Some really bad ideas

Serious Ideas

-A cap on the amount of players in a coalition maybe 16 or so (I don't see the point in having as many people as ULAP. I know this would get really messy really fast because everyone already has more than 16 people, but I feel it would make coalitions have more of a teammate kinda feel making things more even and much more competitive. Even though it would be messy as hell I think the benefits would be worth it) **LOVE THIS IDEA**

-A way to cancel a CW that is in progress. If a leader from both sides request a cancellation. (would prevent issues like I had with Great Serbia)

-Keep track of which members who played in a CW and the stats (opens a pop-up window when you click on the specific CW under the "Coalition wars!" section)

-Keep track of how much CP a member of a coalition has earned under the "Members" section between "SP" and "joined" date (SP earned of each player in the CW being proportional to the CP they get credited for)

-At the end of every regular season have playoffs (maybe top 16 coalitions)

-2v2 CWs in addition to the 3v3 (not 1v1 or 4v4 tho would just be too messy in my opinion)

-Make abandoning games that are more then 3 or 4 turns in count as a loss. (Making the W/L ratios mean something)

Why Not Ideas

-A leader/officer chat option. (fun little add-on)

-Badges on a players profile (one for the number of CWs played in, one for the number of CWs won, ect.)

-Bio section in profiles. (seems almost everything has one idk why AW shouldn't)

These are just all the ideas I could come up with in 10 min that I think should be taken into consideration. I might put more up later. Thanks for reading and I hope that with the support from the AW community some of the ideas could be implemented into the game especially the cap on members of a coalition

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-A cap on the amount of players in a coalition maybe 16 or so (I don't see the point in having as many people as ULAP. I know this would get really messy really fast because everyone already has more than 16 people, but I feel it would make coalitions have more of a teammate kinda feel making things more even and much more competitive. Even though it would be messy as hell I think the benefits would be worth it) **LOVE THIS IDEA**

You may not see the point, but we do.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-A way to cancel a CW that is in progress. If a leader from both sides request a cancellation. (would prevent issues like I had with Great Serbia)

No idea about that "Great Serbia" thing you're on about, but good idea.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-Keep track of which members who played in a CW and the stats (opens a pop-up window when you click on the specific CW under the "Coalition wars!" section)

Good idea, but the interface for doing this doesn't sound very good at all. Byzantia probably won't have to use this though (har har har har).

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-Keep track of how much CP a member of a coalition has earned under the "Members" section between "SP" and "joined" date (SP earned of each player in the CW being proportional to the CP they get credited for)

You've said it once, moving on.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-At the end of every regular season have playoffs (maybe top 16 coalitions)

This; ULAP has risen to #2 simply because their competence was abysmally low beforehand. It really isn't fair on coalitions like Byzantia and Dalmati, which, let's face it, generally have superior players (or better teamwork).

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-2v2 CWs in addition to the 3v3 (not 1v1 or 4v4 tho would just be too messy in my opinion)

I've been in a small coalition (/int/ in its dying days) and I approve of this idea.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-Make abandoning games that are more then 3 or 4 turns in count as a loss. (Making the W/L ratios mean something)

Absolutely not. What if your ally leaves in a team game or something like that? It simply is unfair, and at that point, abandoning is no different from surrendering. This is the worst idea ever. And W/L ratios actually do mean something, just look at Desu or something and then the worst player that comes to your head.
Exactly.

---

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-A leader/officer chat option. (fun little add-on)

This could only really work with the really big coalitions, which you just rejected as silly. Furthermore, a real coalition is all-inclusive and doesn't thrive on secrecy. Implementing something like this is against the whole idea of being in one.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-Badges on a players profile (one for the number of CWs played in, one for the number of CWs won, ect.)

Not badges because CWs are not that important in comparison to other badges you can get, probably just a statistic would be fine.

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-Bio section in profiles. (seems almost everything has one idk why AW shouldn't)

Because this is not Failbook. Or ROBLOX.

---

Overall, I think you focus too much on CWs with your ideas. They are a fairly important part of the game, but I'd be willing to bet that most active players are not part of one. I'd prefer additional features for the game itself to improving the CW and coalition systems, because it is working very well at the moment.

I'm just going to respond to your first idea regarding placing a limitation on the number of players in a coalition. I really don't like this idea because it seems sort of pointless. If someone wants a very personal coalition with very few players then they can by all means do that. But why place restrictions on clans like U.L.A.P or Fruit is manly.

लिखा द्वारा YOBA, 06.05.2012 at 06:19

लिखा द्वारा Lynchski, 06.05.2012 at 04:19

-A cap on the amount of players in a coalition maybe 16 or so (I don't see the point in having as many people as ULAP. I know this would get really messy really fast because everyone already has more than 16 people, but I feel it would make coalitions have more of a teammate kinda feel making things more even and much more competitive. Even though it would be messy as hell I think the benefits would be worth it) **LOVE THIS IDEA**

You may not see the point, but we do.

Elaborate. Whats the point? I don't see it.

-I'm sure you don't play in half the CWs
-I'm sure there are people in you coalition who you've only played with once and don't even know
-byzantia is kinda inactive as far as CWs are concerned because nobody wants to play against that kind of power

When i wrote this I figured coalitions such as Byzantia would have the biggest problem with it but I do recall some people saying that tourneys are the only real competitive play in AW. I think this has happened because of Coalitions such as byzantia who horde the most skilled players in such large groups.
If you disagree tell me why i would love to be convinced otherwise.

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 06.05.2012 at 10:24

I'm just going to respond to your first idea regarding placing a limitation on the number of players in a coalition. I really don't like this idea because it seems sort of pointless. If someone wants a very personal coalition with very few players then they can by all means do that. But why place restrictions on clans like U.L.A.P or Fruit is manly.

It's not about limiting them it's about creating a more competitive and active environment. More coalitions leading to more CWs and more CWs leading to advancement for players of all levels. Most of the time I get on and play in a regular game it's just to play against people who I'm far better than and becomes too easy. I'm sure this discourages the new arrivals to the game and scares them away (beginners room prevents most of this)
In my opinion I would have more fun getting on and maybe play a CW or two with my teammates and friends then a couple regular matches to try out new skills learned in the CWs.

I am going to be honest. I read the first one, and I was already did not like where this was going. I think a cap on the amount of members in coalitions should not be allowed. (This is coming from a coalition leader who caps off the amount of members in his coalition.) Some people like smaller coalitions and others like bigger coalitions. I think it is up to the individual players to decide what sort of coalition that they want to be in.

Furthermore, I think that this post focuses too much on the small details of coalitions when there is a huge issue with the system in general. The current season standings was a good move forward from what we previously had, but it punishes good coalitions. For example, Byzantia is tied for the most victories this season, and it does not have a single loss. Yet, it is not even ranked in the top 5 coalitions while a coalition like Hellenic Macedonians who has a losing record for the season is. This is utterly ridiculous.

लिखा द्वारा Spart, 06.05.2012 at 12:17

I am going to be honest. I read the first one, and I was already did not like where this was going. I think a cap on the amount of members in coalitions should not be allowed. (This is coming from a coalition leader who caps off the amount of members in his coalition.) Some people like smaller coalitions and others like bigger coalitions. I think it is up to the individual players to decide what sort of coalition that they want to be in.

Furthermore, I think that this post focuses too much on the small details of coalitions when there is a huge issue with the system in general. The current season standings was a good move forward from what we previously had, but it punishes good coalitions. For example, Byzantia is tied for the most victories this season, and it does not have a single loss. Yet, it is not even ranked in the top 5 coalitions while a coalition like Hellenic Macedonians who has a losing record for the season is. This is utterly ridiculous.

This 100x