Feedback wanted: Coalition changes

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

    • Feedback wanted: Coalition changes

      Hello guys,

      after we introduced coalitions to the game we had many players telling us that on the larger maps coalitions should be able to win a game together (currently only 3 players can win a map together). But we also had concerned players saying that too many members inside the same coalition ruin the game for the other players.

      In order to make coalitions more meaningful, reduce abusive playstyles and make sure game rounds don't drag on for years, we came up with the following ideas:
      - Coalitions can no longer have more than 5 members on the 50p map and not more than 8 members on the 100p map. (numbers can be discussed)
      - The members of a coalition can win together if they are the only remaining active players on a map (so not possible as long as another player is on the map)

      What do you think about this? Which numbers should we use for the 50p and for the 100p map?

      In case you say "no", please tell us the practical ingame reasons.

      (and yes we will still work on bugs etc., that doesn't need to be discussed here).

    • The more players there are, the less remains for strategic and diplomatic challenge.
      I wouldn't enable more players as...

      10 player map - maximum coalition members 2 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      22 player map - maximum coalition members 3 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      50 player map - maximum coalition members 4 - able to finish the map with 4 or less active players.
      100 player map - maximum coalition members 5 - able to finish the map with 5 or less active players.

      It should stay a strategic war game and not turn into a cuddly Safari. ;)

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

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      The more players there are, the less remains for strategic and diplomatic challenge.
      I wouldn't enable more players as...

      10 player map - maximum coalition members 2 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      22 player map - maximum coalition members 3 - able to finish the map with 3 or less active players.
      50 player map - maximum coalition members 4 - able to finish the map with 4 or less active players.
      100 player map - maximum coalition members 5 - able to finish the map with 5 or less active players.

      It should stay a strategic war game and not turn into a cuddly Safari. ;)
      I think this is a far better suggestion, for the reasons mentioned by the poster. 8 players on the 100 map? Thats just a Wolfpack fest - and last time I checked I thought it was against Bytro policy to wolfpack - or at least discouraged.

      Edit: Make 2 on the 10p map into 3 and I am perfectly happy:)

    • 8 does seem high as I am guessing it is assuming you will have 100 players on the map. Perhaps 6, but would not go lower than that for this map.
      50 should be capped at 5 or 10 percent of player base.
      22 and 10 should be 3 as it is pointless to have a coalition of 2 imho.

      "Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war"



      "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy."Friedrich Nietzsche

    • freezy wrote:






      - Coalitions can no longer have more than 5 members on the 50p map and not more than 8 members on the 100p map. (numbers can be discussed)














      - The members of a coalition can win together if they are the only remaining active players on a map (so not possible as long as another player is on the map)
      The numbers are too high, Id say 5 or 6 on the 100 player, and maybe 4 on the 50 player...




      That a brilliant idea, I like that :P



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • Agreed, 8 and 5 are too high; 5 and 4 is better.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Good. I've been looking forward to it. It is one thing to exercise tactics and strategy, another to exercise leadership. Once this coalition thing is fixed, the game I'm sure will prove more interesting for many of the veteran players. The formal alliances is a good thing, but difficult to administer due to time zones to enter games and fluctuating interest in play. In game coalition avoids the entry problem and since many players once in a game play to win, that solves the second problem. Please do it soon.

    • 50p - 4

      100p - 6

      I've put these numbers because from many games and experience a lot of people go inactive due to real life or when they start losing and other reasons.

      Keeping it small makes it possible for someone to defend themselves ( whether they are in a coalition or not and will keep coalition much closer together and loyal/helpful).

      These numbers also mean that their can be many more coalition and everyone will be able create/join one that is close to them. Also offering much better coalition war's which is a lot of fun when you and your alliance go up against another coalition. It keeps things fair and interesting not to mention comradely.
      Akuma