What are challenge matches like?

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

    • Meta is just the name given to a context. You refer to some RTS like starcraft. I won't learn to you that on Age of Empires 2, for example, the meta varies wildly between 2 vs 2 on a Arabic map, and a 3 vs 3 on a Black Forest map.

      It's just how it goes. A context.

      It is staged indeed, and we do need it, like in every sports, to provide a setting where luck is as little involved as possible when determining a victor.


      If you read someone stating that the meta of challenges applies per se on public games, i can correct him : public games have their own meta. X1 and X4 have their own meta.


      For example, the MRL is considered the meta artillery for 24/24 players due to long experience of sleepless fighting and general consensus that "yeah, it's the best artillery for its tactical role".

      It's however obvious to anyone with a brain that deploying MRL and MRL only is a tedious and long process, unfit with the requirements of a public game. Nobody sensible will argue that rushing MRLs in a context where you'd need to be left alone to your own devices for 10 days straight before fielding even REMOTELY a good bunch of them (especially since it's the T2 that is overwhelming, aka day 18) is good, optimised (and OPTIMISATION is the key word to ALL statistical, mathematical, and operational studies, both in real and online world). I wouldn't even call it "viable".

      In other words, rushing MRL isn't meta. Far from it. And i don't think i woud bother to invest in MRLs if i was playing a flashpoint, due to the game being finished before it reaches T2.

      I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what you may have heard of the game : if you have any question about how the community works or how the game modes are separated, feel free to ask, there are a lot of different game modes around there, for all tastes.
      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
      Well I understand you completely that you have to create staged game to play only late game units. That's ok.

      Ofc I don't like it because I like different challenge. For example I always play small nations. Even in ww3 map. For me it's a real challenge when you have to expand just to be able to catch other big nations. And you have to check every neighbor because even smallest one can surprise you. Even "userxxxx" after day 3 can become another user and jump on you with everything he has (happend to me btw).

      So it's ok, there is something for everyone in CoN.

      The reason I was shocked is most of you guys who play a lot of games and are dedicated to play in alliance challenges are talking about some meta-units and perfect stacks. And if we "regular low lvl players" :D try to speak about other units, you just say "shhhhh, you don't know about meta" 8| .

      Let me give you example:
      When I said towed arty can be useful, most of you meta-unit players said "no, it is only two other arty or nothing". When I mentioned tank destroyers are great counter to armor player it was the same. "no it is not meta :thumbsup: ".
      Btw I am mostly airforce player but like to have all the options.

      So I thought those guys must know what are they talking about when they can create everything from early game, expand, survive and have those super meta stacks.

      Now I understand what is it about :thumbup:
    • Opulon wrote:

      Meta is just the name given to a context. You refer to some RTS like starcraft. I won't learn to you that on Age of Empires 2, for example, the meta varies wildly between 2 vs 2 on a Arabic map, and a 3 vs 3 on a Black Forest map.

      It's just how it goes. A context.

      It is staged indeed, and we do need it, like in every sports, to provide a setting where luck is as little involved as possible when determining a victor.


      If you read someone stating that the meta of challenges applies per se on public games, i can correct him : public games have their own meta. X1 and X4 have their own meta.


      For example, the MRL is considered the meta artillery for 24/24 players due to long experience of sleepless fighting and general consensus that "yeah, it's the best artillery for its tactical role".

      It's however obvious to anyone with a brain that deploying MRL and MRL only is a tedious and long process, unfit with the requirements of a public game. Nobody sensible will argue that rushing MRLs in a context where you'd need to be left alone to your own devices for 10 days straight before fielding even REMOTELY a good bunch of them (especially since it's the T2 that is overwhelming, aka day 18) is good, optimised (and OPTIMISATION is the key word to ALL statistical, mathematical, and operational studies, both in real and online world). I wouldn't even call it "viable".

      In other words, rushing MRL isn't meta. Far from it. And i don't think i woud bother to invest in MRLs if i was playing a flashpoint, due to the game being finished before it reaches T2.

      I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding about what you may have heard of the game : if you have any question about how the community works or how the game modes are separated, feel free to ask, there are a lot of different game modes around there, for all tastes.
      I think your comment should be pinned for posterity :thumbsup: It does often seem like THE (challenge) META!!! permeates most newby questions which are obviously about public games
    • It's a matter i often encounter both when training players outside of my alliance, AND recruits inside our own martial training process.


      It's sometimes hard to explain why, in front of a beginner, i say "MBT is a decent unit", why in front of advanced players i say "let's think about twice, shall we ?", and why in front of competitive players i say "i'll slap you if you build them".

      Another example would be the strike fighter.

      Public games : Most players spam inf and armor, not doing any ASFs nor SAMs. So yeah, it's good, it's flexible, it's potent. It may be more flexible than attack helicopters if you are unsure what kind of spam is in front of you, and it also supports the assault more easily, if that is your wish.
      Public games but with a bit more experience : Strike fighters are decent, but be weary of focusing your firepower in it because it's what a lot of experienced players do expect, and if you encounter a half-competent player with ASFs and, god forbids, a player that invested day 5 in SAM as you should always consider when you see air spamming... you're toast, and should transition quickly.
      Regular challenges : Let's think twice about Strike Fighters. They are not meta because the units that counter them tend to be in the meta or in flexible builds. For example, if we invest massively into a strike fighter force, the enemy will not even have to react to adapt passively to us : he'll just have to use the infrastructure he is using to produce mobile artilleries, and shift into as many SAM as needed to counter us. And of course, players know PERFECTLY how to counter them, so it's really trying our luck, here. This said, if we are on a world map, Strike Fighters can produce a psychological "overspending in air defense" effect on the other side.

      There is another topic where someone asked about the best ground unit and, well, again, purely meta speaking, one may answer "MRL" and be done with it, ignoring that by itself the question is bound in "what are the parameters exactly".

      Sure, years of study, thousands of battles between people that never sleep and that are enraged like OTAN vs WARSAW to get the edge against their counterpart to be #1, creates some reliability in their conclusions, but they also are aimed at a set of people who can understand and execute them.

      Towed Artillery, mobile anti-air, strike fighters, main battle tank, it's the kind of composition i can see myself to help a beginner organise, because they are straightforward, simple, and they help to understand roles.


      After all, if the player doesn't understand (or has the capacity) the need for low latency to exploit what may be meta, it can become, ironically, far worse.

      Example : in the usual setting of active players one against each other, a group of 7 Mobile Artilleries and 3 SAM, pitted against 10 Strike fighters and 2 groups of 9 MBT+1 infantry, will win if there is enough depth in the territory, and without additional parameters.
      But it wins easily if the artillery player is competent, in which case even a competent air player will just fail with the tools at disposal. If the artillery players isn't competent, or too young to have been trained in "WHY" exactly he is manoeuvering a hard counter against armor+strike, there is a very high probability he will just log off, let his mobile artillery in the middle of plains, and then come back the next day stating that we lied to him, that his army got wrecked.

      And yes, this player was a bit ill advised to try to play something he wasn't able to handle yet, while he would have probably understood better the odds and the dynamics at work in CoN, if he tried to defend with a group of SAM + Tank Destroyers.

      I try to dilute in waters my own advices, since a year or two, due to that effect : learning of builds is gradual, and there is efficiency to be gained in "non-meta builds" (whatever which meta we are speaking of)


      There is also something else, which i'm guilty of so i can echo : We are alliances. We are (often) organised in very military fashion, and we require a lot of discipline and training from our members. Sometimes we recruit some new guy that is still fresh, and so we can teach him how to fight properly, but most of the time, we'll be recruiting people that got their mind intoxicated by a feeling that because they have won "all of their games" so far, they are incredibly good at the game.

      And hey, "prove me wrong", they get 100% victory rate !

      Sadly for those guys, the return to reality and entering a style of gameplay where "you need to give everything you have, phsycially and psychologically" to have 50% success against your peers, it's often a stellar schock.

      We lose a LOT of guys due to that, and we took the gradual habit to try to smite mercilessly the "bad habits" from public games that prove suicidal in competitive contexts.

      I'm sure that this habit echoes (even if it's not the intent for a lot of us) in the way meta play is presented as "the only good".

      You gave me the motive to make a topic on that, tommorrow, to be a bit more "reasonable" about what meta means, and why globally, when we enter full "Sergent Hartmann mode", you should just giggle and tell yourself that "yeah, they are acting a bit, on the matter"
      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.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Without a truce, it would be only a brawl with low tier units, like infantry and recons.

      You need the truce to build up real force for more advanced tactics like MRL and ballistic missiles.
      No you don't. Because it's important part of the game. You have to know how to build from the start using low tier units. To expand, attack and defend with low tier units but also when to start researching mid game units and when top tier. When to build them.That is the beauty of the game.
      Not been able to have everything or create super-meta stack.
      If you skip that early and mid game and go for top tier only it is like playing starcraft or company of heroes. Quick real time strategy up to 2h gameplay max.
      It's ok, I like all real time strategies but it's not CoN.

      Btw how can I play with smaller country for example some Balkan nation or eastern European etc if I can't attack others in early game?
      To let Germany or France even Italy to build units and buildings and not attack?
      Cmon there's no point in that.
      I have to attack biggest and closest threat! Then next one, than next... All in first 15 days. It's a must.

      You play as a team, you can trade resources with your team mates.

      That is why roles are getting assigned to different countries.

      This is not a public map, with different teams that balance each other out.

      There are only two teams, so clear frontiers. Without Truce many countries will die before they even produced one unit, if they are surrounded by several enemies.

      The whole map would hardly last a week and would be mainly decided by geographical advantages, even more if countries were allocated randomly.


      P. S.: I achieved solo wins on 4x maps fighting whole coalitions alone, so I know how 'early' games works. Publics are just boring as fuck, even more with the hordes of inactives that have increased since the game gone mobile.

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

    • You don't have to explain me anymore.
      I understand you completely.

      You like to play staged games with fixed sides. To wait until you get all the late game tech. And clash with the other side on the middle of the map. Because otherwise will be decided by geographical advantages and trash units are...trash so let's not use them 8o .
      There's not a single surprise. No diplomacy, no backstabbing, you know your enemies, you can see what are they up to, you all use the same units (meta 8o ), you play on agreed terms...
      Hey, if it's good for you, why not.

      It looks like a roll play to me.
      I just do not like that.

      But I do agree with you that public games suck those days. Too many "userxxx" who just clicked join game and dropped, too many turtles or gold diggers.
      (That's why I don't play anymore!)

      There are various reasons for that, not only mobile. Mobile is great btw if you are dedicated to the game, to check what's going on and give new orders quickly.

      However the reason why I replied first time is I realised that whan you really dedicated and experienced guys speak about meta-mumbo-jumbo unis, it's actually a trash talk :thumbsup:
      In your world of staged games ofc there are meta units/perfect stacks. But in reality (public games) you rarely can build all-meta stacks (if there are at least few real opponents playing).

      And ofc you can win against whole coalitions in public. It was always like that. Not only because of mobile.
      I won my first 4x ww3 game fighting against whole 5 players coalition. They coordinated attack on me. I lost 4 of 6 core cities including capital. And I didn't know a lot about game. I thought I have to put at least 1 infrantry unit in every city like in old civilisation games. Had half of Europe so you can count how many units were absent from my cores 8o . They were organized like one player used airforce only. Others were mostly ground, one strong navy.
      But I won.
      Had agreement with another strong player who held other parts of Europe. Not formal coalition but he kept his word.
      They were not real life friends so after initial offensive passed they broke. One guy betrayed the others etc.
      Maybe I helped a little destroying all of their troops :whistling:

      Very interesting game that was my part of "wow I like this game".

      That's something you'll never encounter in staged games. But as I said I understand you.
    • You are entirely right on the fact we couldn't compete on a operational and skill level with a dedicated player of public games, especially X4. If, as a cherry on the cake, he plays on mobile, i think i would surrender at the moment i encounter him.

      Those people are too trained, too active, and too knowledgable in the game for us to compete.
      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.
    • No correlation between training, organisation, iterative-improvement circles, and "skill", in human societies.
      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:

      You are entirely right on the fact we couldn't compete on a operational and skill level with a dedicated player of public games, especially X4. If, as a cherry on the cake, he plays on mobile, i think i would surrender at the moment i encounter him.

      Those people are too trained, too active, and too knowledgable in the game for us to compete.
      Never said that. You got it wrong. I was talking about meta-units trash talk all over the forum.

      I really don't want to talk about your dedication to the game, your organisation, training of your members, their skill lvl and game mechanic understanding.
      I don't imply anything about you or any other expert player.
      I don't consider muself as an expert in CoN.
      I don't want to be. I have real life and I am too old to be CoN expert. My first cpu was C64 - that old.
      I never said you can't beat some random player in a public game.

      Btw why don't you have alliance tournaments were nothing is staged and multiple alliances are involved as in-game coalitions?

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

    • There is one organised currently. We call those melting pots. But their rules tend to vary from one to other event.

      The first one had basically no rule, the second had no pre-set coalitions, and this one, they are experimenting about pre-made coalitions with mixed blood (between alliances) and an incredibly long peace period.
      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:

      There is one organised currently. We call those melting pots. But their rules tend to vary from one to other event.

      The first one had basically no rule, the second had no pre-set coalitions, and this one, they are experimenting about pre-made coalitions with mixed blood (between alliances) and an incredibly long peace period.
      Well that is much better if you ask me.
      I would love to play something like that.

      But I tend to be too much dedicated if and when I play the game. I must check in every hour and can't sleep well because of the game X( so I usually login in the middle of the night "just to check is everything ok".
      And that's in public games were you are lucky if you have several good opponents.

      I would be dead man if I try that "melting pot" :D .
    • No, you would have your fit, because this kind of "too much dedication" is pretty much considered standard, and a lot of people are exhanging their tips about how to use correctly polyphasic sleep.

      Let's remember the old times of what was the minimum level of presence to be a "top" in the old times of Ogame. Nothing has changed, really :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.
    • Monsieur Opulon, I wrote a post relating to your "fake nuclear program" comments.
      It's called "obfuscating your enemies".
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • It's not a role play, role play are more about writing and less about fighting.

      It's a team match, similar to soccer or rugby, where planning and preparation of tactics is one part of the deal and activity and knowlegde of gameplay are the second during the war phase.
      Knowing how to use the terrain and the paths are essential for winning a front, but outsmarting your enemie with units they did not expect, can do the same.

      Also not sure, what you mean with, meta-game is useless in publics. If you go for artillery, you will likely go for MA first and switch to MRL later. If you join with teammates, you might be able to MRL directly, that is part of teamplay and combining your force to balance out each others forces.

      On one middle east map, I started out with chopper build and switched later to MRL and SAM, when I saw my biggest enemies had a huge flock of ASF. He build tanks, infantry and towed artillery, so I guess it is obvious who won, even though he was about twice my size.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Never said that. You got it wrong. I was talking about meta-units trash talk all over the forum.
      I really don't want to talk about your dedication to the game, your organisation, training of your members, their skill lvl and game mechanic understanding.
      I don't imply anything about you or any other expert player.
      I don't consider muself as an expert in CoN.
      I don't want to be. I have real life and I am too old to be CoN expert. My first cpu was C64 - that old.
      I never said you can't beat some random player in a public game.

      Btw why don't you have alliance tournaments were nothing is staged and multiple alliances are involved as in-game coalitions?
      HA! My first computer was a Vic-20!
      *** 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:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Never said that. You got it wrong. I was talking about meta-units trash talk all over the forum.
      I really don't want to talk about your dedication to the game, your organisation, training of your members, their skill lvl and game mechanic understanding.
      I don't imply anything about you or any other expert player.
      I don't consider muself as an expert in CoN.
      I don't want to be. I have real life and I am too old to be CoN expert. My first cpu was C64 - that old.
      I never said you can't beat some random player in a public game.

      Btw why don't you have alliance tournaments were nothing is staged and multiple alliances are involved as in-game coalitions?
      HA! My first computer was a Vic-20!
      I think I have you both beat - The Vic 20 come before or after the Z-80?