Joining/leaving coalitions changes

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

    • Joining/leaving coalitions changes

      In real life countries do not change its allies that often and it's not that simple. If people are against Russia like in Poland, cause of history but tolerate EU and like US, changing totally alies is not realistic, cause people would rebel, softer or stronger.

      In game coalitions are the mechanic of allies built in, but they are quite often overused, for example to spy on countries to be attacked later. Sometimes a player join few coalitions one after another, just to check the troops, technologies, where the troops are, what they do, what are the plans of players and share it with others, leave and attack players later.

      It's not realistic and its not player's friendly. I bet that lots of players quit game cause of similar traitors, cheaters and simply because this mechanic is not well enough designed.

      Why they quit? Cause people hate being cheated on. Some maybe bought gold to fight back, but some did quite and wont ever come back.

      Of course for Dorado, lost players is lost business opportunity to earn money.

      I personally am fun of fair play and of fight as warriors, not being overused by poor game mechanic, so that's why I propose some changes to it.

      First of all the period needed to wait to leave coalition was intoduced as far as I know, few years ago, at least in Call of War, when I was playing it and it's a "sibling game" of CoN. But this mechanic does not work well enough to avoid overusing the coalition feature.

      A) If we give need to pay in-game money to joing coaliton it will make players think twice of which to join and if to join at all. Of course if it will be big enough sum, like for example - 50% of daily cash income.

      B) The period to join and to leave should be longer. I propose 1 in-game day to join and 2 days to leave, now is 0 days to join and 1 days to leave, in x1 games.

      It will make harder to travel among a number of coalitions to just cheat and spy.

      C) In player info on the map should be info, which coalitions he joined and when and with what countries and when he left.

      It's not easy to track it, especially in big, world maps. Having this in player profile will make it super easy to track coalition-travellers.

      D) Every next coalition joined and coalition left, should cost more.
      Joining and leaving need of PR action, media promoting this among people and that costs, so paying for it, goes for PR campaigns needed when chaning allies - that's the explanation for why money to join or leave.

      For example:
      1st coalition joined - 25% of daily income and 1 day to wait

      1st coalition leave - 50% of daily income and 2 days to wait

      2nd coalition joined (on the same map of course) - 75% of daily income and 1 day to wait

      2nd coalition leave - 75% of daily income and 2 days to wait (no matter if he leaves on his own or is kicked out) but let say that after 1 day, he lose the view of coalition land and troops and his relations changes to ROW - right of way

      3rd coalition joined and every next - 100% of daily income
      3rd coalition leave and every next - 100% of daily income

      So if somebody joines leave, he dos not get 100% of income but "100% - X" (minus something)

      Then coalitions is not like I click I joined (totally undrealistic) and its not that easy anymore to overuse it. It's more important decision cause it cost cash.

      What do you think guys and girls?
    • And one more thing, before entering coalition the rules should be shown, like: how much time it takes to leave if you deside on your own or when you are kicked, what will change then (new players wont know it) like seeing troops of others, not being able to attack people from coalition and so on.

      Its not obvious how it works for newbies and there's lots of them on each map
    • To be perfectly honest with you, I stopped paying attention after I read this phrase: "In real life . . .".

      This is a game.

      The public games are played with random personalities of all stripes from all the nooks and crannies of the Internet.

      I don't think trying to herd cats will turn out well.

      Players will exploit and work-around any and all rules precisely because CoN isn't real life and there are essentially zero consequences for doing whatever the heck anyone wants.


      PS: Losing a game isn't a consequence.
    • Honestly a lot of this reads more like "i get betrayed often by allies please stop"; imo its responsibility of the coalition leader to properly recruit members... yes inviting random people to join is pretty much guranteed trouble but thats how it is. I also think a lot of the proposed changes don't really do much to stop people from betraying their allies
      - paying ingame money ... yeah with how its has almost no use this isnt much of a barrier to begin with, maybe early on when resources are kinda scarce; but later on? e.g.: 100k to join? "please take 200k money i just want to get rid of it"
      - i can see the longer time to leave somewhat working to make counteracting betrayals easier but doesnt really prevent them, the longer time to join doesnt really accomplish much beyond slowing down the pace of the game
      would it make it harder to travel coalitions and spy? well yes but actually no; the longe period to join/leave doesnt really counteract how devastating having all your intel revealed can be... really just comes down to the coa leader having to decide wisely who he allows to join and who not
      - tracking coa info of players is something that could probably somewhat work but at the same time; if you really care about who you have in your coa then why dont you already keep an eye out for that to begin with? at least superficially checking who's in which coa is pretty much standard; and people jumping coa's a lot will be kinda easy to notice (especially after the first few days where there arent that many coalitions anymore)
      - each coa costing more to join? eh doesnt accomplish shit

      also: "but in real life" and "but think of the economy lost money" are really shallow arguments to bring; the business one might be just cheap, the "but realism" is just completely useless and at this point is pretty much a triggerword for mockery from about everyone cuz its just so an overused and empty argument

      in general i think punishing people for trying to win the "easy" way is the wrong approach to the problem. I think what is actually needed is to reward people for actually playing together with others.
      - maybe make coa wins worth more in gold, currently you only gain your vp in gold when you win and when playing with a coa they tend to be lower by virtue of having to share VP with other players; maybe instead of
      [personal VP = gold recieved] change it to [coalition VP + personal VP = gold recieved]; if you want to be even more fancy maybe add a "loyalty" modifier to it, the longer you have been in the coa the higher the modifer on earned gold is

      TLDR: realism is a bad argument and carrot > stick
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • I don't think having the monetary penalty the same for being kicked as voluntarily leaving is fair or even a bad idea, it is horrible.
      *** 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
    • First of all player will know that he would need to pay when joining or leaving.

      Is same when you research a type of troop, you know you will have to pay when producing it.

      If you join random guys on coalition, you risk actually much more, cause you risk of being backstabbed and lose much more than just part of daily cash.

      That would motivate people to think twice when joining a coalition and will make much harder to overuse coalition mechanics.

      More people would play with known guys probably, that would put more vital trend to alliances feature and alliances leage in longer term, as now, its kind of not that many matches played there.

      And the main reason... when you pay both when you are kicked and when you leave by yourself, it gives no space to avoid paying in situation when somebody want to leave, but ask to be kicked not to pay.

      And of course if somebody kick with no reason... making player to pay, then he have bigger chance for revenge and after experiencing few of some revanges, such coalition leader in future might be more careful about who to join and who to kick ;)

      So after all, I dont think that this part of the idea is anyway horrible, it makes perfect sense for me