Three ways to reform Coalitions:
1) Make coalitions permanent ("locked"), once a certain threshhold of days have past, like it is not possible to join a certain game past day 10 ingame. This avoids backstabbing and will result in more players staying active on the map.
2) Distribute the whole Gold, which equals Coalition VP, to all members of the coalition. Why would one only get their portion of contribution to the coaltions' total VP? Doing so, would encourage players not to backstab their partners and they are encouraged to win more as a team.
3) Remove the Coalition totally from the game. Alliances suit the needs and advantages of coalitions more then coalitions do so as a stand alone feature. Players in alliances are bound into a social group, which they won't backstab or betray., at least in far fewer numbers then coalitions members.
Reasoning:
Coalitions are nowadays merely a vehicle to exploit other players. They undermine playing in a team for team victory. Why? Because of the way, how coalitions work. How do they work? They have avery simple join and leave function, which can be used as pleased, always applying pressure to other coalition members to be aware of each other. And all you got from it, are more VPs to gather and shared intelligence. in rare cases you get players, who won't backstab you, when they see, you are in a weakend position or whatsoever.
But backstabbing and joining coalitions to get free intelligence for a third party outside of the coalition are not the rare cases, they are common. The way the coalition mechanic is used, is an exploit of game mechanics: Kicking or leaving the coalition, while troops are set to move to your former coalition member to occupy his homeland cities, is clearly griefing. The 24h timer for leaving the coalition is more like a timer for ones defeat, then a fair time window to take countermeasures. Especially if you consider the fact, that you need 48h to be considered inactive. But on the other hand, you can kick an active player in 24h out of a coalition and out of the game? So, it needs to be at least 48h before a kick or leave occures.
Also other scenarios fullfill the conditions of griefing like leaving a coalition at a certain time to get a solo victory. This is the reason why it should be punished very harshly: 24h ban for the one who does it the first time and a permanent ban for the one who does it a consecutive time. This abuse of game mechanics needs to be answered roughly.
Suggestions 1) and 3) will remove this exploitation possibility at once, while suggestion 2) will increase only the likelihood that players will stick together because they get more Gold from it. Suggestion 1( also opens the possibility to trade provinces, cities and resources with each other, which would be a very valueable healthy function, while it is also frequently demandedby the players.
1) Make coalitions permanent ("locked"), once a certain threshhold of days have past, like it is not possible to join a certain game past day 10 ingame. This avoids backstabbing and will result in more players staying active on the map.
2) Distribute the whole Gold, which equals Coalition VP, to all members of the coalition. Why would one only get their portion of contribution to the coaltions' total VP? Doing so, would encourage players not to backstab their partners and they are encouraged to win more as a team.
3) Remove the Coalition totally from the game. Alliances suit the needs and advantages of coalitions more then coalitions do so as a stand alone feature. Players in alliances are bound into a social group, which they won't backstab or betray., at least in far fewer numbers then coalitions members.
Reasoning:
Coalitions are nowadays merely a vehicle to exploit other players. They undermine playing in a team for team victory. Why? Because of the way, how coalitions work. How do they work? They have avery simple join and leave function, which can be used as pleased, always applying pressure to other coalition members to be aware of each other. And all you got from it, are more VPs to gather and shared intelligence. in rare cases you get players, who won't backstab you, when they see, you are in a weakend position or whatsoever.
But backstabbing and joining coalitions to get free intelligence for a third party outside of the coalition are not the rare cases, they are common. The way the coalition mechanic is used, is an exploit of game mechanics: Kicking or leaving the coalition, while troops are set to move to your former coalition member to occupy his homeland cities, is clearly griefing. The 24h timer for leaving the coalition is more like a timer for ones defeat, then a fair time window to take countermeasures. Especially if you consider the fact, that you need 48h to be considered inactive. But on the other hand, you can kick an active player in 24h out of a coalition and out of the game? So, it needs to be at least 48h before a kick or leave occures.
Also other scenarios fullfill the conditions of griefing like leaving a coalition at a certain time to get a solo victory. This is the reason why it should be punished very harshly: 24h ban for the one who does it the first time and a permanent ban for the one who does it a consecutive time. This abuse of game mechanics needs to be answered roughly.
Suggestions 1) and 3) will remove this exploitation possibility at once, while suggestion 2) will increase only the likelihood that players will stick together because they get more Gold from it. Suggestion 1( also opens the possibility to trade provinces, cities and resources with each other, which would be a very valueable healthy function, while it is also frequently demandedby the players.