Announcement Dawn of the Patriot

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

    • BMfox wrote:

      For your information: I'm about to finish on day 8 with the American resistance. We entered the game with 4 Regulators: Mod Torpedo, SMod Eminem, ex Mod Crazy Pigeon eyes and me. The four of us might be a bit more skilled then the average player and we work well as a team but it is the proof that a team of 10 players that communicate in their chat and work together can win this map.
      To be fair, it is not "a bit more skilled" but "far and away more skilled". But this is not the only point.

      From what is posted here, it seems that the norm is to have a maximum of 2 active players per team. Having 4 skilled and active players that work as a team from Day 1 is immeasurably advantageous. So much, that one could even claim that it is unfair to non-alliance players who entered the map in order to play with random partners.

      If alliances are to enter as a group in the game, it might be better to show (for example, in the Join screen) that the team map you are about to enter will see you facing a "block" of some alliance. Then you can decide to enter only if you can guarantee that you have members of your alliance in the team, or other players with whom you have agreed to play together.

      I agree that this (as also the other team maps) are better to be played by alliances. If so, then perhaps some advance notification would be helpful.
    • atreas1 wrote:

      BMfox wrote:

      For your information: I'm about to finish on day 8 with the American resistance. We entered the game with 4 Regulators: Mod Torpedo, SMod Eminem, ex Mod Crazy Pigeon eyes and me. The four of us might be a bit more skilled then the average player and we work well as a team but it is the proof that a team of 10 players that communicate in their chat and work together can win this map.
      To be fair, it is not "a bit more skilled" but "far and away more skilled". But this is not the only point.
      From what is posted here, it seems that the norm is to have a maximum of 2 active players per team. Having 4 skilled and active players that work as a team from Day 1 is immeasurably advantageous. So much, that one could even claim that it is unfair to non-alliance players who entered the map in order to play with random partners.

      If alliances are to enter as a group in the game, it might be better to show (for example, in the Join screen) that the team map you are about to enter will see you facing a "block" of some alliance. Then you can decide to enter only if you can guarantee that you have members of your alliance in the team, or other players with whom you have agreed to play together.

      I agree that this (as also the other team maps) are better to be played by alliances. If so, then perhaps some advance notification would be helpful.
      I think that is a good idea but many players I believe would not look at it, I believe the players who joined and went inactive did so before discovering that us four were in it. I can say from experience that many players don't realise we are allied even when fighting us all or after 10+ days of the game.

      I believe the best way to counter this is for the ability for alliances to verse other alliances as the current method is the only way players from the same alliance can all play together. I can't say for others but I would have enjoyed it a lot to play a 10v10 or 10v10v10 against 1-2 other alliances but as the maps fill up so fast this is not a realistic possibility.
      Torpedo28000
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • atreas1 wrote:

      If alliances are to enter as a group in the game, it might be better to show (for example, in the Join screen) that the team map you are about to enter will see you facing a "block" of some alliance. Then you can decide to enter only if you can guarantee that you have members of your alliance in the team, or other players with whom you have agreed to play together.

      I agree that this (as also the other team maps) are better to be played by alliances. If so, then perhaps some advance notification would be helpful.
      mate, in the italian server we have an alliance that enters with 15 players in the anonymus maps, which are single player focus.... its unfair, and is a easy bully win against random (i mean bully casue they pick the randoms one by one and all of them declare war on you so morale -25 and attack from all side) its not fair but there are also no rules against that play style ;( now they just cheese the rounds to gain the gold and randoms that know this stopped joining those maps


      Torpedo28000 wrote:

      atreas1 wrote:

      BMfox wrote:

      For your information: I'm about to finish on day 8 with the American resistance. We entered the game with 4 Regulators: Mod Torpedo, SMod Eminem, ex Mod Crazy Pigeon eyes and me. The four of us might be a bit more skilled then the average player and we work well as a team but it is the proof that a team of 10 players that communicate in their chat and work together can win this map.
      To be fair, it is not "a bit more skilled" but "far and away more skilled". But this is not the only point.From what is posted here, it seems that the norm is to have a maximum of 2 active players per team. Having 4 skilled and active players that work as a team from Day 1 is immeasurably advantageous. So much, that one could even claim that it is unfair to non-alliance players who entered the map in order to play with random partners.

      If alliances are to enter as a group in the game, it might be better to show (for example, in the Join screen) that the team map you are about to enter will see you facing a "block" of some alliance. Then you can decide to enter only if you can guarantee that you have members of your alliance in the team, or other players with whom you have agreed to play together.

      I agree that this (as also the other team maps) are better to be played by alliances. If so, then perhaps some advance notification would be helpful.
      I think that is a good idea but many players I believe would not look at it, I believe the players who joined and went inactive did so before discovering that us four were in it. I can say from experience that many players don't realise we are allied even when fighting us all or after 10+ days of the game.
      I believe the best way to counter this is for the ability for alliances to verse other alliances as the current method is the only way players from the same alliance can all play together. I can't say for others but I would have enjoyed it a lot to play a 10v10 or 10v10v10 against 1-2 other alliances but as the maps fill up so fast this is not a realistic possibility.

      a "join all" option? make the leader as the main joiner and when he
      clicks on it all 5 member that agree to play join the match.... and
      those are lock only for X amount of leaders so to allow randoms to join
      and also allow same alliance memebr to stay in the same team
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!
    • thats not hard at all.... they already keep stats between games, having a "if alliance=X>Y; then notify if 5 alliance = lock game" is a simple comand to implement.... its already possible to see what alliance people are from, in the info of the player but its not important if you know 15 players are togheter but rather if you want to join a match with all those players
      You merely adopted the shitposting. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see a proper post until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but blinding!

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

    • As one of the round i play came to a close, i can say pretty much no one uses Paratroopers (i did see in a newspaper about Paras being shot down, but that's pretty much it) meanwhile Light Tank and Armored Car are still the dominant forces at destroying whole nation, take this for example:

      The enemy built a "Maginot Line" and i just cut through it with LT and AC, destroying their rear lines without Paras at all.

      The German forces in the East coast is mostly untouched and took my advice, they started building massive forces to prepare an upcoming invasion against us, but when i checked the newspaper, we were just 100 points away from winning and didn't need to invade them at all. That's kinda too bad, the Germans had 9 actives vs 6 of us and yet their Eastern coast wont have much time at all to turn the tide of the battle. We would've win against them anyway, but still too bad.
    • AK140 wrote:

      The German forces in the East coast is mostly untouched and took my advice, they started building massive forces to prepare an upcoming invasion against us, but when i checked the newspaper, we were just 100 points away from winning and didn't need to invade them at all. That's kinda too bad, the Germans had 9 actives vs 6 of us and yet their Eastern coast wont have much time at all to turn the tide of the battle. We would've win against them anyway, but still too bad.
      Yes in this event, all or nothing would have been appropriate. Have all or nothing.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • I going to tell my own experience in a recent game. The firsts days all the players were opperative. Nothing bad. Beginning like a normal server.

      Okey. At the beginning of the gameplay, the resistance got a lot of defeats in the battlefields,(from the asian part), (the german part was better controled, counting me, capturing Florida), conquering the enemy, maybe, 10% of our territory. Adding the trouble of the players,because it began when most of them disconnet,(exactly more of the american resistance= my team) staying: -6 japans, -2 americans, and -5 germans. the slaugther was served.

      The only Americans who survived and produced troops were, me, and Dakota. I achived conquer Florida, and rebuilt the industry enough, until Dakota was in danger, fighting with 5 countries at the same time. And knowing what happen when you leave your only ally, I was all day sending troops to the North, meanwhile some Asian country attacked Texas, forcing me to moved some lights tanks and normal artillery to control the South of California, and Nuevo Mexico.

      At this time I was in Balance with the enemies, from both sides. Not winning, not losing provinces, but defending all the territories of my old allies. Having the same VP than the better Asian country. And being a threat to all of them.

      The bad part of the history begin when Dakota fell, losing an importnat amount of troops in the North, and retreating the units alive, Knowing what will happen next. Then the nations was: 5 Asians, 1american, 3 Germans.

      When I lost my last ally, I tried to form and alliance with the germans remainig. A enormous fail.

      Finally for some reason the asians got enough VP, and they didn't conquer my pricipal territory ( Louisiana,FLorida and the SOuth of california an New Mexico.)

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Results: The gameplay well, the problems, the usual ones :(
    • BMfox wrote:

      12471998meh wrote:

      Dawn of the patriot should be run several more times, and arms race should be a permanent gamemode.
      It appears that Dawn of the patriot will run monthly just like the arms race and other events.
      I have a question for you. You know if could be posible in the future take the ally lands, not having to give back to them ?

      And a suggestion: If someone ally take the territories, beacuse you lose it in a battle, or proclaiming independece, should not be take the land like a national territory ?. Because isn't like when you occupied an enemy province. Both have the same action in the gameplay,(more in this map).
    • It makes sense when you take the land back of an ally that it is returned to them, same if they take back a province that belonged to you. However, there should be a clause where you can keep the territory of allies that turned inactive.
      BMfox
      Moderator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
    • BMfox wrote:

      It makes sense when you take the land back of an ally that it is returned to them, same if they take back a province that belonged to you. However, there should be a clause where you can keep the territory of allies that turned inactive.
      yeah, I know. But I was expecting can take an ally land and proclaim it like a non secundary territory. In the America map have more sense can regroup all the territories of your neighbours on you