Massive Coalitions Inhibitor

DeletedUser25566

Guest
I get that coalitions are part of this game, although I’ve seen it taken to an extreme of late, especially in 126.


I propose some kind of coalition auto morale. Basically, even in a non morale world, if a group of 15+ alliances is attacking a team of 1-3 alliance, the morale should be enforced at the pact level so that the impact of 300 vs 30-60 is diminished.

Maybe even make the morale have a warm up period of 5-7 days so it is fair if a short term coalition is warranted, but after more than a week it’s just excessive.

Nobody likes moral, but massive coalitions are more damaging to grepo than bp boosting, bots or anything else and need to be blocked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser57254

Guest
Coalitions are here,live with it,all part of the game.
 
NutsNBoltz

NutsNBoltz

Strategos
The issue isn't the MRAs and gang bangs, good teams can persevere through though fights. The biggest issue I see with teams are bad diplo, and half the time the mega coalitions never work. @gknasel I would recommend you not play with poor leadership next time and you'll likely avoid the feeling of despair
 
1saaa

1saaa

Strategos
Instead of making this a massive coalitions inhibitor maybe just extend this to an alliance moral feature in general? Here is what I would propose:

Every alliances point total contributes to moral like it does in the current system. All pacted alliances contribute to this total. Let me use an example:

Alliance A is 10 million points.

Alliance B and alliance C are pacted coming to 15 million points.

Alliance A getting attacked by members of alliances B&C leads to alliance A players getting a moral buff.

If this were to be added into the game my next suggestion would be limits on pacting and shared forums. In order to share a forum with another alliance you must be pacted with them. Of course this moral feature I've just stated does have quite a few kinks. The first one I can think of is having a low moral alliance specifically set up for low moral defences.

But, if ironed out correctly its 100% something that should be explored.

The benefits would be massive. Firstly smaller rim teams would have an advantage against big scary pre-mades from the core in this aspect. This leads to situations where underdog alliances can still do a decent job at fighting off larger groups.

It would also inhibit massive 4 branch pre-mades as any team they attacked would have an insane moral advantage.

It would allow for larger players to attack smaller players in large alliances preventing that one prick with 10 cities who always founds in your core being quite as pricky.

Note that I'm only looking at this from a revolt perspective.
 
1saaa

1saaa

Strategos
Yeah you guys are right. I couldn't think of a way around that. There are other issues as well I won't go into.
 

DeletedUser57069

Guest
The coalitions are an essential part of the game whether you like them or not. They have 2 essential functions that are irreplaceable in my mind. First, the serve as a last ditch effort late in the game. When one alliance is double the size of the next one in the rankings, all the loosing alliances can do is come together. Second they are the best way for new players to join the game. If you have a coalition of 200 players, there are always going to be at least 20 players that have been playing for some time, and can make it worth it for new players to stick around. If you just want to see 4-5 good premades drop and have the same war every server, this game is not going to last.
 
1saaa

1saaa

Strategos
malcinator2 said:
The coalitions are an essential part of the game whether you like them or not. They have 2 essential functions that are irreplaceable in my mind. First, the serve as a last ditch effort late in the game. When one alliance is double the size of the next one in the rankings, all the loosing alliances can do is come together. Second they are the best way for new players to join the game. If you have a coalition of 200 players, there are always going to be at least 20 players that have been playing for some time, and can make it worth it for new players to stick around. If you just want to see 4-5 good premades drop and have the same war every server, this game is not going to last.
Click to expand...
Both good arguments. I think the issue is less with last ditch coalitions and more with big early game coalitions where the difference in size is less substantial.

Obviously in these situations it us up to big teams to diplo well. 9 times out of 10 a gangbang probably could have been prevented with better diplomacy which, lies in the fault of the leadership.

I disagree with you on 200 player alliances with a lot of new players. These MRA's are considered easy pickings by the rest of the pre-mades and normally fall within a week or two.

This gives newer players a negative experience of grepo because all they remember is waking up one morning finding their city in revolt and no one able to help.

The best way for new players to learn is for them to drop in the right rim ocean which, is basically luck of the draw.
 

DeletedUser19607

Guest
In real world wars there are coalitions vs. other countries
If you being attacked heavy and have a lack of allies thats honestly leadership fault

I've seen alliances in the past 2 v. 7 and the 2 won, sometimes it comes down to raw skill
As for new players and bad experiences, how else are they suppose to learn to play a war game? You learn via experience and you become a stronger player through it. I don't think it discourages new players imo

Naturally coalitions are formed in every world
Just saying a handicap on coalitions won't solve the issue
Also new players tend to join alliances with high member count/allies. Most people call them MRA's but when new players join they look for allies to naturally survive against bigger players
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top