The best Nerf to Allyfagging

Behold, I present to you this idea:

Shared SP pot between allies.

-That means if you ally someone that did nothing the whole game, he will get half of your SP you earned. If you have 10 allies who did nothing, and you did most of the work, be prepared to split your SP 10 ways.

That actually sounds smart, interesting and fair at the same time... I'm in!!

So simple

No

He could then just kill those guys and get all SP.

Much better solution is to kill off certain amount of SP (in % ofc) every time someone makes an alliance, regardless if they break it later or not.

作者： Evic, 08.03.2016 at 17:02

No

He could then just kill those guys and get all SP.

Much better solution is to kill off certain amount of SP (in % ofc) every time someone makes an alliance, regardless if they break it later or not.

nope. I support his Idea. Even if the guy did backstab he would be enemylisted.

The % should be based on number of turns in the alliance (so it doesn't break allying out at the end of a game).

Also, if you break alliance and kill everyone, they won't get their % but you shouldn't either - it's gone for good.

Cthulhu launching #saveAW2016 campaign!

support

Support
Finally a plausible solution to allyfagging!

I like it. Support. Something good for once



Are we getting the map update in 2090?

作者： Skittzophrenic, 08.03.2016 at 23:13

I like it. Support. Something good for once



Are we getting the map update in 2090?

Na. It'll just end up delayed till 2091

I guess with this solution, people will still allyfag but will backstab afterwards... sounds like creating a new problem rather than solving one.
How about limiting alliances as a proportion of total players? 1 ally max for up to 6 players, 2 max up to 10 players. And remove entirely the peace thingy (which is called peace fagging). Dont u hate it when people ally 3 guys, peace everyone else but you, only because u refused the request....

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:19

I guess with this solution, people will still allyfag but will backstab afterwards... sounds like creating a new problem rather than solving one.
How about limiting alliances as a proportion of total players? 1 ally max for up to 6 players, 2 max up to 10 players. And remove entirely the peace thingy (which is called peace fagging). Dont u hate it when people ally 3 guys, peace everyone else but you, only because u refused the request....

Not really. It'll still cut down on allyfags since most people won't want to share their SP and will keep the alliances to a minimum.
Although, this'll kill off RP where everyone has upwards of 4 alliances.
The peacefagging can't be helped, although it can be replaced with Non-Aggression Pacts which expire after a certain predetermined amount of time, which will require renewals...unlikely though.

-10% or -20% income per ally is the perfect nerf, it would support people trying to kill everyone on their own and it would make the most allies realistically possible around 3-5 allies. yet, having 1-2 allies who might be friends wont hurt you too much

rimuv peace though

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:31

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:19

Although, this'll kill off RP where everyone has upwards of 4 alliances.

That, my friend, is called a win-win situation

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:33

That, my friend, is called a win-win situation

look, RP players make up like 40% of the AW players, wich is shitty, but would make it even worse if we just made them all leave :S

作者： Tirpitz406, 09.03.2016 at 01:32

-10% or -20% income per ally is the perfect nerf, it would support people trying to kill everyone on their own and it would make the most allies realistically possible around 3-5 allies.

rimuv peace though

It would just give rise to a lot more secret alliances and peace fagging. 10% is too much. Let alone 20%. Also, noobs are the ones who allyfag the most and they have no idea of the true value of even a little income meaning they'd allyfag anyways. SP on the other hand, that's something they care about.

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:33

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:31

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:19

Although, this'll kill off RP where everyone has upwards of 4 alliances.

That, my friend, is called a win-win situation

Hahaha

作者： Tirpitz406, 09.03.2016 at 01:35

作者： Kraigg, 09.03.2016 at 01:33

That, my friend, is called a win-win situation

look, RP players make up like 40% of the AW players, wich is shitty, but would make it even worse if we just made them all leave :S

40% of atWar players??
Why the hell do RP games fail so much then?

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:35

It would just give rise to a lot more secret alliances and peace fagging. 10% is too much. Let alone 20%. Also, noobs are the ones who allyfag the most and they have no idea of the true value of even a little income meaning they'd allyfag anyways. SP on the other hand, that's something they care about.

noone cares if 3 rank 4's ally, when i was rank 6, i probably could've beaten that, they usally are too retarded to even wall. (not you, you're in a clan and probably not that bad)

but it would make these rank 4's unable to spam as many tanks and make each of them weaker and sooner or later die. after one or two games of allyfagging, they should realize what 40% of your income is, i mean, it obviously means 40% of your tank-spam-capacities

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:38

40% of atWar players??
Why the hell do RP games fail so much then?

i have no clue, but when i check the lobby, there might be 2 3v3s, 2 duels, a few scenarios with some players, a few world games with some players lets say, 15games*6players=90

and 3-4 RP games with 15-20 players in each of them 4*15=60

作者： Tirpitz406, 09.03.2016 at 01:39

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:35

It would just give rise to a lot more secret alliances and peace fagging. 10% is too much. Let alone 20%. Also, noobs are the ones who allyfag the most and they have no idea of the true value of even a little income meaning they'd allyfag anyways. SP on the other hand, that's something they care about.

noone cares if 3 rank 4's ally, when i was rank 6, i probably could've beaten that, they usally are too retarded to even wall. (not you, you're in a clan and probably not that bad)

but it would make these rank 4's unable to spam as many tanks and make each of them weaker and sooner or later die. after one or two games of allyfagging, they should realize what 40% of your income is, i mean, it obviously means 40% of your tank-spam-capacities

It used to be true though. I also used to not wall much except my capital. Then I saw Learster's MoS Demonstration Guide...Now apparently, I wall too much
I was never one for tank or even bomber spams though. I prefer infantry. 6 defense for 70 cost is OP.

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:42

It used to be true though. I also used to not wall much except my capital. Then I saw Learster's MoS Demonstration Guide...Now apparently, I wall too much
I was never one for tank or even bomber spams though. I prefer infantry. 6 defense for 70 cost is OP.

have you ever played a SM ukraine with really good funds? if no, i dont blame you, but if you ever play a ukraine with decent funds, that is what spamming bombers as china feels like. and also, even with infantry, you need to attack, right? thats something i use tanks for on occasions , even as PD, even in cw's

also, AT range is incredible

作者： Tirpitz406, 09.03.2016 at 01:47

作者： Darth., 09.03.2016 at 01:42

It used to be true though. I also used to not wall much except my capital. Then I saw Learster's MoS Demonstration Guide...Now apparently, I wall too much
I was never one for tank or even bomber spams though. I prefer infantry. 6 defense for 70 cost is OP.

have you ever played a SM ukraine with really good funds? if no, i dont blame you, but if you ever play a ukraine with decent funds, that is what spamming bombers as china feels like. and also, even with infantry, you need to attack, right? thats something i use tanks for on occasions , even as PD, even in cw's

I haven't bought SM yet. I went For GW, and MoS instead. SM is next on the list. I'm not that big a fan of playing as Ukraine. I only take it if I have no choice (my last pick).
Even I use tanks and bombers, but that's mostly when I need that extra range. 2 infantry for 140 cost is more effective than 1 tank at 120 cost. Bombers are middle and late game when my economy is strong, or for breaking walls and wall-fucks. Spamming them however, I tend to not do that. I'm more likely to spam bombers than tanks. RA might show as my favourite strategy, but that was when I was a bigger noob who didn't know how to play, and used infantry attacks with RA
Now I prefer MoS, PD, and am experimenting with GW.

作者： Cthulhu, 08.03.2016 at 16:47

Behold, I present to you this idea:

Shared SP pot between allies.

-That means if you ally someone that did nothing the whole game, he will get half of your SP you earned. If you have 10 allies who did nothing, and you did most of the work, be prepared to split your SP 10 ways.

I mean, it makes sense, we already split the half we get from losing sides, why not split all of it. It also helps people in scenarios that aren't in combat roles gain SP. the bank for UN/GoT political, etc

Define "did nothing all game" , and how do you tell a script what that is..

i like civecnavi's thought ": Much better solution is to kill off certain amount of SP (in % ofc) every time someone makes an alliance, regardless if they break it later or not.
if you got help from allys , reduce sp.

Sharing an SP pool between allies is going to be very difficult, because alliance networks can be insanely complicated. Player A is allied with B, C and E, player B is allied with A and C, player C is allied with A, B and D - you get the idea. All the sharing needs to somehow happen simultaneously, otherwise it would be a mess. Also, it might create some unforeseen side effects.

How about simply losing a small amount of your final SP for every ally for every turn? Let's say 1% of you SP per ally per turn? Or these SP can go your allies after everything's been calculated.

作者： Ivan, 09.03.2016 at 03:18

Sharing an SP pool between allies is going to be very difficult, because alliance networks can be insanely complicated. Player A is allied with B, C and E, player B is allied with A and C, player C is allied with A, B and D - you get the idea. All the sharing needs to somehow happen simultaneously, otherwise it would be a mess. Also, it might create some unforeseen side effects.

How about simply losing a small amount of your final SP for every ally for every turn? Let's say 1% of you SP per ally per turn? Or these SP can go your allies after everything's been calculated.

Ivan, no one gets the whole pot of SP until the game has actually ended, which means either there would have to be 1 winner who is victorious, or an allied group of 2+ who are victorious. So Even if A is allied with B, and C is allied with E, but E is allied with B also, But A and B are the winners, the pot will be split between A and B no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

GUI enhancement solution:
Instead of how much SP you win by a) betraying and twisting a knife in the heart of your enemies and b) by winning in a team, show other options: How much more you win if you are kind and not an ally-fag. Ex. If you win (4 ppl - 3 allies against one unlucky bastard) you get Your SP - Alliance SP (as normal). If you help the bastard instead of capping him: you are better off, the game lasts less time, you get more SP.

The use of negs: You are 63% more likely to win a friend and enjoy the game more if you ....

Algorithm option:
Anti-backstab: a) Progressive increase in total SP gained based on the length of the alliance. Reward to ally end = or > solo end. Ex. total SP + 0.25%*alliance length.

Anti-ally: If (n>m and game is not a team game) then total SP gain = SP * 1/(n-m) (n = attacker alliances, m = defender alliances)

Anti-frustration: Ally end bonus if (n>m) and n/m > 0.5

(could promote backstabbing an opponent to get into an ally with the enemy ally )

* If you report misbehaviour you get a reward based on the offender's rank (could be a interesting idea)

作者： PleaseMe, 09.03.2016 at 03:59

作者： Ivan, 09.03.2016 at 03:18

Sharing an SP pool between allies is going to be very difficult, because alliance networks can be insanely complicated. Player A is allied with B, C and E, player B is allied with A and C, player C is allied with A, B and D - you get the idea. All the sharing needs to somehow happen simultaneously, otherwise it would be a mess. Also, it might create some unforeseen side effects.

How about simply losing a small amount of your final SP for every ally for every turn? Let's say 1% of you SP per ally per turn? Or these SP can go your allies after everything's been calculated.

Ivan, no one gets the whole pot of SP until the game has actually ended, which means either there would have to be 1 winner who is victorious, or an allied group of 2+ who are victorious. So Even if A is allied with B, and C is allied with E, but E is allied with B also, But A and B are the winners, the pot will be split between A and B no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct, but it's already the way things work now. I got the impression Cthulhu was suggesting sharing the SP pool with all the players you allied during the game, even those who ended up losing. Or not?

作者： Ivan, 09.03.2016 at 04:26

作者： PleaseMe, 09.03.2016 at 03:59

作者： Ivan, 09.03.2016 at 03:18

Sharing an SP pool between allies is going to be very difficult, because alliance networks can be insanely complicated. Player A is allied with B, C and E, player B is allied with A and C, player C is allied with A, B and D - you get the idea. All the sharing needs to somehow happen simultaneously, otherwise it would be a mess. Also, it might create some unforeseen side effects.

How about simply losing a small amount of your final SP for every ally for every turn? Let's say 1% of you SP per ally per turn? Or these SP can go your allies after everything's been calculated.

Ivan, no one gets the whole pot of SP until the game has actually ended, which means either there would have to be 1 winner who is victorious, or an allied group of 2+ who are victorious. So Even if A is allied with B, and C is allied with E, but E is allied with B also, But A and B are the winners, the pot will be split between A and B no matter what. Please correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct, but it's already the way things work now. I got the impression Cthulhu was suggesting sharing the SP pool with all the players you allied during the game, even those who ended up losing. Or not?

It might to complicated to do the way you were talking about. I was thinking about the very end. Where there is usually 1 group of winners. I was suggesting instead of having individual SP as the way things work now, it joins the "pot" at the end and gets distributed with amongst the winner evenly.