Old player of war games, casual player of CoN since 1 month (played two games, now in my third) in between work breaks, lurker of this very nice forum. Loving the game mechanics and design, wish it was even better, love the community; overall: thanks Dorado!
Wall of text ahead, my first feedback here, which means it's fresh and from the heart. Hopefully useful -Let's have a constructive discussion. Please do not use terms like Gold-Users, Wallet Warriors, Cheaters or the like and stick to Dorado's terms and conditions conflictnations.com/fileadmin/…ictnations/legal/tos.html
In my games so far I couldn't help notice the use of gold (well, gold sale offers do pop up occasionally). The matter has been touched before, here Gold Limit? and elsewhere in the forum. Here is a short but enlightening personal story as food for thought; I guess it will resonate with may of you:
1- In the beginning I thought sarcastically 'what an obvious pay-to-win'.
2- Then I noted how explicitly Dorado explains that it is a feature, so okay.
3- Then as I played I thought 'how is it possible that the big countries are actually so weak in the name of balancing' and pondered how counter-intuitive and couter-productive it is that Dorado is first balancing the countries' start conditions in this way, only to give the opportunity and incentive to players to spend money to unbalance these same countries and annoy their playmates in the process. Also, right now, let's acknowledge the fact that making large countries being weak artificially is counter-intuitive and breaks the immersion (it might as well be a fantasy land): a) Large countries border with many more countries and must face many more potential fronts while b) having almost the same token force and resources as their little neighbours, and thus have no practical way to defend, and c) that the mechanics of war in the inflated regions of the large countries become very cumbersome and painful (artillery ranges, aircraft ranges, encirclements, manoevering in general).
4- Some spenders actually feel miserable. One country that was having a strong growth and had been making me nervous invaded my neighbour and I met it with a grizzly counterattack as it came near my border. I had been preparing that trap; it's a standard baiting tactic. I killed the whole expeditionary force, he sued for peace and I sent him an ultimatum to back off and let me have all the cities he conquered, or I'd take him whole. Cruel, right, but this is roleplaying war. He said something unexpected back then, like 'no, because I paid a lot to get those cities, lets share'. He seemed actually pissed off, this wasn't even funny. Well, on with the role playing, as I completely anihillated his whole country I kept wondering what did he mean 'pay', was it metaphorically? Paid with sweat and tears? Why did he choose to throw off the match, as if he rage-quit, when he could have written off his loss, kept his cores intact and attacked a different front with my blessings instead? I actually thought I was being generous. Upon further reflection (it kept bothering me), he must have meant that he paid money. And that would explain the anger, it's like losing at cards. For the loser, it stops being a game once money has been bet. Dorado, you are aware of this reality, right?
5- Then I won 1st and 3rd place in my first two matches and got some gold (about 2500 for both).
6- Then in my 3rd (current) match on day 1 I was caught in a very closely-fought war with a fellow player and caught him magically speeding up the production of his troops just as I was invading his undefended cities, twice (coincidence?). I baited his troops out and caught his cities without a fight and in the end gave myself a pat in the back for overcoming the 'gold disadvantage', what a genious!
7- Ah, yes, in the process I was tempted to do some last minute things with my gold, e.g. speeding up the building of a trench in a field as the enemy stack was approaching, just 1 min before he made contact, so that he would miss the extra preparations (I do like baits). I'd like to claim that this trap was totally premediated, but this is not the case. When I saw the trench wouldn't be ready by 10 min, I panicked and realised this battle would decide it all. Then I discovered the 'spend gold' button and desperately took the opportunity it presented me. Boom, went from 25% defense increase to 45%. That was 200 gold well-spent: He lost by a hair when he thought he would have won, then I took his undefended cities just beyond. Maybe I wasn't such a genious, but a sore loser? Now I feel bad.
8- Honestly, if I hadn't acted as a sore loser, I'd have withdrawn my forces the moment I realised the battle would go badly. I'd be forced to manoever some more, think some more, and acknowledge and respect the effort of my opponet some more. Who knows, maybe he was watching during those critical minutes from his side, counting on his upcoming victory due to his great timing, and just missed the magic building of me trench. Maybe I am overthinking this. Maaybe most people wouldn't mind these implications and say: all is well as long as you win. We do play games to win, but its the *how* you win that makes it a *game*. A mentally enriching and emotionally fulfilling one anyway.
9- There is such a thing as karma. In the same game, day 4, a country far far away from me had all its 6 core cities at lvl 3 factories, plus high level hospitals, airports, barracks, you name it. I was curious and paid closer attention. By day 7, all cities were maxed out at lvl 5 (I dare guess that the invisible bunkers and nuke facilities are also maxed, because why not? I you splurge, you gotta do it right). And everywhere -absolutely everywhere- his troops moved in to occupy, happines jumped from 25% to 35% just one minute after (a steal for only 500 gold per city); it must be the leader's charisma, to subjugate the defeated so effortlessly, when everyone else has to keep policing the place for two days, halting their advance. I felt appaled, but the situation did get some laughs out of my coalition members, as we spent the next days planning a desperate invasion with all we've got to take out his cores while he's asleep. We are geniouses, right? I even managed to stay ahead in the rankings for a few days, desperately expanding, before he eventually overtook me.
Now jump into the future:
10- Of course, we died. Those cities we invaded were the nest of the Zerg, or the home city of the Matrix. Swarming with everything you could think of. If we had lost to a foe worthy of respect, it would have been exhilarating. But we lost to a kid, or someone with the mentality of a kid, who wanted to buy their victory. Sad for them.
TLDR: Country balancing and game monetisation are both lacking and need to be done better.
Con'd in next post.
Wall of text ahead, my first feedback here, which means it's fresh and from the heart. Hopefully useful -Let's have a constructive discussion. Please do not use terms like Gold-Users, Wallet Warriors, Cheaters or the like and stick to Dorado's terms and conditions conflictnations.com/fileadmin/…ictnations/legal/tos.html
In my games so far I couldn't help notice the use of gold (well, gold sale offers do pop up occasionally). The matter has been touched before, here Gold Limit? and elsewhere in the forum. Here is a short but enlightening personal story as food for thought; I guess it will resonate with may of you:
1- In the beginning I thought sarcastically 'what an obvious pay-to-win'.
2- Then I noted how explicitly Dorado explains that it is a feature, so okay.
3- Then as I played I thought 'how is it possible that the big countries are actually so weak in the name of balancing' and pondered how counter-intuitive and couter-productive it is that Dorado is first balancing the countries' start conditions in this way, only to give the opportunity and incentive to players to spend money to unbalance these same countries and annoy their playmates in the process. Also, right now, let's acknowledge the fact that making large countries being weak artificially is counter-intuitive and breaks the immersion (it might as well be a fantasy land): a) Large countries border with many more countries and must face many more potential fronts while b) having almost the same token force and resources as their little neighbours, and thus have no practical way to defend, and c) that the mechanics of war in the inflated regions of the large countries become very cumbersome and painful (artillery ranges, aircraft ranges, encirclements, manoevering in general).
4- Some spenders actually feel miserable. One country that was having a strong growth and had been making me nervous invaded my neighbour and I met it with a grizzly counterattack as it came near my border. I had been preparing that trap; it's a standard baiting tactic. I killed the whole expeditionary force, he sued for peace and I sent him an ultimatum to back off and let me have all the cities he conquered, or I'd take him whole. Cruel, right, but this is roleplaying war. He said something unexpected back then, like 'no, because I paid a lot to get those cities, lets share'. He seemed actually pissed off, this wasn't even funny. Well, on with the role playing, as I completely anihillated his whole country I kept wondering what did he mean 'pay', was it metaphorically? Paid with sweat and tears? Why did he choose to throw off the match, as if he rage-quit, when he could have written off his loss, kept his cores intact and attacked a different front with my blessings instead? I actually thought I was being generous. Upon further reflection (it kept bothering me), he must have meant that he paid money. And that would explain the anger, it's like losing at cards. For the loser, it stops being a game once money has been bet. Dorado, you are aware of this reality, right?
5- Then I won 1st and 3rd place in my first two matches and got some gold (about 2500 for both).
6- Then in my 3rd (current) match on day 1 I was caught in a very closely-fought war with a fellow player and caught him magically speeding up the production of his troops just as I was invading his undefended cities, twice (coincidence?). I baited his troops out and caught his cities without a fight and in the end gave myself a pat in the back for overcoming the 'gold disadvantage', what a genious!
7- Ah, yes, in the process I was tempted to do some last minute things with my gold, e.g. speeding up the building of a trench in a field as the enemy stack was approaching, just 1 min before he made contact, so that he would miss the extra preparations (I do like baits). I'd like to claim that this trap was totally premediated, but this is not the case. When I saw the trench wouldn't be ready by 10 min, I panicked and realised this battle would decide it all. Then I discovered the 'spend gold' button and desperately took the opportunity it presented me. Boom, went from 25% defense increase to 45%. That was 200 gold well-spent: He lost by a hair when he thought he would have won, then I took his undefended cities just beyond. Maybe I wasn't such a genious, but a sore loser? Now I feel bad.
8- Honestly, if I hadn't acted as a sore loser, I'd have withdrawn my forces the moment I realised the battle would go badly. I'd be forced to manoever some more, think some more, and acknowledge and respect the effort of my opponet some more. Who knows, maybe he was watching during those critical minutes from his side, counting on his upcoming victory due to his great timing, and just missed the magic building of me trench. Maybe I am overthinking this. Maaybe most people wouldn't mind these implications and say: all is well as long as you win. We do play games to win, but its the *how* you win that makes it a *game*. A mentally enriching and emotionally fulfilling one anyway.
9- There is such a thing as karma. In the same game, day 4, a country far far away from me had all its 6 core cities at lvl 3 factories, plus high level hospitals, airports, barracks, you name it. I was curious and paid closer attention. By day 7, all cities were maxed out at lvl 5 (I dare guess that the invisible bunkers and nuke facilities are also maxed, because why not? I you splurge, you gotta do it right). And everywhere -absolutely everywhere- his troops moved in to occupy, happines jumped from 25% to 35% just one minute after (a steal for only 500 gold per city); it must be the leader's charisma, to subjugate the defeated so effortlessly, when everyone else has to keep policing the place for two days, halting their advance. I felt appaled, but the situation did get some laughs out of my coalition members, as we spent the next days planning a desperate invasion with all we've got to take out his cores while he's asleep. We are geniouses, right? I even managed to stay ahead in the rankings for a few days, desperately expanding, before he eventually overtook me.
Now jump into the future:
10- Of course, we died. Those cities we invaded were the nest of the Zerg, or the home city of the Matrix. Swarming with everything you could think of. If we had lost to a foe worthy of respect, it would have been exhilarating. But we lost to a kid, or someone with the mentality of a kid, who wanted to buy their victory. Sad for them.
TLDR: Country balancing and game monetisation are both lacking and need to be done better.
Con'd in next post.