Feedback on coalition member limitation

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

    • Feedback on coalition member limitation

      Are the numbers for the coalition member limit good, too high or too low? 41
      1.  
        Limit is too high (2) 5%
      2.  
        Limit is good (29) 71%
      3.  
        Limit is too low (10) 24%
      With the latest update we introduced limits for coalitions. A future update will enable shared victories amongst coalition members.

      Here you can vote if you think that the chosen numbers for the limits are reasonable, or if they are too low or too high.
      Current member limit is depending on map size: 0-21p = 2 members, 22-31p = 3 members, 32-50p = 4 members, 51-100p = 5 members.

      Please specify in your post how you would alter them and why.
    • I actively advocated for these numbers for over a year. These size limits, proportionate to the various map sizes, are exactly what a majority of the participants in the related forum discussions requested. The new limits should be implemented as stated, and they should not be changed unless and until good reasons are provided based on 6+ months of experience with the new limits.
    • ;)
      For my opinion the coalition member limits for the respective map sizes are just right - prevents that playing as a coalition becomes too cuddly, and ensures that the game still provides enough space and scope for strategic and diplomatic challenges.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • Armatus wrote:

      While I agree with the numbers and have wanted them for some time I think 2 player coalitions are kinda pointless isn't that just a shared map? Might as well as set the low at 3.

      Macalex wrote:

      I had the exact same point of view than Armatus even before I read his comment. Coalition of 2 should be 3, for the rest it looks OK.

      Shared victory among coalition members is very important. No one wants to be a coalition and have to kill eachother at the end to reach a number of 3 or even 1.



      If you use the attack function, on an allies land, to attack an enemy in his province, it triggers war.

      Coalitions, do not allow this to happen, as they force you to remain peaceful until one leaves or disbands the coalition.
      Free Time looks good on me
    • Armatus wrote:

      While I agree with the numbers and have wanted them for some time I think 2 player coalitions are kinda pointless isn't that just a shared map? Might as well as set the low at 3.

      Macalex wrote:

      I had the exact same point of view than Armatus even before I read his comment. Coalition of 2 should be 3, for the rest it looks OK.

      Shared victory among coalition members is very important. No one wants to be a coalition and have to kill eachother at the end to reach a number of 3 or even 1.

      The biggest map for a 2 member coalition is a 10 player map (in the moment).

      If e.g., as it's unfortunately usual, some players already flees in the first few days, or the map isn't fully filled anyway, and, as exemple, just 7 or even less are active on the map, up from that moment the game could be boring with 3 member coalitions opposite to 2 member coalitions.

      With 7 (or less) actives it might at worst be two 3 member coalitions and 1 single player then (or any other constellation with only two coalitions), what inevitably leads to a team-match between two coalitions.
      But with three possible 2 member coalitions and one solo player, and still with the option of ending the map with 3 players, there are always much more strategic or diplomatic possibilities what probably guarantees a more exciting and challenging map, and even more a/the "solo player/s" could be the scales.

      Right, of course a 3 member limit doesn't necessarily leads to 3 member coalitions, but a 2 member limit is the option for more variety / choice.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • I had a game in 50 player map, with 3 players in my coalition working against a coalition of the masses of 7. now they are reduced to 4. They are not going to win. This change made this game awfully easy.

      Beside, the part where you create unrest and distrust in a coalition of the masses so they wont help eachoter is part of the fun in this game. I dislike this change because you need 3 players to win in the end anyway? the only thing that changes is that the game is less challanging and thus less fun.

      ---------

      If you insist on having caps on the coalition then make it so that the largest coalition in victory points cannot invite new players and victory points determine how other smaller coalitions can take players in under their banner. so for example all but the largest coalition may take members into their coalition up to a max of 150% of the total victory points of the currently largest coalition. meaning factions can grow once others grow but only then, so then you have your fair gameplay and it also simulates real life, instead of 4 tanks of a players destroying maybe 15 small players who dont stand a chance in their small coalitions.


      so example.

      Coalition 1 has 350vp
      coalition 2 has 400vp

      coalition 2 can invite a player that has up to 200vp under his banner, lets say the player has that exactly 200vp after he does join:

      coalition 1 has 550vp
      coalition 2 has 400vp

      now coalition 2 can invite someone new up that has up to 275 vp, no1 like that can join but they find someone with 180vp

      now coalition 1 has 550vp
      coalition 2 580vp
      and new players can be invited there again. dunno on and on it goes. its just like real life once one faction grows another can also grow this is true for NATO and the warsaw pact aswell in the cold war


      ----------
      but a system where 3 players have 500 points and the next 4 biggest players barely have 300vp is juist ruining everything with all his good intends it may have.

      and you can give the current max points a fancy name like current world arms race standing so players can see what the max for points is in their game quickly.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by dutchclass ().

    • Greetings,

      As game staff i gotta say that after seeing a bunch of 20 man coalitions in a 100 player map, i agree with these limitations. Having massive coalitions, kind of ruins games. It also leaves alot of games in a stale mate where users refuse to end the game like it should be (destroy other nations or all but three users go inactive and retire from the game) and thus leaving a bunch of unranked games not being played, and then taking up server space. I fully support limited coalitions.

      Best Regards.
      EN Community Support
      Moderator

    • Freezy suggested I bring my request to here. So here's my own quote from a different thread.

      Diabolical wrote:

      For each category, except the 100 player map, they should be [+1] in size. That's my opinion. And I think it's fair. Will they make the adjustment? I actually think it'll happen by shear demand as the smaller maps are now discouraging coalitions altogether.

      "Coalitions will have a member limit depending on map size: 0-21p = 2 [3] members, 22-31p = 3 [4] members, 32-50p = 4 [5] members, 51-100p = 5 members.
      Simply put, except for the jumbo-sized World Map, I'd like to see each map get a one-member increase in coalition sizes.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

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

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      I actively advocated for these numbers for over a year. These size limits, proportionate to the various map sizes, are exactly what a majority of the participants in the related forum discussions requested. The new limits should be implemented as stated, and they should not be changed unless and until good reasons are provided based on 6+ months of experience with the new limits.
      Oh come on.....6 months? I'll be dead and buried by then.

      Maybe 2 months would be OK. But any longer, and everyone will just be so used to the current limits that they'll stop asking to change it.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3
    • Diabolical wrote:

      Maybe 2 months would be OK. But any longer, and everyone will just be so used to the current limits that they'll stop asking to change it.
      This was actively discussed for 18 months in multiple separate threads, and the new limits were the consensus that emerged. If there are real problems with these new limits, we will know based on real experience, and it will be a simple matter of tweaking the limit numbers in the now-existing code.

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

    • Diabolical wrote:

      Maybe 2 months would be OK. But any longer, and everyone will just be so used to the current limits that they'll stop asking to change it.
      Stop asking for it after two months?

      That's.. Incredibly.. .. Wrong. I sadly cannot think of a word to describe it, without being offensive.
      Paratroopers have been asked for for over a year, even after ideas were shot down with the fact that they were hardly used, could not capture land, and are really just the same thing as in game spies; damaging infrastructure and destroying resources and production to inhibit the enemy. I would never, once, accuse the CoW community with being complient with the status quo, simply because, "It is what it is."

      BB's thought to wait six months is honestly the best course of option; not to mention the fact that a vast majority of players are actually happy with the coalition limits being set exactly where they are.
      Free Time looks good on me
    • WiseOdin wrote:

      Paratroopers have been asked for for over a year . . . .
      "For over a year," WO?

      The forum requests for a "paratrooper" unit started almost immediately after the game was made available to the general public.

      You might want to read some of those old threads, too, as many if not all of your personal objections have already been put forth and answered.

      But I digress. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.
    • They are not "his" personal objections. Reading those old threads, no objections were ever "put forth and answered"; in fact, relevant threads showed that they would BOTH be disruptive to game play AND historically dubious in any province-taking form. They might be introduced in some support unit form to regular armies (speeding up movement in enemy terrain for example), but I'd say more commonly used units (like engineers) would take precedence if units were to be added at all.

      I hope I just didn't start a new long and poinless debate on the issue, but I really couldn't take your "put forth and answered" phrase, Montana.

      I'll digress now.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Reading those old threads, no objections were ever "put forth and answered"; in fact, relevant threads showed that they would BOTH be disruptive to game play AND historically dubious in any province-taking form.
      @K.Rokossovski: That's a rather self-validated reading of those many, many discussions. I suggest you re-read them, starting here:

      > > > > Airborne Units in CoW (my comment, top of thread's page 2)

      Oh, and here's another:

      > > > > Paratroopers (my extended comments, middle of thread's page 2)

      I could outline the major characteristics of a new airborne infantry unit in about 20 minutes, one that would mimic reality as closely as any existing in-game unit in Call of War, and that would only be implemented with reasonable limitations on its numbers and the range at which it could be air-dropped. This ain't rocket surgery; it's simply a matter of examining the historical reality and properly applying it to the context of the game.

      As for the whinging objections about not wanting to maintain a reserve force behind your front lines, I say this: any experienced player who cannot be bothered to maintain some form of reserves in his core provinces is a damn fool who deserves to lose. Moreover, if an experienced player cannot handle an air drop of four or five airborne infantry regiments one or two provinces behind his front lines, then he may have played a lot, but learned precious little.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by MontanaBB ().

    • I have read all those discussions at the time, and I feel no need to do it again. My subjective conclusion of reading them was crystal clear then, and that's unlikely to have changed. I realize you disagree, I remember you did then. That doesn't make you any more right than me, and any "it was clearly established that..." kinda statement is absolutely wrong.

      But please, I really don't understand why Odin brought up the subject in this thread, but it is not the place where it should be discussed. Lets get freezy his answers here, and if you absolutely must, add more words to a paratrooper thread somewhere else. I'm not sure though if I'm gonna do yet another 20-minute read (you seem to consider that short and concisive???) if skimming it shows that you have no new viewpoints.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.