What are challenge matches like?

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

    • What are challenge matches like?

      I'm finishing my 2nd flashpoint game and it was rahter disapointing. Only one opponent kind of looked like he knew what he was doing. 25 players out of 30 dropped early, like in the first week. Maybe other maps are better, but I doubt it.

      From what I understand, competitive games are 5vs5, one alliance vs another. Is that really it? It seems to me that this would waste the diplomacy side of the game, which I enjoy.

      I also tried a role-play for a few weeks. A map where everyone is playing seriously was appealing at first, then I lost interest because there wasn't any action.

      Are there some kind of "invitation only", free-for-all, 100 players game? Are alliances matches really the best way to enjoy the game?
    • Well, I see it similar.
      Games till now, that were more challenging were World War III
      Blood and Oil
      and also Battlefield USA at least for first 20 days. Then it was also just "finishing the game"
      Rising Tides depends very much on your neighbours at the beginning and how they proceed (if you ally with them).
      Flashpoint seems to me an easy opportunity to improve your statistics and gold account. My opinion: There are too many Flashpoint games. I am avoiding them now.
    • I'm looking into Supremacy 1914 and it looks interesting. The strategic layer seems to be more what I was expecting out of CoN but it lacks the tactical layer that makes CoN fun. Yet, that tactical layer is paradoxically what killed the fun out of CoN for me because no one seems to be bothered to figure out basic understanding of units. I'm guessing this doesn't get any better in WW3 maps. Still, that's likely what I'll play next, but I'm hoping for something better.
    • I can just tell you: Try WW3 and try "special maps" with Minimum Rank requirement. At least the activity of the players is for a longer time.

      On the other hand: Be happy. Just imagine you start a map and you have 4 neighbours who know what to do and all want your cities. You would be killed for sure. Now you have a realistic chance in such a setup to be the only survivor after 3 days. :D
    • Jee F wrote:

      I'm finishing my 2nd flashpoint game and it was rahter disapointing. Only one opponent kind of looked like he knew what he was doing. 25 players out of 30 dropped early, like in the first week. Maybe other maps are better, but I doubt it.

      From what I understand, competitive games are 5vs5, one alliance vs another. Is that really it? It seems to me that this would waste the diplomacy side of the game, which I enjoy.

      I also tried a role-play for a few weeks. A map where everyone is playing seriously was appealing at first, then I lost interest because there wasn't any action.

      Are there some kind of "invitation only", free-for-all, 100 players game? Are alliances matches really the best way to enjoy the game?
      There really isnt much point in diplomacy when you have two set teams with the goal to kill eachother? :D

      alliance matches arent "the best way to enjoy the game"; they're more like "the best way to play with/against ppl that actually fight back"
      I am the basline for opinions
    • Kalrakh wrote:



      Challenges are matches with a truce (build up) phase of 1-2 weeks and battle phase which can last 6 to 72 hours, depending how even the teams are in activity and experience.
      What?
      Really?
      Omg, that's the worst shit you can do in this game. Having the truce.
      That's not CON anymore if you play it like that. I am glad wasn't part of alliance or challenge.
      I thought it is like normal game just with fixed coalitions. So I thought maybe to try that one day if I have more time. But with truce, no, never.

      Now I understand why you people from alliances don't like to use early game units.
      You don't play with them ofc.
    • Hmm. Win 5 ww3 rounds, then come back to this thread.
      It seems that you are getting bored playing with the AI in flashpoint.
      Welcome to Conflict of Nations! It's a PvP game. I suggest you try it.
      "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."
    • Teburu wrote:

      There really isnt much point in diplomacy when you have two set teams with the goal to kill eachother?
      My point exactly.

      Kalrakh wrote:

      If you enjoy steamrolling noobs, challenges are not necessarily something for you, at least if you play with experienced big alliances.
      I don't. That's what I was trying to convey.

      ewac123 wrote:

      It seems that you are getting bored playing with the AI in flashpoint.
      Welcome to Conflict of Nations! It's a PvP game. I suggest you try it.
      I can tell the difference. That's not the issue.


      Maybe I sounded arrogant or something. I didn't mean to brag or anything, sorry. I've been reading other posts and everyone seems to agree that public games are like that.

      What if i'm neither interested in challenges nor RP? Are there some kind of free-for-all, 100 players game that are not public?
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:



      Challenges are matches with a truce (build up) phase of 1-2 weeks and battle phase which can last 6 to 72 hours, depending how even the teams are in activity and experience.
      What?Really?
      Omg, that's the worst shit you can do in this game. Having the truce.
      That's not CON anymore if you play it like that. I am glad wasn't part of alliance or challenge.
      I thought it is like normal game just with fixed coalitions. So I thought maybe to try that one day if I have more time. But with truce, no, never.

      Now I understand why you people from alliances don't like to use early game units.
      You don't play with them ofc.

      The thing is, we did try challenges without a truce, and it really wasn't fun at all. It's why it disappeared by itself naturally.


      Comes a point in terms of challenges where both team will have competent and active players. In those case, not having truce does get people to spam a specific early meta that lacks variety (to keep it simple).

      We continue to see some of those challenges being played, especially with newer alliances.

      If it's not your taste, indeed, you will not like it at all.

      However, the no truce challenge optimised meta (that didn't change a lot due to lack of variety, again) is used in public games and you can use it.
      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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
      Have you ever even played an alliance game?
      "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."
    • I see your point, and it answers that indeed, you wouldn't like challenges or top-competitive game.

      The gameplay you define is, well, the public game, and it has its merits pertaining to that.


      "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?"

      Challenges tend to happen in maps where resources and countries are balanced to mitigate to the maximum deltas. Without that, it would take us a lot more time to make all the math, the calculations, and the excel sheets pertaining to the requirements to build and fight in this kind of context.
      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.
    • ewac123 wrote:

      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.
      Have you ever even played an alliance game?
      No, as he says, and it's very obvious he wouldn't like it.
      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.
    • Okay.
      Opulon, it's off topic but I sent you a DM about roleplay games.
      "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."
    • I already sad that:


      Zemunelo wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:



      Challenges are matches with a truce (build up) phase of 1-2 weeks and battle phase which can last 6 to 72 hours, depending how even the teams are in activity and experience.
      What?Really?
      Omg, that's the worst shit you can do in this game. Having the truce.
      That's not CON anymore if you play it like that. I am glad wasn't part of alliance or challenge.
      I thought it is like normal game just with fixed coalitions. So I thought maybe to try that one day if I have more time. But with truce, no, never.

      Now I understand why you people from alliances don't like to use early game units.
      You don't play with them ofc.
      Now I understand that meta-units-shit.
      That's a setup, a staged game.
      But in reality non of you can create that in small map like Flashpoint if you are playing against 2-3 real players.
      Maybe if you play US and all of them are in Europe. :rolleyes: