Teburu wrote:
im more upset by the fact that we already have a thread about this exact bullshit tho
but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
Teburu wrote:
im more upset by the fact that we already have a thread about this exact bullshit tho
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
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.
Opulon wrote:
- 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.
_____________________________________________________________________
Opulon, could you please expand or elaborate on the concept of "scholar's mate"?
Thanks
Pyth0n wrote:
this post was a while back but it caught my eye.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.
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
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
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.
Opulon wrote:
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.
I tend to go for the Elite Rail Gun myself if resources permit to build a squad or two.
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.
2 Guests