I agree with all.
Good job! the numbers of people are perfect!
5 Aug 2016, 18:36
Nunca fué un adiós, solo un hasta luego.
It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
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).
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
18 Replies
5 Aug 2016, 19:55
Coalitions can no longer have more than 5 members on the 50p map and not more than 8 members on the 100p map.
I think this number ratio is perfect.
Pax Romana Communications Officer
5 Aug 2016, 20:13
And no more than 4 members on the 22p and 3 on the 10p maps?
5 Aug 2016, 21:09
coalitions in this maps are not a problem i think. but good suggest,WayneBo wrote:
And no more than 4 members on the 22p and 3 on the 10p maps?
Nunca fué un adiós, solo un hasta luego.
It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
It wasn't a goodbye, only a see you later.
6 Aug 2016, 05:27
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.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
6 Aug 2016, 11:05
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.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.
Edit: Make 2 on the 10p map into 3 and I am perfectly happy
6 Aug 2016, 15:10
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
"The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy."Friedrich Nietzsche
6 Aug 2016, 18:46
The numbers are too high, Id say 5 or 6 on the 100 player, and maybe 4 on the 50 player...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)
That a brilliant idea, I like that 
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
7 Aug 2016, 16:49 (edited)
I do like this ratio better than the one @freezy proposed, but nevertheless... Very good idea!oceanhawk wrote:
The numbers are too high, Id say 5 or 6 on the 100 player, and maybe 4 on the 50 player...
8 Aug 2016, 10:12
Agreed, 8 and 5 are too high; 5 and 4 is better.
When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
- Alexander Suvorov.
- Alexander Suvorov.
15 Aug 2016, 17:14
I like the idea.
But I didn't see a 22p map member limit mentioned...
Other than that, it's great.
16 Aug 2016, 11:20
For 100 players map - limit 10, but win can only coalition with 5 members.
10 Dec 2016, 17:19
any news about this?
14 Dec 2016, 17:40
I'd say the original numbers are good enough. Limiting it to five would just be discouraging for worldwide coalitions.
14 Dec 2016, 18:50
the original is 3, if the limit to 5 would be discouraging, what is 3?Soldjer325 wrote:
I'd say the original numbers are good enough. Limiting it to five would just be discouraging for worldwide coalitions.
15 Dec 2016, 16:27
This will probably beon the plan for our next quarter.
15 Dec 2016, 19:36
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.
19 Dec 2016, 01:47
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
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
