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.

    • 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.


      er, um, I mean Welcome to the Forums.
      *** 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
    • Pyth0n wrote:

      not exactly sure why people consider strikers to be the op thing that they are claimed to be

      easiest way to beat them is to get some SAMS or ASF (id recommend SAMs but your choice ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)

      (btw im not saying strikers are bad they are just overrated imo)
      Compared to choppers, they are much easier to 'handle'. They are quicker and have more range, which why they are considered noob tools by some people. :D

      I once even one a map by having mainly ASF, NASF and an Ace as only way to kill of ground troops. Was painfully slow, but showed that pretty much anything can work if 70% are inactive and 25% hardly bother about anything else but tanks and SF
    • ASF as anti ground.

      nuff' said.

      haha

      Deep in my heart i consider Strike Fighters to be "anti-noob" noob tools

      But i also don't want to be too mean against the unit because when used in the right context (and in the right amounts), it's a good unit, of course.

      It's just that where i see them as a light cavalry to hit routing troops or isolated reinforcements, 90% of users use them like a line of gothic knight. "DEAAAATTTHHH"
      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.
    • After getting about 10 days into my simultaneous first three games back in CoN, I will have to agree that it's pretty much the same as normal. What is perhaps the only major difference is that players now go inactive for a while at the start and are then replaced, but most people who do the latter seem to have a good grasp of the game, and WW3 maps usually have at least one competent coalition and sometimes even one group of skilled players per continent. Arguably, the overall skill level for players who aren't inactives is somewhat higher.
    • This message adds to the off-topic Strike Fighters chit-chat here, but ... I'll connect it to the original topic by saying that opinions about what is or isn't a noob strategy, or a spamming strategy, have obviously arisen because the game(s) and map(s) have been around long enough for some folks to be considered long-term players or "experts".

      So, Folks, When you refer to building lots of Strike Fighters or Infantry in an ordinary game (WW3, BGUSA, FP, TCW) full of random players, as "noobs spamming" SFs, or MI, your are insulting competent gamers who have correctly analyzed the rules, maps, nd typical opponents, and have correctly recognized a couple of the easiest and quickest ways to slice through the opponents they are facing, like a hot knife through butter. You don't want to insult those folks, you want to retain and recruit them.

      At the moment, I begin a game planning to build lots of SF because I also plan to find an ally with a Navy, and optionally an ally with a strong ground game; and then I do my part of contributing to the win by wiping out opponents' forces in roughly 24-36 hours per opponent. One result (so far) is that in the public games I'm in, if my allies are decent, the games are over or essentially over in about 30 days, making it very rare to even see some of the large stacks or advanced units folks in other threads debate the merits of.

      So maybe that person building lots of SF isn't a noob spamming units, maybe it's me building *the right units* for the job that is at hand.

      I (and I'm sure the same goes for plenty of other players) get just a little tired of the caustic "noob" and "spam" comments.

      When I occasionally encounter an opponent who has a decent ground anti-air or naval anti-air strategy, I collaborate with my allies and either hand-off that part of the fight to them, or adapt my own production for a bit.

      *If* I were playing against more opponents who built anti-air defenses, I would adjust and increase my ability to handle them without help from allies - But (so far) I don't, and so I haven't.

      Returning to the other off-topic part of this thread (retention)... To encourage retention, and to take advantage of CoN having been around long enough to have a cadre of multi-year players, maybe congratulate the player who figured out that big infantry stacks (not onesy-twosey cannon fodder), or agile SF/NSF 5-packs, are effective ways to collaborate with allies and solve the puzzle that they are cooperating to solve.

      Try to avoid appearing to presume either that those people have come to an incorrect conclusion, or that they won't quickly come to an equally-correct, different conclusion when/if they face a different challenge. You'll catch and retain more flies with honey...

      KFG

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

    • The message above demonstrated my point with more strength i could ever do. It's important for the game to focus on the 95% of competent gamers out there.
      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 just that where i see them as a light cavalry to hit routing troops or isolated reinforcements, 90% of users use them like a line of gothic knight. "DEAAAATTTHHH"
      It all depends on the context; if you have enough Strikes against a sufficiently dispersed force, they excel at being light cav. If you are facing a full army concentrated in one space, then you use artillery to attrition them and eliminate their AA capability, then send in strikes before/while you attack from the ground. In that aspect, I suppose they are much like Polish Winged Hussars: striking fast, but also with shock power.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      As Opublon pointed, it is not only a noob tactic, but also a noob killer tactic.

      If you think, winning a public map means, that you are a competent player, that is your issue same if you feel insulted by my opinion. :)
      Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly by apparently completely not understanding it.

      I did not write that winning a public game makes anyone competent.

      So... Your reply was a swing and a miss. Would you like to try again?

      KFG
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      As Opublon pointed, it is not only a noob tactic, but also a noob killer tactic.

      If you think, winning a public map means, that you are a competent player, that is your issue same if you feel insulted by my opinion. :)
      Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly by apparently completely not understanding it.
      I did not write that winning a public game makes anyone competent.

      So... Your reply was a swing and a miss. Would you like to try again?

      KFG
      Oooooo, oooooo, you just gonna take that @Kalrakh ????
      *** 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
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      As Opublon pointed, it is not only a noob tactic, but also a noob killer tactic.

      If you think, winning a public map means, that you are a competent player, that is your issue same if you feel insulted by my opinion. :)
      Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly by apparently completely not understanding it.I did not write that winning a public game makes anyone competent.

      So... Your reply was a swing and a miss. Would you like to try again?

      KFG
      Oooooo, oooooo, you just gonna take that @Kalrakh ????
      Ladies and gentlemen, we have something here, something amazing, something incredible - a duel. Tale of the tape: Kalrakh Vs. KFGauss.
    • Stratieon wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      It's just that where i see them as a light cavalry to hit routing troops or isolated reinforcements, 90% of users use them like a line of gothic knight. "DEAAAATTTHHH"
      It all depends on the context; if you have enough Strikes against a sufficiently dispersed force, they excel at being light cav. If you are facing a full army concentrated in one space, then you use artillery to attrition them and eliminate their AA capability, then send in strikes before/while you attack from the ground. In that aspect, I suppose they are much like Polish Winged Hussars: striking fast, but also with shock power.
      Yes you're right. My metaphor was a bit limitated :D
      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.