VP UPDATE INCOMING - 19/12/17

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

    • Why not a middle groundesque ~2000-2500 ?

      I mean, i suppose that people that want to do the lone wolf don't want to GRIND AIs until the end of the game, but that they don't want to "win" when there is still a correct opposition to their domination.


      Something like 2000-2500, in my opinion, would allow for "longer solo play", while if the game has too few inactives, the game may be ended manually. And if the other players refuse to give up... well, you know who to kill.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • We will NOT merge coalitions or allow for this. Neither are we business suicidal nor player hating ;) If alliances want to dominate "together" this is not actually endorsed because essentially it constitutes "pushing" or "wolfpacking" in form of one alliance forming two coas simply for one coa supporting/pushing the other.

      About the VP: The fact that we now are running a speed map with the new 1600 - 6500 VP is proof that we like trying out stuff and do listen to our players. Our initial idea was floated, countered with meaningful arguments and then revisited by me and the team.
      In a coming update we will add the COA VP goals to the game UI as well as a warning message informing players about the "risks" of leaving coalitions in regards to ending games unexpectedly (fulfilling SP victory conditions etc).
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • @Germanico

      I know you already agreed with me on the 1990 Challenges.
      But I'd like to show you the extent of the problem. If anything, just for the comical value.

      Please check out game ID #2174485

      We need 2093 VP to win.
      The other team quit a full week ago.

      We have 2037 VP.

      There are only 2 provinces left to take for a total of 2 VP.

      Max VP possible in the game is 2039.

      Now we have to build mass hospitals and just wait... and wait. and wait lol.
    • Hi Cyclone,

      yes, you are of course correct - the settings discussed are not really compatible with Alliance/Team games. True. I took the freedom of ending said game for you - reducing the wait time. Until we find the time to rework the team game victory conditions to a satisfactory level I can only offer you to end the games manually for you once we receive word that the match is indeed over. It's not a big issue for us at all.

      Again sorry for the hassle in this regards, we got the end-game and victory condition settings etc on the radar for early next year.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Thanks for the change to a more reachable 1600 that is great. I was thinking maybe you could make a code that doesn't allow a player to end the game right at 1600 if they are in a coalition of 4 or more. Say if the player is in a coalition of 4 or more players and they leave that coalition they need to achieve 2000 or 2200 VP to win in a 64 player map rather then 1600 if they were in a coalition of 3 or less.

      Although the code would not be able to allow any player from that coalition to ever end the game at 1600 when leaving a coalition of 4 or more because they could leave at different times to get the 1600 VP condition. Like once the 4th coalition member leaves they could have another player that is above 1600 leave next to win because the coalition would be 3 after the 4th left. So your code would not be able allow anybody from that coalition to win under 2000 or 2200 VP for the rest of the game. That code seems a lot more difficult to execute and create but a lot more fun to play.

      You could also have a warning stating that if the leader accepts the 4th player the VP points for all players will increase to 2000 to 2200 for a single player win. And also ask if he wants to accept and continue with these new victory conditions for his coalition members including himself.

      P.S. Should I ever worry about how difficult the code is or just how the game is played because I am only a player?

      The post was edited 6 times, last by BravoCompany ().

    • Germanico wrote:

      Hi Cyclone,

      yes, you are of course correct - the settings discussed are not really compatible with Alliance/Team games. True. I took the freedom of ending said game for you - reducing the wait time. Until we find the time to rework the team game victory conditions to a satisfactory level I can only offer you to end the games manually for you once we receive word that the match is indeed over. It's not a big issue for us at all.

      Again sorry for the hassle in this regards, we got the end-game and victory condition settings etc on the radar for early next year.

      //G
      Sounds good.
      i Have two more to look at:

      @Germanico
      #2185215 Is a Challenge Match in which we have conquered near 100% of the map but can not win.
      Our VP is 1973 with all territories conquered.
      But it says we need 2363 VP to win.
      This game might not ever be winnable. Not even with all max Hospitals.

      #2143592 Is a challenge match that needs 20 players to start.
      It has 19 players and the other team has stated that they do not intend to fill it.
      It will never start. And it is using server space because even though it has not started, it is created.

      Please either delete it or force start it. We do not care which. But I don't know about the other guys.
    • So i agree with the victory points depend on the coalition, sometimes i notice its to high, sometimes too low. I think that maybe we could base number of victory points needed to win off of active players? maybe more players a higher number, because usually then its more fun actually doing the wars, but if its a small amount left maybe have it drop a little?

      Also for what liqter wrote about a 5 man coalition losing to a single player across the world from them and how that shouldn't happen, I disagree partially with that. Say that one man is european nation, who has been very isolated the entire game, just expanding, while the 5 man coaltion say in south america, has been drawn into several major wars, one after another, they emerge victorious, somewhat close to the coalition vp limit, but need time to rebuild. meanwhile the single european nation can pick its fights, constantly expanding, with an ever growing army taking all of the vps. By the time the coalition coukd gets its armies rebuilt to a size capable of winning, and getting into position, coordinating an attack, and launching it, the single man could easily have won, or far enough ahead. Although in a slightly different scenario, it can go the way of the coalition.

      I would say either do the based off of number of players left, or by maybe raise the single player number a little (not to 5,000) to where its still a bit harder but not always impossible.
      If you make a man a fire he will be warm for a couple hours, now light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.