Coalition Reform

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Coalition Reform

      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.
    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      Having ppl forced to stay in a coalition doesnt really do much to prevent them from staying inactive, also it would probably just make it harder for low lvl ppl to find a spot in a coa cuz higherlvl ppl are seens as more reliable/experienced... after all why would you want to be stuck with that lvl 1 for the whole game?
      In terms of avoiding backstabbing: you're awfully confident in people not sabotaging the team they're stuck on lol ... it's not really much of a solution; rather replacing one set of problems with another
      ... there isn't really much of a solution to the "backstabbing" isssue beyond "don't trust random people to not fuck you over at the earliest convenience"; really only way to prevent being backstabbed by random ppl in pubs is by trying to bond with your coa mates ... or just playing with friends/ppl you know you can trust

      point is: trusting random ppl on the internet to not fuck you over is pretty much futile; locked coalitions or not [hell there's probably somewhere in there an argument that for 1) to work you'd need to actually have 3) first]



      FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      eh fair enough; goldpayout for winning could in general use some sort of rework; only giving VP = Gold seems a bit ... meagre
      about the backstabbing part: if they have enough VP to solo win and their coa still needs a ton to win thats totally justified to go for the solo imo... cuz exactly what has the rest of the team been doing at that point?


      FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      thats just silly tho; totally not getting the point of public matches there

      summary: backstabbing bad pls remove
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      Alliances don't suit that need at all. Coalition gives people who already know each other well intelligence, which is very important, because I don't want to need to tell my allies everything I see per text or make a ton of screenshots. Also if one person isn't online others can still use intelligence gathered by the not online person and even warn them if they get attacked and need to respond.

      And there are also a lot of people that are not in an alliance. Not having coalitions makes backstabbing even more likely, because to win you are still going to want to ally with people to and without coalitions couldn't even see their units coming. Also their is a 1d delay for leaving a coalition, which gives people that are about to be backstabbed at least some time to assemble their defense.
      Also these people can't communicate that easily; the game only has an option to send text, so the lack of shared intel is going to be even worse.


      FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      Sometimes one player is doing most of the work and also taking most of the land. Or an alliance is formed later in the game so one is already ahead by alot and just allies with others to defeat someone else, but just plays better and also gets more VPs. Sharing gold would not encourage people to win as a team, since they win less. It would actually encourage these people to backstab their allies to get the gold payout for their well earned VPs.
      Of course people that have less VPs can also backstab others, but they usually also have a worse economy and are more likely to loose a war.


      FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.
      I completely agree with what Teburu has said here, but I also want to add something else.

      What if you form an alliance after the deadline? Is it then automatically locked? If yes, that doesn't sound good at all, because sometimes people appear to be good, but are just spamming tanks and SF, which is not a good strategy.
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • Teburu wrote:

      Having ppl forced to stay in a coalition doesnt really do much to
      prevent them from staying inactive, also it would probably just make it
      harder for low lvl ppl to find a spot in a coa cuz higherlvl ppl are
      seens as more reliable/experienced... after all why would you want to be
      stuck with that lvl 1 for the whole game?
      In terms of avoiding backstabbing: you're awfully confident in people
      not sabotaging the team they're stuck on lol ... it's not really much of
      a solution; rather replacing one set of problems with another
      ... there isn't really much of a solution to the "backstabbing" isssue
      beyond "don't trust random people to not fuck you over at the earliest
      convenience"; really only way to prevent being backstabbed by random ppl
      in pubs is by trying to bond with your coa mates ... or just playing
      with friends/ppl you know you can trust


      point is: trusting random ppl on the internet to not fuck you over is
      pretty much futile; locked coalitions or not [hell there's probably
      somewhere in there an argument that for 1) to work you'd need to
      actually have 3) first]
      Whatyou are actually saying about backstabbing is: "It is your own damn problem." Abusing and/or exploiting of game mechanics is not onesconcern or problem. It is the developers problem because they did notimplement the coalition feature very well. Especially the fact, thatbackstabbing usually occures in the end phase of a game, makes itobviously unfair and totally discouraging to play further on.Backstabbing is not a trust issue, it is a gameplay function issue.

      Not trusting random people on the internet counts surely in terms ofprivacy, personal information and business issues. But in an onlinegame there are rules, which are enforced by the publisher/developer.And they are entitled to enforce those rules with sanctions. Andreading your point raises concerns to me, that you are the type ofplayer, who justifies unfair gameplay through "It is yourproblem, not mine". This argument is the typical victim-abuserswap. The one, who is backstabbed is not the victim, he is the"abuser", because he was foolish enought "to trust"someone. The whole argumentation of you renders invalid because coalitions are based on trust. So, yourargumentation becomes a circle in the end.


      Teburu wrote:

      eh fair enough; goldpayout for winning could in general use some sort of rework; only giving VP = Gold seems a bit ... meagre
      about the backstabbing part: if they have enough VP to solo win and
      their coa still needs a ton to win thats totally justified to go for the
      solo imo... cuz exactly what has the rest of the team been doing at
      that point?

      Actually,you should choose your teammates wisely in terms of whether they meet yourgameplay strength expectations. If it turns out they are too weak itis your problem. But this does not justify backstabbing. If these players justleave the coalition and conquer other countries, it is fine. But leaving with theintention to conquer your former coalition mates (who are notinactive) is obviously griefing and thus an exploitation of game mechanics.


      Teburu wrote:

      thats just silly tho; totally not getting the point of public matches there


      summary: backstabbing bad pls remove

      Why is it silly and why did I not get the point of public matches?


      jemandanderes wrote:

      Alliances don't suit that need at all. Coalition gives people who
      already know each other well intelligence, which is very important,
      because I don't want to need to tell my allies everything I see per text
      or make a ton of screenshots. Also if one person isn't online others
      can still use intelligence gathered by the not online person and even
      warn them if they get attacked and need to respond.


      And there are also a lot of people that are not in an alliance. Not
      having coalitions makes backstabbing even more likely, because to win
      you are still going to want to ally with people to and without
      coalitions couldn't even see their units coming. Also their is a 1d
      delay for leaving a coalition, which gives people that are about to be
      backstabbed at least some time to assemble their defense.
      Also these people can't communicate that easily; the game only has an
      option to send text, so the lack of shared intel is going to be even
      worse.
      Shared intelligence is also possible with the Security Council Membership, which does not make coalitions a necessity. Okay, many people are not in an alliance. But on the other hand, removing coalitions would make alliances more attractive in this regard. Furthermore, not having coalitions does not make backstabbing more likely because it woouldn't be considered as backstabbing.
      Backstabbing, as I used it, is refered to as exploiting and/or abusing game mechanics regarding the coalitions join and leave function. What you discribed is just normal diplomacy resp. deception of a player. Those players do not have a formal pact like the coalition is. So, there is no exploit of game mechanics and thats why it is no backstabbing. In a way, you would of course consider the scenario you described as "backstabbing". But this is not the form of backstabbing I mean. So, to eliminate confusion, lets say we call the coalition backstabbing I refer to "Backstab Griefing".


      jemandanderes wrote:

      Sometimes one player is doing most of the work and also taking most of
      the land. Or an alliance is formed later in the game so one is already
      ahead by alot and just allies with others to defeat someone else, but
      just plays better and also gets more VPs. Sharing gold would not
      encourage people to win as a team, since they win less. It would
      actually encourage these people to backstab their allies to get the gold
      payout for their well earned VPs.
      Of course people that have less VPs can also backstab others, but they
      usually also have a worse economy and are more likely to loose a war.
      As I stated above: It is your responsibility to choose your allies wisely. But furthermore, there will always be a difference between coalition members. Not every coalition member will perform as good as the other one. Maybe, he faced a though player on his neighbourhood and another coalition member had easy or inactive foes. There are several reasons. However, it does not justify backstabbing (in the way I already explained it).


      jemandanderes wrote:

      I completely agree with what Teburu has said here, but I also want to add something else.


      What if you form an alliance after the deadline? Is it then
      automatically locked? If yes, that doesn't sound good at all, because
      sometimes people appear to be good, but are just spamming tanks and SF,
      which is not a good strategy.
      Well, whether it is locked automatically after joining the coalition or whether it is locked after members had been members since X hours, or after a certain day ingame etc. is an unimportant detail at the moment. If the player is not good enough for you, you need to do better research on his statistics or help him whatsoever. But this would be your concern in the end and is a problem of information or expectation for you.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by FeedbackAccount ().

    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      Whatyou are actually saying about backstabbing is: "It is your own damnproblem." Abusing and/or exploiting of game mechanics is not onesconcern or problem. It is the developers problem because they did notimplement the coalition feature very well. Especially the fact, thatbackstabbing usually occures in the end phase of a game, makes itobviously unfair and totally discouraging to play further on.Backstabbing is not a trust issue, it is a gameplay function issue.

      Not trusting random people on the internet counts surely in terms ofprivacy, personal information and business issues. But in an onlinegame there are rules, which are enforced by the publisher/developer.And they are entitled to enforce those rules with sanctions. Andreading your point raises concerns to me, that you are the type ofplayer, who justifies unfair gameplay through "It is yourproblem, not mine". This argument is the typical victim-abuserswap. The one, who is backstabbed is not the victim, he is the"abuser", because he was foolish enought "to trust"someone. The whole argumentation of you renders invalid because coalitions are based on trust. So, yourargumentation becomes a circle in the end.
      but here is exactly the point where you are wrong tho; backstabbing is not against the rules, it's not even an abuse/exploit as far as the devs are concerned
      and as far as my argument being a circle: no, its actually pretty straightforward... don't trust random people that are not obligated by any means to act in your favor and activly benefit from backstabbing you
      It's common sense really
      its less a "its his fault for getting backstabbed" and more of a "really anyone could've seen that one coming"
      i love the implication of me being an "unfair" player tho

      Germanico wrote:

      Hi- indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different. It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat, Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".

      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      sauce: Playing the Game with a Code of Chivalry

      FeedbackAccount wrote:

      Why is it silly and why did I not get the point of public matches?
      The whole point of public matches is for these random ppl to meet and interact with each other
      making coalitions only for ppl for are members of the same alliance or something is 1) pretty shortsighted cuz you can actually have friends/ppl you know and trust and not be in their alliance and 2) it would render public matches into a battle between alliances... which totally is missing the point because there are alliance challenges for that




      i mean, in the end your whole point comes down to merely "I don't like getting backstabbed and the devs should do something about it"
      when really any "solution" to backstabbing would just put restrictions on other stuff and bring different problems with it
      I am The Baseline for opinions

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Teburu: added link to sauce ().

    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      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.







      I am playing a game now where one of my previous coalition members sent 15 troop transports into an AFK corvette posted outside a city and lost all his troopers.

      He then built a corvette and attacked the city the AFK corvette was posted outside of. His corvette was sunk by the AFK corvette and then sent about 6 more transports to their deaths.

      That is just stupid.

      My other previous coalition member asked for help and I sent ASFs to bomb cities. I then landed them in a city he had recently taken. Insurgents went off in that city and my jets were pinned down. I asked him to send his air force which was almost at full health and sitting in a nearby airfield not doing ANYTHING to attack the insurgents.

      He told me "no".

      I bailed on those bozos.

      If I am to be, or was locked into coalitions like that, I would stop playing this game for good.

      I jumped to another coalition where they are kicking butt and I am a contributing member of the kicking.

      I stand by my signature quote below:

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Im On Smoko ().

    • Stalin just didn't just back stab. Front stab, side stab, under and around stab.

      Have your underlings do some stabbin', then stab them.

      Look up the term "Useful Idiot". Stalin had HUGE lists of people to kill. He would order his underlings to kill lots of people and then blame them and then kill them.
    • Im On Smoko wrote:

      Stalin just didn't just back stab. Front stab, side stab, under and around stab.
      Have your underlings do some stabbin', then stab them.

      Look up the term "Useful Idiot". Stalin had HUGE lists of people to kill. He would order his underlings to kill lots of people and then blame them and then kill them.
      Well actually I was referring to what Hitler did to him, but yeah, what you said too.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Teburu wrote:


      but here is exactly the point where you are wrong tho; backstabbing is
      not against the rules, it's not even an abuse/exploit as far as the devs
      are concerned
      and as far as my argument being a circle: no, its actually pretty
      straightforward... don't trust random people that are not obligated by
      any means to act in your favor and activly benefit from backstabbing you
      It's common sense really
      its less a "its his fault for getting backstabbed" and more of a "really anyone could've seen that one coming"
      i love the implication of me being an "unfair" player tho
      As I already explained: The principle of "Do-not-trust-random-people-in-the-internet", is reasonable in the real world. This cannot be a good argument for this game because a coalition is based on trust. So, when you found a coalition or join one, you would assume good faith. And good faith would is the common sense you talk about. By assuming this good faith, you have a base to work with the other player. The developers designed the coalition function that way. Which means they "(en)force" to trust another random player in a certain degree. And they do so in a protected room, which they call "Coalition". The principle of trust is inherent by design. But this design has errors, because the way it works now, it is easy to exploit. But this exploit is not intended by the designers.
      Now, you are saying that it is the players' fault when they trust other people in their games and get backstabbed. But, as I pointed out, the baseline for a coalition is trust, which is (en)forced by the developers. So, obviously your argument results in a contradiction. This means your argument cannot be right.


      Germanico wrote:


      Hi- indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different.
      It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly
      while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow
      players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is
      honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying
      aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the
      origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years
      back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat,
      Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".


      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real
      life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      I'am really glad you quoted his post here. You refer to it as a proof of your point of view. But you obviously did not read it careful enough, so I pointed out the important part in the quote.
      As far as I understand Germanicos statement, backstabbing or treason is allowed in cases, when you have informal alliances or allies or when you have the typical "Right-of-Way"-baits. Those kinds of scenarios. The other way round it means that exploiting game mechanics like coalition functions is not allowed and thus a punishable action.


      Teburu wrote:


      The whole point of public matches is for these random ppl to meet and interact with each other
      making coalitions only for ppl for are members of the same alliance or
      something is 1) pretty shortsighted cuz you can actually have
      friends/ppl you know and trust and not be in their alliance and 2) it
      would render public matches into a battle between alliances... which
      totally is missing the point because there are alliance challenges for
      that




      i mean, in the end your whole point comes down to merely "I don't like
      getting backstabbed and the devs should do something about it"
      when really any "solution" to backstabbing would just put restrictions on other stuff and bring different problems with it
      I never said that there should only be coalitions for alliance members. I said that alliances suit the needs of a coalition better then the coalition (in the current state) does.
      No, one likes being backstabbed. My solutions may not be perfect, but they solve more problems then they create. Furthermore, my suggestions to the Coalition backstabbing are in no way final. They are merely an approach. And I do think it is better to let the developers fill in the details.


      Im On Smoko wrote:


      I am playing a game now where one of my previous coalition members sent
      15 troop transports into an AFK corvette posted outside a city and lost
      all his troopers.


      He then built a corvette and attacked the city the AFK corvette was
      posted outside of. His corvette was sunk by the AFK corvette and then
      sent about 6 more transports to their deaths.


      That is just stupid.


      My other previous coalition member asked for help and I sent ASFs to
      bomb cities. I then landed them in a city he had recently taken.
      Insurgents went off in that city and my jets were pinned down. I asked
      him to send his air force which was almost at full health and sitting in
      a nearby airfield not doing ANYTHING to attack the insurgents.


      He told me "no".


      I bailed on those bozos.


      If I am to be, or was locked into coalitions like that, I would stop playing this game for good.


      I jumped to another coalition where they are kicking butt and I am a contributing member of the kicking.


      I stand by my signature quote below:
      I already said something to this "problem" before. But for the sake of clarity, I will point out that this is no problem of a "locked coalition". It is a problem of your bad decision, who you join in a coalition or whom do you grant memembership in the coalition. You can easily assess how good a player is by studying his statistics. Yes, they are not every time very expressive, but they are a good indicator on which you can base your decision. You also need to consider his current style of playing of course and his behaviour. If you don't do that (even with the current state of the coalition), your decisions appear to be highly questionable.
    • FeedbackAccount wrote:


      Im On Smoko wrote:

      I am playing a game now where one of my previous coalition members sent
      15 troop transports into an AFK corvette posted outside a city and lost
      all his troopers.


      He then built a corvette and attacked the city the AFK corvette was
      posted outside of. His corvette was sunk by the AFK corvette and then
      sent about 6 more transports to their deaths.


      That is just stupid.


      My other previous coalition member asked for help and I sent ASFs to
      bomb cities. I then landed them in a city he had recently taken.
      Insurgents went off in that city and my jets were pinned down. I asked
      him to send his air force which was almost at full health and sitting in
      a nearby airfield not doing ANYTHING to attack the insurgents.


      He told me "no".


      I bailed on those bozos.


      If I am to be, or was locked into coalitions like that, I would stop playing this game for good.


      I jumped to another coalition where they are kicking butt and I am a contributing member of the kicking.


      I stand by my signature quote below:
      I already said something to this "problem" before. But for the sake of clarity, I will point out that this is no problem of a "locked coalition". It is a problem of your bad decision, who you join in a coalition or whom do you grant memembership in the coalition. You can easily assess how good a player is by studying his statistics. Yes, they are not every time very expressive, but they are a good indicator on which you can base your decision. You also need to consider his current style of playing of course and his behaviour. If you don't do that (even with the current state of the coalition), your decisions appear to be highly questionable.


      Hugs.

      I liked your post because you liked your own post.
    • FeedbackAccount wrote:

      As I already explained: The principle of "Do-not-trust-random-people-in-the-internet", is reasonable in the real world. This cannot be a good argument for this game because a coalition is based on trust. So, when you found a coalition or join one, you would assume good faith. And good faith would is the common sense you talk about. By assuming this good faith, you have a base to work with the other player. The developers designed the coalition function that way. Which means they "(en)force" to trust another random player in a certain degree. And they do so in a protected room, which they call "Coalition". The principle of trust is inherent by design. But this design has errors, because the way it works now, it is easy to exploit. But this exploit is not intended by the designers.Now, you are saying that it is the players' fault when they trust other people in their games and get backstabbed. But, as I pointed out, the baseline for a coalition is trust, which is (en)forced by the developers. So, obviously your argument results in a contradiction. This means your argument cannot be right.
      Your logic is completely specious. You on one hand say skepticism is reasonable in real life yet dismiss it in game simple because YOU believe that. Mistake 1 is your assumption: good faith. There are no rules regarding the rationale WHY someone joins a coalition. I interacted with a guy in game who joined a coalition just to get the intel on them, and told me so. I of course wasn't stupid enough to join with him and he even tried backstabbing me despite his friendly conversation. But not stupidly I was prepared and it went badly for him. The only assumption you should be making with a coalition, is that people join them for their own best interest. It is your job to keep that in their best interest. You let them do all the work, play infrequently, then you deserve to be abandoned like a used maxi-pad. There is no "trust" inherent in the design of the coalition. The design of the coalition is for one thing: allowing multiple people to get a win IF they work together. If they don't, it is not designed to enforce it. It is in no way an exploit. And you should re-read what Germanico said and maybe you'd realize that. Your assumption that the developers intended trust to be enforced by the design is based on absolutely nothing, and a product of your own mind. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • from what I see, the person who proposed the so called reform likes to piggyback off other people and gets upset when they throw him into the mud...
      Just like in real life :
      A nation acts in its best interest
      1 day in game is approx 1 mo in real life(to rp standards)
      Plenty of time...
      I reject all of your ideas
      I also think, a person who makes his name "feedback account" is probably a suspicious alt.. :D
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."

      The post was edited 1 time, last by The Ewac ().

    • Hmm,

      The last two posts have very interesting rebuttals / retorts / responses. Thank you. All I had to do is wait patiently for the artillery, Specter gunship or A-10 Thunderbolt to lay it down.

      One thing I would like to add. An ad hominem attack in my eyes is an admission of defeat. I am specifically referring to the OP's response to me regarding questioning my "bad decision", bla, bla, bla.

      OP, research the original Greek meaning of "forum". This is a forum, not an echo chamber. You are going to get responses that do not jive with your argument, thesis or proposition. Furthermore, it is people behind keyboards discussing A GAME.

      For example:

      <3 I love DoD <3 . Do I agree with all of his humor and comments? No I do not (99.94671239% of the time I do).

      I am done farting in your general direction. Light it up or enjoy the breeze.

      Green color and large font size to emphasize the stinky methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, Jimmy Hoffa's toe nail remains, etc. and volume coming from my posterior.





      The post was edited 4 times, last by Im On Smoko ().

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Your logic is completely specious. You on one hand say skepticism is reasonable in real life yet dismiss it in game simple because YOU believe that. Mistake 1 is your assumption: good faith. There are no rules regarding the rationale WHY someone joins a coalition. [...] The only assumption you should be making with a coalition, is that people join them for their own best interest.
      I'am curious how you have drawn the conclusion that my logic is specious. The principle of "asssuming-good-faith" is common among any internet communities. But if you find my logic still specious, I do suggest you re-read my posts but yet carefully and with the required attention.

      However, you do obviously assume bad faith and intentions. Thus you make it a principle. But why can't this be a principle? The answer is kinda simple: Because a principle like "assuming-bad-faith" would undermine any cooperation within the game. No alliances, communities, coalitions and even games itself would work because your principle of bad faith would divide all players, leading to no one trusting each other.
      Alliance members would always need to assume that they allies are betraying them with another alliance, members within a community would always need to assume someone is doing something to harm them and developers are of course only balancing things and introduce more stuff to milk the cash cows. The list of things that would not work is endless. In short: Our cooperation would not work at all.

      So, the opposite must be right: Assuming good faith as a principle. And yes, people join coalition for their own best interest, of course. But at the same time they do this while assuming the good faith of the other members. And assuming the good faith is the fact that they won't harm each others because it cannot be the interest of ones coalition member to harm the other one because this would decrease their chances of winning. This only counts for active coalition members of course.


      Dealer of Death wrote:

      It is your job to keep that in their best interest. You let them do all the work, play infrequently, then you deserve to be abandoned like a used maxi-pad. There is no "trust" inherent in the design of the coalition. The design of the coalition is for one thing: allowing multiple people to get a win IF they work together. If they don't, it is not designed to enforce it. It is in no way an exploit. And you should re-read what Germanico said and maybe you'd realize that. Your assumption that the developers intended trust to be enforced by the design is based on absolutely nothing, and a product of your own mind. Sorry, but THAT is the truth.
      Being inactive or playing infrequently was never a topic regarding the exploit of a coalition. Also, I never said the coalition is designed to enforce a victory for multiple members. You would have known all that by now, if you had read my posts carefully and not missunderstood them intentionally because you did not want to see the arguments. Furthermore, I layed down how the "enforcment of trust" is realised in a coalition by design. If you had skip that part, go ahead and re-read it please as well.
      In the end: I soundly stated the inherent trust built in by the developers but yet you lack to state your claim that this trust is neiher intended nor designed by the developers. Until then: Your assumption that there is no principle of good faith an inherent built-in trust in coalitions stays just a claim. And this is the only truth I need.



      Im On Smoko wrote:


      Hmm,


      The last two posts have very interesting rebuttals / retorts /
      responses. Thank you. All I had to do is wait patiently for the
      artillery, Specter gunship or A-10 Thunderbolt to lay it down.


      One thing I would like to add. An ad hominem attack in my eyes is an
      admission of defeat. I am specifically referring to the OP's response to
      me regarding questioning my "bad decision", bla, bla, bla.


      OP, research the original Greek meaning of "forum". This is a forum, not
      an echo chamber. You are going to get responses that do not jive with
      your argument, thesis or proposition. Furthermore, it is people behind
      keyboards discussing A GAME.


      For example:


      I love DoD . Do I agree with all of his humor and comments? No I do not (99.94671239% of the time I do).


      I am done farting in your general direction. Light it up or enjoy the breeze.
      The good thing is, that you remind yourself on the fact that this is a forum and not a gas tank. This means that the exchange of arguments and the discussion have priority, and not the release of gases from your intestine. Although, the release of your gases are probably the most valuable contribution you did to the forum at all.
      That being said you should reconsider, whether you are able to make worthwhile contributions to the forum.

      And the term "forum" is a latin word and thus roman. The greek term for "forum" would be "agora".
    • Why are you liking your own post
      the reason no one reads your post is because it's boring and if it doesn't meet my 30 second attention span or DoD's 0.1 second attention span then it won't be taken seriously
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • But being bound to someone in a coalition can also be bad, e.g. if someone just takes the cities you've just cleared. There are a lot of options to annoy someone in your coalition if you can't leave. And if coalitions are going to be static, some people would also do that and you can't do anything against it, but in return you only have a very slight disadvantage in a war against a backstabber.
      a.k.a. jem and and eres