Default coalition setting for non HC is "Share Map" instead of "Share Intel"

    • Default coalition setting for non HC is "Share Map" instead of "Share Intel"

      First new game since the update on 2/28, which I didnt know about. Share intel is so crucial and the whole point to being in a coalition. I realize that this was just an attempt to get people to pay more and sign up for high command, but its not gonna do anyone any good. So the same can be achieved with or without a coalition, what's the point?

      What you SHOULD have done if you wanted to force people to pump more money into the mix, is limit the coalition sizes. This map now has a coalition of 30. Not one of them will survive in the end, but they sure as hell arent fighting anyone. Once we big guys get over to asia to mop them up they arent gonna spend... but they would be spending now thinking they have a chance to survive.

      Bring back the share map and limit the coalition size. And I'm not paying for High Command... I don't need it.
    • No its just gonna get people to drop off. You cant stop people from using screenshots and skype. Its a pain in the ass, but the game isnt that great where there are improvements althought the recent ones have made it interesting. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that some of the surveys they've given us and some of the changes they have made recently let us know that they are desperate for revenue...

      Making the game harder to play for those that dont want to is not the answer. And its not a matter of agree or disagree, you'll see the results.

      If you want to increase revenue, take away the 10, 15, 20 and in the map I am in now? 30 country coalitions. Every single world map these noobs bunch up together. Meanwhile people like me build up to the point where we just pick them off one by one, they drop off, etc. If they were limited to five or six, they still feel they have a chance early... they pay then. Not when they are facing someone ten times the size.
    • Here are the reasons for that change:
      a) Main reason is server performance and client performance. Having to save all these spy states for all these players created a huge server load on big maps with huge coalitions. It also decreased rendering performance of browsers that had to render much more units than normal per player.
      b) Shared Intel was a high command feature before we introduced coalitions, therefore we devalued High command by introducing it for coalitions. Now we reversed that by feedback from HC users.
      c) Team games did not have shared intel as standard, but right of way. They now also have shared map. This is makes it more consistent between team games and coalitions.
    • freezy wrote:

      a) Main reason is server performance and client performance. Having to save all these spy states for all these players created a huge server load on big maps with huge coalitions. It also decreased rendering performance of browsers that had to render much more units than normal per player.
      maybe limiting slots of coalitions would help, call me crazy :)
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • Nemuritor, you are exactly right. Freezy I appreciate the "performance" response but that's a laughable excuse. This was a revenue based decision. The problem is its not gonna help. The people I have played and talk to get high command because they cant sit in front of the computer all day like some of us can. So the build queues are crucial for that. Which makes sense for those of us that are purists. To limit a feature so guys who spend can get an edge on basic game features is ruining this game.

      I get the need for revenue, but if you want that limit the coalition sizes. Then people will spend. right now they flock to the biggest coalition they can find out of fear thinking they will be safe. We had 28 in the coalition on our map. Almost all of Asia still cant attack each other until people fall off as inactive. Limit coalition sizes and you'll see spending increase. As for the high command and shared intel? The three guys in the coalition Im in right now that play together pretty regularly, two spend, one (me) doesnt and its not even fun when were up against a coalition full of people pumping money in to try to win (you can thank me for slaying the hell out of them and making them spend) and we can't even share intelligence? Were sending screenshots to each other on skype. No im not buying high command, I dont need it. Im not the only one that feels this way Im sure.

      Change the coalition sizes and you'll see results.
    • nemuritor98 wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      a) Main reason is server performance and client performance. Having to save all these spy states for all these players created a huge server load on big maps with huge coalitions. It also decreased rendering performance of browsers that had to render much more units than normal per player.
      maybe limiting slots of coalitions would help, call me crazy :)
      It's on our list and will be done some time in the future. That will mainly be a feature for the players (requested a ton), but it will also help with client performance even more since then we also have less shared maps going around, so less rendering per player has to be done. Shared Intel for coalitions won't come back though since even with limited members there would still be lots of people sharing Spy Intel.

      CharlieSheen wrote:

      Nemuritor, you are exactly right. Freezy I appreciate the "performance" response but that's a laughable excuse.
      I can assure you that it was first and foremost a performance decision. Of course I don't expect you to understand the intricacies of our game engine or how our servers perform or how rendering the game in the browser works. You can call it laughable but it is the truth that the amount of spy states created a huge load on our servers. And ever wondered why big maps become so laggy in the later stages of the game? Because rendering alot of troops of allies and enemies alike creates most of the lag.

      Attractiveness of HC is of course also a point, and I even mentioned it in my post. But we actually didn't expect HC sales to go up that much with the change. It's more a nod to the guys who are loyal HC users and who remember the days when Shared Intel was HC exclusive, now they have it back.
    • You're right, I dont get the "intricacies" of your game engine. And I don't buy it anyway. If that were the case, then you would have first limited the coalitions sizes. Not that it matters anyway.

      I know the revenue side of it. I design compensation programs. NO one likes those big coalitions. Change that out and you'll have more people spending. At the rate this game that I'm no now is going, it might be my last one. Not sure yet, ill give it a chance and see. But a "nod" to loyal HC people?

      Give me a break.