With no limit on the number of players in a single coalition, allowing coalitions to win based on combined points could be easily abused.
Coalition victory points total
Will the current game software acknowledge when a formal and openly declared coalition/alliance reaches the required victory points total in a given game, and so end the game with the coalition members as the winners?
8 Replies
If that's the case, it's kind of pointless to have a three or four-person coalition/alliance if you're required to fight your allies at the end of the game. I read the previous threads on this subject from last spring and early summer -- have no changes been made yet, including setting a limit on the number of alliance members if they wanted to qualify for the automatic win upon collectively attaining the points total?
It would be nice if someone with some authority would acknowledge these shared concerns of COW's loyal consumers. Apparently, I am not the first, second, third, fourth or even the 20th player to have raised these issues, and there seems to be a rough consensus as to what should be done . . . why is there no action on point?
If the developers do not want to address this issue for some reason, why is Bytro actively encouraging the formation of coalitions/alliances with various support systems and in-game advertising? It seems rather conflicted.
This is known from the first day when they introduced coalitions and explained how they work (actually, the second part was done by players because it wasn't very well documented officially).MontanaBB wrote:
If that's the case, it's kind of pointless to have a three or four-person coalition/alliance if you're required to fight your allies at the end of the game.
Recently, some of the staff made a discussion about proposed changes in coalition mechanics. It was sugessted that coalitions have limited number of players inside (not sure about exact numbers for specific maps) and with that, not before that potential change, it would be possible, with smaller chances of being abused, to make coalitions able to secure victory with the sum of points of its members.
That's the history, Mr. P. Changes have been suggested and requested repeatedly over the last several months, and no one seems to be defending the present state of affairs because, frankly, the present state is a little goofy.Paramunac wrote:
This is known from the first day when they introduced coalitions and explained how they work
When you say that changes have been discussed by the "staff," do you mean by the forum discussion staff, the game administrators, or do you mean by the game software development staff? Because while we seem to have a handful of sympathetic and helpful forum moderators and game administrators, I think we all recognize that they have the authority to change diddly.
If I remember well, thread was made by Main Administrator or higher positioned member of staff which is far above casual moderators so I expect(ed) that it might be a big deal. By big deal I mean plan for next update or similar.
Mr. P, you would not happen to remember a name, would you?Paramunac wrote:
If I remember well, thread was made by Main Administrator or higher positioned member of staff
..... >> 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
@freezy What is the status of the changes that you suggested in the thread linked above by Restrisiko (and numerous other players have requested elsewhere)? Please advise. Thanks.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.