agaghas said:

This is not a post about not liking coiners.

Have you seen how many coalitions there are with capitals in the level range 10 to 15, and growing. Those coalitions are doing well, players are sticking their defenses in to grow, and having fun defending the capital against assaults from similar strength coalitions. Until one day ... BOOM ... someone comes with 100k Agema and marches right over that capital and wipes it clean. When this happens there is a good chance that many players stop playing the game. 

The sad part about it is that many players in those coalitions do spend some coin, so it is a lose-lose situation for players-plarium.

Someone like me who has been around for a while, can tell you for sure that there are only two ways to go when it comes to capitals. You either have it at level 20 with 4 billion + defense in there (staying clear of wars/challenges) or you leave it at level 5 with zero defense in there. Anything else is just a time bomb. I know this and many others too, but the point is that most don't and are currently sitting on this bomb.

Diplomacy is not the answer, because several coalitions will wipe capitals clean to earn their coalition achievements. Others do it for tournament rewards, example, I was once in a coalition where we all lost 75% of our defenses, which can take easily 1-2 years to rebuild, and at that point you stop playing. We asked the attacker why he destroyed the capital. His answer was a simple response of "XP tournament, Have Fun!".

I don't blame the coiners / stronger players for their actions. The problem is that the current capital system doesn't make sense for the average player and it is not good for the game either. Plarium, you simply can't wave that carrot (the capital) in front of the average players and have them walk into that time bomb. 

What to do about it ... ? I don't know. I am hoping people can shed some light on this and/or give ideas. Perhaps something more sensible in terms of capitals can develop for the average player from this thread.

Hello Agaghas,

Truth be told coalitions with weak capitals are an easy target for the coiners.

It is also true that you need much defense in the capital in order for it to survive from the predators.

He said he doesn't know what to do about it. No need to ask him again for his suggestions. It is perfectly fine to come on here and ask, "Hey, this is a problem, does anyone know what to do about it?"

1: Remove the coalition achievements that give direct incentive to hit capitals for no reason other than to earn coalition achievements. It is not an achievement to march over a capital of a group of players who are not nearly as strong as the attacker. Downgrading a capital of a rival coalition in a war between matched coalitions is an achievement in its own right that often has much higher perceived value that the current official achievement on the coalition page. However, if point 5 further below is implemented, then it may not be necessary to remove such achievements.

2: You need some kind of warning system of an incoming attack, perhaps coupled with a new item that can put up protection temporarily at a capital. Below is one way this can be done:

* If an attack is incoming towards a capital, the HM and Poles should be able to see this at the bottom of their screen, similar to how you see raids incoming to your city. Please read this point together with points 5 and 6 further below.

* A new item can become available in coalition tournaments (should not be be easy to earn) where you can put up protection at a capital. 

* It should also be possible for the HM or another coalition member with "capital rights" to evacuate all defenses in a capital, safely into the acropolis of all the contributing members.

The above system suggested is similar to how players prevent their armies at their cities from being destroyed by stronger players.

3: While this doesn't directly address the problem, it does make capitals more meaningful to many players: Introduce a way for coalitions to increase the level of their capital at which it cannot be downgraded, for example, from the current level 5 to level 10. You can make the cost of raising it by one level very high (perhaps use the medals and tools resources for this). This will close the gap between mostly level 5 and level 20 capitals a bit and also give smaller coalitions something sensible to work on, while they build their defenses.

4: Introduce an information page in the game where everybody can see which capitals were downgraded by which coalitions. Also show the rank of the defending and attacking coalition on this page. The hope is that if stronger coalitions see these things happening, a handful of their players may feel obligated to help out.


5: If none of the above works, I see no option but for an in-game feature to allow/disallow attacks on another coalition's capital based on a sensible differential between the defending and attacking coalitions total defense and offense. By "total defense" and "total offense", I mean the total across the coalition, not what sits in the capital only. For example, if per the "statistics tab", coalition A's total defense and total offense adds up to 300mil and coalition B has 1.5bil offense, then coalition B can't attack the capital of coalition A. The reason for combining the offense and defense of the defending coalition to do this "test calculation" is to prevent coalitions who focus purely on offense from having a "safe" capital on this system.

6: Or combine the warning /evacuation system suggested in point 2 with point 5. For example, if the defense to offense differential is very large, the minimum amount of travel time to hit the capital is increased.

He said he doesn't know what to do about it. No need to ask him again for his suggestions. It is perfectly fine to come on here and ask, "Hey, this is a problem, does anyone know what to do about it?"

1: Remove the coalition achievements that give direct incentive to hit capitals for no reason other than to earn coalition achievements. It is not an achievement to march over a capital of a group of players who are not nearly as strong as the attacker. Downgrading a capital of a rival coalition in a war between matched coalitions is an achievement in its own right that often has much higher perceived value that the current official achievement on the coalition page. However, if point 5 further below is implemented, then it may not be necessary to remove such achievements.

2: You need some kind of warning system of an incoming attack, perhaps coupled with a new item that can put up protection temporarily at a capital. Below is one way this can be done:

* If an attack is incoming towards a capital, the HM and Poles should be able to see this at the bottom of their screen, similar to how you see raids incoming to your city. Please read this point together with points 5 and 6 further below.

* A new item can become available in coalition tournaments (should not be be easy to earn) where you can put up protection at a capital. 

* It should also be possible for the HM or another coalition member with "capital rights" to evacuate all defenses in a capital, safely into the acropolis of all the contributing members.

The above system suggested is similar to how players prevent their armies at their cities from being destroyed by stronger players.

3: While this doesn't directly address the problem, it does make capitals more meaningful to many players: Introduce a way for coalitions to increase the level of their capital at which it cannot be downgraded, for example, from the current level 5 to level 10. You can make the cost of raising it by one level very high (perhaps use the medals and tools resources for this). This will close the gap between mostly level 5 and level 20 capitals a bit and also give smaller coalitions something sensible to work on, while they build their defenses.

4: Introduce an information page in the game where everybody can see which capitals were downgraded by which coalitions. Also show the rank of the defending and attacking coalition on this page. The hope is that if stronger coalitions see these things happening, a handful of their players may feel obligated to help out.


5: If none of the above works, I see no option but for an in-game feature to allow/disallow attacks on another coalition's capital based on a sensible differential between the defending and attacking coalitions total defense and offense. By "total defense" and "total offense", I mean the total across the coalition, not what sits in the capital only. For example, if per the "statistics tab", coalition A's total defense and total offense adds up to 300mil and coalition B has 1.5bil offense, then coalition B can't attack the capital of coalition A. The reason for combining the offense and defense of the defending coalition to do this "test calculation" is to prevent coalitions who focus purely on offense from having a "save" capital on this system.

6: Or combine the warning /evacuation system suggested in point 2 with point 5. For example, if the defense to offense differential is very large, the minimum amount of travel time to hit the capital is increased.

If you moderators can't even move a topic to a the "proper" section , then you sure do a lot with comments (nothing). My 2cents , i would sure love to know if mederators gets paid by plarium like a salary or something , if they do get paid .... free money ? i wanna join hahaha

Also , does anyone ever wonder how does some selected peps reach to have 100K agemas ? Or did a real admin/tech ever checked such accounts and see how they made the army ? All looks legit ? I doubt it , i play for 2years , every single day , even buying something from time to time.

TSUN , perfect description m8 , great job.

d3vnul said:

If you moderators can't even move a topic to a the "proper" section , then you sure do a lot with comments (nothing). My 2cents , i would sure love to know if mederators gets paid by plarium like a salary or something , if they do get paid .... free money ? i wanna join hahaha

Also , does anyone ever wonder how does some selected peps reach to have 100K agemas ? Or did a real admin/tech ever checked such accounts and see how they made the army ? All looks legit ? I doubt it , i play for 2years , every single day , even buying something from time to time.

TSUN , perfect description m8 , great job.

a topic is its own thread and cant be added to an existing thread 

Drag-Theseus said:

https://plarium.com/forum/en/sparta-war-of-empires/suggestions/35525_your-suggestions---2/20/ - SUGGESTIONS

Hi. This link doesn't take me to anything related to the post being discussed. I presume it is related to Tsun's suggestions. Can you tell me how to navigate to the relevant post in the Suggestions section? Thanks.

OR 7 WEAKER COAS SHOULD LOWER THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND START THINKING THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING WITH STRONGER COAS.SOMETHING LIKE POWER THROUGH UNITY THING.

PS: I LIKE THE NO 4 SUGGESTION. THE ONE WITH THE INFORMATION STYLE  LIKE THE PANTHEONS, WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHO DOWNGRADES WHOM

FOLAS said:

OR 7 WEAKER COAS SHOULD LOWER THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND START THINKING THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING WITH STRONGER COAS.SOMETHING LIKE POWER THROUGH UNITY THING.

PS: I LIKE THE NO 4 SUGGESTION. THE ONE WITH THE INFORMATION STYLE  LIKE THE PANTHEONS, WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHO DOWNGRADES WHOM

Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:

tsunwu85rsa said:

Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Interesting...So you like more freedom when it comes to choosing the PvP targets?

1: Mostly the diplomacy restrictions, particularly the importance of diplomacy in top coalitions, is what kills it for me in top coalitions because it is too restrictive IMO. Further, if you don't have an army of 100's of millions of offense and defense, then the extent to which you can make a difference in those coalitions is further limited.

2: I do agree that if you have a strong army and enough drachma to revive losses to contribute meaningfully at those higher levels, then it can be a lot of fun, particularly because those top coalitions have highly active players. Most don't have those armies or drachma to really play in top levels.

3: Top coalitions require 80% + of your defenses to be in a capital. You can get up to 20% bonus to your BASE offense and defense statistics from the capital disciplines if they are maxed out, which is probably around 5% to 10% effective bonus. Therefore, you lose access to 80% of your defense troops (which you put at risk as well) for a 5% to 10% total bonus. Therefore, it is questionable whether it is worth it to load that much defense into a capital in the first place, regardless of who you are. Some do care enough about coalition rank to do that, which is fine. However, if you are small-medium sized coalition, it is 100% clear cut to me that you should not put anything into the capital (regardless of whether you care about rank or not) because the added disadvantage of it getting wiped out is just too great (the time bomb referred to above).

4: In top coalitions, because you hold pantheons and significant defense in a capital, you really need to be careful who you attack in PvP. One little PA can lead to a capital or several Pantheons falling a few weeks later.

Anyways, it is getting a bit off topic. The point being that I think there are lots of reasons to want to play in small to medium sized coalitions. It would be nice (as suggested in this thread) if capitals could have more meaning there and also not be so much at the mercy of a few stronger players. I would personally never really care about a capital because of what I said in point 3 above, but many in small to medium sized coalitions do and would like to be more active with their capitals.

I really do believe that addressing some of the issues raised will have a positive impact on the game.

How about a free unit revival system like the city for the capitals?  It could even be scaled: 

Losing 0-10% of your capital troops =0% revival, 10-30% =20% revival, 30-50%=30%revival, >50%=50%revival.  Only coalition that lose a lot in one hit would benefit.  Big coalitions with huge defenses would not benefit unless destroyed by an even bigger coalition.

boisdejustice said:

How about a free unit revival system like the city for the capitals?  It could even be scaled: 

Losing 0-10% of your capital troops =0% revival, 10-30% =20% revival, 30-50%=30%revival, >50%=50%revival.  Only coalition that lose a lot in one hit would benefit.  Big coalitions with huge defenses would not benefit unless destroyed by an even bigger coalition.

Nice idea. But I'm quite sure that Plarium will never implement something like that (because they are greedy and they will say they will lose money , even if they make millions). Welcome to the greedy corporate world.

I bet that if they would put a maximum daily/monthly spending in the game ( like 50$ max spending per day ) the game will be much more balanced (as right now the difference between spender and non-spender is ridiculous). But they will again say they will lose their millions of real money (compared to intangible "goods" they provide inside the game).

So for me the name of the game is " Sparta - War of Wallets ".

very interesting topic

most of sugested above i do like and vote for.

especially like the following:

1.safe capital lvl of 10

2. remove capital downgrade coa achievment

3.infirmiry at caital

4. warning for incoming atack

5. high rank ability to evacuate forces from capital

It is absolutely necessary to implement more levels of security in the capitals, in addition to level 5. And also a nursing in the capital ........

But have troops in the capitals is the most useless game ... When they want the 6 7 coas that dominate the game, you will lay it down without any problem.

With the advent of "The Four Corners", which is 4 of the top coalitions joining together as one federation, closing out the pan field and having enough power to obliterate even strong capitals. What future is there for a game which is purportedly free to play when it is being taken over by coiner coalitions who just want to control everything?

The matter of Coalition Capitals, attack limits on them and the cap level has been brought up in the past. A couple of months ago I have already sent player feedback on the matter to our dev team, that is as much as can be done at the moment. We feel that diplomacy and teamwork are imperative to gameplay in Sparta and by making allies you can deter larger or stronger Coalitions from attacking their smaller counterparts.