I was wondering others thoughts on a feature that'd let you become "official" allies in a game. The reason I thought of this was because there's far too many large games who never finish because the last 4 or so players are either allies, or don't feel like playing down to the last territory. So what if in game, during the course of it you could "officially" make someone an ally. Let's say your alliance with 3 or 4 other people made it to the end and the game would finish, similar to a team game. This would help the players who only play diplo games level up. If this was established in a game then maybe the host could implant 'Alliance Rules' before starting a game. This could include how many players could be in one alliance.

Let's say your alliance with 3 or 4 other people made it to the end and the game would finish, similar to a team game.

You are very close to the solution of your problem. A small hint: team game

He's talking about diplos that turn into us vrs them you idiot.

There is a uservoice for this already somewhere. In fact, it is probably the first one on there.

Please check for things before posting 'new' ideas on the forums:

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

Edited 7/16/2015 20:07:47

The whole point of diplomacy is that there will be backstabbing. You might have an Us vs. Them, but when Them are dead, Us must betray eachother for the win.

The whole point of diplomacy is that 1v1 is so much better

No its not, thats your opinion.

There could still be backstabing, once you break the alliance of course. I don't see how that'd be an issue as most games you have to declare before attacking anyway.

If I'm understanding correctly, this is what your saying and I like it. For example:

Games starts as 10 Person FFA. Diplomacy settings:

Player A
Player B
Player C
Player D
Player E
Player F
Player G
Player H
Player I
Player J

Turn 3, Player A & G decide to ally, and Player F & J decide to ally. Now, game is (and is displayed on sidebar as):

Team A (Player A/G)
Player B
Player C
Player D
Player E
Team F (Player F/J)
Player H
Player I

Turn 4, Player B & C & D & E decide to ally. Player H allies with Team A, Player I allies with Team F. Now, game is:

Team A (Player A/G/H)
Team B (Player B/C/D/E)
Team F (Player F/J/I)

And so on... always changing, but the ability to start as FFA and win as a team.

@Number836 Yes! That's exactly what I mean.

What's to stop 6 people allying against 4?

Agreed, if there are 10 players, on turn 1, players A B C D E F and G could ally and player H and I could ally. Why on earth would player J ally player H and I, then, if they know they would be crushed by a 7 vs 3 situation or win points as 8 vs 2? People would only ally to the larger side, the idea is flawed.

Fleecemaster & Serverse,

Fix A to this problem is allowing the person who creates the game to set a max number players that can be in any one alliance.

Fix B, without limiting maximum players per alliance, is to severely sanction any points earned by the game or make any game won by >50% of players worth 0 points for the winning team. Even could have the "win" displayed in a new stat - maybe something called "Stacked wins".

But another aspect of this idea that I like for diplomacy is actually being able to see what the current teams are on the sidebar. I played a couple diplomacy games and I was always annoyed at having to scroll through the chatlog to figure out who was on what team, who I could attack. That would be a great feature alone.

Edited 7/17/2015 00:21:03

People would only ally to the larger side, the idea is flawed.

The idea is flawed only if the game is set to end when a "team" wins. I acknowledge that ColorGrayHam endorses this condition ("@Number836 Yes! That's exactly what I mean.") - but if we think that an FFA should end when one player wins (that is, if we conserve the current finishing conditions of FFA's), the main idea is a good one to consider.

Because it would let alliances become official, and disallow in-team fights.

What's to stop 6 people allying against 4?

Absolutely nothing. But so what? Isn't it how we're playing in FFA's, that is, by accepting that there could be numerically unequal alliances, or e.g. 3 player working together against 1?

---

~edit. I saw Number836's post after I posted mine. Where he writes

But another aspect of this idea that I like for diplomacy is actually being able to see what the current teams are on the sidebar.

I share the same thought with him: that letting alliances become official and visible should be a good thing.

Edited 7/17/2015 00:35:59

.

Edited 7/17/2015 00:51:09

Sillymenace and Number836 have the right idea. Haha

this would be an awesome feature!!!

FFA = Free for all
Am I right?

I would not support the idea becuase in most cases alliances just destroy the fun (for the others).

suggestion is already on uservoice, go vote for it

I think this is what the "vote to end" feature is for.

It does exactly what you want it to do.

Allowing "wins" by people allying is going to be a mess. (Especially if it happens by accident or somesuch.) And in ranked games it's hardly representative of victory, and therefore shouldn't be worth points.

Some suggestions, like a "maximum" alliance size, help with this, but don't eliminate the problem.

For instance, an FFA with 20 players starts. Minimum team size is 8, let's say.

Then 4-5 people are eliminated or drop out.

The strongest 8 players now have nothing to lose by all teaming up together and "winning" the game (despite not actually doing anything IN the game, except being the majority at the time of the "victory").

This kind of thing should not be worth points, and would bring all kinds of bizarre troll behaviour, cheating, and other problems.

If you agree the game is played out, just vote to end.

Someone who doesn't agree the game is over will have to fight to prove themselves right - just as it should be. Eliminate them, and then you can vote to end again.

A much easier and less problem-ridden solution than some hypothetical messy and complex rule which allows people to "team up" in the middle of the game.