Large coalitions that ruin the game for most players.

2 Aug 2017, 02:32

Posted the thread Large c.oalitions that ruin the game for most players.

Thread

I have seen the number of members in a coalition continue to grow. Last couple of games there has a 17 members, 15, members, 9 member coalition. This ruins the game for most players because no one can win. I think coalitions should be limited to 5 member in game.

7 Replies

2 Aug 2017, 09:36

Just don't join them and start attacking their members. Usually they don't support eachother.

When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
- Alexander Suvorov.

2 Aug 2017, 10:35

K.Rokossovski wrote:
Just don't join them and start attacking their members. Usually they don't support eachother.

Exactly. It is rare to see any coalition helping out another member. It seems that most of the big coalitions are simply a "we won't compete with each other" coalition rather than anything else.

I believe that if someone is in my coalition that I will support them in any way I can. Common defense and all that. If a coalition has a member halfway across the map how are they able to do that?

War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill
VorlonFCW
Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.
>>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

2 Aug 2017, 12:59

What I am seeing is that they will gather in groups of 3-5 in a regional group. then they will have 2-3 groups. My point is that when you have coalition of 10-20 people in a game of 50-100 players, it is determental to the remaining players.

They are defending each other and they coordinating defeat anyone that is rising in power. My suggestion is for the long term good of the game that promotes fair competition that limits the number of members. For example a map of 100 would be limited to 7, a map of 50 limited to 5, 22 limited to 4. Whatever the number the end goal is the improve the game for all player

2 Aug 2017, 22:59

SShawk1 wrote:
They are defending each other and they coordinating defeat anyone that is rising in power.

As I said, that's very rare in these big coalitions. Maybe you've stumbled acrtoss the exceptions, but usually, they don't do that and leave members in trouble just hanging in the air.

When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded.
- Alexander Suvorov.

5 Aug 2017, 23:23

I don't know about y'all but i play this game with my friends and it's not fun unless you're coordinating with other people and we can't help that you don't fin reliable people to play with sorry not sorry

#Can'tStopWon'tStop

9 Aug 2017, 11:59

I too have seen both sides of this house. Last 2 games we had large coalitions form (1 being mine), and in these cases the coalitions did generally support their members (as did mine), and it was great fun, but it was a 70 + day game. On the other hand I have also seen large coalitions both be useless as a group(this is most common), and coalitions that somehow seem to dominate the whole game (not so fun...). The worst case of this is when coalition members give all of there resources to one player so he can dominate the initial fight. Hate that.

9 Aug 2017, 12:29 (edited)

m1tanker632 wrote:
The worst case of this is when coalition members give all of [their] resources to one player so he can dominate the initial fight.

This is called resource-pushing, and it's not permitted. In fact, it's considered to be cheating, and according to a recemt discussion with @WiseOdin, it can get you banned.

7 Replies

Post a Reply