• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

[Multiplayer Mechanic] Optional Alliances.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jobs2k

Skarg
WFTO Backer
Dec 29, 2012
390
149
370
Stevenage, England
www.minecraftforum.net
#21
To be honest, there needs to be a risk to having an alliance. If you were to break it right away then it is most likely because you see an opportunity to win on your own. This is why I presented the concept of a cool down. It would mean that breaking an alliance in order to slay your team mate will actually inform them that you are aiming to wipe them out and give them the ability to defend themselves. It would also mean that they are likely to pull forces back from any attack to mount said defence, leaving the other player in a better position to attack elsewhere. It could be used as a deception tactic as much as a backstabbing one.

Also I would assume winning in mp there are "spoils of War" and xp, which would be split if an alliance won. The reason to break it would mean you got it all to yourself.
What if winning in an alliance gave all members the amount of XP they would have got if they went alone?
What if there was actually a 5 - 10% extra for each member in a winning alliance?
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#22
I wasn't intending there to be an option to decline. It was more a case of either:

"I'm starting to unhook my core from yours, the alliance is over but atleast I gave you fair warning" or "I'm attacking you right now, screw the alliance"
In both cases player can't simply switch from one tactic to another without being screwed.

If there's a chance an ally will ditch you in the most unpleasant moment there's no reason to give him such moment. This will promote super-defensive gameplay because nobody will be sure that their back is covered. Cooldown won't matter when you are being ditched right when you need the help the most.
 

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,452
1,092
615
28
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#23
Well assuming you had decent defenses in the first place (i.e doors keeping allies out of places they shouldn't be) then having an alliance broken shouldn't be that big of an impact, especially with the betrayer being punished with mana drain as i suggested
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#24
Well assuming you had decent defenses in the first place (i.e doors keeping allies out of places they shouldn't be) then having an alliance broken shouldn't be that big of an impact, especially with the betrayer being punished with mana drain as i suggested
Spending money just to hinder betrayer ( nothing stops him from suddenly dropping his troops on your core and killing you when you look away or out of army ) when you could invest into rooms or anything else means player has to delay his progress even further, for the sake of his own safety, another point to super-defensive gameplay.

If players want to FFA, they should do so from start, and if they want a team match, it should stay a team match till the end. We don't need such dirty aspect as backstabbing in the game.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#26
Read the rules I defined, you can't just drop your units whereever you want in an allies territory, you'd have to use rally flags to move them and they can't walk through locked doors.. so lock your core away!
It's not about locking core, it's about being overrun by your own ally.

Anyways, as long as there's a separate game option for such thing, let it be - if people are ok with being backstabbed or doing the same to others, I'll stick to fair play.
 

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,452
1,092
615
28
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#29
Well presumably they'd be too busy backstabbing each other. Forming alliances then backstabbing each other fits into the logic of being an evil underlord, whether or not the devs would develop the idea I don't know but it fits from a thematic point of view.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#30
Well presumably they'd be too busy backstabbing each other. Forming alliances then backstabbing each other fits into the logic of being an evil underlord, whether or not the devs would develop the idea I don't know but it fits from a thematic point of view.
Things like that work differently when applied to a game. If a person backstabs at least once in the game, be sure that nobody will agree to ally with him in next game. Nobody wants to team-up with a guy who likes to play dirty.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#32
Well an option for the host to disabling alliance forming would be a useful feature too assuming they implemented alliances.
That's what I say, let it be a separate option.

Even then though, it will have a negative impact due to fun-killing effect it does have.
 

Ben Chandler

Impassibly Cool
WFTO Backer
Jan 23, 2013
311
87
275
#33
wht if when you broke an alliance your units were teleported back to your dungeon?, you can still surprise attack, but not from inside their dungeon.
 

AvatarIII

Huntress
WFTO Founder
Apr 20, 2012
1,713
759
570
33
Worthing, West Sussex
#34
What if winning in an alliance gave all members the amount of XP they would have got if they went alone?
What if there was actually a 5 - 10% extra for each member in a winning alliance?
Then why would anyone ever break an alliance? If you get the same or more for being in an alliance, no one would ever break them. Alliances in real life break up because there are only so many resources to go around, in this game breaking an alliance would delay the end of the game, spreading resources thinner, by also giving benefits for staying in an alliance, they might as well be permanent.
 

Jobs2k

Skarg
WFTO Backer
Dec 29, 2012
390
149
370
Stevenage, England
www.minecraftforum.net
#35
Then why would anyone ever break an alliance?[...]
hmmm... Good point.

For this idea to work I don't think it should affect player's XP, just help/hinder the winning of the game. If you're a winner, in an alliance or not, then the XP should only reflect the fact you won. Then there isn't a thought about how the current match XP might affect their overall score in a ladder.

I'm a strong believer that the net can police itself so I'm applying (possibly wrongly) the same ideology to multiplayer WFTO.
If someone continually takes the A-hole route and screws any allies then I imagine people refusing any alliance invitation from them. I also imagine games where said A-hole joins a lobby and all other players actively choose to join forces against that player and wipe them out quick. At this point they can then brake the alliance and play a 'normal' game.
Maybe I'm just naive...
 
Nov 13, 2013
634
257
380
21
#36
hmmm... Good point.

For this idea to work I don't think it should affect player's XP, just help/hinder the winning of the game. If you're a winner, in an alliance or not, then the XP should only reflect the fact you won. Then there isn't a thought about how the current match XP might affect their overall score in a ladder.

I'm a strong believer that the net can police itself so I'm applying (possibly wrongly) the same ideology to multiplayer WFTO.
If someone continually takes the A-hole route and screws any allies then I imagine people refusing any alliance invitation from them. I also imagine games where said A-hole joins a lobby and all other players actively choose to join forces against that player and wipe them out quick. At this point they can then brake the alliance and play a 'normal' game.
Maybe I'm just naive...
I think the issue with that approach is, how will someone who has never met him know he is an A-hole? Take starcraft II for example, people know there are horrible people who attack their allies, but there are so many people playing the game that there are plenty of people who don't know those people, until they are betrayed by them. Basically , if the WFTO community gets large enough then we couldn't keep track of the A-holes via community word of mouth and the devs would have to implant some in game way of punishing such people, or just tracking them.
 

Ben Chandler

Impassibly Cool
WFTO Backer
Jan 23, 2013
311
87
275
#37
just a tag, showing youre alliance history... or an evil-o-meter lol the more you break alliances, the more your evil-o-meter indicates it (kind of like the lawful good/chaotic evil system in old style rpgs.
 
Likes: Antking

Castigator

Gargoyle
WFTO Backer
Dec 30, 2012
433
237
305
Germany
#38
Personally, I think the player should be able to negotiate the term of the alliance. Bilateral diplomacy works like that too. The most basic part of the alliance is that your and your allies' forces do not attack each other, workers do not claim the land of allied underlords.
The next step up from that is sharing information about the map. This allows your allies to coordinate and build to compliment your army and allows you to know the relative strength of your ally. This allows you to make plans and crush your opponents on two different fronts and unite the forces to destroy his heart.
The two other allowances that can be made are military access, and interconnection of your AOIs. If you can trust your ally, since the other team will have the advantage if you lose yours, he can help to defend your dungeon. The terms of alliances could be individully adjustable through an interface, similar to the one in DK2. The Alliance needed to be confirmed by both players and the other points were only in effect if both players agreed on them. I liked the optics of the DK2 Interface, where each player could move one half of the agreement to the center, as it was great visual represantation of how intertwined your dungeons were.
It could look like this:
Player1 _ _ _ / _ _ _ Player2
IsAllied: YES / YES
SharedVision: YES / YES
DropAccess: NO / NO
SpellAccess: YES / NO
In this example of an alliance, player one and two would share vison and nothing else. Player one has proposed to share AOI for spells, but player two hasn't agreed yet, so neither player will cast spells on his allies' terrain. Neither player desires to drop creatures into his allies' dungeon at the moment. Logically you have to confirm the alliance first, before you can share vision and the like, so the details of the alliance are not available before you agree on allying in the first place.
On the topic of backstabbing: If you fear, that your ally might betray you, I would advise to lock your front door and deny drop and spell access.
Locked doors won't allow anyone to pass, while unlocked doors can be used by allied creatures. If an alliance is broken, both players should be notified by a system message.

Edit: A lawful/chaotic meter would solve the issue of notorious backstabbers. That's enough predictability for me. If I ally with my friends against foreign players, the alliance's stability is guaranteed until all strangers have got their butts kicked, Teamspeak would reduce the unpredictability of the people I play with even further. If one of them starts laughing maniacally, then it's backstabbing time.
 
Last edited:

Lord of Riva

The Lord
WFTO Founder
Dec 29, 2012
2,786
923
485
31
#39
Well good ideas here but im kinda split atm.

I understand Slichizards concerns about having to be in a alliance or loose. And hes right that it would always be better to be in an Alliance instead of fighting alone.

Well i suggest (i think he mentioned it as well) Options in the games lobby:

Fixed Teams: yes/No
Allied win: yes/No

we have seen this in numerous RTS games so why not here?
Well why not make it a game mode: Backstabbing? its Free for all with Alliances on the fly and last Man standing, sounds awesome to me :p

I like Castigators Ideas but i think they are to elaborate things like this work in games like Civ5 but not in an RTS or DMG like WFTO.

I like where this idea is going ;)

Adding into gameplay/Mechanics Section
 

Ben Chandler

Impassibly Cool
WFTO Backer
Jan 23, 2013
311
87
275
#40
i think it'd be cool to have a backstabbing multiplayer mode... basically hunger games! choose your allies, eliminate biggest threat, try and find the weaknesses of those you're working with... EXPOSE & EXPLOIT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom