Bonjour,

J'ai créé une coalition, j'ai invité d'autres ligues a nous rejoindre et depuis je ne peu plus accéder à l'onglet coalition depuis l'ambassade et c'est la même chose pour les autres ligues qui nous ont rejoint.

Pouvez-vous faire quelque chose ?

Merci.

Aegon Targaryen said:

I suspected this was more of a formality, as a way for leagues to show their alliances more cosmetically than Town Hall name tags.

Alina, you seemed to have confirmed that is basically what this update is, and that gameplay mechanics are not affected.   That statement seems pretty clear that there are no bonuses or otherwise.

However, I do want to verify that leagues within a coalition can still attack coalition beacons and fortresses for the purposes of upgrading.

I'd like to also verify that leagues within a coalition can still issue 'friendly' challenges to each other.

Hello!

I do confirm that relationships between Leagues remain absolutely the same as they were before two Leagues joined one Coalition.

Mephisto said:

from what I have read, the coalition tends to be a purely circumstantial formality, a sort of intimidation for enemy or less prestigious leagues. This coalition could break many good alliances, when many leaders want to direct only problems arise. A coalition aimed at the possibility of attacking but not defending, so each league will have to protect itself. so many against so few? I remind the Plarium staff that many allied leagues could join forces if the number of players in the leagues had increased. In this case we would have a real staff under the same objective.

Hello!

Coalitions are not aimed either at offense or defense. As I said in my previous reply, they don't give any advantages in terms of the in-game mechanics.

This feature just allows several Leagues that are playing together show it to other players with the help of comfortable UI: they can add a Coalition TAG, special Logo for their coalition.

So this feature is pointless.

Players don't need it to run diplomacy and form their alliances. They did that quite happily on their own, so it's wasted dev time. Also it comes 2 years after being relevant as there is no meta game now.

That aside I would suggest this is a really bad area to explore as a developer. The meta game is the sandbox the players operate in which gives them unlimited variations and opportunity. Game mechanics however well meaning cut off and constrain. The players imaginations to will create strategies and variations that the developers can never hope to predict. So you risk killing some styles of gameplay before you even knew they existed.

Not saying that this update has any major flaws but just if it was my game I just wouldn't mess with the meta game. The players will sort it much better than you ever can.

Mephisto said:

I have not received an answer from the Plarium staff. Why not increase the number of players in the leagues? The coalitions are currently a good showcase. By increasing the capacity of acceptable players in a league, you can move away inactive players and accommodate many active players and form a 100% active league and potentially group many smaller groups into a larger one. Coalising alloys does not prevent the constant presence of inactive players in alloys.

Because small Leagues won't be happy about it and the current maximum number of League members seems to be enough.

If you have many inactive players in the League, just remove them and recruit more active ones. Increase of maximum number of members per League is not required for it :)

XCALIBRE69 said:

Is there a limit to the number of leagues which can join in a single coalition?

Hello!

 Aegon Targaryen said:

take this how you will.

I'm tired of the 'the players asked for this' response.    Some players, and even a majority of players, will ask for things over the course of any game.   That does NOT mean their requests should be honored.

Plarium has already shown that they do not honor all requests, claiming balance or some other reason.

There are many requests that Plarium refuses to honor just because of some past vendetta or whatever.    How many times have players requested the return of settlements and the erasing of hamlets?   Plarium's response is NEVER.  One of the staff on Facebook kept whining about losing his offense, so maybe had has a lot of influence on that one.

Plarium makes pretty much every decision based on how much money they stand to make or lose and how difficult it is to implement the requested change.

Players did not want Plarium telling them how to run their league, yet Facebook implemented their own facist control over leagues anyway, rendering the internal league ranking system null and void.  Thankfully, its not here yet.

Beacon massacre, no matter how many people may have asked for it or how many people may have liked it, is BAD for the game.

Removing food restrictions...or rather, not having real food restrictions to begin with....helped ruin the game, no matter how many players wanted it and liked it.

Making sapphire packages constant, therefore allowing coiners to buy troops cheaply, combined with food production being meaningless, completely destroys the game, with the rate of destruction ever increasing.

Constantly adding troop bonuses widen the offense/defense gap, which certainly do not help the game.

Constantly adding development to the castle removes time for any actual gameplay....if there was any left.   Its nothing more than farmville and may help give players CTS.

One of the absolute worst decisions ever was adding items to the game that were COINER ONLY.    No coin, no item.    I haven't spent one dime on this game since champions came out.   As long as coiner only items exist, I highly doubt I will.

Adding Castle Defense bonus nerf into the game was also a very bad decision.   Nothing that costs so much to build should have that kind of reduction.  That isn't shooting yourself in the foot.  That is surgical removal of reproduction abilities, as you have completely removed any incentive to spend money for high end items like walls.  Give yourself a Darwin Award.  You've earned it.

Adding Fireballs and boosts to the game, helped destroy the game.   The addition of SWs seemed nice, until you added soulstones, and sketches, and the ability to be completely easily wiped with a few units.

Players will always want to participate in touraments and use items that just sit around collecting dust, but development and progression tournaments are BAD for the game.  Anyone who claims otherwise lacks any serious forward thinking of what this causes.   Those type of tournaments always lead to farmville and away from gameplay.    Constantly adding farmville content makes the highway too long for new players, so they don't bother staying as they realize they will never reach the endgame.   This ALWAYS has the same result:  The declination of the game.  There is really no way to stop it once started.  Maybe drastically speeding up the initial game with tons of free boosts in the daily log ins might help, but only if the addition of farmville content STOPs, and the endgame is revitalized.   Once development content is added, they can not be removed without pissing off the old players that still hang around through time and money investment.

However, all development tournaments can be removed.   Adding further farmville features to the game needs to be stopped.  When players ask for something to spend their rising soulstones, dragon points, etc on as they're done with it....tell them NO.  Stop enabling them.   No game survives without new players, and new players don't like having a long road to relevancy...especially when that road keeps getting longer.

Players have asked for restoration of the endgame, yet the devs refuse to do this.  WHY?!!    The devs keep stripping it away to sell rather than rebuilding it to make it priceless.  Many, including myself, have told them how to do it, but they don't listen, so don't tell me they listen.

Everything added to increase the power of coiners was bad for the game.    YET YOU DID IT ANYWAY.....because players asked for it.    Babies, violent people, and thieves will ask for many things that are bad for them and/or others.  That doesn't mean you should enable them.

The plarium devs are supposed to be adults.  They act more like children.  They'll give anything to those who are willing to give them candy in exchange, harming both of them in the long run.

Please don't ever say the words 'players asked for it' again.

Hello!

Thanks for quite a big and detailed feedback! I will try to reply on it in the same way :)

First of all, it's not a feature devs added to the game because players asked about it. Devs added this feature as they knew many Leagues already had such kinds of Coalitions, but there wasn't a suitable way to show it in the game. So, they added it.

I know players make many suggestions on the changes they want to see in the game. We accept or refuse them not because "of some past vendetta". There are clearly stated rules on what suggestions we do and don't accept: https://plarium.com/forum/en/stormfall-age-of-war/suggestions/31546_which-suggestions-we--do-not--accept/

Plarium makes pretty much every decision based on how much money they stand to make or lose and how difficult it is to implement the requested change.

I don't deny that while working on this or that feature devs think about its financial part. It would be strange if they hadn't. Please don't forget that we're running a business here as well and without financial part of the question, there won't be any game at all.

Time and efforts that devs/designers/QA team will need to spend on the feature is taken into account as well. It's also quite logical as without planning and team load distribution, there wouldn't be any of our games.

Players did not want Plarium telling them how to run their league, yet Facebook implemented their own facist control over leagues anyway, rendering the internal league ranking system null and void. Thankfully, its not here yet.

And we didn't tell players how to run their Leagues. In terms of League activity feature, it's quite difficult to get your League dismissed. There are a lot of conditions you need to fill in before even the dismissal timer will start.

And the huge advantage of this feature - it helped to get rid of inactive Leagues and cases when a League consists of inactive players who keep their defense on beacons and fortresses.

Beacon massacre, no matter how many people may have asked for it or how many people may have liked it, is BAD for the game.

How long ago did you have a Beacon Massacre? I don't remember any for more than 6 months already.

Removing food restrictions...or rather, not having real food restrictions to begin with....helped ruin the game, no matter how many players wanted it and liked it.

It's the point where I will say: we added it as players asked for it. The majority of players were happy about it. Plus, we remained the limit that if you're -100k of Food, you can't speed up training queues of your Units.

Making sapphire packages constant, therefore allowing coiners to buy troops cheaply, combined with food production being meaningless, completely destroys the game, with the rate of destruction ever increasing.

There are packages of different price and you shouldn't use a lot of the in-game purchases to get them :) If you're strictly against it, you can get the majority of Items and Units offered in the packages with the help of Sapphires.

Constantly adding troop bonuses widen the offense/defense gap, which certainly do not help the game.

We don't add only offense or only defense Bonuses. They're added in terms of balance. But I know that this discussion of off/def disbalance will be going all the time. Defensive players think that all advantages go to offensive players and vise versa.

Constantly adding development to the castle removes time for any actual gameplay....if there was any left. Its nothing more than farmville and may help give players CTS.

Why do you think so? To start to upgrade anything you need to do a couple of clicks, then the Building will be updating by itself. Meanwhile, you're welcome to enjoy an actual gameplay.

One of the absolute worst decisions ever was adding items to the game that were COINER ONLY. No coin, no item. I haven't spent one dime on this game since champions came out. As long as coiner only items exist, I highly doubt I will.

Can't say anything except for we not only run a game, but we also run a business. The majority of such "for depositors only" features, we also try to add as a reward to Tournaments. So that those players who don't use the in-game purchases can use it as well.

Adding Castle Defense bonus nerf into the game was also a very bad decision. Nothing that costs so much to build should have that kind of reduction. That isn't shooting yourself in the foot. That is surgical removal of reproduction abilities, as you have completely removed any incentive to spend money for high end items like walls. Give yourself a Darwin Award. You've earned it.

Do you mean Stoneheart Bonus that allows Castle Defense nerfing?

Adding Fireballs and boosts to the game, helped destroy the game. The addition of SWs seemed nice, until you added soulstones, and sketches, and the ability to be completely easily wiped with a few units.

You can receive both Soulstones and Sketches without the usage of the in-game purchases. SWs can be built for Resources as well. So, it's one of the most useful features players can get advantages from. 

As for the ability to be completely easily wiped with a few units, devs already think how they can change SWs' mechanics to avoid such cases.

Players will always want to participate in touraments and use items that just sit around collecting dust, but development and progression tournaments are BAD for the game.

Development Tournaments are a good chance to receive an additional free Reward for the actions you're doing in the game even when there is not Tournament running. I won't agree the free reward is a bad thing for players.

Players have asked for restoration of the endgame, yet the devs refuse to do this. WHY?!! The devs keep stripping it away to sell rather than rebuilding it to make it priceless. Many, including myself, have told them how to do it, but they don't listen, so don't tell me they listen.

Because it's not a type of the game we want to have with the end. We want to add more features, engage players, give them smth to move forward. 

The plarium devs are supposed to be adults. They act more like children. They'll give anything to those who are willing to give them candy in exchange, harming both of them in the long run.

Devs didn't add everything players ask to implement. Many suggestions are rejected and it's done because of many reasons.

julien_legall said:

Bonjour,

J'ai créé une coalition, j'ai invité d'autres ligues a nous rejoindre et depuis je ne peu plus accéder à l'onglet coalition depuis l'ambassade et c'est la même chose pour les autres ligues qui nous ont rejoint.

Pouvez-vous faire quelque chose ?

Merci.

Salut!

S'il vous plaît envoyez-moi vos cordons et serveur en PM. Je vais vérifier cela :)

Hello!

Please send me your cords and server in PM. I will check it out :)

Alina Phoenix said:

Hello!

Thanks for quite a big and detailed feedback! I will try to reply on it in the same way :)

First of all, it's not a feature devs added to the game because players asked about it. Devs added this feature as they knew many Leagues already had such kinds of Coalitions, but there wasn't a suitable way to show it in the game. So, they added it.

I was responding to a post that claimed players asked for it, and I responded in a way that covers all 'asked for' responses to update feedback.   IMO, the devs wasted resources on a feature that wasn't needed, resources that could have been used on something needed.

I know players make many suggestions on the changes they want to see in the game. We accept or refuse them not because "of some past vendetta". There are clearly stated rules on what suggestions we do and don't accept: https://plarium.com/forum/en/stormfall-age-of-war/suggestions/31546_which-suggestions-we--do-not--accept/

That list of rules came from somewhere.   I believe at least 1, and maybe more, of those rules are part of a past vendetta.   One of the FB staff members gets angry and agressive and whines about settlements being about taking one's offense and nothing else...as if that was wrong even if true.   He apparently lost weeks or months  of troops.   Regardless of the intent behind replacing settlements with hamlets, years of evidence show it to be a mistake, yet the devs still refuse to listen and reverse the decision.

Plarium makes pretty much every decision based on how much money they stand to make or lose and how difficult it is to implement the requested change.

I don't deny that while working on this or that feature devs think about its financial part. It would be strange if they hadn't. Please don't forget that we're running a business here as well and without financial part of the question, there won't be any game at all.

Time and efforts that devs/designers/QA team will need to spend on the feature is taken into account as well. It's also quite logical as without planning and team load distribution, there wouldn't be any of our games.

I'm talking about short term money vs long term money.    They're willing to sacrifice long term income for the short gain.  Time is money.   Example: The devs perfer to remove something, such as a 50sec free recall, rather than fix the issue its causing with an update prior to updating it.  From what I read on FB, the answer about activation of abilities on sending is not even a justifiable reason.   If recalled, the ability doesn't nothing, activated or not.

Players did not want Plarium telling them how to run their league, yet Facebook implemented their own facist control over leagues anyway, rendering the internal league ranking system null and void. Thankfully, its not here yet.

And we didn't tell players how to run their Leagues. In terms of League activity feature, it's quite difficult to get your League dismissed. There are a lot of conditions you need to fill in before even the dismissal timer will start.

And the huge advantage of this feature - it helped to get rid of inactive Leagues and cases when a League consists of inactive players who keep their defense on beacons and fortresses.

YES YOU DID!    I'm not talking about the league dismissal, though that IS also being a bit bossy.  While the intent is good, its the implementation of league dismissal is entirely too rushed.  I posted a good way to implemented it without being heavy handed months ago.

What I was actually talking about, was allowing Commanders and Fighters to dismiss league members.   That completely makes the internal ranking system null and void, as those ranks are no longer used by any marshal with an ounce of sense.   Should that feature get implemented here, I will immediately reduce all commanders and fighters to a lower rank that does not have booting privileges.

Beacon massacre, no matter how many people may have asked for it or how many people may have liked it, is BAD for the game.

How long ago did you have a Beacon Massacre? I don't remember any for more than 6 months already.

That is because the Beacon Massacre has already done its job.   It destroyed the endgame.  Of course the devs aren't putting it out there anymore.  There are only 8 beacons left and no one is dumb enough to try taking those down.   The Beacon Massacre should never have been implemented to begin with.

Removing food restrictions...or rather, not having real food restrictions to begin with....helped ruin the game, no matter how many players wanted it and liked it.

It's the point where I will say: we added it as players asked for it. The majority of players were happy about it. Plus, we remained the limit that if you're -100k of Food, you can't speed up training queues of your Units.

The majority of people are happy with things that make them feel better, even if its bad for the game.  Plarium should have been adult and responsible enough to have full food restrictions in place, no matter what the players asked for, and no matter how happy it made the coiners, or other players.   Speeding up training queues means nothing when you're coining, nor does it mean anything when you have that many troops anyway.

Making sapphire packages constant, therefore allowing coiners to buy troops cheaply, combined with food production being meaningless, completely destroys the game, with the rate of destruction ever increasing.

There are packages of different price and you shouldn't use a lot of the in-game purchases to get them :) If you're strictly against it, you can get the majority of Items and Units offered in the packages with the help of Sapphires.

You completely missed the point, I think.    It doesn't matter if I'm against it.   If its allowed, those with the money can buy infinite troops, destroying the gameplay.  Speeding up things to get to a cap/max is not an issue in a ftp game and is understandable.  Being about to buy infinity IS an issue and completely not understandable.  The sapphire packages are greatly cheaper than they were 4 years ago.  Game destruction when caps do not exist.

Constantly adding troop bonuses widen the offense/defense gap, which certainly do not help the game.

We don't add only offense or only defense Bonuses. They're added in terms of balance. But I know that this discussion of off/def disbalance will be going all the time. Defensive players think that all advantages go to offensive players and vise versa.

When an imbalance already exists, adding identical bonuses in percentage format ALWAYS increases the imbalance.  Resource, time, and power favor offense.  Over the same period of time, more offensive can be gained than defensive power.   Therefore, adding 112% (or ANY percentage) to BOTH offense and defense will inevitably result in the difference in power between offense and defense that much greater.   Never mind that the LA level 32 gives 400% defense to offensive troops.  When the devs combine bonuses with cheaper sapphires and infinite troops, a single high roller easily become a Hammer.

Constantly adding development to the castle removes time for any actual gameplay....if there was any left. Its nothing more than farmville and may help give players CTS.

Why do you think so? To start to upgrade anything you need to do a couple of clicks, then the Building will be updating by itself. Meanwhile, you're welcome to enjoy an actual gameplay.|

One added item, sure.  Constant and multiple additions, take time away.   IMO, development is everything related to increasing one's relevant power.   Its not just Construction.  Its also Arts, Champions, BGs, Dragons, Raiding, troop training, Questing, Tournaments, etc.  Add in going over Reports and time needed to decide what to do next.   Everything is just a clickfest now.

One of the absolute worst decisions ever was adding items to the game that were COINER ONLY. No coin, no item. I haven't spent one dime on this game since champions came out. As long as coiner only items exist, I highly doubt I will.

Can't say anything except for we not only run a game, but we also run a business. The majority of such "for depositors only" features, we also try to add as a reward to Tournaments. So that those players who don't use the in-game purchases can use it as well.

Prior to Champions, every single item in the game could be obtained without coining, no matter how long it took, or how difficult it was to obtain.  Grade IV and V orbs can NOT be obtained without coining.   Holy bonds can NOT be obtained if you want to keep your job and/or family.

Adding Castle Defense bonus nerf into the game was also a very bad decision. Nothing that costs so much to build should have that kind of reduction. That isn't shooting yourself in the foot. That is surgical removal of reproduction abilities, as you have completely removed any incentive to spend money for high end items like walls. Give yourself a Darwin Award. You've earned it.

Do you mean Stoneheart Bonus that allows Castle Defense nerfing?

Yes.   That wasn't a slap.  That was a punch to the face and a knife in the back to every player who bought those walls and improvements.   While one can understand the slow decay over time of their effectiveness with the ever increasing offensive power of infinite coined troops, giving a 75% CDB reduction ability is just insane.  A very, very small chance at 10% CDB, with a very, very HIGH chance of a CDB increase might have been reasonable...might.  Neither one should have been implemented.

Such an addition means that spending high amounts of sapphires on such items is not worth it when the devs are likely to just almost completely nerf it.  Very bad business decision.

Adding Fireballs and boosts to the game, helped destroy the game. The addition of SWs seemed nice, until you added soulstones, and sketches, and the ability to be completely easily wiped with a few units.

You can receive both Soulstones and Sketches without the usage of the in-game purchases. SWs can be built for Resources as well. So, it's one of the most useful features players can get advantages from. 

As for the ability to be completely easily wiped with a few units, devs already think how they can change SWs' mechanics to avoid such cases.

Needing soulstones and sketches is too skewed towards coiners.  Coiners can obtain sketches at will.   Coiners can always maximize soulstone rewards, even if means coining pvp via alternate accounts.   Even mid to low coiners can not hope to compete on this level when it comes to soulstones.  The last 3 sketch discounts have been 25%, leading to me to believe the days of 30% are gone.  The ability to obtain soulstones should be moved to champion tournaments and only champion tournaments, but with the max reward at no more than 2m.  Coiners could gain max rewards quicker than noncoiners, but the noncoiner could still gain max rewards through grinding...well...in the case of champion touraments, more grinding, since even coiners are going to grind on this one.

Its nice to hear they're working on the latter.   They're just too easy to wipe with cheap units before the FBs.

Players will always want to participate in touraments and use items that just sit around collecting dust, but development and progression tournaments are BAD for the game.

Development Tournaments are a good chance to receive an additional free Reward for the actions you're doing in the game even when there is not Tournament running. I won't agree the free reward is a bad thing for players.

How can you not agree they're bad?  I explained it very well.   Development tournaments always lead to whining by those who are 'done' because they can't get those rewards anymore.  The whining would be fine and dandy if the devs didn't placate them with more development.  This is very, very bad.   New players will NOT stay when the road to being relevant keeps getting longer, especially at a rate that is faster than they can develop.   Without a >1:1 ratio of incoming:outgoing, the game dies.  As the death becomes more obvious, the ratio gets worse at an ever increasing rate.

Just to be clear.   Getting free rewards for growing would be great if further growth was not added to please those that were done.  An endgame is not needed in a MMORPG.   Growing allows you to visit places you could not before, and hammer those that use to hammer you.   In an MMORTS, an endgame IS needed if its FTP/PTW.   New players need to know that they will eventually reach relevancy, and likely in less than 2 years, perhaps even sooner with a good league and occasional expenditure.

If the constant pressure from those that are done influence devs to add more growth, then these tournaments are very, very bad.

Players have asked for restoration of the endgame, yet the devs refuse to do this. WHY?!! The devs keep stripping it away to sell rather than rebuilding it to make it priceless. Many, including myself, have told them how to do it, but they don't listen, so don't tell me they listen.

Because it's not a type of the game we want to have with the end. We want to add more features, engage players, give them smth to move forward.

Again, an MMORTS has to have an endgame.   Beacons were the endgame here.   The staying power of a good endgame is not to be taken lightly.   As some have pointed out, the Meta game was very much alive until the devs destroyed the end game.

Features can be added without requiring growth.   The devs should be working on adding gameplay features, not development features.  

The plarium devs are supposed to be adults. They act more like children. They'll give anything to those who are willing to give them candy in exchange, harming both of them in the long run.

Devs didn't add everything players ask to implement. Many suggestions are rejected and it's done because of many reasons.

So, yes, devs are adults and they have their own vision of the game and understanding what player's suggestion they can implement and which one they will reject.

I never said that they added everything.  I know very well they don't.   The problem is that more often than not, they add content based on coiner demand and not on gameplay demand.   Again, it seems to be more about how much money can I get right now, instead of how much money can I get over the long haul.   Residual income over decades of staying power is always better than short term lumps that can be wiped by a mistake.

Many players here have posted how to restore the game.   There are even players that post here that give me the impression they could be high rollers, and have been, when and if the game was worth it, but now they choose to spend nothing, or at least much less, due to the devs decisions.  Maybe my impressions are wrong.

While the devs may have a vision, that vision means nothing if the game loses players faster than new ones come in.  Why in tarnation would the devs NOT want an endgame?  Endgame does not mean the game ends.  It means the game at the end...of growth, which is what really matters.

Now, with that being said, if their vision is to increase the rate of browser SF desertion so that they don't have to deal with it anymore, while trying to rake in as much money as possible before browser SF becomes more trouble than its worth, then I stand corrected.   Their decisions, at least to me, appear to be well on their way to fulfilling that vision.

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

The clever bit is to navigate when you are small with clever diplomacy until you are not small any more. Plenty of people have done that successfully but sure it's not easy, it takes brains. 

The biggest problem now is that it is impossible for all normal and smaller leagues to recruit because they all have level 8 forts and zero beacons

Why would stronger players join them when they can easily get into much bigger leagues?
The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker.

Trying to micro-manage our existing coalitions is not going to help one bit

Alina Phoenix said:

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

So this feature is pointless.

Players don't need it to run diplomacy and form their alliances. They did that quite happily on their own, so it's wasted dev time. Also it comes 2 years after being relevant as there is no meta game now.

This feature was made just for players convenience. We know that many Leagues formed so-called "Unofficial" Coalitions long time ago. With this feature, devs wanted to give them a comfortable UI that will allow showing they're in one Coalition.

How is it more convenient to join ONE coalition when we are already members of 2 or 3 'unofficial' coalitions?

You are forcing leagues to choose?

What the devs really want (their hidden agenda) is to force leagues to choose between 2 giant coalitions and then declare war on each other

Coalitions really do not mean anything except they clearly define alliances 

Leagues have already chosen alliances before Coalitions so they already "chose" which side they were playing for

Its a war game!! Bring on the war!!

There could be massive losses but there could also be smart game play and some fun in the process

Smaller leagues should merge to become bigger IMO 

some choose not to join big leagues - they don't want to have to give a large amount of troops to defend a fortress - also big leagues usually have minimum requirements to join so a casual player may not ever acquire the amount of troops required to join one of the "top" leagues

Various diplomatic relations between several different factions that constantly change the landscape, all due to the rise and fall of alliances, the various wars of various sizes between leagues and alliances, and the loyalties, treachery, and corruption that inevitably changes a faction's complement....is a far more satisfying environment to be a part of than a boring 2 faction war between 2 giant factions with seemingly infinite troops.

Coalitions really do not mean anything except they clearly define alliances 

Leagues have already chosen alliances before Coalitions so they already "chose" which side they were playing for

Its a war game!! Bring on the war!!

There could be massive losses but there could also be smart game play and some fun in the process

Smaller leagues should merge to become bigger IMO 

some choose not to join big leagues - they don't want to have to give a large amount of troops to defend a fortress - also big leagues usually have minimum requirements to join so a casual player may not ever acquire the amount of troops required to join one of the "top" leagues

Snowgoon said:

Alina Phoenix said:

Sir Dan Saul Knight said:

So this feature is pointless.

Players don't need it to run diplomacy and form their alliances. They did that quite happily on their own, so it's wasted dev time. Also it comes 2 years after being relevant as there is no meta game now.

This feature was made just for players convenience. We know that many Leagues formed so-called "Unofficial" Coalitions long time ago. With this feature, devs wanted to give them a comfortable UI that will allow showing they're in one Coalition.

How is it more convenient to join ONE coalition when we are already members of 2 or 3 'unofficial' coalitions?

You are forcing leagues to choose?

What the devs really want (their hidden agenda) is to force leagues to choose between 2 giant coalitions and then declare war on each other

Massive losses on both sides creating massive profits for plarium

Nobody forces you to do anything. If you don't want to join any Coalition "officially", don't do it. 

Christine Hare said:

Gadheras, this is only my thoughts but when I look at how the Coalition functions, it functions the same as a league ingame with marshals being the leaders of the coalition given permission by the creator of it and are able to accept leagues into it as well as leagues can leave it, and to determine coalition rank it combines all of the leagues in it influence points and realm so my thoughts are it is very possible they could do an update in the  near future to make what your saying happen with attacking or stacking beacons and forts, I  for 1 would love to see this happen

Coalition Beacon Massacres?

Fabulous idea, let's design a Fort Massacre too

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
and then plarium will say that players suggested it

Christine Hare said:

Gadheras, this is only my thoughts but when I look at how the Coalition functions, it functions the same as a league ingame with marshals being the leaders of the coalition given permission by the creator of it and are able to accept leagues into it as well as leagues can leave it, and to determine coalition rank it combines all of the leagues in it influence points and realm so my thoughts are it is very possible they could do an update in the  near future to make what your saying happen with attacking or stacking beacons and forts, I  for 1 would love to see this happen

Coalition Beacon Massacres?

Fabulous idea, let's design a Fort Massacre too

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it
and then plarium will say that players suggested it