Think twice before putting "dawn of the patriot" like events out

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

    • Think twice before putting "dawn of the patriot" like events out

      The event could have been good, and it was a good idea. I feel the map was not even thought out or tested at all though. I am playing three of them, and a friend is also. In all maps, the "rebels" are getting crushed due to the map setup. At least put all three teams touching each other equally. The other way to make it interesting would be to give more initial building to the patriots to simulate not yet getting totally beat down due to invasion, or free barracks in every province to simulate the ease of recruitment in a population making its last stand. With a bunch of manpower and getting hit from both sides, it may have been one of the rare times that militia would have made sense. Lost opportunity is all I am saying, plus those that chose the patriots mostly left with a bad taste in their mouth.

      Also, you should have kicked players out that dont build or move in the beginning and open them up to new players to fill the gaps. 40-50% of players did nothing in all games on average.

      I hope we can learn from this. :whistling: :tumbleweed:
    • Inactive players are always a problem, event maps are no different. It's worse in team maps, but it is an affliction we must bear. :wallbash
      It's possible to win as the rebels, but it takes some strategy. I know of several moderators that have won as rebels.
      Barracks are cheap to build, if you can hold the war off long enough, you can produce tons of militia.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • I have been Japanese. Two of my Blackfoot opponents have tried to build militia. I took them over, cancelled the milita builds and had 0-3 allies helping me wipe them out. Even the allies that end up doing nothing made it hard for blackfoot to defend.

      The fact that it is possible to win with choosing the patriots does not make it a fair not interesting map. The devs will know exactly the win ratios, and they can publish it if they want, or better yet, multiply the winnings for patriots by 100 to keep them in the game.
    • Don't recall saying WHEN they won, only that they did.
      Maybe they had better allies, higher level player often wait for friends to play with them.
      Their level of skill is usually pretty high too.
      "War is fought in three ways. Helping your enemy to lose, helping your allies to victory or helping yourself to win. Any way you take it, you are always helping someone."
    • General Nightman wrote:

      I know of several moderators that have won as rebels.
      Barracks are cheap to build, if you can hold the war off long enough, you can produce tons of militia.
      This event has only been going for a limited time: "Sign-up period: 2019/05/17, 11 AM CEST - 2019/05/21, 11 AM CEST" Somehow my earliest game is already day 8. Thats why I said it was impossible to win in 8 days.
    • FinnDaddy wrote:

      The event could have been good, and it was a good idea. I feel the map was not even thought out or tested at all though. I am playing three of them, and a friend is also. In all maps, the "rebels" are getting crushed due to the map setup. At least put all three teams touching each other equally. The other way to make it interesting would be to give more initial building to the patriots to simulate not yet getting totally beat down due to invasion, or free barracks in every province to simulate the ease of recruitment in a population making its last stand. With a bunch of manpower and getting hit from both sides, it may have been one of the rare times that militia would have made sense. Lost opportunity is all I am saying, plus those that chose the patriots mostly left with a bad taste in their mouth.

      Also, you should have kicked players out that dont build or move in the beginning and open them up to new players to fill the gaps. 40-50% of players did nothing in all games on average.

      I hope we can learn from this. :whistling: :tumbleweed:
      While I agree that the inactive players is an issue, I am playing one and am the "rebel" team and we are 300 VP from winning so it clearly is possible to do so. I think the resistance team is good to have as it gives players a challenge. And if they do not wish to play that harder team, they do not need to choose it but I enjoyed the challenge so am personally very glad they added that team.
      Your other suggestions are good and would be interesting, but still there is NO way I would be using militia in that map. But the manpower would have been nice as long as the food could keep up.
    • freezy wrote:

      Thanks for the feedback, we will likely give the Rebels more starting resources in the next iteration to make up for the fact that they have a 2-front-war.
      Do you also have some plan for the team games in general, to cope with the problem of a player been left alone against a whole team?

      It is much worse in team games than in normal ones, because in normal games you can at least capture the inactive player and use productively his resources.