The Tortoise and the Hare

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

    • I mean, just in my experience, I'm lucky if I can log in once per day. I don't really have the time to join 4x matches, so I just... don't. 1x is my main speed, and it's working just fine for me. I'm currently playing as Iraq, and currently my coalition is only 1000 points (or so) to victory. (Allies are Iran, Myanmar, Chile and Japan).

      I generally hate 4x because every time I log in, I've been completely and utterly wiped off the map just because I was incapable of logging in.
    • Yes, I think we can all definitely agree on that. If you can only log in once per day, then 1x is definitely going to be better for you than 4x. I'm not sure it doesn't say something about 1x, though, that a player can log in only once per game day and still be successful. I'm starting to wonder if part of the reason public games are so easily dismissed by some players isn't at least partially because in a 1x game, we have a large number of players rarely (i.e. once per day, once every other day) logging in.

      I'm talking across the board and on average here, so replying to this with, "But *I* log in to *MY* 1x game SIX times per game," doesn't really negate my suspicion. I'm playing a couple of 1x games right now, and one of the things I THINK (it's still a bit early to tell) I'm noticing is that my opponents seem VERY absent compared to 4x. I'm not just talking about not being constantly logged in; I'm talking about being pretty inactive, even for the slowed down pace. In a 4x game, a game day takes 6 hours. Now, everyone sleeps, etc., and you miss an entire game day when you do that, but I think it's probably rare that a 4x player only logs in once every 6 hours during the hours when they are awake.

      This whole thread started from a quote that included the idea that "4x rewards activity". I don't necessarily disagree with that, but the assertion was that "activity" was somehow a substitute for skill. I'm not sure that's true. I think that if you're "bad" and super active, you'll still lose. And I think that if you're "very good" but too inactive, you'll still lose.

      "1x rewards skill, while 4x rewards activity." I'm not so sure. I think the inactivity of opponents in 1x may give the illusion of skill, but when it comes to having to deal with active opponents in 4x, we dismiss that by saying, "Well, those players aren't skilled; they're just online 24-hours a day, and I'm not." I think, in truth, it probably takes more skill to combat a more active pool of players at a faster pace.
    • I used to play a game "Stronghold crusader" in my childhood,it was like 1000x where years passed in hours.It was my favorite game back then and when I started Playing CON initially I thought that maybe it is a modern version of that game speed. Botton line is that faster a game the more you will enjoy playing it.
      I am the best player of this game that was and ever will be
    • GoldenGuy wrote:

      I used to play a game "Stronghold crusader" in my childhood,it was like 1000x where years passed in hours.It was my favorite game back then and when I started Playing CON initially I thought that maybe it is a modern version of that game speed. Botton line is that faster a game the more you will enjoy playing it.
      bur strong hold is not online. And its more of a taste I prefer less speed giving me more time for successive elaboration of the situation. I'm usually hasty but with low speed I ahve think double think, check and double check is this the best course of actions I should take?
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Yes, I think we can all definitely agree on that. If you can only log in once per day, then 1x is definitely going to be better for you than 4x. I'm not sure it doesn't say something about 1x, though, that a player can log in only once per game day and still be successful. I'm starting to wonder if part of the reason public games are so easily dismissed by some players isn't at least partially because in a 1x game, we have a large number of players rarely (i.e. once per day, once every other day) logging in.

      I'm talking across the board and on average here, so replying to this with, "But *I* log in to *MY* 1x game SIX times per game," doesn't really negate my suspicion. I'm playing a couple of 1x games right now, and one of the things I THINK (it's still a bit early to tell) I'm noticing is that my opponents seem VERY absent compared to 4x. I'm not just talking about not being constantly logged in; I'm talking about being pretty inactive, even for the slowed down pace. In a 4x game, a game day takes 6 hours. Now, everyone sleeps, etc., and you miss an entire game day when you do that, but I think it's probably rare that a 4x player only logs in once every 6 hours during the hours when they are awake.

      This whole thread started from a quote that included the idea that "4x rewards activity". I don't necessarily disagree with that, but the assertion was that "activity" was somehow a substitute for skill. I'm not sure that's true. I think that if you're "bad" and super active, you'll still lose. And I think that if you're "very good" but too inactive, you'll still lose.

      "1x rewards skill, while 4x rewards activity." I'm not so sure. I think the inactivity of opponents in 1x may give the illusion of skill, but when it comes to having to deal with active opponents in 4x, we dismiss that by saying, "Well, those players aren't skilled; they're just online 24-hours a day, and I'm not." I think, in truth, it probably takes more skill to combat a more active pool of players at a faster pace.

      abdul_the_brave wrote:

      GoldenGuy wrote:

      I used to play a game "Stronghold crusader" in my childhood,it was like 1000x where years passed in hours.It was my favorite game back then and when I started Playing CON initially I thought that maybe it is a modern version of that game speed. Botton line is that faster a game the more you will enjoy playing it.
      bur strong hold is not online. And its more of a taste I prefer less speed giving me more time for successive elaboration of the situation. I'm usually hasty but with low speed I ahve think double think, check and double check is this the best course of actions I should take?
      I would just say that it’s mostly preference as to which mode to play, but activity and skill in the other facets of gameplay of course compensate for each other, and the reward of activity is disproportionately higher in 4X relative to 1X. This does not mean that composite skill is better rewarded in 1X, only activity is a more critical element thereof in 1X. I think of it like slow chess vs fast chess. In slow chess, more time is available to consider movements and select the best strategy and tactics to achieve that. In fast chess, the best moves must be decided under much higher time pressure. A lack of real-time activity is like lag in fast chess - your timer is likely to run down. Essentially, in order to be able to do 4X with the same game-time activity as 1X, you have to be on 4X more often. Skill is an element of activity, and it’s simply more important in 4X. All else being equal, more active players are more skilled than less active players because activity is an element of skill.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Stratieon wrote:

      I think of it like slow chess vs fast chess.
      This is exactly the comparison I was going to make. The game itself requires the same amount of skill. The only difference is that the faster the game goes, the faster a player needs to be able to make the correct decisions.
      Indeed. However, the ability to make decisions within the determined timeframe is always a factor of overall skill, no matter the time control. With a compressed decision-making timeframe, presuming an an effect of time on decision-making capacity, rapid actions with subpar accuracy can result in the opponent conducting the requisite analysis for the optimal response to the suboptimal opponent action within the restricted timeframe. Presuming reduces time means reduced accuracy, the less time, the less likelihood for consummately accurate strategic play, and this is what is meant by the statement that 4X requires less skill.
    • Publics hardly ever challenges skill, my most challenging fights in public were against golders, not because they are good, but because they spawn hordes of hordes of troops, sometimes we won, most times still lost in the end.

      I played 4x and even 10x, but I can't say I ever enjoyed them, even if I won them.

      The best playfield to show your skill are Elite Challenges, there is no way to snowball in them. Both sides have about the equal amount of resources and need to show how well the use them. And even more they need to show afterwards how well they can use their troops. ;)

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

    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      Do you think a 1x game requires more skill than a 4x game? If so or if not, why? I'm actually more interested in why you think what you think.
      It doesn't, just the contrary. I've been playing this game since few months after it started, no one ever dreamed about x4 maps back then. Main difference between x1 and x4 is you have to think faster and plan further on x4 (that require better skill), and minor is: your day job/school/partying or f... - whatever keeps you out of the game, matter bit more on x4. I've see (and did) people razed on x1 maps during their night/job etc. I've seen and did that in x4 too - so map speed isn't going to protect low skill player, IMO it's (being razed) minor bigger threat of on x4. Personally I think x1 people false hope themselves, skilled player will burn them no matter what speed - why? Because he's planning his actions better than them. Tactics can differ on different speed maps, but skill doesn't (it's factor behind certain tactic that one use, not speed, speed is just circumstance similar to geographical position one have to adjust his tactic so if one have worse skill, he's in worse position, no matter map speed).
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      A non-skilled player can beat a skilled player much easier on a 4x map. No skill matters if you are asleep or because of other reason unable to go online. On 4x activity matters much more than skill.
      Hence why activity is a component of overall skill, which is actually realistic. If they’re both just as active, the non-skilled player will still lose to superior skill.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Activity is not skill, they are two different factors.

      A skillful player can beat an active player even if he is less active, just by having his units well positioned and stuff. ;)
      Yes and no. In the scheme of overall skill, all else being equal, a player with a significant enough activity advantage could defeat a more skilled opponent with better positioning and strategy, as has been stated in the Boxer vs Puncher thread. A fast enough fighter who isn’t too much less skilled than his opponent can triumph in a bout by speed. Of course, if one is just a terrible player, they probably won’t be beating the pros anytime soon, but activity is part of overall skill.

      For instance, I once fought a rather strong opponent, rank 40+ and strategically adept, I was around rank 15. It was like a war of the fifth alliance. I was Cuba and my Iberian allies were assaulting the French from their homelands and Italian holdings - and getting thrown back and annihilated each time. Their armies bruised and battered, we were on the point of defeat. I then moved in from England with strong combined air-land-sea forces and in a strategically complex Battle of Paris, defeated his primary forces.

      If I hadn’t been as active as I was, I would have been thrown back just like my allies, against whom my opponent took few losses. However, his bait-and-switch tactics failed against my strong combined assault and activity that allowed me to both see what he was doing and counteract it, flipping his own strategy on his head. Although he was perhaps more skilled than me strategically, me being more active enabled me to strategically outmaneuver him and foil his plans, despite his excellent positioning and planning.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Yes and no. In the scheme of overall skill, all else being equal, a player with a significant enough activity advantage could defeat a more skilled opponent with better positioning and strategy, as has been stated in the Boxer vs Puncher thread.
      Makes complete sense since the strategy of the skilled player must be based on observations, assumptions, and predictions at the end of the day. If the active player's behavior suddenly takes an unpredictable turn and the skilled player isn't online to adapt his strategy...kabuff! A multiplicity of factors can contribute to that, just one example could be diplomacy: Your trusted coalition member sneakily turns on you by granting your opponent ROW, exposing your relatively undefended borders. Wouldn't be the first time that happened :D