Allow X Number of Allies

A rank 5 actually came up with this in a world game I was hosting. He and a rank 8 were hating on ally spammers, and demanded no alliances, but I said that I'm fine with people having one or two allies, so I allowed alliances (Ironically, the two guys 2v1d me at the end of the game before I got stronger than them. Hypocritical idiots.)

Anyway, I propose an option in which we can enter in a maximum number of allies, so as to prevent ally spamming, force some people to fight, and still allowing for an ally end after a stalemate or a partnership between clanmates and friends. So basically after we had 1 or 2 allies, the game would decline all alliance offers and disallow sending more requests unless we backstab the first 2. We'd have to be a little more careful about who we send alliance requests to.

What do you all think?

Support... especially in the new AtWar SP system!

Nah, don't support. Unnecessary. If you had that you could have all kinds of options like "limit number of units" or such at the same level of importance.

Support

Kirjoittanut Mathdino, 02.12.2012 at 01:33

A rank 5 actually came up with this in a world game I was hosting. He and a rank 8 were hating on ally spammers, and demanded no alliances, but I said that I'm fine with people having one or two allies, so I allowed alliances (Ironically, the two guys 2v1d me at the end of the game before I got stronger than them. Hypocritical idiots.)

Anyway, I propose an option in which we can enter in a maximum number of allies, so as to prevent ally spamming, force some people to fight, and still allowing for an ally end after a stalemate or a partnership between clanmates and friends. So basically after we had 1 or 2 allies, the game would decline all alliance offers and disallow sending more requests unless we backstab the first 2. We'd have to be a little more careful about who we send alliance requests to.

What do you all think?

The true question is...
You were playing a World game?
I dont support, in my opinion Communication and Diplomacy are tools of the game.
But there is a big problem about this, sometimes in long games of more than 30 turns people dont have more time to play, with this option they will be forced to quit until people wants to keep playing or make an ally end.

Perhaps they can make it work the same way that time options work, and have people accept changes. That way if people want to ally end and there's more than two people to ally; it will be changeable.

I support the idea. I'm noticing a lot of ally fagging going on in the new AW.

A rule such as allowing a player a max of 2 or 3 ally spots should work. In terms of ally ending a game - if there are more than 5+ players still alive at the end of the game, you haven't played long enough.

If an ally leaves/ gets disconnected, then your ally counter goes back down, and you're welcome to replace.

If a new player comes in that you'd like to ally with, you're welcome to declare war on one of your existing allies and buddy up with the new guy.

Basically, diplomacy would work as it already does, with a cap on max # of allies, on a first come- first serve basis.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 04.12.2012 at 18:11

I support the idea. I'm noticing a lot of ally fagging going on in the new AW.

A rule such as allowing a player a max of 2 or 3 ally spots should work. In terms of ally ending a game - if there are more than 5+ players still alive at the end of the game, you haven't played long enough.

If an ally leaves/ gets disconnected, then your ally counter goes back down, and you're welcome to replace.

If a new player comes in that you'd like to ally with, you're welcome to declare war on one of your existing allies and buddy up with the new guy.

Basically, diplomacy would work as it already does, with a cap on max # of allies, on a first come- first serve basis.

you sir, are right

Kirjoittanut Guest, 04.12.2012 at 18:11

Basically, diplomacy would work as it already does, with a cap on max # of allies, on a first come- first serve basis.

Thanks for the extended explanation, this is exactly what I was going for.

Kirjoittanut NoOne, 03.12.2012 at 20:05

Perhaps they can make it work the same way that time options work, and have people accept changes. That way if people want to ally end and there's more than two people to ally; it will be changeable.

Erm, if people want to ally end in the normal game, they're gonna try to ally end and team up on those who don't support. The above suggestion is exactly what I'm going against; I don't want hasty ally ends without a good war, nor do I want a giant group of friends to change options to infinite allies so they can ruin the game.

Guys, I see this as just an option; people aren't arguing against the option of teamed games (no ally end) or no alliances, and I see quite a few people joining no alliance games. I just personally don't like them because I like partnership and allying one or two friends/clanmates. Wouldn't it be fun to have a 10 player partnership game with 2v2v2v2v2 or so?

This option would be used a lot if implemented. This should be an option just like the time(minutes) option, just a drop down to how many allies you would be allowed in a game, and if someone enters the room and sees that, they play while accepting the rule. Simple as that.

Fully support this. Especially if the administrators wish to increase the max number of players per game, it would be the most beneficial thing to competitive play, and team work.

Imagine; 30 player game, 3 allies allowed? Only once we increase in players per day of course.

I support and unsupport it in the same time
supported beacuse nobody likes allyfags,but unsupported beacuse of "mauzer alliances",which means a player allying the only player who's close to him and acctually able to fight him (for ex.playing in UK and germany alone or with less people in europe). an alliance like this is worse then allying 20 players in the server,since you can easily steamroll everyone who fought (or still fighting) for their bit of lands

I want a sp system based on lvl and allies

Kirjoittanut Lemonade, 06.12.2012 at 10:38

I want a sp system based on lvl and allies

That would be grand. Maybe this would be a better alternative if people don't like the cap on the allies idea.


What of a system where you gain less SP the more allies you have, and thus cuts into their SP even more. (since with allies, you have to share the gained sp anyways) This would balance the system where you have the lower-ranks gaining more sp, since if more lower ranks ally eachother, they gain less sp for doing it. (bringing them back to normal, or lower, sp rates)

While at the same time, if higher ranks were to ally up, they already have the disadvantage of the rank-related SP rates, so it would discourage higher ranks from allying more than a couple of eachother to win a game. Don't make this affect people right away with only one ally, but make it begin to cut into the SP the more allies you have if it's more than one or two, thus making it not much of a factor in games as long as someone doesn't ally like 5 people. And of course don't let this affect team games since they're allied no matter what happens.

So; the more allies, the less sp gain, combined with the new rank-sp rates(lower ranks get more sp). It would balance eachother out.

To be honest, I've seen a lot of games with "implicit" alliances - they aren't even peaced, at war, but just don't attack each other. And then a few turns down the road they make it official and ally up. I don't see how the solutions proposed in this thread would solve that and I have no idea how to do it either.

Implicit alliances are fine. As long as they stay implicit, they have to kill each other to win the game. Or ally. But there's an ally cap that limits how many friends you can have.

Lets take a sample game of 8 players. Assume that there's an ally cap of 3 per player (so, 1 + 3 = max 4 in a 'team').

In this game, suppose we have 2 elite players (ranks 10+), and the other 6 are average ranks 5-7.

Generally, 2 things happen in most games:

1) Elite players usually decline ally request (since more allies = less sp), and
2) The refusal to ally leads everyone else to become paranoid and gang up on elites as revenge.

...But that's fine. Even if the elite players are killed off - through 'implicit' alliances and no one else attacking each other - once the elites are gone you're left with 5-6 players who will have to break the implicit alliance. And the horde consumes itself. It must, because they cant ally-end to finish the game. There's too many players.

It's like playing musical chairs and scheming to see who you can steal the chairs from at the end of the game. Inevitably, someone is going to be in the very awkward position of having to fight off against former friends. Takes diplomacy to a whole new level

... will your backstabbing be remembered the next time around and do you get pre-emptively killed off by people who allied you in the previous game?

Another interesting point about having ally caps is that it forces you to be careful with your ally choices. Do you ally with familiar players? The highest ranks you can get? The ones that are close by, or the ones that are strategically placed elsewhere in the map? You have to be selective, and this introduces another layer of strategy into the game.

My $0.02.

Just want to make sure that this new system, if it's implemented, doesnt adversely benefit elite/ higher skilled players.

Wouldnt want the same groups of 2-3 high ranked players allying each other every game and finishing everyone else off.

Something to chew on.

Kirjoittanut notserral, 06.12.2012 at 19:09

To be honest, I've seen a lot of games with "implicit" alliances - they aren't even peaced, at war, but just don't attack each other. And then a few turns down the road they make it official and ally up. I don't see how the solutions proposed in this thread would solve that and I have no idea how to do it either.

No, do all the calculation of the added sp, or taken sp, at the end of the game. If you lose you're just counted without the allies deduction on your sp, but just get the standard 1/2 sp.

But if you win, the sp is counted at the end, thus if you just have a hidden alliance with another couple of people(say 4 ppl in a /20 world game), and you only all ally up in the end, you're still penalized for winning with allies.

Though the SP system gets complicated with this, it would have been better for the admins just to leave the sp-rates standard, instead of giving lower ranks more. If you look at the front page nowadays, you'll notice the max sp people get per day is around 3k, when in regular afterwind, the usual amount was around 5k for the person at #1. (before the bonus sp week, I mean normally) I would rather the administrators get rid of the adjusted SP rates and return them to normal. More standard that way.

DONT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT LIKE ALLIANCES ,THERE OPTIONS TO HOST GAME WITHOUT ALLY

Kirjoittanut Desu, 06.12.2012 at 22:06

Kirjoittanut notserral, 06.12.2012 at 19:09

To be honest, I've seen a lot of games with "implicit" alliances - they aren't even peaced, at war, but just don't attack each other. And then a few turns down the road they make it official and ally up. I don't see how the solutions proposed in this thread would solve that and I have no idea how to do it either.

No, do all the calculation of the added sp, or taken sp, at the end of the game. If you lose you're just counted without the allies deduction on your sp, but just get the standard 1/2 sp.

But if you win, the sp is counted at the end, thus if you just have a hidden alliance with another couple of people(say 4 ppl in a /20 world game), and you only all ally up in the end, you're still penalized for winning with allies.

Though the SP system gets complicated with this, it would have been better for the admins just to leave the sp-rates standard, instead of giving lower ranks more. If you look at the front page nowadays, you'll notice the max sp people get per day is around 3k, when in regular afterwind, the usual amount was around 5k for the person at #1. (before the bonus sp week, I mean normally) I would rather the administrators get rid of the adjusted SP rates and return them to normal. More standard that way.

I believe you should get a bonus for fighting higher ranked players but not a penalty for fighting lower ranks. A lower rank could get 5%+ SP for each rank difference, perhaps.

And each ally could be a 10% penalty in the final SP.

Kirjoittanut avatar, 07.12.2012 at 00:14

DONT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT LIKE ALLIANCES ,THERE OPTIONS TO HOST GAME WITHOUT ALLY

you sir, are a ally fag.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 07.12.2012 at 21:59

Kirjoittanut avatar, 07.12.2012 at 00:14

DONT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT LIKE ALLIANCES ,THERE OPTIONS TO HOST GAME WITHOUT ALLY

you sir, are a ally fag.

Er sir, can you please show proof?

Kirjoittanut avatar, 07.12.2012 at 00:14

DONT SUPPORT THIS!!!!!!

IF YOU DONT LIKE ALLIANCES ,THERE OPTIONS TO HOST GAME WITHOUT ALLY

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be a mandatory limit on the number of allies, just a setting that could limit the number of allies a person can have. So it offers a middle ground between the ability to ally everyone and not being allowed to ally anyone. It is a good idea and should be supported.

I hate to necro this topic but ally spamming is still a serious problem that really makes some games unfun. This is from an Imperial Era game:



I don't blame it on the scenario, as the scenario is actually quite balanced. But notice that high ranked players playing the stronger countries like Britain, Russia, and Spain are just ruining the entire point of the game. You can guess who won that. I want to reiterate that I don't want to ban alliances; as you can see, I allied my friend on the other side of the world because he's my friend. It's just insane when strong and decent players ally everyone except one person. That game would have been made very much fun if we had the option to make it, say, max 2 alliances.

Also, on the above discussion, I don't really care about SP, or if ally spammers get less SP in the long run. I care about having a fun game.

Shameless Self Promotion Time: Check out the recent ATN article (link) for more stuff on ally spamming.