on us. And as we all know one should never go full retard.

      Does that make sense now?

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

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

    • I would question the "popular demand theory". I am sure it appeared that way. But those of us "the silent majority" who were happy as things were, were not speaking up because we were happy and had no idea we were in danger of a change.

      I just archived about 5 games because the 1750 is too high and the Rogues are winning the map.
      Rogues are so much more difficult to kill than players. And even my 24/7 activity is not active enough to combat the spreading because if I miss just a day or two I lose a weeks work.

      Each game is different.
      I have had games where I truly wished the solo limit was higher than 1750.
      But I have had games where long before I ever reached 800 VP, I have killed all significant enemies.

      I pity any person that would play a full sized map until they have 5,000 vp by themselves. It wont happen.
      If i was not already planning to push for other changes, I would have been trying to get you to lower it just a bit. 1750 is great for a lot of games. But when you don't have anything interesting going on because you already made the other good players quit and become inactive... trying to get 1750 VP is hell.

      This is a big mistake. But I am confident that it will be quickly repealed when you no longer have any winners outside of a coalition.
      I could not even imagine trying to win solo. If there were people left in the game to kill that is one thing. But in the majority of games, if one player has reached more than 1500, that game is over.
      No one is going to farm ai VP from 1500 to 5000.

      I love you guys.. but no way.

      What you need is player controlled VP levels during map creation.
      Give us a range to choose from and let us decide. Then we can decide which games to join.
      And put the map generation back into the hands of the players. Find another way to regulate it.
    • Thanks Cyclone - this is exactly the feedback we need - a mindful discussion about a serious topic.
      As you may have noticed we have not yet done the change. Hence our little thread here:

      I want to collect the pros and cons and then see what the score is, come next week.

      Personally I am just as torn as you are on this matter: neither do i want players experiencing these stupid mechanics, nor do I want to have non-achievable game goals.
      Good ideas are gladly welcome - besides of putting map generation into the hands of players that is: cause that did NOT work out at all. Sorry to say.

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

      we had enough folks accidentally ending games and/or deliberately piggybacking on a coalition just to drop out at the single VP threshold - ending the game right there and then, with all others looking puzzled and usually off for the worse.



      Yak wrote:

      In some situations, users who joined coalitions and invested time & resources to achieve victory along with their coalition may find themselves losing to a single person who was on the otherside of the map taking small countries and picking their battles, only needing 1350 as opposed to the 5500 of a coalition.
      1: If a player scores the required solo victory score while in a coalition , it should be his right to quit that coalition. Consider that some players in the coalition may be under performing for many reasons , lack of communication , inexperience or what ever. ( Yes , people exploit , i understand that but not everyone who drops out of a coalition does so in order to exploit the game)
      2: If a solo player across the map wins , outperforming , in many cases , several 3 to 5 man coalitions , you should be congratulating him/her on a game well played , not punishing them by stacking the deck against them.
    • Germanico wrote:

      Thanks Cyclone - this is exactly the feedback we need - a mindful discussion about a serious topic.
      As you may have noticed we have not yet done the change. Hence our little thread here:

      I want to collect the pros and cons and then see what the score is, come next week.

      Personally I am just as torn as you are on this matter: neither do i want players experiencing these stupid mechanics, nor do I want to have non-achievable game goals.
      Good ideas are gladly welcome - besides of putting map generation into the hands of players that is: cause that did NOT work out at all. Sorry to say.

      //G
      I completely understand your position on "map generation in the hands of players" under the current conditions.
      And I fully understand that it can not, and will not, ever return to how it was.
      This is why I suggest we find some different way to regulate it.
      I do have some ideas, but I want to put my energy into the items I already wanted to suggest, first. (still getting my thoughts together on those)

      If we could find a way to not waste server space while also allowing players to set different VP levels for games and generate the games themselves, that would be the answer though.
      In the meantime, maybe we could find a middle ground and you could auto generate some low VP matches and some High VP matches and see how players like that?
      I kinda think that both would go over well. People do love variety.
    • Germanico wrote:

      Good ideas are gladly welcome
      @Germanico

      Btw, while we are talking about VP - Could you please set 10 vs 10 Challenges on the 1990 map to 1500 VP?
      Currently the entire map must be conquered and that seems a little excessive.

      Here is a good match to view: #2185215
      We are a couple hundred away from 1500 and the game is very much over and decided.
      1500 gives plenty of space to be 100% certain that the game is complete.

      Since players can not generate global maps, regular teams games died. Never seen one since. So it is only challenges that need to be considered, for now.

      Edit: Or if not 1500, then at least bump it down some to about 1700.
      I had some players in a game a couple months ago who said they took all the land but had to grow populations to win.
    • I have been in may games where a coalition I have been in, was around 4000vp, then the game ends and we're like wtf? So I like this proposal.
      On the flipside, I have been in games where theres only 1or 2 players are left, or I am solo trying to run the map. I know there is a vote system to end the game, in that scenario.

      Liqter wrote:

      : If a solo player across the map wins , outperforming , in many cases , several 3 to 5 man coalitions , you should be congratulating him/her on a game well played , not punishing them by stacking the deck against them.
      This is a good point as I have been in this situation too. Though, I will point out, a true victory would be the solo player defeating the said coalition(s)thus encouraging him to find friends or Form/Join a coalition :)
      All in all, it encourages Coalitions. and I dont think this is a bad thing. in the real world, often countries rally others to a cause before going into a conflict. Its always better to have friends..no?
      well sometime allegances do change, or deception. Thats part of the game,like the real world..... and ...well.. .I think I like it like that! :)

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

    • Cyclone46 wrote:

      Btw, while we are talking about VP - Could you please set 10 vs 10 Challenges on the 1990 map to 1500 VP?
      Currently the entire map must be conquered and that seems a little excessive.
      alliance challenges I think need a special map. along with VP requirement, either a country counter, or something needs to be taken into account. a current challenge we're in, the game is over, but theres alot of work the other team needs to do before victory is acheived, yeah there's a chance, USA could resist the european victory, but its over, why extend the game another 5 days....

      If anything, another 20ish player map option for these would be very appreciated, or a alliance challenge only map. The current 1990 map is getting a little long in the tooth.
    • I agree, 1750 is a lot for one player and 5000 is beyond capable for one player. I think what the first person said about alliances and guilds requesting more points for one player is probably accurate. You can come up with something better then 5000 points for one player. Impossible with the rogue states.

      I think maybe if we had Generals and Admirals like we were actually the President like I suggested in the suggestions forum(Generals and Admirals Suggested Update) would be better and somewhat more possible to reach 5000 for one player. Also tons more fun. In this scenario the Generals and Admirals would make up for the lack of coalition players and one player could compete with 5 to 5000 points.

      I don't play the 20 player map very often so I don't know if I will like it. Im sure I won't because I specifically searched for this game with the world map avoiding playing just Europe. I was hoping for something more like a first nations map, not the same European map that every other company makes. Your world map is very cool though.

      Although if you guys released the Asia, Europe, America map so we could play that to only 2000 points, that would be awesome as well.

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

    • Okay - thanks for sharing your thoughts. I concur with Cyclone on the 20er map settings being to high right now. That one's for sure.
      In regards to the others we all seem to be more or less on the same track - it really kinda depends on the game. Huh. Okay...
      Possibly I will only shift some points and integrate a warning, so that it becomes more clear to players that they actually may end the game involuntarily.

      Let me do some more calculations and talking to the team...

      Cheers!
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Zolutar wrote:

      This is a good point as I have been in this situation too. Though, I will point out, a true victory would be the solo player defeating the said coalition(s)thus encouraging him to find friends or Form/Join a coalition
      There is something to be said for winning the peace , choosing your battles wisely.
      Not everyone wants to be in a coalition , prior to coalitions , outside of challenge servers the game was entirely solo play , even with military pact the game was scored on individual performance .

      Yak wrote:

      Post Updated
      The new scoring looks much better , thank you.
      I would reduce coalition size to 3 players , currently a 5 man team controls a huge area from day 1 and gaming guilds are logging in , in some cases with 10+ players on a single map , working together under different flags controlling entire regions from day 1.
    • I agreed with Liqtor's earlier points.
      But I disagree with the one about guilds merging 2 coalitions in order to win.
      I've never seen it happen.
      I saw it one time but after i killed a few of them, all 10 went inactive.

      I do not even know of any Alliance aside from ours that would be capable of organizing such a thing. And we have never done this.
    • @Yak

      So... I am not trying to complain. You guys seem to really want input so i am offering it. That's all.

      But my opinion of your new proposal is still that I prefer the system as it is currently.

      I am just a little confused. You wanted to raise it from 1750 to 5000. And now you propose to lower it from 1750 to 1600.
      To be frank... I think that such a dramatic shift in proposals is proof within itself that more thought needs to be put into this before any action is taken.

      I am torn on the 1600. In most games I would prefer this and call it positive change.
      But in some games it would be low and cause premature victory.
      In any event... 5000 is plenty high. we absolutely do not need a 5 man increase. And it is for this reason that I'd vote for the system as is.

      I have never seen or even heard of a situation where someone thought the 5 man victory mark should be higher.
      If a Coalition controls that much of a map, the game should be over.