Coalitions and map points

Destroy your enemies and retire together.

Three or fewer players can finish each map without having the necessary victory points.

And they get their gold for their respective victory points.

Only someone who has mastered a card alone, may also be the sole winner.

Coalitions provide enough strategic advantage, so not in addition also the necessary victory points should be reduced.

maybe increased for the coalition winning together and reduced for the individual? something definitely needs to change. Though we can retire the map together there is more award for a single winner...I don't want the participation badge I want the GD Gold Crown!!

Murica wrote:

...there is more award for a single winner...

...a "single winner" wins as a "single player"...

...and a member of a winning coalition must not receive the same award or reward as a single winner, as long as he has not achieved the necessary victory points from a map.

Maybe they could create a badge like *Quit map X in a winning coalition*... (if an award is desired )

...but to change anything with the necessary victory points would not be right - in my opinion.

le me guess , u wanna win a game with a coalition of 20 players ? try harder

If I start,lead and maintain a coalition that defeats a map - regardless of the size of the coalition and then I also am the major contributor to the coalition, along with garnering the majority of victory points on the map (leading the entire map) then I should get a higher reward...is that so hard to understand or so bad to desire?

Secondly there is no reason I should have to destroy my coalition in order to win. The point system/rules for maps with coalitions needs to change...maybe my answer is not the best but it doesn't change that fact.

You get your gold in each case in the respective ratio for your victory points, no matter whether you win alone, or quit the map when it's possible, or if you are present on the map while someone else wins by points.

So if you are the last 3 players on the map and do not want to fight anymore, quit the map and retrieves your earned prize.

But why would anyone get more reward then he worked for?

The "Winners Medal" is for the winner. "Be Victorious" in a coalition is much easier.

Perhaps there should be an additional "Coalition Medal" as I wrote. (if someone needs such )

In addition, the most important gratification of a game is to have fun.

And if it "requires" an alliance or coalition of more than 3 players to "win" a card, then they have not really earned prize money.

So there is no reason to change anything in the victory point system

because of the coalitions.

(...providing more gold on the 100-maps is another topic...)

And here are the odds...:

but from what i understand if I have a 3 man coalition (me included) and I retire...the remaining 2 people can attack me and take my #1 seat.

You should first understand the concept of "retiring".

If only three or less people are still active in the game, they have the option to vote for retiring. Only if the ALL vote for it, game ends, and everyone of them gets their share of gold. So, you can't retire alone, and, once everybody agreed to retire, game ends. Nobody can take your #1 seat, lol.

oh ok - pardon my ignorance...i just didnt know that detail of the game...I just logged in guns blazing like any good Murican would do!

By the way - they couldn't take my #1 seat anyways...I am #1 for a reason ...I am amazing.

I agree that Coalitions should get a different mathematical formula for winning a game. It should definitely combine the points of a Coalition. Granted Coalitions can retire once victory has been accomplished but why go through all that trouble in the first place.

Also there's always that slim chance that one of the players wont accept the retirement offer and wants to keep playing. That certainly is the players right but if the other players are simply put tired of this match and simply want to begin a new match it's unfair to them. I believe that the majority should've the right over the minority. That's how democracy works simply put.

In regards of the Retirement offer: Meaning that the majority vote should count no matter if all remaining players accepted it or not. There are many semi afk players which log in every 2 days issuing 2 orders and return in another 2 days. Naturally such people wont vote as they don't care about it & of what the others may want or think.

Such a Retirement vote should perhaps even be based on a 1 day timer with an addition of a 2nd button "Don't accept retiring offer". And at the end it either continues or not depending on which side had more votes.

Right now I'm facing the same dilemma my 2 allies and I are in a 100man match and combined we would be close to our target of 3323 points in order to win. Most other larger empires that remained left the game by now because we rule over 3 continents and outproduced others in every aspect. Still since points do not get combined we have to continue on to gather 2000 additional points in my allies case and in my case another 2100 points. I mean that's no fun. And counterproductive for Coalitions and the game in the first place. There are still many minor human factions in game which is why we can't vote yet. They will fall of course but the game it basically won.

On the other hand if points would get counted Coalition wise it might even further benefit team play and lesser back stabbing. Winning solo players could get an achievement and little extra gold for winning on their own. Ofc that too would be once again counter productive for Coalition game play wise but I doubt that it would affect those that have worked together for weeks, months even. They would stick together to the end.

Either it should get added into the core game mechanic or as separate Coalition game mode.

I can just say this: Right now I've got 1213 points on Day42. I'm having a fantastic income except on food -700. There's no way for anyone to maintain large empires in this game. Around 40 of my food provinces are maxed out and it's still in minus. I even sacrificed over half of my Army 30k+ Casualties and I'm still in minus. Another reason Coalitions will have worked all for nothing is if they don't retire due to the stubbornness of one or few players or perhaps Language barriers even in some cases.. They will sabotage themselves and their Gold rewards will diminish. A punishment to each player playing this game especially if it lasted over a month.

Yes Coalition points should get combined!

So this is what I suggested in short format:

-Ability to retire units perhaps even with a small res refund. instead of being forced to sacrifice em giving your opponent points while doing so.

-Votes to retire should get a time limit before they expire perhaps by 1 or 2 days.

-Votes should count the Majority, wants to continue, doesn't want to continue.

-Coalition points should count towards the final game goal otherwise it's the same as playing with an Alliance.

-Perhaps a new game mode where Coalitions points can count towards victory (I personally rather see it implemented into the core game mechanics.)

-Depending on the map size every player should get the right to issue a vote to end the match. Example: 20man match: After 13 days 50man match after 25 days 100 man match after 35 days and so on before any players could issue such a vote. As security precaution the more players are in game the more votes would be required as a minimum requirement before it can count. to counteract Abusement and raging people.

Murica wrote:

If I start,lead and maintain a coalition that defeats a map - regardless of the size of the coalition and then I also am the major contributor to the coalition, along with garnering the majority of victory points on the map (leading the entire map) then I should get a higher reward...is that so hard to understand or so bad to desire?

Secondly there is no reason I should have to destroy my coalition in order to win. The point system/rules for maps with coalitions needs to change...maybe my answer is not the best but it doesn't change that fact.

Agreed. It certainly isn't about gold. It's just a minor bonus which supposedly intends the players to remain active till the bitter end.

I agree that the Coalition system needs to change in the way how points are made. Otherwise having a Coalition is not much different than before. Yes you get a fancy logo and a Coalition chat room, wow! It also worked before without that.

If ur enemys are defeated , u won , does it matter how many points u got , or ur alliance has ? since u win nothing , all that matters is that u defeated others, with ur coalition fellas