What is the State of the Game, Compared to What it Once was?

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

    • eh the game is terrible compared to the past, im currently playing a game for 32 players 25 dropped out by day 4, the game used to be challenging when players played the game, always sneaky plans to overcome, now it sucks, hence the reason my financial contribution to games has fell to zero, not worth paying for now... you did ask, im playing the game only because i cant find another game to move to atm.
    • MicahWill wrote:

      More to the point:

      I guess there never really has been much difficulty in winning public games. I may have to look into alliances at some point to get more of a challenge out of it
      Having read this, ya'll have no idea how badly my bubble has been burst. ;( ;(

      Edited to add: Joined an alliance but it was a painful experience; they only ever played the Middle Eastern map and were hyper-competitive.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DOA70 ().

    • Opulon wrote:

      Pre mobile or Post mobile, Public games have always have been so easy to win ... I don't even understand how on the long term one may remain commited to victories when they have so little value. Sure, if it was hard to win, to the point that a experienced competitive player would be able to brag "I win 10% of my games", i would understand and share the willingness to play for the win.

      But when, with a hand in my jeans, half asleep, watching a stream and doing some admin paperwork, the expected win rate is around 50% if you are alone, and it jumps to 90% if you have a mate...

      "Meh"

      The arrival of mobile players didn't change the paradigm. It only made it more visible even to players that weren't experience enough BEFORE to see that this situation was already present ---> Fun ( "Losing is Fun" ) in public games only happen when you are lucky to be pitted in a 1 vs coalition (maybe a STRONG coalition of REAL players...), against a very high gold user, or, luckiest amongst the luckiest, another player that is seeking the same thing as you.

      I mean... It's now very common to see people with a K/D of 3 , that you wouldn't want to endure as an ally even if you were paid :

      - Incompetent in front of anything slightly dangerous
      - Incapable of managing their fatigue and their schedule
      - Incapable to adapt beyond the novice level : they have learned the Scholar's mate, and it works against 80% of players, so they consider they don't need anything else.
      - Outragously unable to fit in any kind of collective synergy or battleplanning.

      And yet, any player with basic training will inflict upon them 5 K/D .

      It tells a lot. But it's not new to mobile.

      The real problem is more for the conversion of users beyond the novice : they discover MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more quickly that public games are boring and without any relevance for any growth or skill, and they hit much more quickly the end door of what the game has to offer.

      Sure they could contact an alliance, get interested in challenges, discover that there is a whole universe beyond public games, but there is no "gradual progression".

      And the step between playing with people that spam infantries because they want to spam infantry, and people calculating the angles of provinces to determine a tactical advantage in hit&run, is a bit high.
      this post was a while back but it caught my eye.

      what if we just upped the level requirement?

      lets say for example only past lvl 10 you can play ww3

      and before that only flashpoint
    • It's a very famous and simple opening move that is easy to counter, but tend to be spectacular against newbies because it grants quick victory.

      Therefore, it creates a "wow" effect : "you are so strong at chess", while it's basically the first thing anyone learning chess will understand how to counter, and the guy trying to set it up end putting himself in a very precarious position in a real game against a moderately skilled opponent.



      In CoN, that would be people spamming the strike fighters. Against people that think that Conflict of Nations only has one unit, the motorised infantry, it works incredibly well, and is their "scholar's mate".

      Expanded : I have disdain for players that consider they have reached the peak of game understanding because they can win against most random inactive players. "Why should il learn more chess, since the scholar's mate ensures i win 50% of my games ?"
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Pyth0n wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      Pre mobile or Post mobile, Public games have always have been so easy to win ... I don't even understand how on the long term one may remain commited to victories when they have so little value. Sure, if it was hard to win, to the point that a experienced competitive player would be able to brag "I win 10% of my games", i would understand and share the willingness to play for the win.

      But when, with a hand in my jeans, half asleep, watching a stream and doing some admin paperwork, the expected win rate is around 50% if you are alone, and it jumps to 90% if you have a mate...

      "Meh"

      The arrival of mobile players didn't change the paradigm. It only made it more visible even to players that weren't experience enough BEFORE to see that this situation was already present ---> Fun ( "Losing is Fun" ) in public games only happen when you are lucky to be pitted in a 1 vs coalition (maybe a STRONG coalition of REAL players...), against a very high gold user, or, luckiest amongst the luckiest, another player that is seeking the same thing as you.

      I mean... It's now very common to see people with a K/D of 3 , that you wouldn't want to endure as an ally even if you were paid :

      - Incompetent in front of anything slightly dangerous
      - Incapable of managing their fatigue and their schedule
      - Incapable to adapt beyond the novice level : they have learned the Scholar's mate, and it works against 80% of players, so they consider they don't need anything else.
      - Outragously unable to fit in any kind of collective synergy or battleplanning.

      And yet, any player with basic training will inflict upon them 5 K/D .

      It tells a lot. But it's not new to mobile.

      The real problem is more for the conversion of users beyond the novice : they discover MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more quickly that public games are boring and without any relevance for any growth or skill, and they hit much more quickly the end door of what the game has to offer.

      Sure they could contact an alliance, get interested in challenges, discover that there is a whole universe beyond public games, but there is no "gradual progression".

      And the step between playing with people that spam infantries because they want to spam infantry, and people calculating the angles of provinces to determine a tactical advantage in hit&run, is a bit high.
      this post was a while back but it caught my eye.
      what if we just upped the level requirement?

      lets say for example only past lvl 10 you can play ww3

      and before that only flashpoint
      I think that would be excellent. Most of the people so far who aren't very active are right below level 10 and most of the "serious competition" is right above level 10, so that is a superb recommendation.
    • It's a solution that has been proposed several times but Dorado worries about segregating parts of the community. They have somes solutions in development, though, it seems
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      It's a solution that has been proposed several times but Dorado worries about segregating parts of the community. They have somes solutions in development, though, it seems
      Ah; ok. Speaking of your other point, I feel I’ve hit peak necessary skill in the desolate lobbies, which can be mowed down with a competent ally. I would almost like to do alliance games, but I’m so busy now with a unique job schedule that PRTS isn’t the best thing. Is there a more fast-paced shorter time range alliance type game mode?
    • This is going to be more so on the state of the game, but also the overall feel of CON is that it doesn't change much. Which is a big problem for an online game and what I am seeing everyone else in the thread address. After a while the game is just boring because there's really nothing to keep it fresh. The new maps every now and then are a good move to refreshing the game, along with the seasonal units but I feel the really need something out of the box to get that fresh feeling back.

      Another aspect is that in a game like this there really should be more balance patches/changes then I have experienced so far. At the bare minimum and given the pace of the game there should be at least one balance patch a month. These balance patches could also be used to enforce a rotational meta of sorts so that way the current meta which is the support team meta AKA MLRS/Mobile Radar/SAMs doesn't stick around forever and lets other strategies and metas develop. This also has the advantage that if you dislike the current playstyle of the meta you could just wait it out and eventually it would turn to a meta that you prefer to play. Wouldn't it be great if every unit class eventually had a time to shine? The possibilities become endless at that point. Currently it's stifled because why bother playing anything else for ground except MLRS when it blows every other ground unit to pieces from range, then the paired Mobile SAMs deny every fixed wing aircraft. With those two units together they effectively keep down everything in the unit roster that isn't other similar range artillery (MLRS or Mobile Artillery), Helicopters or Navy, leaving little options on how to respond.

      Either we require more options to respond or a revaluation of the game meta needs to happen. Deciding that the solution is to wall yourself off into alliance only games to counteract the boredom, to me does not seem like it will lead to sustainability of the game in terms of potential player growth and overall increase of enjoyment. The fact that this thread is here is the fact that there is dissatisfaction with the game state and it's leading to boredom.

      TDLR: There is player dissatisfaction going on with the general gameplay/state of the game. Currently no good solutions and the problem must be addressed. Moving to alliances to continue the game I don't believe is the answer and long term only further worsens the game state.
    • I generally agree, even if the lambda player would disagree with you because the general level of skill is so low you CAN play a meta based around Strike Fighters, and WIN 75% of your maps with that, even if fixed wings aircraft are hard countered exactly the way you describe it.

      To quote a Codex from Warhammer 40K : "The War is so vast that very few witness Adeptus Astartes in action".

      From a data perspective, the current unarguable meta to win most of your maps is Main Battle Tanks and Strike Fighters. Oh, and Motorised Infantry T3 in 4X, apparently. Sounds odd, no ? Yeah.

      Actually "knowing that the real meta" is MRL/SAM/ASF , and seeing that the overwhelming majority of players outside of "skilled"+"alliance" spheres will say "no, it's not true" , explains in a big part why it won't be changed.

      Only 0,5% of the actual players finish in that "room".

      ==========

      They should however attempt more balancing/patches, i agree. It was actually the case, a bit more than a year ago, and ceased when they focus full on mobile. I do have hopes that they will return to their pre-mobile focus policy of "attempting regularly to shift some units roles".

      But you would be incredibly surprised to see how little the general public would care for MRL to be nerfed (i lobbied heavily in that way, for example... especially the 1.5 speed that was nonsensical in terms of balance).
      However, change by 5 HP the MBT, or add the mortar ability to motorised infantry, and see how we basically don't play the same game than the 95% of players.


      Even the SAM, in fact. We KNOW it's incredibly potent against Fixed Aircraft, and yet, 95% of users couldn't care less if you nerf them because... they will already encounter them maybe one game over ten, max, and will spam Strike Fighters regardless of that.

      The more i observed maps (as a staff) to learn about how players do play really (aka, outside of my alliance and skilled players network), the more i learned that for 95% of people, strategy and choice of unit is defined by the looks of the unit and its general "cool factor" in regard to IRL trends.

      MBT is cool. Strike Fighter is cool, Infantry is cool.
      Missiles are cool.

      Mobile Anti-Air, SAM, Artillery ? Uncool, and expensive, meh.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Something you folks who wear out your arms patting yourselves on the back seem to have lost sight of, is that the path to the magical land of private?/competitive games you go on about, is rather well-hidden.

      I've been around for a few months, and I've seen mentions of private games, alliance games, and "servers" in forum posts,

      And I've rummaged through the woefully incomplete public-facing Wiki,

      And I've rummaged around in this forum a few times,

      And, private games is something that would definitely pique my interest,

      And, after all that time, I have no idea where, how, when, or with whom a private game is created.

      I do have a vague notion of alliance games getting somehow set up by mutual agreement between two? alliances; but there are a lot of gaps in my understanding of how that process plays out from the initial negotiations to the end of the resulting game.

      Why am I writing this? Is it so that I can get flamed by folks who had to walk uphill in the snow both ways back in the good old days? No - It's to remind the wise old CoN gurus (& Dorado) that if you want to pull motivated new players into those venues, you need to *encourage* Dorado to take a less haphazard and slapadash approach to explaining how their full range of products works.

      I won't be motivated to spend money to participate in something that's to hard to find and/or too hard to figure out.

      Maybe the info about this stuff is hiding in plain sight. If that's the case, A) I'll be glad to learn where to look, and B) instead of hiding it in plain sight, Dorado should truly move into plain sight.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Something you folks who wear out your arms patting yourselves on the back seem to have lost sight of, is that the path to the magical land of private?/competitive games you go on about, is rather well-hidden.

      I've been around for a few months, and I've seen mentions of private games, alliance games, and "servers" in forum posts,

      And I've rummaged through the woefully incomplete public-facing Wiki,

      And I've rummaged around in this forum a few times,

      And, private games is something that would definitely pique my interest,

      And, after all that time, I have no idea where, how, when, or with whom a private game is created.

      I do have a vague notion of alliance games getting somehow set up by mutual agreement between two? alliances; but there are a lot of gaps in my understanding of how that process plays out from the initial negotiations to the end of the resulting game.

      Why am I writing this? Is it so that I can get flamed by folks who had to walk uphill in the snow both ways back in the good old days? No - It's to remind the wise old CoN gurus (& Dorado) that if you want to pull motivated new players into those venues, you need to *encourage* Dorado to take a less haphazard and slapadash approach to explaining how their full range of products works.

      I won't be motivated to spend money to participate in something that's to hard to find and/or too hard to figure out.

      Maybe the info about this stuff is hiding in plain sight. If that's the case, A) I'll be glad to learn where to look, and B) instead of hiding it in plain sight, Dorado should truly move into plain sight.
      Welcome Lurker :p

      You won't get flamed in here, except if you argue that Corvettes are a good mid-game unit.

      I totally agree with your statement, and i can say that the devs are aware of this problem because the alliances do lobby to get more exposure to the general public. I mean, why wouldn't we ?



      New players that are active, social, and willing to play collectively, is the Tiberium of Alliances

      I know that the devs are also working on it : they know alliances are the end of the process when it comes to retention, and players sticking for years.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Ah yes ! It's an excellent example.

      Railgun is not... a threat, for me, and i struggle to see how it could be.

      But we heard a lot of players just outright shouting "INVICIBLE UNIT NERF IT DELETE IT" etc.

      The RailGun is basically a polyvalent SAM that can defend himself against close combat units, and is impotent against pretty much all artilleries, and vulnerable to bubble piercing.

      It hits RIGHT in the bullseye of hard countering how everyone plays in public maps.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Ah yes ! It's an excellent example.

      Railgun is not... a threat, for me, and i struggle to see how it could be.

      But we heard a lot of players just outright shouting "INVICIBLE UNIT NERF IT DELETE IT" etc.

      The RailGun is basically a polyvalent SAM that can defend himself against close combat units, and is impotent against pretty much all artilleries, and vulnerable to bubble piercing.

      It hits RIGHT in the bullseye of hard countering how everyone plays in public maps.
      I find it quite useful, especially since 95% of the players that I go against suck at this game. The other 5% are either tough opponents or simply kick my butt...
    • I can remember a concept that CON created years ago but it didnt last long.. They had games were you needed to spend 5,000 gold to play... its a lot but if you won, you would win a ton of gold back...
      I think games where you have to spend gold is a good idea, because it would cut down on inactivity and players would be less likely to quit.