End to Ally Whoring - Idea

Ally whoring ruins the balance of the game, it allows those with less understanding of the game to defeat those who spend time actually learning the intricacies of the game.

Personally, I don't like this as it takes the strategy out of the game.

Can we please put a simple limitation on allying in the game where you cannot ally more than 33% of the current amount of players? And Round down on fractions.


in a 4 player game you can have only 1 ally
if 6 players are in the game, the most you could ally would be 2 players
in an 8 player would also be 2 (2.6 rounded down)
9 would be 3
12 = 4
15 = 5

Fucking shit i got killed by a god damn ally who apperantly thought it would be nice since i had least land and units thats why i hate ally whoring cause they ally everybody then they see the weakest player and attack them SOB :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::cool:

Sounds dumb, just get better at the game! (plus allying is the only thing that can help new players, honestly.)

It is annoying but that is no viable solution, I've just stamped the allyfags and inform everyone beforehand and kill them first, because allyfagging means no help vs your enemies and nobody wants a passive ally.

Fruit, noobs can still ally, they just cant ally everyone. Please look at the numbers

2 out of 4 in a 4 player game, why do you need better odds than that? the other option would be a 3 vs 1... why should that be allowed?

next example

3 out of 6 players, half the players means the other half can ally and you can have a decent fight. 3 vs 3

3 out of 8, making 3 vs 3 vs 2 , still pretty balanced

Honestly I can only see this making the game better, as it will be more Team focused, not to mention the side effect of people gaining more SP this way.

Butthurt...

Problem is as old as this game.
There seem to be 2 equal groups pro/contra.
Contra's always telling, that there is a "Team game" option, for example.
But, as time goes, I did realize, that current players don't bother to go throught options, they just use "quick start" .
After that, if there is 1 person, who will try to ally all except mb 1, 75% of players will accept, coz "Yes" is more fun, than "No".

So I am, again, supporting this, but I think nothing will change.

Since I always reject requests from these spammers I've always been the one who is playin a 1vs3,4,5 and even 7 (!).

It's just that we have special skill "Mod-Hate"
Sometimes my ally's benefit from it, while everyone one map trying to kill me, my ally easily kill 'em 1 by 1, for some reason I can hold on quite a while sometimes

But yes, I do support 33% proposition with some exlusions, such as:
Game with 3 players will allow to be 1 vs. 2
Game with 5 1 vs. 2 vs. 2.... and so on.
It would be so cool, to actually think, do you want a ally with "ally spammer" or you actually want to look into this....

I wouldn't limit the alliances because there are just too many instances in the game that need to be examined seperately, though I'd curb the SP gain of people with many alliances or something.

Also there are games where the victor of SP victory would want his allies to get some too, I think SP victory shoulg go to the allied party, not just one person. If someone says you want it yourself then be a jew and cancel alliances on turn 49.

Sounds to me like your trying to break the game even more- the game isn't about whos against who, its about who has a better strategy. Take for instance ww1, many thought the central powers could win (I'm reading a book from 1917 called "The World war" by Arthur G. so thats how I found that out) but in the end they lost horribly. Or take for instance aristosseur v Ironail debate- aristo won, everyone thougt iron would. Its all strategy, you can easily defeat ally whores by any means. A few ideas that work- making one of their allys come to your side by negotiation, true guerrila warfare (not the strat, but taking out their caps with marines while they march to yours to frighten them to come back etc.) or just plain wit. Most people never even notice a foes secondary citys- they ussually just head for the cap. But in fact if you have a good force of stealth you can take every single one of their singular citys so the reinforcement week they cant make jack shit- then you proceed to use your funds and bombard them with many offensive units until they crumble. There are so many ways to defeat allys, so I dont see why your complaining, just train more and make strategys for every single possible move.

Strategy? Ally whoring removes strategy from the game. That's my entire point. Your saying ally whoring ADDS strategy? That shit you posted about secondary cities is so basic, it's laughable, any decent players has a cap that is within reach of MANY countries, or reinf points from other countries, they can easily retake their cap by using units from the numerous other cities nearby. not to mention if they have allies and you don't then they will likely have way more forces with which to retake an allies cap, your example has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The fact is, their is no time that allying more than 33% of the players is necessary, or would I ever call this STRATEGY, its pure and simple GANG BANGING, or Ganking, Bullying, or whatever you want to call it, it is not a damn strategy, it requires no strategy but spamming units, and outnumbering your opponent, so that individual skill plays NO importance.

start any game right now, you vs 3 players that actually know how to play (ie they make defense lines, use viable strats like GW, PD , IF, SM, and know how to expand properly) and they are all allied against you from the start. I want to see you make a "strategy" that allows you to win.

Fact is, they can out expand you, they outnumber you, and they can defend each other as well, your chances are almost nothing. And don't provide me the scenario of a pro, vs 3 noobs, that is not a valid scenario. Yeah I can beat 3 players who don't build defense lines, don't expand quickly enough, or send their tanks out unprotected in the open, but this is the exception not the rule.

with my change the only possible scenarios would be, all for themselves, 2 vs 1 vs 1, or 2 vs 2, a much better balanced distribution of players.

3 vs 1 the SP gains would also be crap, while with the rule i propose, it would be much more for every party.

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 12:19

Strategy? Ally whoring removes strategy from the game. That's my entire point. Your saying ally whoring ADDS strategy? That shit you posted about secondary cities is so basic, it's laughable, any decent players has a cap that is within reach of MANY countries, or reinf points from other countries, they can easily retake their cap by using units from the numerous other cities nearby. not to mention if they have allies and you don't then they will likely have way more forces with which to retake an allies cap, your example has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The fact is, their is no time that allying more than 33% of the players is necessary, or would I ever call this STRATEGY, its pure and simple GANG BANGING, or Ganking, Bullying, or whatever you want to call it, it is not a damn strategy, it requires no strategy but spamming units, and outnumbering your opponent, so that individual skill plays NO importance.

start any game right now, you vs 3 players that actually know how to play (ie they make defense lines, use viable strats like GW, PD , IF, SM, and know how to expand properly) and they are all allied against you from the start. I want to see you make a "strategy" that allows you to win.

Fact is, they can out expand you, they outnumber you, and they can defend each other as well, your chances are almost nothing. And don't provide me the scenario of a pro, vs 3 noobs, that is not a valid scenario. Yeah I can beat 3 players who don't build defense lines, don't expand quickly enough, or send their tanks out unprotected in the open, but this is the exception not the rule.

with my change the only possible scenarios would be, all for themselves, 2 vs 1 vs 1, or 2 vs 2, a much better balanced distribution of players.

3 vs 1 the SP gains would also be crap, while with the rule i propose, it would be much more for every party.

There you go again, whining. All the great games in history are ruined when people dont think something is fair, the only game that wasnt that I can think of is GO, and GO is the basis for all strategy. If you dont enjoy problem solving and strategical warfare please leave the premises and go play risk or something, because bitching and moaining won't solve anything.

You again just spouting shit and trying to personally attack me. You make a post with no facts, points, proof, reasoning, or anything that requires some actual thought, go troll somewhere else please. Thanks

Also your example of GO has no relevance as that is a game for 2 people only and is perfectly balanced because of it's simplicity. But keep pulling more shit from your ass please.

Ok, I just noticed a problem: what if the players are tired and want to end the game by global alliance?

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 12:34

You again just spouting shit and trying to personally attack me. You make a post with no facts, points, proof, reasoning, or anything that requires some actual thought, go troll somewhere else please. Thanks

Also your example of GO has no relevance as that is a game for 2 people only and is perfectly balanced because of it's simplicity. But keep pulling more shit from your ass please.

Like ive said, there are so many ways to beat allys whores. One I forgot to mention is that you can simply not allow alliances in your game. /facepalm

I don't have a premium account or every game i created would be no alliance.

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 13:59

I don't have a premium account or every game i created would be no alliance.

Then buy premium, problem solved.

@ Pinheiro - Allied wins is easily fixed, you have a button called Peace Treaty, or whatever you want to call it, Draw Match, if everyone clicks it, game ends in a draw, it will no longer have anything to do with the Allying function.


@Trolldevoir
Please stop derailing my post, it's not about account features on regular accounts, its about ally whoring, to which you have failed to provide any successful counter argument.

I personally do not like making purchases over the internet, the phone / sms option is great but it does not let you permanently purchase options, only temporarily, if this were not the case I would make a purchase with this option. However if you look at how much hacking is going on in the online transaction world, you would be smart to not make any purchases over the internet.

That being said, I would appreciate if you would go away , permanently... don't you have something emo to do?







Thanks

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 14:24

words

lol, "trolldevoir"? The butthurt I sense in you.
Why are you paranoid over internet shopping? Ive bought stuff off of amazon through paypal and nothings happened, same with ebay and whatnot, even ask Solstrand, he bought stuff off of here and hes fine.

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 14:24

@ Pinheiro - Allied wins is easily fixed, you have a button called Peace Treaty, or whatever you want to call it, Draw Match, if everyone clicks it, game ends in a draw, it will no longer have anything to do with the Allying function.

It's a good solution.

Now, another doubt (I'm just making these questions because I think it's a good proposal):

Would it apply to peace requests also, if so, how would it work?

I think it should apply the same to peace.

The main problem is if you give some players the power to unbalance the game in their favor, they will take this opportunity to win any way possible, even if it takes no skill or is without challenge. Other players however prefer a challenge where one side barely wins after a very hard fought battle (This is what i prefer because i feel i have EARNED the win using my superior skill/strategy).

So, what we have here is a system that does not protect the players who wish to play balanced games where both sides have an equal chance to win.

I know that no system is perfect, and that even in an game where no one allies, people can just choose to not attack each other BUT you can never fully trust that a non-ally will not attack you, so you HAVE to think about defense to some extent. In a game where you are allied to 4 or 5 players all near you, you can forget defense almost entirely, and focus all your units to being very aggressive. Where the players who don't have so much ally support cannot do this, this is mainly where the un-balance comes into play.

because players can choose the make the game unbalanced if you let them, this rule must be implemented to force the balance.


other that or give more game options to non premium accounts, cause as is I cannot create team games, nor create non alliance games, both options that would solve my problem. Or give me a way to buy permanent account upgrades by Phone / SMS.



Thanks

Általa írva the99percent, 05.07.2011 at 16:54

Or give me a way to buy permanent account upgrades by Phone / SMS.

This is an easier option.

Still, even if implemented, this only should apply as another option. Sometimes I just enjoy playing "world vs me" mode and it's quite fun.

But then something else comes to my mind: if it's optional, we already have the possibility to a) Set game to unable alliances or b) Make a team match.

So I really don't know. I think we might listen to other player's view.

This thread is foolish, allying is a big part of the game. If you happen to be fighting 3-5(considering you all say they won't help their ally, It's probably more like 2-3) there should be no problem. If you don't want to fight this many people, simply get some allies yourself...alliances are kind of made to help you in fighting!

but really this whole thread is based on pure butthurt and the argument is almost as sound as "People shouldn't be allowed to use so many marines as GW!"

It's part of the game, while it may be unfair in some games - overall it's fair and is a fine part of this game.

the biggest reason I hate this idea is because I know for a fact new players need to ally; They will die far too quick. We're talking about people who will move all their units out of their cities and attack something..they need help to get sp and if you don't want to help them simply kill them. honestly, only people who spam allies are new players with no way to win other than allying..they are easy to beat.
(P.S if you try to say they don't need people to help them, they have no good strategies and no upgrades...on top of this they are F2P so they are not used to player world games where allyfagging is most prominent). Though, if someone of high rank allyfags you're completely allowed to make an alliance with people just to crush him. (and latejoin/rejoin if you fail)


Limiting alliances is a dumb idea. (plus I bet it is semi hard to code, and they have much better s to think about)

Yeah, what Fruit said. Alliance spamming among lower-ranks is fine, possible encouraged. What makes me facepalm and rage and go all butthert is when two rank 7s or two rank 8s ally within the first few weeks. I can just see what's going through their heads "oh shit oh shit I'm close to a guy who has the same rank as me oh shit he'll wipe his arse with me and people will realise how much of a fraud I am and how shit I really am at this game and that I only got to this rank by scratching my arse oh shit ok ok I'll send him an alliance fuck yes he accepted hahahaha bitches we're gonna lawnmower your faces hahahaha".


Cowards.

Good idea but, as already said, new players would very hardly manage to win a game so most of them would get frustrated and quit. On the other hand it would bring more competition and dynamic, it would bring much more co-operation.
Maybe if you meet half way, make that in game options a creator can choose how many alliances is possible (1,2,3...), i am nit a programmer but i think it wouldn't be so hard to implement, and everyone is happy.

Általa írva BASED Ironail, 06.07.2011 at 03:09

Yeah, what Fruit said. Alliance spamming among lower-ranks is fine, possible encouraged. What makes me facepalm and rage and go all butthert is when two rank 7s or two rank 8s ally within the first few weeks. I can just see what's going through their heads "oh shit oh shit I'm close to a guy who has the same rank as me oh shit he'll wipe his arse with me and people will realise how much of a fraud I am and how shit I really am at this game and that I only got to this rank by scratching my arse oh shit ok ok I'll send him an alliance fuck yes he accepted hahahaha bitches we're gonna lawnmower your faces hahahaha".


Cowards.

I always ally aristo in eurasia games rororororo

Hmmm,

On one side you make a good point, the game will be unfair ( If we say that everyone has equal skill ) when one team has more players than another. ( If, of course the player that's on his own doesn't own more land than the others )

Apart from that, even though I slightly agree with limiting this I think it will do no good. Mostly in higher ranked games you will notice that when someone has 60% of the ground the rest of the players that still have 40% ground left ally together. With your system, this would be impossible. The only way to solve that is to put numerous checks on the "limit". However I think this might get quite hard to do as not only the amount of land you own or the amount of units you have will determine who will win. Skill is the main factor and a "Rank" does not always tell you if one is good or not. The only thing it does tell is that the player has played before and has at least some experience.



I disagree about the fact that only beginners do this, more experienced players do this also. What more experienced players do most is ally with a friend of theirs (Or someone in their coalition) to have a clear advantage. Because, what is more frightening than to see 2 high ranked players which you know have good skill are allied together?

Well, for me it makes me smile and slightly nervous and as I can see that I am in a disadvantage I play twice as good to be able to get the battle to my favour.

Apart from that, I usually decline requests unless the player that wants to ally me has no other allies which I wish to destroy or when the player that does want to ally me PMs me first.

You're not a high-level player though Fruit.



ror