![]() ![]() The real issue with ceding cities actually wasn't so much the malicious Multi (although there were enough) but rather the RL alliance players. We have IP checks in place and will bar entry, so the only way around this is VPN - but again we are looking into this with another system - leading to bans for cheating. In CON players are allowed to have as many accounts as they want, as long as they don't join the same match with them. The liberation feature is indeed already in the game - albeit only for coalitions.Īnd yes, you are right in regards to Multi Accounters, though we do take a different stance on this topic than say COW. Hope I was able to shed a bit more light on the topic, say the opportunity to return conquered territory to its rightful owner, that's a different story and we already have a feature aiming in that direction (the liberation feature: liberating coalition members homeland provinces). In in all honesty I would not know of any peaceful cessation of territory out of the top of my head without researching the matter further (not meaning it may not have happened, just that it seems to be extremely rare). Same with India/Pakistan - though they I believe have fought three wars since, amongst others about exactly these territorial claims. Some more recent examples can be found in the Balkans or the reunification of Germany and the splitting of Czech Republic and Slovakia, though all of these were again part of nations forming/reforming at the end of the cold war. Now this obviously includes a Germany which just had lost a war - so it really wasn't peaceful at all. Territory swap did of course happen, but again, the last real swapping took place at the end of WW2 (mostly in connection to new borders and nations being drawn on the map).Ī good example for this is Poland which had half of its territory annexed by the USSR while being granted most of former German Eastern Prussia and Parts of Silesia. It wasn't unheard of to within the first 24h have 7 or more rare material cities all mysteriously swapping their allegiance across the map to support one player.įrom a historical/realistic perspective it is important to note that even in WW2 nothing was ever given for free, the US lend-lease was exactly that, a lease against future debt, as was the post war Marshall Plan. We had it in early beta and the first thing that happened was players started pushing themselves with "nice little presents" from their co-players. No matter what you do you cannot fix the problem without either evicting all players or turning off the feature. Once you allow swapping or gifting, no matter how restricted, you will have RL players and or Multi-Accounters abusing it. Some features turn out to be either toxic to the gameplay or broken inherently, neither fitting the setting nor the type of game. Point is we are not stripping features of our game, we are selecting which ones we believe fit the type of gameplay.Īctually I would never have implemented something like province trading in the first place - so when we noticed the problems we opted to have it out. I appreciate your open and friendly reply and thus will gladly give you some more insight into the topic.Īs a matter of fact I've been through this discussion about 50 times before with other COW players, and as you can imagine I am quite weary of the "in COW this in COW that" discussions. Don't get me wrong, the game is pretty nice anyway, but why are you even going on steam if you reverse-develop the game? You will get way way harsher critics once you launched on steam if you keep regressing the game. ![]() And you had that in the game already, so therefore all I see is regression. You can also look back at the medival times, where wars with many casualities have been solved by swapping, trading or gifting this or that region to this or that kingdom.Ī way is more than just shooting and killing, it is also trying to make as less casualities as possible. Yes, a few of them involved actual war, or violence, but also a lot of diplomatic resolutions, even including a swapping, trading or gifting of regions. ![]() Here are a few IRL conflicts that have been solved diplomaticaly: I get that people abuse mechanics in every way they can, but you are stipping off features of your game instead of fixing them so they are non-abusable. I don't get why you have such an unfriendly tone. Neither is it realistic nor is it fun except for the abusers. You just arrived a bit late to the party unfortunately - cause we had trading in the game and guess what: players were abusing it massively. Notice something? They all have one thing in common. So please tell me when was the last time one of the nations in the game ceded a part of it to another one by peaceful means? Our game surely isn’t called diplomacy of nations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |