No Open Games?

[cothyso]

doesn't seem like that huge to me, though: some code on the server to check the list for auto challenges and insert new ones (probably in a database or some local data structure) and some code on the client to redirect a picked up "challenge" from list, and based on it being auto to redirect it to the issue a challenge screen, or if normal to the normal present course.

[neil123]

I feel the same as 76 mm - I am fed up of posting an open challenge (I always state MY army)and 75% of the time its snapped up by a Swiss, Late Roman or Spartan elite army. When I accept a challenge I always try and pick an army that provides an interesting game. I am also finding that accepting challenges with hidden armies often just reveals an elite opponent. Its slowly killing the game for me, I am playing less and less.

NOTE:- I have no problem fighting Swiss etc, but I want to at least have the chance to pick an army and terrain that give a battle - rather than getting "ambushed" and rolled over.

From the original beta it has been asked to have a comment field allowing you to at least suggest what sort of game you want - maybe the Devs can review their opinion on this - I believe it would help.

[IainMcNeil]

Its not that we dont want to do it - the problem is there are thousands of other good ideas that need doing too

[hidde]

I can see no good reason not to show what army one have

[deeter]

Because, for some, winning is more important than a good game. I'm starting to see a depressing trend among the ultra-competitive players toward masses of non-descript troop types with minimum leaders, etc. Why? Because the game rewards it. With little Command and Control, no real need for troops to operate in formations and wild combat results that don't particularly reward better troops, you might as well bring 60+ MF and one troop leader. Eventually you'll wear out a better but smaller army.

I am constantly playing against orders of battle never existed in real life. I still enjoy FoG very much, but I getting a growing list of players and armies I'd rather not bother with. I suppose I will eventually only play historical scenarios or passworded games with players who I know want to fight an authentic ancient engagement.

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

I can see no good reason not to show what army one have

I stopped showing mine soon after I got IF because every time I posted up a challenge with Early Achaemenid Persians, it was accepted by Classical Spartans.

Perhaps people think that the only enemy the Persians ever faced historically was the Spartans, but that matchup gets old fast.

[grumblefish]

but... I bought IF so that I could play Spartans?

Anyway, if you see a challenge from me, it's probably going to be Spartans or Chariots; before IF, I used to mainly field Seleucid circus armies. I will also add that Spartans have a very diverse selection of units: Classical Sparta fields mass, armoured hoplites, Later Sparta has troops from all over the mediterranean basin, and Later Hellenic Sparta has pikemen and hoplites bundled together, with some good medium foot running around in support.

There you have 3 distinct army groups (pretending Hellenic Sparta doesn't exist), and you can get some variety within those groups. So although I like Classical Sparta best, I also use the other lists a lot and try to make some interesting combinations. So don't whinge too loudly about Sparta. :p

[hidde]

I can see no good reason not to show what army one have

I stopped showing mine soon after I got IF because every time I posted up a challenge with Early Achaemenid Persians, it was accepted by Classical Spartans.

Perhaps people think that the only enemy the Persians ever faced historically was the Spartans, but that matchup gets old fast.

I see. Didn't realised many thought like that. If I know enough about the army i see displayed ( which I not always do) I try to take a list that is not too positiv (or negative) for me. A good match-up is the most fun.
Hope you don't think that's why I took Spartans aginst you

[rbodleyscott]

I can see no good reason not to show what army one have

I stopped showing mine soon after I got IF because every time I posted up a challenge with Early Achaemenid Persians, it was accepted by Classical Spartans.

Perhaps people think that the only enemy the Persians ever faced historically was the Spartans, but that matchup gets old fast.

I see. Didn't realised many thought like that. If I know enough about the army i see displayed ( which I not always do) I try to take a list that is not too positiv (or negative) for me. A good match-up is the most fun.
Hope you don't think that's why I took Spartans aginst you

I don't think you (or anybody else) matches Classical Spartans against Achaemenid Persians because it is a tough matchup for the Persians (although it is) but because it is seen as historical (which, of course, it is). However, the Persians travelled the world and fought (and conquered) many other peoples before they ever met the Spartans, but the Spartans get all the publicity. Yawn.

Not sure what the fascination is with oiled semi-naked over-muscled Greeks, but well hmm.....each to their own.

Of course the Greeks thought the Persians were effeminate because they wore trousers (pants) - go figure.

But the truth is that although it is historical, Achaemenid Persians vs Classical Spartan is not a good matchup. Unless the terrain is very favourable the Spartans will walk all over the Persians - as they did historically. It just isn't much fun for the Persians - especially not if it happens every time you issue a challenge.

Hence my Persians have been going for blind dates...and hoping they don't get paired off with the oiled muscle-boys.

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

Furthermore, the person issuing a challenge is getting a "blind date" every time - so why shouldn't the person accepting it get one too? At least the accepter gets to choose the players he wants (or doesn't want) to play. The challenger doesn't - which may, of course, be the reason that some players don't like to issue challenges.

[Mercutio]

I would offer these suggestions
1) The person posting the game does NOT have to choose an army, just the rules (FOW, 2x moves, etc)
2) The person posting the game can choose a list of armies they may play and a list of ones that they don't want to play against
3) The terrain advantage roll gives +1 to the person posting the game
4) Let the person posting the game choose a map size. This could really create some interesting battles of manuever or small, dense battles.

[deadtorius]

I had an awesome battle with Classic Indians vs Persians. The Indians fared better than I had anticipated in melee. Was one of the best games I had in a while, and not just because I won either

[claymore58]

First of all an apology to Mr rbodleyscot. I selected Spartans, because I enjoy using the Achaemenid Persians and wanted to get a taste of how the opposition plays. Sorry, you were the first match i spotted.

A solution to match-ups could be as simple as having the option to specify the opposition when making the challenge. This could be via armies within a book (with as many armies as you want as the option - including only one). I expect that this would be rather simple to implement. Maybe it could have a negative list as well as in Accept any army other than these ....? Obviously, this would have to be displayed somehow or it would quickly become an annoyance for Acceptors.

Oh, and I'm still have computer trouble. I'm on my second complete rebuild. Hopefully, I will be back in action by the weekend.

[Mercutio]

One other thing, I have noticed the forums are slowing down quite a bit as well. I think this also has to do with the MP games.
Everytime I post a challenge, I am faced with someone with a much higher rank than myself. Usually the folks that play are true grognards. It is tough to learn the game while being pounded consistently. The AI is no help, because what works there doesn't even come close to working against a human. I have no idea other than guessing if my tactic will work until I realize the other player knows that this vs that = advantage. I admit, I stink, but given that, how am I to be thrilled to play a game where most of the time I will lose and do not know why?

Where is the log of results from the other players turn that has been asked for since the first FOG was released?
The manual may be fine for those who live and die this game, but as a newbie, it sucks.

Each expansion is really just new armies with the same basic formats of LF, LH, MF, LC, MC, HC, HF. Except there are differences my small mind doesn't understand that in certain terrain,circumtances, etc. what I thought was an advantage was not.

So to boil it down, it seems this is a true grognard game. I have no problem with that, but the format makes the newbies flee. Which is why I think this forum and the expansions, are dying in my eyes.
Imagine playing WOW where you have a level 10 character and have to pvp against level 60! You wouldn't play after a while. There needs to be some kind of ranking system to let newbies play newbies, although I think it may be to late for that because I don't see many newbies anymore.

Just an observation from someone who only plays a couple of games a week, not 20+ or played table top and about ready to give up myself.

[deadtorius]

You could always ask your opponent a question in the in game chat. If I was playing you I would be more than happy to explain what happened where, as long as we can figure it out, lots of moves in a turn.

[pipfromslitherine]

Allow for matchmaking would be a great idea. One thing is that it would be very hard to make it easy to use. Ideally you'd show a player's 'score' and your own so you could choose players of a similar level of experience and success - but not everyone would want to have their rating shown. You can get around this with anonymous matchmaking, but then you lose a lot of the choice inherent in choosing battles, armies etc.

It's an issue which all MP games, and especially 1 on 1 games, suffer from. I'd certainly suggest that if you play someone with whom you feel evenly matched, PM them and set up some more games. We also want to try and allow more out-of-band chat between people who are done with a battle, as I know that there are many in the community happy to help out with after action advice.

Cheers

Pip

[claymore58]

One other thing, I have noticed the forums are slowing down quite a bit as well. I think this also has to do with the MP games.
Everytime I post a challenge, I am faced with someone with a much higher rank than myself. Usually the folks that play are true grognards. It is tough to learn the game while being pounded consistently. The AI is no help, because what works there doesn't even come close to working against a human. I have no idea other than guessing if my tactic will work until I realize the other player knows that this vs that = advantage. I admit, I stink, but given that, how am I to be thrilled to play a game where most of the time I will lose and do not know why?

Hello Mercutio, I'm happy to have a fun game against you. I'm a reasonable player, but nothing special. I normally PM my opponent and we agree beforehand which armies that we are going to use. This means the battles are much more interesting and dare i say it ... fun. I even pick interesting armies in the competitive campaigns that I participate in. For my enjoyment and challenge are more important that going for a "win".

Claymore

[grumblefish]

If someone is looking for variety, they might find the challenges I put up just now a welcome surprise. I spent a little while designing some armies, and they're all good to go; I wouldn't call myself a novice, but anybody is welcome. All books accepted, too; I will win whether you're leading a band of savage thracians, or a horde of tin-can men.

[jomni]

One other thing, I have noticed the forums are slowing down quite a bit as well. I think this also has to do with the MP games.
Everytime I post a challenge, I am faced with someone with a much higher rank than myself. Usually the folks that play are true grognards. It is tough to learn the game while being pounded consistently. The AI is no help, because what works there doesn't even come close to working against a human. I have no idea other than guessing if my tactic will work until I realize the other player knows that this vs that = advantage. I admit, I stink, but given that, how am I to be thrilled to play a game where most of the time I will lose and do not know why?

Where is the log of results from the other players turn that has been asked for since the first FOG was released?
The manual may be fine for those who live and die this game, but as a newbie, it sucks.

Each expansion is really just new armies with the same basic formats of LF, LH, MF, LC, MC, HC, HF. Except there are differences my small mind doesn't understand that in certain terrain,circumtances, etc. what I thought was an advantage was not.

So to boil it down, it seems this is a true grognard game. I have no problem with that, but the format makes the newbies flee. Which is why I think this forum and the expansions, are dying in my eyes.
Imagine playing WOW where you have a level 10 character and have to pvp against level 60! You wouldn't play after a while. There needs to be some kind of ranking system to let newbies play newbies, although I think it may be to late for that because I don't see many newbies anymore.

Just an observation from someone who only plays a couple of games a week, not 20+ or played table top and about ready to give up myself.

I stopped playing partly because I sucked in MP.

But come to think of it, I'm having a blast with playing against grognards in Squad Battles. There, I ask questions and they happily answer. You get to learn more playing against masters than playing against noobs. Maybe you should try asking for some tips. The problem with the FOG system as opposed to a real PBEM is that you cannot continue to talks with your opponent after the battle to discuss tactics and all.. Now I guess the real reason for me not playing anymore is that I'm still a big fan of modern combat (WW2 / Post-WW2). But the game is fun and I might just get back to it.

[rbodleyscott]

I am always willing to give tips and will usually do so if I think my opponent is really struggling with the system or a matchup. However, many people don't like to be lectured, which inhibits me to some extent. They might think I am terribly arrogant. It's a fine line to tread.

I would certainly be happy to be PMd after a game if anyone wants advice.

However, I think some sort of broad rating system would be useful in assisting players to choose reasonable matchups. If there was a rating system you could set up a challenge to anyone "within x points" of your rating, for example.

Yes, you learn most from being massacred by much better players, but you don't want to do it all the time, it is too depressing.

[ianiow]

However, I think some sort of broad rating system would be useful in assisting players to choose reasonable matchups. If there was a rating system you could set up a challenge to anyone "within x points" of your rating, for example.

I would welcome a simple colour code to indicate the experience level of the player, based on number of games played and win ratio (modified by status of opponent that they have fought). To get the system started, current players could volunteer what status level they think they classify with at present.

Purple = Grognard
Red = Expert
Yellow = Average
Green = Learner