Has AtWar lost its skill?

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 12.06.2013 at 08:49

Just limit possible alliances...



And, there should be an option for "Ally End". A player can choose to click (and un-click) the option of "Ally End". If all players click "ally end" the game finishes.
In this case, the diplomacy map could represent 4 types of relations: (1) players in state of war (as enemy), (2) players signed peace treaty, (3) players are allied and (4) player willing to "ally end".

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 13.06.2013 at 22:39

Probably you end up with a 4v1 situation... choose well your alliances! And pray! Huehuehue...

Kirjoittanut ezzatam, 14.06.2013 at 01:32

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 13.06.2013 at 22:39

Probably you end up with a 4v1 situation... choose well your alliances! And pray! Huehuehue...

Limiting number of allies changes nothing, people would still team up without the alliance made.
3v3v1=>6v1=>3v3
That one person still get bulldozed.
And in your table 1v1 allows no ally end= duel game.

• The 3 player game should also have the option of "ally end". Normal game situation 1v1v1 or 2v1 plus the option of ally end (like all the other games, with the exception of Team games, where the logic "there can only be one" prevails).
  
• 3v3v1 is NOT 6v1 it is (3v3)v1. And it makes a difference; not for the (1) that was playing alone, but for the two groups of 3 players: Either they fight it out or they engage in ally end, cause a 2v4 is NOT possible. So, in the end, limiting the possible alliances makes a difference.

• Lets assume we start a 20 players game, so the maximum ally possibilities of a player is 5 (resulting in maximum factions of 6 players). In the first turns there is a faction of 6 players, another of 5, another of 4, and a faction of 3 and 2 players that play individually (Chess and Learster, for instance) [6v5v4v3v1v1].
  
• After some turns, some players have their butts kicked and some others left the game for not wanting to witness their defeat, resulting in a 5v4v3v1v1 situation. What to do? It is clear that in this situation (originally a 20 player game, but NOW a 14 player game) the group of 5 players CANNOT ally further players, nor can the group of 4 players, since the limit for allies in a 14 player game is 3 allies (resulting in a maximum faction of 4 players). But, on the other side, the faction of 5 players remains; why should they be punished (having to reduce the faction) for other players defeat and/or retirement from the game?
  
• The game goes on, resulting in a 4v2v1v1 situation (I'm assuming that Chess and Learster do their ususal job: kick some butts!). Again, its an 8 player situation with the limitation of a maximum faction of 3 players, so it cannot evolve into (4+2)v1v1. And so on.
  
• The point here is the following: there cannot be a massive "ally fugg" in the end of a game. If a faction of 6 players was established in the first turns of a 20 players game, then yes, there can be an end figt of 6v1. But there cannot be a gathering in the endphase of a game, for the limitations imposed. These limitations of possible allies are dynamic: in a starting of a 20 players game, the limit is 5 allies (resulting in a possible faction of 6); after some turns there is a 13 player situation, so the limit becomes a maximum faction of 4 (3 possible allies per player), and so on...
  
• Is it a solution to "ally fugg"? Probably not, but it goes in the right direction... I think.

Kirjoittanut ezzatam, 14.06.2013 at 01:32

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 13.06.2013 at 22:39

Probably you end up with a 4v1 situation... choose well your alliances! And pray! Huehuehue...

Limiting number of allies changes nothing, people would still team up without the alliance made.
3v3v1=>6v1=>3v3
That one person still get bulldozed.
And in your table 1v1 allows no ally end= duel game.

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 14.06.2013 at 08:02

Example:

• Lets assume we start a 20 players game, so the maximum ally possibilities of a player is 5 (resulting in maximum factions of 6 players). In the first turns there is a faction of 6 players, another of 5, another of 4, and a faction of 3 and 2 players that play individually (Chess and Learster, for instance) [6v5v4v3v1v1].
  
• After some turns, some players have their butts kicked and some others left the game for not wanting to witness their defeat, resulting in a 5v4v3v1v1 situation. What to do? It is clear that in this situation (originally a 20 player game, but NOW a 14 player game) the group of 5 players CANNOT ally further players, nor can the group of 4 players, since the limit for allies in a 14 player game is 3 allies (resulting in a maximum faction of 4 players). But, on the other side, the faction of 5 players remains; why should they be punished (having to reduce the faction) for other players defeat and/or retirement from the game?
  
• The game goes on, resulting in a 4v2v1v1 situation (I'm assuming that Chess and Learster do their ususal job: kick some butts!). Again, its an 8 player situation with the limitation of a maximum faction of 3 players, so it cannot evolve into (4+2)v1v1. And so on.
  
• The point here is the following: there cannot be a massive "ally fugg" in the end of a game. If a faction of 6 players was established in the first turns of a 20 players game, then yes, there can be an end figt of 6v1. But there cannot be a gathering in the endphase of a game, for the limitations imposed. These limitations of possible allies are dynamic: in a starting of a 20 players game, the limit is 5 allies (resulting in a possible faction of 6); after some turns there is a 13 player situation, so the limit becomes a maximum faction of 4 (3 possible allies per player), and so on...
  
• Is it a solution to "ally fugg"? Probably not, but it goes in the right direction... I think.

Kirjoittanut Desu, 07.06.2013 at 21:33

We need a game option that allows you to limits allies. Say, when you make a game, have a little drop box where you can select "Limit: 2" or 1. This forces people to choose their allies carefully rather than just allying everyone in the game, not fighting anyone, then rushing some lone person who just beat everyone around them with their fresh army, and with their allies. This would fix the mass allying problem, and make prominent actual games of skill. It doesn't fix everything obviously, but it would raise the skill level slowly as well.

Kirjoittanut Desu, 14.06.2013 at 09:19

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 14.06.2013 at 08:02

Example:

• Lets assume we start a 20 players game, so the maximum ally possibilities of a player is 5 (resulting in maximum factions of 6 players). In the first turns there is a faction of 6 players, another of 5, another of 4, and a faction of 3 and 2 players that play individually (Chess and Learster, for instance) [6v5v4v3v1v1].
  
• After some turns, some players have their butts kicked and some others left the game for not wanting to witness their defeat, resulting in a 5v4v3v1v1 situation. What to do? It is clear that in this situation (originally a 20 player game, but NOW a 14 player game) the group of 5 players CANNOT ally further players, nor can the group of 4 players, since the limit for allies in a 14 player game is 3 allies (resulting in a maximum faction of 4 players). But, on the other side, the faction of 5 players remains; why should they be punished (having to reduce the faction) for other players defeat and/or retirement from the game?
  
• The game goes on, resulting in a 4v2v1v1 situation (I'm assuming that Chess and Learster do their ususal job: kick some butts!). Again, its an 8 player situation with the limitation of a maximum faction of 3 players, so it cannot evolve into (4+2)v1v1. And so on.
  
• The point here is the following: there cannot be a massive "ally fugg" in the end of a game. If a faction of 6 players was established in the first turns of a 20 players game, then yes, there can be an end figt of 6v1. But there cannot be a gathering in the endphase of a game, for the limitations imposed. These limitations of possible allies are dynamic: in a starting of a 20 players game, the limit is 5 allies (resulting in a possible faction of 6); after some turns there is a 13 player situation, so the limit becomes a maximum faction of 4 (3 possible allies per player), and so on...
  
• Is it a solution to "ally fugg"? Probably not, but it goes in the right direction... I think.

By your percentages and in your own post you note that the endgame can end up in a 6v1 situation. The game will still be taken by a mass alliance. More like, it will be a race to ally the max you are allowed and then keep that number as the game goes on --with the intent on finishing the game 6 vs [lesser alliance] vs [One player]. Sure right now you're free to ally as many as you want and try to overwhelm better players, but the other alliances(or single players) can ally up and try to take on the big alliance further on as well. (The "ally or we die" situation)

A far better option would be to have the game host choose the number and go with it. Just have the default on "Allies: Normal" and have a drop down selection after the ":" and choose "Max 2" or "Max 1". The default normal is just what we have now, no limits. This doesn't need to be complicated.


My initial point still stands,

Kirjoittanut Desu, 07.06.2013 at 21:33

We need a game option that allows you to limits allies. Say, when you make a game, have a little drop box where you can select "Limit: 2" or 1. This forces people to choose their allies carefully rather than just allying everyone in the game, not fighting anyone, then rushing some lone person who just beat everyone around them with their fresh army, and with their allies. This would fix the mass allying problem, and make prominent actual games of skill. It doesn't fix everything obviously, but it would raise the skill level slowly as well.

There are other points I have noticed that haven't been discussed, but in favour of simplicity, and unless brought up by another, I don't feel they are important enough to discuss so I will settle with my points I have already stated.

• "Normal game": all the possible alliances
  
• "Limit to 1 alliance per player"
  
• "Limit to 2 alliances per player"
  
• "Limit to 3 alliances per player"

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 14.06.2013 at 08:02

3v3v1 is NOT 6v1 it is (3v3)v1. And it makes a difference; not for the (1) that was playing alone, but for the two groups of 3 players: Either they fight it out or they engage in ally end, cause a 2v4 is NOT possible. So, in the end, limiting the possible alliances makes a difference.

Kirjoittanut Columna Durruti, 14.06.2013 at 09:51

Sorry, I have not read your post with the "drop-down menu for choosing max alliances". To be honest, it is probably the best "solution"; to have (the host of a game) the option to choose from a menu "Enabled Alliances":

• "Normal game": all the possible alliances
  
• "Limit to 1 alliance per player"
  
• "Limit to 2 alliances per player"
  
• "Limit to 3 alliances per player"

But, there should always be the option (oviously with the exception of team games, where we have a completely different logic of alliances) for "Ally End". When all the players decide to "ally end", it happens.

Excelent point Desu.

Kirjoittanut Desu, 07.06.2013 at 21:33

We need a game option that allows you to limits allies. ...

Lainaa:

[Off topic] You don't need to reiterate everything that is said and put it into some format you think looks nice. Just acknowledging it is fine. This does get annoying every time you do it. Same with your "cheers, CD" thing. Your posts have your name beside it already. Thanks.

THANK YOU FOR READING MY POST, HAVE A NICE DAY
CHEERS, MY NAME IS DESU.

~Desu

(btw, I'm Desu)

Just reminding you I am Desu.

Kirjoittanut GOD 2.0, 14.06.2013 at 11:18

Some players say that even if we limit alliance's people we stilll team up by using peace what about that

Kirjoittanut GOD 2.0, 28.06.2013 at 16:22

Maybe the solution is betrayal let the ally fags ally you then later betray and kill them of course they have to sent the request

Kirjoittanut speeddemon, 28.06.2013 at 19:12

From what I have seen the game nearly always descends into A) Players form 2 big alliances and just keep invading neutrals until they collide with the enemy, form there it is just a game of brute force B) One side massively outnumbers the other and eventually the smaller players are picked off, sometimes leaving the others to backstab and fight amongst themselves, this is usually a chain reaction.

I think that their should be 'ambassador units' which have to go to a city with other ambassador units, this introduces a more tacical play, you can't just ally someone across the globe, you would have to transport and protect them all the way, this would also drain your resources, by default there should be always one at a players cap that can't be moved. If you get rejected then you lose money spent on protecting troops and the ambassador. They could be sabotaged by enemies so other players have a chance to stop alliances. I would make the ambassador require a private jet to travel in (again, money required, this does increase range though)

What do you think?

Kirjoittanut Desu, 14.06.2013 at 11:31

Kirjoittanut GOD 2.0, 14.06.2013 at 11:18

Some players say that even if we limit alliance's people we stilll team up by using peace what about that

This is true indeed.

Just have the peace option disabled in a ally-restricted game. Only have peace for the first turn(and when a player joins game, so, their first turn) and don't have it for the rest of the game.

Kirjoittanut Fockmeeard, 14.07.2013 at 20:10

I can't stand playing an EU+ game with ally fags. Especially when France, Spain, UK, and Germany ally each other to rape the eastern countries.

Kirjoittanut Cpt.Magic, 28.06.2013 at 19:46

Who said war was fair?

Kirjoittanut Wildchild92, 24.07.2013 at 13:09

Rather then limiting the number of allies one can have. Why not simply only allow one alliance (and maybe one peace) request per turn or maybe even every 2 turns. Hence an ally fag can only send one request a turn and by that time he is already fighting. Then the person he is fighting may not want to ally or he may not want to as one of them feels they are winning.

This way you have to be very careful who you pick as an ally early in the game. This could give more meaning to alliances and hopefully end Ally fagging. What do you guys think?

Kirjoittanut ezzatam, 24.07.2013 at 14:20

Ally end would be catastrophic which would tend people not to play long games. Shorter game time equates to more leavers and more dependent on opening moves.