The best Nerf to Allyfagging

Written by Cthulhu, 09.03.2016 at 05:14

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.

Ah, I see. That's pretty easy to arrange indeed.

Cthulhu always coming up with great ideas which actually can be implemented and will stop ally fags

Written by 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.

No. Please. Absolutely not.

There are always players who ally everyone and do nothing all game. I often find myself forced to ally these players, even though they are so thoroughly unhelpful and noobish, because not allying one of these means I'll be their sole enemy, whereas that player won't be mine (i.e. that player will throw all units against me, whereas I need to reserve units to fight everyone else). Then at the end, I can't kill them either, because I have no units after fighting for 10+ turns and that player has all his auto-produced infantry from turn 1.

This will mean I have to give up even more SP to leeches like those.

You are, in short, arguing that in any group of winning players, the game should take SP from players who actually pulled the weight of the alliance and give it to players who didn't do anything except ally everyone else and stack infantries all game. That sounds to me like an extraordinarily bad idea.

Written by International, 09.03.2016 at 07:34

You are, in short, arguing that in any group of winning players, the game should take SP from players who actually pulled the weight of the alliance and give it to players who didn't do anything except ally everyone else and stack infantries all game. That sounds to me like an extraordinarily bad idea.

These kind of people shouldn't get any alliance if others actually mind about the sp they will earn.

Maybe the penalty shouldn't be an SP pot divided among allies.
Anywhere between 1 and 5% of your total SP deducted for every alliance you make would be plausible, but I feel that every turn, the amount of SP earned by you on that turn (say 10) is reduced by a specific percent. 10% for 1 ally. 20% for 2 ally etc.
Example: if I have 3 allies and I have already 100 SP on turn 6. If I earned 30 SP on turn 7, the amount of SP would be reduced by 30% (10 for each ally). That 30% percent would be taken not from my 100 SP but from the 30 SP I earned that turn. Thus 9 SP (30x30/100=9) would be deducted from 30 SP adding 21 SP to 100 SP = 121.
Doesn't sound like a lot, but as the turns go by, the difference between what you earned, and what you could have earned, will just get bigger.
And since most allyfags are noobs who play long world 50k maps, the difference will be tremendous.
Tell me what you think. Plausible? Or stupid?

Still won't stop ally faging. People who care about sp won't ally fag anyway.

Written by minusSeven, 09.03.2016 at 12:32

Still won't stop ally faging. People who care about sp won't ally fag anyway.

Allyfags are those who are scared of, and don't want to, lose. AKA Noobs. They haven't played the game long enough to know that the more you fight and the less you ally, the more SP you get. They will know about this SP loss though. An aggressive internal ad campaign and maybe a mention in the tutorial (which seriously needs to be revamped btw) and Allyfags will at least reduce in number if not disappear.

This is not cool, it destroys the game for players that actually have only 1 ally in a world war game, while players that don't care about SP will just ally regardless. This is just adding more restrictions to a game that already has enough. Adding this in would ruin playing with friends, since I would rather 2 v 3 with a friend than be worried about not getting enough SP and ultimately lose working alone. Players also ally to end games it people have to leave, or to show curtsy if it is approaching Turn 50. This would only lead a less fun playing experience. In case it wasn't clear, please do not implement this.

Counter Proposal
Maybe only do this if players are in an ally of 2 or more? Since an ally of 1 and 1 is not really ally fag but strategy.

I know people must think I'm an ally fag due to what I'm saying, but I try to keep my ally goal to 0, or 1. If I must 2 (in some occasions).

Just to be honest, won't this effect the 3v3 community pretty hard? I for one don't care about the SP since I leave all my games, but alot of people in 3v3 community care about SP and ranks. I remember 3v3 being a teamgame which basically means allies, so I guess this will badly effect the 3v3 community?


That said, I think this wont help the problem of allyfagging at all, only the problem of SP-farming, and like minusseven said above, this wont stop allyfagging since most of them dont even care about SP but just dont want to get killed by someone who they think is better than them in 1v1 or at certain areas. I see alot of people complaining about allyfaggs and supporting this suggestion, yet it was those people that are allyfagging when a worldgame or euroasia game has been made once in a while? I mean the problem lays with the people who can't play games by theirself and need people to allyfag, this is mostly the fault of scenarios like i've said in previous posts, here I quote

''This is what happends when you allow people to make maps where crazy amount of SP and units are given away, where you create scenario's where people don't even have to learn how to build their army and economize in good and hard times. No, just serve it on a plate for them. ''

Stop changing the game around the players, change the players.

Written by Waffel, 09.03.2016 at 15:09

Just to be honest, won't this effect the 3v3 community pretty hard? I for one don't care about the SP since I leave all my games, but alot of people in 3v3 community care about SP and ranks. I remember 3v3 being a teamgame which basically means allies, so I guess this will badly effect the 3v3 community?

I want to like your new signature... Much lol

What about Scripted Scenario games though

Think of WW2 and WW1

Written by Ghostface, 09.03.2016 at 06:36

Cthulhu always coming up with great ideas which actually can be implemented and will stop ally fags

Sorry. I dont think anything can stop the low levels from ally fagging against high levels.

Written by OKELEUK, 09.03.2016 at 16:41

What about Scripted Scenario games though

Think of WW2 and WW1

Do you know how does it feel to fund Pussia hard and at the end, the guy win more SP than you?

I support this proposal.

Written by O T, 09.03.2016 at 18:32

Written by Ghostface, 09.03.2016 at 06:36

Cthulhu always coming up with great ideas which actually can be implemented and will stop ally fags

Sorry. I dont think anything can stop the low levels from ally fagging against high levels.

What about high levels allyfagging against low levels??

Full support for this plan. Team games and scenarios exist for those that want many allies.

Written by RaulPB, 09.03.2016 at 09:03

These kind of people shouldn't get any alliance if others actually mind about the sp they will earn.

Theoretically, you would be correct. If the game is composed of rational and self-interested actors, those players only seeking to leech off other players would not succeed in allying anyone.

Unfortunately, mid-rank AtWar players are very far from rational and self-interested, and even if they were, there isn't enough time in 3-minute games for players to figure out which alliances are going to be unhelpful.

In my experience, unless the game has many skilled players who don't like signing a bunch of alliances, those players can and often do manage to ally everyone except one or two bordering players.

Written by International, 10.03.2016 at 04:53

Theoretically, you would be correct. If the game is composed of rational and self-interested actors, those players only seeking to leech off other players would not succeed in allying anyone.

Then, which would be the alternative? Implementing a percentage decrease on the sp pool from the allies (proportional to the number of allies) to try dissuade them? Even dumb players would notice that...

Written by RaulPB, 10.03.2016 at 05:36

Then, which would be the alternative? Implementing a percentage decrease on the sp pool from the allies (proportional to the number of allies) to try dissuade them? Even dumb players would notice that...

Any reasonable alternative that doesn't increase the SP gain of passive players who do nothing all game would be better than this.

Written by International, 10.03.2016 at 05:56

Any reasonable alternative that doesn't increase the SP gain of passive players who do nothing all game would be better than this.

How do you "teach" a program to differentiate those who have been passive of those who haven't?

Written by RaulPB, 10.03.2016 at 06:00

Written by International, 10.03.2016 at 05:56

Any reasonable alternative that doesn't increase the SP gain of passive players who do nothing all game would be better than this.

How do you "teach" a program to differentiate those who have been passive of those who haven't?

By SP gain.

It would be possible to incentivise players, even those who are quite secure in their victory, to fight further by distributing the half of the losing players' SP that is distributed to the winning players in proportion to the SP that the winning players have earned themselves in the game.

In other words, relative to the current system, take SP away from those players who do nothing and give it to the players who pulled the weight of the alliance.

In even shorter words, I propose what is almost the exact opposite of what is being proposed here.

Written by International, 10.03.2016 at 06:02

By SP gain.
It would be possible to incentivise players, even those who are quite secure in their victory, to fight further by distributing the half of the losing players' SP that is distributed to the winning players in proportion to the SP that the winning players have earned themselves in the game.
In other words, relative to the current system, take SP away from those players who do nothing and give it to the players who pulled the weight of the alliance.
In even shorter words, I propose what is almost the exact opposite of what is being proposed here.

By SP gain? And how do you decide whether one has done more than another player simply by sp? Is there an exact minimum SP earned per game which tells you how much a player has done? I find it a bit difficult to decide whether someone has done nothing simply cause of the SP (he might not have won the same amount as his ally due to distance, money, less reinf, less chances of battle, rage quit from his neighbours, etc)

Written by RaulPB, 10.03.2016 at 06:06

Written by International, 10.03.2016 at 06:02

By SP gain.

By SP gain? And how do you decide whether one has done more than another player simply by sp?

pfff I hate Prussia in WW1... that guy get more than 2x our SP yet the guy only beg for money in ally chat. I'd rather not fund and let him die than giving him my money so he can get more SP based on my resources.

Written by SQUARED, 10.03.2016 at 13:42

The only reason Prussia needs money is to kill Russia quick so he can send help to the western front. Why should WG get SP for doing nothing but sitting in trenches all game?

Why should Austria, who have to fight 4 people at the same time get less SP than Prussia?

Makes no sense for me.

Written by SQUARED, 10.03.2016 at 13:42

By your statements that you hate autistic scenarios and broken roles in the other thread, you should also know that any role which needs 100k fund and that any role which has 100k money (such as WG) are broken and dumb, making the scenario pretty autistic. Prussia fights big stacks of weak units (conscripts) therefore it's an easy SP farm, meanwhile Austria is fighting at least 4 players and their units are trenches, machine guns, artillery, tanks, infantries and some conscripts.

Written by SQUARED, 11.03.2016 at 07:59

Written by Guest, 11.03.2016 at 00:30

Written by SQUARED, 10.03.2016 at 13:42

By your statements that you hate autistic scenarios and broken roles in the other thread, you should also know that any role which needs 100k fund and that any role which has 100k money (such as WG) are broken and dumb, making the scenario pretty autistic. Prussia fights big stacks of weak units (conscripts) therefore it's an easy SP farm, meanwhile Austria is fighting at least 4 players and their units are trenches, machine guns, artillery, tanks, infantries and some conscripts.

I agree. Although its not 100k, more like 1k per turn.

Austria does usually get the 2nd most SP in the game, provided he does fight Italy, France and kills Romania/Serbia. Actually, in quite a few games I've seen Austria get more SP than Prussia.

I think the SP per amount of work done is completely fine. Prussia/Austria and Russia do the most work and get the most SP. Funding another player is not work worthy of SP.

That's why that scenario is autistic.

Written by Sun Tsu, 10.03.2016 at 02:55

Full support for this plan. Team games and scenarios exist for those that want many allies.

So allow non-premium to make team games(Only on world map).

If this if implemented, team games and scenarios are going to be exempt, right?

Written by Darth., 09.03.2016 at 22:44

Written by O T, 09.03.2016 at 18:32

Written by Ghostface, 09.03.2016 at 06:36

Cthulhu always coming up with great ideas which actually can be implemented and will stop ally fags

Sorry. I dont think anything can stop the low levels from ally fagging against high levels.

What about high levels allyfagging against low levels??

Well then thats just WRONG

Written by O T, 22.03.2016 at 00:39

Written by Darth., 09.03.2016 at 22:44

Written by O T, 09.03.2016 at 18:32

Written by Ghostface, 09.03.2016 at 06:36

Cthulhu always coming up with great ideas which actually can be implemented and will stop ally fags

Sorry. I dont think anything can stop the low levels from ally fagging against high levels.

What about high levels allyfagging against low levels??

Well then thats just WRONG

Tell that to the two poor Rank 1(first game after tutorial) and Rank 2 noobs who got allyfagged by 2 Rank 4s and a Rank 3 in a World Game I was spectating....