Doesn't Play Well With Others

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      It is actually one of the best reasons to play in alliance.

      Sometimes, you don't want to be less afraid of your ennemies than of your allies, because the range of what you can encounter is the rollecoaster



      On the extreme bottom, you have the guy that doesn't know how to count to 5 for coalitions, gives all your informations to your opponent and basically OBEYS to him without being a multi account, just because the other guy said "we will spare you". Of course, when he is killed because "learn to count up to 5", he will turn to you and shout at you for not preventing the situation.

      On the bottom, you have the guy that will positively NEVER answer to call for help or cooperation EXCEPT if it involves taking empty territory, but that will shout like a Aircraft Carrier siren 24/24 if he is even remotely threatened. You use more of your time to get him to stop crying, than you can actually fight.

      On the low average, you have the guy that swears he is a pro, gets attacked, lose one infantry, call the other player a cheater/gold user, and archive.

      On the average, you have the guy that will, whenever attacked, right click select all his units, then add destination randomly in the opponent territory, and then pray.




      On the other extreme, you encounter sometimes a competitive trained player, that was at first reluctant to do diplomacy with you (because of all the examples above), but gradually understands you are one of those rare individuals with a functional brain. He then commits to you, and there, you probably have won the game before it even began.

      "Being an normal ally" ---> "Being an archangel of skill, in CoN"

      :D

      I don't say that all alliance players are good (far from it, actually), but when you are in an alliance, you usually find more easily reliable and trustable people. Less mental charge due to retards.
      and then there is the guy who's basically playing simcity :D
      IKR.
    • I just want someone that will communicate and answer you. I will help out but let me in when you want to attack someone. Listen to me when I have something to say. Maybe I see something you dont.... I want to be a team player but it seems most dont want to be... Dont get me wrong, I will not give up my hard fought units to help you when you do not at least listen to what I have to say... Just me mouthing off :)
      "Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC
    • bobqz wrote:

      AND.... When I say something at least respond... Maybe you see something or know something that I dont. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
      this is by far the weirdest thing I have ever seen you should discuss ur point!

      I remember weak ago I was playing germany. france enters the coalition and he decided to attack each spanish city with the units of his cities (each french city garrison leave its position and attack corresponding spanish city).

      I said " every player start with the same number of units so each of his cities have units exactly as urs he have dense bonus and motorized have better defnse stats"

      He replied with sentence " I know what I'm doing"
      Like really? okay u k what u r doing but reply to an argument with an argument not by ik what I'm doing and he quit 2 days later. Surprisingly he was lvl 20+ like have u been doing that in all the games u entered? or have u taken the account from a friend!.
    • bobqz wrote:

      I just want someone that will communicate and answer you. I will help out but let me in when you want to attack someone. Listen to me when I have something to say. Maybe I see something you dont.... I want to be a team player but it seems most dont want to be... Dont get me wrong, I will not give up my hard fought units to help you when you do not at least listen to what I have to say... Just me mouthing off :)
      It sounds like we may define "communicate" differently. I do a LOT of communicating. That doesn't mean that I need you with me when I invade North Korea. (Obviously, there's situations in which I might, but you know what I mean.). I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at directing and/or participating in coordinated attacks when necessary, but they're not always necessary.

      As for listening to you when you have something to say,... I like to think that I'm pretty good at being open-minded, genuinely considering what other people have to say, and accepting views that may differ from mine. However, I have to tell you, no offense, when I read that line, I was like, "YIkes, he sounds like he might be one of THOSE guys..." There's a difference between working together and one person trying to run everyone else's nations. I would be very, VERY shocked to know that I had ever told anyone to do what I thought they should do instead of they were doing. I might try to enlighten someone about a game mechanic if it looks like they're not aware of it, or warn of an upcoming danger, but I never expect other players to prioritize my opinion over their own. That's not "working together"; that's me being an overbearing know-it-all. That player signed up to play a country just like I did; they didn't sign up to have me tell them how to run their country. Now, if they see that what I'm doing is working and they ASK for some suggestions/guidance, I'm happy to provide it. And I'm happy to lead joint efforts if that's what the team wants, but I never tell someone working on their own "don't do that; do this instead."

      I don't know whether or not this applies to you, so please understand that I'm not assume that it does: There are some people who would say "I'm being a team-player and that person's not!" when a more accurate reflection of the situation would be, "I'm expecting other people to manage their militaries the way I tell them to, and they're not doing what I say!"

      In my coalitions (in public leagues; it would be an entirely different dynamic in pre=planned alliance matches, obviously), even if I'm the explicitly nominated leader, I don't constantly watch and comment on my coalition mates' individual moves and decisions. When it's time to have a group fight, I'll say, "Okay, I think we should go here or do this next. What does everyone else think? Do you think that's the best next step, and, if so, how do you think we should go about it?" Then, I and whoever else wants to participate in the conversation work out a plan from there. If they choose not to take my suggestion, then they choose not to take it. I would never say (or even think) "Listen to me when I have something to say".
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      He replied with sentence " I know what I'm doing"
      Like really? okay u k what u r doing but reply to an argument with an argument not by ik what I'm doing and he quit 2 days later. Surprisingly he was lvl 20+ like have u been doing that in all the games u entered? or have u taken the account from a friend!.
      I've learned a lot in this game.. but the thing I've learned the most ...is exactly this ...98 pct of people playing game don't know what they are doing.

      And I've tried like you to explain these exact things to people; even enemies. Dude its simple math; you don't stand a chance. But people just think aggression will win. If attacking like for like sooner or later you would think they would realize ; hey I basically need twice the troops to attack. Sure I like all of us; most likely made these mistakes .... ONCE or TWICE. Then was like How the Hell did I get smoked like that then look at research cards of units and calculate it out.

      I love to be attacked on ground and try like hell not to be the attacker without vastly superior numbers. Last game had partner who would constantly attack towards oncoming stacks.... dude stop get your defense/entrenchment bonuses. To make matters worse he couldn't figure out he was getting - attack penalties with mtns cutting tanks in half; not too mention rushing to his death further reducing his stacks HP. Sit on an entrenchment pt; build a combat outpost and wait; you have just cut his offensive firepower in half (well 45 %). This isn't rocket science and if people can't get these basic math of a combat engagement they have zero chance. And I've seen this on guys with lvl 50+ and 100's of games.
      "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him "

      aka ...The killer formerly known as BuckeyeChamp
    • Agreed. Many people in public games don't bother to learn/look up the game/unit information. For this reason, I do try to educate folks sometimes if they seem open to it. I think, though, that there's a significant difference between privately saying, "Hey, friend, I just wanted to make sure you knew that corvettes are more effective in coastal waters and less effective on high seas" and saying in the coaltion chat, "Hey. Move your corvettes over to [x]."
    • Indeed; I’ve had experience with both overbearing know-it-all and fellow strategic players, as well as the totally clueless. This is a strategy game, not a regular slash and dash MMO. There’s something to be said about the element of surprise, but throwing one battalion at an entrenched battalion probably isn’t going to cut it, except in select circumstances.
    • In my experience the best alliances are those where player's armies complement each other. There is no reason for every player to invest in TDS, or SAM. There is no reason for all 3 to invest in bombers, or tanks. Or marines, or spec ops. Or radar, etc, etc,

      Figuring out early enough the research tree and responsibility makes a strong alliance, but it also forces all members to work together, and more or less equally split the spoils.
      If it looks stupid but it works, it isn't stupid.

      If it looks stupid, it works, and it is also dangerous as hell, it is Russian.

    • Nil, to explain myself more fully. When I am in a coalition I prefer to be able to work with the team. I fully communicate what I am about to do . My desire is for them to let me know if they see something that I may not see. My "not the sharpest knife in the drawer " comment is to relay that I am new and seek and prefer guidance. I cherish guidance and look for tips from the guys on here to hopefully improve my game.
      "Retreat hell! We're not retreating ..we're just advancing in a different direction." General Oliver Smith USMC
    • Anikitos wrote:

      In my experience the best alliances are those where player's armies complement each other. There is no reason for every player to invest in TDS, or SAM. There is no reason for all 3 to invest in bombers, or tanks. Or marines, or spec ops. Or radar, etc, etc,

      Figuring out early enough the research tree and responsibility makes a strong alliance, but it also forces all members to work together, and more or less equally split the spoils.
      when playing with random ppl you might as well play solo :D
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • bobqz wrote:

      Nil, to explain myself more fully. When I am in a coalition I prefer to be able to work with the team. I fully communicate what I am about to do . My desire is for them to let me know if they see something that I may not see. My "not the sharpest knife in the drawer " comment is to relay that I am new and seek and prefer guidance. I cherish guidance and look for tips from the guys on here to hopefully improve my game.
      then the best option would be getting into an alliance and playing with ppl from it? cuz there is hardly anything you can learn from random ppl in public matches
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • OMG

      I don't know how many times I had to have the "Don't eat my lunch" conversation with coalition members.

      1. I hate patchwork maps with territories from 2 or 3 of me and my allies alternating all over the place. Yeah, I know it's the total number, but it pisses me off.
      2. As discussed above, "What the hell do you think I've been pounding those troops to death to give YOU cities????"
      3. Stop drawing lines all over the F'N world, you can't call dibbs on the world.

      REALLY REALLY PISSES ME OFF: Allies drawing lines all over the place and then not coming back for 24 hours so they can pretend they didn't know it would bother you.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • I also have the same attitude being OCD, and would like to see something done about the inconsistency of patchy conquered maps in coalitions, maybe an option for coalition leaders to remap territory distribution somehow.

      However, I recently had a game with a top player that changed my attitude about this a bit. I got mad that I had put in the leg work for an invasion and they had gone ahead and swept up a lot of territory I earned, including cities. This player told me the sole objective when playing in a coalition is to collect as many victory points as possible, as quick as possible. It doesn't matter who has the victory points or how the map looks, as long as the coalition wins.

      If we are speaking in terms of game mechanics, this player was right, and our coalition still won.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      bobqz wrote:

      I just want someone that will communicate and answer you. I will help out but let me in when you want to attack someone. Listen to me when I have something to say. Maybe I see something you dont.... I want to be a team player but it seems most dont want to be... Dont get me wrong, I will not give up my hard fought units to help you when you do not at least listen to what I have to say... Just me mouthing off :)
      It sounds like we may define "communicate" differently. I do a LOT of communicating. That doesn't mean that I need you with me when I invade North Korea. (Obviously, there's situations in which I might, but you know what I mean.). I like to think that I'm actually pretty good at directing and/or participating in coordinated attacks when necessary, but they're not always necessary.
      As for listening to you when you have something to say,... I like to think that I'm pretty good at being open-minded, genuinely considering what other people have to say, and accepting views that may differ from mine. However, I have to tell you, no offense, when I read that line, I was like, "YIkes, he sounds like he might be one of THOSE guys..." There's a difference between working together and one person trying to run everyone else's nations. I would be very, VERY shocked to know that I had ever told anyone to do what I thought they should do instead of they were doing. I might try to enlighten someone about a game mechanic if it looks like they're not aware of it, or warn of an upcoming danger, but I never expect other players to prioritize my opinion over their own. That's not "working together"; that's me being an overbearing know-it-all. That player signed up to play a country just like I did; they didn't sign up to have me tell them how to run their country. Now, if they see that what I'm doing is working and they ASK for some suggestions/guidance, I'm happy to provide it. And I'm happy to lead joint efforts if that's what the team wants, but I never tell someone working on their own "don't do that; do this instead."

      I don't know whether or not this applies to you, so please understand that I'm not assume that it does: There are some people who would say "I'm being a team-player and that person's not!" when a more accurate reflection of the situation would be, "I'm expecting other people to manage their militaries the way I tell them to, and they're not doing what I say!"

      In my coalitions (in public leagues; it would be an entirely different dynamic in pre=planned alliance matches, obviously), even if I'm the explicitly nominated leader, I don't constantly watch and comment on my coalition mates' individual moves and decisions. When it's time to have a group fight, I'll say, "Okay, I think we should go here or do this next. What does everyone else think? Do you think that's the best next step, and, if so, how do you think we should go about it?" Then, I and whoever else wants to participate in the conversation work out a plan from there. If they choose not to take my suggestion, then they choose not to take it. I would never say (or even think) "Listen to me when I have something to say".
      I think in every coalition I've run, I announce that I'm not here to play Dic-k-tator, I'm here to coordinate and settle in house disputes. A couple games back I had a coalition of all basically noobs, so I gave them all strategy lectures thruout the games, but in no case did I direct them where to go, who to kill, they learned, and we won.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • JonDoe101 wrote:

      I also have the same attitude being OCD, and would like to see something done about the inconsistency of patchy conquered maps in coalitions, maybe an option for coalition leaders to remap territory distribution somehow.

      However, I recently had a game with a top player that changed my attitude about this a bit. I got mad that I had put in the leg work for an invasion and they had gone ahead and swept up a lot of territory I earned, including cities. This player told me the sole objective when playing in a coalition is to collect as many victory points as possible, as quick as possible. It doesn't matter who has the victory points or how the map looks, as long as the coalition wins.

      If we are speaking in terms of game mechanics, this player was right, and our coalition still won.
      Maybe you should have read my point #1 three times, turned around, read them again three more times and then you wouldn't have missed:

      1. ... Yeah, I know it's the total number, but it pisses me off.

      :P
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD